That is actually a sequence that can be used in correct English, but how I got to it would lead one to believe otherwise. Or at least it led me to be suspicious of it. “By purpose or design…” makes sense.

Now consider “by accident” and “on purpose.”

“Goodyear discovered vulcanizing by accident when he left rubber and sulfur on a hot stove.”
“Yeah, who would leave sulfur on a hot stove on purpose?”

Now, a common[1], and grating, usage I hear more and more is “on accident” and that led to wondering if anyone used the title phrase similarly. Imagine…

“Don’t be too hard on him, he only hit me by accident.”
“No, I darn well hit you by purpose!”

Doesn’t work, does it?

Oh, a correct usage?

“..the layout is generally determined by brand rather than by purpose and with no real organization by size or color — or by anything.” – Ludwig Guru

[1] Supposedly rare outside the USA, and the older one is, the less likely one is to use it. The alleged cutoff, is, supposedly, at time of writing, about age 40.

I encountered this video: 12 British words I now use everyday. And overall, I could see how it would come about. The one that I “got” but yet didn’t was BIN. Now, I understand the British use of ‘bin’ for trash/garbage/refuse can/container. But if you say you “binned” something in an (any) American accent… I will wonder, at least for a moment, if you put whatever it was in with the grain (grain bin) or with some nuts, bolts, or screws, or such at a hardware store where small hardware items that are not so tiny that they are kept in drawers are in small bins.

Yes, I know what a “wheelie bin” is. And though we have such for recycling, which is a recycling bin, the trash is still in a ‘can’ even if it is also a wheelie bin. I even recall the (then no longer used as such) red-lidded cans for combustibles as the non-red lidded stuff was for stuff for the dump/landfill, but the red lidded was stuff for the incinerator.

A grade-school (grades 1-6) in a semi-rural area dealt with old papers and such with a small incinerator at least as late as 1979. The interesting thing is that as “bad” as incineration supposedly is, it at least keeps the carbon cycle going (helping to prevent or at least delay the Coming Ice Age!) and doesn’t clog landfills with paper and wood that does not break down in them. And “out in the sticks” fly-ash, at least away from things ready to burn, wasn’t that big a deal.

I did not grow up in Minnesota, so the childhood game generally known as Duck, Duck, Goose was not experienced in the Minnesotan way. It is, I am told, pretty much the same but the name and ‘trigger’ word(s) change to Duck, Duck, Gray Duck.

There are other things that seemed odd to me. What is an “open faced sandwich” in other places, in Minnesota is a “commercial.” I mentioned that online some years back and someone pondered Minnesota beer commercials. Gravy[1] (eww) on beer? NO!

Another one is that bit when someone takes a powered vehicle and performs tight turns, often leaving circular skid marks. “Doing donuts” is the general term. But if you are in Minnesota and someone speaks of “whippin’ shitties,” that’s the same thing.

One that was new to me, but I have since heard far outside of Minnesota is a description of something being expensive as being “spendy.”

There are likely others, but those are the ones that come to mind right off.

FWIW, “Uff da” (roughly, Norse for oy vey) was not at all new. I might have figured it more Yooper if I’d been asked before moving. I heard it used in northcentral Wisconsin enough to not figure it all unusual.

[1] I am unopposed to a ‘half sandwich’ without the top bread layer. I am very opposed to gravy, however. This seems to bewilder graviphilics, who somehow cannot imagine certain foods uncontaminated by gravy.

O (“Oh”) is a letter. 0 (zero) is number. They look quite similar and early typewriters doubled up on things for simplicity and thus ‘Oh’ was used as zero (and lower case L was used as one). The similarity was likely taken advantage of in the language much earlier, of course.

This shows up in phone numbers from “Dial Oh for Operator” to the final shout in Pennsylvania 6-5000, “Pennsylvania 6-5-Oh-Oh-Oh!” Or even that “867-5309” tune. It can seem a bit odd to hear (or say) “zero” in a string of digits at times. Zero might be said to emphasize that is, indeed, zero and not the letter. This could important in passcodes (that probably should NOT be read out, but… it happens anyway).

So it’s not too unusual to say or hear either zero or oh. But some years ago Pa encountered a fellow with a quirky way of describing a short string of zeros in a number. When he had to relay ’00’ he’d say “double-ball” and ‘000’ became “triple-ball.” I do not recall a single zero being just “ball,” but it might have been. After triple, it gets a bit unwieldy. I doubt “quadruple” or more was handled this way.

There are times I have to enter something from a printout and I will from time to time say to myself “double ball” for 00. “Triple ball” is a very seldom thing, mainly as 000 is quite rare in the printouts.

Oh (ahem), there is also “aught” (and even “naught”) but those are very seldom used, unless one is trying for an archaic feel to things. Not that there are likely some using such without that intent. The exception might be in describing early years of a century. That is, “Back in aught three…”

There is the old “joke” that getting directions from locals in some places will have the problem of referring to things long gone or things one not a local would not know. “Go past the old Samuelson place a mile or so, then turn where the truck stop used to be.” That sort of thing.

There are other descriptions that are not helpful due to, well, saturation. Consider how useful, er, ‘useful’ these might be:

Salt Lake City: “Right next to the Mormon church.”
Atlanta: “It’s on Peachtree.”
Most any city in Wisconsin: “Right by the bar.”

I mentioned those and a couple more were suggested:

JG: Manitou Springs: “On the hill.”
RGC: San Antonio: “The Mexican place next to the barbecue joint.”

I’m sure there are plenty more.