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.
my peeve is the chopped infinitive, like “it needs fixed” instead of “it needs to be fixed”
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!
I’m driven insane by the use of “itch” as a verb in place of scratch. ‘He itched his leg.’ Bleh!
I hate that punctuation is “supposed” to go inside quotation marks. If you doing anything more complex than a simple statement of a quote, you run into cases where it doesn’t make sense to me.
Did he say “I had pancakes for supper?” and Did he say “I had pancakes for supper”? mean different things to me.
Similarly:
That jerk called me a “tomato!” and That jerk called me a “tomato”!
It feels to me that the first examples add emphasis to the quotes that did not exist when originally spoken, whereas the second examples isolate the quote, which is the whole point of putting it in quotation marks.
I go out of my way to rephrase sentences due to this. That jerk called me a “tomato” for some reason!
Yeah but I shouldn’t have to restructure a sentence because some dipshit centuries ago made an objectively stupid grammatical rule that generally increases ambiguity.
“Would of”, “could of”, and “should of” infuriate me for some reason.
Because they’re wrong. And not in a “these kids and their new-fangled language” way, but in a “this is literally improper English” way.
Yet “would’ve”, “could’ve”, and “should’ve” are fine, if a touch informal, and sound literally identical in most dialects and accents. View it as your own personal window into how your conversation partner engages with language.
It’s not about sound. Would’ve is a contraction of “would have” not “would of.”
Would of is not a different way to interact with English because the meaning of “have” and “of” are completely different.
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.
