Personally, like personal but more -nally

If we examine “bad English is such a turn off”- you are making that statement. Who are you speaking for? Are you the spokesperson of society? It is implied it is your opinion. However “Bad English is such a turn off for me” accomplishes the same thing with fewer words. You’ve qualified the statement without absolutes. FOR YOU, it is a turn off.

If we had a preceding statement then perhaps it would be more apt. “My friends all like bad English, but personally, it is a turn off.” Now we have a reason to write personally. We have a group who feels otherwise- and you are differentiating yourself from the group.

Likewise if you don’t feel that way when in a group, but when alone it personally bothers you- there is a good place to use “personally.” Of course- two things can be said. The first is:

Style. We can say “I’ve created a hell for you...” but we can also say “I’ve created your own personal hell.” The later is triple redundant. “Your” “own” and “personal” all day the same thing. “Someone creates your own personal hell just for you...” is even MORE redundant. But as far as word play and how the person responds to the statement- it’s impact- can be changed.

Poetry and story telling often rely on suck conventions. Speech writers or others writing dialog often Eschew proper convention or grammar etc. for impact and emotional resonance. An overly proper dialog tends to feel stiff and off putting, and most people do not exercise such formality in common speaking among peers.

So let’s look at “bad English...” itself arguably an example of something we could correct. Bad English is technically correct but is the informal vs. poor English. But the concept of “bad English” isn’t well defined. Is “bad english” poor spelling? Grammar? Vocabulary? Pronunciation? Etc? Some combination? Poor composition?

See- if we are writing copy- we want short. Very to the point. As few words as possible. “Lower the crime rate” can become simply “lower crime” and even “cut crime” which is 2 letters shorter than the preceding and much shorter that the first instance. When we are writing fiction we try to be snappy. No filler for the most part save for pacing and tone. However- we have to gauge communications by their intent. One can’t call a poem by Frost bad English because he could give us the facts of the entire poem in 3 lines without the fluff can we?

So “bad English” is contextual. Bad English is not simply whatever is not proper or formal English. Redundancy is not a mark of bad English by default. Redundancy is often used as a device of writing for emotional impact. In fact- many popular and effective songs, mantras, slogans and so forth rely on repetition and redundancy. Many well crafted jokes rely on redundancy.

“Bad English” is best judged in abstract by comparing the intent of the speaker with the reaction of the audience. That which communicates the intended effect is effective communication. “Bad writing” and “bad English” aren’t necessarily linked either- and more who speak “excellent English” are terrible writers are they not?

That said- probably doesn’t need the “personally” or the “for me,” and in context I can’t see the craft in including both even if one decided to use one.

Bur there is correct english, right? I think what she meant by bad english is incorrect english, whether communication has happened or not.

The first woman perhaps meant she dislikes incorrect English. The response still wouldn’t apply however as redundancy or poor composition aren’t incorrect- just unpleasant.