Phrases People Use Wrong

The one that drives me nuts is when people are referring to themself and someone else and they always say "so-and-so and I". I think in school they were trying to teach us not to use "me and so-and-so" when one should say "so-and-so and I" but a lot of people missed the point and just use "and I" exclusively. The simple way to figure out which one is correct is to drop the other person and see if the sentence still sounds correct.

Here are some examples because I'm not sure I'm making any sense.

Bob and I are going to the store. - Correct (I am going to the store)
Me and Bob are going to the store. - Incorrect (Me am going to the store)


A lot of people would say this one wrong though.

Are you coming to the store with Bob and I? - Incorrect (Are you coming to the store with I?)
Are you coming to the store with Bob and me? - Correct (Are you coming to the store with me?)


Ones like this irk me the most. How people could think this sounds right is beyond me.

We can meet at Bob and I's house. -Incorrect (We can meet at I's house.)
We can meet at Bob's and my house. -Correct (We can meet at my house.)

reply to post by esteay812


I guess I haven't noticed " that being said", but that being said, I'm sick of ' Nuffi said"
" me thinks" is another that irritates me.

reply to post by Magnivea


It is what it is comes across as dismissive. It's like saying who cares? It's so rude

yeahright

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Thought of one I see here occasionally - marshall law. No, actually it's 'martial law'.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

I've seen it written incorrectly as "marital law" a few times. Well, tick off your spouse enough, and it might be close XD

reply to post by March of the Fire Ants


When I was little I thought a trotline was "trout line".

reply to post by Urantia1111


That is your opinion. Shape and form are there to add emphasis only. I like it however, my children not so much. Are you one of them?

reply to post by mwood


This is not a word. That is the point of its usage. You use it whenever you want to change topics which it does beautifully by diverting the hearers attention quickly from the previous topic to the incorrect word (which stuns them momentarily) then introducing the new topic of conversation.

Works great! I usually use it when I would prefer something to be forgotten. As you can see in yourself, it is only the incorrect word you remember.

"Do you have some duck tape?"

reply to post by IShotMyLastMuse


Did you notice they actually made this into a brand name? That is how often this is used incorrectly! Someone patented it! hahaha

reply to post by OpinionatedB


A small part of me died reading your reply ahahah

March of the Fire Ants
'I'm going to take a shower' .. Where are you taking it?

We (Germans) learned it like this in school:
"She´s going to take a shower."
"He took a shower."

eletheia
It used to be when someone liked or admired something they would say :-

"Oh I do like that" or "I love that" (whatever it was)

Now it appears the new in thing to say is "I'm loving/liking it"

Do you remember when the new McDonalds campaign started in 2003?
I think it brainwashed the people. A German came up with it (conspiracy? )

From wikipedia:

i'm lovin' it is an international branding campaign by McDonald's Corporation. It was created by Heye & Partner, McDonald's agency based in Unterhaching, Germany, near Munich, and a member of the DDB Worldwide Communications Group, Inc. It was the company's first global advertising campaign and was launched in Munich, Germany on September 2, 2003, under the German title ich liebe es. This is only used in Germany; in Austria, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein, the English slogan is used.

Nyiah
I've seen it written incorrectly as "marital law" a few times. Well, tick off your spouse enough, and it might be close XD

opethPA
/rant on

This may have been posted already but I'm not searching because it's been a day of listening to or reading people use the phrases below incorrectly.

I don't know that I have ever been accused of being a grammar Nazi and I am not trying to be one here. I realize that for the most part people speak in some shorthand version of their local dialect but when you are in a professional setting the following things or similar phrases , statements or sentiments should never be used and if you decide to use them then people should be able to kick you in the shins really hard....


"It's a mute point" (That's great but it's not a mute point since it is actually a moot point)

"Plug it in and wah lah it works" (wah lah means nothing, it is supposed to be voila)

"Irregardless, I am still doing it" (while technically irregardless is a word its two parts cancel each other out. People should actually be using regardless)

"Where is you at?" (I heard this 2 times today and realized that something has failed with modern basic grammar)

/rant off

P.S. I apologize for any grammar errors I used above as I am tired!

"Phrases people use 'incorrectly'" lol...

I'm surprised that 'would of' and 'could of' have not been mentioned.

They are 'would have' and 'could have', contracted to would've and could've.

That irritates me so much.

IShotMyLastMuse
"Do you have some duck tape?"

Yes!! Duck tape!! lol

Also, duck work (ductwork)...heating system ducts.
A telemarketer called me one day, asking if "my ducks needed cleaning?"
I replied, "No...but my chickens need plucking!"

The guy hung up on me, lol...but I had a good laugh!!

jacygirl

I'll add some to the pile.

Eavesdropping NOT easedropping.
AND
Specific NOT pacific.

People who "reek havok" annoy the living crap out of me. It's even worse when they've "reeked havok". While it is entirely possible, and sometimes occurs that one may exude the stench of havok, that really isn't what they mean - although that is the ONLY thing that phrase CAN mean. What they mean is "wreaked havok", which is ALSO incorrect. I've even seen that one in use by professional columnists, who really ought to know better, given that the written word is allegedly how the make their living.

The proper present-tense usage is to "wreak havok", and the proper past tense is to have "WROUGHT havok".

Attila the Hun WROUGHT havok, he did not "reeked havok", nor can it be fairly said that he "wreaked havok".

He WROUGHT it, dammit!

Now I've thought about this way too much, and my blood pressure has passed the boiling point. Excuse me while I crawl off into a corner, curl up, and quietly allow my head to explode.

reply to post by nenothtu


*sniff*
"What reeks?"
"Oh, that's nenothtu....his head exploded. He wrought havoc like Attila the Hun!"
"Dude!"
"I know, right?"

jacygirl

reply to post by nenothtu




Or Havoc.