Time for a couple new speech peeves. I've seen the construct “should of” written several times in the last couple days, including appearing on a slide at a company presentation where I work. It drives me positively batty.
It's SHOULD HAVE not SHOULD OF. “Should of” doesn't mean anything! People fall into the trap of writing “should of” I think because they hear people using the contraction “should've” in conversational English, and assume that trailing sound is the word “of”.
It isn't.
Also, what the heck is it with the word “well” lately? Since when did it come to be synonymous with “while”? “Well I was in the store I remembered I should of shut my headlights off.” How annoying is that? It's either “Well, I was in the store and I remembered I should've shut my headlights off.” or it's ”While I was in the store, I remembered I should've shut my headlights off.”
Wow, I've never heard the “well” one. I've heard “should of” and “shoulda” quite a lot. There's another one that really bugs me, but I can't remember what it is right now, but I think it involves the creation of a word because people don't know what the entire phrase is, and they're only saying part of it. I'm sure I annoy people with incorrect grammar I don't know or don't care I'm using.
Theres a 6 foot by 4 foot sign in front of the UPS Store here in town:
“Copys:
Black $0.04
Color $0.25″
It drives me absolutely batty every time I pass by it. Life isn't easy for us grammar/spelling nazis.
Now you've got me wondering… there are so many oft misquoted phrases like that:
“for all intensive purposes”?
“it's a doggie-dog world”?
“if worse comes to worse”?
“the crust of the matter”?
If you remember it, come back and let me know what it is.
You should stop in sometime and tell them that their sign is wrong and see what they say. They might actually be embarrassed enough to fix it… if you are lucky enough to talk to someone who actually cares how the business is perceived by the public as opposed to some kid with a summer job.
Or not. I once read a snippet online about a guy who hated the farm store sign down the street that announced “Fresh Pertaters” could be had within. One day he finally pulls over and goes in and says to the proprietor “Pardon me, but I thought you might want to know that you have potatoes spelled wrong on your sign.” The proprietor says “Thank you sir, I know, but I find when people come in to tell me that they usually buy something before they leave.”
so, how do you feel about “wicked” as an adverb?
I'd never heard the “well” one eihter, but wow it sounds ignant.
“If worse comes to worse” was originally “if worst comes to worst” which makes about as little sense. There is a modern variation “if worse comes to worst” but I think that none of them sound very good.
“Wicked” as an intensive adverb is wicked acceptable.
OK – I meant to misspell “ignorant” but not “either.”
It is something very like “for all intensive purposes,” but that isn't it. Darn! I wish I could remember!
Dang! If I'd waited a whole nother minute, I would've remembered.
Not to sound flippant or anything, but I find this discussion interesting. On the one hand I agree, people shouldn't murder the english language. It's probably the world's most abused language. On the other hand however, when do you stop looking at it as abuse and start looking at it as evolution? Have you ever tried to read text from back in the 1800s? (I haven't in a while but it reads a lot different than today). Do word spellings evolve? or does the grammar evolve too?
Jay
Oh, sure, I think they both evolve. We're just the old fogeys who don't like “progress.”
Now, since you brought it up, my question is — is it the ignorant and uneducated who “evolve” the language? If so, where are we going??
Heh, that's awesome.
Another thought on topic, until reading the comment above, I hadn't realized how dumb “for all intensive purposes” was — I always took it for granted that it made sense. I use the saying all the time, though I'd imagine that I'll be using it correctly from now on.
I assume it's meant to be “all intents & purposes”, correct?
“a whole 'nother” yeesh. A whole 'nother phrase that makes no sense and is currently in use.
“whole 'nother”? WTF does that mean? A whole another? As opposed to what? A partial another? Arrrgh, my brain!
Yes, it's “for all intents and purposes”… which makes a whole lot more sense than “for all intensive purposes”.
Another one I hear frequently is “irregardless”. I'm going to slap the next person who says “irregardless” to me.
Manny used to say that just to bug me.
“For all intensive purposes” is another of my pet peeves. I think a lot of people say things based on context and sound, and don't think about what the words could mean.
I'm no etymologist but I think that languages evolve for any number of reasons. Introduction of new concepts that require new terminology, popular usage streamlining the language by shortening, or even producing new words like “ain't”, and then, yes, ignorance leading to new formations.
My recent article that talked about back-formation highlights one such mechanic by which new words are formed because the speaker is ignorant of the word being altered, such as the creation of the word “donate” from “donation”.
The thing that really drives me nuts is when people use the phrase “pretty good” when they should use “pretty well”. For example, in your most recent entry you wrote “the video came out pretty good.”
Oh, the irony.
perhaps this t-shirt is needed