Topic: Phrases that people get wrong

[Alan_X]

It's spreading!

 

Now I need to get back to pisspronuniciating my worms...

Spoiler

"Good evening. I am the president of the Loyal Society for the Relief of Suffers from Pismronunciation, for the relief of people who can't say their worms correctly, or who use the wrong worms entirely, so that other people cannot underhand a bird they are spraying. It's just that you open your mouse, and the worms come turbling out in wuck a say that you dick not what you're thugging to be, and it's very distressing.

"I'm always looing it, and it makes one feel umbumftorcacle, especially when one is going about one's diddly tasks. Slopping at the Sloopermarket, for instance. Only last wonk, I approached the chuckout point, and I shooed the ghoul behind the crash desk the contents of my trilly, and she said 'All right, granddad, shout 'em out.' Well, of course, that's fine for the ordinary man in the stoat who has no dribble with his wolds. For someone like myself, it's worse than a kick in the jackstrop.

"Sometimes, you get stuck on one letter, such as wubbleyou. And I said, 'Well, I've got a tin of woup, a woucumber, two packets of wheese and a walliflower'. She tried to make fun of me and said, 'That will be woo pounds, wifty-wee pence.' So I just said 'Wobblers!' and walked out.

"So you see how dickyfelt it is. But help is at hand. A new society has been formed by our mumblers to help each other in times of excream ices. It is balled Pismronouncers Unanimous, and anyone can ball them up on the smellyphone any time of the day or note, twenty-four flowers a spray, seven stays a creek, and they will come 'round and get drunk with you.

"For foreigners, there will be inperpetwitters, who will all speak many sandwiches, such as Swedish, Turkish, Burkish, Jewish, Gibberish and Rubbish. Membranes will be able to attend tight stool, for heaving classes, to learn how to grope with the many complinkities of the daily loaf.

"Which brings me to the drain reason for squeaking to you tonight. The society's first function as a body was a grand garden freight, and we hope for many more bodily functions in the future. The garden plate was held in the grounds of Blennham Paleyass, Woodstick, and the guest of horror was the great American pip singer, Manny Barrellow. The fete was opened by the bleeder of the opposition, Mister Dale Pinnock ... Pillock, who gave us a few well-frozen worms in praise of the society's jerk. He said that 'In the creeks and stunts that lie ahead, we must do out nut roast to ensure that it sucks weeds.' "And everyone visited the various stores and abrusements, the rudeabouts, thing boats and the dodgers, and of course, all the old favorites such as Srty your Length, guessing the weight of the cook and tinning the pale on the wonky. The occasion was great fun, and I think it can safely be said that all the men present and thoroughly good women were had all the time.

"So, please join out society. Write to me, Doctor Small Pith, The Spanner, Poke Moses, and I will send you some brieflets to browse through and a brass badge to wear in your loophole."

[close]

[idontknow]

I just don't get how people can get that wrong. Don't they think about what they are saying.

Pacifically,
I went out with someone who told me they found out in the 90s when Word put an annoying red squiggle underneath their attempt at the word and gave no suggestion for correcting it. They had to ask to find out, and didn't believe it when they were told, it had to be proved to them. They just didn't know the 's' was there, and if you don't think it has an 's' I imagine when you hear someone say it with the 's' you just shift it to the 'c' and forget about it. Or something like that. It's been sorted and understood, I suppose the mind just moves on to the next bit.
They had moved about a bit when they were young, so it must have got lost between accents.

[idontknow]

As I've explained, it is. Unless you've got another example of how it could be correct.

'I was sat' is grammatically correct.

'I was sat last night in a bar all aone.'
'I was sitting last night in a bar all alone.'
'I sat last night in a bar all alone.'
'It's last night and I'm sitting in a bar all alone.'
'It's last night and I'm sat in a bar all alone.'

All grammatically correct.
Some your ears might like, or differentiate, some not.
Some may suit necessities of scansion, or character, perhaps, better than others.
But all are grammatically correct.

So is the following:
'It's last night and I was sat in a bar all alone.'
Now, the precise shade of meaning may be tenuous, it wears my headout trying to get it; but all the grammar is correct.

'I sat was' is wrong. As is, 'was I sat'. (Edit: Wrong, a question mark would make it right.) 'I have was sat' would be very wrong. So too, 'I have had sat', but not 'I have had to sit', that's correct. Getting confused myself, now, that's good.
And I will halt there as I feel an urge to create tongue-twisters.

'I should have had been having to have sat' is also grammatically correct, by the way. I am still trying to drop it, or similar, casually into conversation. Which is possibly why I have spent so much time sat all alone in bars.

 

[Ghost Town]

'I was sat' is grammatically correct.

'I was sat last night in a bar all aone.'
'I was sitting last night in a bar all alone.'
'I sat last night in a bar all alone.'
'It's last night and I'm sitting in a bar all alone.'
'It's last night and I'm sat in a bar all alone.'

All grammatically correct.
Some your ears might like, or differentiate, some not.
Some may suit necessities of scansion, or character, perhaps, better than others.
But all are grammatically correct.

So is the following:
'It's last night and I was sat in a bar all alone.'
Now, the precise shade of meaning may be tenuous, it wears my headout trying to get it; but all the grammar is correct.

'I sat was' is wrong. As is, 'was I sat'. (Edit: Wrong, a question mark would make it right.) 'I have was sat' would be very wrong. So too, 'I have had sat', but not 'I have had to sit', that's correct. Getting confused myself, now, that's good.
And I will halt there as I feel an urge to create tongue-twisters.

'I should have had been having to have sat' is also grammatically correct, by the way. I am still trying to drop it, or similar, casually into conversation. Which is possibly why I have spent so much time sat all alone in bars.

 

Muphry's Law is merciless.

[Mark Walters]

'I was sat' is grammatically correct.

'I was sat last night in a bar all aone.'
'I was sitting last night in a bar all alone.'
'I sat last night in a bar all alone.'
'It's last night and I'm sitting in a bar all alone.'
'It's last night and I'm sat in a bar all alone.'

All grammatically correct.
Some your ears might like, or differentiate, some not.
Some may suit necessities of scansion, or character, perhaps, better than others.
But all are grammatically correct.

So is the following:
'It's last night and I was sat in a bar all alone.'
Now, the precise shade of meaning may be tenuous, it wears my headout trying to get it; but all the grammar is correct.

'I sat was' is wrong. As is, 'was I sat'. (Edit: Wrong, a question mark would make it right.) 'I have was sat' would be very wrong. So too, 'I have had sat', but not 'I have had to sit', that's correct. Getting confused myself, now, that's good.
And I will halt there as I feel an urge to create tongue-twisters.

'I should have had been having to have sat' is also grammatically correct, by the way. I am still trying to drop it, or similar, casually into conversation. Which is possibly why I have spent so much time sat all alone in bars.

 

Try and justify it all you want, it's grammatically incorrect and can never be right.

I was sat is like saying "I was slept on the sofa last night". It's either "I was sleeping on the sofa" or "I slept on the sofa". Both make more sense than the first statement.

"I was held the baby". No, that doesn't sound right either. "I was holding the baby" or "I held the baby".

"Was" indicates the past. "Sat", "slept" and "held" are also past tense.

I hope you can see my point.

[Nessy76]

Along with "bias" instead of the proper "biased..."

Thought it was fairly obvious...

People saying "bias" when they mean "biased" or "text" for "texted" make my skin crawl. Almost as bad as "verse" rather than "versus".

Or "tele" instead of "telly". That makes me feel physically ill. Do you say "tellyvision" too and if so are you five?

[redgriffin73]

People saying "bias" when they mean "biased" or "text" for "texted" make my skin crawl. Almost as bad as "verse" rather than "versus".

Or "tele" instead of "telly". That makes me feel physically ill. Do you say "tellyvision" too and if so are you five?

God yes, me too, I think I've said this before in here. Cliché instead of clichéd too. Why can people no longer speak correctly?

[Mumm-Ra]

People saying "bias" when they mean "biased" or "text" for "texted" make my skin crawl. Almost as bad as "verse" rather than "versus".

Or "tele" instead of "telly". That makes me feel physically ill. Do you say "tellyvision" too and if so are you five?

Wait, are you saying people should say tele or telly?

I say telly, and television. One is a colloquialism, the other is a proper word

[Nessy76]

Wait, are you saying people should say tele or telly?

I say telly, and television. One is a colloquialism, the other is a proper word

You should say telly. Some people write it as "tele" which is ridiculous. Similar to writing "breath" when they mean "breathe" or "loose" /"lose".

[Barneylfc∗]

People saying "bias" when they mean "biased" or "text" for "texted" make my skin crawl. Almost as bad as "verse" rather than "versus".

Or "tele" instead of "telly". That makes me feel physically ill. Do you say "tellyvision" too and if so are you five?

If I asked someone to grab me a 'Tele' on the way in to work, I'd be a bit miffed if they brought me a 'telly'

[Sangria]

A film about hard Irish boarders.

https://www.joe.ie/movies-tv/calm-horses-reviews-680753

[Ghost Town]

You should say telly. Some people write it as "tele" which is ridiculous. Similar to writing "breath" when they mean "breathe" or "loose" /"lose".

Not that ridiculous considering 'tele' (τηλε) is the original Greek root word that was combined with 'vision' to form 'television'.

You might even say they are being correct

[Ghost Town]

Try and justify it all you want, it's grammatically incorrect and can never be right.

I was sat is like saying "I was slept on the sofa last night". It's either "I was sleeping on the sofa" or "I slept on the sofa". Both make more sense than the first statement.

"I was held the baby". No, that doesn't sound right either. "I was holding the baby" or "I held the baby".

"Was" indicates the past. "Sat", "slept" and "held" are also past tense.

I hope you can see my point.

Yes I see your point but it's a simplistic one, and not correct.

Grammar is nowhere near as simple and clear-cut as you make out because it is not, and has never been, planned, mapped out or organised. It has, and continues to, come about organically.

You're right that 'I was slept on the bed' is incorrect, but 'I was sat at the table' is not incorrect. It is, arguably, an example of non-standard usage (though not for much longer), but - and this is one of the most important things to remember about language, grammar and usage: non-standard does NOT mean incorrect, and what is deemed correct today was often non-standard, or even incorrect, in the past.

It is also used to impart certain nuances that are not there with 'sitting', particularly when the act of sitting has been enforced by another, or begrudgingly carried out.

[Nessy76]

Not that ridiculous considering 'tele' (τηλε) is the original Greek root word that was combined with 'vision' to form 'television'.

You might even say they are being correct

I might, but then I would be wrong too.

[Ghost Town]

I might, but then I would be wrong too.

You remind me of that bloke off the tele

[Nessy76]

You remind me of that bloke off the tele

You say "tellyvision" too then? Infant.

[redgriffin73]

Not that ridiculous considering 'tele' (τηλε) is the original Greek root word that was combined with 'vision' to form 'television'.

You might even say they are being correct

Telly is just the slang short form though, it doesn't have to be correctly spelt. Otherwise we'd be having to write 'frig' for 'refrigerator' and that would just be weird!

[Crosby Nick]

Telly is just the slang short form though, it doesn't have to be correctly spelt. Otherwise we'd be having to write 'frig' for 'refrigerator' and that would just be weird!

Crosby Nich (whatever happened to him?) agrees with this post.

[Mark Walters]

You should say telly. Some people write it as "tele" which is ridiculous. Similar to writing "breath" when they mean "breathe" or "loose" /"lose".

Like "bath" instead of "bathe". Not written in this case but spoken. "I'm going to bath the kids". No, you're going to BATHE the kids.  Another very British misuse.

[Ghost Town]

Telly is just the slang short form though, it doesn't have to be correctly spelt. Otherwise we'd be having to write 'frig' for 'refrigerator' and that would just be weird!

I agree, and I'm not saying that it needs to be correctly spelled. In fact I'd go further and say that a language borrowing a term from another has every right to do whatever it wants with it thereafter, both in its formal and vernacular registers.

But given the form of the original I hardly feel it's "ridiculous" if people choose to use the accurate spelling for the diminutive instead of a variation. Vernacular, in particular, has no rules, but that works both ways.

[Mark Walters]

Yes I see your point but it's a simplistic one, and not correct.

Grammar is nowhere near as simple and clear-cut as you make out because it is not, and has never been, planned, mapped out or organised. It has, and continues to, come about organically.

You're right that 'I was slept on the bed' is incorrect, but 'I was sat at the table' is not incorrect. It is, arguably, an example of non-standard usage (though not for much longer), but - and this is one of the most important things to remember about language, grammar and usage: non-standard does NOT mean incorrect, and what is deemed correct today was often non-standard, or even incorrect, in the past.

It is also used to impart certain nuances that are not there with 'sitting', particularly when the act of sitting has been enforced by another, or begrudgingly carried out.

I completely appreciate and accept that language is fluid.

However, in your example where you say the act of sitting may have been enforced by another, this is where we use language to ensure understanding.  In this case, if "I was sat at the table" means that you were sitting at the table of your own free will, how would I be able to differentiate between you being there of your own free will and you being forced to sit by someone else?

So, yes, it is non-standard usage and by all means attempt to justify it but remember that these nuances can work to both clarify and confuse. With communication we want to avoid confusion where possible.

[Ghost Town]

Like "bath" instead of "bathe". Not written in this case but spoken. "I'm going to bath the kids". No, you're going to BATHE the kids.  Another very British misuse.

It's not the same thing at all though. Bath and bathe are separate words. Also the former is a noun, the latter primarily a verb (though also functions as a noun sometimes). Similarly breath and breathe are separate words, with breath a noun and breathe a verb.

Tele/telly/any other way you wish to spell it, is just a diminutive of television, not a different word and not a different word class, and because it is slang, all bets are off. Tele is as correct as telly

[Ghost Town]

I completely appreciate and accept that language is fluid.

However, in your example where you say the act of sitting may have been enforced by another, this is where we use language to ensure understanding.

But we don't just use language variation to ensure understanding and clarity, we also use context. And semantic drift happens naturally as users realise they need ways of indicating nuance

In this case, if "I was sat at the table" means that you were sitting at the table of your own free will, how would I be able to differentiate between you being there of your own free will and you being forced to sit by someone else?

Context is the only way to get the nuances correct in an example like this, but it's hardly a major glitch if you fail to get it: the action being described is still the same - you are sitting at the table.

So, yes, it is non-standard usage and by all means attempt to justify it

It's not about justifying it, it's about accepting it. Grammar and usage (as a linguistic term) are descriptive, not prescriptive. You look at how people are using words and codify the grammar from that, and this continues as an open-ended task, never completed because language never stops changing and developing. And people are most certainly using 'I was sat' as 1) a variation on 'I was sitting' and 2) a gloss to imply enforced seating and 3) a gloss to imply begrudged seating

They simply are not doing that for 'I was slept', using your previous example, or for countless other verbs. So it isn't just a case of people 'getting it wrong' or they'd be 'getting it wrong' all the time. There's actually some development happening here, a need that is being fulfilled, and has been for some time. Examples of 'sat' being used this way go back a long way.

but remember that these nuances can work to both clarify and confuse. With communication we want to avoid confusion where possible.

Well I wouldn't say that is true; there are often occasions when language is deliberately used to obfuscate, or to indicate subtextual meanings, or to mislead etc, but leaving that aside, the aim of language and the development of language do not walk hand in hand. Language develops in unpredictable ways, but always in a way that matches the needs of its users, even if that fails to match the aims of those who wish to stratify it.

[Mark Walters]

But we don't just use language variation to ensure understanding and clarity, we also use context. And semantic drift happens naturally as users realise they need ways of indicating nuance
Context is the only way to get the nuances correct in an example like this, but it's hardly a major glitch if you fail to get it: the action being described is still the same - you are sitting at the table.

It's not about justifying it, it's about accepting it. Grammar and usage (as a linguistic term) are descriptive, not prescriptive. You look at how people are using words and codify the grammar from that, and this continues as an open-ended task, never completed because language never stops changing and developing. And people are most certainly using 'I was sat' as 1) a variation on 'I was sitting' and 2) a gloss to imply enforced seating and 3) a gloss to imply begrudged seating

They simply are not doing that for 'I was slept', using your previous example, or for countless other verbs. So it isn't just a case of people 'getting it wrong' or they'd be 'getting it wrong' all the time. There's actually some development happening here, a need that is being fulfilled, and has been for some time. Examples of 'sat' being used this way go back a long way.
Well I wouldn't say that is true; there are often occasions when language is deliberately used to obfuscate, or to indicate subtextual meanings, or to mislead etc, but leaving that aside, the aim of language and the development of language do not walk hand in hand. Language develops in unpredictable ways, but always in a way that matches the needs of its users, even if that fails to match the aims of those who wish to stratify it.

Like I say, you can attempt to justify it all you want but strip it back to basic grammatical rules and "was", "sat", "slept" and "held" are all, and will forever be, past tense. Thus, as per my example, you shouldn't use them together in sentence construction.

[Ghost Town]

Like I say, you can attempt to justify it all you want but strip it back to basic grammatical rules and "was", "sat", "slept" and "held" are all, and will forever be, past tense. Thus, as per my example, you shouldn't use them together in sentence construction.

Lol, what you mean is you want language to stand still exactly as it was when you think you learned it. That's always the way with prescriptives. You must know that the English language has changed drastically over the centuries and that those things you now regard as 'correct' were often vilified as incorrect and outrageous examples of degradation in the past. There's no 'forever' when it comes to language

Besides, now I'm not even sure what you are complaining about:

I was sitting = past continuous tense
I was sat  = past continuous tense

What's your complaint?

[Barneylfc∗]

Telly is just the slang short form though, it doesn't have to be correctly spelt. Otherwise we'd be having to write 'frig' for 'refrigerator' and that would just be weird!

That one has always baffled me. If you are shortening a word, why the hell put an extra letter in it?

[Crosby Nick]

That one has always baffled me. If you are shortening a word, why the hell put an extra letter in it?

Is this why you’ve always been so eager to help women with their frig based needs?

[Barneylfc∗]

Is this why you’ve always been so eager to help women with their frig based needs?

I'm always there to lend a hand

[Mark Walters]

Lol, what you mean is you want language to stand still exactly as it was when you think you learned it. That's always the way with prescriptives. You must know that the English language has changed drastically over the centuries and that those things you now regard as 'correct' were often vilified as incorrect and outrageous examples of degradation in the past. There's no 'forever' when it comes to language

Besides, now I'm not even sure what you are complaining about:

I was sitting = past continuous tense
I was sat  = past continuous tense

What's your complaint?

Oh gawd!

In my previous posts I've already accepted that language changes. Agree?

And if you want to use examples of the past continuous tense, for the love of God, please use them correctly.

"The past continuous tense, also known as the past progressive tense, refers to a continuing action or state that was happening at some point in the past. The past continuous tense is formed by combining the past tense of to be (i.e., was/were) with the verb’s present participle (-ing word)."

Source: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/past-continuous-tense/

(I probably won't bother replying if you respond, if that's ok!)

[Nessy76]

Telly is just the slang short form though, it doesn't have to be correctly spelt. Otherwise we'd be having to write 'frig' for 'refrigerator' and that would just be weird!

Telly is how it is spelt, though. "Tele" is not.

"Fridge" and the "frig" sound in "refrigerator" are the same sound.

Grown ups don't say "tellyvision".

Different sound, different spelling.

I mean, people can write whatever they like, but if they don't want to make me puke then they should just show a little bit of reason and do exactly what I want. 

[Ziltoid]

Teletubbies

[Ziltoid]

I'm always there to lend a hand

Only need a finger or two..

[Hazell]

Teletubbies

Telebugs.

[The Gulleysucker]

If someone asked me, or any guitarist, Have you got a Tele?, I would immediately assume I was being asked if I had one of these...

[Ghost Town]

Oh gawd!

In my previous posts I've already accepted that language changes. Agree?

Yes you did. Sorry if it seems I was ignoring that. I can get carried away with this stuff, which is my bread and butter. You're lucky I didn't provide [more of] a disquisition

And if you want to use examples of the past continuous tense, for the love of God, please use them correctly.

"The past continuous tense, also known as the past progressive tense, refers to a continuing action or state that was happening at some point in the past. The past continuous tense is formed by combining the past tense of to be (i.e., was/were) with the verb’s present participle (-ing word)."

Source: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/past-continuous-tense/

Relax; obviously it wasn't clear that I was ribbing you. Your initial complaint seemed to be that people are using 'sat' when they mean 'sitting'; ie using 'sat' in the past continuous tense. At least that's how I understood it - and in that regard you are correct; people are doing so, increasingly, and in the three ways I outlined (which for linguists is highly interesting, especially 2 and 3 which indicate changed usage to fill a need). Then in your last post you said 'sat' will forever be past tense, and as 'past tense' is a header term that includes past continuous among others - and you didn't specify the simple past/preterite - I gently wondered what your complaint was... you want past, you got past, still not happy?...no offence intended.

(I probably won't bother replying if you respond, if that's ok!)

It's cool. People will be sick of the exchange by now anyway. This isn't a thread about language per se. Time to get back to phrases people get wrong...

[Barneylfc∗]

I was sat the other day reading the exchange between Ghost Town and Mark Walters and I've no clue what they're on about.

[JC the Messiah]

Like "bath" instead of "bathe". Not written in this case but spoken. "I'm going to bath the kids". No, you're going to BATHE the kids.  Another very British misuse.

Bath is also a verb in British English.

[Ghost Town]

Bath is also a verb in British English.

Yes you're right, it is. I missed that earlier

[Mark Walters]

I was sat the other day reading the exchange between Ghost Town and Mark Walters and I've no clue what they're on about.

Ha! 

[redgriffin73]

Telly is how it is spelt, though. "Tele" is not.

"Fridge" and the "frig" sound in "refrigerator" are the same sound.

Grown ups don't say "tellyvision".

Different sound, different spelling.

I mean, people can write whatever they like, but if they don't want to make me puke then they should just show a little bit of reason and do exactly what I want. 

I know, I was agreeing with you (in a roundabout way)!