It bugs me when people say “the thing is is that” (if you listen for it, you’ll start hearing it… or maybe that’s something that people only do in my area.) (“What the thing is is that…” is fine. But “the thing is is that…” bugs me.)
Also, “just because <blank> doesn’t mean <blank>.” That sentence structure invites one to take “just because <blank>” as a noun phrase which my brain really doesn’t want to do. Just doesn’t seem right. But that sentence structure is very common.
And I’m not saying there’s anything objectively wrong with either of these. Language is weird and complex and beautiful. It’s just fascinating that some commonly-used linguistic constructions just hit some people wrong sometimes.
Edit: I thought of another one. “As best as I can.” “The best I can” is fine, “as well as I can” is good, and “as best I can” is even fine. But “as best as” hurts.
I have zero gripes with my mother tongue borrowing English words for new concepts. It might be the best thing it can do, second only to dying.
But every one in ten words it borrows the wrong form. “*What’s that board? That’s a surfing. How do I call the one riding it? Why, a surfinger, of course. *” “My sister sent me another reels-- pluralize what, reelss? Of course it’s reelss, you weirdo.” Makes me wanna scrape my eyes and ears out.
“Also too” drives me up a wall.
“Aren’t I”, as in “I’m still going with you, aren’t I?”, which, when uncontracted, becomes “are I not?” It should be “ain’t I” since “ain’t” is a proper contraction for “amn’t”, but there’s been an irrational suppression of “ain’t”.
which, when uncontracted, becomes “are I not?”
Nope ‘are not I?’
I’d say the suppression of ain’t is perfectly rational unless you want to sound like a cowboy
One thing I try to avoid when I’m writing is when two words repeat. Kind of like your example “the thing is is that.” If I catch myself writing it, I try to rearrange the sentence.
Although a pretty extreme example tickles me: “The cookie he had had had had no effect on his appetite.”
Dutch has the same phenomenon, being so similar to English, but the standard way of writing it is by putting a comma after the noun phrase. So in your example, it’d change to “the cookie he had had, had had…” Typically practical solution that forfeits a charming oddity.
Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo.
James, while John had had “had”, had had “had had”. “Had had” had had a better effect on the teacher.
I hate this, thank you.
Generally these weird roundabout constructions used in English (not my native language). Like “I’m going forward to do X”. There’s always a bit of padding in language, but English seems to be very “paddy”.
Oh, and very non-descriptive words for very specific things. Like washer. What is a washer? It doesn’t do any washing. In German, we call these things Unterlegscheibe. A disk (Scheibe) to put (legen) under (unter) something. Says exactly what it’s doing.
So the first thing is definitely pulled from corporatespeak, so you sound very professional like you know what you’re doing.
As for a washer specifically, there isn’t really a known etymological origin, that’s just what they’ve been called since the 1300s. The thing about English is that it’s like 5 languages stack on top of each other and eating parts of other languages for sustenance.
I really hate R’s in the middle of familiar.
It’s not feR-mill-yer.
A lot of people pronounce Chicago with an R.
…How? Where does the r go?
I’ve heard it pronounced “Cha car go”. I have no idea why some say it this way.
Using “basis” to mean “based on”.
“Basis our discussion, please go ahead and…” “We decided on a price point basis our market research.”
It makes me uncomfortable.
I haven’t encountered that and it’s upsetting and dumb.
“Anyways”. Don’t fucking add the s to the end, it adds literally nothing but costs you more effort. Say or type “anyway”.
I think this is just a vestige of the original form “anywise” still popping up, so at least I can understand this one.
The thing is is that it’s just a phrase to hold space while you collect your thoughts before you speak. You know you have something worth saying, but may not have organized it into a cohesive sentence/words just yet
The context in which it is used makes sense, but the extra “is” is just there. By all rights it should be ungrammatical, but people pretty frequently have that extra “is”, and I do find it absolutely bizarre how pervasive it is.
“This is key” (in business speak)
my peeve is the chopped infinitive, like “it needs fixed” instead of “it needs to be fixed”
IME that’s only really a thing among non-English speakers
Nope. Native US English speaker born in Ohio and a lot of the region into Appalachia uses this construction. IIRC it came from Irish and/or Scottish folks that settled there.
I’m guilty of this, and for some reason “the dishes need doing” in particular tickles my brain. That one doesn’t even make sense with an infinitive!
that one doesn’t bother me at all. “needs fixing”, “needs to be fixed”, same thing. but “needs fixed” can fuck right off.
I say “A part of me thinks […]” (or “wishes” or “wants”, etc) so often that it has started to seriously annoy me.
A part of me thinks that would annoy me as well.
Commonwealth vocabulary versus non-Commonwealth vocabulary. Despite being commonwealth in terms of my native culture, some of it sounds like we’re trying too hard to be contrarian. Take chips and fries for example. The British call potato chips “crisps” and french fries “chips” and they’ll have that discussion with you all night long, but they were patented as chips and fries respectively. Or how about “mom” versus “mum”? Despite interchanging them, I prefer “mom”, especially in a world where “ma” and “mama” are common, which makes “mum” just sound like you’re auditioning as Wednesday Addams. If you look in historical documents from the past, it’s certainly never “mum”. It all doesn’t bother me so much as what bothers me is when those people (you know, the ones who call it the telly instead of a TV) say other people are the derivatives or must bend to them. If I visit London, I’m ordering french fries from McDonald’s, not McChips.
Absolutely nobody is checking the god damn patents for the name of either variety of chip
That said, in British English, chips and fries are different things. McDonald’s don’t sell chips. Those are the thick-cut ones. Fries are the skinny ones.
How did the names get mixed up then though (for them and other things I’ve noticed) if there was always one name for each thing already established?
Both the flat ones and the long ones have been around for over 200 years, it would honestly be weirder if regional differences in the names had never developed. After all, why would someone in York, UK and someone in Boston, USA in the 1820s know or care what the other called their fried slices of potato? “Chips” is a pretty reasonable name for both of them, so maybe the flat ones got popular in America first but the long ones got popular in Britan first, so then each had to find another name for the other sort. I’m guessing here, but I don’t think it’s in any way strange that it happened, however it did happen.
British English using “fries” for thinner chips (chips in the British sense) actually is because of American influence, though. In the same way that Americans call their long fried potato “French fries” because they are fried in the French way, Brits call those thinner ones “fries” because they’re fried the American way. You wouldn’t usually say “American fries” here because “fries” by itself alreadyy means that, but if you did people would immediately understand that you mean the thinner sort that you get at McDonald’s, not the thicker sort you get at a fish & chip shop.
Well I don’t think there’s any in English I mind, but I cringe about a ton of things in my native language.
However you did make me think of one expression.
You’ll never hear “it did didn’t it?” the same way again.
I’m driven insane by the use of “itch” as a verb in place of scratch. ‘He itched his leg.’ Bleh!
