I can’t stand it when people say “could have went” instead of “could have gone” and variations of same.
It’s in my OED, which is the 1920s version. It might have been subsequently dropped, but it is in that one.
My name is unusual, but similar to more common names. You would be amazed at how frequently I have written to someone, they see my name in the header, they see my signature, and if I don’t know them, I generally say something like “Hi, my name is XX”, and still they reply to me by writing my name as one of the more common similar names. Blows me away, but it’s an interesting example of how the human mind rejects the unfamiliar in favor of the familiar.
“continue ON” NO NO NO NO NONO NO NO NO NO. PLEASE STOP. It’s just “continue” or “go on”.
“would of” “could of” “should of” :eek::eek::mad::mad::eek::eek::mad::mad::(
My… well, not peeve, but question: sammich for sandwich.
Okay, I understand dropping the d. I can understand dropping the w. But where the hell does the m come from?
Because it’s a French word. Them French can’t pronounce anything right.
[quote=“6_6_6, post:67, topic:311475”]
[ul]
[li]of instead of have, as in He must of seen it.[/li][/quote]
[/ul]Wait, I’ve seen this complaint a lot, but I don’t think I’ve ever run into it. However, there’s this little known contraction of the word* have* that uses “'ve”, that sounds suspiciously like of. “He must’ve seen it” is going to sound awfully like “He must of seen it”. I know I’ve had someone call me out on using “would of” when I know what I said was “would’ve”. Seems to me you folks are the ones who have trouble with perfectly good English. It’s not formal, but it’s acceptable conversation English.
I submit that while English guides teach formatting the punctuation inside the quotes, this is often more confusing than clarifying. The punctuation rules were invented for typesetters who had trouble with little punctuation bits at the ends of lines more easily breaking off, so sticking them inside the quote marks worked better.
Take, for instance, the situation where I am ending the sentence with a word in quotes: a sentence like "this". “This” is not a full sentence, and the punctuation is not a part of the material I am quoting, the punctuation belongs to the sentence, not the quote. The punctuation does not belong inside the quote marks.
Or what about a case like, “This is a sentence”? If I put the question mark inside the quote marks, it scrambles the meaning to pieces. And I don’t believe in throwing in redundant commas to designate the end of the sentence inside the quotation when I’m just throwing more punctuation outside the quote marks. But then again, I tend to avoid extraneous periods and whatnot in non-formal writing. I don’t bother with U.S. when US is typically clear.
Total guess: N gets palatalized to M when it occurs in front of certain consonants. No one will ever admit it but if you listen very closely, unless they’re speaking extremely distinctly, people say things like im bed for in bed. It’s possible that either the w is causing that shift or the D did before it was deleted and the sound change remained.
I have a co-worker who will say “We were talking about this and that and blah-za-blah”. I think it’s sort of a mash up of blah, blah, blah and la-di-da somehow but I’m not sure. She says it as if she thinks it’s some fancy word. It makes me roll my eyes.
I don’t think the complaint is about saying something that sounds like “should of.” It’s the misspelling of “should’ve” as “should of.” In my dialect “should’ve” and “should of” are pronounced exactly the same. And the “'ve” contraction for “have” is very common and perfectly acceptable. It’s a bit informal, probably more so than your average contraction, but I can’t see any prescriptivist grammarian having an issue with it, except perhaps in formal writing.
I once saw a high school choir student’s name listed in a concert program as “Xzavier.” I thought it was a typo. But then I met the guy, and yes, that was his real name, and yes, it was pronounced “Ex-avier.”
But I agree with you, NotherYinzer. (The choir guy was just the ex-ception.)
Indeed. As I said lo these many years ago, I think a lot of so-called grammar rules are little more than the flailings of semiliterate pseudointellectuals desperately trying to treat a living language like a card game, setting up arbitrary rules and then fluttering their hands when those arbitrary rules are blithely ignored by speakers and writers.
If a rule of written language doesn’t lead to significant improvements in clarity, it serves no purpose. If native speakers don’t follow a rule in a nearly instinctive fashion, it’s probably not a real rule of the spoken language.
…eh, nevermind
I have a friend from the UK (originally Essex living in London) who says “I am sat…” and it drives me crazy. He uses it in place of “I am sitting…” or “I sat…”
“I am sat at the pub. Where are you?”
“I am sat at home. I’m too sick to go out.”
GAH!
There’s only one that really bothers me and I’ve been hearing it a lot more in recent years: Secont instead of second.
To late to edit, but he uses it in relations to others, as well:
“Why are you sat in the room by yourself?”
“Are you sat in the pub waiting for someone?”
“Joe was sat in the bus for hours until someone came to get him.”
URK! And he’s educated! Well educated!
I will of course defer to actual british people but I am pretty sure I hear that particular tense formation relatively often in britspeak. I think it’s a pretty common artifact of the informal registers of younger people there.
Living there, I was conditioned to say HO-no-lul-lu, with a long O. They kid you mercilessly if you live there but say HA-na-lu-lu or even HA-no-lu-lu. I never correct people over that, but really, after having lived there, it does grate to hear it pronounced incorrectly by the rest of the world.
Of course it is, I’ve heard it in songs, even.
Just jarring and sounds Very Very Wrong. (Also, I’m not in the UK, so there’s that. 
)
I’m exposed to a lot of British English living in Australia (and Irish, and Scottish, we hire backpackers a lot) but I only hear this from a few of them. And although I have been in Australia for 10 years and picked up a lot of Australiana and Britishisms up with this one I cannot put! 
I never noticed this, but it seems that I go back and forth between the two pronunciations depending on how fast I’m talking and/or whether the word I’m leading into begins with a voiced or unvoiced consonant. I also seem to sometimes just drop the “d” all together. Interestingly, Merriam-Webster shows all three pronunciations, and a fourth one with a nasal “n.” I can’t say for certain, but I think I use that pronunciation sometimes, too. So it appears I say “second” three or four different ways. I certainly don’t think I’m saying “secont” or “seckon,” but when I talk out loud and pay close attention, it seems that I do.
My pet peeve of mispronunciation is the use of Calvary(the Biblical name of a hill) for cavalry(the horse-mounted military unit)