Mispronunciation/ Poor grammar that annoys you?

abbir

mrpdap wrote: »

People saying "should have went" instead of "should have gone".
You even hear it on the radio.

How about writing "should of went"?

garancafan

LordSutch wrote: »

a/ We were sat at the bus stop when it started to rain . . . . .

b/ I was stood in the front row of the gig!

a and b really annoy me, but I guess 'll just have to live with this new form of 'non standard English' :cool:

Our walking-tour guide realised we had no rain-gear so we were sat at the bus stop when it started to rain.

The usher saw that my seat gave a poor view and I appreciated his kindness when I was stood in the front row of the gig.

bnt

I learned to use "to" as a relative preposition e.g. "relative to", "different to", so it bugs me when I see people saying things like "my hair is different than yours" or "they are different from each other". I always say "different to" in such cases.

I've tried looking this up, and online sources including Oxford Dictionaries seem to indicate that they're all OK. But I still feel that "from" or "than" don't go after "different". "Larger than" or "derived from" is fine, but not "different than" or "different from".

PS: it annoys me when folks talk about e.g. "the adds on TV". There's only one "d" in "advertisement", so there's only one "d" in its contraction: "ads".

Wibbs

"I seen". Jesus. There's a full stop there so this isn't a religious vision.

It's not just an Irish thing either. I've read it on UK and US forums as well.

osarusan

garancafan wrote: »

Our walking-tour guide realised we had no rain-gear so we were sat at the bus stop when it started to rain.

The usher saw that my seat gave a poor view and I appreciated his kindness when I was stood in the front row of the gig.

This is grammatically correct, and fair play for realising that, but the vast majority of people aren't using it like that.

mickrock

garancafan wrote: »

Our walking-tour guide realised we had no rain-gear so we were sat at the bus stop when it started to rain.

Our walking-tour guide realised we had no rain-gear so we were seated at the bus stop when it started to rain.

There's a difference between "to sit" and "to seat".

The One Who Knocks

green_screen wrote: »

'Could of.'

Maybe when you hear people saying it they're trying to say could've?

The One Who Knocks

mike_ie wrote: »

"pacific" for "specific", (as in "How long will it take to fix this pacific problem?").

Blame the Donegal Catch ad

Tokyo

The One Who Knocks wrote: »

Maybe when you hear people saying it they're trying to say could've?

Yeah, there have been a few mentioned so far that could be written off to local accent or pronunciation (unless seen written down of course) - taught/thought, could of/could've etc....

The One Who Knocks

Oooh affect & effect, very irritating!

bodhrandude

Why are words the way they are anyway, can you not say them the way you want to. I mean does paper refuse ink, how do we know the dictionary is correct.

coffee_cake

bodhrandude wrote: »

Why are words the way they are anyway, can you not say them the way you want to.

To facilitate effective communication

Wacker The Attacker

City is not sissy

Wacker The Attacker

bluewolf wrote: »

To facilitate effective communication

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/43772690.jpg

ezra_pound

osarusan wrote: »

This is grammatically correct, and fair play for realising that, but the vast majority of people aren't using it like that.

No it is not correct.

FairytaleGirl

APEARantly

It's apparently you arse.

Steve F

Bet instead of beat. ie "Manchester Utd bet Newcastle"

The car make Peugeot when people call it Pewjo it's actually Purr-show ask the French,they make 'em:)

garancafan

ezra_pound wrote: »

No it is not correct.

Prove it.

4umbrellas

'Troath' (e.g. 'I have a sore troath') instead of 'throat'. At least if they said 'troat' it would be because they couldn't pronounce 'th', but 'troath' is just infuriating.

Jezek

Steve F wrote: »

Bet instead of beat. ie "Manchester Utd bet Newcastle"

The car make Peugeot when people call it Pewjo it's actually Purr-show ask the French,they make 'em:)

er...no it's not

Arthur Beesley

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/43772690.jpg

Word (to your momma)

bodice ripper

FOR ALL INTENSIVE PURPOSES.

Don't use phrases you don't understand, and you can avoid this easily. I hate you.


Also, I don't doubt it came up before, but I am not wading through 17 pages to check. And it bears repeating.

ezekel

I am the last one that should call people out on grammar but people who use dem der or dats drives me mad

therealme

Me and (name).

It's (name) and I.

Arthur Beesley

bodice ripper wrote: »

FOR ALL INTENSIVE PURPOSES.

Don't use phrases you don't understand, and you can avoid this easily. I hate you.


Also, I don't doubt it came up before, but I am not wading through 17 pages to check. And it bears repeating.

Damn, I was hoping you had spelt it as bares.

Arthur Beesley

therealme wrote: »

Me and (name).

It's (name) and I.

What about me, myself and I?

Mr. G

Lab-top....

bodice ripper

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Damn, I was hoping you had spelt it as bares.

Oh, I read it back twice, just to be sure. This is not the thread in which to be caught slipping.

Advice and advise used improperly, apostrophe abuse, alot and cue/que for queue, and one I saw today - human beans!

dirtyden

The use of wreaked for wrecked. I have seen that from a lot of people.

It does not annoy me as such it just looks wrong.