Yes, almost entirely. I for one, though, have a stronger grasp of English than my parents whose first language was Spanish. And that’s from formal schooling.
Not that I need to say so, but yes, the oft-mocked pronunciation of “nuclear” is, I would say, a reasonable variant. No worse than saying “noo-clear” instead of “nyoo-clear”, though I know everyone is perfectly happy to justify their pronunciation differences from my golden standard.
You’re fighting a losing battle. Language is what its speakers make of it. I’m sure I could find plenty of pronunciations, spellings, or usages that made people furious 150 years ago, that you’d now insist are the only acceptable one. And it’s quite possible that in 150 years, they’ll be considered incorrect again.
But how does one justify adding a non-existant syllable as a “reasonable variant?” Look at the work “realtor” - no vowel between the letters l and t. Or “nuclear” - no vowel between the c and the l. How does one find an extra syllable between “reel” and “tor,” or between “noo/nyoo” and “cle”? I understand that one may pronounce some sounds differently (“noo” vs. “nyoo” in “nuclear,” for example,) but I don’t understand how adding letters and entire syllables makes for an acceptable variation. To me, this isn’t like the difference between “cyoo-pon” and “coo-pon” for coupon - this is more like the difference between “mis-chi-vus” and “mis-chee-vee-us” for mischievous. You are mentally/verbally rearranging letters when pronouncing a word. Misreading leads to mispronunciation, not to “acceptable variant.”
But what about the brand? 
http://www.duckbrand.com/Products/duck-tape.aspx
I also hate the misuse of apostrophe’s, and lose/loose misuse, both of which have been stated previously, and will ultimately cause me to loose my mind’s.
Oh! Just thought of another: myself. The other day I read something like, “He and myself went on a trip…” or “Myself and my friends…”
I was going (uh…) down the (uh…) road ( like… ), (om…) then a ( like…) truck passed and (like…) splashed into a (om…) puddle and ( like…) soaked me and my (uh…) friend.
I know it’s contraintuitive, but there is no “n” in restaurateur.
Here’s one from The Washington Post recently:
“New details about the case were flushed out during the sentencing hearing, including the assertion…”
from here
from here
That’s not what flushed out means nor how it is used. The writers meant “fleshed out” – the supporting structure will be filled in with actual details.
“Flushed out” means either you’ve turned the little handle on the toilet tank, or you have caused your prey to break cover into the open.
It’s not quite a homonym (rhyme), which is the usual source of Washington Post word choice errors (hoard/horde, home/hone, etc.), but maybe it’s close enough to a rhyme that lazy people think it sounds similar?
The false generic–assuming everything male means men & women. I will fight to the death this outrage.
And the expression “madien name.” Who is a madien anymore? I always say “given birth name.”
I think it’s probably because it seems to be the convention not to add full stops to thread titles that aren’t questions, so maybe people think that punctuation marks aren’t needed for thread titles.
I can’t stand it when people add ‘you know what I mean’ to the end of their sentences. Or mix up there, their and they’re.
I don’t think anyone has ever been a madien. I think you mean maiden.
(Sorry to nitpick.)
One that is used consistently in the news is talking about moving a meeting or project “back,” meaning, to me, actually moving it forward.
For instance: The bridge was supposed to be open on July First but construction problems have moved the opening date back.
Any good explanation for that which could clarify it for me?
Since it’s such common usage I suspect there must be a misunderstanding on my part. But to me “back” implies further into the past, not the future.
Another? Referencing a group of people and using the word “between” instead of “among.” Such as, “Fred and his three uncles were slow to dig the car out of the mud because they only had one shovel between them.”
Nope. Neither is closer.
The name comes from a name in the Nahuatl language, Mēxihcah, pronounced may-SHEE’-ka’ [meːˈʃiʔkaʔ] (the first syllable has the vowel sound of “May” but without the -y offglide). The Mēxihcah people were the tribe native to Tenochtitlán and Tlatelolco (present-day Mexico City). The letter <x> in Medieval Spanish was used to represent the “sh” phoneme /ʃ/ (as it still does in Portuguese). But during the 16th century in Castilian Spanish the pronunciation of this phoneme shifted to a “kh” or “h” sound ( or [h]). The spelling with <x> remained, although a variant spelling Méjico has been sometimes used in Spain to make the pronunciation more intelligible for modern Spanish speakers, since the use of <x> for that phoneme is long obsolete.
“That” in place of “who” (or “whom”). As in, “The person that parked on my uncle is now a murderer.”
I learned “that” refers to inanimate objects, and “who” refers to people (exception: “That person is my now late uncle, since some moron murdered him by parking a four door duelly truck on him.”) but in the first sentence (“The person that…”) that is to my way of thinking, undeniably wrong.
I’ve never known much about the formal rules for grammar (i.e. I sucked at diagramming sentences in school, and couldn’t remember various names for certain parts of speech, but I’ve been able to use grammar properly more often than not).
While we’re at it, I don’t understand the weather phenomenon of “cooler” or “warmer” temperatures. Aren’t temperatures just a measure? Wouldn’t it be like saying “A longer mile,” or “more expensive prices”? How about higher or lower temperatures?
Or “the winds are calm”. No, the air is calm, or there is no wind.
“a warmer temperature” isn’t like “a longer mile”; “a warmer temperature” is like “a longer distance”. An analogue of “a longer mile” would be “a warmer degree Fahrenheit”.
There is also no rule that “that” can only refer to inanimate objects.
My boss is British and it drives him INSANE when Americans say things like, “I already ate.” He is a present perfect junkie.
A current commercial for omelettes for a chain restaurant says that the O in omelette matches the A in awesome.
That irritates me on behalf of our new English language speakers. The person who wrote the commercial must be tone deaf.
The first would be represented as the small letter a with an umlaut over it, as in bother and the latter would be represented as a lower case o with a single dot over it as in saw.
Another: when people begin a non-related sentence with “I mean.” I actually heard a graduating high school Senior begin his Commencement speech with it! Who asked?
I’ve never seen anyone use a lower case o with a single dot over it to represent that sound, but ok (pronunciation transcription is notoriously variable between dictionaries). Regardless, many Americans have the caught-cot and father-bother mergers, so that, for them, there is no difference between any of those sounds.