Mine is people who separate words when they write. I’m Norwegian, and we can string together words indefinetly to make a new word. The never ending word may not make any sense, but it is gramatically correct
Still, people write words the wrong way by separating them.
Examples:
-
“Ananas ringer” means “the pineapple is calling” when written the wrong way. The correct way is “ananasringer” and it means “pineapple rings” (from a tin).
-
“Prinsesse pult i vinkel” means “a princess fucked at an angle”. The correct way to write it is “prinsessepult i vinkel”, and it means “an angeled princess desk” (a desk for children, obviously)
-
“Koke bøker” means “to cook books”. The correct way is “kokebøker” and means “cookbooks”
I see these kinds of mistakes everywhere!
Oh no, the most I’ve dealt with a similar problem is knowing when to use porque vs. por que in Spanish. I still don’t know
Ambiguously used words like “biweekly”. Does it mean twice per week? Every other week? Business meeting calendar scheduling terminology is especially bad with this.
Odd phrases like you can chop the tree down. Then but then you proceed to chop that same tree up.
Norwegian is more accurate. “Biweekly” means “annenhver uke” (every other week)
“-sts” and “sps” et al
e.g. ghosts, frosts, wasps, clasps, flasks, basks.
Just a stupid sound.
That second example is… Wow.
These are all real examples. Here’s a picture of someone posting that they want to give away a princess desk
Last sentence, “godt brukt”, means “well used”
(American) English: Inflammable vs flammable vs non-flammable.
Inflammable and flammable don’t strictly mean the same thing.
Flammable can be set alight
Inflammable can set itself alight.
I’ve known the difference ever since I decided to look it up one day, but I’ve always felt the ‘in-’ prefix was the wrong choice (especially when labeling potentially dangerous substances). “In-” is more often used to qualify a word as “not”.
“Autoflammable” would have been my choice.
