Please state in which country your phrase tends to be used, what the phrase is, and what it should be.
Example:
In America, recently came across “back-petal”, instead of back-pedal. Also, still hearing “for all intensive purposes” instead of “for all intents and purposes”.
“Could of…”
It’s “could have”!
Edit: I’m referring to text based things, like text and email. I can pretty much ignore the mispronouncing.
It’s definitely a mistake, but I think it has slipped by because spell check wouldn’t have a reason to mark it, and not everyone uses grammar check, so they think it’s correct to spell it out by the sound of the contraction.
That’s a dialectal difference, not an error.
It’s very much not recommended, and generally seen as an error. But this article puts an asterisk on it.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/whats-worse-than-coulda
I am viscerally against this concept.
It’s one thing to include the spelling as a way to capture the phonetics of an accent or a dialect, entirely another to accept its use in writing when using a neutral voice.
If anything, because it’s so often just a misspelling I would avoid trying to use it as a phonetics thing just as a matter of style. At this point everybody would think I’m making a mistake instead of trying to mimic a way of speech in a way they’d never do with “coulda”.
With you on all counts.
I mean no? The have in could have is pronounced the same as of, but at least AFAIK no dialect explicitly says could of. Tell the other person to not mesh the two words together and they’ll say have. I think.
Minor nit pick from my experience. If the word is written out “could have” I enunciate the entire word. I only pronounce the contraction “could’ve” as “could of”. And vice versa when dictating.
Not when written
Also they’re/their, your/you’re, here/hear, to/too.
I think they just heard could’ve or meant to say could’ve
Some weirdos write decades as possessive. Writing “90’s” implies that there’s a 90 that owns something.
It’s not a decade thing. People do that anytime they’re not sure if it’s a “s situation” or a “ies situation”, or confusing with some other plural problem.
none of them. linguistic gatekeeping is just disguised contempt for the poor. let people spell however the fuck they want.
Irregardless
This is literally a restaurant near me. Quite good one too
Irregardless.
Without regardless
Without without regard
With regard
I’m going to end my emails with irregardless and see what happens. What’s the worst that can happen?
“Irregardless, MajorMajormajormajor.”
I’m writing with regards to the issue of…
That’s very friendly and I’ll be sure to forward your regards…🙄
Please state what country your phrase tends to be used
Please state in which country your phrase tends to be used…
Touché
Casey Point
This reply deserves to be put on a peddle stool
To “step foot on”. I don’t care that millennial journalists are now sullying the literal NYT with this, it’s WRONG. It’s to set foot on. To SET foot on.
“Set foot” might be better established (and sound better), but “step foot” is not new.
Yeah yeah I know. But “set” (fun fact: it’s the word with the most meanings in the Oxford English Dictionary) is the transitive form of “sit”, so it’s more grammatical, more elegant and shorter than “step”. Which obviously comes from a mishearing by someone who didn’t read books, yet people will still get indignant and claim that it’s somehow better! I need to lie down. ;)
I like your comment for the most part, but:
obviously comes from a mishearing by someone who didn’t read books
This is assumptive and prescriptive. The link I sent demonstrates that it’s been used extensively and for a long time by people who not only read books, but write books. I’m on board that “set foot” is the better phrase and likely to be the earlier one, but trying to dictate which is correct is - respectfully - a fool’s errand.
Yes yes I know all that. Prescriptivism is bad, tut tut!, a serious linguist only describes language, etc etc.
But whether it was 400 years ago or yesterday, to me personally it’s thunderingly obvious that “step” comes from a mishearing, all while being inferior in every way. It’s even tautological, since the “foot” is already implied in the word “step”. It’s like saying “He was hand-clutching a bag”. One is short, logical, and respects grammatical convention. The other… isn’t and doesn’t.
Occasionally great new coinings come about from mishearings (can’t think of one right now but they exist). This is not one of them.
Step foot I’m stuck!
Wh… What are you doing, step-toe?
This one never gets me anywhere, but “begging the question” is actually a logical fallacy where you assume the result and use that as the basis of your argument. Otherwise, it raises the question.
How do you feel about other words or phrases that have different meanings in specific fields vs common use? Like a scientific theory is very different from your buddy’s theory about what the movie you watched meant. Since beg is a stronger word than raise, some statements scream out for questions in response, while others merely give rise to some further need for clarification.
The same goes for the exception that proves the rule. People use it as a magic spell that does away with unwanted evidence but it’s self explanatory. No parking on Fridays means you can park every other day.
There’s an exception to every rule (except that one)
That’s actually a post-hoc rationalization; in the original phrase, “proves” has a meaning closer to “tests”. But, yes, people use this one all the time to justify being wrong either way.
.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule
and how is that post-hoc?
If I claimed I didn’t get a ticket that day because I wore my lucky socks that would be post-hoc. I don’t see how that applies here.
People that think “y” in online gaming means “yeah” instead of “why”.
I really hate it when us media uses the word “ouster”.
For example:
“Vail Resorts shareholder calls for ouster of CEO, CFO and Rob Katz”
They mean to use the word here as “removal”, but “oust” is also a verb and “ouster” would be “one who ousts”.
So, calls for the ouster of the CEO/CFO to do what?
They could just use “ousting”
Yup!
OK, since you mentioned the media, putting “gate” after any government scandal. Nixon’s scandal was involving the Watergate Office Building.
I think the ouster is supposed to be the event that results in ousting. But it’s so redundant it’s not funny. Removal would be for much better.
What I really hate is when people don’t capitalize the abbreviation US, because it makes me think they’re saying “us” as in “we,” or “oui” as the French like to say, no?
😀
I gotta correct myself when I do it because I’m not from the US so us and US aren’t even the same people.
People’s names. I think it’s dismissive/disrespectful to mispronounce someone’s name.
I have a rare last name (for the US anywa), and the pronunciations I get are amazing. My favorite was Mr. Tubbo, at the bank. I’ve also gotten Tugboat. My name has no G in it.
Whenever I go somewhere where I know I’ll have to spell my name (like the bank, gov offices, et cetera) I always offer them a dollar if they can pronounce it. I’ve had to pay a dollar one time in 30 years, and that’s only because she was involved with a French company. It never really bothers me when people can’t pronounce it. What bugs me is when I tell them how to say it and they still can’t get it. It’s spelled all fucked up and French, but it’s only 2 syllables, and a very, very simple name to pronounce. But they can’t get the spelling out of their head, and fuck it up every time
Thibault? That’s the first 2 syllable French name that comes to mind that I could see people mangling to Tubbo or Tugboat
Almost!
You can’t really blame people for mispronouncing a rare or foreign name. It would only be a problem if it was done repeatedly with the intent to offend.
Absolutely. It’s not fair to blame people for honest mistakes. If I implied it was, then that was a mistake!
I do get irritated when they have 2 different pronunciations of a name that’s spelled the same. And they assume the less common one.
Can someone explain DEI and Affirmative action? 99% sure the right is using it wrong, but I live in a red state.
Those mis-stated phrases are called eggcorns. They’re a fascinating contributor to the evolution of language.
The term egg corn (later contracted into one word, eggcorn) was coined by professor of linguistics Geoffrey Pullum in September 2003 in response to an article by Mark Liberman on the website Language Log, a group blog for linguists.[5] In his article, Liberman discussed the case of a woman who had used the phrase egg corn for acorn, and he noted that this specific type of substitution lacked a name. Pullum suggested using egg corn itself as a label.[6]
Ah! I’ll read this over dinner.
Bone apple tea! :p
There’s a video on it! https://youtu.be/F12LSAbos7A?si=487JdO6MRnLDWFp-
I’m not entirely against it, but I’m amused by how common it is to put “whole” inside of “another”, making it “a whole nother”. Can anyone give any other use of the word “nother”?
Americans saying “I could care less” instead of “I couldn’t care less”.
I care a tiny bit. I could care less, but not easily.
Doesn’t this make sense if someone says it in a sarcastic manner?
No
I could care less, but then I wouldn’t care at all…
Idk why hoes mad at you this is the cleverest way to mix up the saying while keeping it’s intent.
I’ve seen so many attempts at justification for that one online but I can’t help but think that those people just don’t want to admit that they’re wrong.
I say “I couldn’t care less”, but I used to think that “I couldn’t care less” was used in context where someone seemed like they don’t care and they give that as a snarky remark, implying that they can care even less.
I agree that this is very vaguely irritating, but for me it only differs by one sound and a vowel quality
“I couldn’t care less” [aɪ̯.kɘ̃ʔ.kɛɹ.lɛs] vs “I could care less” [aɪ̯.kɘ.kɛɹ.lɛs]
Came here to share this one too
I say “I could care less” and then follow it up with, “but I’d be dead”. Correcting “I could care less” is dumb because you literally can care less about lots of stuff, but saying the phrase indicates you just don’t really care.
I also like the bonus “hold down the fort” at the end.
Because as you know, it’s an inflatable hover fort and, once relieved of my weight, it might float off into the sky.
I don’t do it that much anymore as I learned to enjoy the freedom of using language, but I recently watched a miniminuteman video where he says pause for concern. which kinda makes sense so it’s an eggcorn: something that would cause concern would hopefully also make one pause for a moment.
apparently this is a commonly misheard phrase though this was the first time I heard someone say it.
