What are your pet peeves re English usage?

Could be.

No, but cereally, when a word is borrowed from another language, it sometimes [often ??] comes with a different meaning or at least a different nuance. These new words don't bring with them all the rules that used to govern them in the original tongue. That would be ludicrous, wouldn't it, for how are the French or Germans or Thais supposed to know the rules of English or Yoruba or Croatian or Japanese or Igbo?

English has a singular for litotes because Merry Andrew, strictly adhering to the rules of his language not only dropped the 's' but he added the appropriate article, 'a', exactly as one would predict ... for English that is, not Yoruba.

JTT--

Contact the moderators by clicking "Report" on the post you want to be deleted and make your request there.

Not only that, Clary, but archaic and redundant as well.

cereally, jtt?

Ya don't know whimsy when ya see it, Lass?

When something is prevalent, it's kind of silly to simply dismiss it out of hand.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
CGEL:

The descriptivist view would be that when most speakers use a form that our grammar says is incorrect, there is at least a prima facie case that it is the grammar that is wrong, not the speakers.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<



Nothing at all, SCoates, absolutely nothing! It's not standard English but, as we've noted before, that doesn't make it incorrect/wrong.




Not the "correct" form, Clary, A form. You're skating on pretty thin ice when you tell native speakers of a language that what they're saying doesn't mean what they know it means.

1. a. If you would simply check a reliable grammar source, b. you wouldn't make these mistakes.

There's a 'would' conditional for you. A would in a. and another in b. Part a. can be paraphrased as,

"Under the condition that you check a reliable grammar source"

2. If you would have checked a reliable grammar source, you would not have made such an error.

2A. If you had checked a reliable grammar source, you would not have made such an error.

2B. If you'd 'av checked a reliable grammar source, you would not have made such an error.


In 2. we have another that means precisely the same thing as 2A and 2B. The only difference is that the latter two express nuances that the more neutral 2. can't show.




Things people say are not "grammatically absurd". Language changes and the ONLY ones who can effect those changes are the people who use a language.

This is a truism that is so painfully obvious and yet it escapes so many people.

There is no 'tongue tied' here as Andrew suggests; the elision is remarkably smooth.

For a further discussion of the "if S'd 'av ..." see,

http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/deptlang/fulgor/volume1i1/papers/fennell.pdf




Actually both are in common use, SCoates and the likelihood of prescriptivists stamping them out are nil or slightly less than nil. The linguist, G Nunberg likened the effects of prescriptivists on language to landscape gardeners trying to stop the geologic plates pushing into one another.

You use it because it has meaning and that meaning has a nuance that isn't covered by "If S had PP ..."

If, "If I could go I would go" is grammatically possible, and it is, what is to stop us from using an "If S would ..."

By the same token, if, "If I could have gone, I would have gone" is grammatically possible, and it is, what is to stop us from a "if S would have ... "

Peevists, take a look at this brief language course. It may help to relieve you of your burdens.

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Spring_2001/ling001/prescriptive.html

I know this is supposed to be for english, but I heard someone using pig latin on tv, and they said, "ustomercays," which almost made me barf. Of course, the correct form is "ustomerscay."

That sounds a bit like the eggy language.

The "loose" vs. "lose" thing is really rampant, even among normally well spoken members of A2K.

This is a failure of our education system.

cj, often our fingers type before our brain gets in gear. Don't think it has much to do with our educational system. A teacher is only a guide, and the student must follow through.

SCoates: igpayatinlay. Dullfubble tallfalk. Now there's the language of politicians.

ightray noway, Ettylay.

Pig Latin and Double Talk.

Nope, it is too widespread not to be the case.

hi i am french girl new in london to learn english

what is pet peeve please

sylvie

Welcome to A2K, sylvie. the phrase " pet peeve" is an expression that English speaking people use to define what they find repulsive in how people use the language. It is referred to as an idiom.

les conneries que les gens disent en toute bonne foi, genre "un espèce"!

You guys might be able to answer this:
A friend of mine has a pet peeve about what she calls the "overuse of I". It's become an on-going argument, because the rest of us don't think that she's correct, but we can't prove it. I guess the best way to describe what she means is probably in an example.

<My friends and I> went to the store. (correct).
<...> can be replaced with (meaning changes but grammer is still correct):
<I> went to the store.

She insists that you can say:
That was <me> on the bus.
and therefore also...
That was <my friend and me> on the bus.

I think she's wrong. It sounds wrong, but I don't know why. Does anyone know why or am I wrong ? (I'd say "that was my friend and I on the bus")

I would answer that question in your favor and against the useage of your friend. But JTT has me intimidated lately, so I'll let him explain.

Your friend is correct.

That was my friend and me on the bus.

Just take out "my friend and".

thank you letty thank you francis

you speak very well french!!!

pet is favourite?

sylvie