For all intensive purposes

[Not-here-anymore]

The letter "H" when pronounced as 'haitch' rather than 'aitch'

This annoys me far more than it should...

But the one misuse of the English language that annoys me more than any other? More than people using 'like' for every other word, and as a replacement for punctuation? The recent bastardisation of literally, which appears to have become a superlative somehow...

Oh, and lol. That always irritates me. I have used it once, and this is because I was in fact 'laughing out loud'. Why not 'ha!' as a statement of finding a comment amusing, indicating a mild amusement/agreement without actually suggesting that you're audibly laughing?

Wow, I sound like a grammar nazi... Both of those are bugbears of mine, I apologise for the rant.

 

[Agayek]

I don't like it when people make these mistakes, but I absolutely hate the people who smugly correct them and then add nothing useful to the thread. Also, in some cases people just need to learn to live with the fact that language evolves.

BTW: what is affidavid?

An affidavit is a sworn, witnessed statement, wherein the affiant (the stater) is under penalty of perjury (meaning he can be criminally charged if anything in the affidavit is untrue). It's commonly used in court cases as reliable statements of fact.

 

[Ham_authority95]

Has anyone here ever heard someone actually say "lol"? I have. By definition, saying this is wrong. It is to be typed in chat and/or text messages to indicate that you are laughing. In direct person to person communication, it is perfectly acceptable to just laugh.

I second this.

Otherwise, I try not to let words get to me.

 

[twistedmic]

The one that really annoys me is when somebody says "You can't have your cake and eat it to." Instead of "You can't eat your cake and have it to." Every single time I hear someone mis-use that phrase I want to scream and punch them.

If somebody gives you a piece of cake, you have it. Once you have the cake you can eat it as well. But if you eat your piece of cake, you no longer have it. It's not that fucking hard to understand!

Also, while it's not a common mistake , I once heard somebody on the Oklahoma news/weather (the state I'm currently living in) talking about heavy weather or a possible hurricane/tropical storm in South Eastern Virgina (my home state, and in the general area where I lived as a kid). They mentioned the causing traffic back-ups on the Bay bridge tunnel in Chesapeake, when it's called the Chesapeake Bay bridge tunnel. It's called that because it's a bridge and tunnel system that runs across the Chesapeake Bay.

 

[oppp7]

In many places I've heard that phrase. It gets me a bit grouchy. Do they really not know it's intents and purposes? Technically it should be intent because intent(s) is redundant but that's semantics. I heard people say or write affidavid. It also makes me rage inside. We drink espresso, not expresso. What phrases do you constantly see said or used wrong?

I was actually going to rant in here about YOU doing that, but now I see it was on purpose.

OT: To answer the other part of your QUOTATION, I've never had a problem with people calling something one thing or another. Or did I?

And you italicize(possibly spelled wrong) the species and genus when typed and underline when written. And you only capitalize the genus.

 

[James Hueick]

Truthfully; I've always hated this, I turn to however says it and go "So you've been lying the whole time"?

 

[swolf]

I used to always correct people but (on occasion) my wife will make a grammar/pronunciation mistake. That raises the question: correct her or enjoy certain...let's call them "priviledges"? (I realize it's misspelled...she wore off on me). LOL

She just read that and said that "In every relationship there is a corrector and a grammar-messer-upper".

 

[chstens]

People claiming that writers are "bias," rather than "biased." Drives me batty.

On the Penny Arcade forums they've started using this as a joke, they aren't just biased, they are the embodiment of bias, they ARE BIAS, the very incarnation of bias!

 

[Callate]

Any omission of "to be". The porch does not "needs swept", it "needs to be swept", dammit!

 

[Zhukov]

And it annoys me when people say "I could care less" rather than "I couldn't care less".

Oh god THIS, A THOUSAND TIMES THIS! I just started to notice it this year, and I don't know how it started.

Seconded. 'Tis most irritating.

The one that really annoys me is when somebody says "You can't have your cake and eat it to." Instead of "You can't eat your cake and have it to." Every single time I hear someone mis-use that phrase I want to scream and punch them.

Wait... what? That's how it's always said. I have never heard anyone use it your way.
Also, given the subject of this thread, I feel obliged to point out that you used "to" when you should have been using "too".

...

Anyway, regarding the original topic, it gets under my skin when people type "your" instead of "you're". Also, when people use "most" instead of "almost".

 

[solidstatemind]

I don't like it when people make these mistakes, but I absolutely hate the people who smugly correct them and then add nothing useful to the thread. Also, in some cases people just need to learn to live with the fact that language evolves.

BTW: what is affidavid?

I think there is a huge difference between language evolving and language devolving. It is important to note that many of the irritations that people mention here (such as 'I could care less') are factually inaccurate-- in other words, the person is making a statement which does not correctly convey the information that they wish to convey. In the case of the example, the listener would have to conclude that the speaker actually cares about the subject, when the speaker is actually trying to say the exact opposite. (Yes, yes; I know that most people grasp what was really meant, even if the statement was incorrect, but the point remains that the statement was inaccurate.) Given that the whole purpose of language is communication, errors that get in the way of accurate communication are actually a big deal.

OT: I really dislike SMS-speak. I understand why people use it in formats where there is a character limit, but when I see 'u' and 'U R' in any other (non-limited) format, it drives me absolutely batshit. It just makes the author appear to me to be lazy and/or inarticulate. Oh, and good luck with those abbreviation habits when you enter the workforce: I'm sure your business communications will garner a lot of attention... too bad it will be for all the wrong reasons.

 

[manaman]

And it annoys me when people say "I could care less" rather than "I couldn't care less".

It doesn't bother me, see you have to care some what to bother making the statement in the first place, so saying you couldn't care less would be a lie, where as saying you could care less would not be a lie and is generally understood to mean you don't really give much a damn about whatever it is.

The following annoy me to an irrational extent:

"Oftentimes" - I think this is an Americanism, either way, its utterly redundant and sounds hill-billyish. Unless the US existed in the 1500s you can't blame that one on the US. It is also a legitimate word.

"Those ones" - This is just tautology This is a plural form of That one. Such as if you are asked a question of "Which ones are done?" It would be grammatically correct to say "those ones." Even if you don't like the phrase.

"You am" - instead of "You are": this is something that (British) Northerners tend to do. "Am" is the first person singular conjugation of the verb to be. You are right to correct these people.

The letter "H" when pronounced as 'haitch' rather than 'aitch'

Pronunciation is the thing you should be least bothered about. Accents are different everywhere you go.

 

[SavingPrincess]

People claiming that writers are "bias," rather than "biased." Drives me batty.

Yes... you can "have bias" or can "be biased" but not the other way around.

The phrase "it begs the question" is used wrong 100% of the time. You should never follow "it begs the question" with an actual question. It amazes me how many highly paid professional journalists screw this up. It seems to be universal.

 

[solidstatemind]

I used to always correct people but (on occasion) my wife will make a grammar/pronunciation mistake. That raises the question: correct her or enjoy certain...let's call them "priviledges"? (I realize it's misspelled...she wore off on me). LOL

She just read that and said that "In every relationship there is a corrector and a grammar-messer-upper".

Wise woman. My wife is actually more of a grammar-nazi than I am. We both grew up reading a LOT however. I think that makes a big difference.

Aside from SMS-speak, misspellings don't bother me overly-much as long as they don't obscure what you're trying to say. After all, I think Spellcheck has basically spoiled everyone in the Digital Age.

 

[Lekonua]

"Could of..."
"Should of..."
"Would of..."

Need I go on?


Also, I was guilty of the "intensive purposes" thing before I saw it spelled right.

 

[Lexodus]

Has anyone here ever heard someone actually say "lol"? I have. By definition, saying this is wrong. It is to be typed in chat and/or text messages to indicate that you are laughing. In direct person to person communication, it is perfectly acceptable to just laugh.

Oh, fuck, this. I've gotten to the point where I actually punch people if they say 'lol' or 'XD'.

 

[Superfly CJ]

While I admit that it's petty and often arrogant to correct someone's language, do we really want the English language to degenerate? You call it an evolution, I call it a devolution (and I don't give a damn if that's not a word). I already think the amount of dumbing down Americans have forced upon the language is silly, it doesn't need to go any further.

I think blaming Americans for 'dumbing down' the language is silly- language evolves according to the cultures and preferences of the time. If anything, this wave of mutated expressions and simplified phrases is just the natural progression of such a process.
People in the 1800's probably said the same thing about language as we know it today- English, in its current state, has a long list of idioms and phrases adapted from different times and cultures, that probably make as little sense in their respective contexts as a phrase like 'intensive purposes' does to us now.

While I don't particularly advocate poor education and grammar, I can still appreciate the changes in communication over the years. Language is a vital trait, and is, in it's own way, unique to every person on the planet. To try and claim ownership over its correct usage is just silly; as long as the method of expression is varied enough to suit any situation, why should we force unneccessary rules upon it?

 

[PurpleSky]

-double post apologies-

 

[PurpleSky]

People claiming that writers are "bias," rather than "biased." Drives me batty.

How is it correct?I have english exams soon

 

[Tolerant Fanboy]

Larger or smaller halves always make me twitch a little. Halves are, by definition, equal in magnitude. Use parts, pieces, chunks, or any other size-neutral nouns if you want to discuss two unequal components.

People claiming that writers are "bias," rather than "biased." Drives me batty.

How is it correct?

Bias is a noun. Biased is, in this context, an adjective. Saying someone is bias is like saying that person is car or plant.