It bugs me when people say “the thing is is that” (if you listen for it, you’ll start hearing it… or maybe that’s something that people only do in my area.) (“What the thing is is that…” is fine. But “the thing is is that…” bugs me.)

Also, “just because <blank> doesn’t mean <blank>.” That sentence structure invites one to take “just because <blank>” as a noun phrase which my brain really doesn’t want to do. Just doesn’t seem right. But that sentence structure is very common.

And I’m not saying there’s anything objectively wrong with either of these. Language is weird and complex and beautiful. It’s just fascinating that some commonly-used linguistic constructions just hit some people wrong sometimes.

Edit: I thought of another one. “As best as I can.” “The best I can” is fine, “as well as I can” is good, and “as best I can” is even fine. But “as best as” hurts.

  • Earl Turlet@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Misusing words like “setup” vs “set up”, or “login” vs “log in”. “Anytime” vs “any time” also steams my clams.

  • BougieBirdie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    One thing I try to avoid when I’m writing is when two words repeat. Kind of like your example “the thing is is that.” If I catch myself writing it, I try to rearrange the sentence.

    Although a pretty extreme example tickles me: “The cookie he had had had had no effect on his appetite.”

    • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Because they’re wrong. And not in a “these kids and their new-fangled language” way, but in a “this is literally improper English” way.

      • wjrii@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yet “would’ve”, “could’ve”, and “should’ve” are fine, if a touch informal, and sound literally identical in most dialects and accents. View it as your own personal window into how your conversation partner engages with language.

        • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s not about sound. Would’ve is a contraction of “would have” not “would of.”

          Would of is not a different way to interact with English because the meaning of “have” and “of” are completely different.

          • wjrii@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            LOL, all I really meant is you get to learn that they don’t really engage with the language beyond translating sounds into letters. No real thought is given to why they say or write the things they do. It’s useful information.

    • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I mean, to me it doesn’t really make that much sense one way or the other. Genuine question, how is “by” being used here? What are other examples of it being used this way?

  • MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I hate that punctuation is “supposed” to go inside quotation marks. If you doing anything more complex than a simple statement of a quote, you run into cases where it doesn’t make sense to me.

    Did he say “I had pancakes for supper?” and Did he say “I had pancakes for supper”? mean different things to me.

    Similarly: That jerk called me a “tomato!” and That jerk called me a “tomato”!

    It feels to me that the first examples add emphasis to the quotes that did not exist when originally spoken, whereas the second examples isolate the quote, which is the whole point of putting it in quotation marks.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah but I shouldn’t have to restructure a sentence because some dipshit centuries ago made an objectively stupid grammatical rule that generally increases ambiguity.

  • sqw@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    my peeve is the chopped infinitive, like “it needs fixed” instead of “it needs to be fixed”

    • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’m guilty of this, and for some reason “the dishes need doing” in particular tickles my brain. That one doesn’t even make sense with an infinitive!

      • sqw@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        that one doesn’t bother me at all. “needs fixing”, “needs to be fixed”, same thing. but “needs fixed” can fuck right off.

  • Buglefingers@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    “Next weekend” “Next Friday” etc. Wherein they use “Next” to mean “the one after” rather than “the soonest interval in which it will reoccur”

    If it is Wednesday and you say “Next Friday” I will immediately think of two days from now, not 9 days. I also especially dislike it because if feels like on a whim that it’ll change. for some “next weekend” will be in 5 days if it’s Monday, or 10 days if it’s Wednesday! What the heck people??

    • ouRKaoS@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      On a Wednesday I would use “This Friday” or just “Friday” to describe 2 days away. Using “next” in the context you’re describing seems weird to me.

      • __Lost__@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        If it’s Wednesday, “Friday” or “this Friday” would describe the day in 2 days. “Next Friday” would be 9 days away. I think it’s clear and have never had an issue with people not knowing which day is being discussed. Maybe people around here are more consistent about it than other areas?