Ask Lemmy

I’ve started using “used to could” instead of “used to be able to”, and I will not stop.

I like to put apostrophes where they do'nt belong.

A slight tangent into spelling, but I think "milktoast" is perfectly evocative of the idea the user is trying to get across.

As long as we can understand each other, I am very forgiving with these sorts of things. Different cultures and communities of all sizes use the same words in different ways, as it has always been. And like it will always be, I imagine. So who cares if they don't say it the way you would? If you understand what they are communicating and are not explicitly there to help them learn to speak differently, that would make you a dick for correcting them. Or even for looking down on them as if your use of the same has more value simply because you believe it does. It doesn't and that should be perfectly okay with any reasonable person imho

I work in a job with contractual language and care deeply about the placement of every comma in that context.

Outside that in everyday life, I don't care about any grammer rule so long as I can understand the writer's intent.

Nobody actually knows how to use "it begs the question" anyway. Even the ones who think they do.

i'm not prescriptive with grammar. it is descriptive. so "common usage" is fine by me.

and there are even racist undertones to a lot of it. sometimes the word "ask" gets pronounced as "axe" which some people throw fits of hissy all over the place.

Chaucer, the grandfather of modern English, had no problem using the "axe" version. so i'm more down with common usage for speech but knowing the variety of rules and how they have been used historically is a fun exercise in linguistic study and discourse.

but its all good.

I’m fine with “free reign” and “beckon call” because the meaning is retained and language evolves.

Have to / need to - At some point in my 20s it was pointed out to me that "need to" is the correct phrase and that "have to" isn't correct. But actually "have to" is used in both English and Spanish "tengo que" which is "have to" or technically "have that". Grammatically, if "have" is a state of being then "have to" is like a state of being with a direction or target implied.

outside of like academic settings, anything should go. check out the previous sentence where i inserted an unnecessary “like” as an example. it reflects my train of thought and i type as i think. same thing should go for slang and stuff, if the best way to get your point across is with ideas that have not been accepted by the academic world then that’s totally skibidi tubular, man.

Most of it. I don't know how people find the energy to give a shit about grammar in informal settings. If I can understand the meaning it's good enough for me.

The one thing I will insist on is the use of is/are. It's pretty simple, if referring to a countable set, use "are". E.g. there are four turtles in my sewer. You would not say "there are too much shit on this webpage", because that shit is uncountable.