In this thread someone mentioned the alleged synonymity of “inflammable” and its bastard-cousin-offspring-of-siblings “flammable.” Naturally, being a language nerd, I commented that said synonymity is a result of ignorance winning a round–i.e., “flammable” is a word only because people didn’t realize what “inflammable” meant.
But even as I typed that I knew it was pointless. There are untold examples of rotten usage that have been tolerated so long they’ve become acceptable. This is the prime one for me–and yet I can’t make myself use “flammable” without quotes. It grates me like a cheese shredder. I refuse to use “flammable” myself, even to the point of occasionally writing memos containing phrases like
Isopropyl alcohol is inflammable (and for those of you who don’t know, “inflammable” means “likely to catch fire,” not the opposite)
though obviously it would be simpler and clearer just to surrender the point.
Which brings me to my question: what grammar-spelling-usage mistake can you NOT stop yourself from correcting, Dopers?
I forgot “decimate”. I do not fight that fight much anymore but I always take note of people using it incorrectly (or I should say incorrectly from a historical view as it has been granted new meaning in today’s dictionaries).
Are those really lost, though? You don’t see “irregardless” showing up in print in reputable papers and magazines, but the same cannot be said of “flammable.” “Could care less” is closer, but most people, if challenged, will admit that the phrase doesn’t make sense–at least in my experience.
You asked, “Which brings me to my question: what grammar-spelling-usage mistake can you NOT stop yourself from correcting…”.
Technically people today use “decimate” correctly although by its original definition it means nearly the opposite of how it is used today.
“Irregardless” I do not think ever was a word.
“Could care less” is just lazy.
Anyway…those are ones I usually find myself correcting. Most time it just annoys people and occasionally I just get blank, incomprehending stares back.
(I hear “mute point” a lot too and notice it every time)
What are the definitions in question? (I think of ‘decimating’ a population, that is, killing off a significant portion. I have a (possibly incorrect) memory from Latin that it originally meant to kill every tenth man…?)
The subjunctive. “If I was a rich girl…” Gah! (Given that I teach Spanish, which just loves the subjunctive, the erratic/ fading use of subjunctive only seems to confuse students all the more.)
The difference between there, their, and they’re. And the strange need to put apostrophe’s before plural’s.
I had a student who tried to use the apostrophe + s plural…in Spanish.
It is impossible to have two mothers (at least biologically), therefore the correct pluralization is either “sons of bitches” or “sons of a bitch”, but not “son of a bitches”.
“Y’all” is a colloquial contraction of “you all” and is used exactly the same as “you all”. It is never used in the singular sense (e.g. you would never say to a single person at a Waffle House “could y’all pass that syrup?”), but it’s used that way frequently in movies and books written about southerners by non-southerners anymore than a Bronxite would say “You’se guys” to a single person (assuming that Bronxites actually use “You’se guys”).
Regarding the word library- the bolded r is not silent.
There is nothing folksy about saying nukular unless the folks in question have a severe speech impediment or are retarded, and I simply don’t understand what’s difficult about saying it correctly.
The Romans had a policy of killing 1 in 10 men in a group of disloyal soldiers. Killing off 10% of a given group is a long shot from the common usage today to mean “obliterate”.
Decimate
Original meaning of “a tax of one-tenth of the whole.” Now listed as Obsolete. Is that what you mean?
Or do you object to it changing from “to kill one in ten” to “to kill a lot.” Well, the second definition dates at least from th 1800s. That’s a new usage? How old are you, anyway?
The subjunctive. The subjunctive has been dead for decades. Get used to it.
nukular – according to the OED: “it is now commonly given as a variant in modern dictionaries.” It is no more wrong than pronouncing “tomato” with a long a.
Old enough to have read a few history books. I already stipulated that decimate’s usage to mean “to kill a lot” has been accepted. That doesn’t change the fact that I know the word used to mean no such thing and actually seemed to be pretty clear. Why it morphed like it did I have no idea but as I said it is not one I fight for…just take notice of.
The battle of que instead of queue is one that I want to keep fighting, regardless of the fact that 99% of the people I work with (not to mention a substantial number of people on the messageboards I frequent in various places) seem to be under the impression that the former is the correct spelling.
But what really busts my hump is people who will spell it ‘que’ when they’re copying directly from something where the word is spelt correctly. That fills me with grrrr.
Stop pointing out when I’m not making sense. :smack:
I thought it was implicit in my thread title, but I meant the topic to be “grammatical errors that have become some common as to be acceptable to most authorities, but which nevertheless still irrirate you into correcting those who make them.”
I’m not a fighter, but if I were… hey, a subjunctive! right here!.. I’d get annoyed about the misuse of “unique”. Look, there is no such thing as “very unique”. A thing is one-of-a-kind, or it isn’t.
But aside from the grammar, I’d like to see the U.S. get into the metric system more. Yes, it’s still pretty new to us. No, until we get used to it, it won’t feel ‘natural’. Still. It really is an easier system to use, none of this nonsense about 5,280 feet per (statute) mile and such. How many teaspoons in a gallon? How do you figure how much oil to add to 7 gallons of gas for a two-stroke engine?
It’s not a lost battle, exactly, but it won’t be won any time soon.
the battle for proper grammar is a losing cause.