How about:
flaunt for flout (e.g. “flaunt the law” or “flaunt convention”)
notorious to mean famous rather than infamous
sea anenome (instead of anemone)
the pronunciation of “realtor” as REE-luh-tor
Oh, well. It’s six of one-half, a dozen of the other.
Him and me went to the movies last night.
Him went to the movies???
Me went to the movies???
Oh and–
“I feel badly.”
Grrrr!
Quote:
Originally Posted by What the … !!!
Just heard someone on the tube say “I could care less.” when what he really meant was “I couldn’t care less.”
What else ya got ?
It’s not wrong. It’s an idiom, and has been in use for over 30 years.
It’s not an idiom, it’s an idiot(ic), unthinking, lazy, statement to say that you COULD care LESS when you mean exactly the opposite.
Yeah, the one that really bugs me is… hmmm… what was that? It was right here on the tip of my tounge…
ARGH!!! TONGUE, people, TONGUE! Say it with me–“Tung!” With a slightly voiced “eh” at the end. NOT “townj!” I’m going to hit someone someday, and it will be because people misspell the word constantly, and it pisses me off alot.
ARGH!!! A. LOT. Two words, not one! Two! There is NO SUCH WORD AS “ALOT!” Grrr–well, I suppose that ignorance is bliss and all…
ARGH!!! NO! The correct quote is “Where ignorance is bliss/'Tis folly to be wise.” Which is not by any means a blanket endorsement of stupidity, merely an accurate statement that sometimes knowing too much can result in unhappiness the uninformed are spared. Somewhat like being a grammatically ept person in Internet land, I suppose.
Of course, in the kingdom of the blind the one eyed man is king–thus do I defeat Gaudere! I might not be perfect, but I’m better than the rest of them stupid motherlovers, so there! 
Sigh. This has been discussed in some detail in this very thread.
As long as we are welcoming critiques on previously posted items:
What logical principle are you using here? Because to me it looks like:
If “x and y” is licensed in environment “z”, then “x” should be licensed in environment “z”, and “y” should be licensed in environment “z”. If you had something else in mind, please let me know, because by that logic, I could argue:
John and I are going to the movies tonight.
John are going to the movies???
Me are going to the movies???
My point: advocate the socially accepted standard if you will, and teach the rule-of-thumb for arriving at the desired form (i.e., take out the conjunction and the other conjunct and see whether it sounds right), but do not pretend that the standard is logically superior.
Sorry, that should read “I are going to the movies???”
My point stands, though…
Although I concede the point of your “John are going…” example, I still think the principle is correct. I remember way back in primary school, our teacher was teling us about when to use “John and I” and when to use “John and me”. Some of the kids weren’t getting the dry grammatical rules governing this, so she said, “Look, when you aren’t sure which one to use, just forget “John” and pretend you are the only person involved in the action. Then either “I” or “me” will seem natural. You’re then able to safely bring “John” back into the equation.”
Which is what you appear to have said. :smack:
I’ve taken a much-needed lacuna from the board to get some other things accomplished over the holidays. If anyone is still interested in my firm belief, not “pretending” that the standard is logically superior, I was taught, and still contend, that the word “him” and the word “me” are in the objective case, i.e., are the objects of the verb, and that the word “he” and “I” are in the subjective case, i.e., subjects of the verb.
You’re using the verb usage to “prove” the pronoun usage is wrong. It doesn’t work that way. Your “license” argument is not suggested as a sweeping grammatical rule across all parts of speech, but specifically in the case of pronouns. Misusing it on a verb doesn’t have any effect on its correct use on a pronoun.
Fact:
“Him and me are going to the movies” is technically incorrect. The test for this is that you would not say “Him is going to the movies.” You would say “he.” The verb–is/are–is not in question.
What recommends this test, though?
-FrL-
The character “*” is not an asterix.
The expression “from go to whoa” means from the time it starts (go) until the time it stops (whoa). What the hell is “from whoa to go” meant to mean?
A sale can continue “while stocks last” or “until sold out.” A sale which continues “until stocks last” will be a very short one indeed.
Where do you live? I’ve never seen any of those usages–and by this I mean I haven’t seen the incorrect versions, and I haven’t seen the correct ones either. (Except for the word “asterisk” of course.)
-FrL-
English grammar.
I guess what you mean is, it’s a good test because it gets the right answer, grammatically speaking.
If that’s true, you’re saying the test isn’t supposed to function to make sense of the rule (even though that’s how its often presented) but rather, simply, to tell you which usage is correct. Right?
-FrL-
I still hear people using “pacifically” instead of “specifically”.
The aussie comedy series Kath and Kim is well known for its characters mangling their words and phrases.
My favourite is when one character asks about a planned holiday, “So pacifically, where in the specific are you planning to go?”
Cannot parse.
Well, I live in Australia, but I’m not sure that matters.
Google “from go to whoa” (over 9000 results) and “from whoa to go” (around 350 results). The latter do seem to be mainly from Australia and New Zealand, so perhaps it’s a regional mistake.
You haven’t heard TV ads which talk about a sale being on “while stocks last?” I find that very hard to believe. The incorrect one (“until stocks last”) turns up on Oz TV regularly enought to piss me off. It’s usually (but not always) a downmarket retail chain.