Grammar and language issues that drive you utterly berserk - Pet peeves

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
This one really pisses me off because you sometimes see otherwise intelligent people doing it. A lot of these, while I hate them, are things that are at least somewhat useful, because it's retards who think they're smarter than they are who do them, so when you see someone doing them, you know to lower your estimation of their intelligence.
In the case of the intelligent people misusing "bemused", I think it's a case of people just incorrectly assuming the meaning of the word from contextual examples and never once looking up the actual definition of the word.

There are a lot of situations where it would be reasonable for someone to be confused and amused, so to someone who never looked up the definition, "bemused" might seem interchangeable with "amused".
 
"It" is a pronoun. No rules are broken because no other possessive pronoun is spelled with a 's. Interestingly, according to Wiktionary "it's" was the original possessive. It replaced Old English "his." As much as non-native speakers complain about English being inconsistent, this is a rare case of English becoming more consistent - 's is for nouns and nouns only i.e. not pronouns.
Fair enough, I'll take the L. It looks like the other possessive pronouns had that same development of dropping the apostrophe.
Speaking of which, I hate it people unnecessarily highlight "their pronouns" on their bios or resumes. It gives me an impression that I do not understand how pronouns works. On that note, the joke of "my pronouns are X, Y, Z" is as stupid because they're using terms that AREN'T EVEN PRONOUNS.
I know complaining about pronouns is old news now, but it's really pernicious when you realize it's always the 3rd person pronouns, simply because they're tied to gender, which you use when talking about someone, not to someone (the only exception to this are rare uses in group settings).

So, it effectively is only used to police speech and make sure they're good Progressives when the person is not around.
 
I know complaining about pronouns is old news now, but it's really pernicious when you realize it's always the 3rd person pronouns, simply because they're tied to gender, which you use when talking about someone, not to someone (the only exception to this are rare uses in group settings).
I prefer using "they" pronouns, not just for one than one person/entity, but if I don't know the gender.

Example: the mechanic is on the way to fix the sink. They're on their way. Could be a "he," could be more than one person.

You're supposed to add punctation in the quotation marks. Not everybody does that. Also, more people need to learn when and how to use semicolons.
 
People who don't know the difference between palate, palette, and pallet.
It's not so much that they don't know the difference. The galling part is that they have the unearned self-confidence to not check.

Like someone said upthread, it's one thing to sound dumb in speech, another to do it in informal writing (although it's a bad habit), but worst to make mistakes in published, official works.

My strange bugbear: the fusion of "ham-fisted" and "heavy-handed." Some time in my young adulthood, I started to notice people saying "ham-handed." In recent years I've seen it in nationally-published magazines.
I know language evolves, but this instance is just dumb as hell.
 
My strange bugbear: the fusion of "ham-fisted" and "heavy-handed." Some time in my young adulthood, I started to notice people saying "ham-handed." In recent years I've seen it in nationally-published magazines.
I know language evolves, but this instance is just dumb as hell.
The OED says the first documented use of "ham-handed" was in 1918. Damn kids these days with their slang and their swing music and their zoot suits. World's been getting dumber since the invention of those moving picture shows, I tell ya.

I have an irrational hatred of people using "I've" on its own instead of "I have." "I've an irrational hatred of it." "I've a notion to bitch about grammar on the internet." "I've no idea what you're talking about." It seems very British and very pretentious to me.

My favorite lolcow Moviebob triggers most of my other grammar pet peeves on a regular basis. ...Opening sentences with ellipses, incorrectly-used hyphens-galore, written language punctuated... like valley girl speak? Like this? It's sad and hilarious to see a grown-ass man write like an illiterate teenager.
 
Most of these, my fellow grammar nerds, have been around for-internet-ever (and certainly before). I've been Correcting Grammar on the Internet since 1993tm, and trust, it's not that much worser (heh) now than then.

"Apparently", meaning supposedly or seemingly. It's almost like it's used in this weird ironic way when something isn't apparent (obvious).

"Apparently, he never said that."
That is completely correct usage. It means both "obviously" and "evidently." We use it a lot in the sense of "as it turns out..." - as in, I didn't always know, but based on what I've learned or surmise, it is [x]."



"Would of" and "could of".

Psuedo-phoenetic spelling of simple everyday phrases really bugs me. I think it indicates most people don't really know how to spell and don't care, but I never realized before the Internet came along because I didn't have to communicate with them in writing.
This one, in particular, is because people do not read. Not reading obviously contributes to a lot of these errors (along with not thinking, and not being curious about life in general), but these cognates are especially related.

I'm willing to forgive most errors, if done once or only occasionally, especially in spoken rather than written language. But part of my previous work involved doing some copy editing, and it really opened my eyes to just how little people care. They just do not give a shit. Even in published works or products, beyond your standard emails or text messages. They just type whatever they think is right, and they hope spellcheck and autocorrect does the rest. Which, of course, "fixes" typos by changing them to completely different words, but people won't ever bother to look over their writing before hitting "submit." I don't even mean more complex questions of grammar or edge cases, I mean simple stuff like "its" and "it's."

Ever since that job, seeing simple errors in products like games just annoys me to no end. You make a typo on a forum post? Whatever. You fuck up every tooltip in a game and have "you're" instead of "your"? Fuck you. It's somewhat understandable if the devs are ESLs, but it just reeks of being lazy. Spend five minutes reading your localization text aloud, and you'll catch 99% of these mistakes easily.
I have edited in formal, informal, and incidental capacities for more than a few decades. Day-to-day, that is not my "job," but a portion of my work involves reviewing/ challenging others' outputs (that may indirectly impact millions). These things need to be clear, correct, unambiguous, and able stand up to many types of scrutiny.

...So many of these documents are complete CRAP. Sloppy, incoherent, inconsistent. It's not so much the internet-type errors, for the most part, though some errors are actually that cringe. They'll have whole sentences without a verb, or they can't use a defined term consistently, or they don't define terms, or they don't understand parallel construction in a list, or they don't even know the damn brand standards (I'm not in brand/writing standards, but I can find the internal website! And now so can they, because I put the damn citation in my comments for them as feedback.)

And yet they persist with the error, usually arguing, "but we didn't do that in the other ones, so if we fix it here we'll have to do it there and it already went out and deadline and blah blah blah." Bitch, you are literally arguing to be allowed to be wrong because you're so deeply wrong it will be hard to fix, and so you should just be more wrong instead. Do your damn job.

This may be my 2024 cause célèbre, though I'm going to have to strategize about that.

The galling part is that they have the unearned self-confidence to not check.
I put this kind of thing down to lack of reading as well. If you don't even know that there are three words that sound the same but are spelled differently and have different meanings, you don't even know there's anything to check.

I don't know what it's called, but when certain words are just dropped out of a sentence for no reason. For example: "You should write your senator" or "The transmission needs rebuild".
For your first example, it's correct either way: "write your Senator" and "write to your Senator" are both acceptable. If you also have a direct object it changes:
- "write your Senator a letter" and
- "write a letter to your Senator"
both work, but
- "write to your Senator a letter" or "write a letter your Senator" do not.

On the second, I'm not sure what you're pointing to. Looks to me like the wrong word forms are being used to start with. Should read,
- "the transmission needs rebuilding" or
- "the transmission needs to be rebuilt"
I guess colloquially someone might also say, "the transmission needs a rebuild," but idek if that's an actual colloquialism in the auto world.
 
My strange bugbear: the fusion of "ham-fisted" and "heavy-handed." Some time in my young adulthood, I started to notice people saying "ham-handed." In recent years I've seen it in nationally-published magazines.
I know language evolves, but this instance is just dumb as hell.
It looks like it's not only more common but may even predate "ham-fisted."

From the OED, where the earliest for "-handed" is 1918:

1918: W. A. Bishop Winged Warfare 30 “First the instructor would tell me I was *`ham-handed'—that I gripped the controls too tightly with every muscle tense.”

1918: Punch 3 Apr. 222/2 “Second P[ilot]... I was getting ham-handed and mutton-fisted, flapping the old things every day.”

1930: C. Dixon Parachuting 93 “The pilot with sensitive hands is a better pilot than one with nonsensitive hands. The latter are bluntly called `hamhanded'.”

1934: E. Linklater Magnus Merriman 98 “Are you trying to insult me, or is that your ham-handed idea of a compliment?”

1946: Times 3 Dec. 8/3 “There should be no ham-handed bulk purchasing of stuff which was not really wanted.”

1958: New Statesman 12 Apr. 458/3 “Much of the recipient's pleasure is taken away by the very ham-handed invitation.”

1964: Economist 11 Apr. 168/1 “The FMC has gone a bit *hamhandedly about its job.”

1928: O. Stewart Aerobatics 50 “One of the main objectives in finesse is the development of good `hands'... *Ham-handedness is not often a gift of unkind fate; it is not necessarily incurable.”

1963: Economist 8 June 1046/1 “The Kennedy Administration has contributed its own moments of hamhandedness.”

---

And for "-fisted," where the earliest is 1928:

1928: Daily Mail 7 May 6/4 “*Ham Fisted.—Applied to pilots who are heavy on controls, or generally clumsy.”

1928: Sunday Express 24 June 8/3 “Two thousand lumber-jacks were in town, ham-fisted great fellows with hair on their chests and pine needles growing out of their ears.”

1938: C. S. Forester Ship of Line 51 “God damn and blast all you hamfisted yokels.”

1942: H. Allen in Forbes & Allen Ten Fighter Boys 15 “A dog-fight with a Hun very rarely entails a considered aerobatic movement as an evasive action. In fact, the more ham-fisted the movement, the better its effect.”

1960: Times 20 Oct. 8/1 “The play's basic idea implies a less ham-fisted humour than the authors can supply.”

1964: Punch 2 Sept. 355/1 “Some *ham-fistedly insensitive moments.”

1963: Times 16 Feb. 9/3 “The campaign cannot be written off because of the *hamfistedness of its beginnings.”

That doesn't necessarily mean one does predate the other, but the autists who collected these examples would usually put in significant effort to find the earliest ones.

And of course, I always think of Hannibal Lecter when I see "ham-handed."
This one, in particular, is because people do not read. Not reading obviously contributes to a lot of these errors (along with not thinking, and not being curious about life in general), but these cognates are especially related.
It's probably because of the contractions "would've" and "could've" sounding like that, but obviously it's a misspelling.
 
Why are English and Spanish so hard?
English is a bastard language of slammed together Germanic roots and Norman-French additions. It's closest relative is Frisian, which is why sometimes if you look at Dutch long enough to can make out what they're writing. Even if Dutch looks like the FAS child of English and German, and sounds just as drunk. The thing is, English is an incredibly flexible language and a fantastically descriptive one but that comes with the price of being an utter bastard of a language for ESL people to learn.

I also absolutely fucking hate people who use "X is needing," instead of "x needs." It just drives me up the wall.
 
That is completely correct usage. It means both "obviously" and "evidently." We use it a lot in the sense of "as it turns out..." - as in, I didn't always know, but based on what I've learned or surmise, it is [x]."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apparently https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/apparently https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/apparently
I don't particularly care whether it's become correct now, it's a pet peeve because it's a very weird use that has standardized only because of time and wide usage.

Every single pet peeve posted in this thread will eventually be a correct usage if they continue to be used for long enough by enough people, that doesn't make them any less silly.

For example, "ironically" and "literally" are "misused" for things that are not ironic or literal, but those uses are so widespread and for long enough that they're "completely correct usages", but are still apparently stupid. They've become so old hat that, unless I missed them, no one has even bothered to mention them in this thread.

The -ly suffixed forms having extremely different meanings of these words is silly, regardless of how often people use them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FataBataRang
Decimated - frequently used incorrectly in news media, i.e. ' Israeli tanks have decimated X part of Gaza' . Gaza would be thrilled if they had only been decimated as opposed to being destroyed.

Vicea Versa. No, it's vice versa. I have seen this error in professionally published papers.

The ground is outside, the floor is inside.

Eckscape. Newkiller. Samwich.

I need to stop now before my pedantry overwhelms me.
 
I don't particularly care whether it's become correct now,
It's not a case of "now," though.
it's a pet peeve because it's a very weird use that has standardized only because of time and wide usage.

Every single pet peeve posted in this thread will eventually be a correct usage if they continue to be used for long enough by enough people, that doesn't make them any less silly.

For example, "ironically" and "literally" are "misused" for things that are not ironic or literal, but those uses are so widespread and for long enough that they're "completely correct usages",
Disagree. Those two are not completely correct when misused as they commonly are; they're just common errors, or, at best, informal or exaggeration for effect. "Apparently" isn't a case of an error that became acceptable. "Apparently" has multiple correct usages, one meaning plainly and the other meaning seemingly. And the same dual meaning applies to "apparent," so it's not just the -ly form.
but are still apparently stupid.
Lol, yes.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Magnum Magazine
Too many of you niggers know not how to use whose in a sentence.
I have an irrational hatred of people using "I've" on its own instead of "I have."
I do this on the principle that any contraction may be treated as an instance of its components, and vice-versa.
It seems very British and very pretentious to me.
That's correct.
 
I do this on the principle that any contraction may be treated as an instance of its components, and vice-versa.
I've had jobs with style manuals that essentially forbade the use of contractions entirely outside of quotations.

Come to think of it, I've had one job where contractions were entirely forbidden, even in quotations.
 
Back