BY accident
Accidentally.
Bi accident
I guess it’s a non-native English speaking mistake? I’ve never heard anyone say this apart from on the internet.
It’s an American thing (some parts anyway), my kids starting saying it from watching YouTubers until I corrected them harshly.
I’ll forward you the number to call, but there are always Hot English Professors in your area, ready to mete out linguistic punishment.
Unilaterally occuring in the vicinity of another event at the same time: possibly by chance: -A/N short description of the sorry State of English. Vol. 3
ADJACENT accident.
deleted by creator
Languages evolve.
Both are fine and used/understood by English speakers.
Descriptive grammar is the language as spoken and used by its speakers.
Prescriptive grammar is a board of old men telling everyone else how they think it should be said.
Be more like descriptive grammar.
I think you have it backwards, perhaps. Prescriptive is like when a doctor tells you what drugs to take via a prescription. That’s the old man one. (Although I think it’s quite often younger people who have recently had the idea of correct and incorrect useages of languages drilled into them!)Oh, either you edited your post, or I’m crazy. :)Also, while too much prescriptivism is certainly obnoxious, not enough has its own problems. Language needs a certain amount of conformity to ensure were actually having a conversation about what we both think we’re having a conversation about.
Ah you must’ve caught the mixup before I edited it. Well spotted.
deleted by creator
Even an accident
FOR accident?
OF accident
BY purpose
Stop promoting bad English. English has rules for a reason, you can’t just speak or write however you like, else we wouldn’t get graded in English class, now would we?
deleted by creator
Language can evolve all at wants, but Americans are still wrong whenever they say it.
Language has to evolve into something, the Americans seem to be trying to make language evolve away from coherence. You’re probably the type that says using the word literally to mean figuratively is acceptable as well.
This comment is ironic considering that many words have different, more coherent spelling in American English, such as “color” or “theater”.
Reddit user over here acting smarter than dictionaries and the word nerds who write them.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/misuse-of-literally
Oh and I’m not American, nice try arrogant Pom.
American English perhaps, “on accident” sounds absolutely absurd to most Brits.
Are you someone who thinks it doesn’t matter if someone mixes up they’re / their / there etc? These things do matter because if you don’t use them correctly people are more likely to misunderstand you.
All of my English teachers were “old” women by the way, nice attempt there to shoehorn in some baddies. Nothing worse than old men, am I right?
Calm down.
The whole point of language is communication and being able to understand others and make yourself understood.
Considering that, most English speaking people would have absolutely no problem understanding the meaning of this post so it’s really not that big of an issue.
However, you do have a point about encouraging the use of good English in the sense that it allows for less confusion, but maybe if you came across of less of a pedantic porcupine who cares more about making fun of others than trying to give useful information then more people would be willing to listen to you.
Just like you were trying to make that point Deceptichum was trying to point out that people use different forms of language in different settings such as being more informal and loose with grammar on the internet, for example. Using their/there/they’re is much less worse than saying on accident instead of by accident.
Yeah, nah mate.
Try again next time eh.
Languages evolve.
Funny how this canard is always directed towards the literate. It’s only ever allowed to evolve one way, usually with some vaguely political bias towards the youth/against anyone over the age of 25, or as some kind of act of pandering to the lower classes or some minority group (willfully ignoring that the spread is in large part attributable to multi-billion dollar media organisations, and far from organic).
This comment is a bit sus ngl
OP is clearly over 25, vent them.
Unless I’m reading this wrong, I think you’ve got those two linguistic approaches reversed.
it’s finny since conservatives actually got angry and thought pink floyd went woke when they did a 50th anniversary post for dark side of the moon
Believe it or not, the woke backlash thing seems to be false:
https://www.truthorfiction.com/pink-floyds-woke-50th-anniversary-rainbow-controversy/
Anybody that is a fan or even old enough to know who Pink Floyd has seen that 50 year old album cover.
Anyone following them where they would see that post is going to be aware of this.
As much as I hate the anti-woke stuff from the right, it appears this is pure sensationalism.
This means two things. One, they (the right in the US) go on about it so much, people don’t bother fact checking. Two, the left isn’t immune to BS.
Lmao, one of the replies to that thread
Anti-woke is bullshit but anti-anti-woke is also bullshit.
They can have Waters, we’ll keep the rest.
Waters is a straight up tankie who blames NATO for invasion of Ukraine.
You know what, conservatives should have him. That would be fun to watch.
They should’ve angled the rainbow like this:
White line to all the colors of the rainbow? White Floyd was woke ahead of its time.
Woke Floyd
Hmm, I don’t generally wear band shirts, but I love Pink Floyd and absorbing misplaced good vibes…
