Common grammar mistakes that get on your nerves?

blah

I know I'll sound too fussy but I can't help noticing the mistakes that I see popping up every where, on boards, even on theregister.co.uk, a news site. It's not like I'm a language buff or anything, but sometimes I see the same mistake (lose/loose) so often, I have to check dictionary.com just to make sure I'm not crazy.

Youki-Hi

your and you're... they always get mixed up, annoys me no end.
As does their, they're and there...it's not that hard to distinguish between them.

hazimel

Apostrophes. I despise it when they're thrown randomly into a word for no good reason, or when they're missing. It's forgivable in some cases (especially when a word ends in the letter "s", because it just gets confusing then), but overall it's sheer laziness.

Most hilarious example I ever saw was a shop in Drumcondra, I think it's gone now. It was called "Bob,s Pet Store". Yes, a comma. Instead of an apostrophe. Bwahaha.

Orion

How about the movie "Two Weeks Notice". What exactly does it mean?

Any grammar nazi (like me) should read the book Eats Shoots and Leaves - it's hilarious.

And to answer the poll - option b - loose vs lose really gets my goat. My girlfriend used to put an apostrophe in every word ending in s but I've managed to stop her

PurpleFistMixer

All of the above.

I hate (HATE) when people pluralise words ending in a vowel using an apostrophe. I actually flinch when I see the misuse of apostrophes.
But also the you're and your thing. I pronounce both of those words differently when speaking (you're is more of 'yer', your is more 'yore') so I find it especially annoying when they get mixed up.

Oh, the trials of a grammar nazi...

dudara

I think the third option is the most heinous of the lot. Your and you're are very different things, as are their, there, and they're.

Heaven help the English language

zAbbo

"alot" - alot of people do this

easy way to remember it is "alot" "alittle"

grimloch

dudara wrote:

I think the third option is the most heinous of the lot. Your and you're are very different things, as are their, there, and they're.

Heaven help the English language

Aye this annoys me too.

And when people say something like "I seen it yesterday" that annoys me the most.

Orion

One that's snuck in in England a lot (at least any English I speak to and on English TV progs) is "I was sat down". That really pi$$es me off.

Creamy Goodness

There's one I always do only when writing though.

When using the phrase "with the" I sometimes write "withe" as the word "the" is there inside "with" if you know what I mean

simu

"I done it" - really annoys me.

spudington16

My pet peeve is when people are writing and the use no puctuation other than full-stops. As a result, you have to read what they've written a number of times to fully understand it. Most young people say they are just saving themselves time, but the effects will become clear when the next generation are gramatically-illiterate.

astec123

No the worst grammer error I can think of is
american use of the date which is creeping into European culture over here.What I mean simply is today is the 4 june. Whats so hard about putting in the th after the 4? This I truly cant stand.

PunyHuman

Here's one that gets me every time:

"That's nothing got to do with it."

pickarooney

"I could care less" - fuggin hate that one.

Kappar

I hate when people mix up rob and steal. You steal an something and rob somewhere/someone of something.

pickarooney

Macros42 wrote:

One that's snuck in in England a lot (at least any English I speak to and on English TV progs) is "I was sat down". That really pi$$es me off.

I'm not sure that's snuck in as such, AFAIK it's a dialectal construction that's as old as the words that make it up.

Of course it's also a perfectly good phrase in its own right in English implying that someone forced you into a chair.

Two Weeks Notice means a notice period of two weeks, I should think, at least I can't think of any other meaning for it. While it might seem better with an apostrophe after the S it's hardly a huge mistake.

I loved Bob,s Pet Store though, I just couldn't imagine how the signwriter could get away with such rubbish - unless it was a deliberate ploy.

Alun

1) The use of "amount of" when "number of" should be used, as in "amount of people".

2) The use of inappropriate adjectives, i.e. "cheap prices", "hot temperatures", "fast speeds" etc.

3) The almost total ignorance of the fact that adverbs exist, and the use of adjectives in their place, e.g. "The car was travelling really quick", or those annoying TV advertisements from DirectLine ... "We'll pay you direct..." Shudder!

BossArky

Common grammar mistakes that get on your nerves?

--> Common grammatical mistakes...

LOL@ threadstarter

Praetorian

BossArky wrote:

Common grammar mistakes that get on your nerves?

--> Common grammatical mistakes...

LOL@ threadstarter

You are breaking one of the rules of the forum. Do it again and you will feel my wrath.

BossArky

Praetorian wrote:

You are breaking one of the rules of the forum. Do it again and you will feel my wrath.

To be honest I was pointing out a grammatical mistake, which is the topic of this thread.

incisor71

A few of my pet hates about colloquial English usage:

(1)Misplacement of a verb's past participle has become rife in Ireland, as in:

"I have it read" instead of "I have read it"
"she has everything taken" instead of "she has taken everything".

(This is peculiarly similar to the syntax of German grammar, where the first example above would translate to ich habe es gelesen - where gelesen is the past participle of lesen - the verb "to read".)

(2)Usage of apostrophes to pluralise acronyms that have become accepted as words:

CD's, DVD's, JCB's instead of CDs, DVDs, JCBs.

Looks even worse when sign writers make such mistakes.

(3)Inability to spell "discreet", spelling it instead as discrete, descreet or discreat..... "Discrete" has a totally different meaning to "discreet".

(4)Not knowing the difference between "to", "too" and "two".

(5)Usage of TxtSpk in emails or typed documentation or online postings, and/or vowels deleted so often that the original words violate the threshold of intelligibility. Ugh!!

(6)Inconsistent usage of American and British English forms - i.e., mixtures of "initialize", "analyse" and "color" in the same document.

MG

incisor71 wrote:

A few of my pet hates about colloquial English usage:

(1)Misplacement of a verb's past participle has become rife in Ireland, as in:

"I have it read" instead of "I have read it"
"she has everything taken" instead of "she has taken everything".

(This is peculiarly similar to the syntax of German grammar, where the first example above would translate to ich habe es gelesen - where gelesen is the past participle of lesen - the verb "to read".)

Is this Hiberno-English? Could that explain its usage in Ireland?

deedee lepoopoo

Why can't males spell the word 'weird'? They always write 'wierd'. ehh?

simu

incisor71 wrote:

A few of my pet hates about colloquial English usage:

(1)Misplacement of a verb's past participle has become rife in Ireland, as in:

"I have it read" instead of "I have read it"
"she has everything taken" instead of "she has taken everything".

That's been a feature of "Hiberno-English" for a long time, influenced by Irish it is said.

Like "tá sé léite agam" without the agam!

Drag00n79

One of the ones which annoys me most is when people use the word less rather than fewer. I have heard it a lot, even on news bulletins sometimes. For example, "There are less unemployed this month than last month".

incisor 71 wrote:

(1)Misplacement of a verb's past participle has become rife in Ireland, as in:
"I have it read" instead of "I have read it"
"she has everything taken" instead of "she has taken everything".

I don't think I have heard that much.

newgrange

My own personal favourite is "I should/would/could of done something".
Arggh.

simu

Shamrok wrote:

I don't think I have heard that much.

More of a country (insert rolled r) thing!

Drag00n79

newgrange wrote:

My own personal favourite is "I should/would/could of done something".
Arggh.

Oh, how could I forget that one? An error which is increasingly seen on boards.

disillusioned

They all drive me nuts.

The mistake that bugs me most though is definitely when "its" is used incorrectly. :mad:

Another really annoying one is when people say "they do be..." although I wonder if this is more to do with the translation from gaeilge?

I'm relieved to read that I'm not alone in my frustration on this subject.

Pinx

All of the offending items mentioned by incisor71 drive me mad. I read a great book recently -- called "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" - has anyone else read it? Chapter by chapter it goes through the misplaced apostrophe, to/too/two, there/their etc. It's comforting to know I'm not the only one who breaks into a cold sweat when I see signs like "Painter's and Decorator's".....

disillusioned

I think it would be a good idea if secondary schools made all students read it.
It couldn't hurt!

Pinx

disillusioned wrote:

I think it would be a good idea if secondary schools made all students read it.
It couldn't hurt!

Sorry - I'd missed the post by Macros42 who'd already mentioned "Eats, Shoots and Leaves"! Yes, it should be compulsory reading material in English class - at least it would be something practical instead of learning off quotes from sonnets that no one will ever use again! No one has ever asked me if I should be compared to a Summer's day......

newgrange

We would of asken you if we'd seen you when you done that poem.

Sapien

The ubiquitous use of "who", when in most cases "whom" is correct. Undoubtedly one of the most widespread grammatical errors, even amongst the educated and otherwise articulate.

As to annoyance at unusual word order - the English language is not necessarily as restrictive in that regard as people generally think. So long as it is clear which nouns are subject to which verbs one has free reign to rearrange a sentence to better flow. The result is often a feeling of anachronism and archaism, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Pinx

newgrange wrote:

We would of asken you if we'd seen you when you done that poem.

Aw - thanks!
It goes without saying that I'm more lovely and more temperate....

Dr. Loon

Something that annoys me is when people that are complaining about grammar, spell the word "grammer".

I must admit, I'm unsure of the usage of apostrophes on words ending with s, for example, The Jones. Is it The Jones' or The Jones's? I know my its, it's etc... just unsure of certain situations. I'm no grammar genius, but I think I do alright. Still, I must pick up that book.

simu

disillusioned wrote:

Another really annoying one is when people say "they do be..." although I wonder if this is more to do with the translation from gaeilge?

It is. I use it the odd time for humorous effect.

Earthhorse

Dr. Loon wrote:

Is it The Jones' or The Jones's?

Either of those are correct.

Personally I have more of a problem with grammatical rather than spelling errors. Misspelling lose, for instance, is an understandable mistake in my opinion, particularly considering how infrequently a person would use it.

Misspelling more common words, such as their, there, they're and so forth, is less forgivable, but provided someone's spelling is generally correct I don't really mind.

Dr. Loon

Earthhorse wrote:

Either of those are correct.

I thought so. I read Stephen Kings "On Writing" a while back and he had alot of good points on grammar. I'm trying to think of an example where I get confused on this, but maybe I'm actually right when I do it. Can someone just explain when you would and would not use 's at the end of a word? Maybe give me an example?

Earthhorse

Well, for starters, it's Stephen King's "On Writing" but I'll assume that was just a typo!

You don't use 's for plural possessives, instead it is s', for instance "20 years' experience".

Earthhorse

Actually, I may have been a bit hasty with my initial response.

This page should elucidate all, http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/, and specifically addresses the issue with the Jones.

incisor71

Sapien wrote:

The ubiquitous use of "who", when in most cases "whom" is correct. Undoubtedly one of the most widespread grammatical errors, even amongst the educated and otherwise articulate.

In a situation like that I figure out whether the sentence would sound right if the specified person in the sentence were substituted with "him", and therefore decide between "who" and "whom". Example:

o I have never seen my great-grandfather (direct object)
o I have never seen him (direct object again)
o I'm talking about my great-grandfather, whom I have never seen.

However, strict application of some of the less colloquial rules in English (e.g., "to whom does this car belong?") sounds much too stilted for my liking, and I just defer to the "so who are you going out with?" brigade!

One thing though .... which of these two sentences would you say is correct:

"We had a visit from she who must be obeyed..."

or

"We had a visit from her who must be obeyed..."

Any takers? :rolleyes:

simu

incisor71 wrote:

One thing though .... which of these two sentences would you say is correct:

"We had a visit from she who must be obeyed..."

or

"We had a visit from her who must be obeyed..."

Any takers? :rolleyes:

Hmm... I'd go with the former. "From her who must be obeyed" is wrong - you'd normally say something like "from the woman who must be...". However, "she who must be obeyed" is a figure of speech and should be left as it is imo. It's still sounds a bit... off, though.

PurpleFistMixer

incisor71 wrote:

One thing though .... which of these two sentences would you say is correct:

"We had a visit from she who must be obeyed..."

or

"We had a visit from her who must be obeyed..."

I'd be tempted to say the latter because you could rewrite the sentence as
"We had a visit from Mary, who must be obeyed" (just a random name there) in which case it could be changed to "we had a visit from her, who must be obeyed" and it would look correct.

However "she who must be obeyed" seems to be a phrase and it also looks like the correct way to describe this Mary person who must be obeyed. It's just when put in the context of the start of the sentence that it starts to seem grammatically incorrect.

So... because "she who must be obeyed" is another way of describing this Mary person then I'd guess it could be used as a pronoun for Mary. Therefore, "we had a visit from she who must be obeyed" would be correct, because instead of using the pronoun "her", (which would make the sentence actually "we had a visit from her" and the rest would be all peripheral and mess-making), it means that "she who must be obeyed" is the pronoun, and... such and such, etcetera, I vote for the second option. The fact that "we had a visit from she" is incorrect is irrelevant because that's not the sentence in question.

pickarooney

incisor71 wrote:

A few of my pet hates about colloquial English usage:

(1)Misplacement of a verb's past participle has become rife in Ireland, as in:

"I have it read" instead of "I have read it"
"she has everything taken" instead of "she has taken everything".

I think you're misconstruing the peculiarly Irish syntax in these cases. Rather than simply moving it about, the past participle is being used as an adjective to describe e.g. the state of the book in relation to the reader rather than the actions of the reader on the book. It's almost certainly, as Simu said a direct rendering of Tá an leabhar léite agam.
Rather than illustrating a poor understanding of English, I find such linguistic cross-fertilisations enrich the language.

pickarooney

incisor71 wrote:

In a situation like that I figure out whether the sentence would sound right if the specified person in the sentence were substituted with "him", and therefore decide between "who" and "whom". Example:

o I have never seen my great-grandfather (direct object)
o I have never seen him (direct object again)
o I'm talking about my great-grandfather, whom I have never seen.

Not only does your him-substitution not work here, but it should actually be:

o I'm talking about my great-grandfather, who I have never seen.

On the other hand, it would be correct to say:

o I'm talking about my great-grandfather, to whom I have never spoken.

One thing though .... which of these two sentences would you say is correct:

"We had a visit from she who must be obeyed..."

or

"We had a visit from her who must be obeyed..."

You'd really have to italicise, capitalise or hyphenate she who must be obeyed to make it a single, treatable entity in which case the former would be correct. It's not really done to describe a pronoun in this way - if it's not obvious to whom her refers from the context, a normal noun should be employed.

Any takers?

Zaph

I'm glad that my own pet hate, lose/loose, is an option in the poll. Whenever I see this I want to punch the perpetrator. How has this become so widespread in such a relatively short space of time?

pickarooney

Probably because chants of 'Looooooooooooooooooser!' are hard to transliterate with only one 'O'

incisor71

pickarooney wrote:

Not only does your him-substitution not work here, but it should actually be:

o I'm talking about my great-grandfather, who I have never seen.

On the other hand, it would be correct to say:

o I'm talking about my great-grandfather, to whom I have never spoken.

The reason for using whom in my first example is because the subject (subjective case) is "I" and the direct object (i.e., accusative case) is "my great-grandfather", thus necessitating the usage of the direct object pronoun whom in the second clause of the sentence.

The second clause in the second example you cite utilises the indirect object (dative case) to whom in the second clause of the sentence. One of the functions of the dative case is to encapsulate the preposition to, thus giving rise to the need for to whom. That's something we're more accustomed to hearing than its accusative companion whom.

Tar.Aldarion

They're all annoying.