Daily Mail article on Americanisms ruining the English language

No, I mean this: "This is going to be a real challenge for Phil and I."

I hate it when people do this too.  In 3rd grade my teacher gave us a simple "trick" as to whether or not you use 'me' or 'I'...take out the other person and see what word you would use then.  So..."This is going to be a real challenge for I."  Yeah that sounds awesome!

As a linguistics major I find this discussion very interesting.

There's a lot of linguistic prejudice and misconception going on here. None of the language pet peeves I've noticed mentioned here are really "incorrect." Almost any construction used naturally and widely by native speakers is "grammatical." Even if prescriptivists insist, a la Henry Higgins, that most English-speakers can't speak English.

I really object to people being called idiots for the way they speak just because one read it was wrong in a fifth-grade grammar book. Aren't there enough problems in the world without native speakers telling other native speakers that they can't speak their own language?
 

As a linguistics major I find this discussion very interesting.

There's a lot of linguistic prejudice and misconception going on here. None of the language pet peeves I've noticed mentioned here are really "incorrect." Almost any construction used naturally and widely by native speakers is "grammatical." Even if prescriptivists insist, a la Henry Higgins, that most English-speakers can't speak English.

I really object to people being called idiots for the way they speak just because one read it was wrong in a fifth-grade grammar book. Aren't there enough problems in the world without native speakers telling other native speakers that they can't speak their own language?
 

Yay! Another linguistics lover! It's true, language is very fluid and evolves surprisingly very quickly.

Though I will add that one of my pet peeves is irregardless, which I've seen used on both sides of the pond. That's what regardless was for

There's a lot of linguistic prejudice and misconception going on here.

Yup.

None of the language pet peeves I've noticed mentioned here are really "incorrect." Almost any construction used naturally and widely by native speakers is "grammatical." Even if prescriptivists insist, a la Henry Higgins, that most English-speakers can't speak English.

Agreed.

I really object to people being called idiots for the way they speak just because one read it was wrong in a fifth-grade grammar book.

Couldn't put it better.

Thank you.

Slightly related to this:
Does anyone else know Brits under 30 who seem to think being well spoken is uncool?

DH and his friends will use double negatives, mix up I & me, etc. They were all raised middle class and completed degrees at good universities (seriously in the top 20 UK uni's). When talking about this with DH and a few friends, they came to the conclusion that I was 'elitist' for expecting very well educated people to know what an adverb is. My DH explained he would rather use the wrong words, because if you are well spoken people will think you are a try-hard.

I'm a Brit under 30 and I attended two universities in the top 20, but I make sure I speak correctly all the time... it annoys me when people don't speak properly (i.e. mix up I and me, use double negatives). The majority of my friends all speak correctly too (we're all university-educated and three of them are PhD students).

I have to admit that I can never remember what an adverb is (or a verb or a noun)... I haven't taken an English class since I was 16 and I don't remember being taught the difference - I know instinctively what words are correct or incorrect in speech or writing (I write a lot myself), but ask me to give you an example of an adverb and I won't remember which type of word it is  . I've been taught it several times by family and friends, but I can never remember it .

None of the language pet peeves I've noticed mentioned here are really "incorrect." ... I really object to people being called idiots for the way they speak

"Between you and I" is incorrect and if you say it, you will sound like an idiot.

Oh, and another pet peeve of mine is, "I felt so badly." No, you didn't. You felt bad. Bad. Not badly. Bad.

Sorry - in a grouchy mood today! 

Almost any construction used naturally and widely by native speakers is "grammatical."

So if two contradictory constructions are used "naturally and widely" then both are correct? 

I would argue that "irregardless" is not used naturally at all, it is used uncomfortably by people who want to sound well-spoken but don't quite know how.  Same with "whom" used incorrectly and "I" being substituted for "we."  This may be widespread, but it is not natural.  It is the result of people trying to use the language correctly, but not actually knowing what the correct way is.  Grammar rules don't exist just to annoy people and make school boring, they give us a framework for using and expanding our language.  I agree that the flexibility and adaptability of English is one of its best characteristics, but there is a difference between a language developing and progressing to meet the needs of its speakers, and speakers mutilating a language because they aren't taught how to speak it well. 

I really object to people being called idiots for the way they speak just because one read it was wrong in a fifth-grade grammar book.

I teach English to non-native speakers, so actually my knowledge of grammar comes from my training and the textbooks I use to teach.  The grammar I teach is necessary and relevant to my students, and if you tried to tell them that it wasn't important, you wouldn't get very far. 

Aren't there enough problems in the world without native speakers telling other native speakers that they can't speak their own language?
 

Native speakers are capable of making mistakes in their own language.  This is true not just of English but of every language.  Just because you grow up speaking a language doesn't mean that you know everything automatically or that you don't need to take the time to study and learn the formal conventions.  I don't think anyone on this thread said that native English speakers can't speak English, only that there are some pervasive errors that are irritating, illogical, and easily avoided.   

Grammar rules don't exist just to annoy people and make school boring, they give us a framework for using and expanding our language.  I agree that the flexibility and adaptability of English is one of its best characteristics, but there is a difference between a language developing and progressing to meet the needs of its speakers, and speakers mutilating a language because they aren't taught how to speak it well. 

I agree with this, but I'm very aware of the fact that I'm a grammar geek and not everyone feels as I do. Still, I don't mind being corrected if I'm using incorrect grammar repeatedly - I think it's good to learn the right way to speak. I don't see it as adding to the world's problems at all!

I think it would be interesting to compare a language where grammar is hm, fairly important versus a language like German where grammar is very important. I remember dissecting sentences in the third grade, thinking when am I EVER going to use this? Oh, yeah German class 

Makes me I wish I had paid more attention...

There's a lot of linguistic prejudice and misconception going on here. None of the language pet peeves I've noticed mentioned here are really "incorrect."

Irregardless is listed in dictionaries as incorrect, nonstandard, erronaneous, etc.  Using 'I' and 'me' incorrectly is widely recognized as one of the most common errors in word usage in the English language.  Unless there is some kind of new revolutionary theories on the English language that the general public (and dictionary publishers and English teachers all over the world) aren't aware of, I don't see how this could be considered correct.  And supposably will continue to sound idiotic irregardless of whether you and me use it correctly or not.   

Irregardless is listed in dictionaries as incorrect, nonstandard, erronaneous, etc.  Using 'I' and 'me' incorrectly is widely recognized as one of the most common errors in word usage in the English language.  Unless there is some kind of new revolutionary theories on the English language that the general public (and dictionary publishers and English teachers all over the world) aren't aware of, I don't see how this could be considered correct.  And supposably will continue to sound idiotic irregardless of whether you and me use it correctly or not.   

I agree with you about "irregardless."  I don't think I've ever heard it used, but I've seen it written.  It looks very odd, and I'm puzzled; where did it come from?  Who originally thought it meant something?  What were they thinking of.. irrigation??

But supposably is different.  I'd never ever heard it used, never seen it written.  When I first saw it mentioned in this thread, I thought someone was complaining about "supposedly" but had mistyped it.  Then I looked it up in the OED and found that it was a legitimate word, with hundreds of years of history, and many unexceptionable instances of usage!  It's like an unexpected gift from the language god.. I'll use it when the occasion offers.  Looked at either from the prescriptive or the descriptive angle, the user of the word "supposably" will not look idiotic.  (Even if the spellchecker doesn't like it  )

Just to keep the discussion going; which do folks prefer
- The driver sneezed & the truck careened down the road
- The driver sneezed & the truck careered down the road

First one.

Just to keep the discussion going; which do folks prefer
- The driver sneezed & the truck careened down the road
- The driver sneezed & the truck careered down the road

I've never heard careened!

I've never heard careened!

Really? Do they say "careered" over there in the UK? That sounds like a made up word to me (something related to the past tense of "career"??)

I've used both and I don't think I really have a preference.