"your" is not the contraction of "you are"

In reply to SVreX :

Iphones suck in general (to me at least, how about a "back button"?) but autocorrect screws me up on both iphone and Android so i know how you feel.

T.J. said:

What about when people sale stuff on CL? Or when they say, up for sell? 

The question seems to be weather pour grammer is more worser than none grammer. 

Even worse... when they have their Camero for sell.

Crxpilot said:

The Oxford comma still has a place.  Without it, the last two items in a list become a pair.

Bob, Tom, and Harry are three people.

Bob, Tom and Harry are one guy and a couple.

As a sorta linguist, and a musician (vocalist) I understand some of the reasons why people can't do grammar well.  It has to do with how their brain processes input vs. output.  Some people honestly have brains that can't process it.  I don't judge them.  It's like the input/output is as if you come to the end of a street and find a cul-de-sac.  How you turn around your input and convert it to output depends on if you're driving a bicycle or an 18-wheeler.  Its the same reason some people can whip out any accent on demand, and others can't find a British accent with a coach and three months training.

The ones that get me are the people who mess up common phrases.

"All of the sudden"
"Irregardless"
"Ek-cetera"
 

"On accident"

No, it's "On purpose" or "by accident"

My wife gets upset with the way most people use bring and take.  

Commas save lives:

Let's eat Bob!

Let's eat, Bob!

Just noticed that I experience a quick bit of something between a roll eyes and mild anger (I guess I will describe it as annoyance) when people say "verse" instead of "versus"

Curtis said:

The ones that get me are the people who mess up common phrases.

"All of the sudden"
"Irregardless"
"Ek-cetera"
 

"Unloosen"

"Hone in"

"Expresso"

Curtis said:

As a sorta linguist,

The ones that get me are the people who mess up common phrases.

"All of the sudden"
"Irregardless"
"Ek-cetera"
 

Except for the fact that irregardless is a legitimate word and only one of the above is a phrase

And yet, there is another word, that means exactly the same thing, is shorter, and easier to say....

... SO WHY WOULD YOU USE IT?!

"mute point" 

In reply to Suprf1y :

"Irregardless" only became a legitimate word when the dictionary editors finally gave up because so many people used it.  It's still wrong and stupid.

Same as "orientate" instead of "orient".  Just because the noun form is "orientation" does NOT mean that the root verb is "orientate".

"I came out of the house, oriented myself toward the sound, and began walking." THAT is how you use the word.

ShawnG said:

"On accident"

No, it's "On purpose" or "by accident"

THANK YOU.

I'm also annoyed by a similar thing with "set on fire" and "caught on fire".

Increasingly I am hearing people say things like "I almost caught my house on fire."  No, you almost SET your house on fire.  Your house almost CAUGHT on fire.  But YOU did not almost CATCH your house on fire.

And one of my greatest English language peeves:

"Do you want to come with?"

Do I want to come with WHAT?  A bouquet of roses?  A posse of clowns? A six-pack of beer?

Oh, you mean do I want to come with you?  THEN SAY THAT.  "Do you want to come with us?"  <<< See how easy that was?

Duke said:

In reply to Suprf1y :

"Irregardless" only became a legitimate word when the dictionary editors finally gave up because so many people used it.  It's still wrong and stupid.

Same as "orientate" instead of "orient".  Just because the noun form is "orientation" does NOT mean that the root verb is "orientate".

"I came out of the house, oriented myself toward the sound, and began walking." THAT is how you use the word.

 

Apparently irregardless has been in use for hundreds of years. I don't like it either, but Irregardless of my thoughts, it is still a legitimate word, ans has been for some time. We are of similar mind in regards to orientate, but the dictionary disagrees.

Something that really bothers me is ending a sentence with the word at.

Where are you at?

Not only does it make you look stupid, it's not even necessary. My previous example, I feel like has made it's way into the media (for shame!), I now hear it in Canada.

And I'm not happy about it

"This needs cleaned."

No, 'cleaned' is an adjective in this sentence, not a noun.  It should be "needs to be cleaned" or "needs cleaning."

I'm happy to say that it it doesn't bother me much. If I understand what they were trying to get across, I consider the post a success.

And since no grammar thread is complete without this...

This thread is awesome.

Most of you seem slightly unhinged. 

I knew there was a reason I felt at home here, and now I know what that reason is. 

Oh Lort, the grammar nazis are out in force.  

My minor annoyance is when "then" is used instead of "than."

My house is smaller THAN Bill Gate's. It costs less THAN his place. But is not smaller or cheaper THEN his place

Suprf1y said:

Duke said:

In reply to Suprf1y :

"Irregardless" only became a legitimate word when the dictionary editors finally gave up because so many people used it.  It's still wrong and stupid.

Same as "orientate" instead of "orient".  Just because the noun form is "orientation" does NOT mean that the root verb is "orientate".

"I came out of the house, oriented myself toward the sound, and began walking." THAT is how you use the word.

 

Apparently irregardless has been in use for hundreds of years. I don't like it either, but Irregardless of my thoughts, it is still a legitimate word, ans has been for some time. We are of similar mind in regards to orientate, but the dictionary disagrees.

Something that really bothers me is ending a sentence with the word at.

Where are you at?

Not only does it make you look stupid, it's not even necessary. My previous example, I feel like has made it's way into the media (for shame!), I now hear it in Canada.

And I'm not happy about it

It very plainly says "nonstandard" for the irregardless entry. 

As for ending a sentence with a preposition, nothing wrong with that either. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/prepositions-ending-a-sentence-with

Yes, in your particular example it can be seen as redundant. But that takes us down a completely new path like "completely destroyed."

"Decimated" is to reduce by 10%

"1000 men attacked us, but we decimated their army." means they had 900 left.

Edit: fact checked myself and they've changed it to include they improper common usage.

That's like "enthused", which was not a word until the 90s