I've noticed many of idiosyncratic modifications of spelling and grammar as well, but attribute it to the synergy between the recent rise of the use of texting abbreviations, phonetic language learning, and the decline in the reading of traditionally edited books.

Texting via a SMS (Short Message Service), often has been billed by the number of characters used, therefore putting pressure on people using it to compress and abbreviate words and grammar in ways never before seen. Phonetic analogs can be used, and therefore became commonplace. My conjecture is that the increased non-standard use of words and language makes the standard usage less common, and more likely that people simply forget or don't care about the traditional structure of words or sentences.

I believe I remember reading a few years ago about a young girl, whose homework it was to write an essay, who submitted an essay written entirely in SMS text abbreviations. Eliminate vowels and substitute phonetic analogs when it serves to shorten the word construction. Obliterate any complicating grammar. I forget what the teacher's response was, but I am sure it was not favorable given the existence of the op-ed about the event.

It has also been reported widely that people read far fewer books than they used to. Without a traditionally edited book providing the usual oversight for standard grammar, punctuation, and word usage, people have fewer baseline references to what is correct usage. Online texts can be properly edited as well, and many are, but there is clearly less attention paid to traditional issues of spelling and grammar in most commentary, personal blogging, or other sources of reading online. Over time, the combination of these three things: (1) greater use of idiosyncratic abbreviations in ordinary communication, (2) greater acceptance of phonetic blurring, and (3) fewer baseline book references, directly encourages this kind of creativity in grammar and spelling.

It must not be all bad, as some of the new bastardized words have been recognized by New Oxford American Dictionary with the distinction of "word of the year". I seem to recall Time magazine has also joined in the fray, celebrating abbreviations such as LOL and ROTFL.

Another one that gets a lot of use, and is annoying, is "reign in" as opposed to "rein in". Reign is to rule, as a monarch, a rein is what you use to stop a horse, hence the saying "to rein in", meaning to hold in or control.

Yes, and while we're on idioms, the concept of a person adhering to party or company policy is expressed by the idiom "toeing the line" and not "towing the line".

Link

The origins come from foot racing, where to be eligible you had to keep your toes behind a line drawn on the ground, or military drill, where you have to line up with everyone else against an undrawn line (the planks on the deck of a ship, for example). It might even come from British parliamentary history. origins

What is clear is that it does not come from tug-of-war, where you had to pull on a piece of rope in the same direction as your team mates. So nobody is "towing" anything; they are "toeing" something.

I love CNBC's Erin Burnette dearly, but she made a mistake that grates on me a bit.

Last week she interviewed the CEO of Frost Bank. Frost has 30 branches that share $10-billion. In rephrasing the CEO's, words Burnette said, so, "Frost Bank's 30 branches share $10-billion between them." When there are two it is "between," when there are more than two it should be "among."

Just in passing, I have noticed that this particular grammatical error is made more often than not. In fact I have wondered if the correct rule is ever taught in schools anymore. If it is taught correctly, nobody is listening!

One rule that grammar pedants overapply is "less" vs. "fewer." If I expect a response in less than two hours, I don't want to be told that it should be "fewer than two hours." Time is continuous; hours are not bricks to be counted. An hour and 59 minutes is less than two hours, not "fewer."

However, it is grammatically correct to say, "He worked fewer hours than me." Or "Sometimes it feels like there are fewer hours in the day." Because, in those cases, hours are "bricks to be counted."

What bothers me is when I hear someone say, it doesn't bother me atall. How about at all?
Or a double negative in a sentence like I "don't have no"

I recently was in an explosif exchange involving the use of umm..yeah..

Now I've used um and I've used yeah but never in tandem.

The only acceptable use of umm yeah as far as I am concerned is after some accidental flatulence in the company of strangers or after some unexpected bladder contractions. Umm yeah conveys embarrassment, directed at self not at another party. As a result after hearing this rather stupid phrase and looking at their crotch and seeing no stains and hearing no noises the only appropiate response is WELL? Unfortunately this response typically garners another umm yeah which then sends me into a crazed and agitated literary fury.

At no time should this term should not be used as a replacement for 'whatever' because if you mean a mixture of begrudging compliance or indifference than just come out and say it!

Therefore as of 2008 I am classifying this phrase as the provinance of vagabonds, adolescents who have neurological problems from watching too much Idol, mud queens, meth addicts, and the cast of the View! Grrr! Damn weirdos.

What I find the most annoying (amusing?) are the futile lamentations of those who think that the English language is “slipping”, and that it must be “fixed”.
Sorry, but the next generation has taken this one out of your hands. Ten thousand years from now, our great-great, (insert appropriate number here) great grandchildren, aboard their mighty intergalactic starships, will address each other as “Cptn”, and “1st m8.” Shipboard conversations will consist mainly of; “Hlp! Teh N-gyns R on fyr!”, and “OMG, plz chng corse 2 whtevr.”
This is the might of linguistic evolution. Weep is you so wish, but the ears of progress will not hear you. Bemoan for as long as you want, but in the end, what you deem “incorrect” will become correct by right of majority.
Hah! It just goes to show there’s no future in being an English major!


Aw frig.