It is not "WOULD OF" it is "WOULD HAVE"

[frumpygrumpy]

"she would of complained" NO

"she would have complained"

AAaaaaargh!

And someone who is electrocuted has not received an electric shock. They have been executed in the electric chair. Don't get me started on "fulsome", which means the exact opposite of how most people use it - it means "cloying, excessive, disgusting by excess".

Nontoxic, no need to get narky this isn't AIBU! I was just pointing out that in a setting where many shortcuts are taken (and accepted) for the sake of expediency (using made up acronyms like AIBU, for example) there are certain points of grammar where poetic license is granted. Obvioulsy this license is not (and shouldn't) be granted in a more formal setting, and I'm not saying you have to like it, but I think it's a bit rough to be judging people's level of ignorance when they are using a shortcut which is widely understood and accepted in it's particular setting.

AllFallDown, can you not be electrocuted accidentally? If you drop your hairdryer in the bath (if you're lucky enough to have a poiwer socket in your bathroom) and die were you not electrocuted?

Bubs, I wasn't being 'narky', just pedantic - this is Pedants' Corner, n'est-ce pas?

And I wouldn't get on my high horse in here if I didn't know the correct use of it's.

"chest of draws"

re "off of" - definitely an Americanism - I remember shuddering as a teenager, whilst watching "Pretty in Pink" when Molly Ringwald said to James Spader: "Will you get off of my car?". IIRC more than once, too.

Sorry Nontoxic, I've just had the worst night ever with screaming baby. I apologise for being over sensetive. I do know the correct use of it's, but I'm afraid I'm struggling to even say it this morning let alone write it correctly. I should go back to bed and come back when I can see straight.
On the other hand, am I alone in thinking that it is not anti-pedants' corner to see language usage as something that can be specific to it's context?

I did it again! its not it's!
Bed time.

Spidermama - YES someone else hates nucular. I twitch every time I hear it. I have so many beefs over grammar, that DP now says he notices things I complain about all the time.
Should OF, would OF both annoy me. And while we're here I would like to mention 'seen as' it's SEEING AS. Gaaaaah!!

Oh dear

Non taken.

But we'll have to disagree about language and context - I'll tolerate it in others (pats on the head) but I physically can't do it myself.

I will just have to accept that I am only a minor-league pedant.
There are lots of things that really bother me though, so can I reserve the right to visit the corner from time to time?

Oh - I was going to start this yesterday - feel all warm and safe in here .

Actually, I think I'm a dinosaur. I've just read another thread where a proof reader has pointed out that emails are totally different from written text as regards grammar etc.

This is my first experience of electronic communication, so I must bow to the superior knowledge and experience of others.

As you were.

Can MN include an auto-correct facility? I can't look at etc typed as ect anymore. It hurts me. Also noticed several instances of 'discusting' and wonder/wander confusion just recently.

I have been saving this thread for a special occasion - and my email about my chest of 'draws' this morning is a perfect one!
I've never known anyone say they 'brought' something from the shops, although it seems to be common on MN. Loose instead of lose is my pet hate.

Stealth, my grandad used to say "brought" for "bought" and I had a client who did as well. I think it's a 'London fing' but could be wrong.

Thanks ThumbBurns . I most certainly will lay no claim to good spelling skills! I am u memba of thu spel cheq genaratiun.

I've just found this thread and I love it! Can I add my pet hate?

I can't be doing with people who send invites to parties. They're not invites! They are invitations. As far as I know you invite someone to something by sending them an invitation.

Drives me round the twist.

that'd be an Americanism, wouldn't it?

I have a question - does one have relatives or relations - is it area-dependent, "class"-dependent or is there an actual correct use of one or the other?

bumping for TB as have always wondered this myself (but been too scared to ask).

Just looked in OED - both are fine, with long histories. Relation as a kinship term dates back to 1502, relative to 1657.

nontoxic, you'd be very unusual if your language use didn't vary at all depending on context. A simple example - if you're a physicist talking to other physicists, you'll use lots of jargon and shorthand phrases. In explaining the same thing to your non-scientist dp, you'll use different language. That's obvious, I know, but you'll also use colloquial terms and contractions much more in informal settings than in an interview, and there will be countless other subtle variations that you may not be aware of at all.

I heard a paper once where the speaker demonstrated that people modified the way they said final ts and ds in words according to age, gender, etc, but these variations were beyond the conscious hearing of humans, and could only be recorded electronically. Weird stuff.

And It's "thier" not "there"

Invites: 1. The act of inviting; an invitation.

1659 H. L'ESTRANGE Alliance Div. Off. 326 Bishop Cranmer..gives him an earnest invite to England. 1778 F. BURNEY Diary (1842) I. 105 Everybody bowed and accepted the invite but me..for I have no intention of snapping at invites from the eminent.

Surprised me, that - thought it was much more recent. And I don't like it either. Just goes to show, though - much of what we thing is wrong is simply a matter of style and habit, rather than grammar or semantics.

just giving this a little nudge.....

Skay? Their, surely?

I'm so glad someone has brought this up. It's been driving me mad.

Also on the rise is "rediculous".... it's ridiculous, with an i

Maybe not one for the pedants, but I'm irritated by the word 'lovely' being pronounced 'lurverly' (for effect)