# Acceptable English grammar/semantics that you hate **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 23, 2024, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-english-grammar-semantics-that-you-hate/1001984 "2024-05-23T20:21:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2024, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-english-grammar-semantics-that-you-hate/1001984/61 "2024-05-24T15:35:32Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > “I don’t have no regrets” is one example of such an abomination. It’s clearly saying that I lack the entity {no regrets}, and the only way this is possible is if I do, in fact, have one or more regrets. Except it’s not clearly saying that. Everyone but you understands the meaning it conveys, and if you fail to understand that meaning, the fault lies with your ability to communicate, not with theirs. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2024, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-english-grammar-semantics-that-you-hate/1001984/62 "2024-05-24T15:38:42Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > About seven billion people speaks about five thousand languages in which negative particles or their semantic equivalents intensify each other I don’t know about those specific numbers, but yes, many languages have double negatives that serve to intensify rather than negate. English is not one of them. And as I indicated above, that inclination to aggregate a bunch of negatives for emphasis arguably can make it more difficult or impossible to formulate certain expressions that are natural in English. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Everyone but you understands the meaning it conveys I understand it just fine. I’m trying to explain why, with a technical background in which language precision is important, I find it illogical and therefore poor practice. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2024, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-english-grammar-semantics-that-you-hate/1001984/63 "2024-05-24T15:39:23Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > Plus “I can’t get any satisfaction” would have sounded stupid. Thank God the artists don’t care. I am perpetually unable to acquire any statisfaction. The weird thing _within_ English is that people tend to regard their own dialect as being much more consistent and logical than other dialects of English - the other day I had someone arguing with me that it was weird that Brits call thin slices of fried potato ‘crisps’, because they do not stay crisp forever, for example if they get wet or turn stale, therefore ‘chips’ is a more logical term. (to which I replied, _language is not logic_) I don’t think any dialect of English is particularly logical or consistent. English is a messy language and it doesn’t matter, because language (except maybe onomatopoeia) has no inherent meaning - it’s just a collection of grunts, clicks, whistles and other sounds that we have informally agreed to use in exchanging thoughts. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2024, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-english-grammar-semantics-that-you-hate/1001984/64 "2024-05-24T15:42:36Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I understand it just fine. I’m trying to explain why, with a technical background in which language precision is important, I find it illogical and therefore poor practice. When you say “it’s clearly saying” something it’s clearly not saying, that’s not great communication. Illogical constructions aren’t necessarily poor practice, nor is logical parsing of constructions necessarily good practice. In this case, the logical parsing of the phrase leads to a misunderstanding; the only reasonable conclusion is that logically parsing the phrase hinders communication and is poor practice. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2024, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-english-grammar-semantics-that-you-hate/1001984/65 "2024-05-24T15:49:07Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Except it’s not clearly saying that. Everyone but you understands the meaning it conveys Everyone would understand it in spoken English, but in written form it is somewhat ambiguous, even if you emphasize the text. if you see “I don’t have NO regrets” it most likely still means that they don’t have any regrets, since it would most likely represent a “no” spoken quite sharply, which still means a double negative. However, in speech, if they said “I don’t have _nooooooooo_ regrets”, where the “no” is emphasized _slightly_, but lingers and quavers a little bit, then that means that they do have some regrets. I’m neither against nor for the double negative. But all languages contain ambiguity and this is one of those times. ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2024, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-english-grammar-semantics-that-you-hate/1001984/66 "2024-05-24T15:53:27Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > However, in speech, if they said “I don’t have _nooooooooo_ regrets”, where the “no” is emphasized _slightly_, but lingers and quavers a little bit, then that means that they do have some regrets. Good point! I think such a speaker would also end the sentence on higher “note” than otherwise, emphasizing that there’s more implied (“…but I do have _some_”). ---
**Author:** ![Mama\_Zappa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/71e660/32.png) [@Mama\_Zappa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mama_Zappa)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2024, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-english-grammar-semantics-that-you-hate/1001984/67 "2024-05-24T15:55:01Z")
> [@Yllaria](#): > > I read that with an unexpressed middle part: If you’re hungry, [it might benefit you to know that] there is a sandwich in the fridge. Or, “in case you’re hungry, you can eat the sandwich in the fridge”. I’ll grant you, the “if you’re hungry” version is not terribly precise and is poor sentence structure. Spoken English (or any other language) is different from what we’d want to see in the narrative portion of a book. One I hate, but know is correct, is datum / data. I KNOW that one is singular. “I am overweight” is a datum. “50% of US adults are obese” is data. But “datum” sounds pretentious, and “data” used as the subject of a sentence, e.g. “the data are indicative”, just sounds WEIRD. “The data is indicative” just sounds more natural. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2024, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-english-grammar-semantics-that-you-hate/1001984/68 "2024-05-24T15:56:51Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > However, in speech, if they said “I don’t have _nooooooooo_ regrets”, where the “no” is emphasized _slightly_, but lingers and quavers a little bit, then that means that they do have some regrets. Certainly context and tone can change meaning. When the sentence is by itself, “I don’t have no regrets,” the obvious meaning is that the person lacks regrets, and quibbling seems silly. But as you say, tone can change the meaning. Context can change it too. “Rafael asked me if I truly had no regrets over killing God. I shook my head and explained, I don’t have no regrets, but the ones I have are that I didn’t do it sooner or more enthusiastically.” It’d be a somewhat confusing construction, but folks could puzzle out its meaning. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2024, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-english-grammar-semantics-that-you-hate/1001984/69 "2024-05-24T15:59:28Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Has anyone here suggested that someone IRL making grammatical mistakes should be “corrected”? Yes. Or at least that’s how I interpret what is being suggested here: > [@Hampshire](#): > > Hearing some sports figure being interviewed after a game proclaiming “They couldn’t do nothing to our defense” and the interviewer just going along with it makes me grit my teeth. Incidentally, that is how I talk (with double negatives, unless I’m purposely speaking in a more formal register) and I have a degree in English and, egads, even spent a spell as a copy editor and proofreader. That’s just how my people talk. Language isn’t math and it pisses me off when people try to act like it is. ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2024, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-english-grammar-semantics-that-you-hate/1001984/70 "2024-05-24T16:01:17Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > English is not one of them. English _is_ one of them. Just not in the prestige dialect, in certain grammatical contexts, in the US, in formal and careful speech (and in most writing), in the early-19th-to-mid-21st centuries…. ---
**Author:** ![SlipperyPete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ba9def/32.png) [@SlipperyPete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlipperyPete)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2024, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-english-grammar-semantics-that-you-hate/1001984/71 "2024-05-24T16:03:30Z")
These are the two that drive me crazy, and they seem to be quite common in rural areas: “That car needs fixed.” “The lawn needs mowed.” TO BE, people. It “needs TO BE”! Or alternatively, it “needs [verb-]ing.” and “Anymore, gas is just so expensive.” “There are just so many potholes anymore.” Look I realize these people have never heard the word “nowadays” so they just slot “anymore” in there in replacement, but it drives me batty when they use it with a positive statement because it makes no g-d sense. Especially when it’s used at the beginning of a sentence like that. ---
**Author:** ![solost](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/solost/32/11776_2.png) [@solost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solost)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2024, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-english-grammar-semantics-that-you-hate/1001984/72 "2024-05-24T16:06:14Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > But you’re right: there’s a big difference between being annoyed and taking language literally. Still, if the only thing Danielle does is to be annoyed by Alice, Bill, and Carlos, she’s _still_ worse at language than they are. She is fulfilling her part of the communication bargain–the comprehension part–worse than they are, letting herself be distracted by her superstitious ideas about language. Superstitious? Interesting use of the word. Not that I _object_, mind you. I do understand, and don’t have a problem with, 99% of ‘wrong’ or ‘improper’ grammatical usages, because they often do serve a clear colloquial or metaphorical purpose. As @pulykamell said “I can’t get any satisfaction” is a worse line. Then there’s this example: > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > There’s always “Ain’t I…” (as in “Ain’t I a stinker?”). Now I wonder which of the two people find more objectionable, and why. I was taught in grade school that ‘ain’t’ is improper grammar, and that I should not use it. And for a time I did as I was told, and even felt superior to those who used the term (I was kind of a stuck-up little shit in some ways). But if I persisted in my hatred of ‘ain’t’ I would have deprived myself of much popular music. Ain’t that a shame? But there are a few grammatical usages up with which I will not put. The use of ‘literally’ as an intensifier, losing its literal meaning, being one. ---
**Author:** ![Knowed\_Out](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/knowed_out/32/7380_2.png) [@Knowed\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knowed_Out)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2024, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-english-grammar-semantics-that-you-hate/1001984/73 "2024-05-24T16:06:21Z")
One can accept there is an implied meaning behind a technically incomplete statement, but can still have fun with it. Like this cornball icebreaker joke: My wife told me “Close the window. It’s cold outside.” So I closed the window and said “There. Is it now warm outside?” ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2024, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-english-grammar-semantics-that-you-hate/1001984/74 "2024-05-24T16:07:33Z")
> [@SlipperyPete](#): > > These are the two that drive me crazy, and they seem to be quite common in rural areas That seems to mainly have originated in the Pittsburgh area, if I remember right, but is quite common all around that part of the US and beyond: [https://ygdp.yale.edu/phenomena/needs-washed](https://ygdp.yale.edu/phenomena/needs-washed) Sounded real weird to me the first few dozen times I heard it or read it (I feel like the SDMB is where I first came across it), but now I even use it myself, as it’s such a cute little construction. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2024, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-english-grammar-semantics-that-you-hate/1001984/75 "2024-05-24T16:08:01Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Context can change it too. “Rafael asked me if I truly had no regrets over killing God. I shook my head and explained, I don’t have no regrets, but the ones I have are that I didn’t do it sooner or more enthusiastically.” It’d be a somewhat confusing construction, but folks could puzzle out its meaning. I strongly oppose sentences that require the listener to army-crawl into them, climb over multiple jagged obstacles, only to collapse from the other side with, yes, a reasonable understanding, but covered in mud and scratches. 😀 ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2024, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-english-grammar-semantics-that-you-hate/1001984/76 "2024-05-24T16:09:33Z")
> [@solost](#): > > Superstitious? Interesting use of the word. Not that I _object_, mind you. Yes, “superstition” is a word I, too, like to use when dealing with grammatical pedantry that is based in nonsense. I feel like I first read it in HW Fowler dismissing the rule against splitting infinitives as being a type of superstition. ETA: it was about ending sentences in prepositions: [Preposition](https://teflpedia.com/Preposition) (at end): “It is a cherished superstition that prepositions must, in spite of the incurable English instinct for putting them late,… be kept true to their name, & placed before the word they govern. ’ - HW Fowler ---
**Author:** ![solost](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/solost/32/11776_2.png) [@solost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solost)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2024, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-english-grammar-semantics-that-you-hate/1001984/77 "2024-05-24T16:10:42Z")
Ah, ok, I hadn’t heard that, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2024, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-english-grammar-semantics-that-you-hate/1001984/78 "2024-05-24T16:11:10Z")
Nonsense. The rules of language – the good and useful ones, I mean, not the contrived ones like not ending a sentence with a preposition – are expressly intended to facilitate communication. Those rules, which among other things govern how we string words together to express ideas, are ultimately rooted in logic. Not rigorous logic, for sure, because they’re evolved over time by imperfect humans, but logic nonetheless. Unfortunately, language drift over time has created a lot of illogical constructs and exceptions to sensible rules. Those are rarely good things and blanket acceptance of every new solecism and teen-speak is surely not helpful to good communication. > [@pulykamell](#): > > > [@wolfpup](#): > > > > Has anyone here suggested that someone IRL making grammatical mistakes should be “corrected”? > > Yes. Or at least that’s how I interpret what is being suggested here: I haven’t seen such a suggestion, but in any case, let me be clear that I would never correct someone’s grammar IRL unless I was teaching a language class. What I think most or all of us who are critical of certain usages are doing is just expressing annoyance here. Of course, this being the SDMB, we often get grammatical or spelling corrections posted, but most of it is in fun. ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2024, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-english-grammar-semantics-that-you-hate/1001984/79 "2024-05-24T16:12:48Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > English _is_ one of them. Just not in the prestige dialect, in certain grammatical contexts, in the US, in formal and careful speech (and in most writing), in the early-19th-to-mid-21st centuries…. Nicely categorized. ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2024, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-english-grammar-semantics-that-you-hate/1001984/80 "2024-05-24T16:13:10Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Those rules, which among other things govern how we string words together to express ideas, are ultimately rooted in logic. I find it better to say they’re ultimately rooted in metaphor. The book I cited a few posts up includes good info on how logic and metaphor are interconnected — including, sometimes there are logical contradictions among the patterns of metaphor that drive language, at all moments as it constantly evolves (there was no magic golden age when it was “more logical”.) ETA: Thanks, Yllaria. Note I included a prediction (“…mid-21st century”) — IMHO, obviously. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-english-grammar-semantics-that-you-hate/1001984.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acceptable-english-grammar-semantics-that-you-hate/1001984.md?page=5)