Ask Lemmy

25158 readers

1358 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

What linguistic constructions do you hate that no one else seems to mind? (self.asklemmy)

submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by TootSweet to c/asklemmy

187 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It bugs me when people say "the thing is is that" (if you listen for it, you'll start hearing it... or maybe that's something that people only do in my area.) ("What the thing is is that..." is fine. But "the thing is is that..." bugs me.)

Also, "just because doesn't mean ." That sentence structure invites one to take "just because " as a noun phrase which my brain really doesn't want to do. Just doesn't seem right. But that sentence structure is very common.

And I'm not saying there's anything objectively wrong with either of these. Language is weird and complex and beautiful. It's just fascinating that some commonly-used linguistic constructions just hit some people wrong sometimes.

Edit: I thought of another one. "As best as I can." "The best I can" is fine, "as well as I can" is good, and "as best I can" is even fine. But "as best as" hurts.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] RGB3x3 21 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Because they're wrong. And not in a "these kids and their new-fangled language" way, but in a "this is literally improper English" way.

[–] llamapocalypse 2 points 1 month ago

Right, I get that, it's just that that particular incorrect usage annoys me more than most.

[–] wjrii -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Yet "would've", "could've", and "should've" are fine, if a touch informal, and sound literally identical in most dialects and accents. View it as your own personal window into how your conversation partner engages with language.

[–] RGB3x3 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's not about sound. Would've is a contraction of "would have" not "would of."

Would of is not a different way to interact with English because the meaning of "have" and "of" are completely different.

[–] wjrii 0 points 1 month ago

LOL, all I really meant is you get to learn that they don't really engage with the language beyond translating sounds into letters. No real thought is given to why they say or write the things they do. It's useful information.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

I am all for woulda, coulda, and shoulda.