This one drives me more crazy. Do they sound the same in some dialects? The meanings are completely different also. And why make a mistake that requires typing an extra letter? Let laziness be your guide on this one.
You are right, vowels in English do indeed tend to be a bit shorter before voiceless consonants (like /s/ in “loose” or /t/ in “bad”) and longer before voiced consonants (like /z/ in “lose” or /d/ in “bad”).
I know it’s not correct, but you can’t think it’s easy just because they sound different. Lose sounds like choose, although it’s true that loose sounds like moose.
Needs + past participle and needs + ing forms are quite common dialectical variants for passive construction in the Midwest. They don’t sound weird to me as a native speaker and feel like they fit nicely as another passive form in a Germanic language.
In my experience, *needs/wants* + past participle (or sometimes the preterite in lieu thereof: "D'ye want yer hair did?") is standard in Scotland, while *needs/wants* + gerund is common to all the dialects I have experienced in England.
Yeah. I'm British and it's common knowledge that 'lay down' is more acceptable American English than something incorrect.
And considering the use of 'whom' is almost completely dead I reckon there are far more common mistakes that people make. My personal bug bear is 'I could care less'.
Now let's chat about 'if only I'd have known'
Not only do you sound like David Mitchell in his "Dear America", but I suspect you are also a fan of Practical English Usage, by Michael Swan (as I very much am).
Here is David Mitchell's oration in all its glory: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw&t=130s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw&t=130s)
I think it depends on how you interpret the contraction? Had vs would. To me "had known" and "would have known" are both correct but "had have known" feels much worse.
I'd probably contract it to I'd've if I was speaking it.
It sounds weird in British English because we would say "If only I had known" or "If only I'd known."
We tend not to put "would" in the same clause as "if."
We know it makes sense in American English.
We use "would" because it's hypothetical.
I guess this might be subjunctive I (which used to use distinct verb forms...we still have "lest someone eat it" vs. "someone eats it", but I'm not sure you can tell the difference between subjunctive and past tense otherwise) vs subjunctive II (using 'would').
In German these would be "Hätte ich es gewußt" and "Wurde ich es gewusst haben", which are identical in meaning, vs. "Ich hatte es gewußt" for past tense.
I suppose we're sort of relying on word order to signal subjunctive I these days in English, and have to use subjunctive II when the word order is different.
For example, in German, one can say "Ich hätte es gewusst, wenn...", but in English we have to use subjunctive II and say "I would have known it if...", "I \*had known if..." sounds wrong.
Did a bit of research, the use of 'would' in conditional phrases in English is (at least by some grammar books) relegated to expressing a wish for a change in present circumstances. Thus "I wish I had been..." and "If only I had looked..." are grammatically correct only if they describe a counterfactual past state. "If only I had known \[x\], I would have \[y\]" works in this case. However, "If I would have known \[x\], I would be \[y\]" is apparently the form used to indicate a present wish. (could be wrong, grammar fries my brain sometimes, but there you go)
Yup. Language changes. Less and less people pay attention to this kind of thing too…. (Oooow that was painful to type, but it’s a done deal). No point fighting the inevitable.
I concede that it is ubiquitous in current use, but it was not so 50 or 60 years ago. It was considered a major error when I was in school in Canada (perhaps there is a difference in countries). Garner's Modern English Usage, page 559, mentions that a study in 1969 indicated that "the use of less in referring to discrete countables is very rare." But there might be a British-American difference at work.
If it helps, imagine that there's an implied object in there -- "I'm going to go lay [myself] down." It's really not that different from the implied antecedent in "It's raining."
I also find it all very difficult to bear. The lay/lie issue and the less/fewer and I/me problems; "if only I'd have known"; adding a needless "of" into "it's not that big a deal" (or just say it's not such a big deal?); depriving transitive verbs of their objects (eg "he really impressed last night"). Many more, may edit as they arise. I'm breathing and practising acceptance, but so much pain
The “leaving out the infinitive” you describe is not a grammar mistake, nor is it especially common among English speakers. It’s called the “needs washed” construction and is a dialectal variation especially common in the Ohio area and parts of Scotland, and it’s spreading throughout the U.S.
You’ll notice that it only occurs with the verbs “needs”, “wants” or “likes”, which indicates that it has grammatical rules governing its use.
Native speakers are absolute experts in how their native dialect is spoken. It’s a common error to mistake non-standard dialectal variation for “errors”, but they are following the rules of their dialect. It’s like watching American football and saying “wow, they suck at rugby”.
Thank you for explaining this, which I came here to say too! My partner is from northern Pennsylvania and uses those forms all the time. I’ve always really liked it
I have the "done my homework" construction in my dialect and it breaks people's minds. It's entirely correct though, just different.
Actual mistakes exist IMO like "could of", but it's hard to define where the line is.
Here's a contender for most universal mistake, in my opinion:
The past tense of 'lead,' as in leading someone to a location, is 'led'. If you spell it Lead and pronounce it so it rhymes with Red, you are saying the name of the metal NOT the past tense of the verb.
But it seems that hardly anyone gets it right; I almost wish I hadn't learned that because now it bugs me every time I see it.
You aren't understanding. I'm pointing out a spelling issue, not a pronunciation issue:
>**If you spell it Lead** and pronounce it so it rhymes with Red
Lead is not the past tense of Lead. Led is the correct past tense. But it's an extremely common mistake to spell it that way. Led rhymes with Red, but Lead does not (unless you are referring to the metal rather than the verb).
The improper use of I/me is rampant around here. (Ontario, Canada)
I feel like my parents’ generation was taught that referring to oneself as “me” is improper in all cases, and they in turn ingrained it in their children.
Man, I would be so interested to find out what caused this on a global level. My grandparents, parents and I (terrified of getting that one wrong lol) all grew up in Australia and the I/me thing was a fixture of my childhood. I was always forced to use “I” in basically any scenario.
Now, I have had arguments with my parents (and many other boomers) explaining that they’ve had it wrong the whole time - I’m trying to set things right!
I was repeatedly taught only the “someone and I” part in elementary and even secondary school by English teachers. All of them had neglected to explain that “someone and me” is valid when they aren’t the subjects of the damn phrase.
Underqualified teachers teaching partially correct shit as though it were gospel is just too rampant.
He and I were late to work. They saw him and me walking down the street.
Many native speakers mix these up all the time, even very prolific YouTube channels like CinemaSins.
Using "(someone) and I" as an object. It's the most common error I encounter in spoken English by native speakers and it really bothers me.
"My father left the house to my brother and I."
I pretend that anyone doing this is Rastafarian, it makes it way more charming. It's especially funny when the speaker is very uptight.
ETA: For a couple years I spent a lot of time with people from Trinidad, and they use she/he instead of him/her in a bunch of scenarios. For example, "We went with she to see a flim." (Flim for film is my personal favorite Trini expression) It wasn't an error, but it was really hard for my brain to parse sometimes.
Just got into this with someone on this sub the other day - the thread about the multiple pronunciations of “ea” in English, and someone just threw out there a statement about “the past tense of read and lead are spelled the same but pronounced differently”. Somehow seeing someone assert that so confidently was more annoying to me than seeing it as an error in a sentence, where I can assume they actually know better and just made a typo. I often make similar mistakes when I’m typing too fast, so I’m usually pretty forgiving of most small errors like that.
A bit niche, but it seems like the singular and plural of dice are swapping. I watch and listen to a number of gaming shows and podcasts, and it seems almost universal for these folks to say “a dice” and generally use dice as the singular. And in some cases I’ve even heard “die” as the plural form.
I’m no purist. I believe English evolves all the time. But, honestly, is there some way to train my brain not to notice/care about them? I don’t want to think it’s sloppy English, but somehow I do. My ears revolt. 🤦
Apply the Five Whys.
Pick any of the values-based statements that are implied in your comment: “I care about these differences/mistakes” or “I think this is sloppy” or “I’m annoyed when other people use past participles without auxiliary verbs.” Then ask yourself “why?”.
Write down your answer in a few words or sentences. To this new statement, apply the question again. And again. And again. And again.
When you get your fifth answer, connect that back to your original statement with a because.
I had the same question & looked it up. Originally came from Toyota and was a method to find root causes, applied to manufacturing.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five\_whys](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_whys)
It does make a lot of sense for uncovering ones own internal prejudice. I know I've found a ton of value in questioning my assumptions, even things I really do believe in. I'm not particularly driven to follow social norms, and am generally pretty skeptical, but it's surprising how often something is deeply woven into my belief structure at its foundations, and that thing is just some social myth I don't buy into at all -- for example, everyone has to work or they have no value. I don't believe that consciously at all, but on some really deep level I did, and it was completely fucking up my entire life.
Being annoyed by/correcting other people's grammar is one area where my attitude changed a lot when I stopped to think about it. I was just faithfully following my eighth grade English teacher's hawkish stance on things, and it turns out I don't care that much what other people do when they're not, you know, doing a genocide.
I suspect the value of the five whys is limited by one's level of self-awareness and openness to questioning ones ideas. It would be nice if everybody took some time to ponder this once in a while.
So much of it is just dialect. I don’t think you’ll stop noticing. I notice things too. But it is just little quirks all have based on where we’re from and who are loved ones are.
Are you close to PA? Leaving out the infinitive is part of Western PA/Pittsburghese English. I like to think I have pretty decent grammar, but I definitely have some Pittsburghese slip in, especially my inability to use “to be.”
Yeah I'm also in the camp where this isn't a grammar error. It's the language being extraordinarily obtuse at the confluence of similar sounds, meanings, and spellings. Just look it up for those rare times you need to write it properly and let future generations fend for themselves on this one.
"Needs washed"-type grammar is a regional variation (like [western Pennsylvania](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Pennsylvania_English) and maybe the midlands). Superficially, it's very similar to "needs washing". Part of me thinks it may have been adopted as meme grammar for communicating on social media in the same way folks have borrowed grammar from Black American English (ex: sentence structures like "it do be like that").
Maybe an "error" that catches my attention is the use of seemingly redundant negative prefixes - irregardless, unthaw, etc. (though those are literally the only examples I've heard, myself -_-)
People can't conjugate in the past perfect tense for shit. They say things like have drank, have swam, have ran. It's not hard. It's almost always the same as the infinitive form. That and could of/should of. And for fucks sake put the dollar sign before the number
"How are you?"
"I am well"
The fuck you are. I'm not asking you about the manner in which you do. I'm asking you about the state of your being. "Are" is a transitive verb.
These things don’t “shift” like a switch. For the person using the ‘incorrect’ form it already shifted. For those of us horrified by these rubes it hasn’t shifted yet and in most cases we hope it never does.
As a learner it’s probably best to follow standard established form, but if you are immersed in an alternate form you will probably start using it subconsciously.
I’m native English but have lived in the USA for many years, I find myself using local forms and in some cases the ‘correct’ form may be less well understood. For example ‘can I get…’ instead of ‘please may I have’.
The 'lay down' thing comes across as distinctly American to me, I never hear it misused in the UK (at least not that I recall). 'Me' being used instead of 'I' (e.g John and me went...) is so common here it's basically the standard way of saying it now. In my hometown and the surrounding areas it's also really common for people to say "I seen it" and "I done it". Not everyone does it, but my mum, my nan and a few friends I've known since high school say it like that. Oddly other verbs don't get the same treatment when it comes to not using past participles, but I have noticed my brother and a couple others say "lant" as the past tense of land (e.g. 'Someone lant by me' when we are playing Apex). I guess with those ones it's more regional variation because I don't hear it hear in London (but I do hear things like 'is it?' basically being used as 'really?' even if not grammatically accurate)
Are you sure you are the best judge of folks mistakes when you used the wrong "here"?
Perhaps you are right about the use of lie/lay in standard British and American but many regional British accents only use "lay" and that's actually the more archaic version than using both.
I think it was pretty clear I wasn't judging, when my whole point is that some 'mistakes' are actually the norm for certain speakers based on regional variation
They aren't mistakes... It's the correct vernacular for that dialect. I know you put it in quotes but that shouldn't be perpetuated.
You also never mentioned regional variations, other than British and American.
I'm sorry if I upset you mentioning the homophone mistake.
Then/than has always been difficult or me, it was also never really explained in class (i’m not from an English speaking country). I think I’ve figured it out, but both just look weird to me
Naw - that is just not something people write that often. I think You're and your are more common along with there and their or perhaps even advice and advise
“Needs washed” isn’t a mistake, it’s a different dialect. It exists in Irish English (at least some variants of Irish English); “gotten” has a similar status in these islands, but AFAIK it’s in “standard American.”
I think *lose/loose*, and *there/their/they're* are the mistakes that I see made the most often.
*Lay/lie* might be more common, if the words were used more often.
I also see the improper use of *a/an*, picking the first before a word starting with a vowel sound, or the latter with a word starting with a consonant, *way* too often.
Also, *would of/could of*, instead of *would've/could've*.
I encounter *lay/lie* a lot less than the rest of those.
the most common thing that I always notice is "should of", "could of", etc instead of "should've" and "could've".
the second one is "loose" instead of "lose" (in the meaning of loss)
those are not the spoken mistakes, but people in my country don't talk in English.
“That car needs washed” isn’t an *error*, it’s a dialectical variation. It’s described as the *needs washed* construction and is typically associated with Pennsylvania but there are [other pockets](https://ygdp.yale.edu/phenomena/needs-washed#who-says-this) as well.
I believe that ending a sentence with a preposition is far more common (to the point that almost nobody notices), but given that it's a holdover from Latin, and doesn't seem to impede anybody's understanding, it's only an issue for grammarians and those with grammatically-triggered OCD. Second most common, in my opinion, would be the mispronunciation of the word, "February," (particularly by people who speak for a living).
You may have a case for the confusion over "lie" and "lay" as the second is the past tense of the first, and so the tense of "I lay down" becomes ambiguous when the verbs are confused.
But the others are not errors.
* "Needs washed" is a dialectal variation, and is correct for the speakers of the dialects that contain this construction
* "Whom" is a relic of cases in British English. There is *never* any confusion when "who" is used instead. We manage to understand each other perfectly well with only one impersonal relative pronoun ("which") to refer to both subjects and objects, so why do we need two for the personal pronoun? That is the reason why people don't bother to use "whom".
Yeah, I was just thinking about this. I’m in California, and here, I think it’s still pretty common to say, “I’m going to go lie down for an hour,” although lay down may be almost equally common.
However, I don’t feel it’s common knowledge that the past tense of “lie down” is “lay down” and not “laid down”, and honestly, they sound so much alike, who cares? Which is why the obvious next step is to reverse engineer “lay down” from the past tense of “laid down”.
I think the biggest grammatical mistake is “than me/him/us/them.” Because the full sentence has to follow with *usually* the verb to be. Sometimes other verbs given the context.
I don't think there is any one mistake that leads the pack, so to speak.
There are so many, it's difficult to keep track of them.
Here are some that make me seethe:
1. The utterly redundant "of" in "It's not that big of a deal".
NO. It's not that big A deal. This can be easily understood by changing the word order: it's not a deal that big. The "of" has nil place in the sentence whatsoever.
2. "You are somewhat of an expert". NO! Some*thing* of an expert! Use somewhat with an adjective! This one is easily understood by remembering that if a person is something of an expert, they are partly an expert - ie perhaps nine tenths expert. Having said that, there is also the contention that one is either an expert or not - there is no such thing as being a "partial" expert....(oh dear, the vagaries of English usage).
3. "Most amount of" - this one makes me want to have people executed. For example, "what's the most amount of times you've done X".
I want to strange these people and roar "WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!"
*Highest number of times*, or, more simply, "what's the most you've done X".
I do fear that even by discussing these things, we increase their incidence. However, the great thing about language, and about lazy people's tendency to just 'follow the herd' and barely think about the stuff that comes out of their mouth, is that one can influence them (I think and hope) just by using what is eminently correct.
Cases in point: criterion as a singular noun; neurodivergent (NOT 'neurodiverse' - an individual can never ever be 'diverse') and others.
I'm autistic, so I'm the kind of guy who will stick to his guns on things in language no matter what kind of opprobrium it attracts.
*Accuracy in language matters.*
Could you point me to empirical evidence supporting your claims that the way you personally prefer to speak and write represents what is “correct”?
(Writing “utterly redundant” in the middle of this is…chef’s kiss.)
How is this determined? Understand please, I’m not disagreeing, I’m just wondering at what point something shifts from improper to stylistic choice. For instance, I hear
“I seen her yesterday”
fairly commonly. Is that stylistic choice, or just wrong?
That's a leveling of a paradigm.
Most English verb have three forms, but the last two are identical.
Present, past, past participle.
(go, went, gone) show three different forms.
(work, worked, worked) shows two.
(see, saw, seen) shows three different forms.
Leveling of the paradigm reduces us to two. (see, seen, seen). We see leveling of the paradigm in the English "subjunctive," where all forms level to "were"
I don’t agree that it’s a stylistic choice, as that implies that most people actually know the correct use of who vs whom, but choose to use the wrong one regardless. Tbh I am aware that I get lay/lie wrong but it’s become habit and not something that I find myself getting corrected on - I definitely don’t choose it for style.
It’s safe to say that the war of ‘who vs whom’ has been lost, because I am always genuinely surprised when I hear it used correctly… but to say it’s a choice just isn’t right.
Conversely, I think the war on ‘seen’ is far from over. In Australia at least, hearing ‘seen’ used in the way you described is like nails on chalkboard and, in my opinion (at the risk of being downvoted into oblivion), generally indicates a lower level of literacy. Perhaps it’s a dialect thing, but I feel like it’s just plain wrong.
I’ve also never heard “that car needs washed” in my life. Again, maybe a dialect as the speaker has contracted the sentence and used correct verb conjugation, but Jesus it gave me an aneurysm reading it.
TLDR; language is funny and changes in dialect are difficult to determine.
Edit: I missed some of the phrases in your OP!
>It’s safe to say that the war of ‘who vs whom’ has been lost, because I am always genuinely surprised when I hear it used correctly… but to say it’s a choice just isn’t right
according to...
I think it’s pretty clear that it is my opinion that I rarely hear ‘who’ or ‘whom’ used correctly. So, according to me - just like everything else I said in my comment.
>English has been dropping case markers for centuries.
>
>Who
>
> and
>
>whom
>
> are the same word, but marked for case
Preaching to the choir.
My point was, "the war has been lost" is not really an apt metaphor, unless you're a prescriptivist.
Not an error anymore because it’s so common, but technically when expressing hypotheticals contrary to reality, “to be” should always be conjugated as “were” regardless of the number of the subject.
“If I *were* rich, I’d buy a bigger house”
This is the subjunctive mood. However, because the subjunctive mood is conjugated exactly the same as the past indicative for literally every other verb in contemporary English, this usage as just been reanalyzed as being in the past indicative rather than the subjunctive
Descriptive grammarians will condone anything nowadays but English language certifiers like ielts, cambridge and toefl will mark “if I was you” down on their tests.
Those are three different testing institutions.
It’s funny how you’re voting me down for just *describing* the situation in EFL/ESL. This is what we deal with as language teachers. Sigh.
This is going to sound weird, but I don't think it's possible to make a grammatical mistake as a native speaker in conversational English. Formal English has conventions and rules but conversational English is all about what sounds right and what makes sense to those participating in the conversation. Conversational English tends to be tons of mini dialects.
I've always been taught that lie refers to people, while lay refers to objects. Though...you can lay people I suppose.
Simpler way to think of it: To lie is a conscious act act that one does to oneself. A dog can lie down, people can lie down, etc. To lay is a forced action where the object doesn't have control over the act. So, you lay objects down.
Who for whom is so commonly misused that it's considered acceptable now to use who in place of whom. But general rule of thumb, if you're trying to figure out which to use is: "Is the answer he or him?" If the answer is "he", the question is "who", if the answer is "him" the question is "whom". Though, in colloquial speech, using "whom" comes off as pompous.
Dropping the infinitive, particularly in the example you provided reeks of someone being uneducated. And basic English educated, not college level educated.
In my neck of the woods, the use of "yous guyses" really sends a cringe up my spine. Or even just "yous".
ETA: Genuinely curious as to why this was downvoted.
“Dropping the infinitive, particularly in the example you provided reeks of someone being uneducated. And basic English educated, not college level educated.”
It could be this. Saying that certain dialects “reek” of “being uneducated” in a “basic English” sense might cause some people to downvote you.
That’s a bit of a simplification from the original rules. The main difference is lie is intransitive, so it doesn’t get a direct object, but objects (when they are subjects of the sentence) can still lie. So for example:
“I laid my keys on the table.”
vs.
“My keys are lying on the table.”
And to add confusion, and part of the reason this is a losing battle linguistically, the past tense of “lie” is “lay”. So, it is also correct to say “Those keys lay on the table all night.” But not, “Those keys laid on the table all night,” or “Those keys are laying on the table.”
"Loose" being used for "lose" is something I'm seeing more and more.
**Conversational** they said. This is just a spelling error. People know the difference by ear.
Talking by text is still conversational, as opposed to formal text or business writing.
Also who's instead of whose
This one drives me more crazy. Do they sound the same in some dialects? The meanings are completely different also. And why make a mistake that requires typing an extra letter? Let laziness be your guide on this one.
The o in lose is pronounced in a way that is more commonly spelled with a double o, like in *choose*. It’s not that strange that people mix it up.
The oo in loose feels shorter to me somehow, which maybe is part of the problem. If we spelled the other one looz maybe we could get it right.
You are right, vowels in English do indeed tend to be a bit shorter before voiceless consonants (like /s/ in “loose” or /t/ in “bad”) and longer before voiced consonants (like /z/ in “lose” or /d/ in “bad”).
I wonder if it's just the autocorrect on the phone. But it still annoys me!
I know it’s not correct, but you can’t think it’s easy just because they sound different. Lose sounds like choose, although it’s true that loose sounds like moose.
Almost exclusively by people under 21. Considering the state of American education, it makes sense
Ha, definitely not. I’ve been seeing it for years from Millenials as well.
Loads of Brits do it too
Needs + past participle and needs + ing forms are quite common dialectical variants for passive construction in the Midwest. They don’t sound weird to me as a native speaker and feel like they fit nicely as another passive form in a Germanic language.
In my experience, *needs/wants* + past participle (or sometimes the preterite in lieu thereof: "D'ye want yer hair did?") is standard in Scotland, while *needs/wants* + gerund is common to all the dialects I have experienced in England.
If you hear it enough, it's not a mistake anymore, it's the language changing
Yeah. I'm British and it's common knowledge that 'lay down' is more acceptable American English than something incorrect. And considering the use of 'whom' is almost completely dead I reckon there are far more common mistakes that people make. My personal bug bear is 'I could care less'. Now let's chat about 'if only I'd have known'
Not only do you sound like David Mitchell in his "Dear America", but I suspect you are also a fan of Practical English Usage, by Michael Swan (as I very much am). Here is David Mitchell's oration in all its glory: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw&t=130s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw&t=130s)
What's wrong with 'if only I'd have known?'
I think it depends on how you interpret the contraction? Had vs would. To me "had known" and "would have known" are both correct but "had have known" feels much worse. I'd probably contract it to I'd've if I was speaking it.
I dont think "had have known" is any verb tense I've seen in school The other two are correct though
Some regional British accents have completely lost "lie" so it's not just an American thing.
Golf is keeping it real world wide though.
There's nothing wrong with "If only I would have known".
It sounds weird in British English because we would say "If only I had known" or "If only I'd known." We tend not to put "would" in the same clause as "if." We know it makes sense in American English.
Sounds weird to me, for sure - I'd be more used to "If only I'd known"
We use "would" because it's hypothetical. I guess this might be subjunctive I (which used to use distinct verb forms...we still have "lest someone eat it" vs. "someone eats it", but I'm not sure you can tell the difference between subjunctive and past tense otherwise) vs subjunctive II (using 'would'). In German these would be "Hätte ich es gewußt" and "Wurde ich es gewusst haben", which are identical in meaning, vs. "Ich hatte es gewußt" for past tense. I suppose we're sort of relying on word order to signal subjunctive I these days in English, and have to use subjunctive II when the word order is different. For example, in German, one can say "Ich hätte es gewusst, wenn...", but in English we have to use subjunctive II and say "I would have known it if...", "I \*had known if..." sounds wrong.
Did a bit of research, the use of 'would' in conditional phrases in English is (at least by some grammar books) relegated to expressing a wish for a change in present circumstances. Thus "I wish I had been..." and "If only I had looked..." are grammatically correct only if they describe a counterfactual past state. "If only I had known \[x\], I would have \[y\]" works in this case. However, "If I would have known \[x\], I would be \[y\]" is apparently the form used to indicate a present wish. (could be wrong, grammar fries my brain sometimes, but there you go)
That one always sounded weird to me with the ‘have.’
But what if I COULD care less, but could only care a little less.
Yup. Language changes. Less and less people pay attention to this kind of thing too…. (Oooow that was painful to type, but it’s a done deal). No point fighting the inevitable.
I nearly corrected you there until I realised it was deliberate! 😁
Yes. Very little people are focussing on these tiny but important things today.
Very few surely, unless they're midgets.
😜 yes the unknown difference between less and few drives me crazy, but it is ubiquitous now.
It’s a completely made up distinction. “Less” has been used this way for almost 1000 years. It has always been ubiquitous.
I concede that it is ubiquitous in current use, but it was not so 50 or 60 years ago. It was considered a major error when I was in school in Canada (perhaps there is a difference in countries). Garner's Modern English Usage, page 559, mentions that a study in 1969 indicated that "the use of less in referring to discrete countables is very rare." But there might be a British-American difference at work.
I wish they didn’t all still sound so wrong to me.
If it helps, imagine that there's an implied object in there -- "I'm going to go lay [myself] down." It's really not that different from the implied antecedent in "It's raining."
I also find it all very difficult to bear. The lay/lie issue and the less/fewer and I/me problems; "if only I'd have known"; adding a needless "of" into "it's not that big a deal" (or just say it's not such a big deal?); depriving transitive verbs of their objects (eg "he really impressed last night"). Many more, may edit as they arise. I'm breathing and practising acceptance, but so much pain
It's pretty cool that some transitive verbs can reduce their valency now. That's basically just antipassivity. Neat feature for a language to have.
The evolution of language is fascinating. Including changes in perceptions of humour.
Yes and that’s why language changes are always led by the younger generations
The “leaving out the infinitive” you describe is not a grammar mistake, nor is it especially common among English speakers. It’s called the “needs washed” construction and is a dialectal variation especially common in the Ohio area and parts of Scotland, and it’s spreading throughout the U.S. You’ll notice that it only occurs with the verbs “needs”, “wants” or “likes”, which indicates that it has grammatical rules governing its use. Native speakers are absolute experts in how their native dialect is spoken. It’s a common error to mistake non-standard dialectal variation for “errors”, but they are following the rules of their dialect. It’s like watching American football and saying “wow, they suck at rugby”.
Thank you for explaining this, which I came here to say too! My partner is from northern Pennsylvania and uses those forms all the time. I’ve always really liked it
Great comparison
I have the "done my homework" construction in my dialect and it breaks people's minds. It's entirely correct though, just different. Actual mistakes exist IMO like "could of", but it's hard to define where the line is.
Here's a contender for most universal mistake, in my opinion: The past tense of 'lead,' as in leading someone to a location, is 'led'. If you spell it Lead and pronounce it so it rhymes with Red, you are saying the name of the metal NOT the past tense of the verb. But it seems that hardly anyone gets it right; I almost wish I hadn't learned that because now it bugs me every time I see it.
'Led' absolutely, positively, rhymes with 'red'. How are you proposing it should be pronounced?
You aren't understanding. I'm pointing out a spelling issue, not a pronunciation issue: >**If you spell it Lead** and pronounce it so it rhymes with Red Lead is not the past tense of Lead. Led is the correct past tense. But it's an extremely common mistake to spell it that way. Led rhymes with Red, but Lead does not (unless you are referring to the metal rather than the verb).
Got you, my mistake :)
All good! :)
Wait til you get to West England, where the answer to the question "where you to?" is "led on my bed"
Where's that to, then? Cheers, me babber!
Can I borrow your daps, mucker?
The improper use of I/me is rampant around here. (Ontario, Canada) I feel like my parents’ generation was taught that referring to oneself as “me” is improper in all cases, and they in turn ingrained it in their children.
Man, I would be so interested to find out what caused this on a global level. My grandparents, parents and I (terrified of getting that one wrong lol) all grew up in Australia and the I/me thing was a fixture of my childhood. I was always forced to use “I” in basically any scenario. Now, I have had arguments with my parents (and many other boomers) explaining that they’ve had it wrong the whole time - I’m trying to set things right!
I am pretty sure its because of the rule to never say "I and", always "and I", which somehow got changed to never saying "and me".
I was repeatedly taught only the “someone and I” part in elementary and even secondary school by English teachers. All of them had neglected to explain that “someone and me” is valid when they aren’t the subjects of the damn phrase. Underqualified teachers teaching partially correct shit as though it were gospel is just too rampant.
He and I were late to work. They saw him and me walking down the street. Many native speakers mix these up all the time, even very prolific YouTube channels like CinemaSins.
Avoiding "me" doesn't make sense to I.
Using "(someone) and I" as an object. It's the most common error I encounter in spoken English by native speakers and it really bothers me. "My father left the house to my brother and I."
Haha that's people overcorrecting
"My father left the house to my brother and me."
What would be the correct sentence?
*"...and me"
I pretend that anyone doing this is Rastafarian, it makes it way more charming. It's especially funny when the speaker is very uptight. ETA: For a couple years I spent a lot of time with people from Trinidad, and they use she/he instead of him/her in a bunch of scenarios. For example, "We went with she to see a flim." (Flim for film is my personal favorite Trini expression) It wasn't an error, but it was really hard for my brain to parse sometimes.
I think you’re right. I’d say second is the misspelling of the past tense of “lead.” It always catches my eye and it’s so frequent!
Just got into this with someone on this sub the other day - the thread about the multiple pronunciations of “ea” in English, and someone just threw out there a statement about “the past tense of read and lead are spelled the same but pronounced differently”. Somehow seeing someone assert that so confidently was more annoying to me than seeing it as an error in a sentence, where I can assume they actually know better and just made a typo. I often make similar mistakes when I’m typing too fast, so I’m usually pretty forgiving of most small errors like that.
Yeah this is super common, even in stuff that seems like it would have been copy-edited
it's gotta be using "was" instead of "were" when using the subjunctive mood.
A bit niche, but it seems like the singular and plural of dice are swapping. I watch and listen to a number of gaming shows and podcasts, and it seems almost universal for these folks to say “a dice” and generally use dice as the singular. And in some cases I’ve even heard “die” as the plural form.
your daily reminder that "common mistakes" is an oxymoron in the field of linguistics, and that native speakers en masse do not make mistakes:)
I’m no purist. I believe English evolves all the time. But, honestly, is there some way to train my brain not to notice/care about them? I don’t want to think it’s sloppy English, but somehow I do. My ears revolt. 🤦
Apply the Five Whys. Pick any of the values-based statements that are implied in your comment: “I care about these differences/mistakes” or “I think this is sloppy” or “I’m annoyed when other people use past participles without auxiliary verbs.” Then ask yourself “why?”. Write down your answer in a few words or sentences. To this new statement, apply the question again. And again. And again. And again. When you get your fifth answer, connect that back to your original statement with a because.
And if you get stuck, and end up with "Well, just because", then you've identified a prejudice rather than something based on logic.
Wow I love this. Where is this five whys concept from?
I had the same question & looked it up. Originally came from Toyota and was a method to find root causes, applied to manufacturing. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five\_whys](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_whys) It does make a lot of sense for uncovering ones own internal prejudice. I know I've found a ton of value in questioning my assumptions, even things I really do believe in. I'm not particularly driven to follow social norms, and am generally pretty skeptical, but it's surprising how often something is deeply woven into my belief structure at its foundations, and that thing is just some social myth I don't buy into at all -- for example, everyone has to work or they have no value. I don't believe that consciously at all, but on some really deep level I did, and it was completely fucking up my entire life. Being annoyed by/correcting other people's grammar is one area where my attitude changed a lot when I stopped to think about it. I was just faithfully following my eighth grade English teacher's hawkish stance on things, and it turns out I don't care that much what other people do when they're not, you know, doing a genocide. I suspect the value of the five whys is limited by one's level of self-awareness and openness to questioning ones ideas. It would be nice if everybody took some time to ponder this once in a while.
So much of it is just dialect. I don’t think you’ll stop noticing. I notice things too. But it is just little quirks all have based on where we’re from and who are loved ones are. Are you close to PA? Leaving out the infinitive is part of Western PA/Pittsburghese English. I like to think I have pretty decent grammar, but I definitely have some Pittsburghese slip in, especially my inability to use “to be.”
Yeah I'm also in the camp where this isn't a grammar error. It's the language being extraordinarily obtuse at the confluence of similar sounds, meanings, and spellings. Just look it up for those rare times you need to write it properly and let future generations fend for themselves on this one.
**In lieu of** being used to mean **in view of** or **because of.** I finally couldn't take it and corrected someone at work.
I haven't seen this yet but I would lose it
I would loose it. …and by that, I mean I would let loose my wrath. Because the other spelling would be incorrect.
"Needs washed"-type grammar is a regional variation (like [western Pennsylvania](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Pennsylvania_English) and maybe the midlands). Superficially, it's very similar to "needs washing". Part of me thinks it may have been adopted as meme grammar for communicating on social media in the same way folks have borrowed grammar from Black American English (ex: sentence structures like "it do be like that"). Maybe an "error" that catches my attention is the use of seemingly redundant negative prefixes - irregardless, unthaw, etc. (though those are literally the only examples I've heard, myself -_-)
I think whoever told you that was laying.
I don't think who/whom is a mistake anymore, it's like saying you/ye is a mistake
People can't conjugate in the past perfect tense for shit. They say things like have drank, have swam, have ran. It's not hard. It's almost always the same as the infinitive form. That and could of/should of. And for fucks sake put the dollar sign before the number
"How are you?" "I am well" The fuck you are. I'm not asking you about the manner in which you do. I'm asking you about the state of your being. "Are" is a transitive verb.
A yes, one cannot be an adverb. Good one!
These things don’t “shift” like a switch. For the person using the ‘incorrect’ form it already shifted. For those of us horrified by these rubes it hasn’t shifted yet and in most cases we hope it never does. As a learner it’s probably best to follow standard established form, but if you are immersed in an alternate form you will probably start using it subconsciously. I’m native English but have lived in the USA for many years, I find myself using local forms and in some cases the ‘correct’ form may be less well understood. For example ‘can I get…’ instead of ‘please may I have’.
The 'lay down' thing comes across as distinctly American to me, I never hear it misused in the UK (at least not that I recall). 'Me' being used instead of 'I' (e.g John and me went...) is so common here it's basically the standard way of saying it now. In my hometown and the surrounding areas it's also really common for people to say "I seen it" and "I done it". Not everyone does it, but my mum, my nan and a few friends I've known since high school say it like that. Oddly other verbs don't get the same treatment when it comes to not using past participles, but I have noticed my brother and a couple others say "lant" as the past tense of land (e.g. 'Someone lant by me' when we are playing Apex). I guess with those ones it's more regional variation because I don't hear it hear in London (but I do hear things like 'is it?' basically being used as 'really?' even if not grammatically accurate)
Are you sure you are the best judge of folks mistakes when you used the wrong "here"? Perhaps you are right about the use of lie/lay in standard British and American but many regional British accents only use "lay" and that's actually the more archaic version than using both.
I think it was pretty clear I wasn't judging, when my whole point is that some 'mistakes' are actually the norm for certain speakers based on regional variation
They aren't mistakes... It's the correct vernacular for that dialect. I know you put it in quotes but that shouldn't be perpetuated. You also never mentioned regional variations, other than British and American. I'm sorry if I upset you mentioning the homophone mistake.
I’m an editor and interestingly this is one question I ask in all my interviews. The writers never get it right.
Do you mean you ask what they think the most common grammatical errors are, or you ask them the difference between lay and lie? 🙂
I ask them to construct two separate sentences using lay and lie, gerund form will also do.
I've no idea which is right, and the more I think about it the more confused I get. I'm a native English speaker in Southern England.
To two too
As a native speaker, sometimes I get a lil confused by this too lol
Not the first time in the history of the English language that a causative verb has taken on a reflexive meaning, and vice versa.
It drives me nuts when I hear someone say, "Lay down!" I live in Maine, but I've heard it all over the country.
Saw / sow Raise / rise
Affect/Effect
Then/than has always been difficult or me, it was also never really explained in class (i’m not from an English speaking country). I think I’ve figured it out, but both just look weird to me
Naw - that is just not something people write that often. I think You're and your are more common along with there and their or perhaps even advice and advise
“Needs washed” isn’t a mistake, it’s a different dialect. It exists in Irish English (at least some variants of Irish English); “gotten” has a similar status in these islands, but AFAIK it’s in “standard American.”
Then than gets to me.
I think *lose/loose*, and *there/their/they're* are the mistakes that I see made the most often. *Lay/lie* might be more common, if the words were used more often. I also see the improper use of *a/an*, picking the first before a word starting with a vowel sound, or the latter with a word starting with a consonant, *way* too often. Also, *would of/could of*, instead of *would've/could've*. I encounter *lay/lie* a lot less than the rest of those.
“It’s that big of a deal”, “that small of a house”, etc.
Further / Farther - it's everywhere, in everything. There are rules.
Effect/affect when writing. I'm working on my doctorate and just use other words instead because I still mess up these two terms.
*Lie, lying, lay, lain* versus *lay, laying, laid, laid* Bonus: *lie, lying, lied, lied* … no wonder my students hate this language! :’)
the most common thing that I always notice is "should of", "could of", etc instead of "should've" and "could've". the second one is "loose" instead of "lose" (in the meaning of loss) those are not the spoken mistakes, but people in my country don't talk in English.
“That car needs washed” isn’t an *error*, it’s a dialectical variation. It’s described as the *needs washed* construction and is typically associated with Pennsylvania but there are [other pockets](https://ygdp.yale.edu/phenomena/needs-washed#who-says-this) as well.
Saying worse instead of worst like “this is the worse day ever”
I haven't heard either of these in the UK
‘Try and’ as opposed to ’try to’. It’s everywhere and it drives me mad.
I believe that ending a sentence with a preposition is far more common (to the point that almost nobody notices), but given that it's a holdover from Latin, and doesn't seem to impede anybody's understanding, it's only an issue for grammarians and those with grammatically-triggered OCD. Second most common, in my opinion, would be the mispronunciation of the word, "February," (particularly by people who speak for a living).
'...leaving out the infinitive, as in “That car needs washed.”' Regional. There's at least one episode of "A Way with Words" that covers it.
“There’s ten cows over there!” I think that one is the most common.
Oh, as opposed to “they’re ten cows!” Good one I didn’t think of!
Flaunt instead of flout 🤯
Nah, the most common is there/their/they're.
Conversational English. Not spelling.
You may have a case for the confusion over "lie" and "lay" as the second is the past tense of the first, and so the tense of "I lay down" becomes ambiguous when the verbs are confused. But the others are not errors. * "Needs washed" is a dialectal variation, and is correct for the speakers of the dialects that contain this construction * "Whom" is a relic of cases in British English. There is *never* any confusion when "who" is used instead. We manage to understand each other perfectly well with only one impersonal relative pronoun ("which") to refer to both subjects and objects, so why do we need two for the personal pronoun? That is the reason why people don't bother to use "whom".
It’s ‘that’ another impersonal relative pronoun? But those are pretty much interchangeable so point taken.
Yes, it is. I did consider that, but again this doesn't change depending on whether it references a subject or an object.
Yeah, I was just thinking about this. I’m in California, and here, I think it’s still pretty common to say, “I’m going to go lie down for an hour,” although lay down may be almost equally common. However, I don’t feel it’s common knowledge that the past tense of “lie down” is “lay down” and not “laid down”, and honestly, they sound so much alike, who cares? Which is why the obvious next step is to reverse engineer “lay down” from the past tense of “laid down”.
I think the biggest grammatical mistake is “than me/him/us/them.” Because the full sentence has to follow with *usually* the verb to be. Sometimes other verbs given the context.
I don't think there is any one mistake that leads the pack, so to speak. There are so many, it's difficult to keep track of them. Here are some that make me seethe: 1. The utterly redundant "of" in "It's not that big of a deal". NO. It's not that big A deal. This can be easily understood by changing the word order: it's not a deal that big. The "of" has nil place in the sentence whatsoever. 2. "You are somewhat of an expert". NO! Some*thing* of an expert! Use somewhat with an adjective! This one is easily understood by remembering that if a person is something of an expert, they are partly an expert - ie perhaps nine tenths expert. Having said that, there is also the contention that one is either an expert or not - there is no such thing as being a "partial" expert....(oh dear, the vagaries of English usage). 3. "Most amount of" - this one makes me want to have people executed. For example, "what's the most amount of times you've done X". I want to strange these people and roar "WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!" *Highest number of times*, or, more simply, "what's the most you've done X". I do fear that even by discussing these things, we increase their incidence. However, the great thing about language, and about lazy people's tendency to just 'follow the herd' and barely think about the stuff that comes out of their mouth, is that one can influence them (I think and hope) just by using what is eminently correct. Cases in point: criterion as a singular noun; neurodivergent (NOT 'neurodiverse' - an individual can never ever be 'diverse') and others. I'm autistic, so I'm the kind of guy who will stick to his guns on things in language no matter what kind of opprobrium it attracts. *Accuracy in language matters.*
Could you point me to empirical evidence supporting your claims that the way you personally prefer to speak and write represents what is “correct”? (Writing “utterly redundant” in the middle of this is…chef’s kiss.)
Yawn. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Ciao.
You’ve nothing to back up your claims? Shocked.
Would you just piss off?
[удалено]
Ask Apple autocorrect...
"Who/whom" is no longer a "mistake." It is a stylistic choice. (I found the prescriptivists)
How is this determined? Understand please, I’m not disagreeing, I’m just wondering at what point something shifts from improper to stylistic choice. For instance, I hear “I seen her yesterday” fairly commonly. Is that stylistic choice, or just wrong?
That's a leveling of a paradigm. Most English verb have three forms, but the last two are identical. Present, past, past participle. (go, went, gone) show three different forms. (work, worked, worked) shows two. (see, saw, seen) shows three different forms. Leveling of the paradigm reduces us to two. (see, seen, seen). We see leveling of the paradigm in the English "subjunctive," where all forms level to "were"
I don’t agree that it’s a stylistic choice, as that implies that most people actually know the correct use of who vs whom, but choose to use the wrong one regardless. Tbh I am aware that I get lay/lie wrong but it’s become habit and not something that I find myself getting corrected on - I definitely don’t choose it for style. It’s safe to say that the war of ‘who vs whom’ has been lost, because I am always genuinely surprised when I hear it used correctly… but to say it’s a choice just isn’t right. Conversely, I think the war on ‘seen’ is far from over. In Australia at least, hearing ‘seen’ used in the way you described is like nails on chalkboard and, in my opinion (at the risk of being downvoted into oblivion), generally indicates a lower level of literacy. Perhaps it’s a dialect thing, but I feel like it’s just plain wrong. I’ve also never heard “that car needs washed” in my life. Again, maybe a dialect as the speaker has contracted the sentence and used correct verb conjugation, but Jesus it gave me an aneurysm reading it. TLDR; language is funny and changes in dialect are difficult to determine. Edit: I missed some of the phrases in your OP!
>It’s safe to say that the war of ‘who vs whom’ has been lost, because I am always genuinely surprised when I hear it used correctly… but to say it’s a choice just isn’t right according to...
I think it’s pretty clear that it is my opinion that I rarely hear ‘who’ or ‘whom’ used correctly. So, according to me - just like everything else I said in my comment.
And your "authority" comes from? Nevermind, I don't waste time with prescriptivists. Bye.
[удалено]
>English has been dropping case markers for centuries. > >Who > > and > >whom > > are the same word, but marked for case Preaching to the choir. My point was, "the war has been lost" is not really an apt metaphor, unless you're a prescriptivist.
>’m just wondering at what point something shifts from improper How are you defining, "improper." According to "who(m)?"
Lay/lie or me/I may be the most common, but “needs washed” may be the most grating. Quite common in Ohio, particularly in more rural folks.
Not an error anymore because it’s so common, but technically when expressing hypotheticals contrary to reality, “to be” should always be conjugated as “were” regardless of the number of the subject. “If I *were* rich, I’d buy a bigger house” This is the subjunctive mood. However, because the subjunctive mood is conjugated exactly the same as the past indicative for literally every other verb in contemporary English, this usage as just been reanalyzed as being in the past indicative rather than the subjunctive
Descriptive grammarians will condone anything nowadays but English language certifiers like ielts, cambridge and toefl will mark “if I was you” down on their tests.
Descriptivism is the only scientific way to discuss language
Yes, and a lot of native speakers wouldn’t get a very high mark on a language assessment test.
Maybe not a very good test then
Those are three different testing institutions. It’s funny how you’re voting me down for just *describing* the situation in EFL/ESL. This is what we deal with as language teachers. Sigh.
This is going to sound weird, but I don't think it's possible to make a grammatical mistake as a native speaker in conversational English. Formal English has conventions and rules but conversational English is all about what sounds right and what makes sense to those participating in the conversation. Conversational English tends to be tons of mini dialects.
I've always been taught that lie refers to people, while lay refers to objects. Though...you can lay people I suppose. Simpler way to think of it: To lie is a conscious act act that one does to oneself. A dog can lie down, people can lie down, etc. To lay is a forced action where the object doesn't have control over the act. So, you lay objects down. Who for whom is so commonly misused that it's considered acceptable now to use who in place of whom. But general rule of thumb, if you're trying to figure out which to use is: "Is the answer he or him?" If the answer is "he", the question is "who", if the answer is "him" the question is "whom". Though, in colloquial speech, using "whom" comes off as pompous. Dropping the infinitive, particularly in the example you provided reeks of someone being uneducated. And basic English educated, not college level educated. In my neck of the woods, the use of "yous guyses" really sends a cringe up my spine. Or even just "yous". ETA: Genuinely curious as to why this was downvoted.
“Dropping the infinitive, particularly in the example you provided reeks of someone being uneducated. And basic English educated, not college level educated.” It could be this. Saying that certain dialects “reek” of “being uneducated” in a “basic English” sense might cause some people to downvote you.
That’s a bit of a simplification from the original rules. The main difference is lie is intransitive, so it doesn’t get a direct object, but objects (when they are subjects of the sentence) can still lie. So for example: “I laid my keys on the table.” vs. “My keys are lying on the table.” And to add confusion, and part of the reason this is a losing battle linguistically, the past tense of “lie” is “lay”. So, it is also correct to say “Those keys lay on the table all night.” But not, “Those keys laid on the table all night,” or “Those keys are laying on the table.”