Bloodies Mary.

Yeah, I was sure I'd see "dress's" or something.

Seeing so many of these occurrences on a daily basis, do you think we are being leveled by all these mistakes? I can't recall the name, but there was a book about two guys going around the country and correcting those kinds of mistakes. Maybe some people read that and decided they were going to level all of us by purposely writing things they know we'll notice.

Something else. I recently returned to school after a 10 year break, and now all the 20 year old girls, and some guys, insert the word "like" roughly every two words (if you speak Russian, think about a street conversation, in which блядь is used almost like a comma, or conversation filler). For example, here's a typical sentence I overhear multiple times daily:

"Can we, like, turn it in tomorrow? Or do we have to like, answer all questions today?"

"I don't understand, like, how does this work? Like can't we just, like, do something else"?

Etc.

To a smaller extent, the same thing happens with "literally".

Makes me sick.

The overuse of literally is like 10,000 times worse than the overuse of the word like.

I would argue the overuse of like is literally 10,000 times worse than the overuse of literally.

I would argue that the overuse of like is literally like the overuse of literally - it is like literally overused.

So perfect!

This reminds me of a story my brother told me when he flew C-5s out of Dover Air Force Base. They had two squadrons, the 9th and the 3rd. My brother was in 3rd squadron.

On a layover in Germany, a bunch of pilots are having a good time at the O Club, including some members of 9th Squadron. One guy in the 9th declares "Just remember, it takes three Thirds to make a Ninth." And my brother happily points out, "No, it actually takes three Ninths to make a Third."

One of those "you had to be there" moments, but I always like it when you can turn around a phrase as perfectly as that (like you did above).

The sad thing is that I know a bunch of "innumerate" people who would then proceed to argue to the death that 1/3+1/3+1/3=1/9 and that you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

How is it not 1?

it is one. Ninth is used as a proper noun in that case, not a denominator.

I'm confused as to why you would give a Russian example here.

The Great Typo Hunt: Two Friends Changing the World, One Correction at a Time [amazon.com]

A Man, A Plan And A Sharpie: 'The Great Typo Hunt' [npr.org]

'Grammar vigilantes' fined for fixing sign at Grand Canyon [hamptonroads.com]

I hate grammar and spelling mistakes as much as the next guy, but these guys are the definition of annoying.

I get annoyed at that use of "definition". Obviously I know you don't mean it literally -- they're, according to you, an example if it. But for whatever reason, I'm unforgiving of that metaphorical use.

The worst (again, this is just me) is reading that the "definition" of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. I think some of those who say that actually DO believe that's the definition, and maybe that's why it gets to me.

I was going to post something witty here regarding the use of definition but I'm too drowsy still so you get this babble instead.

So there's a commercial for Tyson or some chicken company or something. Maybe you've seen it.

The voiceover guy says something along the lines of "We've heard it said that 'you are what you eat.'" Which is fine.

Then he drops this one: "Well, here at Tyson, we believe that you are what you eat eats."

I am really sure that he is missing another "what" in the middle of that sentence. I totally get the message of what he's saying, but it really sounds wrong to me. I feel like it should be "You are what what you eat eats." I know that is a terrible sentence and will sound wrong to more ears, but I'm pretty sure it's more grammatically correct.

I'd like to change it to "you are what your food eats" but then you lose the original phrase.

Mathematically, if "what you eat" = "your food", then you are what you eat eats = you are your food eats


Any input from you guys?

If voiced in a bland monotone, where the doubled words could pass for accidental repeats, sure -- but with the correct pattern of strong and weak stresses (i.e., "you are what what you eat eats"), in the sort of country rhythm I imagine is befitting of Tyson chicken, the correct version would sound perfect.

You are what...

[Cows] eat.

[A chicken] eats.

[You eat] eats.

Seems fine as is.

In fact, let's rethink this.

You are what...

[Cows] eat.

[A chicken] eats.

[You eat] eats.

[A hearing peripheral finalizes the drip before an eighteen flour] eats.

All copacetic.

ETA: Damn, got slow-ponied.

No. The above implies that [Cows | Chicken] = [You eat].

Let's try that in a single sentence: "Cows are you eat!" No.

"Cows are what you eat!" Yes.

So [Cows | Chicken] = [What you eat].

Elroy is correct that a double "what" is needed, with the best intonation being something like: "You are what what you eat, eats!" to make it clear to the listener IMO.

I wasn't trying to say cows are what you eat. I was trying to say you are grass essentially.

Maybe I wrote it incorrectly above. Let's try it this way.

A chicken eats corn. I eat a chicken. People usually say "you are what you eat", that is,"you are a chicken".

Now we are gonna say you are what the chicken eats instead.

You are [what a chicken] eats.

You are [what you eat] eats.

You are [corn].

[Corn] is [what a chicken eats].

[Corn] is [what you eat eats].

You are what you eat eats.

Maybe I'm engaging in circular logic here.

What you eat eats corn. Correct.

You are what you eat eats.

You are corn.

No?

Yep, losing my mind here.

Yes, you're correct, but "You are what what you eat eats" is a terrible slogan, and "you are what you eat eats" is a great slogan. It's the same license that is granted to song writers -- the Rolling Stones would not have such an iconic hit with the lyric "I can't get any satisfaction."

Correct, the sentence does need a double "what" and their version of it is nonsensical. I get the marketing language license and that it isn't a good slogan, but what they did is worse. It just leaves observant listeners scratching their heads.