Mistakes and Misunderstandings: Internet denizen butchering of phrases

[Fiery Diamond]

Hey all.

So I just finished typing up a little rant, and decided that maybe I should start a thread for people to contribute their own examples which they have come across. What am I talking about? Well...

It was bugging me, too. I was going to point it out if no one else did.

Rant incoming!

English has its share of strange phrases, many of which don't necessarily make sense at first glance; but seriously, most of them actually make semantic sense at the least. Too many people on forums [and other places] type what they think a phrase they've heard sounds like without ever bothering to see if it makes any sense at all, which results in some rather bizarre permutations of common phrases. "Intensive purposes," anyone? [Seriously: Intents and purposes.] Or how about things that I can only assume people think are some kind of slang or verbal tic instead of actually thinking about what things are being said? [There is no "should of," "could of," "would of." That makes no semantic or grammatical sense at all. It isn't slang. It's a freaking contraction: "should've," "could've," "would've."] ... /rant

That's what I'm talking about. I see things like this all the time. It's not like I don't understand how it happens; I'm guilty of it myself. You grow up hearing a phrase (or are introduced to a phrase when you're just learning the language) and you internalize what you THINK you heard, whether or not that's actually what was said. And sometimes, if the person/people you heard it from did the same thing, they might actually have said the wrong thing. So you use what you think you know and never bother to question it, because let's face it: English is a bizarro language sometimes. It's my contention, though, that you SHOULD bother to question it, because much of the time the correct phrase does make at least some sense.

Also, note that while many of these types of things are more apparent when someone is typing on the internet, quite a few are things you actually hear people say incorrectly, sometimes with great frequency (depending on who you live near).

So, feel free to share ones you have seen (or fallen for yourself!) before. Here's my short list (I've seen more, but I need to get to bed and don't feel like working my brain too hard to remember) to start us off.

Presented in the format of *Mistaken form//Actual form

*Intensive purposes//Intents and purposes
*Lone behold//Lo and behold (this was the one in the thread that prompted my mini rant)
*Should of//Should've
*Could of//Could've
*Would of//Would've
*Mute point//Moot point
*Nip [the problem] in the butt//Nip [the problem] in the bud
*Buttload//Boatload
*Hone in on//Home in on
*Suppose to//Supposed to (this one results from the fact that in normal speech, we glide the words together)


And one last one that might be a little controversial because there are so freaking many people who say the wrong thing... (though to be fair, the wrong version actually makes sense, and the correct version is a little unusual since that word is not usually used like that)

*If you think [X], then you've got another thing coming//If you think [X], then you've got another think coming

[SiuiS]

"butt load" actually makes sense and is more correct for colloquial use; think smuggling something into prison.

Another think coming also makes less sense than the 'incorrect' version, unless you also believe that people should say "and another think" when continuing a rant along? Telling someone they have another thing coming is the same phrase, using a conditional format. Instead of saying "and another thing! You ..." They say they will bring up another thing, if (and only if) the person being spoken to doesn't get the hint.




But yes. These drive me up a wall. My favorite? I had someone ask why I said "text message" and "Texting" when the word was clearly 'tex'. >_<
Oh, axe//ask is actually not incorrect, just apparently grammatically weird? There was a point where both were in common use, and some groups of people stuck to axing questions, and passed that down their cultural lines. So while it sounds like bad language, it was good enough for Chaucer. That was humbling.

[Oneris]

Honestly, if people would just take the time to see literal definition of the individual words instead of taking the meaning of those phrases for granted, this would be a lot less of a problem. Also, to add to your list of examples: "I could(sic) care less".

[Skeppio]

"I could care less" in the context of saying you have no interest in something. It's "I couldn't care less", as in you can't possibly have less interest in the topic. How can anyone screw that up?

[Asta Kask]

"I could care less" in the context of saying you have no interest in something. It's "I couldn't care less", as in you can't possibly have less interest in the topic. How can anyone screw that up?

Because it's said ironically?

Stephen Pinker's take

Although they butchered the example typographically. It's still a good article, though.

[factotum]

"butt load" actually makes sense and is more correct for colloquial use; think smuggling something into prison.

Except "boat load" is generally acknowledged to mean a very large quantity of something, and I don't see that being the case with a "butt load" in the context you've just brought up...

Skeppio, "I could care less" is an Americanism--it's what they say in those circumstances, not some mistake people on the Internet make. Yes, it makes no sense whatsoever, but it's not quite the same thing as Fiery Diamond is talking about.

(And obligatory David Mitchell link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw)

[Oneris]

Well, if taken in the context of "I could care less (but I choose not to because I'm feeling merciful today and will take pity on your pathetic little idea)" or "I could care less (but I won't because I think you deserve better)", it makes a lot more sense.

Also, a Butt is actually a unit of measurement, approximating 140 gallons of wine, or half a tun. I doubt most people using the word 'buttload' are actually intending it to mean 140 gallons though.

[SiuiS]

Except "boat load" is generally acknowledged to mean a very large quantity of something, and I don't see that being the case with a "butt load" in the context you've just brought up...

Skeppio, "I could care less" is an Americanism--it's what they say in those circumstances, not some mistake people on the Internet make. Yes, it makes no sense whatsoever, but it's not quite the same thing as Fiery Diamond is talking about.

(And obligatory David Mitchell link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw)

Man, you see a nine inch knife, a water balloon of drugs and a speed loader for a revolver come out of the same guy in teh same carry, and then you say whether or not that's a large quantity.

[Pheehelm]

There's a longer list of these out there than you probably ever wanted to see. (Me, though, I keep that page bookmarked just to be safe.)

[Asta Kask]

I think this says it all.

[SarahV]

Also, a Butt is actually a unit of measurement, approximating 140 gallons of wine, or half a tun. I doubt most people using the word 'buttload' are actually intending it to mean 140 gallons though.

I didn't before, but from now on, when I use the word buttload, that is exactly what I mean.

I usually assume that people who use phrases like "nip it in the butt" don't read enough books. If you read a lot you end up learning words/phrases that you don't know how to pronounce (like when I was a little kid and thought epitome rhymed with home and rendezvous rhymed with moose). When you don't read enough professionally-edited prose, you end up learning words/phrases that you don't know how to spell, because you've only ever heard them, or seen them spelled wrong by similarly-uneducated folks online.

I do proofreading for a national magazine and I know from personal experience that the more time I spend reading stuff online, the more mistakes I tend to make in proofreading, because after enough repetitions, the wrong stuff starts looking right.

[Asta Kask]

Who gets to decide if something is wrong? Isn't that like me going chastising my cat for meowing the wrong way? Language is a natural phenomenon, after all.

Maybe a more fruitful use of our time would be to teach people to rewrite three times, rather than telling them that "To boldly go..." is WRONG! Does it impede understanding? How many people have seriously misunderstood "I can't get no satisfaction..." as indicating that the singer was getting massive amount of satisfaction.

[Scorpina]

How many people have seriously misunderstood "I can't get no satisfaction..." as indicating that the singer was getting massive amount of satisfaction.

Well, given that the singer in question was Mick Jagger, I'd say that interpretation makes a lot of sense.

Also, I've always found "we don't need no education" to be a fun example of that. Since, y'know, clearly they do need education on double negatives.

[Fiery Diamond]

"butt load" actually makes sense and is more correct for colloquial use; think smuggling something into prison.

Another think coming also makes less sense than the 'incorrect' version, unless you also believe that people should say "and another think" when continuing a rant along? Telling someone they have another thing coming is the same phrase, using a conditional format. Instead of saying "and another thing! You ..." They say they will bring up another thing, if (and only if) the person being spoken to doesn't get the hint.




But yes. These drive me up a wall. My favorite? I had someone ask why I said "text message" and "Texting" when the word was clearly 'tex'. >_<
Oh, axe//ask is actually not incorrect, just apparently grammatically weird? There was a point where both were in common use, and some groups of people stuck to axing questions, and passed that down their cultural lines. So while it sounds like bad language, it was good enough for Chaucer. That was humbling.

Someone else already addressed the buttload//boatload issue below, but I wanted to respond about the other one.

It's just that single phrase that's like that, not all cases of "another thing." Here's what the phrase means:

If you think [X]*, then you've got another think coming.**
*If you think [X]
*which you clearly do, or I wouldn't be saying this
*which is also NOT the way things are going to be
**then circumstances/my actions/events/etc. are going to force you to rethink ("another think") and change what you think because you're wrong

Link

[Asta Kask]

Also, I've always found "we don't need no education" to be a fun example of that. Since, y'know, clearly they do need education on double negatives.

But double negatives is a feature of many languages, like French. Why can't it be a feature of English (or at least some dialects of it)? Or are you going to invade France and tell them to stop?

English isn't algebra.

More languages with double negatives.

I would say that if lots of people are using double negatives, and are being understood, than that is acceptable [language].

[Gnoman]

Someone else already addressed the buttload//boatload issue below, but I wanted to respond about the other one.

It's just that single phrase that's like that, not all cases of "another thing." Here's what the phrase means:

If you think [X]*, then you've got another think coming.**
*If you think [X]
*which you clearly do, or I wouldn't be saying this
*which is also NOT the way things are going to be
**then circumstances/my actions/events/etc. are going to force you to rethink ("another think") and change what you think because you're wrong

Link

Another way of putting it is "Your think is defective. I will replace your think for you."

[Scorpina]

But double negatives is a feature of many languages, like French. Why can't it be a feature of English (or at least some dialects of it)? Or are you going to invade France and tell them to stop?

English isn't algebra.

Nothing is more English than invading France.

Also, the French actually have a governing body for the French language which determines official correct usage, so I think they'd be on board with sticking with the rules your language already has rather than playing fast and loose with them.

[Asta Kask]

Nothing is more English than invading France.

Also, the French actually have a governing body for the French language which determines official correct usage, so I think they'd be on board with sticking with the rules your language already has rather than playing fast and loose with them.

But the governing body is universally ignored.

Anyway, this. When will you invade the Baltic?

[BWR]

Since, y'know, clearly they do need education on double negatives.

English has historically had multiple negatives. Up four at least. "Heo næfre ne mihten ne nolden syððan fram his wylle gebugen," used for emphasis.
Or used for satirical effect by exaggeration in Chaucer "He nevere yet no vileynye ne sayde / In all his lyf unto no maner wight"

[factotum]

Why can't it be a feature of English (or at least some dialects of it)?

I think the point here is that people using a double negative are almost always using it *unintentionally* in English. The quoted lyric "We don't need no education", for instance, means we really *do* need some education due to the double negative--but that's not what the song is intended to convey, as you can clearly tell if you listen to the rest of the lyrics! I mean, this isn't a complaint about "To boldly go" being a split infinitive (which I never cared about and I doubt many people do), this is a case where the error actually changes the meaning of the sentence...

[Siosilvar]

"Irregardless" when one means "irrespective" or "regardless" is a fun one.

[Haruki-kun]

Honestly, if people would just take the time to see literal definition of the individual words instead of taking the meaning of those phrases for granted, this would be a lot less of a problem. Also, to add to your list of examples: "I could(sic) care less".

This one bothers me. I spent a really long time explaining it to my extended family once, and it ended nowhere. Even harder because none of us are native speakers.

Who gets to decide if something is wrong? Isn't that like me going chastising my cat for meowing the wrong way? Language is a natural phenomenon, after all.

No, it isn't like telling off a cat for meowing wrong. There are grammar rules that are generally agreed upon by the community that speaks said language (or in the case of certain languages, by a governing body) that make something be correct or incorrect. Language evolves with time, you are right, and in many cases it evolves to the point where some things become acceptable where before they were considered wrong. But within the current time frame, those things are not considered correct and it is therefore fine to point out that someone else has committed a grammatical error.*

I'm sorry if I'm not understanding your points correctly, but it sounds like you're saying that vocabulary, grammatical, or general syntax errors are fine in language.

*Whether it is polite or not aside.

But double negatives is a feature of many languages, like French.

But not of English. An English speaker who hears the phrase "I didn't bring nothing" will think one of two things: S/he will think the speaker is stressing that they didn't come empty-handed, but rather brought something with them, or they will think the speaker misspoke. This causes confusion.

Conversely, a Spanish speaker (to use a similar language to French), could hear the same phrase, "No traje nada" and understand that the speaker is saying they didn't bring anything with them. Because this is understood by the speakers of that language.

Which brings me to the next point:

Why can't it be a feature of English (or at least some dialects of it)? Or are you going to invade France and tell them to stop?

English isn't algebra.

More languages with double negatives.

I would say that if lots of people are using double negatives, and are being understood, than that is acceptable [language].

Because they're different languages. Using a double negative is not wrong, it's just not used in English. And the language works just fine without them.

[SiuiS]

Someone else already addressed the buttload//boatload issue below, but I wanted to respond about the other one.

It's just that single phrase that's like that, not all cases of "another thing." Here's what the phrase means:

If you think [X]*, then you've got another think coming.**
*If you think [X]
*which you clearly do, or I wouldn't be saying this
*which is also NOT the way things are going to be
**then circumstances/my actions/events/etc. are going to force you to rethink ("another think") and change what you think because you're wrong

Link

Your link clearly says itself that "another thing" makes more literal sense. It is wrong to say another thing if and only if you are intending to paraphrase the original; as a standalone statement it makes perfect sense in English. It's entirely possible it has multiple genesises independently as people develop their language skill. Saying it's wrong because they aren't properly quoting or paraphrasing someone they have no intention of quoting or paraphrasing, well, it strikes me as needlessly backwards.

I think the point here is that people using a double negative are almost always using it *unintentionally* in English. The quoted lyric "We don't need no education", for instance, means we really *do* need some education due to the double negative--but that's not what the song is intended to convey, as you can clearly tell if you listen to the rest of the lyrics! I mean, this isn't a complaint about "To boldly go" being a split infinitive (which I never cared about and I doubt many people do), this is a case where the error actually changes the meaning of the sentence...

That's not quite accurate, though. The word "no", when used in that fashion, denotes 'any amount'. The sentence does not expand to "we do not need zero amounts of education", it literally expands to "we do not require any education". It's as grammatically correct as the word ain't.

This is only a grammatical error in the same way that interpreting a Russian sentence using English rules produces errors.

[Remmirath]

Eh, "you've got another think coming" makes much more sense to me than "you've got another thing coming". I was not under the impression that if used in an entirely different context "another thing" referred back to the "another think/another thing coming" phrase, and in other contexts, it does usually make more sense to say "another thing" (and sometimes no sense to say "another think").

Skeppio, "I could care less" is an Americanism--it's what they say in those circumstances, not some mistake people on the Internet make.

No, it isn't. Or at least, it's not a mistake that all Americans make, and I would contend strongly that it is indeed a mistake and not simply a case of regionalism. Granted, it is a mistake I hear and see sadly often around here, but I have observed many people using the correct phrase as well. It may be a more common mistake in America than it is elsewhere; that I'll not argue.

I usually assume that people who use phrases like "nip it in the butt" don't read enough books. If you read a lot you end up learning words/phrases that you don't know how to pronounce (like when I was a little kid and thought epitome rhymed with home and rendezvous rhymed with moose). When you don't read enough professionally-edited prose, you end up learning words/phrases that you don't know how to spell, because you've only ever heard them, or seen them spelled wrong by similarly-uneducated folks online.

I agree. There are far more words that I've not known how to pronounce than those that I've not known how to spell. I did not used to believe that large numbers of people could have somehow made it most of their lives without ever seeing many rather common words and phrases written, but that makes much more sense as an explanation than that they saw those things written, and then proceeded to speak and write them incorrectly regardless.

[BWR]

But not of English. An English speaker who hears the phrase "I didn't bring nothing" will think one of two things: S/he will think the speaker is stressing that they didn't come empty-handed, but rather brought something with them, or they will think the speaker misspoke. This causes confusion.

Did people miss my post? Multiple negatives are an aspect of English and have been for centuries. The only people who disagree with this were some people a little while ago who decided that English should be more like formal logic and Latin, and insisted upon change. Plenty of dialects still use multiple negatives without anyone getting confused about what is being said. The restriction against multiple negatves is an artificial imposition on English and one that is entirely pointless.

[Aedilred]

Who gets to decide if something is wrong?

I do!

Or rather, everyone does. Get it wrong and you will be judged accordingly. I had a fun discussion with one of my tutors last year who went on a rant about people putting split infinitives in legal documents. I countered with the point that there's nothing actually wrong with split infinitives in English and it comes from a transposed rule in Latin and hypercorrection on the part of classicists. We eventually agreed that, even if it's technically ok, it's still best not to do it, since it's not worth taking the risk that the person reading knows the rule is bunkum and you want to create as favourable an impression as possible - especially given they're likely to be lawyers, a group of people not known for their lack of pedantry.

Now, yes, the key point of language is to make yourself understood, so as long as you're doing that you're ok (although using correct grammar, spelling, punctuation etc. helps enormously with that). However almost as important is not to annoy unnecessarily anyone to whom you're trying to convey information through sloppy or inappropriate language. There's a social level to language as well as a linguistic one.

"I could care less" drives me up the wall. And that is wrong. I don't buy that it's "ironic" or sarcastic, either, because it's used in exactly the same tone, context and sense as the logical and sense-making "I couldn't care less", and I've never heard it used in isolation with any suggestion of actual sarcasm. Curiously, I've only seen it appear in the last couple of years, mostly from American sources and online, but I daresay it's been lurking for a while.

"Buttload" is accurate, based on the butt as a unit of measurement (of wine) as mentioned above. I am not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if "boatload" is a bowdlerisation of "buttload" based on an etymological misinterpretation.

I suspect "another thing coming" derived from "another think coming" simply because of the difficulty of enunciating the "k-c" and when speaking quickly the "k" was dropped to a "g" sound. Initially, everyone knows what you mean, filter by Chinese whispers and "another thing" becomes standard because that's what people have heard. There's no reason why "you've got another thing coming" is itself inaccurate; it just doesn't work in the original context.

Of course, to add to the list of complaints, "literally", used to mean "figuratively". I know one or two people (I do it myself from time to time when I think the company will appreciate it) who have started using "figuratively" as an emphatic, just because. Given that even the OED has offered an alternative definition of "literally" meaning "not literally", though, I have no idea what purpose that word serves in our language any more.

[Archonic Energy]

Except "boat load" is generally acknowledged to mean a very large quantity of something, and I don't see that being the case with a "butt load" in the context you've just brought up...

Skeppio, "I could care less" is an Americanism--it's what they say in those circumstances, not some mistake people on the Internet make. Yes, it makes no sense whatsoever, but it's not quite the same thing as Fiery Diamond is talking about.

(And obligatory David Mitchell link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw)

damn, you beat me to it.
I do like Mitchell's rants.

[Aedilred]

Oh, here's another one: rein/reign confusion.

Reign - period of sovereign authority/possession or exercise of sovereign authority etc. (noun/verb)
Rein(s) - something used to control a horse/using the reins (noun/verb)
(Also, Rain - water falling from the sky/the falling of said water (noun/verb))

To rein in an unruly subordinate is to put them under tighter control, as you would rein in a horse.
Giving someone free rein means you will allow them to do things their own way, as you would release a horse from your immediate control. However you might rein them in later.

To reign in an unruly subordinate is to become the master of at least some of their internal organs.
To give someone free reign would be to put them completely in charge with no restrictions on their authority. You cannot reign them in later, because that phrase makes no sense.

I can see how confusion might arise, but the former versions are correct. Alas, I mostly see the latter. I have even seen people talk about the "rein" of a king or whatever.

[Jaycemonde]

*Buttload//Boatload

I'm sure someone's covered this already, but buttload isn't really a good example. A lot of people say it on purpose, myself included. (I also say "assload", but you know.)

Anyway, one I hear on occasion is "Blood is thicker than water." This isn't true in the way people use it--that birth family is more important than friends--because the original quote reads, "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb," which means the exact opposite.

Then you have several rather controversial phrases in Leviticus, which range from "you shouldn't apply those to modern times in any way to begin with" to "but that means you don't sleep in someone else's bed" depending on context.

[Domino Quartz]

I just discovered something interesting - multiple negations in sentences were not uncommon in Early Modern English. Not only that, but they would sometimes add a negative prefix to a word whose meaning involved "undoing" something (e.g. "unloose") in order to add emphasis. One thing that people on the internet do that annoys me, though, is to claim that prepositions are forbidden at the ends of sentences. That rule literally does not exist in English. There's also the phrase (not necessarily on the internet, and it doesn't particularly annoy me) "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." The actual quote is "Heaven hath no rage like love to hatred turned, nor Hell a fury like a woman scorned." Then there's "Elementary, my dear Watson", which was never said by Sherlock Holmes in any original Arthur Conan Doyle canon.