this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024
48 points (98.0% liked)
Casual Conversation
1658 readers
300 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling
- Keep the conversation nice and light hearted
- Encourage conversation in your post
- Avoid controversial topics such as politics or societal debates
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc.
- Respect privacy: Don’t ask for or share any personal information
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
People who refuse to change how they misuse or misspell words. To/too, could’ve/could of, brake/break, and all that. I know they’ve read the correct versions, they just refuse to change.
Followed by people trying to justify the misuse. We have dictionaries. There’s some kind of standard. Yes, language does drift. But unless we want to go back to the 1600’s or so where people just made up whatever looked right for spelling, there should be some effort in maintaining a standard and not just “I can’t be bothered to do it right so I’ll claim common usage or language drift.”
That, and people who drive with their hazard flashers on for no apparent reason whatsoever.
I see this fairly often for other two languages*, but the reasoning is the same.
The "language drifts" argument is actually fallacious (is-ought fallacy). In my opinion the main reasons to be lenient towards deviations from the standard are:
*and I use it, at least in my L1. In my case it's typically due to #3.
I’ll concede points for stylistic or deliberately informal language, I didn’t want to belabor anyone reading what I wrote to get into the weeds over deliberate “abuse” of the language to convey whatever the author wishes to. There’s certainly room for slang, too.
I’m much more pointing the finger at the more simple things that can be corrected easily, hence the minor irritation, not someone willfully knowing they’re using an informal register. IOW, “could have” to “could’ve” to “coulda” is decreasing formality order, and deliberate, vs “could of” which appears completely unaware of how the words actually work. Break/brake isn’t even comparable. Completely different words. Plenty of room on that one for autocorrect to mess it up though. IMO there’s a difference.
With voice to text becoming more common homonyms are going to become the de facto standard. All of the there there and their confusion, will be too too much, not to mention it's it's and it's.....
You forgot “its”.
Should I add “people loudly using voice to text to SMS in public places” to my list of annoyances?
E: you conveniently fell into my second paragraph. Maybe we could improve voice to text contextual translation so that homonyms don’t happen so often rather than yet another “can’t be bothered to fix it” excuse.
All the voice2 text I’ve used gets these all right, by context. Better than many people.
I was going to say, these voice to text software are mini LLMs that should know which version goes where.