What are your pet peeves re English usage?

The correct form is: 'If I HAD known, I WOULD HAVE (conditional because it is conditional upon my knowing) killed the bastard.' If I would have known (or I'd have known) is a conditional without anything to be conditional upon.
That sounds over-complex but I think it's true.

0 Replies

scoates

Quote:

Not even $200, but a mere 199.95!

Peeved by advertizers:
"Yes you can have it ALL for under a dollar!!!!"
(price 99 cents plus tax)

0 Replies

Does any one else remember Mary Roberts Reinhart's "Tish," sighing over and over , "Had I but known...."?

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

What Mc means is that in "If I'd have known" you're getting redundantly tongue-tied. What you're saying is "If I had have known", which is grammatically absurd.

No, it's "If I would have known." Still I think I understand, but I'll continue to say it. Smile

0 Replies

Can someone give me a basic rule to determine when to use "WHO" and when to use "WHOM"? It has always puzzled me. Thanks!

0 Replies

Grand Duke wrote:

Can someone give me a basic rule to determine when to use "WHO" and when to use "WHOM"? It has always puzzled me. Thanks!

Yes. "Who" is used (as an interrogative pronoun?) as the subject of a sentence only.

example: Who did this?

Otherwise, use "whom"

example:

A frisky young miss from Khartoum
Took a ladyboy up to her room
As they lay on the bed
She turned and she said
Who does what, and with what, and to whom?

-But everyone breaks the strict rules now. For example, most would say "Who does this belong to" rather that the clunky "To whom does this belong", or worse "whom does this belong to" which sounds awful, but is correct, I believe.

0 Replies

What Mc said.

You use 'who' when it is the subject of a sentence. 'whom' if it's the object. Thus, if it follows a preposition, it is always 'whom' as in To whom it may concern. But it would be Who is concerned with this?

0 Replies

I don't like it when people say "wet" for "whet" and "wen" for "when" and "wales" for "whales".

I've even seen "wet your appetite" written by people who should have known better; it's risible.

0 Replies

uh...I hesitate to ask...but how do you pronounce those wh words, Mc? The haitch is silent, is it not?

0 Replies

I don't pronounce "wh" like "w", no siree. It's one of the many advantages of being Scottish. Laughing

0 Replies

McTag

My mother also bemoans the loss of "wh" sound - slightly aspirated - in currently spoken English. I don't think I use the "wh" sound very much but I can still spell with it!

KP

0 Replies

Why do we use "message" and "messaging", but also "messanger" with an "N"?

0 Replies

Grand Duke wrote:

Why do we use "message" and "messaging", but also "messanger" with an "N"?

That's a good one, because messenger and passenger come directly from the French messager and passager.

And the answer is, because we do. Smile

0 Replies

I believe I have seen the word 'messager' used in a historical novel to describe one sending a message via a smoke signal or semaphore or some such. If my memory is intact, then, it would appear that the inclusion of the 'n' in messenger indicates that he merely carries a message but is not the initiator thereof. That would be the messager, the one who actually sends the message.

0 Replies

Personally, i feel that any Andrew who might be merry would have no pet peeves, regarding language, or any other topic . . . of course, to be amidmost to many of the Angle-ish might peeve one somewhat . . .

0 Replies

And up yours, too, Set, old friend. Smile

0 Replies

Prolly. Can you believe a lot of people think that is how "probably" is spelled?

What are your pet peeves re English usage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know