Asklemmy

My philosophy is that languages are made up to make communication easier and they change all the time anyway. So as long as you are understood, that's more important than getting the grammar to be perfect. Getting it like 80% right is plenty and that last 20% consists of a bunch of obscure or ambiguous rules that would take up way too much of my processing power to keep track of while communicating, thus hindering the purpose of using language in the first place. Also, English is a stupid mess of a language. I don't have enough respect for it to follow all of it's rules.

That said... what DOES bug me a little is people who make videos who regularly misuse words. Not because I think it's that big of a deal, but... come on... this is your job and you have complete control over the work at every step of the way and have so many opportunities to correct mistakes. You write the script. You read it. You watch it again while doing editing and could easily re-record bits that are wrong or awkward. Although perhaps this is less about the language specifically and more about leaving mistakes and bloopers in videos in general. That's what editing is for. We have more advanced editing tools available to the average person than ever before. USE THEM!

"Y'all"

I will die on the hill that it's more efficient and neutral than the alternatives.

Y'all is completely fine to use. It was a mistake for English to lose its distinction between second person singular and plural. Either we accept the word "y'all" or we go back to saying thou and thee, either way we can't just keep on awkwardly dancing around not having a distinction between second person plural and singular.

I will always use “who” because “whom” gives off too much of a Reddit vibe.

Anything that is used colloquially but technically isn't correct because some loser didn't like it 200 years ago. To boldly keep on splitting infinitives is a rejection of language prescriptivism!

Putting the punctuation outside the quotes (or parentheses) when the quote is only part of a sentence. I.e. He said "I need to go now".

My pet peeve is people thinking they are being clever by complaining about the supposed incorrect usage of literally as figuratively.

People, including famous authors, have been literally (not hyperbole) using the word as an intensifier, and therefore, figuratively, since 1847, e.g. F Scott Fitzgerald, Charles Dickens, and William Thackeray.

Did we change the definition of 'literally'? | Merriam-Webster - https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/misuse-of-literally

Singular they. I've had this opinion since long before I even knew about non-binary people. Using "he or she" to refer to a person without specifying gender is clunky as hell.

I am not in defence of but actually annoyed by:

Using if instead of whether. For example: "I will check if the window is open". This means: "if the window is open, I will check". What people mean to say is "I will check whether the window is open".

Also, using was in hypotheticals instead of the correct were. For example: if I were going to check whether the window was open, I wouldn't be standing here. Not "if I was going to check [...]".

Ending a sentence with a proposition is just fine. Picky people whom I've only seen parodies of on the Internet go "oh you ended your sentence with a preposition I have no idea what you mean by 'He went in' maybe you could explain what he went into? A jello mold? A ditch? What did go into?"

You asked if he went into the store and I said he went in, you know what I meant because of CONTEXT CLUES.

I've never met anyone who's ever been this picky but I'm ready to bite them if I ever find one.

In Dutch you're supposed to write "Volgens mij" ("in my opinion"), but it's pronounced more like it's one word. So I feel "volgensmij" flows better

Anything is acceptable if it's for comedic effect.

Most of it, as long as it's understandable I don't care. Language is about making yourself understood.

All of them, unless there's need to be accurate.