this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2023
41 points (97.7% liked)
Asklemmy
43535 readers
1969 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Judging by the text of your post alone, you’re bilingual.
Had you not said that English wasn’t your first language, I, a native English speaker, would never have know.
Fun observation: as a native, just like many natives, you have made a grammer mistake. "have known" and not "have know". Might be a typo though.
My fun theory is that grammer is just a form of heuristic made up by humans to simplify understanding languages.
I'm not a native.
I love a good case of Muphry's Law.
*grammar
Was this one intentional ?
*Murphy's Law
Intentional.
TIL
Haha good catch!
Ah, dammit. Yeah, that was a typo :).
I think there are even a few grammatical errors that native english speaking people are more likely to be doing that us folks who learned it as a second language.
When I see things like "should of", "would of", "for all intensive purposes" it's usually coming from a native speaker.
I think someone who learned speaking the language before first and writing it second is more likely to make these.
I assimilated "should", "have" and "of" before I really used contractions, so I never make that mistake.
It's even somewhat jarring to read.
should of... of what?