Spinoff of "Grammar Mistakes", when does a mistake become mainstream?

[ChrisFL]

When reading about the top 10 or whatever grammar mistakes last week, I started to wonder...what eventually constitutes grammar being changed to "correct" from "incorrect". Is it just eventual popularity, or those who claim it's incorrect pass away, leaving us uneducated ones left to speak the other way?

I mean, we definitely speak different English in the U.S. (for many reason) than in the UK, and they speak different English now than they did several hundred years ago.

One grammar "mistake" that I had made my whole life was using the phrase "all of the sudden", when I looked it up online, I was informed somewhere that "all of a sudden" is the only proper way to say that.

I honestly don't see a useful difference between the two.

I'm not really talking about words themselves and spelling, but actual grammatical makeup of sentences.

Thoughts?

 

[Kimberlyann11]

I don't know the answer to your question, but one that I think has become
"correct" is the use of "less" when "fewer" should be used. I have heard it on the news and even read it in a book written by a journalist I respect very much.

It makes me insane!! But I really am thinking that it's so accepted that it's now the correct form.

 

[Dani784]

Not sure when it happened but ain't is now in the dictionary and is considered a correct contraction. For what, I have no idea and I won't allow it to be used in my home unless we're talking tongue in cheek.

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

 

[Kimberlyann11]

Not sure when it happened but ain't is now in the dictionary and is considered a correct contraction. For what, I have no idea and I won't allow it to be used in my home unless we're talking tongue in cheek.

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

It depends on what dictionary you use - but I remember seeing it in the dictionary when I was in elementary school. And I'm not a young thing. We're talking about the early seventies.

It did indicate that it wasn't considered correct usage - or something of that nature. Even now, dictionary.com says that it's nonstandard and used mainly by the uneducated (except in some areas).

 

[Robbi]

should of- should have
could of - could have
would of - would have

 

[Deb & Bill]

Ask.

 

[Janepod]

Irregardless.

 

[tar heel]

It apparently is now acceptable to use "unique" when you're talking about something that's very unusual. *I* won't be using it unless I'm talking about just one, though.

 

[akcire]

It apparently is now acceptable to use "unique" when you're talking about something that's very unusual. *I* won't be using it unless I'm talking about just one, though.

That's very unique. . Drives me nuts. See it in real estate listings all the time. Nothing can be very unique. How is a singular more unique than itself??!!!!

 

[msd1776]

Would "my bad" qualify...I cannot stand that expression.

 

[DisneyBelle99]

Add "not for nothing" for me. I hated that, and once in awhile, I still hear someone use it.

 

[Mel522]

Not sure when it happened but ain't is now in the dictionary and is considered a correct contraction. For what, I have no idea and I won't allow it to be used in my home unless we're talking tongue in cheek.

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

"Ain't" is a contraction for "am not." So instead of saying "I am not going to school today", you could say "I ain't going to school today."

 

[Mel522]

When reading about the top 10 or whatever grammar mistakes last week, I started to wonder...what eventually constitutes grammar being changed to "correct" from "incorrect". Is it just eventual popularity, or those who claim it's incorrect pass away, leaving us uneducated ones left to speak the other way?

I mean, we definitely speak different English in the U.S. (for many reason) than in the UK, and they speak different English now than they did several hundred years ago.

One grammar "mistake" that I had made my whole life was using the phrase "all of the sudden", when I looked it up online, I was informed somewhere that "all of a sudden" is the only proper way to say that.

I honestly don't see a useful difference between the two.

I'm not really talking about words themselves and spelling, but actual grammatical makeup of sentences.

Thoughts?

While googling "all of the sudden," I came across an interesting site about it. From the site: http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/all-of-what-sudden/

"All of a sudden is the standard idiom in contemporary English. All of the sudden is a newer non-standard variant that does not appear to be geographically localized. Interestingly, the sudden is the original form if you go back to the 1500s."

 

[snarlingcoyote]

Not sure when it happened but ain't is now in the dictionary and is considered a correct contraction. For what, I have no idea and I won't allow it to be used in my home unless we're talking tongue in cheek.

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

It depends on what dictionary you use - but I remember seeing it in the dictionary when I was in elementary school. And I'm not a young thing. We're talking about the early seventies.

It did indicate that it wasn't considered correct usage - or something of that nature. Even now, dictionary.com says that it's nonstandard and used mainly by the uneducated (except in some areas).

I might be mistaken, but my memory from my two linguistics classes in college is that "ain't" was no more and no less an acceptable contraction than any other contraction up until some time 19th century when some of the more prescriptive speakers of the English language decided the word was one that only the lower classes used. Thus a sturdy little contraction was driven into the bounds of impropriety.

 

[robinb]

should of- should have
could of - could have
would of - would have

It's really should've, could've, would've and would be pronounced the same way . So are you talking about those words in print? Or spoken?

 

[ronandannette]

Irregardless.

Oooh , isn't "irregardless" the worst? And "orientate"...I cringe

 

[Imzadi]

should of- should have
could of - could have
would of - would have

It's really should've, could've, would've and would be pronounced the same way . So are you talking about those words in print? Or spoken?

Yes, it should be should've, could've, would've and I've actually seen a poster here on the DIS use should of and would of in the same post, so it wasn't just a typo. She really thought the words are spelled out that way.

 

[Imzadi]

People saying Walla, Wala, Wallah (sp?) really drives me nuts.

The correct word is Voilà! It is a French word meaning "There it is!"

 

[Robbi]

It's really should've, could've, would've and would be pronounced the same way . So are you talking about those words in print? Or spoken?

Thanks
Both
I've seen all three used on the Dis- should of, would of, and could of.

 

[CPT Tripss]

People saying Walla, Wala, Wallah (sp?) really drives me nuts.

The correct word is Voilà! It is a French word meaning "There it is!"

Would ya loose sleep if l'accent grave be missin?