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

[The Delta Farce]

"You're a stuffy nerd for using proper pronouns" is such a faggoty argument. Using that logic, all grammar rules could be thrown out. Pretty soon the use of gender neutral language will be dominant and anyone who uses correct pronouns will sound like an oddball. Does that mean that trannies are correct?

Anyway, it actually does become a problem in everyday conversation. I routinely hear people having to clarify. "No, I wasn't talking about you. I meant in general."

 

[AnOminous]

You were making a generalized statement, and your grammar was incorrect. I, and presumably none of the other readers of this thread, are currently involved in a court case.

Wrong, as "you" and "one" are interchangeable for that purpose. Although "one" is preferred in formal situations, it is not obligatory in normal speech and "you" is not ungrammatical. There is nothing whatsoever incorrect about it. Additionally, in at least that sentence, it could refer to more than one person or a group of people.

 

[3MMA]

I had an English teacher tell me off for using one, as it has fallen out of everyday style. You is generally considered proper, & assumed general. (This was back when schools still taught useful skills.) Use of one comes off awkwardly & has been falling into disuse for decades. Neither is incorrect. That’s more of a style point, match the style with the rest of the work, & in general editing situations, you is favored. Examples:

I) When one has to piss, they go to the nearest restroom.

II) When you have to piss, go to the nearest restroom.

It’s clear that neither is referring to a specific person, as each sentence is geared to general use. Context is important. Busting out the old fashioned one versus you rarely has enough context to back up the former use, in a generally modern accepted style without coming across as awkward. Most editors or educators that are actually worth a damn, will tell you to change it to you.

 

[Overly Serious]

I don't consider it a rule at all, though, just something often better avoided, like passive voice.

I was in a meeting with some Americans where they were all sagely nodding about how "we should avoid the passive voice when we write."

I said 'why?' The dude says "It sounds weak."

I said: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." Unfortunately most of the people nodding along in that room wouldn't recognize the passive voice if they were bitten by it so the irony was lost on them.

In general, one of the most annoying language issues you can come across is midwits trying to pronounce on some language issue they have received and are keen to seem smart by passing along. The sort of person who loves style guidelines or to leap in and say something "isn't ironic" when you describe something as ironic. Or to tell you what "begging the question" actually means when frankly, what you said still qualifies by their definition and frankly the common vernacular makes more sense anyway.

 

[Cats]

I wouldn't say it really "peeves" me but whenever someone says "Nucular" instead of "Nuclear", I notice. And I don't really like it.

 

[Aunt Carol]

I wouldn't say it really "peeves" me but whenever someone says "Nucular" instead of "Nuclear", I notice. And I don't really like it.

There's a YouTube man who makes autistically interesting videos about radioactive things he finds, and I just wish he would learn to pronounce "nuclear" correctly because he knows his stuff and seems happy to talk about it.

 

[AnOminous]

I said: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." Unfortunately most of the people nodding along in that room wouldn't recognize the passive voice if they were bitten by it so the irony was lost on them.

Of course, the reason for this was it was a statement meant to be persuasive to the entirety of its audience, which was the world. It was also compromise language, in that it both implied the creation of "men" while at the same time avoiding directly invoking God.

It was drafted by a Unitarian (Adams), two Deists (Jefferson and Franklin), a Puritan (Sherman) and an Episcopalian (at the time) (Livingston).

There is also the fact that directly invoking God in something that effectively was a declaration of war had a bad history from back in Europe.

This is why I said "often better avoided" rather than "universally bad."

 

[Haffhart]

I wouldn't say it really "peeves" me but whenever someone says "Nucular" instead of "Nuclear", I notice. And I don't really like it.

Don't forget nook-lee-UR (separating the last two vowels) which I think is mostly done in Commonwealth countries making it an accent feature, in which case it's fine.

 

[Aunt Carol]

Don't forget nook-lee-UR (separating the last two vowels) which I think is mostly done in Commonwealth countries making it an accent feature, in which case it's fine.

Hence the Vapors' 1980 album, New Clear Days.

(Although they consciously Anglicized the spelling of their own band name in hopes of crossing the pond.)

 

[Instant_Pot_User]

Prescriptivists who bitch at people for "speaking incorrectly" bother me. I get the annoyance with blip blap bix nood whatever, but don't get after someone for putting a preposition at the end of a sentence.

The loss of the dative case in modern Greek. I don't want to fuck around with genitive/accusative workaround bullshit, just tell me what the indirect object is. Also, I wish they'd just put the fucking accusative case ending on the noun too.

 

[AnOminous]

Prescriptivists who bitch at people for "speaking incorrectly" bother me. I get the annoyance with blip blap bix nood whatever, but don't get after someone for putting a preposition at the end of a sentence.

"Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I shall not put."

That's another made-up "rule" invented by Victorians obsessed with Latin grammar, which disregards the fact that we don't fucking speak Latin.

The only real problem is prepositions without any object that add nothing to the sentence.

"Where is Bob going to?"

There's no need for it and it has no object. "Where is Bob going?" is the right sentence here.

 

[Instant_Pot_User]

The only real problem is prepositions without any object that add nothing to the sentence.

"Where is Bob going to?"

There's no need for it and it has no object. "Where is Bob going?" is the right sentence here.

I disagree the stranded preposition is pointing to 'where'. "Where is Bob going to?" is a fine sentence, albeit in a lower register.

 

[AnOminous]

I disagree the stranded preposition is pointing to 'where'. "Where is Bob going to?" is a fine sentence, albeit in a lower register.

Sentences of this form are generally considered not just awkward but incorrect.

I hate to cite grammarly because it's retarded, but:

Just ending a sentence with a preposition by itself doesn't constitute one of these, though.

 

[Instant_Pot_User]

Sentences of this form are generally considered not just awkward but incorrect.

I hate to cite grammarly because it's retarded, but:
View attachment 5615433
Just ending a sentence with a preposition by itself doesn't constitute one of these, though.

Ah, I see. "When are you leaving at?" to me sounds incorrect; "Where are you going to?" sounds informal, but OK.

 

[AnOminous]

Ah, I see. "When are you leaving at?" to me sounds incorrect; "Where are you going to?" sounds informal, but OK.

Think of how you might answer "when are you leaving?" "At 5:00." "Where are you going?" "To Albuquerque."

"5:00" and "Albuquerque" are the objects but they aren't in the sentences ending in "at" and "to."

 

[Instant_Pot_User]

Think of how you might answer "when are you leaving?" "At 5:00." "Where are you going?" "To Albuquerque."

"5:00" and "Albuquerque" are the objects but they aren't in the sentences ending in "at" and "to."

Right, because of Wh-fronting and p-stranding. I personally wouldn't use "When are you leaving at?", but "Where are you going to?" sounds fine; I also wouldn't stop someone if they used a stranded preposition.

 

[Chongqing]

If it were a "real" word, it would literally mean the opposite of how people use it.

Well that's just irridiculous, I can see why it upsets you.

Mine is, "ouster." As in, "Zelensky almost had his ouster during the Russian invasion two years ago." Or some head of state, "had an ouster," that resulted in them being gone.

I swear that this used to be, "ousting," and, "having been ousted." As in, "Zelensky was almost ousted two years ago, but didn't experience any ousting."

Most of my memories of this are pre Iraq war invasion (2003) so it's hard to remember.

It's and its always gets me too.

 

[AnOminous]

Right, because of Wh-fronting and p-stranding. I personally wouldn't use "When are you leaving at?", but "Where are you going to?" sounds fine; I also wouldn't stop someone if they used a stranded preposition.

I wouldn't correct it on a forum unless I was in total dick mode, and I'd deserve the hats and puzzle pieces. Both the "at" and the "to" endings are considered incorrect, though, for the same reason. One of them just doesn't sound as bad.

 

[The Last Stand]

How did "irregardless" become a term? It should be irrespective.

 

[Aunt Carol]

"when are you leaving?" "At 5:00." "Where are you going?" "To Albuquerque."

"By hook or by crook, we will."