"He lied on the floor" IS grammatically correct when referring to a member of Congress or Parliament. }:-)
@ecsciguy795 жыл бұрын
I literally laughed out loud!
@allanrichardson14685 жыл бұрын
President Clinton got in trouble with a lie about a lay! 😜
@klyvemurray5 жыл бұрын
@@ecsciguy79 I metaphorically pissed my pants, laughing :D
@MauriatOttolink5 жыл бұрын
Michael Jordan Love it Man....Just love it! Crafty.
@k.c11265 жыл бұрын
😁😁😁
@NealB1234 жыл бұрын
The biggest difference between a native and non-native speaker of any language is that the non-native speaker is terrified of making usage errors and the native speaker doesn't care how many errors they make.
@thedmitryguy3 жыл бұрын
Agreed.
@pak3ton3 жыл бұрын
You aren't worried too much until you writte something on internet :v
@thatperson98353 жыл бұрын
You're right but not always. For example russian speakers often DO care about these mistakes. I know the rules of talking and writing but it's often easier to say/write smth the wrong way or some words and expressions simply sound to me better when they are told incorrectly. I hate agrues in russian language SO MUCH because the opponent always tells you that you're wrong or stupid just because "you don't know your own language. go and learn it before talking to me". WHAT THE HELL
@sluggo2063 жыл бұрын
Until they have a high confidence and fluency in English, then they make the same mistakes native speakers do. Because oftentimes these "incorrect" forms are more appropriate for casual circumstances, and using the correct form implies more formality or snobbishness than intended, or that the speaker is non-native using textbook English.
@ellies_silly_zoo3 жыл бұрын
I'm not native but over the years I've picked up on more colloquial English and you won't see me writing "though" or "through" anytime soon (I say "tho" & "thru" for less snobbiness). Recently I've also just gone with "aswell", "everytime", "everyday", "alright", because spelling them apart is maybe traditionally correct, but it hurts my eyes. Nobody needs prescriptive grammar. As long as everyone understands you without troubles and what you're saying makes some sense, go ahead. Except for "you're"/"your" (honestly just say "ur", easy fix) and "there"/"their"/"they're" ("ther" could maybe work), those annoy me a lot. Maybe one day English is ready for spelling "ought" as "aut". P.S., I totally say "doe" for "dough"
@ROGER20958 жыл бұрын
I've been a language snob my whole life, but there's one important thing I always keep in mind: Language is what people speak, not what scholars say they should speak. The purpose of language is to facilitate communication. For example, when someone uses a double negative, it's true that they are saying the opposite of what they intend. However, if the listener understands the intended meaning - and they usually do - then communication is achieved. I can listen to an illiterate child and understand what he is trying to say even though his sentences are imprecise and poorly constructed. Communication is achieved. On the other hand, American lawmakers write lengthy, perfectly constructed, precisely worded laws that nobody can understand - not citizens, not judges, and usually not even the knuckleheads who vote them into law. Communication is not achieved.
@ZER0--8 жыл бұрын
Language is dictated by usage, ie it changes over time. Go back 500 years and you'd have a hard time understanding folk in England, even going from London to Birmingham would confuse a Londoner, and the Brummie that they may converse with. A good example is Kipper Tie= Cuppa Tea in the midlands as Noddy Hold will tell you.
@viljamtheninja8 жыл бұрын
When the law is unable to be understood, it is because of lack of precision in written language, or lack of forethought on the side of the lawmakers. That means it requires a combination of two things: better understanding of the area of the law (which is obtained by studying and learning from examples to understand what complications may arise with the way a law is written at the current moment, in order to learn how to improve it) and more precise language. If arbitration and abstruseness is allowed in legal writing, we'll have problems. There are various forms of communication. I work with children so I know fully well the value of speaking without grammatical perfection in order to communicate more clearly simple intentions. But when we're discussing more advanced things, clarity with as few uncertainties as possible should always be sought after. In other words: facilitating communication is not the ONLY purpose of language. It also has the purpose of specifying communication and making it more precise. Imagine natural science schools where the meaning of "atom" is unclear because hey, people just use it as a vague term to define "like really small things, dude".
@viljamtheninja8 жыл бұрын
Or, to put it in a more commonplace context: their, they're and there. These are three entirely different concepts, and without a doubt, people know what they mean and what the differences are; if someone writes "it's there chocolate" I'm pretty sure they still MEAN that the chocolate belongs to 'them', and not that it's a chocolate that has the attribute of being 'there'. Which is why many people failing to use these three words correctly (which is not the same as, say, colloquial or dialectal variation) will never result in the change of grammatical rules or word definition. Because all three concepts are necessary to be able to specify using language something in reality we are trying to describe as precisely as possible. The spelling and the sound of the words are definitely subject to change, but never the need to be able to differentiate between these very REAL concepts.
@ennyjole80928 жыл бұрын
"Scholars" aka linguists don't correct usage or determine what's proper. People on the internet do
@viljamtheninja8 жыл бұрын
Enny Nathaniel Jole Way to entirely ignore every argument I made and in fact make no point whatsoever. I'm impressed.
@billyhw54923 жыл бұрын
This is writing only, but it drives me up the wall when people write "loose" when they mean "lose".
@chilicrab08303 жыл бұрын
does it make you loose your mind?
@just1frosty5163 жыл бұрын
@@chilicrab0830 😭😭
@just1frosty5163 жыл бұрын
I can’t spell those right but I’ll never mess “their there and they’re” up idk how ppl mess that up they’re all so different they have nothing in common besides a little pronunciation
@PurpleObscuration3 жыл бұрын
@@just1frosty516 , I google stuff all the time, especially on my cell phone
@georgesakellaropoulos81623 жыл бұрын
Spelling errors are very common. It's especially bad when a tattoo is involved.
@stefanreichenberger50918 жыл бұрын
The quadruple negative is even cooler than the double one: "I'm sitting over here on Parchman farm, Ain't never done no man no harm."
@Krieghandt8 жыл бұрын
I ain't got one, and I hain't never gonna git one, neither! Yep, some people actually use hain't .
@Mateau358 жыл бұрын
The triple negative "I ain't never seen nothing like that" is the absolute worst I've ever encountered
@harry_page8 жыл бұрын
I haven't never heard no-one not use that
@wolfgangheislitz50818 жыл бұрын
"Absolute worst" is a double superlative and probably wrong.
@TheAllAroundMan8 жыл бұрын
Man, I've seen some shit... but I ain't never seen no shit like this!
@Kasamori8 жыл бұрын
English can be hard sometimes. It can be understood through tough thorough thought, though...
@barbatvs89598 жыл бұрын
Nice expression, whoever made that up.
@YourFriendtheGeek8 жыл бұрын
You forgot bough, slough, cough, and hiccough haha
@Emad.A.E8 жыл бұрын
I was reading (though)s all the way! :D
@Teddypally8 жыл бұрын
tru tuff turra tots doh. fixed!
@Trainfan1055Janathan8 жыл бұрын
Had to read that three times.
@imagomonkei5 жыл бұрын
My favorite is “human bean”. I saw that one yesterday.
@katrachosps5 жыл бұрын
Unless He ment " human bean..er" hispanic lol
@truffleflowers5 жыл бұрын
😂😂😂😂😂
@jordanwardan75885 жыл бұрын
a real human bean. & a real hero
@Joltaic5 жыл бұрын
"Lisa loves you too, as a person... as a human bean." -Johnny
@tiagoloprete5 жыл бұрын
LoL I LITERALLY died laughing
@rjlchristie3 жыл бұрын
Unfortunately, once you learn to recognise such mistakes you are doomed to endure eternal irritation. You will hear them everywhere.
@GoodWoIf3 жыл бұрын
Salvation comes from learning to be a descriptivist instead.
@pablomunoz31193 жыл бұрын
@@GoodWoIf Never. I did not read a 400 pages long 19th century book on the correct usage of shall and will for nothing! Seriously though (yes I really did read it, it's called The Irish Difficulty, if you're curious) I can't understand why people don't take pleasure in the constant refinement of their own speech. Be it their native tongue or a foreign one. It's a craft like any other, the same as --through practise and dedication-- learning, for instance, to make one's fingers dance dexterously through the keyboard, and as a consequence, playing beautifully and with virtuosity. And believe me I do understand the processes through which languages 'evolve' into different ones. Namely erosion, metaphor, analogy &c. In a sense, I am just hopeless. I do accept (cope with, rather) that this 'evolution' is natural, more or less inevitable, and not always pernicious (such as when it results in new morphology.) However, it's my view that, at least in Indo-European languages, the prevailing trend has been towards simplification. And that, as result (rather than despite!) of speakers of IE languages being *too* literate --some of us, anyway-- they are much less likely to reinterpret and grammatically bleach words. This results in a constant erosion with no new morphology to counteract it. Therefore, for the sake of upholding a widely understood standard, and also because, especially if there is a body, such as the Real Academia de la Lengua Española, which us Spanish speakers are blessed to have, it creates a situation where all the busywork of finding etymologies, more stylistically appropriate, and in generally, well wrought and thought out alternatives, is already done by eminences in the language (in our case, since the 1700s!). About the 'prestige' (or lack thereof) of certain dialects, I consider it to be largely well deserved.
@alvianekka803 жыл бұрын
I called that "cursed by knowledge".
@keithklassen53203 жыл бұрын
@@GoodWoIf Exactly; unless people are emotionally invested in finding fault with others, in which case prescriptivism is just perfect.
@TheGastropodGamer3 жыл бұрын
at that point im certain they arent grammatical errors but become real accents lmao
@phdtobe7 жыл бұрын
A native English speaker here. In my experience, the object form of "who" ("whom") is increasing not used. I've even seen this occur in articles published by notable major media sources, such as NPR and The Economist. Given that trend, native English speakers might soon commonly ask "For *who* the bell tolls".
@Gwydda7 жыл бұрын
Since you're so concerned over what you deem correct language use, you shouda woulda coulda also used the adverb "increasingly" in lieu of the adjective/progressive 'increasing'. Just sayin'.
@JudithKiwi107 жыл бұрын
I will always remember lunch in Debrecen when a Croat (who was there to learn Hungarian) quizzed me on the use of "whom" in English. After explaining its correct use, I added if he wanted to sound like a native speaker he shouldn't use it :-(
@ownpetard83797 жыл бұрын
The phrase is 'for whom the bells toll' with 'whom' being correct. I suspect you are trying to make a funny, but I do not get it. haha
@ownpetard83797 жыл бұрын
***** You are misinformed. 'Who the bell tolls for' is not correct. You do not need my permission, however, to think that it is or to associate with people that agree with you.
@ownpetard83797 жыл бұрын
Me speakee Englishee from birthplacee, missy. It seems you are climbing a high horse to talk to me yet you want to wallow in the low places. English has rules. You may choose to ignore them, but that is what you are doing. They remain rules. I have used 'whom' many times. I try to use it each time it is appropriate to do so. I was taught NOT 100 years ago that whom was the correct form for an objective case. i have never heard of a construction of 'who the bell tolls for' Note that in the parent comment above, the writer is also trying to make a funny when he speculated that English speakers might say, 'for who the bell tolls' . You may choose to surround yourself with non-standard English, but I would not want to join them. I fear this country (that's the US of A) is rapidly splitting into thugs and swells. I want to be among the swells. A good approach is to speak like one.
@gotha888 жыл бұрын
As non-native speaker I always found funny that people have trouble with they`re, their and there.
@danielkmilo2412988 жыл бұрын
Maybe is funny because many of non-natives like us have studied many years to know what's wrong and what's right just to find that many native speakers make mistakes with simple things like that
@rparl8 жыл бұрын
With native speakers, the sound preceeded the grammer.
@WhiteScorpio28 жыл бұрын
And I find it very funny that so many people can't be bothered to start a sentence with a capital letter and end it with a punctuation sign. No offense.
@rparl8 жыл бұрын
WhiteScorpio2 I suppose that KZbin comments are VERY informal English.
@Yurinsm8 жыл бұрын
Makes sense.
@somemaycallthisjunkmeicall1336 жыл бұрын
1900s valley girl: um 80s valley girl: like um 2010s valley girl: um like literally
@Grintelfunk6 жыл бұрын
LOL... same with " Really " ! (giggles)
@GottaBeCarefulWhenIDip6 жыл бұрын
Some may call this junk me I call them treasure well um like literally it’s kinda so hard not to use fillers
@SternLX6 жыл бұрын
That literally made me laugh out loud.
@paulgutman31576 жыл бұрын
I hate fillers. I've worked hard to purge my speech of fillers, because that's how much I despise them. Especially "like."
@BytebroUK6 жыл бұрын
Yes!
@jaystone48162 жыл бұрын
I'm a native English speaker and college educated. Some of the mistakes you noted are really English in transition to a new standard, but some are definitely made by native speakers who are poorly educated or - let's face it, educated but a lot didn't sink in. When you speak or write, you convey more than just the obvious content of the communication. You convey your educational level, family background, sometimes your regional origin, occupational level and your general intelligence. We all make these types of personal assessment consciously or unconsciously, and they do have an impact on how you are perceived by others, positively or negatively. Like it or not, that's been substantiated by a great deal of social research, and it can subtly or otherwise impact how you're treated in a variety of different situations. I've noticed a general decline over many decades in the speaking and writing competency of many native English speakers in the United States up to the present time. So have many businesses and institutions of higher learning. I'm sure there are many reasons for this, but what concerns me is this: a level of competency in your native language is crucial for the ability to understand the modern world and make important decisions about your employment options and lifetime earnings, and the complex social, economic and political issues before us today. Language is thought, and democracy depends on an informed and thoughtful electorate. When your native language competency is blunted, so is your ability to deal with the world. That being said, having studied French for a number of years, I have a great deal of empathy for any non-native speakers of English learning the language. It can be a truly humbling and frustrating experience to feel like a 5-year old child instead of an adult when you attempt to communicate with a native speaker when you are new to learning their language.
@nkbm3120 Жыл бұрын
As a person having learnt Italian, studying Russian and Spanish (and Latin, a bit), and a native Portuguese speaker and a person who speaks English at the level of a native speaker, I very much concord.
@MaoRatto Жыл бұрын
I get frustrated with native ENG speakers when I'll be speaking in perfect English. I consider Western USA speaks a creole of English, and British people are de-latinizing. I'm studying most romance languages and find them much more systematic and better due to inflected verbs and wished I had them. I have noticed apparently I speak fairly latin-based in vocabulary which makes it hard to understand for the less conservative dialects of English. For context a bit of hold overs like a'prefixing, double nouns, than a dose of just more helper verbs inbetween words show up. Including I swear Western USA and NORTHERN forget to use their articles constantly!!!
@beanapprentice16878 ай бұрын
Wow, well said. It will be interesting to see how American English continues to degrade in the coming decades.
@Rob749s8 жыл бұрын
"Would of" instead of "would have" shits me to tears.
@luciopiovano80358 жыл бұрын
Yeah, it's annoying af
@meneldal8 жыл бұрын
Fortunately, it's not as common as there/their/there're (the latter being more or less inexistant in native English speakers).
@Rob749s8 жыл бұрын
Antoine Chauvet In my generation in Australia, I'd say more people get it wrong than right.
@KasabianFan448 жыл бұрын
It annoys me even more when people emphasise the "of" in speech, (i.e. instead of "wood-hav" or "wood-əv", they say "wood-ov").
@Xeotroid8 жыл бұрын
Literally.
@xGrandArcher8 жыл бұрын
As non native English speaker and a man who took classes of English I have to say I've never even heard about subjunctive mood. Sounds like something to fail people on English exams..
@a9nh8 жыл бұрын
I totally agree with you 👍
@kon67688 жыл бұрын
I didn't understand his example with go/goes but it is strange not to hear about subjunctive mood because it is in every English textbook.
@pauljones97468 жыл бұрын
English speaker here. English is a mixed language. Some of the rules, doesnt make sense. A E I O U and sometimes Y??? Sometimes???? I before E except after C... uhhh... Except these 96 words A agreeing albeit Alzheimer's ancient atheism B beige Beijing being C caffeine concierge D deicide deify deign deindustrialize deity disagreeing dreeing dreidel E eigen- eight either F Fahrenheit feign feisty foreign foreseeing forfeit freight G geitost gesundheit H heifer height heinous heir heist herein I inveigle K kaleidoscope keister L lei leisure M madeira meiosis N neigh neighbor neighbour neither O obeisance onomatopoeia P peine poltergeist protein R reign reignite reimburse rein reindeer reindustrialize reinforce reinstall reinvest reisolate reissue S safeish scarabaeid schlockmeister science seeing seignorial seine seismic seize sensei sheik skein sleigh sleight sovereign species stein surfeit surveillance T their theism therein V veil vein W weigh weight weir weird wherein whereinto X xanthein Z zeitgeist zootheism
@TheMegalusDoomslayer8 жыл бұрын
I don't think it's taught to children. I don't remember being taught it. Then again, I can't remember what the fuck participles are. I remember sitting in my 6th grade language arts class when we were learning it, but I can't remember what the hell the lecture was. Of course, it's a miracle I can remember anything at all from a 10-year-old memory.
@Igorp1338 жыл бұрын
xGrandArcher That's quite complicated, and you're right that subjunctive mood makes people to fail exams.
@nekto345 жыл бұрын
I of bean speaking english four almost 18 years now. I are do excellent.
@MrKotBonifacy5 жыл бұрын
Ну, конечно... : )
@flyingfalcon50655 жыл бұрын
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@flyingfalcon50655 жыл бұрын
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@TheSpiritombsableye5 жыл бұрын
This will mess up translators.
@laskarsangkuriang51295 жыл бұрын
Lmao
@fumblerooskie2 жыл бұрын
Being understood is the ultimate goal, regardless of mistakes.
@Langfocus2 жыл бұрын
Very true.
@jaystone4816 Жыл бұрын
Of course being understood is important. But language is more than just being understood. Have you ever noticed some people "have a way with words," or are very interesting to talk to? Or you read a famous quotation that has a poignant meaning for you? The real problem in being understood is usually when you are a non-native speaker speaking to a native speaker. If you're understood, at whatever level, it's an accomplishment. Native speaker to native speaker is really a lot more than "being understood." It's also about being judged positively - or negatively, and it is often quite non-conscious but influences the interaction.
@nkbm3120 Жыл бұрын
@@jaystone4816And this is why we have English lessons for English speakers.
@tmblighty917 Жыл бұрын
Irregardless 😊
@laythadrian5705 Жыл бұрын
@@tmblighty917I came here for this comment. Thank you 🙏🏻
@CrystalTwinStar4 жыл бұрын
Thank you for clarifying "lay" and "lie". I am a native speaker (American) and have always had difficulty with this one.
@guesswho57904 жыл бұрын
It was so informative!! I had always been confused by it too.
@Author_Alyssa_Taylor3 жыл бұрын
Crystal of Twin Star Enterprises -- So nice to see a mannerly reply and that we North Americans are open to learning something! Hugs from Canada.
@tuxedojunction94223 жыл бұрын
I didn't really understand it until I learned German--legen and liegen correspond directly with the transitive verb being regular (regular-ish in English, as the spelling of laid is irregular though the pronunciation is the same as if it were the regular layed) and the intransitive one being irregular. But I still struggle with the past tense of lie being the same as the present tense of lay. Whyyyyyyyyyy????? If you were designing language with the goal of people getting it wrong, the is the dumb sh!! you would build into the language.
@ahmadzulfiqaridris36813 жыл бұрын
@ Crystal of Twin Star Enterprises You've earned my respect! A non-native speaker here. We non-native English speakers make mistakes in our mother tongue too. LOL. BTW, in our culture brilliant and wise people are always humble, and they appreciate any piece of knowledge and don't mind standing corrected.
@nehcooahnait78273 жыл бұрын
I had some minor problems with this when I was at middle school when I studied English as a second language 😆
@djog72645 жыл бұрын
I ain't gave no money to nobody. Love triple negatives
@ruemignon5 жыл бұрын
That sounds really badass.....
@juanmanuelmoramontes38834 жыл бұрын
My brain has replanted its whole existence.
@jacquelinevanderkooij43014 жыл бұрын
Where are you from 😂
@tia43614 жыл бұрын
Nonstandard English moment nonstandard English moment
@infinitefandubs50784 жыл бұрын
What ain't
@MrCornishmonkey6 жыл бұрын
The three flags on display at the beginning imply that native speakers from the United Kingdom do not make mistakes. This is, of course, correct.
@Langfocus6 жыл бұрын
Finally, somebody got it! 😄
@JaneAustenAteMyCat6 жыл бұрын
I wish it was. Were. Wait. What?
@Leanne-Lea5 жыл бұрын
Well some people in the UK do these mistakes lol the cockneys does them but not the snobs of course
@MauriatOttolink5 жыл бұрын
Cornishmonkey Especially, when they are mistakes imported ready-made from the USA. Xmas greetings to Kernow!
@marinhomarinho41975 жыл бұрын
Paul meant people from UK don't speak English. LOL
@BetoElViejo3 жыл бұрын
Thanks for covering these common mistakes. As a child, I was often mocked by my schoolmates for using correct grammar. (They called me Mr. Perfect English) As a result, I didn't fit in very well. Over time, I was vindicated and was consoled by achieving better test scores than many of my peers. Learning not to correct others has proved to be a valuable decision unless someone asks me to do so. I'm not always right, and I make mistakes from time to time. It's probably better to allow others the freedom to express themselves as they see fit. Living languages are dynamic and will change over time. So, even though I find considerable value in established norms, while living in glass houses, we should take care not to throw stones. :)
@chimanruler153 жыл бұрын
Agreed 100%. Correct yourself, but let others be free to make their mistakes unless they want you to correct them (or unless they make a really embarrassing mistake).
@jenm12 жыл бұрын
beautiful
@carlhinote Жыл бұрын
Amen!
@corporatejones9126 Жыл бұрын
Damn! Your schoolmates are very dumb! United States should have educated more American to learn proper language! They think is American English is far superior than British English! This is crazy! They are the same language! People nowadays are dumb, I would rather talked to the animals and hiding in the forest all alone for eternity yeah! No exciting! But At least I don’t meet dumb people. I’m Canadian! i would Rather living in the Forest than the dumb English speakers! I hope anglophones world convinced everyone anglophone country to speak real English not street slangs or internet meme language. So anglophone governments are very dumb and they only concern is capitalism and Liberals even money! I hope real English become popular in the future! This is why preposterously what English become dead language! I swear Spanish and chinese would took over English in the future! I sincerely hope you read my comment!
@corporatejones9126 Жыл бұрын
Also probably your schoolmates jealous of you or the education system sucks! Or the dumb Americans think their English is far superior than British English. Remember, They are the same language just like Mexican Spanish to Castilian Spanish ( European Spanish) even Romanian and Moldavans as well Malay and Indonesian
@andrewc41128 жыл бұрын
The subjunctive mood in English is dying out, which is a shame, because I think it's useful. You were spot on about these being very, very common.
@andrewc41128 жыл бұрын
Notice that he didn't even mention "who" vs. "whom." I think that one's a lost cause, only used in the most formal of writing if at all.
@nychold8 жыл бұрын
Personally, I couldn't care less if someone used 'who' when they meant 'whom'. But when people use 'whom' when 'who' was appropriate grinds my gears, because they're only doing it to sound intelligent. Like "Whom was that at the door?" Bitch, please...saying 'whom' doesn't make you smart.
@joanhammond12178 жыл бұрын
Where you use "they" and "he", you use "who;. where you use "them" and "him", you use "whom". For example - do you say "they for, he for and who for"? Or "For them, for him, and for whom"? I repeat - yes, it really is that simple...
@nychold8 жыл бұрын
Joan Hammond Yep, it's pretty simply actually. And I had to learn German to learn it. German actually has three versions of who: wer, wen, and wem. (Not counting wessen or whose...) Wer is who, and wen/wem is whom. And it's use is even simpler than who vs whom in English. Wer is nominative, or the subject. Wen is accusative, or the direct object. Wem is dative, or the indirect object. (I know, it doesn't sound easy, but you have to decline nouns in German, so knowing their part of speech is imperative.) It was only learning how and when to use those that I found myself using whom correctly.
@joanhammond12178 жыл бұрын
Exactly! In English, the Dative and Ablative are the indirect objects of the verb, but the direct objects of the preposition, and so take the Accusative - or Objective - case. That's from learning Latin, not German!
@louve38904 жыл бұрын
I’m French and there’s a mistake pretty common in everyday language: confusion about the preposition "à". Prepositions are small words that connect two parts of a sentence. The most commonly used prepositions in French are à, chez, de, en, entre, jusque, hors, pour, sans, vers. The meaning of "à" varies depending on the sentence (in, to, at...). 1) Confusion between the homophones "a" (third person singular present tense of « avoir ») and "à" appears quite frequently in writing. You must write: « Il part à New York pour ses études » = "He moves to New York for his studies" « Il part à sept heures » = "He comes at seven o’clock » « Il a eu beaucoup de cadeaux » = "Il had/got a lot of presents" 2) To express possession/belonging, confusion between "à" and "de" are also frequent, both in writing and oral. -The preposition 'de' is used with a name or noun in place of the English ’s and s’: « La lettre de Guillaume » = "Guillaume’s letter" « La chambre de leurs parents » = "Their parents’ bedroom" -The preposition 'à' is used with the verb « être » in front of stressed pronouns in order to emphasize the ownership of the object: « À qui est ce livre ? » or «À qui appartient ce livre ? » = "Whose book is this?" or "Who this book belongs to?" « Il est/C’est à Marie » or « Il/Ça appartient à Marie » = "It’s Marie’s" or "It belongs to Marie" « Ce livre est à Marie » = "This book is Marie’s" « Le livre est à elle » = "The book is hers" « C’est un livre à elle » = "It’s a book of hers" « Ce livre est à lui/Guillaume», « Non, c’est à elle/Marie » = "This books is his/Guillaume’s" "No, it’s hers/Marie’s" So in familiar French, instead of hearing « C’est le livre de Marie », « Le livre de Marie est... », it’s common to hear « C’est le livre à Marie », « Le livre à Marie est... », which is grammatically incorrect. 3) Senseless combination between possessive determiner (my, your...) and possessive pronoun (mine, yours...) as an emphatic way is indiscriminately used, specially by young French speakers. « Ma chérie à moi » = ~My~ sweetheart ~of mine~ (an immature way for "MY sweetheart", "My sweetheart and only mine", "My very own sweetheart"...)
@k.c11264 жыл бұрын
Just saying, this is one reason why French has been challenging to me.
@lylealburo82444 жыл бұрын
Don't forget "à" vs "dans" vs "en".
@jumpvelocity39534 жыл бұрын
I once corrected a french guy his grammar when I was speaking to him in French (I'm Canadian) and I was baffled until I realized that grammatical errors occurring when native speakers speak the language is not an English exclusive thing (my French is not good at all, I can barely converse with it)
@guesswho57904 жыл бұрын
I had never got to the part of "à qui est ...." no wonder you confuse à with de sometimes! In Spanish it's always "de" for possession so I never thought French would have a distinction. Good to know.
@cigmorfil41013 жыл бұрын
À qui est ce livre == To whom is this book == To whom does this book belong.
@cesargonzalez23265 жыл бұрын
I don't know if I've improved my listening skills or you just speak amazingly clear, literally. Thank you.
@ladislavdolezel90215 жыл бұрын
That's true. You speak very clearly.
@mauriciomarzano5 жыл бұрын
I have got the impression the program is presented in Portuguese. He is fully clear for me.
@billyhw54923 жыл бұрын
I find it ironic that literally actually means figuratively now.
@ahmadzulfiqaridris36813 жыл бұрын
Ironic but interesting. It enhances the beauty of the English Language actually.
@andknuckles1013 жыл бұрын
@@ahmadzulfiqaridris3681 literally
@beenaplumber83793 жыл бұрын
Add a tiny little comma and: "I find it ironic that literally, actually means figuratively now." Like, "I've actually died and gone to heaven!" And people have been saying "What the actual f**k" for a little while now too. Figuratively speaking, that is. :-D
@flakes3693 жыл бұрын
No it doesn't
@ImAgentK3 жыл бұрын
Me personally I dont use literally unless it is exactly how it's described in reality
@doid3r4s6 жыл бұрын
Me fail English? That's unpossible.
@kawaii-five-09126 жыл бұрын
Ralph from the simpsons?
@themahtricks6 жыл бұрын
Funnily enough, "unpossible" used to be absolutely correct in Elizabethan England...
@GaGaGooGik5 жыл бұрын
I are the bestest at a englishings
@sskofu5 жыл бұрын
I is a bestest on a english language, That are right
@greatmotherlandtheussr59795 жыл бұрын
You need for get English of your proper Like I
@raphaelmendes95845 жыл бұрын
You sound foreign-ish because you have great diction. Speakers tend to speak faster rather than clearly.
@mandowarrior1235 жыл бұрын
No, this is not true. He is NOT native english. He is a foreign english speaker. He does not have received pronunciation.
@mandowarrior1235 жыл бұрын
He lacks poetry; with short, clipped tones. He does not allow any syllables to overlap as in correct, native (rp) English.
@raphaelmendes95845 жыл бұрын
He does pronounce the Canadian "out/about/house" - since he IS Canadian.
@Carewolf5 жыл бұрын
@@mandowarrior123 received pronounciation is not native. It is literally in the name. It is taught aka received pronounciation, not native to anyone.
@Bypolter945 жыл бұрын
@@mandowarrior123 He's Canadian, lol
@canturgan8 жыл бұрын
I don't never make those mistakes, literally.
@VCYT8 жыл бұрын
god damnit , you done so bad.
@flamebird22188 жыл бұрын
The irony of your statement! It's as if you just made an obvious mistake on purpose, isn't it?!
@Chebab-Chebab8 жыл бұрын
*you're
@Pragnantweggyboard8 жыл бұрын
+Christian Shelton Uhhh...That was the point.
@flamebird22188 жыл бұрын
***** I realised that, Captain Obvious! That is the reason why I commented in the first place. If I took him seriously, I would have corrected him; which is something that I never did. All I said was that his comment was purposley ironic. The fact that you fail to see that I am contributing to the joke is a reason why you should take back your comment.
@mrsekai3 жыл бұрын
In Japanese, the correct form of ~る verbs such as 食べる(to eat) expressing ability is ~られる (食べられる = taberareru = edible, or [I] can eat it), but a couple of decades ago young people started saying ~れる, like 食べれる "tabereru". It was clearly wrong grammatically, sounded really weird to me, and like many I used to frown upon it when I heard someone say it. Now I say it myself all the time. It so happens that ~られる takes the same form in the passive voice (be eaten, etc.), so ~れるexpresses ability more distinctively. I would say it's an example of evolution that occurred in the Japanese language recently.
@jenm12 жыл бұрын
I prefer shorter words LOL
@Ckawauchi352 жыл бұрын
It's funny you mentioned bc I have been confused about that. I learned Japanese when I lived there for 15 yrs being half Japanese. I always thought that taberareru is the right form but I hardly even heard anyone say it, so I spoke it like everybody else did---tabereru. But it sounded weird to me. Thanks for the clarification. I am going back to Japan for retirement and it is going to be another battle to relearn the language!
@pluviophile19882 жыл бұрын
This isn't so much of a grammar mistake as it is a colloquialism and shortening of a word for convenience sake. This form can also be used in very polite speech in Japanese.
@Ckawauchi352 жыл бұрын
@@pluviophile1988 good info. Thank you.
@kulosure97162 жыл бұрын
As a japanese learner I find it confusing between two rareru, also saseru , saserareru and sareru :(
@searcherer7 жыл бұрын
this video should be titled "watch this before writing comments"
@board2476 жыл бұрын
why would people leave comments without watching the video? I know they do that with politically themed videos for which they have a preconceived opinion.
@vt88116 жыл бұрын
SnowBoarder SLC Because it's 2018 and people love to troll...
@Super-wx6br6 жыл бұрын
searcherer "This video should have been titled:"* 'Watch This Before Writing a Comment.'*
@Lawfair6 жыл бұрын
By four or five minutes into the video, I was ready to pause it and compose an angry screed, which would have simply restated the conclusions and questions from the end of the video. My answer to the question asked is, that all of these issues are innovations not mistakes. Had I commented before hearing his conclusions I would have looked foolish.
@dominicniedzielski79056 жыл бұрын
That's a lot coming from a guy who doesn't capitalize his sentences.
@alfredfarber33855 жыл бұрын
I would expect that some native speakers of all languages make mistakes. One mistake that annoys me is the misuse of apostrophes. For example, when talking about a period of time, many people write the 60's. This incorrectly makes it a possessive. The correct way to write it is the '60s, where the apostrophe indicates an abbreviation in which the 19 (or 18 or 17) is left out.
@CrazyInWeston5 жыл бұрын
You are correct but then... This is English. Since the age of the internet which has made the world very small. Even Langfocus is outdated. English has evolved very quickly. Yes people still complain on the misuse of their, there and they're, (myself included) And they're correct, everyone should. But over how we spell decades? You're correct it is '70s or '80s etc but its now universally accepted to say 90's or 50's. Once something is universally accepted, it means that it has been assimilated and you should know the English language reputation of stealing/assimilating words. In fact some of the sayings he was criticising in this video where he was attacking some words.... that word would've been fine if you changed another word. Example: "I feel really badly about that" was slammed quite rightly because "badly" wasn't correct however, if 'feel' was changed to 'felt' then it would've been fine.
@benjames79325 жыл бұрын
CrazyInWeston true in some cases but you have to remember English is not a forever evolving written language. it has (and always will have) set grammatical rules. it is not evolving.
@alfredfarber33855 жыл бұрын
@@benjames7932 Not true. One of the most referred to authorities on written style and grammar in American English is the Chicago Manual of Style. Over many years as a writer/editor, I saw rules change and, sometimes, change back. Now, periods and commas are always inside quotation marks. When I was in school in the '50s and '60s, that wasn't the case. And the protocols for end punctuation in quoted material are different in the UK.
@ulysses19045 жыл бұрын
@@CrazyInWeston I would say "devolved" is a better word. I have a mini stroke every time someone thinks every word that ends with an "s" needs an apostrophe. Especially college grads.
@CrazyInWeston5 жыл бұрын
@@ulysses1904 You could say "devolved". However English swaps and changes over time. I'm not dismissing you, you can be quite and very correct to say that, but then a few years later it may/may not have reverted. Hence my use of the word "evolve".
@Relesy4 жыл бұрын
I can’t stand when people mix up “you’re” and “your”, or “there”, “their”, and “they’re”, or “effect” and “affect”, or “then” and “than”.
@devonoknabo25824 жыл бұрын
I can't stand when you bully those people who do that It's so easy to make mistakes while typing on the phone I will spell stuff without correcying myself I wonce wans a boy my name was chaf and I had funnb has child I once was a boy my name was chad and I had fun as a child Do you see how easy it is to mess up
@whoswho12334 жыл бұрын
@Evryatis I mean most people who mess it up probably know the proper way to say it they just dont. theres debates on this all the time, for example i missed the apostrophe like in 3 words in this sentence alone.
@TH3N3W3RA4 жыл бұрын
Sit down then
@Mattropolis974 жыл бұрын
I am not your sexy Nørwegiæn You shouldn’t be okay with writing improperly just because people sometimes bully people about their improper English. It’s called proof reading and I’m not sure why people don’t do it because it only takes a second of your day. If you type an email to your boss the way you just did, I think you’re destined to lose points with them. So it’s not about bullying, it’s about appearing not stupid in times that matter, and everything else like KZbin comments are practice for those times. I promise you if it comes down to just you and one other person for a job position, the one who writes better is getting that job. There’s no arguing with that.
@DrAElemayo4 жыл бұрын
Yeah their so anoying
@dragonmanover90003 жыл бұрын
This is why I don't feel bad when making grammatical mistakes in other languages. Deep down, I know that I make fewer mistakes in those languages than I do in my native one.
@pluviophile19882 жыл бұрын
🙄
@jaystone4816 Жыл бұрын
People are more forgiving when non-native speakers make mistakes. They don't expect you to be perfect.
@nkbm3120 Жыл бұрын
That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to improve though, in all of them!
@daragildea74345 жыл бұрын
Putting apostrophes in the wrong words, like plurals.
@truffleflowers5 жыл бұрын
That's one of my top pet peeves! I cannot believe how widespread that idiocy is!!! 🙈
@briandesjardin93815 жыл бұрын
Or the opposite... completely omitting punctuation (for people who grew up in the age of text messaging)
@AugustoFeyh5 жыл бұрын
Cant I put apostrophe's in plural's?
@daragildea74345 жыл бұрын
@@AugustoFeyh It's not correct English grammar.
@AugustoFeyh5 жыл бұрын
@@daragildea7434 Oh, I know. I was just kidding. Sorry for not being clear.
@picklesandcheese258 жыл бұрын
You forgot about the confusion with the homophones "to" and "too." Those are equally as infuriating to see.
@fischfs8 жыл бұрын
Yeah, I always see 'That's to far' or 'There are too of them'. I also hate then vs than being mixed up.
@janaaj1an8898 жыл бұрын
Those two homophones?
@kalinmir8 жыл бұрын
2homophonic4me
@reissecupfilms8 жыл бұрын
Yeah those to mistakes are made way two many times. It makes me want too die.
@alwaysuseless8 жыл бұрын
We'll put ya in you're grave, even if your still coffin, wearin a twotoo.
@barnbersonol6 жыл бұрын
I've spoken English for over 50 years and it never occurred to me that well is the adverb of good and, as a totally different word, also an adjective meaning healthy. I was there thinking you can never teach me anything about English. Wrong! Thank you!
@jesperlykkeberg74382 жыл бұрын
You didn´t learn anything. It´s all typical English grammatical post-rationalization nonsense. "Well" is not an adjective meaning "healthy" since it can not be used as such in general. A well diet? A well conversation? A well relationship? The "stative/dynamic verb"-theory is just a theory. Not "English grammar". In example: You can use both adverbs and adjectives for some verbs whether they are interpreted as "stative" or not: She sings well (verb + adverb) She sings better than I do (verb + adjective) She drives well (verb + adverb) She drives fast (verb + adjective)
@bhgtree3 жыл бұрын
"Thinking on their feet." Idioms most be the hardest thing for learners to understand in any language.
@itsisk2043 Жыл бұрын
Most or must? ☝️
@jaystone4816 Жыл бұрын
Idioms are indeed the hardest thing for learners of a new language. They are expressions that are "natural" and understandable to native speakers, but strange or even bizarre to those learning a new language.
@nkbm3120 Жыл бұрын
Yes, I absolutely agree. While learning English idioms, I was so very confused. And now Russian idioms… oh my, they are on a level of their own… Also, just to brush up, thinking on one’s feet signifies thinking as things are happening, correct?
@breyerhorsestudios2964 Жыл бұрын
@@nkbm3120 Sort of, it means thinking spontaneously, in the moment
@gregotis89404 жыл бұрын
Excellent, as always, Paul. Regarding "literally"--Webster's says that using "literally" hyperbolically dates back to at least 1796. We may have lost the battle on that one.
@Mattropolis974 жыл бұрын
It’s ok, people who hyperbolize “literally” aren’t smart enough to know history so they won’t know to use that as an argument lol
@iosefka77744 жыл бұрын
@@Mattropolis97 Insisting on using words the same way that some idiot five hundred years ago did doesn't make you smart.
@Mattropolis974 жыл бұрын
Jamien I didn’t though...not sure what you’re talking about. He said that people have been exaggerating “literally” for centuries and I’m saying we should stop, so if anything you’re agreeing with me...🤔 1796 wasn’t “500 years ago” either
@iosefka77744 жыл бұрын
@@Mattropolis97 You're saying that you're smart because you don't "hyperbolise literally" and I said that adhering to some dumb rule doesn't make you more intelligent. I directly replied to what you said. Furthermore: I "hyperbolise literally" all the time, and AMAZINGLY I also study linguistics. Including etymology. So shove it, you elitist ass. I did not miss anything. You're the one that apparently can't read.
@Mattropolis974 жыл бұрын
Jamien LOL 😂 No sir, I never said I’m smart. If I don’t know how to read then you seem to know how to read what isn’t there. Classic example of someone looking for a reason to be offended. My first post was a joke ffs. Once again, all I said was that hyperbolizing “literally” makes one sound less intelligent and people who do it tend to lose credibility in most intelligent conversations. I did not say that people who don’t do it ARE smart. That’s a hellishly stupid assumption to make. “It’s not black so it must be white”. People are stupid for all sorts of reasons. I have a couple more for you specifically: 1.) Who’s the “elitist”? The one who’s claiming to be above the use of words 500 years ago (which according to the op, was the same as it is now), (also 1796 was not 500 years ago) or the guy calling himself a jackass linguist? 🤔 2.) “Hyperbolise” is not a word. Your smartphone could’ve told you that. I guess ignoring the red line furthers you’re elitism? 🤷🏻♂️ (half joking here. I know it’s nit picky) PS. If we’re saying what we studied then I’m a linguist because I learned 4 foreign languages to an advanced level. In general I could care less about etymology or the history of English because I find communicating with more people to be more useful, rewarding, and eye opening.
@daniele64776 жыл бұрын
I speak 2 languages. Bad English and Texan.
@vincentlefebvre92556 жыл бұрын
Daniel 'Dain' Earnest tiger 1 or king tiger ? 🤣
@daniele64776 жыл бұрын
StuG 3 for life!
@donaldmanthei35566 жыл бұрын
vinncent Lefebvre
@vincentlefebvre92556 жыл бұрын
Daniel 'Dain' Earnest The jagdpanther was not that bad !
@butiti88506 жыл бұрын
Daniel 'Dain' Earnest *morphs into Texas* WhATs tHe diFFeRenCe?
@tatjy937 жыл бұрын
I learned about the subjunctive when i was learning spanish. It was a bit shocking to know it existed in english
@evilfriedchicken59657 жыл бұрын
Me too! I really hated the subjunctive when learning french and spanish, but I would've never known it existed in english if it weren't for this video.
@CJBurkey7 жыл бұрын
I absolutely _love_ the subjunctive mood. (No sarcasm either). It just rolls off my tongue, and it sounds great. That's just my opinion, of course.
@fernandobanda57346 жыл бұрын
Powerdriller Power The subjunctive in Spanish is still used extensively in some situations. Since there's only positive imperative for second person, it's used like that ("Vayamos", "No hagas eso"). It's also used in past if constructions ("Si hubiera sabido antes..."). I agree that simple "que" + subjunctive is less used, and where it can be replaced by indicative, it's pretty much dead. ("No sé si sabe" instead of "No sé si sepa"). Also, future subjunctive is truly dead. Most people have never even heard of it.
@ManuelLopez-kl8jr6 жыл бұрын
I've studied English subjunctive, but I never thought that you didn't know it. Haha I speak better than you your own language. Haha
@carlosquiroga31636 жыл бұрын
In casual french the subjunctive is still used as well. like in the sentence with "pour que" like "il me faut 30 euros pour que je puisse m'acheter un nouveau portable" but as you said, you can avoid these kind of structures and use just a simpler grammatical tense.
@catwoman_73 жыл бұрын
As a non-native speaker number 8 is very hard for me as well. In my first language German there are adjectives and adverbs, of course, but there is only a difference from grammatical point of view. The word is usually the same. For example: Dieser Tanz ist gut. = This (kind of) dance is good. Ich tanze gut. = I (can) dance well.
@peggy29834 жыл бұрын
English is my second language (my first language was Filipino), and I still don't understand how native speakers can confuse "effect" and "affect".
@999Giustina4 жыл бұрын
Actually that's one that I find quite difficult. Constantly look it up when writing, but half the time I really can't decide which is correct. Oh, and I'm well educated...
@suadela874 жыл бұрын
In my accent, they sound the same (uh-fect) and their meanings are fairly similar so when writing, I often forget which is which and have to look it up. I hear that ESL speakers generally don’t mix up such words once they learn them. I wonder if you pronounce them the same or different. If you pronounce them the same, like I do, how do you keep from mixing them up when writing?
@davidsturm77064 жыл бұрын
The accentation difference between noun and verb is a problem too: áffect/afféct... AFF-fekt (noun) uh-FEKT (verb); efféct... eh-FEKT (noun and verb)
@AndyJarman4 жыл бұрын
Microsoft spell check doesn't recognise 'affect'. Because American's use hyperbole so much the word 'impact' has largely replaced the word 'affect'.
@joshuarosen62424 жыл бұрын
It's perfectly simple. They are stupid.
@Tuchulu8 жыл бұрын
Are you sure you're from the United States've America?
@Langfocus8 жыл бұрын
No, I'm very unsure of that, because I'm from Canada.
@Langfocus8 жыл бұрын
And I say that with a smile :)
@Tuchulu8 жыл бұрын
Literally has been used hyperbolically for a long time, Mark Twain, for example, used the word Literally to mean figuratively in Tom Sawyer
@Tuchulu8 жыл бұрын
Why do we call peopre from Canada "Canadians" instead of "Canadans"? Why do we say "Toothbrush" instead of "Teethbrush"? Why do we say "Chicken Nuggets/Wings/Sandwitch" instead of "Poultry Nuggets/Wings/Sandwitch"?
@azrich24638 жыл бұрын
The giveaway for Canadians is not so much "eh" or "about" as it is the way they say the letter "O" as in dawlers...awbviously. I had you pegged from the start.
@dhhq71546 жыл бұрын
Misuse of the word literally makes me FIGURATIVELY insane
@klyvemurray5 жыл бұрын
Hey DHHQ...*metaphorically :D "Figuratively is also an adjective, but its meaning is quite different from literally. Figuratively is defined as based on or making use of figures of speech; metaphorical. So while literally means free from any metaphor or allegory, figurative deals specifically with these kinds of figures of speech."
@andrewjohnston48115 жыл бұрын
Actually
@Mcpwnt5 жыл бұрын
Im not sure you can misuse the word literally when writing given that literally means as written.
@darkgreninja83495 жыл бұрын
Meanings change. Accept it or not, words will change, you cant do anything about it.
@johannisak16525 жыл бұрын
Get help
@Aeturnalis3 жыл бұрын
Also, I think English kind of lends itself to frequent mistakes due to its bizarre spelling rules, numerous irregularities, and its nature in general as a Teutonic-Italic-Hellenic (et al) hybrid language.
@jenm12 жыл бұрын
what's Teutonic?
@jenm12 жыл бұрын
I looked it up :)
@RobWhittlestone2 жыл бұрын
About your first assertion: know eat dozen 'ot.
@tfan22222 жыл бұрын
A bit of an odd statement seeing as almost all modern languages take much from others. English is definitely an extreme case though, but at its core it’s Germanic with around 50% Romance language thrown in.
@nkbm3120 Жыл бұрын
@@tfan2222it’s definitely not 50% romance, because given that it has 4% Hellenic and 22% Anglican (native), that means it’s more Romance than Germanic. Oh wait, it is more Romance than Germanic! (English should not be considered Germanic, it should be an exception or should be an acceptedly very far-off Latin language)
@blowfishes5 жыл бұрын
"I could care less" being used instead of "I couldn't care less".
@geraldward97655 жыл бұрын
That's my favorite.
@wren73005 жыл бұрын
"Then why don't you?"
@Christian-tj2jo5 жыл бұрын
i couldn't care fewer
@endelvelt76505 жыл бұрын
lol in Britain we say "I couldn't care less."
@MauriatOttolink5 жыл бұрын
Blowfishes You Tube If it's going to make sense, it's got to be "I couldn't.... The other one means "You care a great deal and so could careless. 'I couldn't" means I don't care at all so I can't care less than nothing. Trouble is that people speak in cliché and don't LISTEN to themselves. I don't doubt that it is being used instead but you can't use the fact the it's getting used wrongly and regularly when it just doesn't make sense. If lots of people were insisting that 1+4 = 6 it wouldn't make them right.
@nwashburn32285 жыл бұрын
Fantastic video! Thank you, Paul! I am a French teacher (native English speaker) who is passionate about expression, syntax, etc. in language. Over the years, I have shared (dare I say 'harped on') points with my students of all these topics (save 'literally') since I recognize as you do that it is used for 'making one's point' to an extreme. Loved your address, presentation and the excellent examples you provided.
@MetallicAddict156 жыл бұрын
As a non-native speaker of English, these mistakes make my skin crawl. Literally.
@JOCoStudio15 жыл бұрын
Oh god, I think you need urgent medical attention!
@cellokoen5 жыл бұрын
JO Co literally!
@thephilosopherofculture45595 жыл бұрын
True. I never make these mistakes, except with 'lied', once, instead of 'lay' but my American girl made the same error so I did not notice.
@alanr4447a3 жыл бұрын
"Honey, I shrunk the kids." [BUZZER] "Honey, I *_shrank_* the kids."
@lionberryofskyclan3 жыл бұрын
GLAD SOMEONE ELSE REALISES THAT.
@burnts0x3 жыл бұрын
Get thee to Merriam-Webster, where both are accepted.
@dutchvanderiesusamatme32283 жыл бұрын
lol i say shrunked
@irenecamargomacedo66263 жыл бұрын
What?
@davidsilverfield8353 жыл бұрын
Lol
@boffan19886 жыл бұрын
"Literally" has been used in the figurative sense for literally centuries. Shakespeare used it in that manner.
@Dualidity6 жыл бұрын
@@MaltShake99 it's an intensifier
@NDOhioan6 жыл бұрын
My problem with it isn't grammatical accuracy, I just think figurative use of "literally" is the verbal equivalent of edgy backwards-chair-sitting.
@kennethconnally43566 жыл бұрын
This response "Shakespeare did it" which so often comes up in discussions of grammar errors bugs me. 1) Shakespeare was a poet. A lot of things fly in poetry that wouldn't in ordinary speech or formal writing, like switching the verb and object around: "Beowulf the dragon slew." 2) Most of the writing we have from Shakespeare is dialogue in his plays. He wrote the dialogue to be realistic (to a certain extent at least) and to suit the characters' personalities, not to conform to grammar rules. For example, the constable Dogberry is a comedic character who constantly makes verbal mistakes, accidentally saying the opposite of what he means. 3) Shakespeare wrote hundreds of years ago, and the language has changed. For example, in his time double negatives were perfectly acceptable, even in formal writing. Now they're avoided by all educated English-speakers. We don't go around saying things like "thou liest" either. If you want to show that a usage isn't ungrammatical, give examples of it appearing in contemporary, well-edited formal writing (for example, articles in the Wall Street Journal), not the dialogue of fictional characters in the writings of a Renaissance poet.
@rob58946 жыл бұрын
Shakespeare was an uneducated country bumpkin. You can't use him as a example of what good english should be.
@bobito89977 жыл бұрын
I literally never make none of them mistakes what he talked about in that video
@keith60327 жыл бұрын
i see what u did there LOL
@kiannogueira47217 жыл бұрын
Bobito Lol I see what you did
@-danR7 жыл бұрын
*in that _there_ video dimbulb
@ktheodor39687 жыл бұрын
Bobito Accidentally on purpose, you have literally made two grammatical errors & one semantic misuse of a term: "..never make *any* of *the* mistakes he talked about..." Semantic misuse of "*literally*".
@dichebach7 жыл бұрын
Me two.
@DanielSultana8 жыл бұрын
Of all the mistakes mentioned, I think the last one is the worst, reason being there is not a replacement for the word literally to mean what literally used to mean, so now each time you say something in the literal sense you have to explain that you indeed mean it literally and not just exaggerating. Continuing with the example used, if you happen to know a girl who has thousands of pairs of shoes (maybe due to a collection or something) and you tell someone else that she literally has thousands of pairs of shoes they'll think she has far less than what you actually wish to portray.
@littlebigphil8 жыл бұрын
Using literally like that isn't even an actual mistake, because "literally" is a generic intensifier, just like "really" and "truly". For replacements, I recommend "without hyperbole," "without exaggeration," or as you demonstrated "actually."
@interestingcommentbut....73788 жыл бұрын
More casual replacements can be "no lie" "real/true shit" "true story" or my favorite "on the serious tip".
@DanielSultana8 жыл бұрын
littlebigphil "she actually/without-hyperbole/without-exaggeration has thousands of pairs of shoes" doesn't have the same ring to it.
@DanielSultana8 жыл бұрын
hectorbeast all of these are being abused just as "literally".
@__________36238 жыл бұрын
"Figuratively" can be used in this case. An example would be: "She figuratively has thousands of shoes."
@sundalongpatpat3 жыл бұрын
In Tagalog, a lot of people always uses "ng" instead of "nang" for appropriate moment. That's also true for "daw" and "raw" and "din" and "rin". And in written Tagalog, people would combine two different particles like "ka" and "na" would be "kana". It's also true for "kapa", "naba", and in some cases, "palang".
@rvat20032 жыл бұрын
I often type "kana" and "palang" because they act like their own particles in my head. These types of phenomena are really interesting. Although I personally decided to start consciously distinguishing "ng" & "nang" and the r/d pairs because even in formal writing I used to confuse them.
@DLBeatty7 жыл бұрын
The one that used to get me was the people at work who were so proud of their degrees & would confuse 'then' & 'than' in their emails. They would pronounce them distinctly differently in conversation, but couldn't seem to distinguish them in writing.
@pthiago_s50757 жыл бұрын
Dan Beatty isn't it the same pronunciation?
@SupaThePink7 жыл бұрын
The "e" in 'then' is pronounced as it is in 'hen.' The "a" in 'than' is pronounced as it is in 'van.'
@Kioooi7 жыл бұрын
The one that gets me is "use to" vs "used to".
@Guik1er6 жыл бұрын
In french, "littéralement" (which means "litteraly") is misused in the same way that in english.
@gomixrap82235 жыл бұрын
en español también
@juandiegovargas68675 жыл бұрын
In Spanish we use "literalmente" like that as well. Maybe it shouldn't be considered a mistake after all.
@Bypolter945 жыл бұрын
same for literalmente in Spanish.
@tenienteramires44285 жыл бұрын
Also with catalan "literalment" (btw, colloquialy pronounced "lliteralment")
@gomixrap82235 жыл бұрын
@@ericolens3 where are you from ?
@davidhusicka84405 жыл бұрын
In my native language (Czech), I make mistakes almost in every sentence due to its grammatical complexity.
@ladislavdolezel90215 жыл бұрын
I would not boast of it ;-) (Tím bych se nechlubil)
@gibboustime5 жыл бұрын
finlay morrison Shut the fa## up ( misspelled on purpose )
@jakubsebek5 жыл бұрын
Or you don't pay attention in school. (Nebo nedáváš pozor ve Škole)
@AnaMaria-pc5zn5 жыл бұрын
same in Georgian
@roatskm23375 жыл бұрын
Well in my native language Bulgarian, the a lot people(mostly teenagers) are talking in a way that is far apart from the written form! For example, here's a sentence means ''Can I tell you something?'' Literaly form : Može li da ti kaža nešto? Spoken form : Moa li ti kaa nešto? It's something like that! :D
@sheilamargaretwardstoriesa4943 жыл бұрын
Well done, Paul. I am now retired after teaching EFL for over 40 years and I'm very impressed with your videos. They are an excellent resource,
@HelpfulGuy958 жыл бұрын
Hi (sorry for my bad English)
@ZER0--8 жыл бұрын
And you grammar.
@fleeb8 жыл бұрын
We all grammar when we verb our nouns.
@pisse30008 жыл бұрын
+Ziyad England*
@proefslak8 жыл бұрын
+
@HelpfulGuy958 жыл бұрын
pisse3000 dude you should apologise for your bad English too 😂
@TheCinnamondemon5 жыл бұрын
I had no idea English had a subjunctive 😮 and i've been over here complaining about Spanish and French subjunctive moods for years, haha.
@TheCinnamondemon5 жыл бұрын
@@ericolens3 thanks for the comprehensive response! I love the spanish language too, and I think it's interesting how its use of subjunctive is almost like an art in some cases, to convey tact or reservation :)
@craigds37455 жыл бұрын
@@ericolens3 "If I was rich,..." Is now accepted as correct. English grammar is constantly changing as it doesn't have a governing body like the RAE in Spanish.
@MiserableMidnight5 жыл бұрын
Grammar*
@Qrayon5 жыл бұрын
@@ericolens3 The subjunctive is used in English a lot more than you realize. By the way, you mean the indicative mood, not the "imperatice" mood.
@Qrayon5 жыл бұрын
@@craigds3745 "If I was rich" is accepted as correct only by ignorant people. An exception would be when the speaker does not remember whether he or she was ever rich: "If I was rich, what happened to all the money you say I had?" Correct: "Would it spoil some vast eternal plan, if I were a wealthy man?" - from the song "If I were a Rich Man" from the musical "Fiddler on the Roof."
@TheJaredtheJaredlong8 жыл бұрын
The question is a bit philosophical: Is the purpose of language to _communicate_, or is the purpose of language to be applied grammar? I'd say that grammar takes a backseat to clear communication. No harm, no foul.
@joanhammond12178 жыл бұрын
The whole object of grammar and syntax is to prevent misunderstanding, you twit! Bad grammar can lead to ambiguity, i.e. bad communication...
@TheJaredtheJaredlong8 жыл бұрын
Joan Hammond Ideally. Yet in casual speech we tend towards certain mistakes because we know even if grammatically wrong the person we're talking to will understand us. Perhaps even understand better than if spoken grammatically correct.
@frederf32278 жыл бұрын
The problem is a lot of these mistakes cause communication to be less effective. There is harm. There is foul.
@joanhammond12178 жыл бұрын
You mean "grammatically correctLY"! Adverb, not adjective...
@TheDemonCurupira8 жыл бұрын
I bought a book about dinosaurs. As a writer I love the idea of subverting proper grammatical structure and syntax for the purposes of artistic license but there are exceptions. Non-native English speakers, and those English speakers who don't have a very good grasp of it, would do best to stick to "proper" structure. I say this as someone who has to deal with trying to teach native and non-native English speakers how to express themselves with written English. Usually, speaking English is the easy part. You'd be surprised at how many native English speakers write exactly how they speak and we all know how "bad" spoken English has gotten.
@davielee03 жыл бұрын
Here in the UK there's a trend of mixing "our" and "are". As in " are house". Truly does my head in!
@Anvilshock5 жыл бұрын
The English language was invented around the year 500 for the punchline to "A Saxon, a Norman, and a Dane walk into a taberna". (Don't ask for the punchline itself, that's been lost to the ages.)
@zak.8865 жыл бұрын
Anvilshock i don't get the dane part do u mean old norse vikingw
@Anvilshock5 жыл бұрын
@@zak.886 Don't take it too literally.
@sophitsa795 жыл бұрын
Nice one
@user-yh3fy8rs4r5 жыл бұрын
English used to be a romance language
@JHowesitgoing1235 жыл бұрын
@@user-yh3fy8rs4r lol no it wasn't
@MojaveHigh5 жыл бұрын
I literally can't believe you didn't include incorrect usage of "I and "me". The old mistake was saying something like "Mary and me went to the store". That mistake was corrected so much that we now have the other extreme being used commonly: "John gave the ball to Mary and I". I hear this on the news all the time and I cringe.
@szymonj.rucinski38435 жыл бұрын
or "Mary and myself"
@mtrmann5 жыл бұрын
The "NEWS" seems to have one purpose, dumbing down the population to keep the ruling class from being overthrown.
@soyderiverdeliverybeaver89415 жыл бұрын
Whats correct then? "Mary and I went to the store?" Or simply "Mary went to the store with me"? In spanish we have another problem, its when people say "I and marie", since you are suposed to name yourself last
@tweetiepie5515 жыл бұрын
@@soyderiverdeliverybeaver8941 both are correct.You can also say Me and Mary went to the shop.and To the shop,me and Mary went,
@mrbutterfluff18815 жыл бұрын
@@tweetiepie551 no, it would be Mary and I went to the shop
@rangergxi8 жыл бұрын
Other mistakes include saying Soda instead of Pop and pronouncing Z as Zee instead of as Zed.
@XandWacky8 жыл бұрын
Back to hell with you, heathen! Pop is for the pure!
@DeggaTheDev8 жыл бұрын
Soda and pop are both correct and are spoken based on where you live. Although the English version "Fizzy Drink" is a fun one and is a bit more descriptive. If you're an American, then Z is pronounced Zee. This isn't a mistake. Although, saying Zee anywhere isn't really a mistake in the same way that saying rubbish instead of trash is fine.
@lesliedellow15338 жыл бұрын
Americans don't speak English. So what's new?
@spikefivefivefive8 жыл бұрын
Brits saying: Couple are Band are Instead of: Couple is...couples are Band is .... bands are
@DeggaTheDev8 жыл бұрын
Well, there are more of us in the USA than in England and what's left of its shattered empire combined. I think we overrule you on what English is. ^_~ More and more, your people start to pronounce their words like we do. Soon you'll call football soccer and a holiday a vacation. Muhahaha.
@aljnistari3 жыл бұрын
I love this video! As both a native speaker of English and an Australian, I feel like your point at 3:58 attributes an unlikely turn of phrase to us. This wouldn't represent the way a typical Aussie would address the situation; they would say "he needs to go to the hospital".
@atriox72213 жыл бұрын
Absolutely true
@tarekaljawi6 жыл бұрын
I eat so much cookies that I consider them uncountable
@Langfocus6 жыл бұрын
Haha, me too.
@Dirtfire6 жыл бұрын
That should probably be "I eat so much cookie".
@patriciabristow-johnson59516 жыл бұрын
*so many, not so much
@ThePearl20046 жыл бұрын
Many
@aleka10176 жыл бұрын
Patricia Bristow-Johnson that's the point of his comment
@paraescucharrap8 жыл бұрын
This video explained me so many things I had not understood about English until now (as a non native English speaker)!!!
@Langfocus8 жыл бұрын
I'm glad it helped!
@buenvidanadz19694 жыл бұрын
After watching this video, I realized that I really need to practice my use of subjunctives and improve my adverb/adjective usage.
@puyol87003 жыл бұрын
"Lie" vs "lay," oddly enough, is also present in Danish ("ligge" vs "lægge"). We have another similar one: "sit" vs "put down" ("sidde" vs "sætte"). Many people, especially where I am from, just can't figure out what to use when.
@dan746953 жыл бұрын
"Ligge" and "legge", and "sitte" and "sette" in Norwegian.
@paulmartin72545 жыл бұрын
The most common mistakes that I notice are: confusing subject & object pronouns ("These belong to Mary and I."), and, in writing confusing "its" and "it's."
@distitube5 жыл бұрын
True, confusiong "it's" and "its" is the most common mistake. I read it everywhere. I think they make it on purpose, it's too exhausting write the apostrophe 😓
@Kurufinwe_Fayanaro5 жыл бұрын
I know this official rule, but delibrately write "it's" for possesive because "it" replaces another word and it makes sense. The cat's tongue It's tongue
@Kurufinwe_Fayanaro4 жыл бұрын
Good idea, Winkhorst. I don't write gender-specific pronouns enough. I would probably write "their" actually.
@antarcticpenguin4 жыл бұрын
well, mind your own business and not other people's grammatical mistakes, it's what it's. :)
@xccaae4 жыл бұрын
wait.. there is a difference between its and it's? I thought they are the same.. except that the correct spelling should be with the apostrophe "it's"
@johnibambohni7 жыл бұрын
When saying "I feel well." I might have meant "I am good at feeling stuff.". In that case it would have been and adverb. 😉 😁
@Cochu7 жыл бұрын
thanks i will say this to my girlfriend
@BertGrink7 жыл бұрын
AND! i assume you meant AN adverb
@batmancanfly10864 жыл бұрын
At this point, the word “literally” has changed it’s meaning
@davigurgel20404 жыл бұрын
Literally
@rafanugroho94964 жыл бұрын
@@davigurgel2040 wow you had the whole squad laughing.
@Erics_Youtube_Handle4 жыл бұрын
I used to be a real stickler for "literally', but I've chilled out on it. It's worth remembering that most of the figurative words you would use instead of "literally" started out meaning the same thing as literally. For example, "truly", "seriously", "really", even "very" comes from the latin root for "truth" (as in, "verify", or "veritas"). And it's also not like "literally" is the only word with its particular usage. We also have "genuinely", "actually", "precisely", "actually", etc. "Literally" just isn't the special linguistic flower that I once thought it was. Sidenote, were all those quotes necessary? They were obnoxious to type on my phone. 🤔
@reneenayfabnaynay56794 жыл бұрын
I think it's kind of obvious when literally is being used for emphasis, and when it's being used literally. If you're ever unsure, just ask. Lol! Do you mean that for emphasis, or in the traditional meaning? How hard is that? 😉
@miguelcustodio21774 жыл бұрын
@@Erics_KZbin_Handle That was very "homophonic"
@potatoofmixolydian57163 жыл бұрын
As an English speaker in the mideastern US, a definitely do most of these things. I also frequently shorten "going to go" to "gonna go" or "gonn go," with the last one using more of a guttural sound and more rounded Oh vowels. There are other things that I frequently change, but that's one of the main ones.
@rogerroberts51678 жыл бұрын
OED has recognised that through modern usage "literally" now often means "figuratively".
@Langfocus8 жыл бұрын
Yes, that's one that just would not go away.
@jansport04098 жыл бұрын
Same thing happened to "egregious". It used to mean "remarkable" in a good way. It still does in romance languages. I don't think "literally" will get its original meaning back.
@TheIlustrado8 жыл бұрын
**insert LeafyisHere reference**
@StefanoPapaleo-TS8 жыл бұрын
Nooooooooo :(
@bernhardkrickl35678 жыл бұрын
So, nowadays, when you literally mean something literally then - figuratively speaking - you mean it figuratively?
@michaelmilliman31338 жыл бұрын
Languages are living breathing things. These "mistakes", as well as others, are how languages evolve over time from one to another. While a strong motivation for change in English throughout history has been military as one nation conquers another, much of English has changed from Old English to Modern English as a result of the simplification of word forms and grammar, which I'm sure started out as "mistakes" the common people made in speaking the language.
@joanhammond12178 жыл бұрын
Michael - and what about Middle English? What you write suggests little or no knowledge of the development of the language. Ever read Chaucer? Now there's an example of Middle English...
@michaelmilliman31338 жыл бұрын
I am well versed in the development of the English language. Middle English is a mile post on the road, an important one, and to some e tent illustrates my point as a transition. Languages change and Middle English shows that change as English evolves. Much of that change is due to borrowing from Latin and French, but some of it no doubt is due to the types of mistakes Paul speaks of becoming a regular part of the language.
@Supermario07277 жыл бұрын
Michael Milliman I think you're just trying to cover up your inability to speak or write properly, so you can feel better about yourself. There's a good reason why people choose to follow basic rules and etiquette when speaking and/or writing. Unfortunately, the English language has been bastardized over the last century.
@maloyaman1137 жыл бұрын
John Stuart have you ever studied some pieces of linguistics ? you would have found that things are a little more complicated than just "don't try to excuse your mistakes". modern English is just Indo-European with a lot of mistakes.
@andrew_koala29747 жыл бұрын
+John Stuart Unfortunately, the English language has been bastardized over the PAST century. ( not LAST Century ) Last means last and there being NO more -- It is expected there will be at least one more century, then it could not have been the LAST. Another common mistake in English ... People using the word LAST when they mean PAST. When the last horse runs through the finish gate during a race , will there be any more horses behind it ? The answer is NO -- Because LAST means there are no more ... Though I agree with you that the English language has been Bastardized ... It was however always a Bastard of a language. Not Phonetic, Corrupt, and Inconsistent. Latin languages Spanish and Italian are better and also ārabic is a pure and phonetic language, very poetic and has words that do not exist in English. Many single words in ārabic require two or more words in English to mean the same thing. ārabic definitions of words are better than those found in English. There are many words in English that originate from ārabic, and if it wasn't for ārabic those words would not exist. -- Also many Names in the English language originate from Farsi as well as some other words.
@squipy1848 жыл бұрын
Did I just enjoy learning English grammer?
@BigDave158 жыл бұрын
Grammar
@realbaguette28028 жыл бұрын
yeah
@beavisbutt-headson32238 жыл бұрын
Orthography nazi :P
@BigDave158 жыл бұрын
More orthography left of centre no particular political affiliation.
@coweatsman8 жыл бұрын
Yes but in 100 years or 200 years the rules of grammar would've changed. Today we use fewer apostrophes than 200 years ago. It is for good reason that apostrophe rhymes with catastrophe because grammar experts can not agree with each other on its use.
@-emir54843 жыл бұрын
The most common mistake in Turkish is the spelling of "Yanlış" and "Yalnız". "Yanlış(Mistake, Wrong)" comes from the verb "Yanılmak(to be wrong)" so the "n" comes before "l". "Yalnız(Lonely, Only, sometimes used to contrast like "but" or "however")" comes from the adjective "Yalın(Without any additions, bare, also is the name of the Nominative case in Turkish)" so the "l" comes before "n".
@santiagobaras48933 жыл бұрын
Had no idea the turcos do that stuff
@lennartgro6 жыл бұрын
I am German, 23 years old, have started learning english with 10 years and almost every day i consume english media. To this day, i have never known, that the english language has a subjuntive mood, similar to spanish or french.
@RainEP1006 жыл бұрын
lennartgro The subjunctive in English isn’t as complicated as it is in Romance languages though. You can get away with not using the subjunctive in English. Most English speakers wouldn’t realize if I incorrectly said “if I drive would your mom get mad,” instead of correctly saying “if I drove would your mom get bad.” If you tried to construct the same sentence in Italian or Spanish without using the subjunctive native speakers would notice it immediately.
@lexvegers2425 жыл бұрын
Maybe reading more fiction will have you come across the subjunctive more often. It also very much depends on the writer of the texts you read being a native English speaker or not. Still, if it were a more common phenomenon you would've noticed, I suppose.
@paradoxmo5 жыл бұрын
These days, fewer and fewer people use it, because the problem is that the subjunctive forms are so similar to the past tense forms (and are the same for so many words, including almost the entire class of weak verbs) that a lot of people just aren't aware of the distinction anymore. That said, there is still a distinction for all the irregular and helper verbs as well as most of the strong verbs, which covers a great majority of situations in which you would use subjunctive. So it's still useful, especially for written communication because it expresses intent clearly, something which in spoken language you could infer from stress patterns or facial expressions.
@FlorianBaumann5 жыл бұрын
I never learned that at school, too. That's a pity because knowing of the subjunctive mood you see that German and English conditional sentences are very alike.
@MMadesen5 жыл бұрын
lennartgro Me too
@jessefoster-stout92167 жыл бұрын
God blesses this man for his defense of the subjunctive !
@trix82727 жыл бұрын
Before I watched this video I thought that the subjunctive disappered in English.
@CJBurkey7 жыл бұрын
It only affects the 3rd person form of verbs, and screws with "to be" a bit. The fun part is that there are two separate subjunctives you'd need to know: the un-conjugated form: "It's vital that he be vaccinated". But there's also a conjugated form: "I wish that he were vaccinated." Engrish me doods
@jessefoster-stout92167 жыл бұрын
CJ Burkey Please tell me what grammar book taught you that ( presuming it’s not a personal observation ) ! That is HOT stuff that I knew not off even though it was staring me in the face. I bought Otto Jesperson’s Essentials because it seemed to be the Real One, but there must be better ! I even bought a Grammaire Explicative de la langue anglaise...do tell !!
@jessefoster-stout92167 жыл бұрын
Trix A famous example is, God shed his grace on thee, which most think is a past tense description rather than a prayer : arrogant !
@4420ish6 жыл бұрын
Some languages have even a past subjunctive ! Se lo sapessi lo direi.
@m00nsplitter728 жыл бұрын
These mistakes are excruciating to hear, especially when they are spoken in one's own voice. Another common mistake is the use of 'hung' instead of 'hanged' when describing a method of execution.
@rparl8 жыл бұрын
Yes. "He was hung" (adjective) has a very different meaning than "He was hanged." LOL
@rparl8 жыл бұрын
***** In informal usage, "hung" refers to penile size.
@Lawfair8 жыл бұрын
I am a grammatical pragmatist with strong leanings towards descriptivism and a loathing of prescriptivism. My standard response to people who point out or care about "mistakes" is that the problem is with them, not the speaker/writer.
@m00nsplitter728 жыл бұрын
That's awesome.
@digitalbrentable8 жыл бұрын
"They hung the rope and hanged the man."
@danielbetoret27533 жыл бұрын
Misusing "literally" (literalmente) is common in Portuguese too.
@ambart8 жыл бұрын
I fought the schwa and the schwa won.
@shadyfuucktherest8 жыл бұрын
ahahaha good one tho
@theawesomesausage8 жыл бұрын
Are you into linguistics? Dude, you should totally start a linguistics series, in which you explain different grammatical concepts that do and don't exist in the English language. It'd be such an interesting thing to watch and it would probably be helpful for language learners.
@jayalba22358 жыл бұрын
I can give you one. Obama is the nth president of the United States? What nth president of the United States is Obama? Ordinal interrogative is a very common feature in Filipino/Tagalog. We use it in everyday conversation. Well you can say the same thing in Japanese (第何番目の大統領) but a native Japanese speaker has told me they wouldn't really ask such question. I asked an American to phrase the question properly and he came up with "How many presidents were there before Obama?" as an approximation.
@michalzustak88468 жыл бұрын
Similiar to Slovak: Obama je štyridsiaty štvrtý (44tý) prezident USA. Koľký prezident USA je Obama?
@Theorimlig8 жыл бұрын
Man, that is really interesting. Ordinal interrogative seems useful.
@weskos8 жыл бұрын
We might say 'What number (of) president is Obama?'
@Theorimlig8 жыл бұрын
weskos Yeah, that's probably the closest one can get in english.
@Questron718 жыл бұрын
I love all these examples, they are SO bothering me when I as a non native speaker read texts on the internet by people that should have grown up with better spelling / speaking skills. I've only missed my very own major pet peeve.... "and I"... As in "this means a major irritation for Cindy and I". or in other words handling the object of a sentence as if it were the subject. HORRIBLE. And it is constantly growing in usage! Sadly I've come to hate it so much that by now even the correct use at the other end of a sentence makes me stumble and pause... It's just a giant red cloth.
@Philoglossos8 жыл бұрын
You might want to work on your own standard English before you criticize native speakers for speaking their native dialects, bud.
@jograham25698 жыл бұрын
As a non-native speaker, you are doing very well. Most native speakers make these mistakes and I have a basic grip on French and Spanish but I must make a hash of it when I am abroad. The easy way to get round this particular problem is to take "Cindy" out of the sentence and see if it still makes sense - "a major irritation for I" or "a major irritation for me"? There's your answer, thanks to an English teacher of mine in the 1970's - easy peasy :-D Everyone should know this, but few do, sadly.
@Questron718 жыл бұрын
Jo Graham Sure. Or do it the other way around and look if you could say "and he", "and she" or "and they" and it would still sound right... but as you say, they don't really care or they have been taught it wrong. Bathrobe Warrior Sure. THAT'S the problem. Of course if they're doing it wrong when writing they are NOT speaking their own dialect but are typing garbage.
@Philoglossos8 жыл бұрын
Urs F Why do you think non standard dialects are a "problem"?
@joanhammond12178 жыл бұрын
"taught it wrongLY"!
@JablesMullet2 жыл бұрын
I appreciate how brisk your videos are. No fluffy padding like so many other channels have wasting our time.
@Langfocus2 жыл бұрын
Thanks! I always prepare a script and try to keep it tight.
@fredcaprilli2206 жыл бұрын
Hypercorrection. "Between you and I", "He gave it to she and I" - increasingly common these days. Should be "between you and me", "He gave it to her and me". Prepositions take the objective case. It's "hypercorrection" because we know that "Him and me went to the store" is wrong and should be "He and I went..." but get confused when this follows a preposition.
@lexvegers2425 жыл бұрын
I've always found that's a peculiar trend, indeed. It seems to be picked up in the UK as well.
@ImNotJoshPotter5 жыл бұрын
This one drives me nuts and makes people sound like toddlers. It's so easy to test it too. Just removing one of the people from the sentence makes it clear which pronoun is necessary.
@Anvilshock5 жыл бұрын
"Me went to the store." Yeah. Sounds, like, totally fine. Like, literally.
@ImNotJoshPotter5 жыл бұрын
@@Anvilshock my eyes 😢
@Anvilshock5 жыл бұрын
ZE GOGGELS DOO NUSSING!!
@charlesiragui24735 жыл бұрын
In French: past tense of the subjunctive is almost gone, though theoretically required.
@charlesiragui24734 жыл бұрын
Theoretically the present subjunctive (and of course passé composé) would be incorrect here: il voulait que tu le fasse. I believe this should be “fisse”.
@oinophilos21094 жыл бұрын
@Ethan Hobigant Roche No, there is actually a preterit subjunctive form that is seldom encountered any more. It is still in force in Spanish and Italian, so French speakers complain of difficulty with that. I never learned it, so I'm not sure of my example, but I think for parler it's "parlasse" etc. Is it fusse, eusse for etre and avoir (sorry, I don't have accents)?
@skilldraculaX4 жыл бұрын
@@charlesiragui2473 It should be "fisses" with an "s" for the "tu" form :P. Il voulait que tu le fisses.
@charlesiragui24734 жыл бұрын
skilldraculaX Ha! C’est juste! But the point is the same - no one uses this tense
@BucyKalman3 жыл бұрын
@@charlesiragui2473 In other Romance languages, the past subjunctive is still normally used, e.,g. Portuguese: Ele queria que tu o fizesses Spanish: Él quería que tú lo hicieses/ hicieras Italian: Lui voleva che que tu lo facessi Catalan: Ell volia que tu ho fessis French: Il voulait que tu le fisses (past)/ fasses (pres)
@itisdevonly5 жыл бұрын
I wish you had mentioned the hyper-correction that often happens when people say "[so and so] and I" instead of "[so and so] and me". They would never say "That's between we" but they will say "that's between John and I". It drives me nuts.
@soyderiverdeliverybeaver89415 жыл бұрын
Both forms are valid in many languages, that might be a mistake of people who learnt english
@mpucoder5 жыл бұрын
What languages do not distinguish between subject and object?
@mpucoder5 жыл бұрын
This started with teachers correcting kids who would say things like "Me and Bill are going fishing later". This is a compound subject, so the pronoun should be "I" (and placed after Bill). But then people started using subjective pronouns in compound objects - over correction. Stuff like "Join John and I for dinner" Simple test is to take out all but the pronoun and see if it sounds right.
@PanglossDr5 жыл бұрын
Your examples didn't make sense
@redmondmacdonagh75575 жыл бұрын
@@PanglossDr Join John and Jane for dinner. Join me for dinner = Join John, Jane and me for dinner. John had dinner. I had dinner = John and I had dinner.
@yoshster06123 жыл бұрын
I never knew “ lain” was even a word. Damn.
@seanleith53123 жыл бұрын
It's a Canadian word, American don't use that.
@ahmadzulfiqaridris36813 жыл бұрын
Good one! LOL On a slightly more serious note: but... non-native speakers use that. We were taught how to use the past tense and past participle of basic irregular verbs when we were in school.
@rashidah93073 жыл бұрын
"He lay on the bed" sounds like something out of a classic novel, not like casual spoken English today. To my native ears, it sounds too formal. Using Laid instead of lain for the past tense of lie is probably the most common "mistake" even among highly educated native speakers because of how it sounds to most of our ears. . . Lol
@erravi3 жыл бұрын
@@seanleith5312 It’s not a “Canadian word”. I’m American and I’ve heard it used, read it in books, and used it in speech.
@chinpokomon_3 жыл бұрын
@@ahmadzulfiqaridris3681 well, the only thing about English i picked up is that tenses are impossible to comprehend
@cathipalmer82174 жыл бұрын
Lie/lay, rise/raise, sit/set - If you hear an "i" sound, that's something I can do to myself. I *lie* on the floor, I *rise* from my bed, I *sit* in a chair. I *raise* my hand because in that case I am treating my hand as something separate from myself. I'm not putting my whole self up into the air, just my hand. Got it? There will be a test on Friday.
@ChezMymy3 жыл бұрын
Good tip, easy to remember, thanks!
@nedcrouch32023 жыл бұрын
Just try explaining the difference to an American between a transitive and an intransitive verb. You will lose him before you get through the first sentence.
@santiagobaras48933 жыл бұрын
I digs your mask
@Silver_Knee4 жыл бұрын
Wasn't literally literally used by Shakespeare as hyperbole? So saying nowadays is literally wrong
@robertkincaid17284 жыл бұрын
That is literally true! 😀
@angelus_solus3 жыл бұрын
Chain maille has been also used since 1822, because of a fiction writer, but it's still wrong. After all, maille (from the Latin word macula or "net") has always been armour made of links. Just because something has been done the wrong way for a few hundred years does not make it right. Just because a famous person does it, does not make it right. Just because it's popular does not make it right. "Literally" is the exact opposite of "metaphorically", and anyone who says otherwise is simply uneducated or lazy. Cheerio! Mirriam Webster: Definition of literal (Entry 1 of 2) 1a: according with the letter of the scriptures adheres to a literal reading of the passage b: adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : ACTUAL liberty in the literal sense is impossible - B. N. Cardozo c: free from exaggeration or embellishment the literal truth d: characterized by a concern mainly with facts a very literal man 2: of, relating to, or expressed in letters The distress signal SOS has no literal meaning. 3: reproduced word for word Collins: literal (lɪtərəl ) 1. ADJECTIVE The literal sense of a word or phrase is its most basic sense. In many cases, the people there are fighting, in a literal sense, for their homes. 2. ADJECTIVE A literal translation is one in which you translate each word of the original work rather than giving the meaning of each expression or sentence using words that sound natural. vocabulary dot com literal To describe something as literal is to say that it is exactly what it seems to be. For example, if you put up a literal barrier to keep the world out, you've actually built a real wall. The background of literal includes the Latin litterālis, meaning "of letters or writing." This led to the sense of exactness, suggesting something is "to the letter." Many people misuse this word, as in "Listening to that dull teacher put me in a literal coma." Possible, but highly doubtful. the free dictionary literal taking words in their primary sense without metaphor or allegory: the literal meaning of a word; expressed by letters; actual, factual, truthful, exact, reliable Not to be confused with: littoral - pertaining to the shore of a lake, the sea, etc.; a region lying along a shore
@darcybrummett70047 жыл бұрын
I've never heard anyone use the word "lain."
@General12th7 жыл бұрын
Hey girl, wanna be lain with me? Works every time.
@GraemeMarkNI7 жыл бұрын
Darcy Brummett I'd be willing to be you have... in fact, you just heard Paul using it :D
@debo77896 жыл бұрын
past participle of lie,
@petermsiegel5736 жыл бұрын
Your intuition is correct. When I taught this stuff to non-native college students, I taught them the form in case it was on a standard test, then showed them how native speakers in fact simply avoid it literally like the plague. They use a different tense ("he was lying on the floor"), or replace it with a different verb ("No, I haven't slept on your new bed yet.").
@armanespiritu6163 Жыл бұрын
Hello, I'm from the Philippines and many of us are afraid to make mistakes when we speak in english because we might get judged by our fellow Filipinos who are very particular in grammar. Indeed many Filipinos are grammar nazi that's why even though many of us want to practice english to become fluent but because of some people that will make fun of us because of our grammar mistakes it turns out our willingness and passion will disappear
@petermsiegel5736 жыл бұрын
Your videos are as accurate as they are entertaining. While some comments here and there can be trying, I'm rather impressed at how motivated your audience is to be part of the conversation. That means they are really paying attention-- a KZbin anomaly perhaps?
@AynsleyPaterson8 жыл бұрын
It's the misuse of literally that really gets my blood boiling, metaphorically speaking that is!
@AynsleyPaterson8 жыл бұрын
Oh geeso! Are you the grammer police then? My attempt at a humorous reply was obviously lost on you. Anyway, I used the word 'really' simply for impact where if I wanted to clarify some part of my statement I would have used 'actually'.
@cly-91287 жыл бұрын
Aynsley Paterson Wait so you get mad when people use a word wrong, but when people correct you, they are the 'grammar police'?
@memedbengul43507 жыл бұрын
I literally shit (shat/shitted?) myself reading your post!
@LowestofheDead7 жыл бұрын
Shitted is the past participle, shat is right - I fixed you're grammar.
@SireBab7 жыл бұрын
Unless you are doing at the time when you wrote it, it would be "I literally shat myself" since you want to use the PP.
@davidtracey90946 жыл бұрын
we make mistakes.we are human. we all can learn a lot. thanks for posting 🇨🇦
@emavro3 жыл бұрын
As a teacher of EFL (English as a Foreign Language), I think that our association should award you a medal or something. Every time I point out one of these mistakes to my students, they complain that their favourite influencer speaks like that and s/he can't be wrong as s/he's a native speaker of English. This video will come in handy next time they play that card on me.
@Langfocus3 жыл бұрын
Well, from a linguist’s descriptive point of view, they’re right. Colloquial varieties of English aren’t objectively wrong, they’re just colloquial. The question is what kind of English those students should learn. If they just want to make friends, or if they want to use English with tourists like renting out surfboards or something, then sure, speak colloquial English. But for anything more formal or professional, it’s better that they know standard formal English. There are some things in this video, though, that are archaic even in standard formal English. I included them to make the video debatable.
@emavro3 жыл бұрын
@@Langfocus Those are precisely the issues we discuss in class when the opportunity arises but, instead of presenting the points myself and sending them off to ponder, I'll be using your video to initiate the discussion. The fun begins when we start drawing parallels between English and Greek. When my budding middle-schoolers realise that double negatives were unacceptable in Ancient Greek but are a requirement in Modern Greek, they immediately turn into bad-ass middle-schoolers. ;-)
@ChrystineHolcomb7 жыл бұрын
You, sir, win the Internet. Thank you for this!
@mikesummers-smith40916 жыл бұрын
Stolen from elsewhere. What do you say to comfort an upset spelling pedant? "There, their, they're."
@MauriatOttolink5 жыл бұрын
Mike Summers-Smith. Why is it that when people encounter others who are more particular about accuracy than they are themselves, they (the others) become pedants. Is it maybe that the complainants hate being reminded of their (There, They're) own poor edukashun? Might that be to assuage their (they're, there) own conscience at their ( they're, there) inadequacies by belittling the implied importance What do you say to pedant-accusers & moaners? Get some in.... EDUKASHUN that is!
@jeffavella50945 жыл бұрын
🤣
@neurofiedyamato87635 жыл бұрын
No we aren't annoyed by pedants for correcting mistakes. Its quite helpful. But their corrections are intrusive to an otherwise smooth going conversation. it interrupts people for stupid grammatical mistakes that no one else noticed and/or don't care. Everyone understood it but the pedant feel the need to interrupt everything else that is going on and put the person on the spotlight. There's a time and place for everything and a pedant does not care.
@patrickhodson87158 жыл бұрын
10) There's lots of mistakes people make regarding subject number. 9) Your sew rite win it comes to using the wrong homophone Nguyen righting. 8) Confusing adverbs and adjectives is real common, but the meaning can still be understood pretty easy. 7) Don't be telling me I can't have double negatives, not even if I don't want you not to. 6) Si hablaras español, usarías el modo subjunctivo mucho. 5) I wonder if the creators of this channel realizes that 10 and 5 are the same. 4) The chickens aren't laying yet. 3) You really seem to be fishing now. You weren't satisfied with a video of less than 10 mistakes? 2) We wouldn't have that problem if we hadn't brung in those irregular verbs from Old English. 1) I literally enjoyed this video. Have a nice day!
@patrickhodson87158 жыл бұрын
Also, "I feel badly about that" can be correct, if _that_ refers to something like frostbite or other nerve damage. i.e. "I am bad at feeling because of that"
You feel really well. You're like, pro at feeling.
@simsandsurgery14 ай бұрын
“Stative verbs” My blood ran cold and goosebumps covered my back as I remembered the amount of time I spent reading and then attempting to understand Vendler’s classification of verbs…