Ask Lemmy

26707 readers

1767 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics.

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

What linguistic constructions do you hate that no one else seems to mind? (lemmy.world)

submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

186 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It bugs me when people say "the thing is is that" (if you listen for it, you'll start hearing it... or maybe that's something that people only do in my area.) ("What the thing is is that..." is fine. But "the thing is is that..." bugs me.)

Also, "just because doesn't mean ." That sentence structure invites one to take "just because " as a noun phrase which my brain really doesn't want to do. Just doesn't seem right. But that sentence structure is very common.

And I'm not saying there's anything objectively wrong with either of these. Language is weird and complex and beautiful. It's just fascinating that some commonly-used linguistic constructions just hit some people wrong sometimes.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago (2 children)

One thing I try to avoid when I'm writing is when two words repeat. Kind of like your example "the thing is is that." If I catch myself writing it, I try to rearrange the sentence.

Although a pretty extreme example tickles me: "The cookie he had had had had no effect on his appetite."

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

James, while John had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had a better effect on the teacher.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago

I hate this, thank you.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Dutch has the same phenomenon, being so similar to English, but the standard way of writing it is by putting a comma after the noun phrase. So in your example, it'd change to "the cookie he had had, had had..." Typically practical solution that forfeits a charming oddity.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo.