Thread 24633701

Do you have any useless grammar autism you can't get out of your head?

I notice every time someone uses "was" in the hypothetical rather than "were"

was you thinking of me ?

That's not actually wrong necessarily. It's called the "fake past" tense and apparently a lot of unrelated languages have it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_conditional#Fake_tense

>>24633701 (OP)
I always thought it was “things like that” but the past few months I’ve started hearing “things like this” is some psyop underway?

>>24633707
I knew just as I posted the thread that someone was gonna call me out for not being specific enough about the type of hypothetical

>>24633706
If that were the case I'm sorry if I was thinking of you

>>24633712
What did he mean by this?

>>24633720
People often say, "I like soup and fish and things like this," and things like that; however, Anon is retarded and thinks they should say "I like fish and soup and things like that," and things like this.

>>24633712
Quote from Noam Chomsky: "It is not that things like this [faux preventive wars] haven't been heard in the past. Of course they had, but it had never been formulated as an official national policy."

>>24633818
From Orwell's Notes on Nationalism: "One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like this: no ordinary man could be such a fool."

>>24633712
I was reading and old interview with Alice Cooper; he said, "Why is everybody so up tight about sex? About faggots, queers, things like this."

>>24633795
This = physically present or mentally salient

That = distant, summarising, generalising

You could conceivably use this or that in your example depending on the context

>>24633701 (OP)
I guess this is off topic since your question is about grammar, I can't think of anything rn but mine is pronunciation
In American English we just decide to put the long e sound in words where it sounds fucking retarded
Like people pronouncing era like eel, eeeera instead of era like air-a
Or a word like prelude, Americans pronounce this word all kinds of ways and all of them are wrong
Preface is pronounced like president or predator not preeeeeface

>>24633854
Obviously, both are valid in certain contexts.
>>24633712
But, the first is used in the context discussed herein.

>>24633864
> eeeera instead of era like air-a
Shouldn't it be like err-a. You probably pronounce merry and Mary the same too, niger.

>>24633701 (OP)
"This is she"
No you dumb whore "this is her"
My sister does this constantly and I want to strangle her

>>24633840
Alice Cooper talks that way?

>>24633890
Who is her?

Also, your sister hot?

>>24633892
Actually, he might have been quoting someone else; I don't really remember.

>>24633701 (OP)
I don't know where this came from but I keep noticing people recently saying "whenever" where they mean to say "when."

I can't even begin to explain how wrong it is but I can already anticipate people telling me that "it's just how English is evolving, man."

>>24633701 (OP)
I got scolded at my workplace for using was/were correctly
>"No one speaks like that anymore anon"

>>24633919
They're right thoughever

I still can't believe I hear adults say "I seen" all the time

Nobody uses present perfect anymore. Only past simple.
>It's a great city, I was there before

>>24633894
No she's 40 and married

>>24633930
Its an Appalachian colloquialism that blacks just enjoy stealing

The use of “myself” as anything but a reflexive pronoun.
>If you have any issues, you can bring them to myself

>>24633890
Invert it. You’d say “she is this,” and not “her is this.”

>>24633890
Your whore sister is correct and you're a retard

This isn’t autism about others’ grammar, but about English phonetics, orthography, and the indefinite article.
>an historic day
>a young man
We have a consonant without the properties of a consonant (not unique to English, the glottal “fricative” might not even exist phonetically) and a “vowel” that is most often a consonant.

>>24636077
> an historic day
This is so because traditionally H's from Latin aren't normally pronounced.
> an honourable man

>>24636088
Also
> an uniform
People are often dumb and write stuff like this. However, the letter U previously sounded like the French U, a rounded ee sound, so if you read say William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, he uses "an" before initial long U's. Blackstone might just have been LARPing though, like people who use "an" before vocalized H's; I'm not sure.

>>24636088
It’s not Latin, many dialects of English drop the [h]. Terms of transmission to English, it’s better to look to how word-initial /h/ in French is subject to liaison. For instance,
>les hautes cuisines
Produces a [z] sound, just as it would for a vowel-initial word. To reiterate: [h] might not even exist in human language. It’s not unique to English.

>>24636099
This is a good example of exactly what I was trying to describe with >>24636077 just with /u/ taking the sound [j] instead of /y/ pulling double-duty as both [j] and [i]. Well spotted!
>a ubiquitous phenomenon
>a university education
Bah!

>>24636109
Yeah, I should have been clearer, the reason H's traditionally aren't pronounced in Latin words is because of French influence.

I don't think the fact that many dialects of English drop H's is that relevant; no one would write "an hat".

> To reiterate: [h] might not even exist in human language.
Can you elaborate? It certainly seems to exist. Do you simply mean that /h/ doesn't correspond to [h]?

>>24636077
> a consonant without the properties of a consonant.
The claim I think your making about H doesn't justify this assertion.

>>24636150
>Can you elaborate? It certainly seems to exist. Do you simply mean that /h/ doesn't correspond to [h]?
>The claim I think your making about H doesn't justify this assertion.
[h] in its various phonetic expressions always finds its place of articulation somewhere other than the theorized glottal fricative. There’s debate among phoneticians about whether this merely means that it’s an approximate (rather than a true fricative), that it’s some kind of pseudo-vowel, or if it exists at all in any meaningful sense. Granted, [h]-irrealism (not the actual name, I forget) is a minority position, but the fact that it’s up for debate is telling!
>I don't think the fact that many dialects of English drop H's is that relevant; no one would write "an hat".
This is specifically why I pointed to it as a problem of orthography.

>>24636172
That's quite interesting. Do you know of any good sources where I could read about this?

Now, that I'm paying attention to it, I think /h/ feels like an affricate, but my discernment in these matters is lacking.

>>24636181
Not off the top of my head, these insights are coming from linguistics lectures I attended years ago. I’ll try to get back to you!

>>24633701 (OP)
Was it easy to forget ?

>>24636181
As I search for sources online, you might think about reaching out to a phonetician at (your nearest university linguistics department). Profs tend to enjoy it when members of the public have questions! Better still if you happen to be a student now.
That said, asking (potentially) inflammatory things like “does [h] exist?” will probably be met with simple reassurance. Instead,
>Good (time) Prof. X,
>I’m a member of the public with an interest in linguistics. I read online that [h] isn’t a true fricative. Can you tell me where I might read more about this?
>(Sign-off),
>(Name)
Or something to this effect.

>>24636204
That's not a bad idea, actually.

>>24633701 (OP)
Not grammar, but a common phrase that instantly indicates propaganda, pseud-ness, and the like, is "one of the x" . One of the greatest, one of the worst, one of the all time, etc..

This is a useless phrase. Any thing which belongs to a set which you are ascribing a quality to, or assessing a value of, is necessarily one of the greatest, or conversely one of the worst, of the set. A totally useless phrase.

>>24633701 (OP)
I really like 'whom' because as it's a vestige of Old English, but even formally it's falling out of usage. Most people probably couldn't even point to the object in a sentence if you asked them to

people who say "based off of" should off of themselves

they said use an apostrophe when the word shows possession, so if often incorrectly add one to its when it's like "the dog ate it's own shit" because it shows possession. i guess it only applies to nouns, they should've stressed that.

>>24636820
Fun fact: "of"'s origin is as an unstressed variant of "off".

People using newspeak they instead of a generic he or she. That's why I can't read novels that are too recent.

>>24633701 (OP)
I wish the grammar/vocabulary autists would let their autism fly and correct all the bullshit. I know my writing and speaking has become so worse, like I'm speaking a retarded pidgin. /lit/ should be a place where a person actually becomes better instead of worse.

>>24637942
> I know
redundant

> my writing and speaking has
have

> so worse
Are you actually retarded?

> like I'm
as though I were
as if I were

There are other errors, but I hope this satisfies your desire for edification.

>>24638028
It does. Thank you.

Good grammar = sounds natural
Bad grammar = sounds like an ESL
Anyone who disagrees is either autistic (fixation on rules over function) or ESL (fixation on rules to compensate for poor comprehension.)

>>24638054
Good grammar = sounds good
Mid grammar = sounds natural
Bad grammar = sounds like an ESL

>>24633915
Methinks that started with wendigoon, he constantly does that

>>24633701 (OP)
I like to omit unneeded articles in my speech (English) as a Russian would. “Would you like receipt?” instead of “Would you like a receipt?”

How come that editors don't correct "must of" to "must've" even if it's not direct speech?
My English level is B2 at best and I get an aneurysm every time I read that shit.

>>24633826
I thought Orwell were a leftist

>>24633915
I want to cave their face in and tell them their skull is just evolving.

>>24633701 (OP)
I always thought it was "you've got another thing coming" but apparently it was originally "you've got another think coming" and it never occurred to me that "think" could be used as a noun.

>>24638066
Wrong.

>>24641359
Sometimes people say stuff like "I'll have a think about it."

>>24641365
Yes, I suppose "have a think" sounds rather natural but "you've got another think coming" just seems weird as fuck to me.

>>24633701 (OP)
Also apparently almond is pronounced like "ahh monde" but I always grew up pronouncing it "ahl monde"

>>24636443
>gets mad that people use language for illustrative/rhetorical purposes instead of following his needlessly strict semantic masturbation
pseud alert!

Saying 'hung' instead of 'hanged' sets off my autism. Completely understandable mistake, but you're really saying the person had a huge dick

>>24633701 (OP)
Which versus What

I haaaaate when people was "What things would ABC," or, "What building is located at XYZ".

WHICH. WHICH

Which buildings are at (some location)?
WHICH things would ABC in 123 situation?

The distinction is that of implied specificity or generic ambiguity.

With "which", we are choosing from a set, an implied specificity, even if implying All The Things


When answering "which buildings are at such and such," we ask "which" and not "what" because THE ANSWER IS AN IMPLIED SELECTION OF SPECIFICITY AMONG A SET.

If we want to know WHAT ANY ONE thing (even if the things is a group AS A WHOLE) is, IT'S BEINGNESS, well then, yes, we would ask, "What is this I am reading?" We are inquiring about the BEINGNESS.

Which versus what.

And you know who started putting "what" in front of everything was fucking NIGGERS

Now everyone does this shit, bunch o fucking wiggers and faggots and hanglips and cross-eyed, runny-nosed, knock-kneed knuckle-dragging lowbrow foot-shufflers with not a halfwit betwixt 'em!

AND ANOTHER THING!!

>>24633930
CHOLOS STARTED THAT
UGGHH those ugly fucking indians dude

"I seent it"

Uggghhhh revolting

>>24634264
No, the Future Perfect, Imperfect, Pluperfect, and Aorist aspects are all still very much alive. They MUST be in order to handle the subtleties of temperospatial jectives (injective, subjective, objective).

We need to get these indians (woo woo red injuns) and niggers out of English grammar and education, dudes.

Ugly fucking brains and ugly fucking faces.

>>24635802
That is the kind of grammar up with which I will not put.
- Winston Churchill

>>24638028
I'm in love.
Please be female.
Never mind: don't answer. Let me enjoy my fantasy.

I'm extraordinarily tired of people saying 'less' in those cases when 'fewer' would be correct

>>24639479
Why

HOW COME? HOW CAME YE TO THESE ENVIRONS, MILORD.

IT'S WHY. WHYYYYYY.

Even worse: why come. why come dis sheeit stank, nigga.

>>24641834
A staggering amount of people can't use who, that, and which properly

>>24641367
The tribal knowledge is missing precedent that is silently understood by socialized tribe members: IF THAT'S WHAT YOU THINK or THOUGHT, you've GOT ANOTHER THINK coming "

No, 'think' is not a noun and must not be used as such. It is a verb.

"You got another think coming" is INTENTIONALLY misspoken in only these two concatenations (got & think) as a humorous device and that's why it's funny because it's only IN THAT situation.

FUCK!

For reasons unknown to me, seeing an ESL say "how it looks like" drives me into a blood-curdling rage.

When people say, "this begs the question," when they mean, "this raises the question." It begs me to go postal.

>>24641844
"Up" and "with" aren't really prepositions in that sentence. They're parts of a phrasal verb.

>>24637925
It is a weird one because there are cases where you use "they" to refer to a single person when you don't know their gender. For example:
>"Someone is at the door for you"
>"What do they want?"
Your alternative would be:
>"What does he or she want?"
Which is just too clunky to ever be used.

When your writing your instead of you are. That really annoys me

Lately, I've encountered a lot of 'weary' when 'wary' is what was meant
I also hate hearing metatheses such as 'nucular'

A big one I see, and I'm guilty of saying it too, is to say/write 'there is' or 'there's' when it should be 'there are.' An example being "There's apples in the kitchen." After noticing it the first time I'm not seeing and hearing it everywhere.

>>24644277
You can use either of these:
> What does he want?
> What does she want?

The second is usually reserved for when there is reason to believe the subject to be a woman.

When people say "a women". Women is PLURAL. You're supposed to say "a woman".
"This women" THESE WOMEN YOU MEAN, or perhaps "THIS WOMAN"?!?

ESLs often fail to distinguish between definite and indefinite articles, with the use of 'a' in place of 'the' being especially common

embrace the upgrade

>>24633701 (OP)
>I notice every time someone uses "was" in the hypothetical rather than "were"
This is far from useless. It's the last remnant showing there is a subjonctive mood in English.

>>24646713

Proper use of the subjunctive allows some stylistic niceties:
> Were you not injured, I would recommend exercise.

>>24641818
'Hang' is a very confused word in Modern English. Logically one should say "I hanged a picture on the wall" versus "The picture hung on the wall", but the first is considered incorrect.

>>24633701 (OP)
Less/Fewer, and thanks to Game of Thrones I can't even sperg out about it without people thinking I'm doing so because of that one Stannis scene despite it irking me for about 19 years.

>>24633701 (OP)
parceque is one word

>>24648022
Oh also how-->like. As in, some pajeet posting something akin to "is this how x looks like". Why is it so common for browns to mistake "how x looks like" with "what x looks like"? It's not that fucking hard.
"It's how x looks"
"It's what x looks like".
If you have ever written "it's how x looks like" you should fucking remove yourself from the gene pool. And while we're at it, the sudden surge of people using "win" or "live" as equivalents to "survive" is maddening as well. "I'll live this". "He lived that". What the fuck?