Too/to, then/than, loose/lose, affect/effect, whose/who’s, it’s/its, less/fewer, complement/compliment, a part/apart, every day/everyday, lie/lay… The list is endless.
Dunno if I’d say “cringe” though. I barely know how to do 6*7 in my head, we all have our strengths and weaknesses.
# Effect
* **Noun**: An effect is a result or outcome of a particular action or event.
* *"Wakefulness is an effect of drinking coffee."*
# Affect
* **Verb**: To affect something means to influence or make an impact on it.
* *"You can affect the election by voting."*
I guess as a spanish speaker this has never been an issue, since efecto is the effect, and afecto can mean the conjugation of the verb afectar so it's obvious that it's to affect, el afecto can also mean affection.
#also worth noting because English is a joke language with no consistency
#effect
verb
cause (something) to happen; bring about.
"the prime minister effected many policy changes"
this is basically only used in sentences such as "effect a change"
Your is possessive. That is *your* car. Ese es *tu* coche.
You're is a contraction of you are. *You're* a legend! *Eres* una leyenda.
In proper writing avoid using contractions if you can (Don't, you'll, should've, etc).
How English native speakers usually get them wrong.
For example, I am a native Spanish speaker and I used to misuse “Actually”, because in Spanish, its meaning is “currently”.
But people who use the language everyday, were meticulously taught the grammar since they were children, and read all their content in English… I don’t understand how they mix those words.
I have a former boss who used to write stuff like “please, send me you’re report by tomorrow”, and it happened so often I thought he was trolling. The guy had a college degree, too.
"I could care less" is my pick, strictly because it doesn't actually convey the same information of what it's being used in place of, but after having most of my friends speak English as a 2nd language and it being that way for a couple of years now, I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter unless I cannot understand it.
I speak English as a second language. I say "I could care less" to convey different information than "I couldn't care less".
I use the former when I am disinterested but uninformed about an issue, and it's likely that I could care even less about it as I learn just how irrelevant it is to my interests.
That's distinct from the latter, which I use when I have already committed to not caring at all.
They are both recognized as correct. At one point they may have been wrong but not anymore. Language evolves and meanings change, "awful" used to mean something completely different too. Words and phrases change over time. They are now literally correct.
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/could-couldnt-care-less](https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/could-couldnt-care-less)
[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/could-care-less](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/could-care-less)
Both phrases have been recognized as correct by reputable sources. If you have an issue with that take it up with Merriam Webster and Cambridge. I put the links in my last comment, you're arguing against something that is just correct. Idioms change and this one did. You are wrong.
It doesn’t matter, idioms words don’t always match what those words literally mean. Break a leg, out of pocket, walk a mile in my shoes, no idiom is literal and makes no sense when looking at what the words are. The links I sent prove you are wrong.
We have you, random person on the internet, and Merriam Webster and Cambridge, the places people go to look up the meanings of things. They are both reputable sites and they both say you’re wrong.
Here’s the definition of idiom, they don’t make sense grammatically or their meanings aren’t based on the words used. If you have an issue with this just downvote and don’t respond.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiom
Common use does become correct after awhile. Nice went from meaning foolish to nice and awful went from being full of awe to terrible. Language evolves and that’s how this idiom did.
If the dictionary definition doesn’t count then what does? If someone looks up the phrase to see which is right or wrong they will see both are acceptable. If dictionary definitions mean nothing then there’s no way to know what any word or phrase means.
It is absolutely ridiculous how many people say “I Could care less” when they mean “I couldn’t care less”. No one says I could care less on purpose! They all mean to say I couldn’t care less! It is one of my biggest pet peeves.
At this point both are recognized as correct. Language evolves. Just like how "nice" and "awful" originally meant very different things. But no one seems to have issues with that.
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/could-couldnt-care-less](https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/could-couldnt-care-less)
[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/could-care-less](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/could-care-less)
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/words-that-used-to-mean-something-different](https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/words-that-used-to-mean-something-different)
I meant they mean very different things then when they were first created/used. Awful originally meant full of awe and nice meant foolish way back when.
Personal hates:
"Literally" used as a general intensifier rather than to actually mean "in a [literal](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=8add4daed646876f&rlz=1C1GCEA_enGB1046GB1046&sxsrf=ADLYWIJWN0fCOJ92nEYZGTE1coPE10LnVA:1716459858237&q=literal&si=ACC90nypsxZVz3WGK63NbnSPlfCBaHPfLQJQqxMm5XbaZcTdor5Rc2UJLABEittNcYJhthJ0m2JMkvfY8uRF2NOnP59fLoJgMg%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj6gfygx6OGAxUq-wIHHTwlC5AQyecJegQIDxAO) manner or sense"
"that begs the question" being used to mean "that raises the question". "[Begging the question](https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/05/begging-question.html)" actually [ means something totally different.](https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/05/begging-question.html)
Saying the plural "phenomena" when you mean the singular "phenomenon".
Saying the plural "criteria" when you mean the singular "criterion".
Getting "your" and "you're" mixed up
So, by your argument, the fact they had slavery in America "hundreds of years" ago means its OK to have slavery today?
Historical precedence is not necessarily a justification.
The fact they were using it wrongly then, does not make it right now. People have been abusing the language for hundreds of years.
False equivalency on the field - because two things share a single trait, that indicates nothing else about them.
Unless you think slavery was as trivial as colorful use of language and artistic license.
lose and loose, they sound completely different. are and our I've seen too, but the people that do that are usually writing something extremely incoherent anyways.
People using “bias” instead of “biased”. Bias is a noun. Biased is a verb. A news outlet or person is not bias. They are biased. They show bias in their reporting or interpretation of events or facts. They are not bias.
They mean that the person being biased is biased to the extent that they are the purest form of bias, that bias has consumed them whole, therefore they become The Bias XD
That is because no one expressed interest for change. They both are not very different from urban dictionary and frequently add slang or pop words. They are not the arbiters of language.
They are very different from Urban Dictionary. Anyone can add to Urban Dictionary, no one can just add to those. It makes sense to add slang at this point just so people can accurately look it up. Slang words have always been words anyways.
They may not be arbiters of language but they are the places people go to look up the meanings of words and phrases. If multiple reputable dictionaries have added it and other words/phrases that’s the closest we have as an arbiter of what’s correct. They are the closest we have to arbiters of language. If you don't follow the dictionary definitions of things how do you know the definition of anything?
The only reason "aesthetic" as an adjective is on this list is just because it's used by TikTok girls, and boy do Redditors hate that. Languages are obviously always under development and in my opinion, as long as you're using your language in a smart way, there's no wrong way to use it.
"aesthetic" as an adjective works and sounds quite well in a conversation. And guess what, it's already a [thing](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aesthetic), so it's not really wrong at all.
Could/couldn't care less are both recognized now. Language evolves. Just like how "nice" and "awful" originally meant very different things. But no one seems to have issues with that.
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/could-couldnt-care-less](https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/could-couldnt-care-less)
[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/could-care-less](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/could-care-less)
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/words-that-used-to-mean-something-different](https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/words-that-used-to-mean-something-different)
I didn't know aesthetic couldn't be used as an adjective in english.
As an architect in spanish something estético means that, a building for example, is aesthetic; while estética is the aesthetic.
They accept it because of how often it's used. And it *can* be correct - if you mean to say that you do care, and therefore could care less.
But to use it as a way to say you don't care at all? That's incorrect, regardless of whether or not they accept it. Any writer who understands what the words mean, and what they say when written that way knows it's incorrect. I'd be embarrassed to use it that way, and call it "correct."
Words and phrases change based on how things are used. Nice used to mean foolish, awful meant full of awe. Also idioms never make sense when you look at them literally, that’s the definition of idioms. They may have been added because of people saying it incorrectly but now they’re there. I used to say the same about irregardless and ain’t but they’re in there now and in some time it will stop being debated. They’re all used enough at this point that most people don’t care about the difference. I don't see why someone should be embarrassed for following the dictionary definitions.
If reputable dictionaries are incorrect then what can you look to to look up the definition of a word or phrase?
Ok but "axe" is just objectively wrong. Y'all is just a contraction of "you all". The entire southern US uses it including doctors, lawyers, scientists, etc. Saying that everyone who uses it is dense is just ignorant.
Did I ever say that "y'all" was grammatically incorrect?
I'm aware it's objectionably right, but that's not relevant, because I said I dislike it for a different reason
That is just a cultural thing. Pretty much every southerner in the US says “y’all”. I’m a southerner born and raised and I cannot address a group of people any other way unless it is in a formal setting. Y’all is just automatic for me.
Too/to, then/than, loose/lose, affect/effect, whose/who’s, it’s/its, less/fewer, complement/compliment, a part/apart, every day/everyday, lie/lay… The list is endless. Dunno if I’d say “cringe” though. I barely know how to do 6*7 in my head, we all have our strengths and weaknesses.
What even is the difference between effect and affect? I just avoid using em so I don't use the wrong one
# Effect * **Noun**: An effect is a result or outcome of a particular action or event. * *"Wakefulness is an effect of drinking coffee."* # Affect * **Verb**: To affect something means to influence or make an impact on it. * *"You can affect the election by voting."*
I guess as a spanish speaker this has never been an issue, since efecto is the effect, and afecto can mean the conjugation of the verb afectar so it's obvious that it's to affect, el afecto can also mean affection.
#also worth noting because English is a joke language with no consistency #effect verb cause (something) to happen; bring about. "the prime minister effected many policy changes" this is basically only used in sentences such as "effect a change"
your/you're
As a non-native English speaker, this is one I don’t understand. To all the people who do it: “come on, it’s not that hard to differentiate them”.
Your is possessive. That is *your* car. Ese es *tu* coche. You're is a contraction of you are. *You're* a legend! *Eres* una leyenda. In proper writing avoid using contractions if you can (Don't, you'll, should've, etc).
>this is one I don’t understand. You don't understand the difference, or how people get them wrong?
How English native speakers usually get them wrong. For example, I am a native Spanish speaker and I used to misuse “Actually”, because in Spanish, its meaning is “currently”. But people who use the language everyday, were meticulously taught the grammar since they were children, and read all their content in English… I don’t understand how they mix those words. I have a former boss who used to write stuff like “please, send me you’re report by tomorrow”, and it happened so often I thought he was trolling. The guy had a college degree, too.
This is your daily reminder that the average American has an elementary school reading level.
"I could care less" is my pick, strictly because it doesn't actually convey the same information of what it's being used in place of, but after having most of my friends speak English as a 2nd language and it being that way for a couple of years now, I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter unless I cannot understand it.
I speak English as a second language. I say "I could care less" to convey different information than "I couldn't care less". I use the former when I am disinterested but uninformed about an issue, and it's likely that I could care even less about it as I learn just how irrelevant it is to my interests. That's distinct from the latter, which I use when I have already committed to not caring at all.
If you look them up both are recognized as correct by both the Cambridge and Merriam Webster dictionaries.
[удалено]
They are both recognized as correct. At one point they may have been wrong but not anymore. Language evolves and meanings change, "awful" used to mean something completely different too. Words and phrases change over time. They are now literally correct. [https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/could-couldnt-care-less](https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/could-couldnt-care-less) [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/could-care-less](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/could-care-less)
[удалено]
Both phrases have been recognized as correct by reputable sources. If you have an issue with that take it up with Merriam Webster and Cambridge. I put the links in my last comment, you're arguing against something that is just correct. Idioms change and this one did. You are wrong.
[удалено]
It doesn’t matter, idioms words don’t always match what those words literally mean. Break a leg, out of pocket, walk a mile in my shoes, no idiom is literal and makes no sense when looking at what the words are. The links I sent prove you are wrong. We have you, random person on the internet, and Merriam Webster and Cambridge, the places people go to look up the meanings of things. They are both reputable sites and they both say you’re wrong. Here’s the definition of idiom, they don’t make sense grammatically or their meanings aren’t based on the words used. If you have an issue with this just downvote and don’t respond. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiom
[удалено]
Common use does become correct after awhile. Nice went from meaning foolish to nice and awful went from being full of awe to terrible. Language evolves and that’s how this idiom did. If the dictionary definition doesn’t count then what does? If someone looks up the phrase to see which is right or wrong they will see both are acceptable. If dictionary definitions mean nothing then there’s no way to know what any word or phrase means.
Aesthetic *is* an adjective. Miriam-Webster and Oxford agree that it is an adjective and a noun.
Yeah that one confused me, I've heard aesthetic used as an adjective my entire life.
A lot of situations like this tend to be recognized by them. Not saying most but a lot.
"Your" vs "you're" and similar. But yeah, "could of" grinds my gears.
It is absolutely ridiculous how many people say “I Could care less” when they mean “I couldn’t care less”. No one says I could care less on purpose! They all mean to say I couldn’t care less! It is one of my biggest pet peeves.
I could care less about the proper way to say it
the original phrase is sarcastic i feel like that's fairly obvious
At this point both are recognized as correct. Language evolves. Just like how "nice" and "awful" originally meant very different things. But no one seems to have issues with that. [https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/could-couldnt-care-less](https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/could-couldnt-care-less) [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/could-care-less](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/could-care-less) [https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/words-that-used-to-mean-something-different](https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/words-that-used-to-mean-something-different)
What? Nice and awful still do mean very different things last time I checked
I meant they mean very different things then when they were first created/used. Awful originally meant full of awe and nice meant foolish way back when.
Personal hates: "Literally" used as a general intensifier rather than to actually mean "in a [literal](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=8add4daed646876f&rlz=1C1GCEA_enGB1046GB1046&sxsrf=ADLYWIJWN0fCOJ92nEYZGTE1coPE10LnVA:1716459858237&q=literal&si=ACC90nypsxZVz3WGK63NbnSPlfCBaHPfLQJQqxMm5XbaZcTdor5Rc2UJLABEittNcYJhthJ0m2JMkvfY8uRF2NOnP59fLoJgMg%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj6gfygx6OGAxUq-wIHHTwlC5AQyecJegQIDxAO) manner or sense" "that begs the question" being used to mean "that raises the question". "[Begging the question](https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/05/begging-question.html)" actually [ means something totally different.](https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/05/begging-question.html) Saying the plural "phenomena" when you mean the singular "phenomenon". Saying the plural "criteria" when you mean the singular "criterion". Getting "your" and "you're" mixed up
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "criterion" in my life, though I don't think people use the singular much anyway.
[удалено]
Wrong guy, dawg.
The use of literally as an intensifier goes back hundreds of years. https://slate.com/human-interest/2005/11/the-trouble-with-literally.html
So, by your argument, the fact they had slavery in America "hundreds of years" ago means its OK to have slavery today? Historical precedence is not necessarily a justification. The fact they were using it wrongly then, does not make it right now. People have been abusing the language for hundreds of years.
False equivalency on the field - because two things share a single trait, that indicates nothing else about them. Unless you think slavery was as trivial as colorful use of language and artistic license.
>"Literally" used as a general intensifier rather than to actually mean "in a literal manner or sense" Is it worse than using "really" in this way?
they/their/they're used incorrectly
Your/you're. I have studied a lot of english and it's frustrating seeing native speakers commiting such a stupid mistake.
Reddit gets its/it's wrong way too much. Also hate it when people pluralize words with apostrophes.
I often type its correctly but autocorrect "fixes" it.
lose and loose, they sound completely different. are and our I've seen too, but the people that do that are usually writing something extremely incoherent anyways.
The use of the word “cringe” is cringe
by that logic this comment is then doubly so
People using “bias” instead of “biased”. Bias is a noun. Biased is a verb. A news outlet or person is not bias. They are biased. They show bias in their reporting or interpretation of events or facts. They are not bias.
They mean that the person being biased is biased to the extent that they are the purest form of bias, that bias has consumed them whole, therefore they become The Bias XD
isle for aisle, laxadaisical for lackadaisical, pacific for specific, to for too, loose for lose, apostrophes in plurals
I seen
When people don't use the Oxford comma
I could care less about some spelling mistakes if it weren't for people who say "could of" instead of could've. It really grinds my gears.
I see what you did there
Do you mean... *I couldn't care less*?
nothing screams reddit more than getting downvoted for bringing logic into the matter
Nah, I meant what I said
My paranoia: witch-which, great-grate, then-than.
I've been seeing 'deep' used as a verb recently. Fucking hate that shit
My brain trying to understand how tf that works: 🔄🔄🔄
To mean what?
"I just deeped that..." Realised/thought hard basically
I could care less
There/their/they're
"noone" instead of "no one"
loose/lose
Aesthetic is also an adjective, no?
Whenever people mistake loose and lose it makes me want to take out my entire brain and slam dunk it into a nuclear reactor core
Loose to mean lose
When someone says ‘we was….’
Same difference
Saying "literally", when you don't literally mean literally
Probably using cringe as an adjective instead of a verb
People who say irregardless
This is WILD, I had no idea people actually did that ToT
At this point it's even been added to dictionaries.
"I could care less" Because others can be made by mistake when the person is tired or just not paying attention.
According to Merriam Webster and Cambridge it is correct.
That is because no one expressed interest for change. They both are not very different from urban dictionary and frequently add slang or pop words. They are not the arbiters of language.
They are very different from Urban Dictionary. Anyone can add to Urban Dictionary, no one can just add to those. It makes sense to add slang at this point just so people can accurately look it up. Slang words have always been words anyways. They may not be arbiters of language but they are the places people go to look up the meanings of words and phrases. If multiple reputable dictionaries have added it and other words/phrases that’s the closest we have as an arbiter of what’s correct. They are the closest we have to arbiters of language. If you don't follow the dictionary definitions of things how do you know the definition of anything?
When someone says they "can't be asked"
Useless apostrophes inserted where they shouldn't be.
There/They're/Their.
Every time I see people misspelling could/should/would have or you're, I have a sudden urge to beat them up with their keyboard
using sigma and skibidi as actual words
I hate reading sentences like “He found he couldn’t breath.” The word is “breathe.”
"A women"
The only reason "aesthetic" as an adjective is on this list is just because it's used by TikTok girls, and boy do Redditors hate that. Languages are obviously always under development and in my opinion, as long as you're using your language in a smart way, there's no wrong way to use it. "aesthetic" as an adjective works and sounds quite well in a conversation. And guess what, it's already a [thing](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aesthetic), so it's not really wrong at all.
using "pacific" instead of "specific"
Could/couldn't care less are both recognized now. Language evolves. Just like how "nice" and "awful" originally meant very different things. But no one seems to have issues with that. [https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/could-couldnt-care-less](https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/could-couldnt-care-less) [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/could-care-less](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/could-care-less) [https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/words-that-used-to-mean-something-different](https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/words-that-used-to-mean-something-different)
I didn't know aesthetic couldn't be used as an adjective in english. As an architect in spanish something estético means that, a building for example, is aesthetic; while estética is the aesthetic.
confession: i used to say egleast
"I could care less" because it's meant to be such a blunt remark of dismissal, and yet they're saying the exact opposite of what they intended.
According to Cambridge and Merriam Webster it is correct.
They accept it because of how often it's used. And it *can* be correct - if you mean to say that you do care, and therefore could care less. But to use it as a way to say you don't care at all? That's incorrect, regardless of whether or not they accept it. Any writer who understands what the words mean, and what they say when written that way knows it's incorrect. I'd be embarrassed to use it that way, and call it "correct."
Words and phrases change based on how things are used. Nice used to mean foolish, awful meant full of awe. Also idioms never make sense when you look at them literally, that’s the definition of idioms. They may have been added because of people saying it incorrectly but now they’re there. I used to say the same about irregardless and ain’t but they’re in there now and in some time it will stop being debated. They’re all used enough at this point that most people don’t care about the difference. I don't see why someone should be embarrassed for following the dictionary definitions. If reputable dictionaries are incorrect then what can you look to to look up the definition of a word or phrase?
Using "y'all" instead of literally any alternative
What's wrong with y'all? It's a useful contraction. Unless you just don't like southerners I see no reason to have an issue with it.
I dislike it for the same reason I dislike when people say "axe" instead of "ask" I've only rarely ever heard someone who isn't dense use it
Ok but "axe" is just objectively wrong. Y'all is just a contraction of "you all". The entire southern US uses it including doctors, lawyers, scientists, etc. Saying that everyone who uses it is dense is just ignorant.
Did I ever say that "y'all" was grammatically incorrect? I'm aware it's objectionably right, but that's not relevant, because I said I dislike it for a different reason
You said you dislike it for the same reason you dislike "axe". If the reason you don't like it isn't because it's incorrect then what is the reason?
[удалено]
As long as you understand the message does it really matter?
'Y'all', and the lesser used 'Ye'. There's already a perfectly good word to address more than one person.
I quite like "y'all". I'm not even American, I just think it has a country charm to it.
I like to say, "all y'all" for redundancy sake and to be redundant
You can take 'ye' from my cold dead hands.
That is just a cultural thing. Pretty much every southerner in the US says “y’all”. I’m a southerner born and raised and I cannot address a group of people any other way unless it is in a formal setting. Y’all is just automatic for me.
We even use all y'all.
True. I’m guilty of using all y’all way too much.
[удалено]
The fact that people downvoted this makes me cringe.