Please state in which country your phrase tends to be used, what the phrase is, and what it should be.
Example:
In America, recently came across “back-petal”, instead of back-pedal. Also, still hearing “for all intensive purposes” instead of “for all intents and purposes”.
“Seen”.
Holy fuck, “seen”.I honestly think that using this word incorrectly has gotten worse over the last few years. Hearing someone say, “yeah, I seen her yesterday” just makes me want to punch the wall.
You don’t feel “nauseous” you feel “nauseated”.
“per say” vs “per se”
“Saying the quiet part out loud.”
Saying things out loud is how you say them.
It’s “saying the quiet part loud.”
I’m still confused that reckless driving causes wrecks.
Irregardless
“Most best”
On the US one thing is different from another, not than. One thing differs from another. It’s different from the other thing.
Although in the UK it’s “different to” for some reason.
Idk if this counts as a phrase, but on the internet, people talk about their pets crossing the rainbow bridge when they die. That’s not how the rainbow bridge poem goes. Pets go to a magnificent field when they die. They are healed of all injury and illness. When you die, they find you in the field and you cross the bridge together. It’s much sweeter the way it was written than the way people use it.
breaked vs broke
Respect the irregular verbs
It’s always going to be the “of” people. Its “would have”, “should have” etc and not “would of”.
It’s, “Excuse me, while I kiss the sky.”
About 1 in 3 posters here say “loose” when they mean “lose”
Online in general: using “reductio ad absurdum” as a fallacy.
It’s a longstanding logical tool. Here’s an example of how it works: let’s assume you can use infinity as a number. In that case, we can do:
∞ + 1 = ∞
And:
∞ - ∞ = 0
Agreed? If so, then:
∞ - ∞ + 1 = ∞ - ∞
And therefore:
1 = 0
Which is absurd. If we agree that all the logical steps to get there are correct, then the original premise (that we can use infinity as a number) must be wrong.
It’s a great tool for teasing out incorrect assumptions. It has never been on any academic list of fallacies, and the Internet needs to stop saying otherwise. It’s possible some other fallacy is being invoked while going through an argument, but it’s not reductio ad absurdum.
What entitlement means vs false sense of entitlement.
I tell people they are entitled to their rights and have an entitlement to their social security money for example, and they get offended thinking I mean “false sense of entitlement” instead.
People saying “exscape”, “expresso”, “pasghetti”
