What linguistic constructions do you hate that no one else seems to mind?
It bugs me when people say "the thing is is that" (if you listen for it, you'll start hearing it... or maybe that's something that people only do in my area.) ("What the thing is is that..." is fine. But "the thing is is that..." bugs me.)
Also, "just because <blank> doesn't mean <blank>." That sentence structure invites one to take "just because <blank>" as a noun phrase which my brain really doesn't want to do. Just doesn't seem right. But that sentence structure is very common.
And I'm not saying there's anything objectively wrong with either of these. Language is weird and complex and beautiful. It's just fascinating that some commonly-used linguistic constructions just hit some people wrong sometimes.
Edit: I thought of another one. "As best as I can." "The best I can" is fine, "as well as I can" is good, and "as best I can" is even fine. But "as best as" hurts.
"Would of", "could of", and "should of" infuriate me for some reason.
Because they're wrong. And not in a "these kids and their new-fangled language" way, but in a "this is literally improper English" way.
Right, I get that, it's just that that particular incorrect usage annoys me more than most.
Yet "would've", "could've", and "should've" are fine, if a touch informal, and sound literally identical in most dialects and accents. View it as your own personal window into how your conversation partner engages with language.
It's not about sound. Would've is a contraction of "would have" not "would of."
Would of is not a different way to interact with English because the meaning of "have" and "of" are completely different.
LOL, all I really meant is you get to learn that they don't really engage with the language beyond translating sounds into letters. No real thought is given to why they say or write the things they do. It's useful information.
I am all for woulda, coulda, and shoulda.