[agentwiggles]

In a similar vein, "do the needful" has become so entrenched in some of my friends' vernacular that it's now used almost completely unironically.

Also, "like such as," from the old "Miss Teen USA" viral video, has stuck in my craw to the point that its use is unconscious (though still intended humorously).

[raincom]

"do the needful", "please revert back to me"-- phrases like these are not 'invented' by some Indian speakers. These are the stuff Indian savants picked up from the old English books. Then, these savants taught this stuff to fellow Indians and this dynamic gets reproduced everyday.

See an entry from Charles Scholl, Geroge Mcaulaly et al's "A Phraseological Dictionary of Commercial Correspondence in the English, German, French & Spanish Languages, with an Appendix Containing Lists of Commercial Abbreviations, Geographical Names, the Principal Articles of Commerce", published in 1891:

"Needful: he will do what is needful under the circumstances. We rely on your doing the needful for the protection of our interests. With which will you please do the needful. With which we shall do the needful, and credit you for the amount in due course. I shall do the needful at maturity. I enclose draft for 100 pounds at two months, to which I will thank you to do the needful"

Another entry from a law journal published in 1833 in UK: "The letter was immediately given by the bankrupt to the defendant, with directions that as the voyage was altered, he, the defendant, would do the needful."

[autoexec]

It's interesting to see where it came from, but why does it persist? Is consuming English language media and the largest internet sites uncommon for English speaking people in India? I imagine I'd notice pretty quickly that English speakers in TV, movies, and on youtube, don't speak the way they did in the 1800s.

[jtrip]

So, India inherited the British civil services system wholesale. The formal pseudo legal language used in the system, instituted by the British, continued. It was different enough from the language taught in schools that when someone was exposed to it or had to use it tried to conform to it's idiosyncrasies.

Over time, isolated from the cultural changes happening to the English world, it developed in it's own way. Like the albino and blind animals evolved in the seclusion of an isolated cave system.

Today, the best way to observe this secluded language branch is to read official Indian government announcements.

It has started to meld back into the main branch [0][1] as younger and younger, more exposed to the global English culture, take over responsibilities.

[0] https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=1888208

[1] https://indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboard/uploads/directora...

[bryanrasmussen]

>I imagine I'd notice pretty quickly that English speakers in TV, movies, and on youtube, don't speak the way they did in the 1800s.

What about English speakers in Indian TV, movies, and on YouTube - which I assume might be more popular fare for an Indian audience?

[raincom]

Most of the IT workers in India pick up English from colleagues, bosses, etc, not so much from the English media.

[pxeger1]

These are a class of mistake mainly made by native English speakers, but I've ended up using words like "irregardless" and "misunderestimated" unironically because I used them ironically for so long that I forgot

[raffraffraff]

Isn't that pretty much how the Americanism "I could care less" originated?

[nerdponx]

Yes.

Along similar lines, expect a spelling convergence of "wary" and "weary" in the next 5-10 years due to so many people not knowing the difference between the two, not bothering to check, and perpetuating confusion by using the wrong one in their own writing.

[yamtaddle]

"Envious" has all but completely been absorbed by "jealous" in the vernacular. People just use "jealous" for both things. Good thing there can never be any ambiguity about which sense is intended.

"To comprise" is deployed incorrectly more often than correctly. Which is silly since, when used incorrectly, you could have simply used "to be composed of" (which is the thing people are confusing it for)—there's no benefit to using "comprised" there, all its elegance and subtle shade of meaning are lost anyway when you jam it into that clunky phrase as a perfect synonym for "composed". I think that's one of those fake-fancy abuses of language from business folks, leeching into everyday language. What synergy!

The apt adjective, rather than various words and modifiers expressing degrees of good or badness—many of which used to express more, but no longer do, as "massive" or "awesome"—seems to be an endangered species.

Awkward use of "less than" inexplicably replacing the word "inferior" in some circles. "We must ensure none of the children feel 'less than'". In the words of my generation: "LOL WTF?"

Anyone have handy any studies on vocabulary among Americans? It looks to have markedly decreased over the last few decades, but I worry I may be falling for the same kind of bias that seems to make everyone think everything's getting worse all the time. Popular writing gives me the impression it's written for an audience with a smaller vocabulary than in, say, the 1950s or 1960s, though.

[user982]

The past tense of "lead" will be dictionary-accepted as "lead" within your lifetime.

[DangitBobby]

The "incorrect" use of comprise is correct and has been in use since the 18th century [1].

1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comprise

[yamtaddle]

Sure, it has a history. Any use that is described as incorrect has a history, else it wouldn't come up. Is it distracting? Is there another word that perfectly replaces it, is understood by practically all English speakers, and that's not distracting? Yes and yes, so: "to be composed of" should be preferred. I further doubt, very much, that the choice to substitute "to be comprised of" is an informed one in very nearly all cases—its presence is a "smell", if you will, which does mean it conveys some information, but most of the time that information is not something that the person using it is trying to express, which makes it a mistake.

I care less about this one than others, though, since there's little risk of this replacing the ordinary use of the word and making the language less expressive (as in the case of "envious" vs "jealous"). "Avoid doing this" remains good advice, but it's not so bad as errors go. I mainly brought it up as an example of incorrect use surpassing correct use.

It's in a similar class to using "X and I" where it should be "X and me". It causes little harm, most of the time, as far as hindering communication, but getting it right is still preferable to getting it wrong, which means that any decent guide will classify it as a mistake, unless (as is always the case) one means to commit the error, for some reason. That's the case despite the incorrect-I error having, I'm sure, a longer and more widespread history than "to be comprised of"—the history doesn't save it from being something to avoid. Maybe some day it will.

[denton-scratch]

Merriam Webster are the arch-descriptivists. If a usage is attested anywhere, MW lists it as correct. Basically, they don't believe that any usage attested anywhere can be incorrect. If you want to know whether a usage is correct or not, don't ask MW.

[smcl]

It's weird how people mix these up, I think it's due to incorrectly assuming it's related to the verb "to wear".

While we're on the subject - more then and less then are becoming very common due to the similarity in how than/then are pronounced in US accented English.

[nerdponx]

I wonder if this particular mixup is due to people using voice dictation instead of typing. iOS makes that particular error all the time when I dictate.

This particular spelling mixup seems unlikely to persist because people know and understand both words, and it's considered basic knowledge, like your/you're, and I would expect similar memes and derision for people who don't attempt to distinguish them.

[smcl]

You'd think so, but I've when I've brought this up (and weary/wary) people often do the "languages evolve" thing. It's happened before with things like "colour" and "aluminium" so I don't think we can rule it out again.

[DoreenMichele]

Makes me think of this:

My understanding is that chitterlings is the correct spelling and chitlins is the correct pronunciation, but so many people spell it chitlins that it has become an acceptable form of the written word.

[erik_seaberg]

Having only ever heard that or seen the transliteration, I honestly did not know “chitterlings” is a word.

[DoreenMichele]

"Chitterlings" always looks to me like a description of a sound made by a Lovecraftian horror, tbh.

[denton-scratch]

> perpetuating confusion

"Perpetrate" and "perpetuate" are two words frequently confused by native speakers (in this context, you could have meant either, and I assume you meant "perpetuate").

[moloch-hai]

"Averse" and "adverse" for extra credit.

[sauruk]

That one frustrates me so much. They’re completely different words!

[behringer]

When I first started working I thought this was normal business speak. Thankfully my bosses noticed and when I told them it was definitely not spiteful or ironic, they tactfully educated me on the finer points of Indian phraseology.

[coyotespike]

Ha, yes, I use "like, such as" all the time - I don't think most people get the reference though!