For example, English speakers commonly mix up your/you’re or there/their/they’re. I’m curious about similar mistakes in other languages.
- neutron ( @neutron@thelemmy.club ) 36•10 months ago
In Korean we have these conjugated forms. They both sound the same:
- 나아
[na.a]
(from 낫다) be/become better - 낳아
[na.a]
(from 낳다) give birth (to a baby)
So when given A as an example:
(A) 감기에 걸렸어요. I got a cold.
(B) 빨리 나으세요! Hope you get better soon!
© 빨리 낳으세요! Hope you give birth soon!For some reason Koreans across all ages write C instead of B by mistake. It became a national joke at this point and some do it ironically on purpose. I used to teach Korean. Imagine my face every time.
There are more but I’m on my phone. Will do more later.
- Vilian ( @Vilian@lemmy.ca ) 9•10 months ago
the laguage is evolving, don’t stop it grow
- moosetwin ( @moosetwin@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English8•10 months ago
laguage
- 나아
- Illecors ( @Illecors@lemmy.cafe ) English30•10 months ago
Less. It’s used eveywhere, although should only be used with uncountable nouns.
Less drama is prefered.
Fewer items left on the shopping list.
- CanadaPlus ( @CanadaPlus@futurology.today ) English35•10 months ago
There’s a certain level of irony in correcting people’s language while not reading the original question properly yourself.
- Zagorath ( @Zagorath@aussie.zone ) 9•10 months ago
Muphry’s law in action.
- Illecors ( @Illecors@lemmy.cafe ) English8•10 months ago
:D unbeliebable. My bad.
- Vilian ( @Vilian@lemmy.ca ) 3•10 months ago
yeah, fewer drama is prefered from them
- Skull giver ( @skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl ) 11•10 months ago
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
- randint ( @randint@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz ) English4•10 months ago
Thank you! I often feel the urge to use “less” before a countable noun despite knowing that I’m supposed to use “fewer.” Good to know that it isn’t just me.
- Illecors ( @Illecors@lemmy.cafe ) English3•10 months ago
I see your point, but my personal view is that I like order. I don’t even care too much about specific kind of order. Chaotic-looking things can also be in-order (my favourite example is Vietnamese traffic).
I would argue
at least
is not equal tothe least
. It’s a different word, despite being spelt the same. There are a few examples like that which, unfortunately, escape me at the moment.Also, don’t mean any offence, but text is difficult to relay that - I’ve literally loled at you mispelling
grammar
in the sentence talking about grammar and spelling :D- CanadaPlus ( @CanadaPlus@futurology.today ) English2•10 months ago
I’m actually with you - building out our plural system would be a satisfying direction for English to go. Unfortunately, I don’t see “at fewest” catching on. Maybe I’ll try it out a few.
If you look at non-standard dialects of English, it seems like the most natural thing is for the aspect system to grow out as the language evolves further (and unfortunately lose some of it’s symmetries).
- Björn Tantau ( @bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de ) 21•10 months ago
In German people tend to increase “only” (das einzige). As in, they say something is the “onliest” (das einzigste). It’s usually a good indicator of someone’s education.
In many regions it is common to do comparisons with “as” (wie). As in “My dog is bigger as yours” instead of “My dog is bigger than yours”. The most infuriating thing about this is that most people doing that mistake don’t even acknowledge that it is one. At least people who say “onliest” can be convinced that it is wrong.
Technically not an error but still annoying is to append an apostrophe and an s to a name to indicate the genitive. Like in “Anna’s food is good”. In German that should be written as “Annas Essen ist gut”. But due to many people making the same mistake (I guess also because we’re used to it from English sentences) it has been allowed to use an apostrophe. So in that case I’m just a grumpy old guy.
- ElmarsonTheThird ( @ElmarsonTheThird@feddit.de ) 13•10 months ago
I opened the thread to see if someone already posted this. Glad I’m not the onliest german to be annoyed by this.
- Elise ( @xilliah@beehaw.org ) 10•10 months ago
In Dutch it’s also common to use als (as) instead of dan (than). Technically it’s wrong though.
- sndrtj ( @sndrtj@feddit.nl ) 5•10 months ago
This gets really confusing if you’re from Limburg. In Limburgish, “daan” (the cognate to Dutch “dan”) only exists as the time indicator. With comparisons the correct Limburgish is to use “es” for differences (e.g. “Jan is groeter es Maria”, “John is bigger than Mary”), and “wie” for equivalents (e.g “Jan is eve aajd wie Maria”, “John is as old as Mary”). Now “es” is cognate to Dutch “als”, but using it in Dutch as in Limburgish is wrong. So yeah this gets confusing.
- DirigibleProtein ( @DirigibleProtein@aussie.zone ) 10•10 months ago
In many regions it is common to do comparisons with “as” (wie). As in “My dog is bigger as yours” instead of “My dog is bigger than yours”.
I’m (re-)learning Yiddish at the moment, and “as (wie)” is a common construction; it’s interesting to see which words and sentence formats are common (between German and Yiddish), and which aren’t. I wonder if that’s where this usage comes from.
- Björn Tantau ( @bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de ) 5•10 months ago
Nice, very interesting find.
Also, I’ve never been called a Grammar Nazi more elegantly.
- DirigibleProtein ( @DirigibleProtein@aussie.zone ) 5•10 months ago
I never meant to say or imply that you were and I apologise most humbly if it came through that way. I just thought that it was interesting.
- Lvxferre ( @lvxferre@lemmy.ml ) 4•10 months ago
Technically not an error but still annoying is to append an apostrophe and an s to a name to indicate the genitive.
Even technically I’d consider it an error - the genitive/“possessive” apostrophe in English highlights that you’re dealing with a clitic, attached to the end of the noun phrase; e.g. the dog**'s** food` → the dog and the cat**'s** food. In German however it doesn’t behave like a clitic, it’s a plain declension; e.g. das Futter des Hundes → das Futter des Hundes und der Katze - you’re switching words, not moving them.
I wonder if that’s because most people nowadays use von+Dative instead.
- tvarog_smetana ( @tvarog_smetana@lemm.ee ) 2•10 months ago
Not a native speaker, so I could be wrong about this:
I’ve seen a construction using proper nouns (eg. Annas Haus) where an “s” indicates possession, but no apostrophe. This doesn’t seem to apply to non-proper nouns (das Haus der Frau) and is different from normal genitive construction that adds an “s” to masc/neut noun genders (das Haus des Mannes)
- BruceTwarzen ( @BruceTwarzen@kbin.social ) 4•10 months ago
Oh god before i read your comment i thought i have nothing to add. Then i realised that i know people who say things like: als wie. Mein hund ist grösser als wie deiner.
- mayonaise_met ( @mayonaise_met@feddit.nl ) 4•10 months ago
In Dutch, the only (one) is “de enige”. People often use “de enigste”, which actually means the cutest. Enig -> enigste.
“Ik ben als enigste over” “Ja, schattig ben je zeker”
"“Ich bin der Einzigste, der noch übrig ist” “Ja, du bist wirklich süß”
“I’m the only one left.” “Yeah, cute you sure are”
- crispy_kilt ( @crispy_kilt@feddit.de ) 15•10 months ago
-
could of (could’ve)
-
try and (try to)
-
if I was… (if I were)
-
effect/affect
-
less / fewer
-
not adapting adjectives, like “this fits real good” (really well)
-
- okiloki ( @okiloki@feddit.de ) 14•10 months ago
I really hate when native English speakers use could of or would of. It makes no sense and sounds completely wrong, yet some people claim it’s just a minor mistake.
- cheesymoonshadow ( @cheesymoonshadow@lemmings.world ) 3•10 months ago
“Lay down” when they mean “lie down.” Also “could care less.”
- Saigonauticon ( @Saigonauticon@voltage.vn ) English14•10 months ago
I am a non-native speaker of Vietnamese. There are some pretty horrible mistakes you can make, honestly. I’ll go through a few of them.
In Vietnamese, non-native speakers often confuse the word for ‘mother in law’ with the word for the male genitalia.
Also the word for “large” with the word for the female genitalia. So when ordering e.g. a large meal, if in doubt, just use the word for L (“luh”) instead of lớn.
When referring to your mother-in-law, practice with your partner before the first meeting. Then, quickly ask for permission to call her “mother”, which is easier for non-native speakers to pronounce.
Finally, the word for ‘martial arts’ and ‘Vietnamese wife’ differs only by a single tone. If you make the mistakes above, you may perhaps find out why that is – usually via the medium of a flung sandal :P
- sndrtj ( @sndrtj@feddit.nl ) 13•10 months ago
That English natives have so much trouble distinguishing effect from affect keeps surprising me.
As for Dutch, the dt-issue is presented as if it is this hugely complicated set of rules. While in reality it is dead simple. Third person in the present time is ALWAYS conjugated as stem+t for regular verbs, except in ONE case: when the stem already ends in t. Dt isn’t special, it’s just the rule applied to all stems.
- mayonaise_met ( @mayonaise_met@feddit.nl ) 2•10 months ago
My school taught this whole convoluted system that was meant to help students with multiple tenses, but I just learned to apply the “ik loop” mnemonic which is so effortless (to native speakers at least.)
Sometimes I have to think once or twice about soft ketchup/'t Kofschip for the past participle, but that’s about it.
- DefederateLemmyMl ( @SpaceCadet@feddit.nl ) English1•10 months ago
Third person in the present time is ALWAYS conjugated as stem+t for regular verbs
It gets more complicated in the second person though, with the inversion exception.
- sndrtj ( @sndrtj@feddit.nl ) 1•10 months ago
But again, there is no special exception for dt. Again it’s the regular rule applied: second person conjugation in questions is just the stem for regular verbs.
- Evkob ( @Evkob@lemmy.ca ) 13•10 months ago
I’m a native French speaker, specifically from the Acadian parts of the province of New-Brunswick (Canada). We have a lot of vocabulary, grammar and syntax that people who speak a more standard French might frown upon (lots of borrowing from English but also a lot of old French words which disappeared in Europe but not here, as well as some Indigenous influences). Fuck anyone who judges our dialect and accents, I love the way we speak.
That being said, there are a few things that bother me:
-
The pleonasm “plus pire” (most worst, or most most bad). There are a few common pleonasm but this one is the only one that truly irks me for some reason.
-
“Si que” (if that) because of something that was drilled into me by my dad, “les si n’aiment pas les que” (“the ifs don’t like the thats”). Using “si que” is like saying “if that I say this” rather than “if I say this”.
The more I think about it the more I guess my stance on this is that deviating from standard French is fine and even cool when it adds meaning or nuance. I just dislike it when it’s purely redundant.
- morras ( @morras@links.hackliberty.org ) 7•10 months ago
In France there are some mistakes that became social markers.
People following conspiracy theories are mostly bad educated people, and they wrongly conjugate some verbs.
The most common examples are:
- “Nous sachons”, instead of “Nous savons” (we know)
- “Ils croivent” instead of “Ils croient” (they think, they believe)
- “Comme même” instead of “Quand même” (nonetheless, despite, kinda hard to translate)
Making one of those mistakes will immediately tag you as a fool.
- Saigonauticon ( @Saigonauticon@voltage.vn ) English3•10 months ago
Interesting, in Quebec I’ve never heard the conjugations to the left!
When we need to strategically indicate this kind of thing, we just curse excessively. Often they are strung together into a profane litany that continues on for some time! I always thought it was quite artful.
- Evkob ( @Evkob@lemmy.ca ) 1•10 months ago
Like Saigonauticon, I’ve never heard any of these!
In my neck of the woods you’ll find people adding a first person plural ending to third person plural verbs (ex: “elles mangeons” instead of “elles mangent”) which is common enough to not bother me or strike me as a sign of stupidity, and at least differenciates between the singular and plural forms of a verb.
One thing I didn’t mention in my original comment that does bother me is something kinda similar some people do with the verb “être”, like a teacher I had in high school. Instead of “ils étaient”, she’d say “ils sontaient”, simply adding the typical imparfait conjugation ending to the present “ils sont”.
Les cours avec elle sontaient un peu tristes, et malheureusement assez représentatifs de la qualité de mon enseignement.
- Zagorath ( @Zagorath@aussie.zone ) 2•10 months ago
So is it like saying “si que le jet est un 20 natural” instead of “si le jet est un 20 natural”? Just adding the word “que” in there without reason? Or does it only happen in certain contexts?
- Evkob ( @Evkob@lemmy.ca ) 3•10 months ago
I’m not a linguist, and studies about the French in my region are few and far between, so I’m not comfortable stating anything as fact. However, as far as I can tell, it’s not context-dependant and never adds any meaning.
-
- randint ( @randint@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz ) English13•10 months ago
I’m a native speaker of Mandarin Chinese from Taiwan. Some people often mix up 在 (zài) and 再 (zài) in writing. It’s a bit hard to explain their definitions since they are merely function words (words that have little lexical meaning and express grammatical relationships among other words within a sentence), so I’m just gonna copy and paste their definitions from an online dictionary:
在: to exist; to be alive / (of sb or sth) to be (located) at / (used before a verb to indicate an action in progress)
再: again; once more; re- / second; another / then (after sth, and not until then) / no matter how … (followed by an adjective or verb, and then (usually) 也 (yě) or 都 (dōu) for emphasis)As you probably have noticed, their meanings don’t overlap at all. The only reason some people mix them up is because they are homophones.
Another typo some… let’s just say, less educated, people often make is 因該 (yīn’gāi). The correct word is 應該 (yīnggāi), meaning should; must. 因該 is never correct. You can think of 因該 as the Chinese version of the much dreaded “should of.” The reason is that the distinction of -in and -ing is slowly fading away in Taiwan (it is still very much thriving in other Chinese-speaking societies), and some people just type too sloppily to care.
By the way, I should mention that 在, 再, and 應該 are very basic words, probably one of the first 500 words a non-native speaker learns.
- corsicanguppy ( @corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca ) 3•10 months ago
some people just type too sloppily to care
Ah, so America either borrowed or lent that bad habit.
- CanadaPlus ( @CanadaPlus@futurology.today ) English4•10 months ago
It’s a human universal, I think. Some people just value looking smart less than the slight effort to do better.
- CarrotsHaveEars ( @racketlauncher831@lemmy.ml ) 3•10 months ago
Ah, classical mistakes when they write instead of typing. At least when they type they can suggestions from the IME, hinting they might be making a mistake.
Those ‘similar’ words you mentioned all have different tone or vowel in Cantonese. Not at all close to each other. I bet they sound slightly different too in Banlamgu, if you happen to speak that.
- randint ( @randint@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz ) English3•10 months ago
I don’t speak Bân-lâm-gú unfortunately. I just looked up those words, and they do sound slightly different!
- 在: tsāi
- 再: tsài
- 應該: ing-kai
- 因: in
(For Chinese learners reading this, please note that the tone markers in the romanization of Bân-lâm-gú (Southern Min, a group of languages including Hokkien, Taiwanese, etc.) is different from those used in Pinyin for Mandarin.)
I also looked up how these words are pronounced in Cantonese. They sure are really different! Mandarin really does have a lot more pairs of homophones and near-homophones compared to other dialects.
On a semi-related note, I think it’s really sad that the majority of Chinese dialects are slowly being replaced by Mandarin.
- toastal ( @toastal@lemmy.ml ) English2•10 months ago
On a semi-related note, I think it’s really sad that the majority of Chinese dialects are slowly being replaced by Mandarin.
It really is. If not too disruptive, I always make a speaker clarify “which Chinese language” as I guess the propaganda + ignorance has worked leading many to believe there is just one language of China. …And it’s not just English treating it this way either.
- Lvxferre ( @lvxferre@lemmy.ml ) 12•10 months ago
Due to Linguistics I spend more time trying to analyse the feature than judging it.
That said, two things that grind my gears, when it comes to Portuguese:
- Usage of the gerund for the future tense; e.g. *estaremos enviando (roughly, “we will send”) instead of “vamos enviar” or “enviaremos”. My issue here is not grammatical, but that this construction usually marks lack of commitment.
- “Cuspido e escarrado” (spat and coughed up) to highlight the striking resemblance between two things or people. When the saying is supposed to be “esculpido em Carrara” (sculpted in Carrara).
- RufusLoacker ( @RufusLoacker@feddit.it ) 7•10 months ago
Wait, the resemblance thing is also used in other languages: “spitting image” in English, for example, and “copia sputata” in Italian. I’m actually wondering for the first time where it comes from, so maybe there’s a reason for the Portuguese saying to be related to spit
- Lvxferre ( @lvxferre@lemmy.ml ) 2•10 months ago
I think that there is some semantic association between spitting and copying, that all three languages are using. (I wonder how modern it is; photocopy machines spitting copies come to my mind.)
However in Portuguese it might be also because most people don’t know the reference of the original saying (the marble sculptures of that Tuscan city), so they parse it as a phonetically similar saying. And in quick speech they do sound similar, e.g. for me:
- esculpido em Carrara - [(e)skʊ(w).'pi.dẽ.kɐ̥.'hä.ɾɐ]
- [cópia] cuspida e escarrada - [kʊs.'pi.des.kɐ̥.'hä.dɐ]
- RufusLoacker ( @RufusLoacker@feddit.it ) 3•10 months ago
From a quick search that didn’t provide anything really insightful, it seems that at least in Italian the term has been used since the XIV century, so it’s not photocopy related
- Lvxferre ( @lvxferre@lemmy.ml ) 2•10 months ago
Yeah, if copia sputata is so old there’s no way that it’s from those machines.
Digging further on the expression it seems to be old in English too, attested in 1689. And the only explanation that I’ve seen to account to Italian and English both having it is religious in nature - while not biblical it seems common the idea that God spat into the clay to create Adam.
Speaking on Italian: people (often native speakers) messing with the apostrophe bug me a bit, it’s a good example for this thread. Specially un’ followed by a masculine word; e.g. *un’altro for un altro. It tilts the autocompletion inside my brain, expecting a word and getting another in place. I’m not native speaker though so this likely plays a role.
- RufusLoacker ( @RufusLoacker@feddit.it ) 2•10 months ago
Oh trust me, it happens a lot even between native speakers, and it irks me too haha
- Lupec ( @lupec@lemm.ee ) 6•10 months ago
Good points overall! I’d add that in my opinion “estaremos enviando” is closer to “we will be sending”, which also better conveys the odd, misplaced telemarketer politeness vibes it carries.
- Lvxferre ( @lvxferre@lemmy.ml ) 2•10 months ago
we will be sending
This. I was struggling to convey the aspect, but you got it right IMO. And, pragmatically, it’s more like “we might be sending”, with that might highlighting that it probably won’t.
- schmorp ( @schmorpel@slrpnk.net ) English2•10 months ago
Is ‘estaremos enviando’ not just Brazilian Portuguese?
- Lvxferre ( @lvxferre@lemmy.ml ) 1•10 months ago
I believe that it’s more used in dialects spoken in Brazil than elsewhere, but even in Brazil it’s considered poor grammar. Specially given that both nós conjugations¹ and the synthetic future² are falling into disuse, so it sounds like trying to speak fancy and failing hard at it.
EDIT: now it clicked me why you likely said so; it’s common in European dialects to use “a enviar” (gerundive infinitive) instead of “enviando” (traditional gerund)³. The phenomenon that I’m talking about can be used with either, e.g. “estaremos a enviar”; for me it’s the same issue, people would say “estaremos a enviar” instead of “enviaremos” to throw the event into a distant future that might never happen.
- They’re still fairly used by older people in speech, but there’s a clear gen gap with younger folks using “a gente” almost exclusively.
- almost completely replaced by conjugated ir + infinitive.
- Note that “enviando” is still fairly used in Alentejo and the Algarve.
- toastal ( @toastal@lemmy.ml ) 9•10 months ago
In Thai folks stopped saying -ร -ล clusters outside of educated/business settings & has led to spelling errors popping up everywhere. An example: กร- is a common start to words, but the most popular dish, กะเพรา (ga-prao), is seen as กระเพรา, กระเพา, or even กะเพา.
- Whisper06 ( @Whisper06@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) 9•10 months ago
ITT: English speakers complaining about English speakers
- CanadaPlus ( @CanadaPlus@futurology.today ) English8•10 months ago
Interesting question! Mandatory note that natural languages by definition aren’t designed, and are always evolving, so if enough native speakers do something it is correct.
- Evkob ( @Evkob@lemmy.ca ) 4•10 months ago
Descriptivism gang 😎
- alexsup21 ( @AlexSup21@iusearchlinux.fyi ) 7•10 months ago
Doesn’t drive me crazy, but in Polish some people don’t know when to use “u” or “ó”, “sz” or “rz”, etc. Ex. “usemka” and “pszejście” instead of “ósemka” and “przejście”.
- Flexaris ( @Flexaris@discuss.tchncs.de ) 6•10 months ago
In Swedish people often confuse de/dem(they/them kind of) and I honestly don’t know exactly when to differentiate. You often learn to replace the word with another like vi/oss(we/us) to see if the sentence still sounds good and then you know the form you should use
- sunbather ( @sunbather@beehaw.org ) 4•10 months ago
my go to for remembering which one to use is translating the sentence to english and if “the” or “they” is correct use “de” and if “them” is correct use “dem” (remember by thinking dem = them)
- OBRedwolf ( @OBRedwolf@feddit.nu ) 4•10 months ago
De/dem is simply the subject form and the object form of the same word, they and them respectively. The reason for the common confusion surrounding the use of these, as it might not be quite clear to a non-swedish speaker, is that both of them are pronounced in the same way nowadays: “dom”. As the comment above suggests, just using another subject/object pronoun such as vi/oss (we/us) usually works as they are clearly pronounced in different ways and therefore gets more automatically correct.
Why the words for they/them have evolved to both sound the same and not really that close to how either of them are written I do not know, but the wrong use in text annoys me quite a lot. Personally, I’m all for ditching the differentiation and just default to always writing “dom” as that better reflects the spoken language.
On another tangent, Swedes also often “särskriver” - write two words apart when they should be put together. A fun example of that that I’ve seen is “kassa personal” (~crappy staff) which really should be “kassapersonal” (checkout staff).
- 404 ( @404@lemmy.zip ) 3•10 months ago
And even worse, using personal pronouns exclusively in subject form, e.g. “till han” (“to he”) instead of in object form where suitable, e.g. “till honom” (“to him”).