I will always use “who” because “whom” gives off too much of a Reddit vibe.
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2025
50 points (89.1% liked)
Asklemmy
49540 readers
423 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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
This one is great.
- Anyways instead of Anyway
- your instead of you're
- their instea or they're
and a couple others...
2 and 3 are horrible though. These completely change the meaning of a sentence :(
"Y'all"
I will die on the hill that it's more efficient and neutral than the alternatives.
English has to bend over backwards to make up for the fact that it doesn't have a natural plural 2nd person form.
Ye Y'all Youse (Dublin)
"Y'all" and the plural "all y'all" are part of my daily vocabulary. And I'm in no way of southern origin.
First we're all like "Thou is too casual, gotta use the plural second person instead." Then oh no, turns out number in pronouns is actually useful sometimes, but thou sounds old fashioned now, so we just gotta re-pluralize the second person. And then you get y'all.
I like y'all, but I almost wish we could just bring thou back.
For years I have said that y'all is the best thing to come out of the south.
Yinz is at least as efficient
I recently realized that w’all needs to be shakespeared too. Following the pattern of other languages, y’all and w’all are missing in English.
Also, I shakespeared the verb shakespeared, in reference to Shakespeare making up new words by following patterns among other words.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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 [...]".
Ah good one. Less vs fewer is another like this. IDGAF the distinction there either
I do. If it's countable, it's fewer. Fewer people, fewer houses. If it's incountable it's less. Less rice, less water.
Period AFTER the end of a quote.
My buddy Joe told me “I will live and die on this hill”.
I'm shocked no one else pointed this out. This isn't a rule of grammar — this is a style rule, which isn't actually part of the English language. Different style guides recommend different things. This happens to be specifically delineated by American/Canadian style guides vs British/Australian style guides; however anyone could publish a style guide. If USA Today decided to make and publish a style guide that they used in their articles that said there should be periods both within and after a quote, that would be valid by that styleguide.
For me in American English it's also the commas that go inside the closing quotation marks, even when they're not part the original quote. I die a little every time I see this, so illogical.
If it's not part of the quote, just leave it outside.
Absolutely. Anyone who has done any programming should recognize that changing what's in the quote is corrupting the data.
If I'm quoting a question though, then it makes sense to include the question mark in the quote.
I laughed when Joe asked "That's the hill you chose?".
If the murky depths of my memories of school is correct, the location of the period is dictated by whether or not it is part of the quote. So, if the quote should have a period at the end, it goes inside the quotation marks. If the quote does not include the period (e.g. you are quoting part of a sentence), but you are at the end of a sentence in your own prose, you put the period on the outside of the quotation marks.
load more comments
(7 replies)
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!
Most of it, as long as it's understandable I don't care. Language is about making yourself understood.
Anything is acceptable if it's for comedic effect.
I'm of the opinion that so long as it is understandable it does not matter. English was once written as it sounded and there was no spelling consistancy. Those who were literate had little issue with it.
Some related reading: https://ctcamp.franklinresearch.uga.edu/resources/reading-middle-english https://cb45.hsites.harvard.edu/middle-english-basic-pronunciation-and-grammar
Edit: Okay my rant is more related to spelling than grammar but still interesting.
Using commas, wherever you want.
They should be logical thought breaks, not adhere to any rules of grammar.
I have to, take issue with this, one. The rules of commas are, pretty, easy actually: Use a, comma where you'd, pause when speaking. If, you read it out, loud and sound like Captain, Kirk then you put, a comma in the, wrong spot.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
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
volgens mei niet!
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.
but singular they isn't incorrect in the least. anyone claiming otherwise has some agenda to push in spite of the facts of it's use for a good long while
It's not, but with... Political views as they are, it's gotten a lot of pushback. People don't even realize they use it regularly.
"Someone called for you"
"What did they want?"
Bam. Easy. I was stoked when magic the gathering changed card wording from "he or she" to "they" because it cleans up the wording so much.
load more comments
(2 replies)
It's not a grammar mistake per se, but I feel like sharing it and it is close enough so here we go.
As a non-native English speaker: How can you have mop~~b~~ and vacuum the floor but not broom the room?! I know it doesn't exist, but I don't care. If we have to phrase it as a grammar mistake: I use verbalisations where they are uncommon.
I agree. I'm going to start brooming the room. Thank you for this insight.
load more comments
(5 replies)
A lot, to be honest. Spend enough time around non-native English speakers and you realise how little sense English makes. Their 'mistakes' have their own internal consistency and in a lot of cases make more sense than English does.
load more comments
(4 replies)
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.
It’s not grammatically incorrect to end a sentence with a preposition. It’s a common misconception that it is a rule, basically because one guy argued in favor of it back in the 1600s and had some support for formal writing in the 1700s. But it’s never been a broad rule, and even in formal contexts it’s not a rule in any current, reputable style or usage guides (so far as I know, at least).
Some more info on the topic: https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/prepositions-ending-a-sentence-with
I only know of this "rule" because of a joke.
A new student is looking for the library and stops a passing professor to ask, "Excuse me sir, can you please tell me where the library is at?" To which the professor responds, "Here at Harvard, we don't end our sentences with prepositions."
The student without missing a beat says "I'm sorry, can you please tell me where the library is at, asshole?"
(Not sure if I remember exactly how it should be written it, apologies if I got it wrong)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Deliberately not capitalising proper nouns as a show of disrespect (countries, people, titles, etc). Not "grammatically correct" but I think it falls under freedom of expression.
informal contractions are simply informal just because. there’s no real reason to consider them informal or not standard other than arbitrary rules.
“You shouldn’t’ve done that.” “It couldn’t’ve been him!” “I might’ve done that if you asked.”
I think if I took it too far and said that all contractions are basically acceptable, y'all'd'n't've agreed with me.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
I'm really sick of people treating AAVE and other dialects like grammar mistakes, is what. Grammar Nazis indeed, protecting the purity of the English language.
view more: next ›