# Mistakes Made By Native Speakers



## ronanpoirier

I don't know if you people do it, but I have the bad habit of correcting people when they say something wrong. Everybody hates (I can wonder why) when I do that and they simply love when I say something wrong (I justcan't say "enciclopédia"!). But the thing is that I just hate when such mistakes are done, especially when it's our mother tongue! And another thing I hate is that some people (like my mother) are corrected a thousand times about the same mistake and they keep doing them!
So I'd like to know what are the most common mistakes made by natives in your languages.

In Portuguese I can tell some:

Using _ele(s)/ela(s)_ when it's actually direct object when it should be _o(s)/a(s)._
_Mim _or _ti_ after the preposition _para_ and before a personal infinitive when it should be actually _eu_ or _tu_.
_Eu _or _tu_ after the preposition _entre_ when it should be _mim_ or _ti_.
_Por causa que_ when it's actually just _porque_.
_A gente + verb conjugated in 1st person plural_ when it should be actually _A gente + verb conjugated in 3rd person singular_ or _Nós + verb conjugated in 1st person plural.
Subir para cima/descer para baixo/entrar para dentro/sair para fora_ when your just need _subir/descer/entrar/sair_. It's just redundant.
The word _personagem_ used as a male noun. (However, nowadays I don't know if it's already acceptable)




			
				ronanpoirier said:
			
		

> I have the bad habit of correcting people when they say something wrong


I certainly need a psychologist!


----------



## Tresley

Some pet hates of mine in English are:

Using 'nothing' instead of 'anything'.  For example:

_"I haven't done nothing wrong"_ when it should actually be _"I haven't done anything wrong"_

Using 'them' instead of 'those'.  For example:

_"Are them shoes yours"?_ when it should be _"Are those shoes yours"?_

Incorrectly conjugating verbs!!!! For example:

_"I've wrote it down"_ should be_ "I've written it down"_
_"I done it yesterday"_ should be_ "I did it yesterday"_

These are just some that I can think of right now.  I am sure that I will think of others later.


----------



## JLanguage

Tresley said:


> Some pet hates of mine in English are:
> 
> Using 'nothing' instead of 'anything'. For example:
> 
> _"I haven't done nothing wrong"_ when it should actually be _"I haven't done anything wrong"_
> 
> Using 'them' instead of 'those'. For example:
> 
> _"Are them shoes yours"?_ when it should be _"Are those shoes yours"?_
> 
> Incorrectly conjugating verbs!!!! For example:
> 
> _"I've wrote it down"_ should be_ "I've written it down"_
> _"I done it yesterday"_ should be_ "I did it yesterday"_
> 
> These are just some that I can think of right now. I am sure that I will think of others later.


 
Yes, but how do you decide what these so-called mistakes are? Are they anything deviating from the written standard? I say these mistakes are simply instance in which natural language differs from writing. Some speak in a manner very close to the written standard, others speak a dialect (idiolect to be more precise) that's a bit more divergent. Ideally, everyone should be able to speak both "standard English/any other language" in addition to whatever comes naturally out of his or her mouth, but then we don't live in an ideal world. Of course it's a bit different (simpler?) when the written standard differs radically from your spoken dialect, ex. Arabic or Cantonese. In that case, you write one way and speak another (correct me if I'm wrong).


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Tresley said:


> Some pet hates of mine in English are:
> 
> Using 'nothing' instead of 'anything'. For example:
> 
> _"I haven't done nothing wrong"_ when it should actually be _"I haven't done anything wrong"_
> 
> Using 'them' instead of 'those'. For example:
> 
> _"Are them shoes yours"?_ when it should be _"Are those shoes yours"?_
> 
> Incorrectly conjugating verbs!!!! For example:
> 
> _"I've wrote it down"_ should be_ "I've written it down"_
> _"I done it yesterday"_ should be_ "I did it yesterday"_
> 
> These are just some that I can think of right now. I am sure that I will think of others later.


 
 That is probably more a matter of dialects than actual mistakes? I heard a Geordie speaker recently (had never been up that part before) and it occured to me that an English- language student lacking faith in his abilities would simply rejoice at such an example.


----------



## ronanpoirier

I knew some kind of discussion about the mistakes would appear. So just to solve it, I'm talking about mistakes people do through the days and which wouldn't be tolerated in the formal language. No matter if it's dialectal or anything. Just common grammar mistakes.


----------



## padredeocho

It depends on the situation.  If you are watching a football game with somebody, the language should be loose, because the event is loose and meaningless.  However, if a person is a TV personality, and is reporting on something *significant*, I often call in to let him or her know that s/he used "*I*" when "*me*" should have been used, etc.  It really bugged me when a college professor of mine would say *irregardless*.  When my friends say that, I just let it go, but as a college professor who speaks for a living, no way, I am going to send them an email telling them not to mix *irrespective* with *regardless*.  As a general rule, I think unless it is going to matter to somebody in the future, you need to just let is go, unless they are paid to speak.   Paid speakers are FAIR GAME.


----------



## jester.

There are countless examples of that in German. I'll try to think of some:

Comparisons with the wrong particle:
Ich bin größer wie du.   should be   Ich bin größer als du. (This can be literally translated into English.)
I am bigger as you.   -->    I am bigger than you.

Using the wrong word order after "weil" (because). This cannot be translated into English:
Ich muss gehen weil ich habe einen Termin.    should be    Ich muss gehen weil ich einen Termin habe.

The Double Perfect (we discussed this in the German forum just yesterday):
Ich habe es gekauft gehabt.  should be   Ich habe es gekauft.
It can't be properly translated into English. There is a redundant second participle, which is not necessary and actually wrong.


As I said, there are countless other examples. Maybe another German speaker can give you some more.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

j3st3r said:


> There are countless examples of that in German. I'll try to think of some:
> 
> Comparisons with the wrong particle:
> Ich bin größer wie du. should be Ich bin größer als du. (This can be literally translated into English.)
> I am bigger as you. --> I am bigger than you.
> 
> Using the wrong word order after "weil" (because). This cannot be translated into English:
> Ich muss gehen weil ich habe einen Termin. should be Ich muss gehen weil ich einen Termin habe.
> 
> The Double Perfect (we discussed this in the German forum just yesterday):
> Ich habe es gekauft gehabt. should be Ich habe es gekauft.
> It can't be properly translated into English. There is a redundant second participle, which is not necessary and actually wrong.
> 
> 
> As I said, there are countless other examples. Maybe another German speaker can give you some more.


 Really? Is it so widespread? I have heard compliments from Germans about me making fewer mistakes in German than some native Germans do, but always thought they were just being nice, in return for my constantly declared love for Germans


----------



## JLanguage

padredeocho said:


> It depends on the situation. If you are watching a football game with somebody, the language should be loose, because the event is loose and meaningless. However, if a person is a TV personality, and is reporting on something *significant*, I often call in to let him or her know that s/he used "*I*" when "*me*" should have been used, etc. It really bugged me when a college professor of mine would say *irregardless*. When my friends say that, I just let it go, but as a college professor who speaks for a living, no way, I am going to send them an email telling them not to mix *irrespective* with *regardless*. As a general rule, I think unless it is going to matter to somebody in the future, you need to just let is go, unless they are paid to speak. Paid speakers are FAIR GAME.


 
Yes, indeed that's an important point. The point of language is communication, and thus if the "mistakes - deviations from standard" do not impede communication, they should be accepted in informal situations. Of course you don't want a newscaster to speak such that you won't take him seriously, or the attorney you're considering hiring to use teenage slang. It wouldn't be professional.


----------



## padredeocho

Yes, those are the most glaring ones, but so long as they are made by the meek and humble, they don't bother me.  What annoys me is when a pompous person goes out of his or her way to sound educated.   For example, when a person says, "that is the person with whom I was speaking" I just think, "Talk like a normal person, my goodness."  I have spent years studying grammar.   We need to speak to be understood, and listen to understand.  Yes, there are rules, but sometimes, I think we want to force things.   The whole world says DOVE instead of DIVED.   Nobody gives a hoot about the difference between CONTINUAL and CONTINUOUS, etc.   These distinctions are mostly made by those who want to SOUND elegant.   These are those who put all the emphasis on the color of the wrapping paper and the ribbons, instead of what is inside the box.   The thinking is like this:  HEY, THAT GUY JUST GAVE THE MOST OFFENSIVE SPEECH I'VE EVER HEARD, BUT HEY, HIS GRAMMAR WAS GREAT, SO I HAVE TO GIVE IT AN A.   That type of thinking drives me nuts.


----------



## MingRaymond

Some Cantonese speakers are lazy in pronouncing the 'n' sound.
男 (male) should be nam4, but they pronounce lam4.
你 (you) should be nei5, but they pronounce lei5.

Ming


----------



## optimistique

One of the commonest mistakes in Dutch is similar to the German one: the comparison.

Most people say: _Hij is groter als mij - _should be: _Hij is groter dan ik_
Translates as: He is bigger as me - He is bigger than I

Or the use of '_hun_' as the subject 3rd person plural of the personal pronouns ('they' in Eng.), which should be '*zij'*. '_Hun_' is said to be the dative by Dutch teachers, but it's nothing more than the object form.

Another mistake (which is not really a mistake but more a form of style, de tante-Betje-stijl, the auntie Beth-style) is the placing of the verb in first position after the conjunction 'en' (and), when that happens in the preceding clause as well. After 'en' starts a new main sentence so the verb should be placed second, but people keep the inversion order of the preceding clause (which happens for example when an adverb is placed in first position).

Example: _Toen ging hij naar binnen en kwam hij zijn moeder tegen.
_Then entered he and met he his mother =[Then entered he and he met his mother].

Personnally I think the 'wrong' sentence sounds better. I don't think it is wrong, because you omit the 'toen' in the second clause, so the inversion should be correct. Still we're told that this is bad Dutch.

Is this seen as a mistake in German, too?

Furthermore, people confuse similar looking words, they say i.a. 'huis*vestiging*' instead of 'huis*vesting*' (lodging, housing). A 'vestiging' is an establishment, a settlement.

And the funniest mistake I've ever heard (although it isn't proof of much brightness)  : 'De aandeelhouder wint' (the shareholder wins) instead of 'De aanhouder wint' (The persevering person wins, which my dictionnary translates as: "it's dogged does it")


----------



## Setwale_Charm

optimistique said:


> One of the commonest mistakes in Dutch is similar to the German one: the comparison.
> 
> Most people say: _Hij is groter als mij - _should be: _Hij is groter dan ik_
> Translates as: He is bigger as me - He is bigger than I
> 
> Or the use of '_hun_' as the subject 3rd person plural of the personal pronouns ('they' in Eng.), which should be '*zij'*. '_Hun_' is said to be the dative by Dutch teachers, but it's nothing more than the object form.
> 
> Another mistake (which is not really a mistake but more a form of style, de tante-Betje-stijl, the auntie Beth-style) is the placing of the verb in first position after the conjunction 'en' (and), when that happens in the preceding clause as well. After 'en' starts a new main sentence so the verb should be placed second, but people keep the inversion order of the preceding clause (which happens for example when an adverb is placed in first position).
> 
> Example: _Toen ging hij naar binnen en kwam hij zijn moeder tegen._
> Then entered he and met he his mother =[Then entered he and he met his mother].
> 
> Personnally I think the 'wrong' sentence sounds better. I don't think it is wrong, because you omit the 'toen' in the second clause, so the inversion should be correct. Still we're told that this is bad Dutch.
> 
> Is this seen as a mistake in German, too?
> 
> Furthermore, people confuse similar looking words, they say i.a. 'huis*vestiging*' instead of 'huis*vesting*' (lodging, housing). A 'vestiging' is an establishment, a settlement.
> 
> And the funniest mistake I've ever heard (although it isn't proof of much brightness) : 'De aandeelhouder wint' (the shareholder wins) instead of 'De aanhouder wint' (The persevering person wins, which my dictionnary translates as: "it's dogged does it")


 
Again it makes me feel relieved that I am not the only one who makes this sort of mistakes in Dutch. It is always nice to be in the good company of the Dutch themselves . 


One thing people, whether foreigners or native speakers, constantly make mistakes with in English are articles! Sometimes they are completely unbearable. especially, the choice between "the" and nothing seems to be the main problem. Actually, articles seem to present difficulty for people whose mothertongues possess them too as well as for those whose languages do not. And I get baffled too after I write something in French, Italian, German where the rules for using articles may be different than in English.


----------



## jazyk

In Portuguese using lhe instead of o/a or te when the object should be direct, not indirect:

Eu lhe estimo muito (I esteem you greatly).
should be
Eu o/a/te estimo muito, since estimar doesn't require an indirect object.

This mistake seemed to be restricted to Northeastern Brazil but now it's just taking over the country. It seems to occur predominantly when the object is the person spoken to, not about. What annoys me mostly about it is that it seems to be used by fairly educated, not by your regular man in the street, which makes me ascribe it to hypercorrection.


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

ronanpoirier said:


> I don't know if you people do it, but I have the bad habit of correcting people when they say something wrong. Everybody hates (I can wonder why) when I do that and they simply love when I say something wrong (I justcan't say "enciclopédia"!).


I find it rude to correct someone. Here it's a different thing because we are all here to learn. 
I only correct non-native speakers. 

Anyway, if someone corrects me it won't bother me at all.


----------



## jazyk

I've heard some Portuguese people say things like:

Sintam-se em vossa casa
Literally: Feel ("youselves") in your house,

where you have sintam-se (from the verb sentir-se, to feel, conjugated in the third person plural) and vossa (second person plural). The sentence, strictly speaking, should be

Sintam-se em sua casa
or
Senti-vos em vossa casa.


----------



## Lykurg

> Most people say: _Hij is groter als mij - _should be: _Hij is groter dan ik_
> Translates as: He is bigger as me - He is bigger than I


Is "als" a normal Dutch word? Because in German the first version would be the correct one - so it might be influenced.


> tante-Betje-stijl
> Example: _Toen ging hij naar binnen en kwam hij zijn moeder tegen.
> _Then entered he and met he his mother =[Then entered he and he met his mother].
> 
> Personnally I think the 'wrong' sentence sounds better. I don't think it is wrong, because you omit the 'toen' in the second clause, so the inversion should be correct. Still we're told that this is bad Dutch.
> 
> Is this seen as a mistake in German, too?


It is not, in German it would be normal to omit the second pronoun, too. The German word order is different, too.


----------



## Whodunit

j3st3r said:


> As I said, there are countless other examples. Maybe another German speaker can give you some more.


 
Some other common mistakes:

Many Germans use the wrong case after the prepositions "wegen," "während," "trotz," and "laut." The genitive should follow, but many use the dative case.

Strong verbs often become weak:
_backen-backte-gebackt_ instead of _backen-buk-gebacken_
_rufen-rufte-geruft_ instead of _rufen-rief-gerufen_
_schieben-schiebte-geschiebt_ instead of _schieben-schob-geschoben_

Wrong past participle conjugations:
_gehießen/geheißt_ instead of _geheißen_
_geschalten_ instead of _geschaltet_
_gespalten_ instead of _gespaltet_

But as J3 said, there are countless examples.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Whodunit said:


> Some other common mistakes:
> 
> Many Germans use the wrong case after the prepositions "wegen," "während," "trotz," and "laut." The genitive should follow, but many use the dative case.
> 
> Strong verbs often become weak:
> _backen-backte-gebackt_ instead of _backen-buk-gebacken_
> _rufen-rufte-geruft_ instead of _rufen-rief-gerufen_
> _schieben-schiebte-geschiebt_ instead of _schieben-schob-geschoben_
> 
> Wrong past participle conjugations:
> _gehießen/geheißt_ instead of _geheißen_
> _geschalten_ instead of _geschaltet_
> _gespalten_ instead of _gespaltet_
> 
> But as J3 said, there are countless examples.


That`s probably already the transformation of the language which happens as the time goes by.


----------



## jazyk

I've learned backen - backte/buk (my Wahrig dictionary says the latter is archaic) - gebacken.

Once I said buk to my German boss (a 70-odd-year-old man), an extremely cultured person, and he said nobody used buk anymore, however correct it is.


----------



## moldo

Two mistakes, which are very often made in Dutch language by Dutch people. :

1. "leggen" in stead of "liggen" and "liggen" in stead of "leggen".

'leggen" means "to lay something down" (movement) and "liggen" means "to lie" (static) 

Correct is: De kip legt een ei. (The chicken lays an egg)
and: Ik lig op mijn bed. (I am laying on my bed) 

Wrong, but quite funny, is when somebody shouts to his dog: "Leg!"
(intending "down", but suggesting that his dog should lay an egg)

2. "kennen" in stead of "kunnen" and "kunnen" in stead "kennen".

"kennen" means "to know" and "kunnen" means "being able to".

Totally wrong, but again funny, is the following conversation:

Ken het dat ik u kan?
Ja, dat ken.

Right is:
Kan het dat ik u ken? (Is it possible that I know you?)
Ja, dat kan. (yes, that is possible)


----------



## Whodunit

jazyk said:


> I've learned backen - backte/buk (my Wahrig dictionary says the latter is archaic) - gebacken.
> 
> Once I said buk to my German boss (a 70-odd-year-old man), an extremely cultured person, and he said nobody used buk anymore, however correct it is.


 
You are right, but if you want to form the past subjunctive, you're supposed to use the "archaic" preterite form: buk->*büke*. "Backte" as a subjunctive doesn't sound right to me, but - as Setwale_Charm said - this is the transformation of language.


----------



## jazyk

I agree 200%.


----------



## Honour

Miss spelling of certain foreign origin words;
charge (battery): şarj - people say/write şarz 

exhaust (air outlet) : egzoz - people say/write a million different combinations eksoz, egsoz, egsos, egzost...  

Another mistake is the adding of the word <de> which means <also> to the end of preceding word. People get confused because <de> is also a frequently used suffix means <at> 

Again, there is a similar situation just like the one above.
<Ki> is conjunction used to establish logical relation between two clauses (main and supplementary) and it is a standalone word. 
However there is another <ki> which gives any name/object possessing relation. 
Benim=my, benim*ki*=mine, Steven'ın*ki= *Steven's.
Duydum* ki* gelmiş= I heard that s/he had come

All question tags/modifiers should be seperated.
Geldimi? 
Geldi *mi*?


----------



## Chazzwozzer

In addition to Turk,

Most common mistakes made by native speakers of Turkish:

Herkez
Herkes

Yanlız
Yalnız

Herşey, birşey, hiç birşey
Her şey, bir şey, hiçbir şey


----------



## optimistique

Lykurg said:


> Is "als" a normal Dutch word? Because in German the first version would be the correct one - so it might be influenced.



Yes it is. It is a confusing thing for us when we learn German (wie = als, als = dan). 
Zo groot als een beer = So gross wie ein Bär
Groter dan een beer = Grösser als ein Bär

In Dutch people make mistakes with the past tense of the strong verbs as well. I have heard numerous people use 'l_oopte_', '_roepte_' etc. instead of the correct '_liep_', '_riep_'.The perfect particle however is always done correctly in similar cases, lucikly!

Dutch do also make mistakes with the right forms of 'scheren'. There exists a strong version and a weak one, with different meanings. Same story for 'prijzen'. Weak 'prijzen' means 'to price', while strong 'prijzen' means 'to praise'. Someone proudly said: "Hij prijsde mij!' (He priced me), but I don't think that's what he actually meant. 

Personally, I always make mistakes with the right forms of 'bevelen'(to order): bevelen-beval-bevolen
  I always say 'hij beveelde' or 'zij bevolen' (after the perfect particle), while it should be 'hij beval' and 'zij bevalen', but the latter just sounds weird. I guess this is also part of language evolution.
Lately, a friend of mine looked wondered when I told him that: 'de wind woei' (the wind blew), for he only knew the weak form 'waaide'. He didn't even want to believe me!


----------



## chaya

PADREDEOCO

The 'whole world' does not say <dove> instead of <doved>, nor confuses <continuous> with <continual>  Not here in England anyway.  My pet hate is the use of <less> for <fewer> and the mis pronunciation  of <misproNUNciation> and the word <withdrawal> and derivatives which somehow find themselves with an extra 'r' in the middle : <withdrORal>


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Russians very often confuse женился and вышла замуж . Both mean to get married but the first is used in case of a man, means literally:he has acquired a wife', the second - of a woman: 'she has given herself to a husband'. Many many people say: женилась/вышел замуж - she has acquired a wife/he has given himself to a husband 
That might be OK in the case of gay couples and I have nothing against that, but it sounds funny when speaking of heterosexuals. I always ask:So is he getting on well with his husband? 

Also people confuse класть - положить Both mean "put down/lay down" but the first is an Imperfective Verb and the second is a perfective one. So "you put down" is - Ты кладешь; and "you have put down" is Ты положил/а. Of course, many people say exactly the opposite : Ты ложешь/Ты поклал 

The second is more common among less educated people, but the first one I have heard from many fairly well-educated persons.


----------



## optimistique

Setwale_Charm said:


> One thing people, whether foreigners or *native speakers, constantly make mistakes with in English are articles*! Sometimes they are completely unbearable. especially, the choice between "the" and nothing seems to be the main problem. Actually, articles seem to present difficulty for people whose mothertongues possess them too as well as for those whose languages do not. And I get baffled too after I write something in French, Italian, German where the rules for using articles may be different than in English.



Really? The native English speakers as well? And the English don't even have other articles to choose from!  I really can't imagine Dutch natives to make mistakes with article use, not even using the wrong article (except for some rare cases where there is general confusion).

One more regional Dutch mistake: where I live all the people say 'hij wilt' instead of 'hij wil' (he wants), as a generalisation of the rule that third person singular takes a '-t' after the stem.


----------



## avalon2004

Not everywhere, but some native Spanish speakers use "habían" (and sometimes spelt "havían") in the imperfect for "there were", when it should be "había" regardless of number.
--------------------------------------------------------------

One of the worst (or should I say best) places to hear "mistakes" in English is Liverpool. Even though I live on the outskirts of the city, I still find it very difficult to understand what people are saying at times! Admittedly, some of it is dialectal and I don't know if you should actually say they are "mistakes", just "non-standard".
An example of normal discourse would be:
_"Where *was yer*?"_
_"*We was *goin'town and like I *had took* *me *mates *down* the pub and youse lot *had went* off leavin' us on our bill. __You *should of come* back"

*Bold*= Non standard  Underlined= Dialectal
_


----------



## Stéphane89

_All french-speakers (including me) don't say 'ne' in the negation:_

*Elle me l'avait pas dit* instead of *Elle ne me l'avais pas dit *(She hadn't told me)

*Je savais pas* instead of *Je ne savais pas* (I didn't know)

_Some also have serious problems with subjunctive:_

*Je suis content que tu es venu* instead of *Je suis content que tu sois venu *(I'm happy that you've come)

*Il faut qu'il vient voir* ça instead of *Il faut qu'il vienne voir ça.* (He must come and se that)

I'm sorry but tese mistakes can't be translated in english.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

optimistique said:


> Really? The native English speakers as well? And the English don't even have other articles to choose from!  I really can't imagine Dutch natives to make mistakes with article use, not even using the wrong article (except for some rare cases where there is general confusion).
> 
> One more regional Dutch mistake: where I live all the people say 'hij wilt' instead of 'hij wil' (he wants), as a generalisation of the rule that third person singular takes a '-t' after the stem.


 

well, well, we have always know the Dutch to be particularly intelligent, no quarrel with that! However, let me tell you that *I *never make this mistake of using hij wilt for hij wil! Why wouldn`t the Dutch follow this marvellous example?  

 What I do make mistakes with is that I always forget whether it is:"ik ga" or "ik gaa". 
 And yes, it is true, apart from spelling mistakes, I suppose, the articles are the greatest stumbling block for native speakers of English as well.


----------



## optimistique

Setwale_Charm said:


> well, well, we have always know the Dutch to be particularly intelligent, no quarrel with that! However, let me tell you that *I *never make this mistake of using hij wilt for hij wil! Why wouldn`t the Dutch follow this marvellous example?



lol (= no chat-language, but a perfectly normal Dutch word!  ). I never make this mistake either! Just about 80% of the people around me.



Setwale_Charm said:


> What I do make mistakes with is that I always forget whether it is:"ik ga" or "ik gaa".



Useful hint: never two same vowels at the end of a word (with the exception of 'ee' if it is the stressed syllable). So 'ik gaa' is not possible, you'll never find two a's at the end of a word. But if this is all you're making mistakes with... I'd wish I'd speak as many languages well as you seem to do!


----------



## AnaGreece

I have to say that in the south of Spain (Andalucía) we use a lot of expressions like baja pa' abajo, sube pa' arriba, entra pa' dentro or lo ví con mis propios ojos..and I was surprised you also use them in portuguese, but i have to say that I really like these expressions and they just put enfasis on what you're saying.. or do we always have to speak as we write????? it's just a way of talking!!!


----------



## Tisia

I have a Finnish friend whose mother tongue is Finnish. He keeps saying "sen pystyy tehdä" while he should say "sen pystyy tekemään",which means "....it can be done...". Every time I remind him: "...pystyy tekemään..", he just laughs and never cares about correcting it. He knows it is grammatically and formally wrong.

Regards
Tisia


----------



## sound shift

1.) (In speech):
It's a more faster car 
It's a faster car 

2.) Come and see York Minster in all it's glory 
......................................... in all its glory 

3.) Cheapest prices in town 
Lowest prices in town 

4.) Rice will meet with community leaders 
Rice will meet community leaders 

5.) (Often seen in local newspapers):
The range of models available are very wide - Wrong
The range of models available is very wide - Right

6.) I wouldn't have liked to have sat through that - Wrong
I wouldn't have liked to sit through that - Right

7.) TV football commentators note:
United are in the ascendancy - Wrong
United are in the ascendant - Right

8.) He gave full reign to his feelings - Wrong
He gave full rein to his feelings - Right

9.) The Midlands biggest furniture warehouse - Wrong
The Midland's biggest furniture warehouse - Wrong
The Midlands' biggest furniture warehouse - Right


Call me a pedant if you like!


----------



## Setwale_Charm

sound shift said:


> Call me a pedant if you like!


  We will!  
 Here is one mistake I personally often make, am not sure whether this is generally widespread.
 That is basing the spelling of "pronunciation" on the word "pronounce", so it becomes "pronounciation". 
 also I always stumble over the spelling of 'actively", "publicly". E or no E in the first case. I have seen other people do it as well.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Here are some common mistakes that Russians make: 
One often hears: _Посетители прослушали объявление_.
*The correct way of putting it is:* _Посетители выслушали объявление._

_Информация по двум тысячам учебн*ых* заведен*ий*._
_*Should be:* информация по двум тысячам учебн*ым* заведени*ям*.

One also often hears people say and write: Преце*н*дент whereas the correct spelling is: прецедент 


_


----------



## sound shift

Two more mistakes often seen/heard in the UK:

1.) Temperatures are expected to be between fifteen to twenty degrees 
.................................................. between fifteen *and* twenty degrees 

2.) There's a chance that you might get lucky 
There's a chance that you'll get lucky 
You might get lucky


----------



## Chazzwozzer

I'm not a native speaker of English but I know so many mistakes done by my native friends. Since nobody has mentioned about them, I wanted to tell some of those and see if Americans would agree with me or not.

 Aren't these such common mistakes in American English?

I could care less.
I can care less.
I can't care less.
I couldn't care less.
(e.g. "I couldn't care less about spelling!")

Should of, could of, would of
Should have,  could have, would have, 
(I think many people hear _'ve_ like _of_, so that's why they get it wrong.)

carrot on a stick
carrot or stick


----------



## padredeocho

Technically, I agree for the most part.  

Here is the one that baffles me:  I am *head over heels* in love.
When I hear this I think, "Well, look at me, I am head over heels, too!  In fact, we all are!"

All the RED CHECKED sentences above are really just fine for ordinary use.  However, I'd suggest you not write them if you are targeting a better educated audience.  However, in every-day speech, those would really be just fine.  

By the way, I am head over heels in love with casually speaking, and a loose regard for rules.   The goal:  speak to be UNDERSTOOD, and listen to UNDERSTAND.   As I learned in Pirates of the Carribean, Rules are really more like GUIDELINES.


----------



## Lugubert

There are two extremes.

One is "He's a native speaker of X, and he says this; thus it is correct in language X."

The other one is more like "In language X, we've said it this way for _n_00 years, and it shouldn't be changed."

For English, though, I agree that _it's_ for _its_ (or the other way round) is WRONG (excuse the shouting). Such errors could lead to misunderstandings. The Dutch als/dan would in comparison seem to be a minor fault, perhaps even just an evolvement of the language.

For Swedish, using _han_ instead of _honom_ as the object case of 'he' is mostly regarded as rural or uneducated: _Jag slog han_ 'I hit him' instead of _Jag slog honom_. *But* if the person who makes that substitution is consistent in using western Swedish features, like inflecting for gender (see next para.), I defend him/her, pointing at that the old dative really was _han_.

I'm rather anal about writing _Kär*e* Johan_ 'dear John' and _Kär*a* Märta_ 'dear Martha'. Your average eastern Swede wouldn't understand the difference even when s-p-e-l-l-e-d out.

Please also consider Hartman's Law of Prescriptivist Retaliation (thanks to languagelog).


----------



## avalon2004

I hear so many people saying "there is/was" in English when it should be plural:
there*'s* so many people --> there *are* so many people
And I agree with the double negative comment, I really cannot stand it. *I don't know nothing *means they _do_ know something!


----------



## padredeocho

What it means does NOT depend on formalistic rule of logic.  In Spanish, No hay nadie literally means No there is nobody, and translates as, Nobody is home.  The double negative of no and nobody don't change that.   Aren't I makes no sense logically (I is singular and ARE is plural), but we all understand it, and nobody says Amn't I any more.


----------



## HUMBERT0

AnaGreece said:


> I have to say that in the south of Spain (Andalucía) we use a lot of expressions like baja pa' abajo, sube pa' arriba, entra pa' dentro or lo ví con mis propios ojos..and I was surprised you also use them in portuguese, but i have to say that I really like these expressions and they just put enfasis on what you're saying.. or do we always have to speak as we write????? it's just a way of talking!!!


We also use these expressions in Mexico in colloquial speech, as you say, just put enfasis on what you're saying.


----------



## Coyoacan

I have to say I agree with padredeocho.  Unfortunately I have to say, in a after-thought way, since, to be honest, I have always been the kind that corrects people left and right since some of the things I hear in Spanish all the time are so annoying to hear over and over again!

It is safe to say, though, that I have gotten a little better at not correcting people *every single time and place*, because there is always "a bigger fish out there" and when it has been my turn to be in the "hot seat" it just ain't that funny, I just don't appreciate it as much, even if I am committing the worst of grammatical/sintactical sins...

Just to end my comment, I'd like to add, that one thing is the salt of the earth, the meek and humble _(who also need loving correction, after all why are we learning all these rules and proper ways of speaking and preserving some sense of correcteness to the language if we're not going to pass them on to those that need them?)_ and yes, QUITE ANOTHER are the fancy-pants so-called-pros who are always in the forefront and who's business is speaking and doing so in the most appropriate manner (and even the most fashionable manner some might add) but then I am hit with the thought:  Even when it comes to the "professionals", they can also use a little break from us.  A saying in Mexican Spanish says:  *"al buen entendedor, pocas palabras"* which means *"you need to dispense but a few words to he who is a good listener/learner"* and sometimes hitting them concisely and quickly to the point, not building on the myriads of reasons, ethymological roots, blah, blah, blah.. even the "professionals" will be more than eager to be corrected and thus improve from their previous mistakes.

Conclusion: *Correct, but don't over-correct.  Chill out; remember languages are almost like living entities that constantly change... Then be nice when **correct**ing: people appreciate it more (AND LEARN MORE) that way!*

_ps: thanks for a good subject to discuss and to learn from, ronanpoirier!_


----------



## elroy

Arabic is unique as far as languages go because we have the colloquial-standard dichotomy alluded to earlier in this thread.  As a rule, we do not use standard Arabic in speech, except in very formal contexts.  Because colloquial Arabic is literally "the language of the people," "the common language," anything that enough native speakers say is correct by definition.  That said, there are very few, if any, divergences from colloquial Arabic _among native speakers_.  For all intents and purposes, there is no such thing as a "mistake" made by a native speaker in colloquial Arabic.

Standard Arabic is a whole another ballgame.  Because there are strict, inflexible rules - as in other languages - and because we don't speak standard Arabic very frequently, there are many common errors.  These are not as egregious, however, as their counterparts in other languages, because we don't use standard Arabic in everyday speech and because many people - even the most educated - make at least a mistake or two.  Indeed, perfectly and completely flawless standard Arabic is a rare find.


----------



## Kenya

I think in all languages, native speakers don't make mistakes, unless they're not adhering to the formality level called for in a specific situation. For instance, it's perfectly correct in some varieties of colloquial English to say 
"Me and him went to the store," but in more formal varieties the correct form is "He and I went to the store." 

I mean, that's what language is. It's native speakers communicating with each other. How can they make mistakes?


----------



## Ilmo

Tisia said:


> I have a Finnish friend whose mother tongue is Finnish. He keeps saying "sen pystyy tehdä" while he should say "sen pystyy tekemään",which means "....it can be done...". Every time I remind him: "...pystyy tekemään..", he just laughs and never cares about correcting it. He knows it is grammatically and formally wrong.
> 
> Regards
> Tisia


 
Your friend apparently mixes two verbs, "voida" and "pystyä". It is correct to say "sen voi tehdä", but when you are using the latter verb, you must choose the long infinitive "tekemään". The meaning is in both cases the same.
There is a similar still more common error with the verb meaning "to begin", in Finnish "*alkaa*". The correct way to say "he begins to do" is "*hän alkaa tehdä*", that is, using the short infinitive, but folks are often saying "hän alkaa tekemään", because there is another verb "ruveta" meaning also "to begin" and with it you have to use the long infinitive "tekemään", that is "*hän rupeaa tekemään*".


----------



## avalon2004

The most common mistake made by native Greek speakers is putting the accents on the wrong letters or omitting them all together in some cases (all words with 2+ syllables have an accent written on the stressed syllable). Plus I have also noticed that there is frequent confusion over spelling, which is probably due to the orthographical changes that were made in the early 1980s.


----------



## Cosol

In italian I think the most common mistake is _é _instead of _è_(is), but a few people know the difference. They usually write a hateful ĕ when they are not using a computer.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Kenya said:


> It's native speakers communicating with each other. *How can they make mistakes?*



Easily: if you say "I gone to the cinema", that's a mistake, whether you're a native English speaker or not, whether you say it to your brother or to  president Bush.
It can be acceptable in a very informal context, yet a mistake.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

What strikes me with a lot of these errors is that they're often homophones that are confused.

One example from English:

1) *You should** of told me*, instead of
2) *You should**'ve told me*

For me as a non-native English speaker, that mistake is very weird, since 'should of' means 'skulle av' in Norwegian (versus 'skulle ha'), and that's something I could never have said. 
For natives, however, the two sound very similar, and it's an understandable mistake.

One of the most common mistakes made by Norwegians is the *og/å* thing. *Og* is a conjunction and means _and_, while *å* is an infinitive mark, similar to the English _to_:

3) *Å** være eller ikke være*
4) *To** be or not to be*

Because they're pronounced exactly the same (like the 'o' in 'come') (though interestingly, there are some people, my religion teacher in high school among them, who 'overpronounce' the 'g' in 'og' - _however_, they usually do it when you're supposed to use 'å' and not 'og'. Very weird, but that's apparently the way it is, according to linguists) , a lot of people have trouble with them:

5) *Jeg skal lære meg spansk** å fransk*  
Literally: I'm going to learn Spanish _to_ French
6) *Jeg har lyst til** og lære meg russisk* 
Literally: I want _and_ learn Russian

Another thing that's getting more and more common is _orddeling_ or _særskriving_ - splitting compound words. There are some humorous examples, like:

7) *Røyk fritt* (smoke freely) instead of *røykfritt* (no smoking (lit. free of smoke))
8) *Ananas biter* (ananas bites (verb)) instead of *ananasbiter* (ananas chunks, bites (noun))[/QUOTE]


----------



## Ilmo

My compatriots very often commit the mistake of using the verb in plural, if the name of an institution or corresponding seems to be in plural - though, of course, an institution is always a singular institution, despite of its name. In Finnish we call our "army" *Puolustusvoimat*, The Defense Forces, but despite of it, according to the grammar we have to say *Puolustusvoimat suorittaa...* in singular, that is, The Defense Forces* is* executing...
I found out that a corresponding mistake is quite common also in the English speaking world. The United Nations is one institution, the United States is, despite of its name, only one state. Thus, you ought to use the verb always in the singular form. However, my "research" by Google showed clearly, that there are other opinions.
"United Nations has" - 788 000 hits
"United Nations have" - 268 000 hits
"United States has" - 1 920 000 hits
"United States have" - 1 360 000 hits *)
"United States decides" - 40 800 hits
"U/nited States decide" - 13 000 hits

*) This number includes also cases like "China and the United States have", which can explain the relatively high number of those "have" hits.

How it is in other languages, are there a similar rules and are they broken regularly, like above?


----------



## cyanista

Setwale_Charm said:


> Here are some common mistakes that Russians make:
> One often hears: _Посетители прослушали объявление_.
> *The correct way of putting it is:* _Посетители выслушали объявление. The meaning is slightly different. (C.)_
> _Информация по двум тысячам учебн*ых* заведен*ий*. _
> _*Should be:* информация по двум тысячам учебн*ым* заведени*ям*.
> 
> _




I've just read your post, Setwale, and I'm sorry to say you've been misinformed or misled. 
1) _Прослушать_ has two meanings, to listen to something AND to miss what was said. 
2) A noun after a numeral takes the Genitive, so only the first sentence is correct.

Shall we discuss it further in the Slavic forum?


----------



## optimistique

Another highly irritating mistake by Dutch native speakers is:

_ik ben de enig*ste* (I am the onliest one)

_instead of:

_ik ben de enige_ (I am the only one)

What 'enigste' really means is "the most adorable" (so in fact they say: _I am the most adorable one_), but very few seem to be aware of that.


Ilmo, in Dutch it is the other way around. De Verenigde Staten (The United States) is a noun in plural, so you ought to use the verb in plural, but most people (including me) use a singular verb infliction:

De Verenigde Staten is een groot land - The United States is a big country.


----------



## ireney

Quite a few in Greek but the one I hate more can be translated as "Can you re-say again?" I mean yes, if you are asking someone to repeat something for the third time it could have some logic to have both "re-" and "again". But when just asking someone to repeat something I just want to scream "don't you see that "re" there?".

And it's worse in Greek since the prefix re- is "xana-" which is also used by itself "xana" meaning "again"


----------



## spakh

There are many of them in Turkish.
yunus balığı  means dolphin fish, it's such a stupid mistake as dolphin is a mammal. it should be just yunus
ÖSS sınavı   ÖSS stands for öğrenci seçme SINAVI (the exam for entrance to universities, which I'll sit) so sınavı is needless. it should be just ÖSS.
iade etmek means to give back. but people add geri (back), so it becomes geri iade etmek, sth like give back back. wrong it should be iade etmek
......


----------



## Setwale_Charm

cyanista said:


> I've just read your post, Setwale, and I'm sorry to say you've been misinformed or misled.
> 1) _Прослушать_ has two meanings, to listen to something AND to miss what was said.
> 2) A noun after a numeral takes the Genitive, so only the first sentence is correct.
> 
> Shall we discuss it further in the Slavic forum?


 
I have found this explanation in some grammar book. Sorry, I cannot argue with gramarrians, of course. I just had to take it for granted.


----------



## cyanista

Setwale_Charm said:


> I have found this explanation in some grammar book. Sorry, I cannot argue with gramarrians, of course. I just had to take it for granted.



This grammar book should be burned!  I'm opening a new thread to settle all doubts.


----------



## olivinha

sound shift said:


> 1.) (In speech):
> 
> 
> 4.) Rice will meet with community leaders
> Rice will meet community leaders
> 
> Call me a pedant if you like!


 
Uh-oh... I always say "meet with". My boss always wants to meet with me! 
But I think in the US it's accepted, meaning, say, to have a meeting with someone, right?

No, I wouldn't call you a pedant.
O


----------



## samanthalee

sound shift said:


> 4.) Rice will meet with community leaders
> Rice will meet community leaders





olivinha said:


> Uh-oh... I always say "meet with". My boss always wants to meet with me!
> But I think in the US it's accepted, meaning, say, to have a meeting with someone, right?
> 
> No, I wouldn't call you a pedant.
> O


 
It is definitely much more efficient to say
"Rice will meet with community leaders" 
than to say 
"Rice will have a meeting with community leaders".

The alternative of saying "Rice will meet community leaders" doesn't convey the right meaning. She is not meeting them for a friendly drink, she is having a meeting with them.


----------



## Imants

I don't see how someone could make a mistake in his/her native language.
After all (s)he's a native speaker.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Imants said:


> I don't see how someone could make a mistake in his/her native language.
> After all (s)he's a native speaker.


 
Oh easily!! The fact that he is a native speaker does not in the least mean that he is an educated native speaker!


----------



## Imants

Setwale_Charm said:


> Oh easily!! The fact that he is a native speaker does not in the least mean that he is an educated native speaker!


(S)he may perhaps show certain features that deviate from the standard (written) language, but I wouldn't see them as mistakes. After all, _them _native speakers "own" the language, don't they?


----------



## Kangy

I hate it when people write *haber* instead of *a ver*.

The first one means "(there) to be", as in "there is..." or "there are..."
The second one is a construction which means something like "Let's see..."

They're pronounced exactly the same, so that's why people mistake them.
But it's really infuriating!


----------



## Imants

Kangy said:


> But it's really infuriating!



Don't forget that not all of us are language geniuses (or genii).
Every person has his/her field(s) where (s)he's good at.
I know people excellently educated in other areas who make spelling mistakes. This doesn't justify their doing it, but I wish we were more understanding sometimes.


----------



## Kangy

^ Yes, of course, I know that.
I don't hate people who make mistakes, I hate people who don't care about trying to fix them.


----------



## uchi.m

Kangy said:


> I hate it when people write *haber* instead of *a ver*.



We have the same in Portuguese. I have often read _nada haver_ where it was supposed to be _nada a ver_ [Eng. _nothing to do with it_.]

There is another terrible, bad writing example that came into my mind now: _concerteza_ instead of _com certeza_ [Eng. _certainly_].


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Imants said:


> (S)he may perhaps show certain features that deviate from the standard (written) language, but I wouldn't see them as mistakes. After all, _them _native speakers "own" the language, don't they?


 
Well, not really. Have you never heard children speak or seen their school composition? They make more mistakes than an average foreigner sometimes At least, in Britain they do. And many carry it on with them into adulthood unless properly trained to correct such. And whenever I hear compliments from Germans about my German by the way, I am often told that my spelling is more educated than that of many Germans


----------



## kittykate

A very common mistake native Italian speakers make is to use a conditional tense where a subjunctive is needed, as in

_Se andrei_ 
instead of 
_Se andassi_

It certainly has to do with schooling but also with sloppy speech -- and you hear (and read ) it so frequently that you may even end up wondering if it's not _you_ the one who's getting it wrong...

caterina


----------



## avok

Some of the (common) mistakes I see among English speakers are:

. writing " use to" instead of "used to" 

. "...and me" instead of "... and I " 

. "anyways" instead of "anyway" and "then" instead of "than" etc


----------



## Kangy

kittykate said:


> A very common mistake native Italian speakers make is to use a conditional tense where a subjunctive is needed, as in
> 
> _Se andrei_
> instead of
> _Se andassi_
> 
> It certainly has to do with schooling but also with sloppy speech -- and you hear (and read ) it so frequently that you may even end up wondering if it's not _you_ the one who's getting it wrong...
> 
> caterina



Same in Spanish!

Many people make the mistake of using the conditional when they should use the subjunctive, in conditional phrases:

"If *I had* time, I would watch a film"

-Si *tendría* tiempo, miraría una película 
-Si *tuviera* tiempo, miraría una película


----------



## rygi

It is slightly arrogant for a non-native speaker to point out mistakes of native ones  The irritating examples I often see are:
they're (or spelled without an apostrophe) instead of their 
who's instead of whose / and vice versa


----------



## JamesM

sound shift said:


> 1.) (In speech):
> 
> 4.) Rice will meet with community leaders
> Rice will meet community leaders


 
I'm afraid the Cambridge dictionary disagrees with you. "Meet with" is a valid phrasal verb, different from the verb "meet."

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/assets/pvwksheets.pdf

8 Some common fixed expressions are highlighted in bold in the dictionary. Which words do you think can be used with the phrasal verbs below to make fixed expressions?

1 meet with

Here's an interesting BBC article on the topic:

http://educacao.uol.com.br/ingles-bbc/grammar/grammar03.jhtm


----------



## Imants

Setwale_Charm said:


> Well, not really. Have you never heard children speak or seen their school composition? They make more mistakes than an average foreigner sometimes At least, in Britain they do. And many carry it on with them into adulthood unless properly trained to correct such. And whenever I hear compliments from Germans about my German by the way, I am often told that my spelling is more educated than that of many Germans


I think it's important to separate standard written language and spoken vernacular.

Isn't it ironic that once a language is standardized, native speakers can suddenly make mistakes?

Nobody criticized the way people spoke Vulgar Latin until it was standardized into the various modern Romance languages.


----------



## Flaminius

Imants said:


> I think it's important to separate standard written language and spoken vernacular.
> 
> Isn't it ironic that once a language is standardized, native speakers can suddenly make mistakes?
> 
> Nobody criticized the way people spoke Vulgar Latin until it was standardized into the various modern Romance languages.


Standardisation is just a small part of grammatical rules that utterances are judged against whether they are correct or not.  Native speakers make slips of the tongue, get caught in complicated structures while putting into words convoluted ideas, catch themselves when mistaken and correct themselves while the conversation is still going on.

I realise one common mistake in English is to say "to not" instead of "not to."  Or is this construction so widespread by now that it is no longer considered a mistake?


----------



## sokol

Flaminius said:


> I realise one common mistake in English is to say "to not" instead of "not to."  Or is this construction so widespread by now that it is no longer considered a mistake?



This is an interesting point, but I can't give an answer to that one - only one to a related 'native speakers error':

It is extremely common for Brits to say (and even write, already): "I'll try *and *fix it."*) - Meaning, of course, "I'll try *to *fix it."
*) I am not absolutely confident if this example is a good one, idiomatically. If not, please correct me. ;-)

This construction now is used so casual even by educated speakers (e. g. on BBC) that I don't think this still would be considered incorrect by the British.


----------



## NaHe

Oh my goodness, you have hit on a subject that at times drives me crazy! I will list a couple of things that jump out at me either in written or spoken form.
As an example, when someone is speaking about someone else, they will say:
"He is the guy that lost my tool kit." 
What's wrong with that sentence? Well, I will rewrite it correctly, then explain my thinking.
"He is the guy *who* lost my tool kit."
The guy is a "person," not a "thing." Therefore, you should say "who" instead of "that." I find this irritating mistake constantly in nearly every print source I read. It REALLY jumps out at me when I hear a pro news reporter say or see them write it! AARRGGHH!!!! 
Ready for another one? The incorrect interchanging of the 2 words "then" and "than."
"I would rather have a Coke then a Pepsi."
"I would rather have a Coke *than* a Pepsi."
Now, if you're talking about drinking one "then" the other, the 1st version is correct. But if you are choosing one over the other (the actual meaning of my example), the 2nd version is correct.
"There are better writers around then myself."
"There are better writers around *than* myself."
Ok, get it?.....drives me nuts!
As long as I'm on a roll......
"I don't think your going to win this argument."
"I don't think *you're* going to win this argument."
And, one of my favorites.......
"I could care less if my car is dirty when going on a date."
"I *couldn't* care less if my car is dirty when going on a date."
Try this on for size....is this a 25 year old 7th grader speaking?
"Hey, there's the guy that stole my tool kit. But it's ok, because I would rather have a Craftsman then a WalMart kit. Considering there are better mechanics out there then I, I could care less whether your going to argue with me about the quality differences!"
"Hey, there's the guy *who* stole my tool kit. But it's ok, because I would rather have a Craftsman *than* a WalMart kit. Considering there are better mechanics out there *than* I, I *couldn't* care less whether *you're* going to argue with me about the quality differences!"
So, there you have about 1/100 of 1% of the mistakes that bother me.....made by native English-speaking persons.
Now, if someone would be so kind as to correct the mistakes I made here? Aw, nevermind, I could care less! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Tim


----------



## jester.

Flaminius said:


> I realise one common mistake in English is to say "to not" instead of "not to."  Or is this construction so widespread by now that it is no longer considered a mistake?




I think this is not a mistake but a valid construction used in different circumstances thant "not to". I am not proficient with this distinction though, so it might be best if you had a look at the English Only Forum, where I remember there was a discussion about that distinction.


----------



## Zsanna

And now, to the wide interest of the crowd that wants to hear about common mistakes made in Hungarian.  Here are some of my "favourites":

- mixing up the suffixes -nák (*they would* do sg) /-nék (*I would* do sg)
Who would believe that a native speaker could possibly say
_They would go_ when he means to say _I would go_?
(People who don't believe that native speakers can make mistakes, it's your turn to explain this! )

- same thing with -ba, -be (*into*) /-ban, -ben (*in*)
You live *in* / **into* a nice town. 
Not the same thing in Hungarian either, but at least there is the (feeble) explanation of "lazy speaking": some just can't be bothered to pronouce the final "n".

- one example vocabulary-wise:
We have some synonyms for "all/every" (mind/en, összes, egytől-egyig, etc.) however, according to the latest mediatic craze, we have to forget about all of them because there is one that is used exclusively. The incriminated word is *valamennyi*. 
If you ask an average Hungarian what this word means, he'll automatically say: _some_ (= a certain quantity). (Cf. not exactly _all_/_every_!)
Not the news commentator, though! OK, he would not be totally wrong. It is true that if you give a special stress to this word, it does mean "all", as well. 
I don't understand the logic, though: they use exclusively (so not as a synonym) a word that does not mean what they want to say in a normal tone of voice so they have to concentrate on saying it with a special effort. It seems to me that it's just another silly "fashion" in language. (That'll hopefully die out after a while.)

And about previous posts

in general:
My favourite mistake (probably not a very widespread one, though) in English and by a native speaker was: *Thank you very much*ly*!
(If a foreigner said a thing like that he would be hung and quatered... )

in particular:
*Ilmo*, we also have the same problem about the noun in the Plural meaning a singular thing still the verb is put in the plural. And in Hungarian without the possible "loophole" (like in English) that you mean either the "body of..." (Sing.) or the "individuals that compose it" (Pl.).
(Ever since the changes a lot of mistakes have appeared in our language you could never see before - this is one of them.)


----------



## sokol

Zsanna said:


> (...) in general:
> My favourite mistake (probably not a very widespread one, though) in English and by a native speaker was: *Thank you very much*ly*!
> (If a foreigner said a thing like that he would be hung and quatered... ) (...)


That reminds me ...  ... of:
Some BBC series (don't remember which one) where a construction similar to "... and he spoke thus*ly* ..." was made a running gag. Enjoyed it very much, still do. Even use it sometimes for fun when writing English myself.


----------



## Nanon

Native French speakers, at least in France (I won't speak for other countries here) make plenty of mistakes. I mean _mistakes_, not using a "spoken" abridged form like dropping a double negation or something of that sort.

In speech, you can find false _liaisons_ (a related thread from the French forum here). One pronounces the final consonant before a vowel when it should not be prononounced, and does not when it should. The word can even be pronounced with a totally different consonant.

An example: 20 € should read "vingt euros", the t is pronounced. But some native speakers add a plural to the numeral and say  "*vingts euros" with a [z]. To stay away from this dilemma, other native speakers do not pronounce _any_ consonant, but not all speakers agree on this variant.

It is particularly irritating to hear these mistakes on radio and TV, where you expect speakers to provide "models" of standard speech.

Errors with agreement of past participles are common. Even natives suffer, not only learners.
Children have a hard time learning which auxiliary to use in compound tenses. 
Spelling mistakes in general are also very common. The French have to plea guilty for the complexity of (a part of) the English spelling, but they have spelling nightmares of their own too. At least there is some justice in this world, eh?


----------



## su_

It would be easier if I wrote down the correct structures/ words.. (sad but true)
Anyway here are some common mistakes vocabularywise:

herkes-everbody (correct) 
herkez (incorrect)

yalnız-alone (correct)
yanlız (incorrect)

yanlış-wrong (correct),
yalnış (incorrect)

sonra-later (correct)
sorna (incorrect)

There are also many many subject verb agreement mistakes, esp. when they are asked about their opinions on something, such as a tv interview. 
Also extreme use of cliches in similar situations (interview or talk shows), I exempt sophistaced and well-educated people, of course. I am talking about the layman. I watch BBC, CNN and German tv. there, at least in BBC, ordinary people do not make so many mistakes when they are asked about something. And their range of vocabulary is quite high.


----------



## Kadarka

Zsanna said:


> - mixing up the suffixes -nák (*they would* do sg) /-nék (*I would* do sg)
> Who would believe that a native speaker could possibly say
> _They would go_ when he means to say _I would go_?
> (People who don't believe that native speakers can make mistakes, it's your turn to explain this! )



I fully agree with you that maybe this is one of the most common  mistakes Hungarians make, even educated people sometimes. And even it is just a vowel, it literally hurts the ear!
The explanation could be that people mess up the suffixes of the two verb conjugations: _alanyi_ (indefinite or intransitive) and _tárgyas _(definite or transitive).

I would do sg.                     _Csinál*nék* valamit._
I would do that.                _ Azt csinál_*nám.

*In between goes "_csinál*nák*_" which just happens to be the same as the 3rd person of Plural (definite conj.): They would do that.   _ Azt csinál*nák.

*_Somewhat similar is the case with the conjugation of the irregular verbs ending in *-ik *(_eszik, iszik_ etc.)

A regular verb: _csinál _(=does)
I am doing sg.      _Csinál*ok* valamit._
I am doing that.    _Azt csinál_*om.

*However: *eszik *(=eats)
I am eating sg. _Esz*em* (!) valamit.             _
I am eating that.    _Azt esz*em.*_

Many people say: _Esz*ek* valamit._ which is *incorrect*!

Another common mistake concerns the use of the interrogative word _*-e*_.
It is used when a yes-or-no question is in reported speech and the _*-e *_must be attached to the verb (or the predicate of the sentence). 

He asks if we have seen this man.
_Azt kérdezi, nem láttuk*-e *ezt a férfit_. (_láttuk_=we have seen)

Often heard but *wrong:*
_Azt kérdezi, *nem*_*-e*_ láttuk ezt a férfit_.

Minor differences but awful mistakes from a native speaker...


----------



## Zsanna

Welcome to the Forum, Kadarka! 

I mentioned the mistake with -*nák*/-*nék* because it may stand out better for non-Hungarian speakers (and especially for those who claimed that native speakers _cannot_ make mistakes!). 
After all, one could expect that a native speaker should be able to decide whether he means to say "I would do" or "they would do". 

It is interesting though that even those who make that mistake, mix up the conjugation only in the 1st pers. Sing. (I.e. they would use the 3rd pers. Plural happily both in the 1st pers. Sing. - mistakenly - and the 3rd. pers. Pl. - rightly.)


----------



## Orreaga

Zsanna said:


> My favourite mistake (probably not a very widespread one, though) in English and by a native speaker was: *Thank you very much*ly*!
> (If a foreigner said a thing like that he would be hung and quatered... )


 
Hi Zsanna!  This does not seem like a mistake to me, but rather the result of someone playing deliberately with the language. It's difficult to believe a person would say or write this by accident. Of course we have "Thank you very kindly" and "Thank you very much", but a person wanting to be cute or silly could combine them into "Thank you very muchly."  (And of course a foreigner would be _hanged_... )


----------



## filoutjie

I learned: lie  lied  lied  (telling a lie)
              lie  lay   lain  (to lie down)
              lay laid  laid  (to lay the table, to lay an egg)
This is how we used it in South Africa. When I came to Australia, I heard people saying "I'm tired, I'm going to lay down".  I thought it was a mistake, but a teacher told me that is what they learn at school.

I think people have been told so many times that you should say "He and I went." instead of "Me and him went" that they tend to use "he" and "I" when  they shouldn't. I have heard people (even newsreaders) say something like: "Give the papers to Mr Brown or I."  They would never say:"Give the papers to I".

Dutch and Afrikaans could get confusing because they are close but also different. In Afrikaans, "enige" means "any" and "enigste" means "only": "Het jy *enige* geld? Die *enigste* geld wat ek het is 'n vyftig Rand noot." (Do you have *any* money? The *only* money I have is a fifty Rand note.)


----------



## xecole

> lie  lied  lied  (telling a lie)
> lie  lay   lain  (to lie down)
> lay laid  laid


Any native speaker, excepting teachers of English (& even some of them), will have trouble  telling you the parts of the less common irregular verbs.  I take my hat off to anyone who gets 10 out of 10 on his first attempt on the special level at verbbusters.
The 'mistake' which annoys me the most, because I keep seeing it on the BBC World Service, where they are supposed to be in control of their language, is the use of _is yet to_ instead of _has yet to _as in 





> The prime minister is yet to comment on the matter.


----------



## Outsider

Instead of saying, for example:

"Albert Einstein was one of the physicists who *were awarded* with the Nobel prize."
or
"She is one of those odd people who *don't like* reality shows."​many people in Portugal will say:

"Albert Einstein was one of the physicists who *was awarded* with the Nobel prize."
or
"She is one of those odd people who *doesn't like* reality shows."​Even people in the media frequently make this mistake in speech and in writing. It's one of those that annoys annoy me to no end. I wonder if this is common in other languages, too.


----------



## VivaReggaeton88

Spanish:

Adonde fuiste*s *ayer?
-should be fuist*e*

Espero que te ha*ig*as divertido.
-should be ha*y*as.

Also, a *lot* of natives cannot spell!


----------



## MarX

VivaReggaeton88 said:


> Spanish:
> 
> Adonde fuiste*s *ayer?
> -should be fuist*e*


This was dealt with in many threads.
In the case of *vos*, "fuiste*s*" is historically the more correct version.


----------



## Kangy

MarX said:


> This was dealt with in many threads.
> In the case of *vos*, "fuiste*s*" is historically the more correct version.


Of course not! It's vulgar! O_O


----------



## mallujulia

In Spanish we also have a lot of typical mistakes. Most of them are just regional, and are only used in some regions of Spain. Some are so frequent that I think they will be soon accepted. 
1. For example I'm from La Rioja and we use the conditional instead of the subjunctive 
We say Si yo sería rica me compraría una casa más grande ( If I would be richer I would buy a bigger house)
2. We use some verbs as reflessive when we shouldn't. 
For example. Yo me vivo en Londres. Mi hijo ya se anda. Me he engordado 3 kilos. 
3. Another typical mistake is leismo/laismo ( when we use the Direct object pronoun instead of the indirect object and the other way around. 
For example . Ayer ví a Margarita y la dije que era mi cumpleaños ( it should be 'le dije' )
¿Dónde está el caramelo? Me le comí yo ayer ( It should be 'me lo' )
4.Some people use the irregular adverbs, verbs as if they were regular.
For example. 
Lo hice malamente ( it should be ' lo hice mal') As if you said goodly instead of well, or fastly instead of fast.
Ayer andé muchísimo ( it should be 'anduve') I think a lot of people accept both forms although I don't know if 'ande' is accepted by RAE. 
5. We also tend to use 'de' behind some verbs when  we mustn't do it. 
For example. Pienso de que eres muy guapa.

I could be writing examples for hours but I think that's enough. If you need more examples, don't hesitate to ask.


----------



## MarX

Kangy said:


> Of course not! It's vulgar! O_O


I said historically. Now it has become vulgar even in some countries where *voseo* is otherwise accepted. I reckon there are threads talking about this.


----------



## MarX

mallujulia said:


> In Spanish we also have a lot of typical mistakes. Most of them are just regional, and are only used in some regions of Spain. Some are so frequent that I think they will be soon accepted.
> 1. For example I'm from La Rioja and we use the conditional instead of the subjunctive
> We say Si yo sería rica me compraría una casa más grande ( If I would be richer I would buy a bigger house)
> 2. We use some verbs as reflessive when we shouldn't.
> For example. Yo me vivo en Londres. Mi hijo ya se anda. Me he engordado 3 kilos.
> 3. Another typical mistake is leismo/laismo ( when we use the Direct object pronoun instead of the indirect object and the other way around.
> For example . Ayer ví a Margarita y la dije que era mi cumpleaños ( it should be 'le dije' )
> ¿Dónde está el caramelo? Me le comí yo ayer ( It should be 'me lo' )
> 4.Some people use the irregular adverbs, verbs as if they were regular.
> For example.
> Lo hice malamente ( it should be ' lo hice mal') As if you said goodly instead of well, or fastly instead of fast.
> Ayer andé muchísimo ( it should be 'anduve') I think a lot of people accept both forms although I don't know if 'ande' is accepted by RAE.
> 5. We also tend to use 'de' behind some verbs when  we mustn't do it.
> For example. Pienso de que eres muy guapa.
> 
> I could be writing examples for hours but I think that's enough. If you need more examples, don't hesitate to ask.


Muchas gracias Mallujulia!

I'd love to know more examples. I think it's alright to post them here as long as they conform to the topic. 

Saludos


----------



## FC7user

Hi Ronanpoirier,
  I notice one mistake constantly in spoken English.  Believe it or not, I have even caught two native English teachers making it!  The problem is that people always say "there's" when they should say "there are."  Example of the mistake:  "There's three people in the living room."  It should instead be "There are three people in the living room."  Sometimes I think I'm the only one that notices this anymore.  It has become almost an idiom in spoken English.


----------



## MarX

FC7user said:


> Hi Ronanpoirier,
> I notice one mistake constantly in spoken English.  Believe it or not, I have even caught two native English teachers making it!  The problem is that people always say "there's" when they should say "there are."  Example of the mistake:  "There's three people in the living room."  It should instead be "There are three people in the living room."  Sometimes I think I'm the only one that notices this anymore.  It has become almost an idiom in spoken English.


You're right.
This has been generalized to such an extent amongst the native speakers that I reckon many don't even notice it anymore, much less consider it as a mistake, at least not in the spoken language.
It's quite interesting to be a living witness of how a language evolves.


----------



## Nanon

Instead of saying "Vous n'êtes pas sans savoir", literally "You are not without knowing" i.e. "You know", some native French speakers say "Vous n'êtes pas sans ignorer", i.e. "You are not without ignoring". Meaning exactly the contrary.

This is annoying, because people who use that expression are journalists, politicians, etc... who try to maintain themselves within a high register and don't manage to. They should use plain and simple logic instead.


----------



## bb3ca201

We do it all the time in Gaelic.  We get mutations wrong, forget proper case endings (something that you wouldn't do if you were reading something proper -- e.g. the Bible).  I know an artist that sang "bho mo BEUL" -- from my mouth -- instead of the proper "bho mo BHEUL".  It's a difference of one sound ("bh" is pronounced as English "v"), but it is important.

Doesn't make much difference, I suppose; Gaelic speakers will still understand you...but it is still incorrect.


----------



## Zsanna

To come back to French, one of the mistakes I find strange (apart from betraying  intellectual sloppiness) is the pronunciation of "etc" this way: "eKsetera". 
Does it exist elsewhere, too?


----------



## Outsider

I think that's standard in French. And in English, too.


----------



## Zsanna

It is certainly a mistake you can hear often in France but I've not heard it in English yet...


----------



## Nanon

French: dictionaries say [ts], but many (most of???) speakers say [ks]. I'm not sure I don't say it sometimes. Ooops. So, if "standard" means "the most frequent", then it's standard .

English: 


> Also to be avoided is the common mispronunciation “excetera.”
> From here (Brians' "Common Errors in English Usage").


----------



## Zsanna

It's difficult to imagine that you say it, too, Nanon! 

Thank you for the link. 
I don't know this "Brian's" dictionary - is it a recent one?


----------



## Outsider

I pronounce it "eksetra" when I speak English.


----------



## Nanon

Zsanna said:


> It's difficult to imagine that you say it, too, Nanon!
> 
> Thank you for the link.
> I don't know this "Brian's" dictionary - is it a recent one?



Then we should meet and speak together, Zsanna . On devrait aller prendre un pot...
While I may be over-correct when I write (this is a tradition in France) I can assure you that I am not a 100%-error-free speaker. And my permanent address in Versailles doesn't make me sound more posh than normal (non, je ne suis pas une dame de Versailles !!!).

I confess I didn't know that error dictionary either. I seached for "excetera" . And I'm afraid I say [ks] in English too...


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Outsider said:


> I pronounce it "eksetra" when I speak English.



Many people do this, but for me the correct pronunciation is _et _cetera.


----------



## Zsanna

Outsider, you too! (Et tu mi fili, Brute! ) Please, don't! It sounds so horrible... 
Is it different in Portuguese that you did not mention it that context?

Nanon, yes, that would be some meeting!  Versailles contra 93! (Although I cannot say that I would be a typical personage from the 3000, either. Lucky me...)


----------



## Nicomon

I confess that I also - but not always - say èKsétéra. Speech laziness, may be. But I find "intellectual slopiness" a bit strong. 

Here's what the BDL says. 





> La locution d'origine latine _et cetera_ se prononce [EtsétéRa] (_èt-sé-té-ra_) et non [EksétéRa] (_èk-sé-té-ra_) ni [EtSétéRa] (_èt-ché-té-ra_).


To be honest... _èt*ch*étéra_ bothers me more than *èk*sétéra. 

In English I heard what would sound in French like èksètra.  But also ètchètra.


----------



## MarX

Nicomon said:


> I confess that I also - but not always - say èKsétéra. Speech laziness, may be. But I find "intellectual slopiness" a bit strong.
> 
> Here's what the BDL says.
> To be honest... _èt*ch*étéra_ bothers me more than *èk*sétéra.
> 
> In English I heard what would sound in French like èksètra.  But also ètchètra.


_Etchetera _is the way Italians, in certain ways the closest descendants of Latin, pronounce *et cetera*.


----------



## Outsider

Zsanna said:


> Is it different in Portuguese that you did not mention it that context?


In Portugal the normal pronunciation is "etsetra".

P.S. We're all wrong: in classical Latin it would have been "etketera" or "etkaitera". How many volunteers to pronounce it this way?


----------



## MarX

Outsider said:


> P.S. We're all wrong: in classical Latin it would have been "etketera" or "etkaitera". How many volunteers to pronounce it this way?


----------



## Joannes

Zsanna said:


> To come back to French, one of the mistakes I find strange (apart from betraying intellectual sloppiness) is the pronunciation of "etc" this way: "eKsetera".
> Does it exist elsewhere, too?


That's how I have heard Spanish and French speakers pronounce it.

In Dutch we say *enzo(voort)* . No, seriously, *et cetera* we would pronounce with a /t/, two in total that is.


----------



## Zsanna

Outsider said:


> ...P.S. We're all wrong: in classical Latin it would have been "etketera" or "etkaitera". How many volunteers to pronounce it this way?


 
Already the "late" Latins would not, so no surprise it cannot be expected from any of us...


----------



## cipotarebelde

You know what I love? Are the funny mistakes my kids make back and forth between Spanish and English. (They are bilingual). Like the day my daughter kept yelling at me son, "Open me the door!" or when they pass the phone to the other one and say, "Here Jack is".


----------



## Encolpius

In my opinion native speakers don't make any mistakes in their native language at all! If they use something incorrectly it can be a regional, informal or less common variant. Making mistakes, I think personally, means making mistakes in grammar. And a native speaker will never make any mistake in grammar, that's why they are native speakers.  Even if they are sleepy, very tired. Just think of secret agents!
I remember a friend who was fluent in Hungarian, but only once a year he tended to make 1 single mistake in grammar which I would never make in my life, but he was kind of non-native speaker.  It's all deep in our brain! My motto: if you make at least 1 mistake in grammar once a year you are not a native speaker. 
Another question would be regarding uncommon, rare words. How many native and non-native English speakers know correctly where the stress in the word metamorphosis is?


----------



## Stéphane89

Encolpius said:


> In my opinion native speakers don't make any mistakes in their native language at all! If they use something incorrectly it can be a regional, informal or less common variant. Making mistakes, I think personally, means making mistakes in grammar. And a native speaker will never make any mistake in grammar, that's why they are native speakers.


 


Encolpius said:


> My motto: if you make at least 1 mistake in grammar once a year you are not a native speaker.


 
I'm afraid I disagree. I've heard lots and lots of my friends and other, whose only language is French (and thus are native speakers), make _grammar mistakes_. Especially with the subjunctive. I don't think the omission of the subjunctive in French can be called a "regional variant" (and I hope it will never become so).

I'm also surprised by the number of people who make mistakes when using the relative pronouns. They mistake "dont" for "que". For example I've heard from a native speaker: "*Les informations *dont* je t'ai promis". (Here, it should be 'que' and the participle has to agree.) And also "*Les hommes *que* je t'ai parlé." (Here it should be "dont"). It sounds a little bit as if someone said: "*The girls _which_ are overthere." I'm a native of English, but I don't think you could accept that. Some of those mistakes with relative pronouns can sometimes be attributed to the speed of the speech, but not always...

Other mistakes also come when conjugating some irregular verbs, especially when it comes to the past participle. For example: "*acquéri" instead of "acquis".

So, these are three types of mistakes I have observed with French native speakers. I think natives make some mistakes because they have never learnt the rules and they are used to making those mistakes. Especially when they speak fast and pay more attention to the fact of being understood than not making mistakes.


----------



## Encolpius

Maybe your friends slept during French classes.  Where did you learn from that the variants you mentioned are right?? At home from your parents or at school?


----------



## Stéphane89

Indeed, they must have been sleeping during French classes, anyway, the fact is: they are natives and they make mistakes  The variants I mentioned are not right. They were examples of mistakes I heard...


----------



## Encolpius

Zsanna said:


> Welcome to the Forum, Kadarka!
> 
> I mentioned the mistake with -*nák*/-*nék* because it may stand out better for non-Hungarian speakers (and especially for those who claimed that native speakers _cannot_ make mistakes!).
> After all, one could expect that a native speaker should be able to decide whether he means to say "I would do" or "they would do".
> 
> It is interesting though that even those who make that mistake, mix up the conjugation only in the 1st pers. Sing. (I.e. they would use the 3rd pers. Plural happily both in the 1st pers. Sing. - mistakenly - and the 3rd. pers. Pl. - rightly.)


 
I am glad, I didn't read the whole thread, someone else must have claimed native speakers didn't make mistakes, too. 
And I still think the using of the Hungarian -nák/-nék is no mistake. Within 100 years everybody will use -nák. 
What is a mistake? I mentioned in the forum about non-native speakers. Mistake is if someone says: Vettem egy új _lemezet_. I heard that from a foreigner. A native speaker will never say that sentence.


----------



## Zsanna

Encolpius said:


> And I still think the using of the Hungarian -nák/-nék is no mistake. Within 100 years everybody will use -nák.


 
Maybe it won't be a mistake *by then*. 
For the time being, however, it is. 



Encolpius said:


> What is a mistake? I mentioned in the forum about non-native speakers. Mistake is if someone says: Vettem egy új _lemezet_. I heard that from a foreigner. A native speaker will never say that sentence.


 
I'm not sure that such a definition could satisfy every linguist... 
I've certainly heard native speakers say such things (and worse). If you stay long enough abroad, these sort of mistakes (made by native speakers - abroad and in Hungary) will stand out much better as time goes by.


----------



## Nanon

Nanon said:


> In speech, you can find false _liaisons_. One pronounces the final consonant before a vowel when it should not be prononounced, and does not when it should. The word can even be pronounced with a totally different consonant.


 
It seems to be going on... A new related topic here.


----------

