English is not the easiest language in the world to learn.  What I find funny about it is how many people, especially in the US, demand that people "learn the language," when they clearly haven't learned it themselves.

Here are four very common errors that are often made by people when speaking or writing which, when read by someone who is actually literate, tend to make the speaker/writer appear not too bright.  I wish I could honestly say that avoiding these errors would help you in finding a job or being a newspaper editor or something, but the last few years even news editors seem to have lost much of their linguistic skill. So the best I can tell you is that if you want to avoid appearing "not real bright" to those who are actually fluent and literate in English, here are four commonly-made mistakes.

Redundancy

"Internet blogger"/"blogging on the internet":  I bet I've seen this phrase a half-dozen times in the last week or so, nearly every time in a major news wire story.  Folks...if they're bloggers, they're on the internet.  There's no other place to BE a blogger.  If you blog, then it is assumed that you do so on the internet.  This also applies to phrases like "online social media."  There is no other kind of social media.  Stop it.

Another example:  "2 am in the morning":  2am is always in the morning.  If it wasn't 2am in the morning, it would be 2pm.  Odd thing about this - I don't think I've ever seen it done the other way - "2pm in the afternoon" or "8pm in the evening."  If it's "a.m." it's either morning or it's on the amplitude modulation band of the radio.

Made-Up Words

We have a problem in this culture with making up words.  Most often this comes from a culture that largely talks and listens far more than it reads, but one in particular has long been an irritant to English majors and other linguistic snobs, so let's address that one.

"Irregardless"  

Until widespread improper use of this non-word forced it into appearance in some dictionaries, it was easy to prove that the word doesn't exist.  The word shouldn't exist, because it means exactly the opposite of what people think it means.  Let's break it down:  

"Ir-" is a variant of the prefix "in-", which is a negator; that is, it indicates an opposition to the word it is attached to.  "Incapable" means "not capable."  "Irrelevant" means "not relevant"  "Regardless" means "without regard."  "Regard" in this context means "attention," "care," or "concern" as verbs, for example

"With regard to your feelings, this course of action seems most suitable."

Therefore "irregardless" means "not without regard," which is exactly the opposite of the way people use it.  When you mean "without regard," you mean "regardless."  When you mean "with regard," you say "with regard."  "Irregardless" is a double-negative.

"Regardless of your feelings, this course of action seems most suitable."

Irregardless is not a word, it has never been a word, and it will never be a word that is used by people who speak correctly, regardless of your opinion on the matter.  A pox on any lexicographer who says otherwise.

Let's Talk About I

"He and I" in place of "him and me" (apply gender variants as needed).  People often use the "X and I" construction to sound intelligent, cultured, or educated.  

Unfortunately for them, it's often inappropriate.  

When I was but a wee slip of a lad, I was taught that the easiest way to properly render confusing complex subject pronouns was to reduce them to singulars in your head.  "He and I were walking" is proper.  He was walking; I was walking.  

"The company treated he and I to lunch" is NOT proper.  The company treated he to lunch; the company treated I to lunch.  Doesn't work - the proper rendering is "The company treated him and me to lunch."  

Without getting into an esoteric and over-long discussion about it, this is the simplest way to decide whether "he and I" or "him and me" is appropriate.  

Another way to handle this is to reduce the compound subject to a singular multiple-subject pronoun:  If the correct pronoun is "we," then the correct compound is "he and I."  If the correct pronoun is "us," the correct compound is "him and me."

No Verb, No Action

"Could of-should of-would of"

These constructs are all wrong.  The proper expressions are "could HAVE" "should HAVE" and "would HAVE."  It's a verb  phrase; "of" is not a verb.  

This is a side effect of too many people talking and listening, and not enough people reading and writing.  This is probably one of the most common mistakes to slide under the eyes of editors and writers, including myself.  It even appears in at least one Stephen King book.  

It's still wrong; if you look at it, it makes no sense at all.  "I could of cried."  Look ma, the verb doesn't apply to anything!  No verb = no sentence.  In this case, "have" is a past-tense verb.  "I could cry," = present/future tense.  "I could have cried" = past tense.  "I could of cried" = no tense.  The contraction is "could've, would've, should've," not "could of" etc.  Fix it.

I'm not perfect in my writing and speaking either; I'm not sure anyone is.  That said, the more of these types of errors you can avoid, the greater your chances that a discerning listener/reader will not think you a fool.