Anglos can't into English

>muh grammar

your a idiot

fuck off autismo

i can always tell when a yuropoor or spic is posting because they are really spergy about following certain rules of grammar but cant construct a well-flowing sentence to save their life.

btw nobody says i ate 'some' tacos. We just eat tacos. We don't care to specify an amount unless its for the sake of exactitude or hyperbole

>>9171135

Native speakers are rarely taught grammar, we unconsciously learn it for the most part.

As an example I had absolutely no idea until a few weeks ago that the usage of "a" or "an" depends on whether the following word begins with a vowel or a consonant. I had instinctively known a rule without ever having been taught it.

>>9171135
Native English speakers confusing "then" and "than" really triggers me, it's just so wrong.

>>9171158
>>9171159

T.monolingual americans

It's usually only by learning a second language that you question and fully understand the grammar of your native tongue.

>>9171197
c'est pas vrai

File: 1481360351696.jpg (34KB, 600x415px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 600x415px

>>9171135
4/10 bait

>>9171135
To add to this - >>9171227 - almost all of your examples are errors made by incorrectly spelling correct sounds. These are common among native speakers because you learn how to talk and listen before you learn how to read and write. When you learn a language in an academic setting, it's often the other way around. Reading and writing comes more easily for most people. In a second language it's more common to struggle with pronunciation than spelling.

>>9171135
Higher financial entry barrier for non native speakers(they can buy better books and pay better teachers) and less contact with the putrefying culture that generates this kind of language.

Note: They might interact with the same kind of putrefying culture in their native languages, but it's not translated.

>>9171227
>tongue

>black people spelling realest as realist

>>9171381
Yes, I devilishly employed an idiom to avoid repeating the word "language".

What does "would of" and "could of" even mean?

As a non-native these have always confused the fuck out of me.

>>9171422
they're incorrect

would have, could have

he would have ate the candy
he could have ate the candy

>>9171480
>he would have ate the candy
>he could have ate the candy
This is just embarrassing desu

>>9171480
Yes but unlike many other common errors they don't make any sense. Confusing their and there makes sense to me. Could of and would of don't.

Most people type quickly and don't care too much about their grammar on a site like this. There's also the fact that most people here don't particularly care about knowledge, and have zero interest in correcting their mistakes. Those people don't even know half of the rules you alluded to in your post.

>>9171501
People just hear it a lot, and think it's an expression, another use of the word of that only occurs in that particular combination. When you hear it so much you don't really think about it; when I thought it was could of and would of I never thought of the actual definition of the word of, I just thought of the phrase's definition itself.

>>9171501
Pronounce "c/would have" quickly and you'll notice that they indeed sound similar. The h easily becomes silent, a is sort of similar to o, v is related to and becomes f, and e is already silent. So, in practice you can hear "of".