It's wheelbarrow not wheelbarrel.

[MyLittleBears]

It's corpsman pronounced corman, not pronounced corpse man as in a dead body!

[bettyandbob]

ProBABly. Not prolly.

My boss uses "prolly" all the time in emails to me. I have successfully refrained from sending an email back saying "Did you know 'prolly'is not a word?" But it hurts to read that in a sentence.

[QueenCat]

I just saw on Facebook where someone is looking to buy a "dotson puppy." It isn't the first time I've seen it that way.

 

Is that supposed to be dachshund??????????????

[poppy]

I don't mind prolly as a slang spelling but I hate hate hate hate hate rediculous.

I know the prolly people know they are being cute, but I am not convinced the rediculous people are.

[gardenmom5]

My niece was excited as she has officially registered her cat.  the '?name of breeder?' has to preclude (her word) the cat's full name.... . cringe... . . finger nails on the chalkboard cringe. .. . .    

 

I'm thinking of sending her a direct e-mail that the word she wants is "precede".

[TravelingChris]

I notice mistakes but what is really bugging me now is the weekend anchor at the local news station.  She works on Saturday and Sunday nights and at least once in those two days there is a mistake.  This week she said the opposite advice from what the screen shot said.  I don't know which one was wrong.  Usually, though, she has pronunciation problems.  And I am not talking about mispronouncing some obscure difficult name, though news organizations should endeavor to get those right anyway.  It is words like country names (and no, not a regional difference or something like Pahkistan versus Pohkistahn.  I am talking about actual mispronunciations.  Also this is a science/engineering town and learning how to pronounce science words is something local anchors should do or have the producer write the words phonetically for her.  I have been watching this news program for over five years and she is the only one who has had this issue.   

[creekland]

My niece was excited as she has officially registered her cat.  the '?name of breeder?' has to preclude (her word) the cat's full name.... . cringe... . . finger nails on the chalkboard cringe. .. . .    

 

I'm thinking of sending her a direct e-mail that the word she wants is "precede".

 

It could be worse.  She could have registered her cat with some sort of mistake.  I rode a horse (not mine) in my youth whose registered name was "Bon Image."  Sounds neat, right?  But the correct French phrase is "Bonne Image."  Since we lived near the border of French Canada and many people at least sort of knew both languages, this could get a bit of a chuckle - or smirk - at horse shows.

 

Then there's countless youngsters who now spell Pharaoh incorrectly due to the recent Triple Crown (horse races) winner American Pharoah.  I suppose we ought to count that as the American spelling from now on?   :lol:

 

One would think if they were going through the effort to register an animal they would at least make an effort to be sure the words/spelling are correct, no?

 

I bet Hive folks know other examples.

[mommybee]

I didn't finish reading the thread yet, but I secretly get a kick out of threads like this and usually share with the kids.

 

Last night I was watching a reality show where the woman was talking about hanging out with her girlfriends and not wanting drama and she kept saying that she should be there "escapegoats".

[Seasider]

Is that supposed to be dachshund??????????????

Nah, it's a dog with wheels. Vroom vroom.

 

My fave from my personal media feed today: a nice patio chair made of rot iron.

[strange_girl]

This morning I was reading a listing describing a 'poco dot dress'. Really? I decided her spell check must have just been off or something. But no, she spelled it exactly the same three more times! :cursing:  I wanted to leave her a comment saying, "It's polka dot! Polka dot!" But I didn't. Spelling and grammatical errors drive me crazy. There's nothing more irritating than seeing 'convenyense' on a giant billboard beside the road. :glare:

[gardenmom5]

some of the atrocious spelling has to do with people don't read books as much - they watch the movie.  just like mispronunciations can often be attributed to reading the words rather than hearing them spoken.

 

reading certainly improved my spelling.   (though british books and grey . . . )

 

I was on a writer's forum . . . they had a motto.  spellcheck is not your friend.

[Jacbeaumont]

Irregardless is not a word. It is just 'regardless'.

 

Sent from my HTCD200LVW using Tapatalk

This.

 

I can't trust anyone who uses this word.

 

Sent from my U9200 using Tapatalk

[maize]

some of the atrocious spelling has to do with people don't read books as much - they watch the movie. just like mispronunciations can often be attributed to reading the words rather than hearing them spoken.

 

reading certainly improved my spelling. (though british books and grey . . . )

 

I was on a writer's forum . . . they had a motto. spellcheck is not your friend.

While I value the written word, it is not the fundamental form of any language. Aural language is "the real thing" and the symbols and combinations of symbols we use to represent it are secondary.

 

Certainly reading can help us learn the conventions of written language. I find myself rather uncomfortable though with easy judgmentalism towards those who are less aware of or careful to follow standard written conventions. The person who writes, for example, "could of" rather than "could've" isn't really doing anything fundamentally wrong with the English language--they're breaking a rather arbitrary convention of writing, replacing it with what is probably an accurate representation of spoken English as they perceive it.

[gardenmom5]

While I value the written word, it is not the fundamental form of any language. Aural language is "the real thing" and the symbols and combinations of symbols we use to represent it are secondary.

 

Certainly reading can help us learn the conventions of written language. I find myself rather uncomfortable though with easy judgmentalism towards those who are less aware of or careful to follow standard written conventions. The person who writes, for example, "could of" rather than "could've" isn't really doing anything fundamentally wrong with the English language--they're breaking a rather arbitrary convention of writing, replacing it with what is probably an accurate representation of spoken English as they perceive it.

 

reading helped my spelling considerably.  reading helps to reinforce the "visual" of the standardized forms of the written word.  

 

I don't support allowing long-term use of non-standard spelling (baring an actual learning disability).  it interferes with written communication.  it can be useful early in the writing process.  however, it will eventually hinder written communication if everyone uses non-standard spelling because other people have to stop reading in order to decipher what they are reading.   there's a reason spelling was standardized in the first place.

 

"could of" is not non-standard spelling (both words are spelled correctly), that's a grammar issue, not spelling.

[Guest]

Is that supposed to be dachshund??????????????

It's even better when someone is selling them and calls them that. Let's people know they are a dang fine breeder. ðŸ‘ðŸ»

[maize]

reading helped my spelling considerably. reading helps to reinforce the "visual" of the standardized forms of the written word.

 

I don't support allowing long-term use of non-standard spelling (baring an actual learning disability). it interferes with written communication. it can be useful early in the writing process. however, it will eventually hinder written communication if everyone uses non-standard spelling because other people have to stop reading in order to decipher what they are reading. there's a reason spelling was standardized in the first place.

 

"could of" is not non-standard spelling (both words are spelled correctly), that's a grammar issue, not spelling.

It is a spelling issue; the person is writing out what they say. That we usually reserve the spelling "of" for a particular preposition does not mean that a person using that spelling for a homophone (the "uv" sound I use when saying would've is identical to the "uv" sound in of) is making a grammatical error.

[MistyMountain]

Reading does not help everyone to learn how to spell words. All the mistakes berated on here are common mistakes dyslexics make including the bad spelling, bad pronounciations and saying words incorrectly etc. It does not make someone less intelligent.

[maize]

I regularly substitute homophones when typing; it's the oddest thing--words that I know the difference between so well that I could never consciously confuse them--like to and two, or ewe and you--but whatever process happens in my brain when I am typing apparently bypasses normal spelling processes. It seems the phonetic unit of the word gets translated into a known word spelling regardless of the meaning.

 

It's the oddest thing. If I take the time to proof-read I usually catch the homophone errors but they make me shake my head every time.

[MistyMountain]

I make homophone errors too.

[gardenmom5]

I regularly substitute homophones when typing; it's the oddest thing--words that I know the difference between so well that I could never consciously confuse them--like to and two, or ewe and you--but whatever process happens in my brain when I am typing apparently bypasses normal spelling processes. It seems the phonetic unit of the word gets translated into a known word spelling regardless of the meaning.

 

It's the oddest thing. If I take the time to proof-read I usually catch the homophone errors but they make me shake my head every time.

 

i slip and use german spellings when typing.

[Tanaqui]

 

It is a spelling issue; the person is writing out what they say. That we usually reserve the spelling "of" for a particular preposition does not mean that a person using that spelling for a homophone (the "uv" sound I use when saying would've is identical to the "uv" sound in of) is making a grammatical error.

 

Although some linguists have argued that the spelling is a red herring and we actually are seeing a reanalysis of 've to of in those words - but I'll leave the googling to the interested.

[IsabelC]

What an awesome thread!  Before anybody complains, no, I don't mean good, although it is good; I mean I am - literally, not figuratively - in awe of the number of interesting points people have made. ;)

Some people are amazingly creative in the errors (or variations) they come up with.  Many of the examples I have seen or heard before, but some are mind boggling. (Some are cute, too. I think poco dot could catch on as a diminutive of polka dot.) It's so fascinating how living languages evolve.  

I do find that there are many, many things that annoy me, but I try to avoid voicing criticism because after all bring capable of a decent standard of writing is simply a sign of my privileged as a fairly well educated person. I think there are too many people who respond as though poor spelling / grammar / vocabulary were some sort of moral failing, when it's generally a consequence of learning disability, lack of educational opportunities, working in one's second (or subsequent) language, and so on.

The only problem is that now I'm going to be paranoid that every time I consciously type something that's not 'correct', there will be somebody, somewhere, who thinks I'm prolly an eedjit!

 

Edited October 7, 2016 by IsabelC

[creekland]

I regularly substitute homophones when typing; it's the oddest thing--words that I know the difference between so well that I could never consciously confuse them--like to and two, or ewe and you--but whatever process happens in my brain when I am typing apparently bypasses normal spelling processes. It seems the phonetic unit of the word gets translated into a known word spelling regardless of the meaning.

 

It's the oddest thing. If I take the time to proof-read I usually catch the homophone errors but they make me shake my head every time.

 

I make tons of errors when typing.  I know I make more errors now than I ever did both in speech and writing.  My kids and family know they have to listen to what I mean rather than what I say - at least daily, sometimes many times per day.  One can blame the brain tumor/radiation or old age I suppose.

 

Then I'm too old or self-centered or busy to proofread right away unless it's something very important (some e-mails).  If that's the case, I'll have hubby look at it and do "spousecheck," but he never gets on here.

 

If others care about typos on a forum they are free to notice, of course (just as I do), and they're free to judge intelligence or education or whatever, but I have to wonder who has the larger problem - the one making the mistakes (regardless of reason) or the one who is smug in their judgment?

 

It's a bit different when the mistakes are in anything formal - like spelling shcool on a diploma.  One really should proofread or spousecheck or something when dealing with formal writing.

 

The only problem is that now I'm going to be paranoid that every time I consciously type something that's not 'correct', there will be somebody, somewhere, who thinks I'm prolly an eedjit!

 

 

 

I'm old enough to be over caring what others on a forum think (see sig).   :coolgleamA:

[Familia]

I had a horrible time at scout camp last week. Some troop had special ordered neckerchiefs and the city name was spelled slightly wrong on all of them. Clearly there was nothing appropriate to say, but eventually I had to avert my gaze and wander away.

 

I read through this whole thread just to look for a comment on neckerchifs!

 

Edited October 5, 2016 by secretgarden

[Miss Tick]

I read through this whole thread just to look for a comment on neckerchifs!

IRL, I am (embarrassingly) usually dominating the conversation. Here, I sit back and listen. This is often because, although I am a fast talker, I am a slow thinker. Not a good combination. I am so proud of myself for finding something to comment on before one of you fast thinkers got to it! :hurray:

I'll go back to my quiet corner now!

I don't understand your bolded word? I am often guilty of unintentional misspellings, posting in the forum from my phone with a hyperactive autocorrect, but neither Google nor I recognize your spelling.

[Familia]

I read through this whole thread just to look for a comment on neckerchifs!

IRL, I am (embarrassingly) usually dominating the conversation.  Here, I sit back and listen.  This is often because, although I am a fast talker, I am a slow thinker.  Not a good combination.  I am so proud of myself for finding something to comment on before one of you fast thinkers got to it! :hurray:

I'll go back to my quiet corner now!

 

 

I don't understand your bolded word? I am often guilty of unintentional misspellings, posting in the forum from my phone with a hyperactive autocorrect, but neither Google nor I recognize your spelling.

 

 

Oh dear!  I guess I keep quiet for a reason - LOL!  :blushing:

I meant that others might spell neckerchiefs wrong that way.  It just stood out to me as a potential problem.

[maize]

Although some linguists have argued that the spelling is a red herring and we actually are seeing a reanalysis of 've to of in those words - but I'll leave the googling to the interested.

Would this mean that people, as they learn to speak, are interpreting would "uv" as would of, just another usage of the word of? I had wondered about that possibility and find it intriguing. Of course in that case "would of" is the actual correct spelling of the phrase, and we will all need to expand our grammatical understanding of "of" :)

[gardenmom5]

Although some linguists have argued that the spelling is a red herring and we actually are seeing a reanalysis of 've to of in those words - but I'll leave the googling to the interested.

 

except "'ve" is a contraction of have.

[maize]

except "'ve" is a contraction of have.

That is its origin, but it may have taken on a life of its own separate from that origin. Edited October 5, 2016 by maize

[Alicia64]

Don't know if these have been mentioned, but they bug me:

 

it's not Valentimes Day (dh does this just to annoy me).

 

Not libarry (heard a young woman say this at a homeschool career day a few months ago -- and she was a speaker).

 

It's moot: not mute.

 

It's sherbet: not sherbert (a woman in her mid-30's actually pointed out that I was saying it wrong; I just closed my mouth.)

 

My Gram used to say "Frisco" for San Francisco, but that just made me laugh.

 

The older I get, the less I want to be snotty to people who are saying words incorrectly.

 

Alley

[maize]

One of my favorites among the oddities of the English language is our conjugation of the verb "to be"--I am, he is, she was, they have been, etc.

 

Ever notice how those verb forms seem to have nothing at all in common? It's because they don't--they didn't start out as forms of the same verb at all, but rather as at least three separate verbs each of which could be fully conjugated. I think they were beon, wesan, and sindon? Something like that anyway. Somehow over the years they all got squished together into one verb, using only bits and pieces of each.

 

I imagine somewhere along the way there were grammar police looking on in horror :D

[Miss Tick]

Oh dear! I guess I keep quiet for a reason - LOL! :blushing:

I meant that others might spell neckerchiefs wrong that way. It just stood out to me as a potential problem.

Ah, yes. If they had misspelled neckerchief I probably would have thought something like, "there but for the grace of Google go I!"

[Alicia64]

Goodness, I bet you all are fun at parties!!

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

In my defense, I never ever correct anyone. Also, I'm starting to think certain words develop within subcultures. Just my .02.

 

Alley

[maize]

I can't believe how many people I hear saying "we are" it's "we sind" folks, don't you know you are using the wrong word!?!

 

(having way too much fun imagining scenarios in my mind...)

[Miss Tick]

One of my favorites among the oddities of the English language is our conjugation of the verb "to be"--I am, he is, she was, they have been, etc.

 

Ever notice how those verb forms seem to have nothing at all in common? It's because they don't--they didn't start out as forms of the same verb at all, but rather as at least three separate verbs each of which could be fully conjugated. I think they were beon, wesan, and sindon? Something like that anyway. Somehow over the years they all got squished together into one verb, using only bits and pieces of each.

 

I imagine somewhere along the way there were grammar police looking on in horror :D

This is interesting. I have noticed that "to be" is irregular in other languages also - Latin, Spanish, German, although my knowledge of them is limited and perhaps they aren't as irregular as they seem. Also, perhaps the English "to be" shares history with the German?

 

I have imagined that it becomes irregular because it is so heavily used and therefore subject to more modification? Would love input on this from someone with more knowledge than I have.

[luuknam]

This is interesting. I have noticed that "to be" is irregular in other languages also - Latin, Spanish, German, although my knowledge of them is limited and perhaps they aren't as irregular as they seem. Also, perhaps the English "to be" shares history with the German?

 

I have imagined that it becomes irregular because it is so heavily used and therefore subject to more modification? Would love input on this from someone with more knowledge than I have.

 

I was wondering the same thing. In Dutch, it's:

 

ik ben

jij/u bent

hij/zij/het is

wij zijn

jullie zijn

zij zijn

(and, old fashioned, gij zijt, gij meaning 'thou')

 

Past tense singular: was. Past tense plural: waren. (and for gij: waart)

 

https://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/zijn/vervoeging

 

So, very irregular too (and a little bit of overlap with English "to be").

[regentrude]

This is interesting. I have noticed that "to be" is irregular in other languages also - Latin, Spanish, German, although my knowledge of them is limited and perhaps they aren't as irregular as they seem. Also, perhaps the English "to be" shares history with the German?

 

I have imagined that it becomes irregular because it is so heavily used and therefore subject to more modification? Would love input on this from someone with more knowledge than I have.

 

It is also irregular in French.

I do not know whether "to be" shares any roots with "sein" in German; the forms are very different. But yes, totally irregular! (bin, bist ist, sind, seid, sind does not follow any  conjugation pattern of any other verb)

 

It is also interesting that some languages do not have a word for "be"; Russian for example. The sentence "I am a teacher" would simply be "I teacher" - "to be" is implied in the construction, and the sentence does not require a verb.

 

Edited October 5, 2016 by regentrude

[regentrude]

That is its origin, but it may have taken on a life of its own separate from that origin.

 

But then the phrase makes no grammatical sense anymore. I am not convinced that the people who write "could of" are aware that they are using a contraction for "could have" and are simply choosing to spell the "ve" ans "of".

Edited October 5, 2016 by regentrude

[regentrude]

. I find myself rather uncomfortable though with easy judgmentalism towards those who are less aware of or careful to follow standard written conventions. The person who writes, for example, "could of" rather than "could've" isn't really doing anything fundamentally wrong with the English language--they're breaking a rather arbitrary convention of writing, replacing it with what is probably an accurate representation of spoken English as they perceive it.

 

I am always curious: why don't people care to use the spelling/pronunciation that has been established as (even arbitrary) standard? Why do people choose to use dialects that are associated with negative prejudices, for example make the speaker sound uneducated to many listeners? Surely, everybody is aware that deviations from standard dialect are perceived a certain way. Do people not give a hoot what others think? Or is it a matter of actively protesting the stereotype?

 

I grew up in a region with a strong local dialect that is perceived as uneducated and sloppy, and my parents insisted that we speak the standard dialect, because they wanted us to sound articulate and educated. So I have a hard time understanding how dialects work once they are associated with any kind of stigma. (Now, if I could cultivate a British accent, I'd be all for it...)

I know I would come across as less professional if I spoke with a strong accent or used the local dialect of the region where I live now - so I choose not to speak like that.

 

ETA: I am aware that some groups cultivate their (non-standard) dialect to purposefully distinguish and separate themselves as a group. I guess that enhances feelings of group identity? Fascinating subject...

 

Edited October 5, 2016 by regentrude

[luuknam]

I am always curious: why don't people care to use the spelling/pronunciation that has been established as (even arbitrary) standard? Why do people choose to use dialects that are associated with negative prejudices, for example make the speaker sound uneducated to many listeners? Surely, everybody is aware that deviations from standard dialect are perceived a certain way. Do people not give a hoot what others think? (That may well be the explanation)

 

I grew up in a region with a strong local dialect that is perceived as uneducated and sloppy, and my parents insisted that we speak the standard dialect, because they wanted us to sound articulate and educated. So I have a hard time understanding how dialects work once they are associated with any kind of stigma. (Now, if I could cultivate a British accent, I'd be all for it...)

 

They care about what the other people in their in-group think. If you were to go talk all educated (and with a British accent just for the hell of it), people in those groups would think you're all pretentious and you would not make yourself popular. I think the real question is why people continue talking in stigmatized dialects when they're in a more educated, mainstream group without people in their in-group around. And, to be fair, a lot of people don't - a lot of people talk differently depending on who they're talking to.

 

ETA: and, I obviously typed that while you did your ETA.

Edited October 5, 2016 by luuknam

[Jaybee]

Reading does not help everyone to learn how to spell words. All the mistakes berated on here are common mistakes dyslexics make including the bad spelling, bad pronounciations and saying words incorrectly etc. It does not make someone less intelligent.

 

Yes, I am irritated by the mistakes. But I know it's petty. Two people in my immediate family have issues like these, and they are plenty smart. So I have had to reel in my disdain and realize that I have glaring faults in other areas. :) Faults that they could use to disparage me, if they so desired.

[creekland]

I am always curious: why don't people care to use the spelling/pronunciation that has been established as (even arbitrary) standard? Why do people choose to use dialects that are associated with negative prejudices, for example make the speaker sound uneducated to many listeners? Surely, everybody is aware that deviations from standard dialect are perceived a certain way. Do people not give a hoot what others think? Or is it a matter of actively protesting the stereotype?

 

I grew up in a region with a strong local dialect that is perceived as uneducated and sloppy, and my parents insisted that we speak the standard dialect, because they wanted us to sound articulate and educated. So I have a hard time understanding how dialects work once they are associated with any kind of stigma. (Now, if I could cultivate a British accent, I'd be all for it...)

I know I would come across as less professional if I spoke with a strong accent or used the local dialect of the region where I live now - so I choose not to speak like that.

 

ETA: I am aware that some groups cultivate their (non-standard) dialect to purposefully distinguish and separate themselves as a group. I guess that enhances feelings of group identity? Fascinating subject...

 

When you grow up with something, you don't see it as wrong.  It's the rest of the world that's wrong. ;)

 

My hubby is a southerner.  We've talked about the southern accent often as it can be one that is perceived badly outside of southern territory.  It took him a bit of time to realize that.  He was certainly never taught it where he grew up (but was taught stereotypes about other accents like New England, etc).  Over the years he's softened his accent quite a bit (with us living in the north), but most folks can still peg him as southern.  His softer southern accent doesn't seem to bother anyone at all, so I think it's only the stronger accents that trigger reactions outside of the south.  

 

He'll also naturally revert back to "normal" when we visit his family and friends - or even just his area.  There I'm the one who seems out of place - even if I also adjust my speaking some.  Our kids do best at going from one area to another.  Personally, I love the way he speaks, but I might be a little bit biased.  OTOH, I sometimes have trouble understanding his dad - and vice versa.  Strong accents can be tough on the brain - going either direction.

 

When one is in an area, it's seen as "better" if they "fit in" than if they're a foreigner.  It's the same human reaction when some "high falutin' city dude" shows up on a farm in a suit.  "Can't trust that citiot!"  Or a counter example would be when one wears their old "farmwork" clothing into an expensive clothing shop.  "Country hicks!  Be careful you don't catch anything!"  :lol:

 

I joke (or at least tried to make it humorous), but the human reaction is real - and very documented.  Whether one chooses to speak in their heritage dialect or not is a very complex thing to figure out.  There are definitely times when it is to one's advantage.  It's also not easy to "just switch" after years of conditioning.

 

Eons ago (when homeschooling) we watched a show (documentary of some sort) about language.  Many dialects and special ways of saying things were invented to let people know who belonged and who didn't.  It made it easier in war to know who the enemy was and has even been used in recent wars.

 

It's all a very interesting study.  For those who judge intelligence based upon how one speaks (or writes), they need to realize they can be woefully uneducated themselves.

[Bluegoat]

I think there is a difference between things that are common errors, and regional dialects.  There are plenty of things that in a dialect are perferctly correct but not what one would want to use in a more formal setting.  And some accents can sound like an error to someone unfamiliar with them, oddly placed "rs" being an example.

 

I also don't think much of it when someone makes an error that is so common it is more often heard than the correct form.  "Intensive purposes" for example - and in tat case, it is easy to imagine what an intensive purpose might be.  It might be worth correcting but it doesn't reflect badly on anyone, I don't think.

 

OTOH, some errors seem to undermine meaning which I don't like.  One that bothers me is "beg the question" which people use instead of "raise the question."  But that means when someone wants to actually say something begs the question the meaning is unclear. 

 

I have never heard "wheelbarrel" and it doesn't make sense to me, since barrels have nothing to do with them.  But I wonder if it isn't a regionalism, since it doesn't seem to occur everywhere.

[Bluegoat]

I regularly substitute homophones when typing; it's the oddest thing--words that I know the difference between so well that I could never consciously confuse them--like to and two, or ewe and you--but whatever process happens in my brain when I am typing apparently bypasses normal spelling processes. It seems the phonetic unit of the word gets translated into a known word spelling regardless of the meaning.

 

It's the oddest thing. If I take the time to proof-read I usually catch the homophone errors but they make me shake my head every time.

 

I do this as well.  Not with handwriting thoug, it's particularly related to typing.

[maize]

I think there is a difference between things that are common errors, and regional dialects. There are plenty of things that in a dialect are perferctly correct but not what one would want to use in a more formal setting. And some accents can sound like an error to someone unfamiliar with them, oddly placed "rs" being an example.

 

I also don't think much of it when someone makes an error that is so common it is more often heard than the correct form. "Intensive purposes" for example - and in tat case, it is easy to imagine what an intensive purpose might be. It might be worth correcting but it doesn't reflect badly on anyone, I don't think.

 

OTOH, some errors seem to undermine meaning which I don't like. One that bothers me is "beg the question" which people use instead of "raise the question." But that means when someone wants to actually say something begs the question the meaning is unclear.

 

I have never heard "wheelbarrel" and it doesn't make sense to me, since barrels have nothing to do with them. But I wonder if it isn't a regionalism, since it doesn't seem to occur everywhere.

To beg means to ask for, when we say something begs the question we are saying it asks for, or leads into, the question that follows.

[gardenmom5]

This is interesting. I have noticed that "to be" is irregular in other languages also - Latin, Spanish, German, although my knowledge of them is limited and perhaps they aren't as irregular as they seem. Also, perhaps the English "to be" shares history with the German?

 

I have imagined that it becomes irregular because it is so heavily used and therefore subject to more modification? Would love input on this from someone with more knowledge than I have.

I wanted to say "it's supposed to be 'wir sind'" to maize.  ;p

 

'to be' in german is sein.

ich bin

du bist

er ist

wir sind

ihr seid

Sie/sie  sind.

 

note: not a single one of them is *sein*.

 

I was wondering the same thing. In Dutch, it's:

 

ik ben

jij/u bent

hij/zij/het is

wij zijn

jullie zijn

zij zijn

(and, old fashioned, gij zijt, gij meaning 'thou')

 

Past tense singular: was. Past tense plural: waren. (and for gij: waart)

 

https://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/zijn/vervoeging

 

So, very irregular too (and a little bit of overlap with English "to be").

 

more likely the link ccomes from friesen. 

I've seen some written - but if you can pronounce it, it sounds very similar.

[maize]

I wanted to say "it's supposed to be 'wir sind'" to maize. ;p

 

'to be' in german is sein.

ich bin

du bist

er ist

wir sind

ihr seid

Sie/sie sind.

 

note: not a single one of them is *sein*.

 

 

more likely the link ccomes from friesen.

I've seen some written - but if you can pronounce it, it sounds very similar.

:D

 

I was thinking of that German cognate.

 

Sind was used in English for a long time, though I don't know what the corresponding form of we was at the time. Could certainly have been similar to wir.

Edited October 5, 2016 by maize

[Bluegoat]

I am always curious: why don't people care to use the spelling/pronunciation that has been established as (even arbitrary) standard? Why do people choose to use dialects that are associated with negative prejudices, for example make the speaker sound uneducated to many listeners? Surely, everybody is aware that deviations from standard dialect are perceived a certain way. Do people not give a hoot what others think? Or is it a matter of actively protesting the stereotype?

 

I grew up in a region with a strong local dialect that is perceived as uneducated and sloppy, and my parents insisted that we speak the standard dialect, because they wanted us to sound articulate and educated. So I have a hard time understanding how dialects work once they are associated with any kind of stigma. (Now, if I could cultivate a British accent, I'd be all for it...)

I know I would come across as less professional if I spoke with a strong accent or used the local dialect of the region where I live now - so I choose not to speak like that.

 

ETA: I am aware that some groups cultivate their (non-standard) dialect to purposefully distinguish and separate themselves as a group. I guess that enhances feelings of group identity? Fascinating subject...

 

One way to perhaps put a different spin on this kind of thinking is to say that it is the origin of the disappearance of many indigenous languages.  If past generations, where I live, many French speaking people failed to pass that language on because it has particular associations, and the local aboriginal language is also now a second language for most, for similar reasons - except in that case its suppression was enforced by the dominant culture.

 

Another is that just because some people associate an accent with lack of intelligence does not mean they are correct in that association.  It may be that a more accurate association to say that some people are snobs who want to use accents and dialects to exclude people or enforce economic or social dominance.

 

Some might feel the need to give in to that prejudice, but perhaps others would rather challenge it.

 

A third way might be to say, what sort of British accent would you like to have?  The BBC,  the Queen,  a Geordi accent, a farmer from the Cotswolds or Yorkshire,  Coronation St, Glasgow, genteel Edinburgh?   All of those are interesting and characteristic, IMO, but they have a variety of assumptions attached to them, not all good. 

 

But - I would not really want, as some have attempted, to get everyone to sound like the BBC.  That would seem like a loss, not an improvement.

Edited October 5, 2016 by Bluegoat

[gardenmom5]

I think there is a difference between things that are common errors, and regional dialects.  There are plenty of things that in a dialect are perferctly correct but not what one would want to use in a more formal setting.  And some accents can sound like an error to someone unfamiliar with them, oddly placed "rs" being an example.

 

I also don't think much of it when someone makes an error that is so common it is more often heard than the correct form.  "Intensive purposes" for example - and in tat case, it is easy to imagine what an intensive purpose might be.  It might be worth correcting but it doesn't reflect badly on anyone, I don't think.

 

OTOH, some errors seem to undermine meaning which I don't like.  One that bothers me is "beg the question" which people use instead of "raise the question."  But that means when someone wants to actually say something begs the question the meaning is unclear. 

 

I have never heard "wheelbarrel" and it doesn't make sense to me, since barrels have nothing to do with them.  But I wonder if it isn't a regionalism, since it doesn't seem to occur everywhere.

 

i haven't heard 'intensive purposes' very much.  maybe a few times.  generally, I hear the correct 'intents and purposes"

 

yes you're correct - "begs the question"  (can be traced to ancient greek) is NOT interchangeable with 'raises the question'. ---   Begs the question is actually a term that comes from logic, and it's used to indicate that someone has made a conclusion based on a premise that lacks support (1, 2).  It can be a premise that's independent from the conclusion (3) or in a simpler form, the premise can be just a restatement of the conclusion itself (4, 5).   RE: it's circular reasoning. 

 

and I have a child who shortens words/phrases.   really bugs me.  (I've stopped responding unless he says the whole word, often accompanied by a lecture from me.)   and dh will deliberately mispronounce words :glare: . . . .  

 

I've taken those online "where are you from" language quizzes a few  times.  never has it been able to determine where I'm from.  (the closest might have been 1500miles?)

Edited October 5, 2016 by gardenmom5

[Bluegoat]

To beg means to ask for, when we say something begs the question we are saying it asks for, or leads into, the question that follows.

 

That is the error people make.

 

It's actually a term for a fairly common logical error.  If someone maes that error, you say they are "begging the question" which means they are assuming the conclusion to the argument within the argument.

Edited October 5, 2016 by Bluegoat