I HATE “moreso” as one word. It’s two words, people.
Um, irregardless, youse guys are all way to grammar orientated.
Yeah, but most people could care less.
Meh. Like another poster, I only get annoyed if the moron writes “would of” – I live in the South, I just like to believe that what I hear is “would’ve” – even when I hear “wudda.”
Since they sound the same to me too, like others in the thread, I don’t blink unless it’s written out “would of.”
Just to be clear, since I sort of sidetracked with the “saying would of” bit; I frankly don’t believe people are saying it. Or if they truly are, then they need to be shot. It’s just my friend claiming that as a justification for saying that the written would of is correct. Which it isn’t. So there.
What really pisses me off is when someone says, “If I would’ve”/“If I would of.” IF I HAD. IF I HAD. IF I HAD. NOT WOULD HAVE!
What’s wrong with “continue on”? (After answering, we can allow the thread to continue on the path to oblivion.)
Literally? Are you sure about that?
(fazed)
Exactly–that’s where the misspelling comes from.
Yeah, people are saying “would’ve”, the contraction of “would have”, and are either carelessly or ignorantly writing the word the way it sounds.
Ack! I knew something looked funny! had to happen in a thread like this, practically guaranteed…
At least it’s possible to do. Although that makes it worse in a way because many people may believe the hands really are being sat on. At least with more fantastical use of “literally” it’s obvious that they mean “figuratively.”
Unfortunately I think many people have heard “would’ve” and have never considered that it is a contraction of “would have”. They really think everyone else is saying “would of” and so that’s how they write it.
So, supposably you’re OK with it?
Only slightly less annoying is the contraction “gotta”, used to mean “have a” instead of “have to”.
As in, “I gotta good score on my English test”, instead of “I gotta do more studying”.
It is redundant. One either continues or goes on, continuing on is like “with au jus” (with with juice), or a depressingly large number of other redundant phrases commonly used, even by me, I’m sad to admit.
knowledgeable experts
lag behind
live studio audience
local residents
mental telepathy
natural instinct
penetrate into
Some less obvious examples:
“ask the question” just ask
“brief moment” a moment is by definition brief
“close proximity” proximity means close in distance
“emergency situation” emergency is a noun meaning dire, unexpected situation
entirely eliminate - eliminate means to remove entirely
hollow tube - if it ain’t hollow, ain’t a tube
That kind of thing doesn’t bother me, it’s colloquial, it’s slang, it’s lazy, the person doing it is probably aware of it.
But to actually sit and type out “would of” blows my mind.
Only when I get a pit in my stomach… (:eek: that one does me in too… again, the lack of meaning should be the giveaway!)
someone is bound to ask, so:
the correct way to say it would be to say that one gets “a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach” or a sick feeling or some other way of identifying the negative sensation (bad feeling) that you are having in a specific location in your body (the pit of your stomach). “I get a terrible pit in my stomach” leaves everything that means anything out of the statement entirely.
I think that you missed my subtle suggestion that “continue on” might be entirely correct in some contexts.
And in most of the examples you gave, the “redundant” phrase is not equivalent to the implied abbreviated variant, so it occurs to me you might be an overly specific pedant in these matters…
How about “there’re”?
My bane is “definately”. Free Clue.