[QUOTE=OpalCat]
Um. looks around
You’re kidding, right? We’re in a thread where people are posting the misspellings and grammatical errors that drive us nuts. I posted the one that drives me nuts: “should of” instead of “should’ve/should have”…
…am I being whooshed? 
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I read you as complaining about people that wrote “shoulda” instead of “should of” and thus was
[QUOTE=Canadjun]
Viola when you mean voila. One is a musical instrument. One isn’t. Guess which is which.
[/QUOTE]
Semi-on the same topic: ‘viola’ isn’t hard to pronounce. Just get it right.
[QUOTE=Spectre of Pithecanthropus]
I don’t know what they call, collectively, the things that happen at the funeral home…
[/QUOTE]
Necrophilia.
Something can pique your interest. It doesn’t peak it.
And it’s “I couldn’t care less,” not “I could care less.”
Walla for voila just makes me laugh.
[QUOTE=Clothahump]
Me and Janey went to the mall.
AARRRGGGGHHH!!!
I always respond to something like that with a grunt, followed by “Mongo buy something at mall?”
[/QUOTE]
Mine is using the nominative case instead of the objective case when trying to sound correct.
“Jill went to the mall with Janey and I”
Would you say “Jill went to the mall with I”? Not unless you were stupid!
Putting yourself last is a start, but use the correct case!
I’m not even sure if I am correct in this myself, but I go twitchy inside when people use “that” where I believe they should use “who.”
Examples:
“Steve is the guy that told me.”
“They are the people that came over last night”
“That’s the woman that called.”
Argh.
Why can’t it be the case that both “that” and “who” are acceptable in those situations? That’s certainly how it seems to me.
[QUOTE=Indistinguishable]
Why can’t it be the case that both “that” and “who” are acceptable in those situations? That’s certainly how it seems to me.
[/QUOTE]
It should be ‘who’ when referring to a person as opposed to a non-person noun.
[QUOTE=Indistinguishable]
Why can’t it be the case that both “that” and “who” are acceptable in those situations? That’s certainly how it seems to me.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know that it can’t be both, but it seems clumsy to me. People who, things that. Or maybe things which?
That is the coffee table that I want… that is the coffee table which I want…
Hmmm. I don’t know. But I still think “who” sounds better than “that” when referring to people.
[QUOTE=USCDiver]
It should be ‘who’ when referring to a person as opposed to a non-person noun.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. I say both “who” and “that” are acceptable when referring to a person. I quote the American Heritage Dictionary:
[QUOTE=Indistinguishable]
I disagree. I say both “who” and “that” are acceptable when referring to a person. I quote the American Heritage Dictionary:
[/QUOTE]
OK. I’ll concede to authority, since I actually DIDN’T know the usage rules. But I don’t have to like it, and will continue to say “who” myself.
Of course. No one’s saying there’s anything wrong with using “who”.
ATM machine.
[QUOTE=panache45]
ATM machine.
[/QUOTE]
PIN number.
[QUOTE=Rayne Man]
PIN number.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve decided to “compromise” and say “PI number” (pronounce: π number). It irritates both sides equally!
I went grocery shopping yesterday and in the bakery: big sign –
IT’S NOT AUGUST WITHOUT STRAWBERY PIE!
Um, it’s not “strawberry” without three Rs.
Locally, there was a sign for an upcoming concert by the “Pilharmonic Orchestra.”
For years, the local animal shelter had a sign outside that said “Spray/Neuter Clinic.”
[QUOTE=Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]
For years, the local animal shelter had a sign outside that said “Spray/Neuter Clinic.”
[/QUOTE]
That’s where you can get your dog spaded, right?
Well, what they do at the funeral home is the memorial service but I don’t think that improves the situation.
Friend: My girlfriend’s mother was serviced at that funeral home after she died.
Me: I’m going to go home and pour some bleach on my brain now.
[QUOTE=Indistinguishable]
I disagree. I say both “who” and “that” are acceptable when referring to a person. I quote the American Heritage Dictionary:
[/QUOTE]
Hah! We shall see how the writer feels about it when he or she is sitting in a room and somebody else sees him or her and asks, contemptuously, “What is that doing here?” 
One that’s been bugging me recently:
I don’t know if it’s because of the overabundance of guitarists shredding their way through Pachelbel’s Canon in D Major on YouTube, or if it’s the number of [insert media franchise here] fanboys arguing about what is canon and what is not, but there is something terribly wrong when I have to edit Wikipedia articles about various wars to replace “canon” with “cannon”. Maybe it’s a generational thing, but I learned the word “cannon” long before I ever heard the word “canon”.
Pronunciations:
Americans who cannot grasp the simplest rules regarding pronunciation of “foreign” words, especially when it comes to pronouncing a person’s name. For example, in Spanish the letter “a” is always pronounced the same way: “ah”. I have a Mexican-American coworker named Santiago. SAHN-tee-AH-go. Yet a few American coworkers can’t (or won’t) grasp this simple pronunciation and consistently pronounce the first syllable of his name the same way they’d pronounce the first syllable of Santa Claus, while pronouncing the second “a” correctly. Come on, people. Pronouncing a person’s name correctly is simply a matter of common courtesy.