英文母語者也會犯錯？5 個正在改變的英文文法與發音規則
When native speakers get it wrong – should you copy?
While doomscrolling on YouTube recently, I came across this video about the word 'harassed' –https://youtube.com/shorts/puCgdSa5NcA?si=XEsi54AJKZo-utAS.
For what it's worth, I've always pronounced it as 'huh-RASST', with the emphasis on the second syllable. The only person I know who says it the other way ('HAH-ruhst') is my 70-year-old dad, so I'd always assumed that his pronunciation was just a bit dated. It was fascinating to find out that I've apparently been influenced by a sitcom I've never even watched!
On reflection, though, as a language, English seems particularly susceptible to changing and developing with the times, and that's probably because so many different cultures and countries speak it. Strict rules that were taught in schools are frequently overtaken by new ones, and what was once sacrosanct (meaning 'sacred') to linguists and grammarians is now much more flexible.
This got me thinking about some 'mistakes' that native speakers make. I thought I'd share them with you so that you can identify them, along with some tips on whether or not to copy them.
最近我在 YouTube 上漫無目的地一直滑影片時，看到了一支在討論「harassed」這個字發音的短片：https://youtube.com/shorts/puCgdSa5NcA?si=XEsi54AJKZo-utAS。
說來也有趣，我一直都是把這個字念成「huh-RASST」，重音放在第二個音節。我身邊唯一會念成另一種發音，也就是「HAH-ruhst」的人，是我 70 歲的爸爸，所以我一直以為那只是比較老派的念法。沒想到後來才發現，我的發音竟然可能受到一部我從來沒看過的情境喜劇影響，真的很有意思。
不過仔細想想，英語這門語言本來就特別容易隨著時代不斷變化和發展，這大概也是因為世界上有這麼多不同文化、不同國家的人都在使用英語。學校以前教的那些嚴格規則，常常會被後來出現的新用法取代。過去語言學家和文法學家視為不可動搖、甚至近乎神聖的規則，現在也變得彈性許多。
這也讓我開始想到一些母語人士常犯的「錯誤」。我想把這些例子分享給大家，讓你們學著辨認，同時也提供一些建議，告訴你們哪些用法可以跟著學，哪些最好不要照著用。
✨ 從生活情境出發，學會真正用得到的英文 👉 Learn More!
⚡ “學英文 × 懂文化” 一日工作坊 👉 熱烈報名中！
1.'Me and my x'
The traditional rule: Strictly speaking, we should say: "my brother and I went into town." The other person always comes first, and it's I rather than me because I is the subject pronoun. (The handy trick for this one is to delete the other person: you'd say "I went into town", not "me went into town", so here it's I.)
Saying "my brother and me", however, is extremely common. So common that, in fact, many people make this 'mistake' deliberately in casual speech because sticking to the proper grammar can make you sound formal and stuffy – particularly if you're just chatting to friends.
傳統規則：嚴格來說，我們應該說：「My brother and I went into town.」也就是「我和哥哥一起進城了」。提到兩個人時，通常要先說對方，再說自己；而且這裡要用 I，不能用 me，因為 I 是主格代名詞。
一個很好用的判斷方法，是先把另一個人拿掉。你會說「I went into town」，不會說「Me went into town」，所以這裡應該用 I。
不過，說「my brother and me」其實非常普遍。這種說法實在太常見了，甚至很多人在日常對話中會刻意這樣說，因為完全遵守正確文法，有時反而會讓人覺得太正式、太拘謹，尤其只是和朋友聊天的時候。
The new rule?In casual speech, go for 'me and my x'. If you're giving a presentation at work or speaking in a very formal meeting, then it's safer to revert to the proper grammar ('revert' = return!).
那現在的規則呢？在輕鬆的日常對話中，可以直接說「me and my x」。但如果是在公司做簡報，或參加非常正式的會議，還是用正確的文法會比較保險，也就是改回「my x and I」的說法。這裡的 revert 就是「恢復原本的做法」或「改回去」的意思。
2.'Two coffees and a tea, please'
The traditional rule: Some nouns are countable, so we can use them in the singular or the plural. E.g. One chair / three chairs.
Others are uncountable, so we don't add an 's' and instead add another word to describe the amount. E.g. Knowledge / some knowledge / lots of knowledge / not 'knowledges' ❌
This is one area of grammar where there is quite a lot of drift, though. As time goes on, it becomes more and more usual to hear 'two coffees', 'three wines', 'four garlic breads' and so on.
傳統規則：有些名詞是可數名詞，因此可以使用單數或複數形式。例如：One chair / three chairs（一張椅子／三張椅子），另一些名詞則是不可數名詞，所以不能直接在後面加上 s，而是要搭配其他詞語來表示數量。例如：Knowledge / some knowledge / lots of knowledge（知識／一些知識／很多知識）/不能說 knowledges ❌
不過，這也是文法中變化相當明顯的一個部分。隨著時間推移，像是 two coffees、three wines、four garlic breads 這類說法，現在已經越來越常聽到了。
The new rule? You'll hear this rule change the most in restaurants or dining environments. It's very common and normal to ask for 'two teas', so when ordering food and drinks in this type of setting, you can certainly go with the flow here. Just make sure it makes sense. Are you talking about two pieces of cake or two full cakes? Two glasses of wine or two bottles of wine? If there's any doubt over what you're referring to, go back to the proper grammar!
那現在的規則呢？這種用法的改變，在餐廳或用餐場合中最常出現。點餐時說 two teas 已經非常普遍，也很自然，因此在這類情境下，你完全可以順著大家的習慣來使用。不過，還是要確保意思夠清楚。你說的是兩塊蛋糕，還是兩個完整的蛋糕？是兩杯葡萄酒，還是兩瓶葡萄酒？只要你說的內容可能讓人不確定你指的是什麼，最好還是回到原本較完整、正確的表達方式。
3.'I should of X'
The traditional rule: The correct phrase is "I should have X", not "I should of X". This is more of a native-speaker error than an ESL student one, as the misunderstanding is due to mishearing everyday speech rather than grammar rules.
Native speakers will sometimes say or write "I should of known" or "I would of liked that", rather than have, because when spoken, the contractions should've and would've sound much more similar to of than have.
But should we follow this?
傳統規則：正確的說法是 「I should have X」，而不是 「I should of X」。這比較常是英語母語人士會犯的錯，而不是英語學習者的錯，因為這種誤解通常來自聽錯日常口語，而不是不懂文法規則。
母語人士有時會說或寫成 「I should of known」 或 「I would of liked that」，而不是使用 have。這是因為在口語中，縮寫 should’ve 和 would’ve 聽起來更像 of，而不是 have。
但我們應該跟著這樣用嗎？
The new rule? No. Stick to should have, as using of is a grammatical error and hasn't been accepted as part of modern speech. (Having said that, this is something to avoid in writing only – you can't help the way the words sound when spoken!)
那現在的規則呢？不應該。還是要使用 should have，因為用 of 是文法錯誤，而且至今也沒有被接受為現代英語的一部分。不過話說回來，這主要是在書寫時需要避免，因為實際說話時，這些字聽起來相似是無法避免的。
4. Who/whom
The traditional rule:Whom is used when it's the object — "Whom did you see?", "To whom should I send this?" (The trick: if the answer is him/her, use whom.)
傳統規則：當代名詞在句子中作為受詞時，要使用 whom，例如：「Whom did you see?」、「To whom should I send this?」判斷的小技巧是：如果回答會是 him 或 her，那就應該用 whom。
The new rule? This one's flexible. In speech, whom now sounds very stuffy, and "Who did you give it to?" is perfectly normal. Keep whom for formal writing and set phrases like "to whom it may concern" — otherwise, who is fine and even preferable for everyday speech.
那現在的規則呢？這一點現在比較有彈性。在口語中，whom 聽起來已經相當正式，甚至有些拘謹，而 「Who did you give it to?」 這種說法完全自然，也非常普遍。因此，whom 可以保留在正式寫作中，或用於像 「to whom it may concern」 這類固定用語。除此之外，日常對話使用 who 就可以了，而且通常還會更自然。
If there's one thing to take away from this post, it's this: relaxed speech is increasingly fine, but writing and formal speech are where the old rules still hold, and where a 'mistake' gets noticed. So when you're chatting, go with the flow. When you're writing something that matters, play it safe.
That said, I do think this tendency to evolve is one of the real strengths of English. It's also made us much more used to hearing variation in speech, and far more tolerant of it as a result.
Can you think of any other 'mistakes' that native speakers make? Please write in and let us know! We'd love to hear from you, and you may be featured in a future newsletter!
如果這篇文章有一件事值得記住，那就是：現在大家對輕鬆的口語表達越來越能接受，但在書面語和正式場合中，傳統規則仍然適用，而且文法「錯誤」也更容易被注意到。所以，平常聊天時可以順著大家的習慣來說；但如果是在寫重要的內容，還是保守一點比較安全。
話雖如此，我確實認為這種不斷演變的特性，是英語真正的優勢之一。它也讓我們更習慣聽到各種不同的說法，因此對語言上的差異也變得更加包容。
你還想得到哪些英語母語人士常犯的「錯誤」嗎？歡迎寫信告訴我們！我們很期待收到你的分享，而你的內容也有機會出現在未來的電子報中！
📩 訂閱電子報，收到英文小秘訣 👉 免費訂閱！
Vocabulary
Doomscrolling (n.) 不停滑看負面消息；沉迷瀏覽壞消息
Harassed (adj.) 受到騷擾的；備受煩擾的
Dated (adj.) 過時的；老派的
Susceptible (to) (adj.) 容易受……影響的；易受……感染的
Sacrosanct (adj.) 神聖不可侵犯的；不容質疑的
Stuffy (adj.) 古板的；拘謹的；一本正經的
To revert (to) (v.) 恢復到；回到原本的狀態或做法
Drift (v.) (n.) 逐漸改變；慢慢偏離 / 逐漸的變化；趨勢
Go with the flow (idiom) 順其自然
