For example, English speakers commonly mix up your/you’re or there/their/they’re. I’m curious about similar mistakes in other languages.
In Korean we have these conjugated forms. They both sound the same:
- 나아
[](from 낫다) be/become better - 낳아
[](from 낳다) give birth (to a baby)
So when given A as an example:
(A) 감기에 걸렸어요. I got a cold.
(B) 빨리 나으세요! Hope you get better soon!
© 빨리 낳으세요! Hope you give birth soon!For some reason Koreans across all ages write C instead of B by mistake. It became a national joke at this point and some do it ironically on purpose. I used to teach Korean. Imagine my face every time.
There are more but I’m on my phone. Will do more later.
the laguage is evolving, don’t stop it grow
laguage
- 나아
I’m Spanish, n and ñ are different letters. They are not substitutes. It is the difference between someone being 5 years old and someone having 5 anuses.
“Yo tengo 5 años / yo tengo 5 anos”
Looking at you, Will Shortz
In Spanish, we have these words:
hay (there is) ahí (over there) ay (ouch)
And it’s infuriating when people can’t pick the right one in writing.
haber / a ver
Confusing between
hay‐ayis at least understandable (forgetting the letter). Confusing betweenhay-ahíis what makes my blood boil.Portuguese also shows something similar, but the words being confused are different:
há(there is) vs.a(the) vs.à(to the).The one that @flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz mentioned is practically identical though -
haver(there be, have) vs. a ver (to see).This sounds like the same problem as English their/there/they’re.
Eh
Less. It’s used eveywhere, although should only be used with uncountable nouns.
Less drama is prefered.
Fewer items left on the shopping list.
There’s a certain level of irony in correcting people’s language while not reading the original question properly yourself.
:D unbeliebable. My bad.
Muphry’s law in action.
yeah, fewer drama is prefered from them
There’s a certain level of irony in correcting someone for misreading the prompt when you’ve misread it yourself.
Two false assumptions you’ve made here:
-
That English speakers are incapable of speaking other languages
-
That the word ‘native’ can’t refer to English speakers
As an example, someone who speaks English and Spanish is qualified to answer this question. The word ‘native’ is ambiguous and can refer to either native English or Spanish speakers. This person can answer the prompt completely in English and still be correct.
Maybe syntactically, but I feel like reading it that way is probably a violation of pragmatics. In other words, it’s highly unlikely that’s in the spirit of the question.
This is made even clearer if you read the text of OP, which specifies “other” (non-English) languages.
-
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
Thank you! I often feel the urge to use “less” before a countable noun despite knowing that I’m supposed to use “fewer.” Good to know that it isn’t just me.
I see your point, but my personal view is that I like order. I don’t even care too much about specific kind of order. Chaotic-looking things can also be in-order (my favourite example is Vietnamese traffic).
I would argue
at leastis not equal tothe least. It’s a different word, despite being spelt the same. There are a few examples like that which, unfortunately, escape me at the moment.Also, don’t mean any offence, but text is difficult to relay that - I’ve literally loled at you mispelling
grammarin the sentence talking about grammar and spelling :Ddeleted by creator
I’m actually with you - building out our plural system would be a satisfying direction for English to go. Unfortunately, I don’t see “at fewest” catching on. Maybe I’ll try it out a few.
If you look at non-standard dialects of English, it seems like the most natural thing is for the aspect system to grow out as the language evolves further (and unfortunately lose some of it’s symmetries).
In German people tend to increase “only” (das einzige). As in, they say something is the “onliest” (das einzigste). It’s usually a good indicator of someone’s education.
In many regions it is common to do comparisons with “as” (wie). As in “My dog is bigger as yours” instead of “My dog is bigger than yours”. The most infuriating thing about this is that most people doing that mistake don’t even acknowledge that it is one. At least people who say “onliest” can be convinced that it is wrong.
Technically not an error but still annoying is to append an apostrophe and an s to a name to indicate the genitive. Like in “Anna’s food is good”. In German that should be written as “Annas Essen ist gut”. But due to many people making the same mistake (I guess also because we’re used to it from English sentences) it has been allowed to use an apostrophe. So in that case I’m just a grumpy old guy.
I opened the thread to see if someone already posted this. Glad I’m not the onliest german to be annoyed by this.
In Dutch it’s also common to use als (as) instead of dan (than). Technically it’s wrong though.
This gets really confusing if you’re from Limburg. In Limburgish, “daan” (the cognate to Dutch “dan”) only exists as the time indicator. With comparisons the correct Limburgish is to use “es” for differences (e.g. “Jan is groeter es Maria”, “John is bigger than Mary”), and “wie” for equivalents (e.g “Jan is eve aajd wie Maria”, “John is as old as Mary”). Now “es” is cognate to Dutch “als”, but using it in Dutch as in Limburgish is wrong. So yeah this gets confusing.
In many regions it is common to do comparisons with “as” (wie). As in “My dog is bigger as yours” instead of “My dog is bigger than yours”.
I’m (re-)learning Yiddish at the moment, and “as (wie)” is a common construction; it’s interesting to see which words and sentence formats are common (between German and Yiddish), and which aren’t. I wonder if that’s where this usage comes from.
Nice, very interesting find.
Also, I’ve never been called a Grammar Nazi more elegantly.
I never meant to say or imply that you were and I apologise most humbly if it came through that way. I just thought that it was interesting.
There are many examples of incorrectly placed apostrophes in German here:
http://www.deppenapostroph.info/Another mistake in the German language is the incorrect separation of compound words. An extreme example would be Brotaufstrich (spread/parfait) as Brot auf Strich (bread on line).
Additional examples in German are here:
http://www.deppenleerzeichen.info/Another incorrect seperation of Brotaufstrich: Bro Taufstrich (bro baptismal line)
Oh god before i read your comment i thought i have nothing to add. Then i realised that i know people who say things like: als wie. Mein hund ist grösser als wie deiner.
In Dutch, the only (one) is “de enige”. People often use “de enigste”, which actually means the cutest. Enig -> enigste.
“Ik ben als enigste over” “Ja, schattig ben je zeker”
"“Ich bin der Einzigste, der noch übrig ist” “Ja, du bist wirklich süß”
“I’m the only one left.” “Yeah, cute you sure are”
Technically not an error but still annoying is to append an apostrophe and an s to a name to indicate the genitive.
Even technically I’d consider it an error - the genitive/“possessive” apostrophe in English highlights that you’re dealing with a clitic, attached to the end of the noun phrase; e.g. the dog**'s** food` → the dog and the cat**'s** food. In German however it doesn’t behave like a clitic, it’s a plain declension; e.g. das Futter des Hundes → das Futter des Hundes und der Katze - you’re switching words, not moving them.
I wonder if that’s because most people nowadays use von+Dative instead.
Not a native speaker, so I could be wrong about this:
I’ve seen a construction using proper nouns (eg. Annas Haus) where an “s” indicates possession, but no apostrophe. This doesn’t seem to apply to non-proper nouns (das Haus der Frau) and is different from normal genitive construction that adds an “s” to masc/neut noun genders (das Haus des Mannes)
That English natives have so much trouble distinguishing effect from affect keeps surprising me.
As for Dutch, the dt-issue is presented as if it is this hugely complicated set of rules. While in reality it is dead simple. Third person in the present time is ALWAYS conjugated as stem+t for regular verbs, except in ONE case: when the stem already ends in t. Dt isn’t special, it’s just the rule applied to all stems.
I think the main issue with that one is that they’ve become homophones in a lot of regional accents, a secondary part of it is that they are semi-related concepts, and the third part of it is that there are also technically noun and verb versions of each.
X affects Y, X has an effect on Y.
The affected happiness effect effected a positive affect.
My school taught this whole convoluted system that was meant to help students with multiple tenses, but I just learned to apply the “ik loop” mnemonic which is so effortless (to native speakers at least.)
Sometimes I have to think once or twice about soft ketchup/'t Kofschip for the past participle, but that’s about it.
Third person in the present time is ALWAYS conjugated as stem+t for regular verbs
It gets more complicated in the second person though, with the inversion exception.
But again, there is no special exception for dt. Again it’s the regular rule applied: second person conjugation in questions is just the stem for regular verbs.
I think the main errors happen with “voltooide deelwoorden” (past participle). Then you need mnemonic devices like “'t kofschip” to know whether it’s t or d (or determine it using what you would say in the past time of the verb). It doesn’t help that e.g., “gebeurt” and “gebeurd” both are correct depending on the tense used.
Also the fact that the t drops when the verb is inversed in the 2nd person singular present tense, and not e.g., past tense (“Je wordt” but “Word je”) is a weird rule.
It’s not thát complicated and if you pay attention, you should be able to get it all right. That’s why I think such mistakes are more a sign of carelessness and not of stupidity.
The second person during a question is still no special rule for dt. It’s still very regular. For all regular verbs it’s just stem (without the +t).
Examples:
Praten -> stem = praat -> praat jij? Worden -> stem = word -> word jij? Surfen -> stem = surf -> surf jij?
No irregularity for stems ending in d.
It’s an easy rule, yes. It’s also an easy one to overlook if you’re not paying attention.
“Word je blij?”, but also “wordt je moeder blij?”.
It’s not like people don’t understand the rule. No native Dutch speaker would say “Loopt jij?”
I really hate when native English speakers use could of or would of. It makes no sense and sounds completely wrong, yet some people claim it’s just a minor mistake.
“Lay down” when they mean “lie down.” Also “could care less.”
I know you’re asking for such errors in other languages, but I find it interesting that some of the common english errors are more frequent with native english speakers than with learners of english as a second language.
A good example of that is using “of” instead of “have”.
Should of… of what?? It makes no sense to me how someone could confuse the two.Having learned english as a second language, I learned to read and write it before learning to speak it.
On the other hand, I’d expect native speakers to have learned spoken english before learning written english.
I think this difference changes which errors someone is likely to make.
Native speakers confuse of/have more because they heard it long before writing it.
People who learned it later are less likely to make that mistake, although they’re more likely for some others.TL;DR: Native speakers are more likely to make mistakes that are homonyms. Of/have, your/you’re, etc.
As for the spirit of your question, I’ll go with french.
Almost every noun in french is gendered.
Objects, body parts, concepts, ideas, pretty much anything and everything is gendered.
It’s also super obvious whenever someone doesn’t use the correct gender for anything.
It’s also hard to explain to anyone.
There might be a logic behind it, but I don’t know how to summarize any of it.
I just know it, but couldn’t tell you why.Some of those make no fucking sense either.
It has mostly nothing to do with women or men or gebder roles and identity, it just is.
“Jam” is a feminine noun, yet “butter” is masculine.
“Bread” is masculine, but a “loaf” is feminine.
The noun for each and every season are masculine nouns, but the word “season” itself is a feminine noun.
Also, a “vagina” is a masculine noun, because reasons? Weird.
Various different words for “testicles” vary between masculine and feminine.It’s all super obvious to anyone who speaks french, but I never managed to explain it to any speaker of a non-gendered language like english without breaking their minds.
Regarding should have and should ‘of’; I’ve always understood it to be should’ve, which when spoken tends to keep a short vowel sound in the middle of the contraction that makes it phonetically sound like ‘of’. Bit of a bone-apple-tea.
Should I continue to persist after I have cut this olive in twain, and one of the portions thereof in twain again, then I’ll live, I’ll have half an olive, and I’ll’ve halved half an olive.
Yea it’s not even pronounced the same.
I just noticed native speakers confuse those more.
Meanwhile non-native speakers make other kinds of errors more.I disagree, “should’ve” and “should of” sound virtually identical when spoken (at least in some regions, can’t speak for all pronunciations). I can imagine why a non english native speaker would have trouble with this, though I’m not disagreeing with it being a common issue amongst native speakers as well.
This is how I’ve always understood it as well. The two spellings are homophones so it’s a pretty easy mistake to make.
Having learned French as a second language, I can say that the gendered noun thing wasn’t the most difficult aspect, but it was the most consistently annoying. There are signifiers that makes the gender of some nouns very obvious, but then there are just as many others where it feels arbitrary or even contradictory to the established trends.
I’ve been told that to start a fight in Francophones, just demand to know whether grapefruit ( pamplemousse, iirc ), is male or female…
: P
The book “The Alphabet Versus The Goddess” by Leonard Shlain, makes the point that women’s-rights simply don’t progress as quickly, in countries which have gendered languages…
So, Anglo cultures pushed women’s-rights, whereas Latin cultures … won’t, don’t, drag their heels, etc…
That book is now a couple ?decades? old?
It’s still true.
Conditioning an entire population’s System-1 ( Daniel Kahneman’s “Thinking Fast & Slow”, the System-1 is the default-instinct & the trained-now-automatic-expertise system, it also is the system that is both addiction & prejudice ) into gendering everything, automatically, may well prevent equal-validity from ever having place…
Mind you, I now want to see which Nordic/Scandi languages are gendered, & which Middle-East languages are gendered, to see if that holds in those parts of the world, not just in the Americas…
… digging …
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_Danish_and_Swedish
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender
( that isn’t a quick read… may come back to it some day… )
Bingo!
“The grammatical gender of nouns is one of two: a noun may be masculine or it may be feminine, and there is no neutral option. Moreover, masculinity is the default grammatical gender in Arabic and a word does not have to have anything special in order to reflect this. Femininity, on the other hand, is not default and a noun would have to have something special to reflect this gender in Arabic.”
from
https://www.learnarabiconline.com/gender/
So, there is ZERO hope of equal-validity in Arabic culture, because the language programs Arabic people’s System-1 into 2 exclusive validity-categories, with male being inherently more-valid, by established language-habit.
What about Hebrew?
No wonder women can’t get equal-validity in Jewish culture…
( I read a Jewess’s writing ~ Nobody EVERY celebrated the birth of a Jewish girl: only boys are celebrated ~ … which explains the damage in the stereotypical “Jewish mother”, a woman whose validity has been contempted by all in her culture, until the damage is her most defining feature… )
So, it looks like equal-rights/equal-validity for women is … baseless, in some/many cultures…
Interesting, but depressing.
: \
So, there is ZERO hope of equal-validity in Arabic culture, because the language programs Arabic people’s System-1 into 2 exclusive validity-categories, with male being inherently more-valid, by established language-habit.
That sounds like some Strong Sapir-Whorf thinking. And the Strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is pretty roundly rejected by most linguists.
So, Anglo cultures pushed women’s-rights, whereas Latin cultures … won’t, don’t, drag their heels, etc…
That’s mostly bullshit imo.
Grammar itself doesn’t necessarily hold back progress with gender identities and equality.
Languages evolve.
French can have gender neutral pronouns, which can make sense for referring to people of various gender identities.
Meanwhile, a gender neutral “table” is a bit moot. While a table is a feminine noun, such an object has no identity, its “gender” has nothing with social constructs, with gender roles or identities, not with women in general. A noun isn’t feminine or masculine because of its characteristics, but because of its phonetics and in some cases, plain old habit.
Synonyms can have different grammatical genders.I’m quite certain that women are better off living in France or in French Canada than most places in the anglo US, not that it’s a high bar on the subject of women rights.
I’m a native French speaker, specifically from the Acadian parts of the province of New-Brunswick (Canada). We have a lot of vocabulary, grammar and syntax that people who speak a more standard French might frown upon (lots of borrowing from English but also a lot of old French words which disappeared in Europe but not here, as well as some Indigenous influences). Fuck anyone who judges our dialect and accents, I love the way we speak.
That being said, there are a few things that bother me:
-
The pleonasm “plus pire” (most worst, or most most bad). There are a few common pleonasm but this one is the only one that truly irks me for some reason.
-
“Si que” (if that) because of something that was drilled into me by my dad, “les si n’aiment pas les que” (“the ifs don’t like the thats”). Using “si que” is like saying “if that I say this” rather than “if I say this”.
The more I think about it the more I guess my stance on this is that deviating from standard French is fine and even cool when it adds meaning or nuance. I just dislike it when it’s purely redundant.
In France there are some mistakes that became social markers.
People following conspiracy theories are mostly bad educated people, and they wrongly conjugate some verbs.
The most common examples are:
- “Nous sachons”, instead of “Nous savons” (we know)
- “Ils croivent” instead of “Ils croient” (they think, they believe)
- “Comme même” instead of “Quand même” (nonetheless, despite, kinda hard to translate)
Making one of those mistakes will immediately tag you as a fool.
Interesting, in Quebec I’ve never heard the conjugations to the left!
When we need to strategically indicate this kind of thing, we just curse excessively. Often they are strung together into a profane litany that continues on for some time! I always thought it was quite artful.
Like Saigonauticon, I’ve never heard any of these!
In my neck of the woods you’ll find people adding a first person plural ending to third person plural verbs (ex: “elles mangeons” instead of “elles mangent”) which is common enough to not bother me or strike me as a sign of stupidity, and at least differenciates between the singular and plural forms of a verb.
One thing I didn’t mention in my original comment that does bother me is something kinda similar some people do with the verb “être”, like a teacher I had in high school. Instead of “ils étaient”, she’d say “ils sontaient”, simply adding the typical imparfait conjugation ending to the present “ils sont”.
Les cours avec elle sontaient un peu tristes, et malheureusement assez représentatifs de la qualité de mon enseignement.
So is it like saying “si que le jet est un 20 natural” instead of “si le jet est un 20 natural”? Just adding the word “que” in there without reason? Or does it only happen in certain contexts?
I’m not a linguist, and studies about the French in my region are few and far between, so I’m not comfortable stating anything as fact. However, as far as I can tell, it’s not context-dependant and never adds any meaning.
-
-
could of (could’ve)
-
try and (try to)
-
if I was… (if I were)
-
effect/affect
-
less / fewer
-
not adapting adjectives, like “this fits real good” (really well)
-
As a French speaker, I’m not mad at foreigners for not speaking French. I’m very tolerant for all their mistakes and I will help them if they want to.
I’m mad at French speakers mistakes though. Like people mixing first person futur and imparfait. Or people saying digital instead of numérique (those ones I hate them).
As someone whose 2nd language is French, thank you for your tolerance! I am much more rusty now since my grandparents have passed and my parents & other family members no longer speak it, but I do want to get back into learning it better again.
Like people mixing first person futur and imparfait.
Just to clarify, do you mean stuff like saying “je serais là demain” (“I would be there tomorrow”) rather than “je serai là demain”? (“I will be there tomorrow”)?
Yes indeed. The mistake comes from mispronunciation : je serai was originally pronounced “Je seré”. But parisiens especially and in many other places they started to pronounce “Je serè” exactly like the imparfait. So now they can’t make the difference. What’s funny is that they always invert both, the error is made for both in like 80% of the cases. I find this properly fascinating.
Lithuanian here.
What mostly grinds my gears is Lithuanians taking an English word and adding a Lithuanian ending, and often even a wrong one:
breakupinosi instead of išsiskyrė, faitinosi instead of mušėsi , etc.
Some other gripes include optimaliausias i.e. most optimal. Optimal is already the best, what is the point of saying bestest?
Adding pointless phrases like ta prasme i.e. in that meaning is also common but seen as a major style error.
I’m a native speaker of Mandarin Chinese from Taiwan. Some people often mix up 在 (zài) and 再 (zài) in writing. It’s a bit hard to explain their definitions since they are merely function words (words that have little lexical meaning and express grammatical relationships among other words within a sentence), so I’m just gonna copy and paste their definitions from an online dictionary:
在: to exist; to be alive / (of sb or sth) to be (located) at / (used before a verb to indicate an action in progress)
再: again; once more; re- / second; another / then (after sth, and not until then) / no matter how … (followed by an adjective or verb, and then (usually) 也 (yě) or 都 (dōu) for emphasis)As you probably have noticed, their meanings don’t overlap at all. The only reason some people mix them up is because they are homophones.
Another typo some… let’s just say, less educated, people often make is 因該 (yīn’gāi). The correct word is 應該 (yīnggāi), meaning should; must. 因該 is never correct. You can think of 因該 as the Chinese version of the much dreaded “should of.” The reason is that the distinction of -in and -ing is slowly fading away in Taiwan (it is still very much thriving in other Chinese-speaking societies), and some people just type too sloppily to care.
By the way, I should mention that 在, 再, and 應該 are very basic words, probably one of the first 500 words a non-native speaker learns.
some people just type too sloppily to care
Ah, so America either borrowed or lent that bad habit.
It’s a human universal, I think. Some people just value looking smart less than the slight effort to do better.
Ah, classical mistakes when they write instead of typing. At least when they type they can suggestions from the IME, hinting they might be making a mistake.
Those ‘similar’ words you mentioned all have different tone or vowel in Cantonese. Not at all close to each other. I bet they sound slightly different too in Banlamgu, if you happen to speak that.
I don’t speak Bân-lâm-gú unfortunately. I just looked up those words, and they do sound slightly different!
- 在: tsāi
- 再: tsài
- 應該: ing-kai
- 因: in
(For Chinese learners reading this, please note that the tone markers in the romanization of Bân-lâm-gú (Southern Min, a group of languages including Hokkien, Taiwanese, etc.) is different from those used in Pinyin for Mandarin.)
I also looked up how these words are pronounced in Cantonese. They sure are really different! Mandarin really does have a lot more pairs of homophones and near-homophones compared to other dialects.
On a semi-related note, I think it’s really sad that the majority of Chinese dialects are slowly being replaced by Mandarin.
On a semi-related note, I think it’s really sad that the majority of Chinese dialects are slowly being replaced by Mandarin.
It really is. If not too disruptive, I always make a speaker clarify “which Chinese language” as I guess the propaganda + ignorance has worked leading many to believe there is just one language of China. …And it’s not just English treating it this way either.
I am a non-native speaker of Vietnamese. There are some pretty horrible mistakes you can make, honestly. I’ll go through a few of them.
In Vietnamese, non-native speakers often confuse the word for ‘mother in law’ with the word for the male genitalia.
Also the word for “large” with the word for the female genitalia. So when ordering e.g. a large meal, if in doubt, just use the word for L (“luh”) instead of lớn.
When referring to your mother-in-law, practice with your partner before the first meeting. Then, quickly ask for permission to call her “mother”, which is easier for non-native speakers to pronounce.
Finally, the word for ‘martial arts’ and ‘Vietnamese wife’ differs only by a single tone. If you make the mistakes above, you may perhaps find out why that is – usually via the medium of a flung sandal :P
Loose and lose. I just don’t get it. I can understand when the words sound the same, like with the yours and the theirs but Loose and Lose don’t sound the same. Like reading loose out loud in those sentences just sounds stupid.
I think it’s because English isn’t super consistent with the spelling of vowel sounds. Consider also “choose” (rhymes with “lose”) and “chose” (which doesn’t rhyme with either).
I guess really the vowel sound in loose/lose is basically the same; the difference is whether or not the “s” makes a “s” sound or a “z” sound… It is admittely odd that the presence or absence of an extra “o” would affect the sound of an adjacent constant (especially when we have a perfectly good “z” character available).
Which reminds me of my pet peeve: when people use “breath” or “cloth” instead of “breathe” or “clothe”.
There’s no phonetic reason, the double oo and single o make the exact same sound in most dialects and there’s no reason the s should sound like a z in lose.
