Just because thing, [that] doesn't mean other thing.
You can't even prove that it's grammatically incorrect!
But it sounds awful. And I can't even come up with an alternative.
this post was submitted on 05 May 2024
81 points (85.8% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26415 readers
1579 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
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 !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
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 info@lemmy.world. 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
"Correlation is not causation" is the phrase I use in that situation.
The letter w. Absolutely unjustified existence vhen v can be used instead. Also referring to people as pupil. Nothing else in English sounds as bad. Like, there isn't even anything fundamentally vrong with it. It's just bad.
load more comments
(3 replies)
ITT: people who understood the question and people who hate certain pronounciations for no reason.
Commonwealth vocabulary versus non-Commonwealth vocabulary. Despite being commonwealth in terms of my native culture, some of it sounds like we're trying too hard to be contrarian. Take chips and fries for example. The British call potato chips "crisps" and french fries "chips" and they'll have that discussion with you all night long, but they were patented as chips and fries respectively. Or how about "mom" versus "mum"? Despite interchanging them, I prefer "mom", especially in a world where "ma" and "mama" are common, which makes "mum" just sound like you're auditioning as Wednesday Addams. If you look in historical documents from the past, it's certainly never "mum". It all doesn't bother me so much as what bothers me is when those people (you know, the ones who call it the telly instead of a TV) say other people are the derivatives or must bend to them. If I visit London, I'm ordering french fries from McDonald's, not McChips.
load more comments
(3 replies)
It speaks to an ever-evolving world, culture and society. But nothing and nobody really speaks to me.
"This is key" (in business speak)
Generally these weird roundabout constructions used in English (not my native language). Like "I'm going forward to do X". There's always a bit of padding in language, but English seems to be very "paddy".
Oh, and very non-descriptive words for very specific things. Like washer. What is a washer? It doesn't do any washing. In German, we call these things Unterlegscheibe. A disk (Scheibe) to put (legen) under (unter) something. Says exactly what it's doing.
load more comments
(1 replies)
"Didn't used to".