>don't know the difference between there, their and they're >don't know the difference between your and you're >don't know the difference between its and it's >don't know the difference between were and we're >don't know the difference between who, whom, whose and who's >don't know the difference between then and than >don't know the difference between to and too >don't know the difference between of and off >don't know the difference between lose and loose >don't know the difference between effect and affect >don't know the difference between simple past and past perfect >don't know the difference between adjectives and adverbs >don't know the difference between possessive form, plural and third person singular >don't know how to spell or pronounce common words >don't know comma rules or any other punctuation rules >unironically say "should of" or "could of"
>>don't know the difference between there, their and they're >>don't know the difference between your and you're >>don't know the difference between its and it's >>don't know the difference between were and we're These are all obvious, and the only time people get them mixed up is if they're not paying attention to their grammar.
>>don't know the difference between who, whom, That's naturally hard, but whose and who's i've never even heard of people getting confused on
>>don't know the difference between then and than What?
>>don't know the difference between to and too Only if you're not paying attention
>>don't know the difference between of and off What?
>>don't know the difference between lose and loose >>don't know the difference between effect and affect These are just confusing tbqh
>>don't know the difference between simple past and past perfect >>don't know the difference between adjectives and adverbs >>don't know the difference between possessive form, plural and third person singular delet
>don't know how to spell or pronounce common words I can pronounce every common word. But names aren't necessarily common. Hence I can't pronounce something like Mercershire
>>don't know comma rules or any other punctuation rules delet
>>unironically say "should of" or "could of" what's wrong with this?
Isaiah Martinez
I didn't study the language, I just speak it.
Jordan Green
I know all of those, only Americans mix those up
Ian Thompson
based sven
Josiah Butler
Are all kiwis this stupid?
Charles Gutierrez
Kiwis don't take English classes?
Isaiah Collins
...
Caleb Bailey
Yes.
Adam Flores
“off of”
Austin Gutierrez
>most of these are just spelling mistakes which makes sense because natives tend to transcribe phonemes ok
Cameron Williams
Who cares about speaking correctly in English, you anglo cock sucker.
This language is dirty, ugly, over-simplistic and is designed to be sharted on.
John Wood
>when you think europe is on your level so you devise a plan to bring slavery to the modern age but instead reignite the flames of the old european nationalist zeitgeist and pave the way for european world domination
David Perez
Sie sind richtig. Deutsch ist eine bessere Sprache. :-)
I don't get why people get so upset over this. Languges evolve constantly, the process is beyond our control. Trying to impose arbitrary rules is ethically questionable (nobody "owns" a language and gets to define how it should be), especially if they make the language more complicated, add exceptions or serve no purpose (ie solve ambiguity).
Try reading middle english today. People were already bitching that "the young were ruining their language" back then. Yet themselves were incapable of reading old english. Etc etc…
One problem of having poor spelling is that it's often used as an indicator of social status. Try for instance writing a résumé full of mistakes, and see how many replies you get…
Oliver Reyes
Tyrone, stop making our country look illiterate.
Jeremiah Perry
Delete this post. You're an embarrassment to English speakers.
John Howard
You're yelling into the void here, pal. Reasonable arguments are unwelcome.
Dylan Perez
You're one of those people that say shit like 'ectcetera' and 'ecscape' aren't you?
Brayden Young
No, and I really don't know why you'd assume that.
Dylan Gutierrez
>don't know the difference between who, whom English lost the case system almost a thousand years ago, whom is pretty much just an accident at this point
Jayden Gonzalez
>axelly
Juan Price
>like what even are letters, bro? So what if I read and spell at a third grade level, language is just a social construct, dude
Ayden Carter
>>don't know the difference between simple past and past perfect I correct kids about this all the time (I'm a teacher). > I have wrote is said multiple times a day.
>>don't know the difference between adjectives and adverbs This is mainly, but not solely, an American problem. > Drive quick > I'm good are Americanisms, and most (educated) Britons know that they're wrong.
>>>don't know the difference between who, whom, whose and who's 'Whom' is viewed as archaic, but is still a good way to discern learned speakers. The use of 'who's' for the possessive is another common mistake, usually by the illiterate.
Carson Sanchez
The main one I see these days is 'brought', instead of 'bought'.
Ryan Smith
>Should have went Every Twitch streamer multiple times a day...
Nathan Cook
English still has the case system, but only a few words, like 'who', actually decline for it.
The correct use of 'whom' or the subjunctive is an easy way to recognise that you're speaking to an educated and intelligent person.
Michael Sullivan
>> I'm good
What's the problem with that? [Subject] is [adjective], like "I am hungry".
Aiden Ortiz
> I am good means that you are a good, honest, or upright person.
> I am well means that your current condition or health is good.
Jaxon Gray
PS. 'Well' is the adverb to the verb 'to be'. Since 'good' is not an adverb, it cannot describe your 'being'.
Owen Bailey
It's prescriptive grammar. A lot of these rules are just made up after the fact.
Ian Campbell
Fug, just realized I'd completely forgotten about the word 'whose' for longer than I can remember. For some reason I've remembered the distinction between its and it's, but not whose and who's. Weird.
Luke Baker
Another problem which foreigners find mildly amusing and frustrating is the overuse of 'get'.
> I got tired > Get in lane > It had got warm
And I totally agree: it's a disgusting word.
Austin Anderson
>I'm doing good You're doing good? What goods are you doing? Want to share some of the goods? TRIGGERED
Easton Anderson
Mate, adverbs describe verbs. This has been the case for thousands of years.
Say 'I'm good' in educated company, and you'd be laughed out the building.
I'm gonna fuck the english language and y'all can't stop me
Christopher Morris
>'It's so good actually' Or >It's so actually so good' Both drive me fucking insane.
Brandon Morales
I thought when people say "I'm good" they use it as a meme saying, like saying I'm Gucci.
Charles Peterson
>Say 'I'm good' in educated company, and you'd be laughed out the building. Thene these people would be assholes. The kind I wouldn't want to be around. Never mind the fact that most educated people make mistakes as well, yet they feel free to judge others for their mistakes. For example, how they say "coup de grâce".
Oliver Allen
How is actually used correctly?
Jace Davis
new favorite post
Ethan Wilson
Watching league video makers and streamers say it the "Anglo way" really rustled my jimmies.
Anthony Nguyen
Since 'how are you?' is the standard English greeting (more so than 'hello'), the standard reply is often 'I'm well' or 'I'm good'. So this is uttered billions of times a day.
I was being partly hyperbolic: people wouldn't necessarily laughed you out of the building, but they would, just like with every other part of speech, form an opinion of you based on your diction.
If an American says 'I'm good', then everyone just thinks 'He's American, he was bound to say that'. But in educated British company, 'I'm good' literally sounds barbaric.
Gavin Nguyen
>unironically say "should of" or "could of" people are saying "should've"or "could've" you're just not listening
Charles Peterson
>english is such a bastardized language they didn't even adapt their french loanwords to their idioms like most of france's neighbors
Aaron Russell
I'm not saying there isn't sound reasoning behind it, but the truth is our language has no official, canonised standard form, it's all very ad hoc. When people say, "I'm good" for instance, it's not because they're intentionally trying to jeopardise our grammar, it's just they have a meaning in mind that they want to express; they aren't thinking about how it dilutes both words.
Jaxson Richardson
>I'm good Nice to meet you good I'm Franklin
James Stewart
In that sentence it's okay, but the context matters. The way I see people (usually in the Dota community) is to say 'actually' when the no one is actually challenging the viewpoint. It's the same as the way 'literally' has seemingly become a word used for emphasis, instead of it's intended meaning.
Nathaniel Baker
I agree. But language evolution has always been of two camps: the lax and the conservative. I'm simply playing my conservative role.
Lincoln Howard
This is all elementary knowledge though.
Tyler Hughes
Ultimately though, both sides are pissing in the wind, as once some new form becomes common enough, it will be considered valid usage (over time) a posteriori. Same with pronunciation, and it happens even faster.
Grayson Nelson
No, some people can even become quite aggressive when you mention this. Happend to me a couple of times in friendly environments.
The grammar rules have become so blurry for some native speakers, they don't know anything about their own language. How embarrassing is this? This makes me question whether those people have actually gone to school and taken any kind of language lessions. I find it quite amusing that people who've learnt English as their first foreign language in school can sometimes be better at speaking it (excluding pronunciation and extended listening comprehension and vocabulary usage of course - that's a skill you can't aquire in school).
If I compare that to German, everyone has to take mandatory German classes throughout their whole school carreer, with grammar lessions in the early years. It's impossible for Germans to fuck up that badly compared to Murricans for example. The most annoying mistakes Germans make are das/dass, seid/seit and some other minor stuff. But that's about it. Compare that to It wouldn't even take two minutes for me to go to a different thread here or on reddit to find this mistake in written form. Don't talk out of your ass.
Elijah Richardson
Hello Florian Philippot.
Carter Hill
To be fair, Deutsch has more consistent spelling rules and pronunciation. The grammar is somewhat simpler as well (though both share a lot of similarities) and less ambiguous thanks to the mandatory commas.
Nolan Brown
Because Britons (and perhaps Americans, I don't know) receive NO grammar instruction whatsoever. Perhaps they will receive some instruction on apostrophes or quotation marks. That's it.
Things like 'possessive' or 'case' or even 'perfect' are not taught at all, in the entire 3-18 age range.
t. Teacher.
Landon Cruz
tough / through / dough
word / sword
laugh / slaughter
etc etc…
Dylan Rodriguez
you dont >coup de etat (french) >coup de etat ("English") i know "hit of state" wouldnt sound good but man, im sure you could make something up >golpe de estado
Wyatt Flores
Same in Greece, you even have to learn ancient Greek to a certain basic degree. German was my second foreign language choice after English and i was surprised to find out that the grammar has a lot of similar to ancient greek grammar. You even have Dativ, although it's not used a lot nowadays.
William Allen
I wouldn't say that it's simpler, because it has much more depth, because it is more strict. The lack of all this makes English much more implicit, which is bad if you want to express yourself, but it's good if you learn it as a second language.
I don't know if I feel more anger or sadness right now.
David Roberts
That's what makes it simpler to learn. There are fewer exceptions, fewer ways to write the same thing in ambiguous ways. A strict, well-defined grammar is good for everyone.
English has many "garden path" sentences that are intentionally hard to parse:
"fat people eat accumulates" "violonist linked to crash blossoms"
Andrew Miller
>coup d'etat
Isaiah Long
putsch
Oliver Kelly
Too german
Oliver Martinez
I don't understand why foreigners take so much pride in learning English, is it supposed to be impressive or something? >I'm a polyglot Oh, which languages do you speak? >Danish, Swedish, *irrelevant dialect* and English Hmm
Thomas Rodriguez
this
Leo Mitchell
Extreme rigidity is what makes certain languages so shitty. Correct grammar is obviously nice, but if it's the cost of flexibility, then it's worth it.
Blake Lee
>unironically say "should of" or "could of" what you're hearing is "should've" or "could've", which is correct if informal
Nicholas Sullivan
>I don't understand why foreigners take so much pride in learning English, is it supposed to be impressive or something? Proficiency in any non-native language is impressive, yes. Et toi, tu parles combien de languages? Wie viel Sprachen kennen Sie ?
Samuel Watson
> "fat people eat accumulates" Ungrammatical: 'Accumulates' isn't a noun.
> "violonist linked to crash blossoms" Ungrammatical: there is no main verb.
Jaxon Jones
Wrong, and wrong.
"fat, (that) people eat, accumulates" ; accumulate is a verb.
"violonist, linked to crash, blossoms" ; blossom is the main verb.
Nathan Morales
>my language is easy, i have no comparison points but i know because i can speak it silly
Sebastian Mitchell
My French is alright, the difference though is that I'm not saturated in it. Fair dos for French people who likely aren't exposed to English often but it's a bit rich coming from some of these places that end up speaking it more than their native languages
And? They're still ungrammatical. You're missing the relative pronoun from both (and protip: it isn't 'that').
Noah Cox
well they're retards, what do you want me to say?
Lucas Sanders
>shoulda >coulda >woulda
Oliver Reyes
for what is "a" and "the"? just use "this"
Evan Sanders
>And? They're still ungrammatical. You're missing the relative pronoun from both (and protip: it isn't 'that'). You're being obtuse and wrong. Read up about "garden path sentences", these are fairly well known examples that have been studied a lot by linguists. They serve as proof to answer the question "when reading, do we parse sentences bit by bit, or as a whole?".
Josiah Sullivan
nothing, just accept that this usage of words is disgusting
not as bad as "should of", because "shoulda" isn't a word and clearly meant colloquially
Kayden Wright
Not him, but remember that native speakers do not actively 'learn' the language, and that writing is in a quite distant second place to the vastly more popular speaking and listening. 'Should've' and 'should of' sound exactly the same in colloquial speech.
It's still barbaric and illiterate, but that's my explanation for it.
Kevin Ward
also imposible to say something more komplex than "hot bob kill red dog"
Jose Green
>doesn't realise the difference between theoretical english and real english
William Rivera
> 'garden path' sentences cannot be ungrammatical That's not the point. These nonsense-sentences are clear evidence that speaking and writing are two fundamentally different things, and so these, if anything, prove the 'should've' / 'should of' discussion irrelevant; not that English is in some way 'deficient' or 'too simple'.
Xavier Young
It's not like we have any way of knowing the nationality of the people posting that are though. I'm not going to pretend I haven't seen native speakers making that mistake, but then I'm sure foreigners do it as well.
Carson Scott
I'm absolutely aware of why they are writing like that. It's just so fucking retarded. The good part is though, that it's a simple indicator for knowing whether it's worth speaking to that person or not...
Nathan Johnson
>I'm sure foreigners do it as well hell no The only imaginable reason why a non-native speaker would use this is because they are copying retarded native speakers
Hudson Torres
We don't really need to. Native speakers just need the context and they'll understand what is being written.
Benjamin Taylor
That wasn't my point at all. I was arguing that, compared to German, the English grammar is less rigid and allows for a lot of ambiguity that can sometimes be harmful even in day-to-day speech. No language is "worse" or "better" than another language, that's not what this is about. Some, however, can be easier to learn, depending on which language you already know.
Christopher Green
you described me
Kevin Kelly
>is because they are copying retarded native speakers Sure, but it's not like that disproves what I said.
Lucas Miller
Vocaroo this m8 I want to laugh at your pronunciation.
John Sullivan
It's VERY rare that those clearly recognizable mistakes are being copied.
Matthew Hernandez
That's a made up statement with no proof.
Hudson Taylor
They all act like they're some kind of English scholars even though they probably have the English capacity of a 12 year old. English is fucking everywhere, people are saturated in it.
