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.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
Please state in which country your phrase tends to be used, what the phrase is, and what it should be.
Example:
In America, recently came across "back-petal", instead of back-pedal. Also, still hearing "for all intensive purposes" instead of "for all intents and purposes".
I'm still confused that reckless driving causes wrecks.
This is a good one.
This is what is called a lonely negative. It's where we only have the negative version of a word. This could be because the original word fell out of use or we stole the negative word from another language without stealing the positive.
"Reck" meant something like "care" - it has nothing to do with "wreck".
Another good example is "disgust," which we got from French. Anyone familiar with French, Italian or Spanish will probably recognize the verb "gustar" (or something similar).
Idk if this counts as a phrase, but on the internet, people talk about their pets crossing the rainbow bridge when they die. That's not how the rainbow bridge poem goes. Pets go to a magnificent field when they die. They are healed of all injury and illness. When you die, they find you in the field and you cross the bridge together. It's much sweeter the way it was written than the way people use it.
On the US one thing is different from another, not than. One thing differs from another. It's different from the other thing.
Although in the UK it's "different to" for some reason.
You don't feel "nauseous" you feel "nauseated".
EDIT: TIL "nauseous" can be used in place of "nauseated". This usage has been common since the 20th century.
“Saying the quiet part out loud.”
Saying things out loud is how you say them.
It’s “saying the quiet part loud.”
I think it is common to distinguish between whispering something and saying it out loud or aloud. Like if you say something private in a theatre louder than meant, your date might say, “Shh, you said that out loud.” Otherwise “out loud” would have no place at all as “say” alone would cover this meaning.
You’re right about the saying, but I think that explains the malapropism.
It's always going to be the "of" people. Its "would have", "should have" etc and not "would of".
Would’ve
No. Just use your words and enunciate.
What entitlement means vs false sense of entitlement.
I tell people they are entitled to their rights and have an entitlement to their social security money for example, and they get offended thinking I mean "false sense of entitlement" instead.
I hear "gaslighting" misused all of the time. It doesn't mean trying to persuade someone or just lying.
Online in general: using "reductio ad absurdum" as a fallacy.
It's a longstanding logical tool. Here's an example of how it works: let's assume you can use infinity as a number. In that case, we can do:
∞ + 1 = ∞
And:
∞ - ∞ = 0
Agreed? If so, then:
∞ - ∞ + 1 = ∞ - ∞
And therefore:
1 = 0
Which is absurd. If we agree that all the logical steps to get there are correct, then the original premise (that we can use infinity as a number) must be wrong.
It's a great tool for teasing out incorrect assumptions. It has never been on any academic list of fallacies, and the Internet needs to stop saying otherwise. It's possible some other fallacy is being invoked while going through an argument, but it's not reductio ad absurdum.
Well if we're going to be talking about logical fallacies, I feel like the string of arguments that you made there is a category error. Infinity isn't exactly a number, it's more of a philosophical concept than anything else. I would argue that trying to subtract Infinity from Infinity is illogical and kind of silly, but it wouldn't be a reductio ad absurdum as you put it, but instead a category error.
An absurdist argument might be more like, if I have one cat I can trade it for one dog. Therefore infinite cats can be traded for infinite dogs. This is obviously absurd, because infinite cats don't exist, unfortunately.
The way read it they were using it as an example where absurdity makes sense to poke a hole in the logic that infinity can be used as a number.
This thread peaks my interest.
I hope my words piqued someone else’s interests more.
Niche is pronounced neesh and not nitch
You should google the word "dialect" and see where it takes you.
To search results about the word dialect
Neesh is actually the much newer pronunciation apparently, TIL.
What do you base that on?
According to the pronunciations on Wiktionary, nitch is Californian
Using "racking" instead of the correct "wracking" in "wracking my brain". Not very common, but it annoys me... But not as much as "could of"... That is the worst, just stop it!
This is online and in person in Canada.
"For all intensive porpoises" is the one that really annoys me.
They're dolphins, not porpoises. Fuck, get your cetaceans right.