Discussion:
Shouldn't of done that
(too old to reply)
Harrison Hill
2018-01-11 18:10:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.

I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
David Kleinecke
2018-01-11 19:05:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Peter Young
2018-01-11 19:22:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".

Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Pt)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
David Kleinecke
2018-01-11 19:43:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
All I hear is "shouldə".
occam
2018-01-11 23:06:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Enunciate, maybe. But the request was for a written instance of 'should
of'. I'm with David here. Any reference in written form is either a
spelling error or it is in quotes, imitating the speech form of
particular character that wot speaks like 'arrison 'ill.
Ken Blake
2018-01-11 23:19:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."

I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that
b***@aol.com
2018-01-12 01:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
They're not: /əv/ is the weak form of both "have" and "of".
Post by Ken Blake
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Jerry Friedman
2018-01-12 04:02:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
If you search for "should of", you'll find many people who write it.
Post by Ken Blake
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
I'd say you say "should've" (which is more or less what Bebercito said).
--
Jerry Friedman
Janet
2018-01-12 16:21:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <p39c0b$kd6$***@news.albasani.net>, ***@yahoo.com
says...
Post by Jerry Friedman
If you search for "should of", you'll find many people who write it.
But they shouldn't have.

Janet.
David Kleinecke
2018-01-12 18:17:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Jerry Friedman
If you search for "should of", you'll find many people who write it.
But they shouldn't have.
Janet.
But also
But they shouldnta done that.
Peter Moylan
2018-01-13 00:51:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Jerry Friedman
If you search for "should of", you'll find many people who write it.
But they shouldn't have.
I've just done a web search for "shouldn't of". It's hard to reach firm
conclusions, but I did have the strong impression that it's far less
common than "should of".
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Ross
2018-01-13 01:07:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Jerry Friedman
If you search for "should of", you'll find many people who write it.
But they shouldn't have.
I've just done a web search for "shouldn't of". It's hard to reach firm
conclusions, but I did have the strong impression that it's far less
common than "should of".
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
You mean even allowing for the fact that "should" is about 10 times
more frequent than "shouldn't" (ngram)?
Peter Moylan
2018-01-13 12:17:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Jerry Friedman
If you search for "should of", you'll find many people who write it.
But they shouldn't have.
I've just done a web search for "shouldn't of". It's hard to reach firm
conclusions, but I did have the strong impression that it's far less
common than "should of".
You mean even allowing for the fact that "should" is about 10 times
more frequent than "shouldn't" (ngram)?
That's part of why it was hard to reach conclusions. The other part is,
of course, the often-seen phenomenon where most of the search hits are
irrelevant to what one is searching for.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
John Varela
2018-01-14 00:11:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Jerry Friedman
If you search for "should of", you'll find many people who write it.
But they shouldn't have.
I've just done a web search for "shouldn't of". It's hard to reach firm
conclusions, but I did have the strong impression that it's far less
common than "should of".
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
You mean even allowing for the fact that "should" is about 10 times
more frequent than "shouldn't" (ngram)?
Wouldn't of all the "shouldn't"s have also shown up as "should"s?

Even so, 10 to 1 is a pretty big ratio.
--
John Varela
Jerry Friedman
2018-01-14 02:55:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Varela
Post by Ross
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Jerry Friedman
If you search for "should of", you'll find many people who write it.
But they shouldn't have.
I've just done a web search for "shouldn't of". It's hard to reach firm
conclusions, but I did have the strong impression that it's far less
common than "should of".
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
You mean even allowing for the fact that "should" is about 10 times
more frequent than "shouldn't" (ngram)?
Wouldn't of all the "shouldn't"s have also shown up as "should"s?
Not at Google ngrams, though the BYU corpora work that say.

(And ITYM "Wouldn't all the 'shouldn't's of also shown up as 'should's?")
Post by John Varela
Even so, 10 to 1 is a pretty big ratio.
I'm surprised, but not arguing.
--
Jerry Friedman takes his thrills where he can get them.
Peter Moylan
2018-01-14 13:11:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Varela
Post by Ross
You mean even allowing for the fact that "should" is about 10 times
more frequent than "shouldn't" (ngram)?
Wouldn't of all the "shouldn't"s have also shown up as "should"s?
Cross-thread comment: as I read it, the "of" in that sentence
unnecessarily duplicates the later "have".
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
b***@aol.com
2018-01-14 18:00:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by John Varela
Post by Ross
You mean even allowing for the fact that "should" is about 10 times
more frequent than "shouldn't" (ngram)?
Wouldn't of all the "shouldn't"s have also shown up as "should"s?
Cross-thread comment: as I read it, the "of" in that sentence
unnecessarily duplicates the later "have".
Or has been inadvertently switched with "all".
Post by Peter Moylan
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
John Varela
2018-01-15 22:23:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 13:11:10 UTC, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by John Varela
Post by Ross
You mean even allowing for the fact that "should" is about 10 times
more frequent than "shouldn't" (ngram)?
Wouldn't of all the "shouldn't"s have also shown up as "should"s?
Cross-thread comment: as I read it, the "of" in that sentence
unnecessarily duplicates the later "have".
Good catch on the cross-thread allusion, and you're right about the
later "have". My bad on that one.
--
John Varela
Ross
2018-01-12 06:13:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
"should [@v]"? Aren't you just using the normal spoken pronunciation
of the word in that context?

In a sentence like "The Yankees have won more titles than any other
franchise in the four major North American sports leagues.", isn't
[@v] (for written "have") a normal pronunciation?
Of course you would never write it that way, but that's because you
are familiar with the standard written language, and "have" is how it's
supposed to be spelled. Also, in that type of construction, you can get
a stress on the "have", e.g. if someone was skeptical and asked: "They have?"
you would expect [h&v], not [@v] as the pronunciation.

But in the case of "could/should/would/might/must have", the "have" is
almost inevitably unstressed, so it's hard to tell what its "real"
pronunciation should be. People nearly always hear [@v], which also
happens to be the spelling of "of", so they write it that way.
Katy Jennison
2018-01-12 09:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
--
Katy Jennison
Ross
2018-01-12 20:31:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
--
Katy Jennison
What's different from what?
Peter Young
2018-01-12 20:35:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
--
Katy Jennison
What's different from what?
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of". I can't do ASCII IPA, and I can't record the speech of one of my
sisters-in-law. Otherwise I could demonstrate it to you.

Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Pt)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-01-12 20:48:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Young
Post by Ross
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
--
Katy Jennison
What's different from what?
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of". I can't do ASCII IPA, and I can't record the speech of one of my
sisters-in-law. Otherwise I could demonstrate it to you.
If you mean [ʃjʊd hæv] is totally different from [ʃjʊd ɔv] then I
agree, but I wouldn't say either of those; I would say [ʃjʊdv] for both.
--
athel
Peter Moylan
2018-01-13 00:55:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Young
Post by Ross
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
What's different from what?
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of". I can't do ASCII IPA, and I can't record the speech of one of my
sisters-in-law. Otherwise I could demonstrate it to you.
If you mean [ʃjʊd hæv] is totally different from [ʃjʊd ɔv] then I agree,
but I wouldn't say either of those; I would say [ʃjʊdv] for both.
That's true in the middle of a sentence; but, at least in AusE, if the
"of" or "have" is the last word in the sentence it is likely to be stressed.

"Did you bring the bat?"
"No."
"Well, you should of."
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-01-13 06:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Young
Post by Ross
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
What's different from what?
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of". I can't do ASCII IPA, and I can't record the speech of one of my
sisters-in-law. Otherwise I could demonstrate it to you.
If you mean [ʃjʊd hæv] is totally different from [ʃjʊd ɔv] then I agree,
but I wouldn't say either of those; I would say [ʃjʊdv] for both.
That's true in the middle of a sentence; but, at least in AusE, if the
"of" or "have" is the last word in the sentence it is likely to be stressed.
"Did you bring the bat?"
"No."
"Well, you should of."
Yes, in this context, you're right.
--
athel
Katy Jennison
2018-01-13 08:05:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Young
Post by Ross
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
What's different from what?
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of". I can't do ASCII IPA, and I can't record the speech of one of my
sisters-in-law. Otherwise I could demonstrate it to you.
If you mean [ʃjʊd hæv] is totally different from [ʃjʊd ɔv] then I agree,
but I wouldn't say either of those; I would say [ʃjʊdv] for both.
That's true in the middle of a sentence; but, at least in AusE, if the
"of" or "have" is the last word in the sentence it is likely to be stressed.
"Did you bring the bat?"
"No."
"Well, you should of."
Yes. And rahnd 'ere it's also likely to be said ironically, rather than
genuinely believed to be correct.
--
Katy Jennison
Ken Blake
2018-01-12 21:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Young
Post by Ross
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
--
Katy Jennison
What's different from what?
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of".
Same in AmE pronunciation. However, if "should have" is said quickly
and sloppily, it can come out sounding like "should of." That's even
of those us like me who know that it should be "should have" and
always write i
John Dunlop
2018-01-12 21:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Same in AmE pronunciation. However, if "should have" is said quickly
and sloppily, it can come out sounding like "should of." That's even
of those us like me who know that it should be "should have" and
always write it that way.
You appear to be even less human than Mr Data.
--
John
Richard Yates
2018-01-13 01:50:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by Ross
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
--
Katy Jennison
What's different from what?
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of".
Same in AmE pronunciation. However, if "should have" is said quickly
and sloppily, it can come out sounding like "should of." That's even
of those us like me who know that it should be "should have" and
always write it that way.
Depends on the sentence. These are usually different in AmE dialects.
Are they ever the same in BrE?

"I should have a chisel here somewhere."
"I should have put the chisel where I could find it easily."
David Kleinecke
2018-01-13 02:27:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by Ross
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
--
Katy Jennison
What's different from what?
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of".
Same in AmE pronunciation. However, if "should have" is said quickly
and sloppily, it can come out sounding like "should of." That's even
of those us like me who know that it should be "should have" and
always write it that way.
Depends on the sentence. These are usually different in AmE dialects.
Are they ever the same in BrE?
"I should have a chisel here somewhere."
"I should have put the chisel where I could find it easily."
In my speech "have" as a active verb is always a complete /hav/
but "have" as an auxiliary is usually reduced to /ə/
Ken Blake
2018-01-13 15:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 17:50:46 -0800, Richard Yates
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by Ross
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
--
Katy Jennison
What's different from what?
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of".
Same in AmE pronunciation. However, if "should have" is said quickly
and sloppily, it can come out sounding like "should of." That's even
of those us like me who know that it should be "should have" and
always write it that way.
Depends on the sentence. These are usually different in AmE dialects.
Are they ever the same in BrE?
"I should have a chisel here somewhere."
"I should have put the chisel where I could find it easily."
Yes, very
Ross
2018-01-13 23:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by Ross
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
--
Katy Jennison
What's different from what?
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of".
Same in AmE pronunciation. However, if "should have" is said quickly
and sloppily, it can come out sounding like "should of." That's even
of those us like me who know that it should be "should have" and
always write it that way.
Depends on the sentence. These are usually different in AmE dialects.
Are they ever the same in BrE?
"I should have a chisel here somewhere."
"I should have put the chisel where I could find it easily."
In the first one, "have" is the main verb. It will normally be /h&v/.
It's just possible some speakers might reduce it to /@v/ in rapid
speech. But I'd be very surprised to see it written as "of".

The case we're really interested in is the second, where "have" is
an auxiliary, and follows "should" (or one of its little modal friends:
could, would, might, must). That's the case where I think the word has
(in the actual grammars of present day English speakers) taken leave
of the verb "have". Not that it's somehow changed into the preposition
"of". It's a grammatical element that doesn't have a spelling of its own;
but since it's pronounced /@v/, "of" is as good a spelling as "have",
if not better. "Uv" would be just as good a spelling. But since that
is a non-word from the orthographic point of view, it would attract even
more opprobrium. Perhaps the best solution would be to use the written
"contraction" (should've) all the time, since the "uncontracted"
form /Sud h&v/ is restricted to extremely formal/fussy reading-style.
b***@aol.com
2018-01-14 00:33:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by Ross
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
--
Katy Jennison
What's different from what?
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of".
Same in AmE pronunciation. However, if "should have" is said quickly
and sloppily, it can come out sounding like "should of." That's even
of those us like me who know that it should be "should have" and
always write it that way.
Depends on the sentence. These are usually different in AmE dialects.
Are they ever the same in BrE?
"I should have a chisel here somewhere."
"I should have put the chisel where I could find it easily."
In the first one, "have" is the main verb. It will normally be /h&v/.
speech. But I'd be very surprised to see it written as "of".
The case we're really interested in is the second, where "have" is
could, would, might, must). That's the case where I think the word has
(in the actual grammars of present day English speakers) taken leave
of the verb "have". Not that it's somehow changed into the preposition
"of". It's a grammatical element that doesn't have a spelling of its own;
if not better. "Uv" would be just as good a spelling. But since that
is a non-word from the orthographic point of view, it would attract even
more opprobrium.
Wouldn't "uv" suggest a vowel of /ʌ/, which, by definition, is "full"
and doesn't reflect a schwa? Therefore, couldn't a spelling of e.g.
"uhv" be more appropriate for an unstressed "have"?
Post by Ross
Perhaps the best solution would be to use the written
"contraction" (should've) all the time, since the "uncontracted"
form /Sud h&v/ is restricted to extremely formal/fussy reading-style.
Ross
2018-01-14 00:49:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by Ross
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
--
Katy Jennison
What's different from what?
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of".
Same in AmE pronunciation. However, if "should have" is said quickly
and sloppily, it can come out sounding like "should of." That's even
of those us like me who know that it should be "should have" and
always write it that way.
Depends on the sentence. These are usually different in AmE dialects.
Are they ever the same in BrE?
"I should have a chisel here somewhere."
"I should have put the chisel where I could find it easily."
In the first one, "have" is the main verb. It will normally be /h&v/.
speech. But I'd be very surprised to see it written as "of".
The case we're really interested in is the second, where "have" is
could, would, might, must). That's the case where I think the word has
(in the actual grammars of present day English speakers) taken leave
of the verb "have". Not that it's somehow changed into the preposition
"of". It's a grammatical element that doesn't have a spelling of its own;
if not better. "Uv" would be just as good a spelling. But since that
is a non-word from the orthographic point of view, it would attract even
more opprobrium.
Wouldn't "uv" suggest a vowel of /ʌ/, which, by definition, is "full"
and doesn't reflect a schwa? Therefore, couldn't a spelling of e.g.
"uhv" be more appropriate for an unstressed "have"?
To me <uhv> doesn't suggest a different vowel from <uv>. Anyway
some people consider schwa to be an unstressed allophone of /ʌ/.
b***@aol.com
2018-01-14 01:25:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by Ross
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
--
Katy Jennison
What's different from what?
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of".
Same in AmE pronunciation. However, if "should have" is said quickly
and sloppily, it can come out sounding like "should of." That's even
of those us like me who know that it should be "should have" and
always write it that way.
Depends on the sentence. These are usually different in AmE dialects.
Are they ever the same in BrE?
"I should have a chisel here somewhere."
"I should have put the chisel where I could find it easily."
In the first one, "have" is the main verb. It will normally be /h&v/.
speech. But I'd be very surprised to see it written as "of".
The case we're really interested in is the second, where "have" is
could, would, might, must). That's the case where I think the word has
(in the actual grammars of present day English speakers) taken leave
of the verb "have". Not that it's somehow changed into the preposition
"of". It's a grammatical element that doesn't have a spelling of its own;
if not better. "Uv" would be just as good a spelling. But since that
is a non-word from the orthographic point of view, it would attract even
more opprobrium.
Wouldn't "uv" suggest a vowel of /ʌ/, which, by definition, is "full"
and doesn't reflect a schwa? Therefore, couldn't a spelling of e.g.
"uhv" be more appropriate for an unstressed "have"?
To me <uhv> doesn't suggest a different vowel from <uv>. Anyway
some people consider schwa to be an unstressed allophone of /ʌ/.
Thanks. For some reason, I have the impression that the added h suggests
a shortened vowel, precisely turning /ʌ/ into its unstressed allophone.
Ross
2018-01-14 01:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by Ross
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
--
Katy Jennison
What's different from what?
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of".
Same in AmE pronunciation. However, if "should have" is said quickly
and sloppily, it can come out sounding like "should of." That's even
of those us like me who know that it should be "should have" and
always write it that way.
Depends on the sentence. These are usually different in AmE dialects.
Are they ever the same in BrE?
"I should have a chisel here somewhere."
"I should have put the chisel where I could find it easily."
In the first one, "have" is the main verb. It will normally be /h&v/.
speech. But I'd be very surprised to see it written as "of".
The case we're really interested in is the second, where "have" is
could, would, might, must). That's the case where I think the word has
(in the actual grammars of present day English speakers) taken leave
of the verb "have". Not that it's somehow changed into the preposition
"of". It's a grammatical element that doesn't have a spelling of its own;
if not better. "Uv" would be just as good a spelling. But since that
is a non-word from the orthographic point of view, it would attract even
more opprobrium.
Wouldn't "uv" suggest a vowel of /ʌ/, which, by definition, is "full"
and doesn't reflect a schwa? Therefore, couldn't a spelling of e.g.
"uhv" be more appropriate for an unstressed "have"?
To me <uhv> doesn't suggest a different vowel from <uv>. Anyway
some people consider schwa to be an unstressed allophone of /ʌ/.
Thanks. For some reason, I have the impression that the added h suggests
a shortened vowel, precisely turning /ʌ/ into its unstressed allophone.
...among the many curious uses to which h can be put.
Will Parsons
2018-01-14 23:37:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by Ross
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
--
Katy Jennison
What's different from what?
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of".
Same in AmE pronunciation. However, if "should have" is said quickly
and sloppily, it can come out sounding like "should of." That's even
of those us like me who know that it should be "should have" and
always write it that way.
Depends on the sentence. These are usually different in AmE dialects.
Are they ever the same in BrE?
"I should have a chisel here somewhere."
"I should have put the chisel where I could find it easily."
In the first one, "have" is the main verb. It will normally be /h&v/.
speech. But I'd be very surprised to see it written as "of".
The case we're really interested in is the second, where "have" is
could, would, might, must). That's the case where I think the word has
(in the actual grammars of present day English speakers) taken leave
of the verb "have". Not that it's somehow changed into the preposition
"of". It's a grammatical element that doesn't have a spelling of its own;
if not better. "Uv" would be just as good a spelling. But since that
is a non-word from the orthographic point of view, it would attract even
more opprobrium.
Wouldn't "uv" suggest a vowel of /ʌ/, which, by definition, is "full"
and doesn't reflect a schwa? Therefore, couldn't a spelling of e.g.
"uhv" be more appropriate for an unstressed "have"?
To me <uhv> doesn't suggest a different vowel from <uv>. Anyway
some people consider schwa to be an unstressed allophone of /ʌ/.
Thanks. For some reason, I have the impression that the added h suggests
a shortened vowel, precisely turning /ʌ/ into its unstressed allophone.
...among the many curious uses to which h can be put.
I think this starts in describing, by informal or ad-hoc means, the
pronunciation of (e.g.) "love" as "luv", But what what if one wants to
describe the pronunciation of "sofa"? Clearly "sofu" is inadequate,
that might be taken for something like ['soufu] or [ˈsoufju], so
"sofuh" is born. But at this point, does one attempt to be more
consistent and indicate the pronunciation of "love" as "luhv" rather
than "luv"? This kind of thing is inevitable with informal methods of
indicating pronunciations.
--
Will
Dingbat
2018-01-15 00:49:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by Ross
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
--
Katy Jennison
What's different from what?
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of".
Same in AmE pronunciation. However, if "should have" is said quickly
and sloppily, it can come out sounding like "should of." That's even
of those us like me who know that it should be "should have" and
always write it that way.
Depends on the sentence. These are usually different in AmE dialects.
Are they ever the same in BrE?
"I should have a chisel here somewhere."
"I should have put the chisel where I could find it easily."
In the first one, "have" is the main verb. It will normally be /h&v/.
speech. But I'd be very surprised to see it written as "of".
The case we're really interested in is the second, where "have" is
could, would, might, must). That's the case where I think the word has
(in the actual grammars of present day English speakers) taken leave
of the verb "have". Not that it's somehow changed into the preposition
"of". It's a grammatical element that doesn't have a spelling of its own;
if not better. "Uv" would be just as good a spelling. But since that
is a non-word from the orthographic point of view, it would attract even
more opprobrium.
Wouldn't "uv" suggest a vowel of /ʌ/, which, by definition, is "full"
and doesn't reflect a schwa? Therefore, couldn't a spelling of e.g.
"uhv" be more appropriate for an unstressed "have"?
To me <uhv> doesn't suggest a different vowel from <uv>. Anyway
some people consider schwa to be an unstressed allophone of /ʌ/.
Thanks. For some reason, I have the impression that the added h suggests
a shortened vowel, precisely turning /ʌ/ into its unstressed allophone.
...among the many curious uses to which h can be put.
I think this starts in describing, by informal or ad-hoc means, the
pronunciation of (e.g.) "love" as "luv", But what what if one wants to
describe the pronunciation of "sofa"? Clearly "sofu" is inadequate,
that might be taken for something like ['soufu] or [ˈsoufju], so
"sofuh" is born. But at this point, does one attempt to be more
consistent and indicate the pronunciation of "love" as "luhv" rather
than "luv"? This kind of thing is inevitable with informal methods of
indicating pronunciations.
The Arpabet is formal since it's defined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPABET

Using it, these are the spellings:

lahv, sofx

Unfortunately, the Arpabet, like other formal phonetic spelling conventions,
is inscrutable to the uninitiated.
Will Parsons
2018-01-15 02:14:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by Ross
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
--
Katy Jennison
What's different from what?
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of".
Same in AmE pronunciation. However, if "should have" is said quickly
and sloppily, it can come out sounding like "should of." That's even
of those us like me who know that it should be "should have" and
always write it that way.
Depends on the sentence. These are usually different in AmE dialects.
Are they ever the same in BrE?
"I should have a chisel here somewhere."
"I should have put the chisel where I could find it easily."
In the first one, "have" is the main verb. It will normally be /h&v/.
speech. But I'd be very surprised to see it written as "of".
The case we're really interested in is the second, where "have" is
could, would, might, must). That's the case where I think the word has
(in the actual grammars of present day English speakers) taken leave
of the verb "have". Not that it's somehow changed into the preposition
"of". It's a grammatical element that doesn't have a spelling of its own;
if not better. "Uv" would be just as good a spelling. But since that
is a non-word from the orthographic point of view, it would attract even
more opprobrium.
Wouldn't "uv" suggest a vowel of /ʌ/, which, by definition, is "full"
and doesn't reflect a schwa? Therefore, couldn't a spelling of e.g.
"uhv" be more appropriate for an unstressed "have"?
To me <uhv> doesn't suggest a different vowel from <uv>. Anyway
some people consider schwa to be an unstressed allophone of /ʌ/.
Thanks. For some reason, I have the impression that the added h suggests
a shortened vowel, precisely turning /ʌ/ into its unstressed allophone.
...among the many curious uses to which h can be put.
I think this starts in describing, by informal or ad-hoc means, the
pronunciation of (e.g.) "love" as "luv", But what what if one wants to
describe the pronunciation of "sofa"? Clearly "sofu" is inadequate,
that might be taken for something like ['soufu] or [ˈsoufju], so
"sofuh" is born. But at this point, does one attempt to be more
consistent and indicate the pronunciation of "love" as "luhv" rather
than "luv"? This kind of thing is inevitable with informal methods of
indicating pronunciations.
The Arpabet is formal since it's defined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPABET
lahv, sofx
Unfortunately, the Arpabet, like other formal phonetic spelling conventions,
is inscrutable to the uninitiated.
Indeed, so what's the point? The point of phonetic spellings like
"lu(h)v" is that they immediately convey a specific pronunciation to a
speaker of English who doesn't have any phonetic training. If one
complains that it is inadequate for proper representations of
pronunciations, well, then, that's what *formal* phonetic
transcriptions are for, whether it's a traditional dictionary /lŭv/ or
an IPA [lʌv]. Arpabet seems completely pointless.
--
Will
Dingbat
2018-01-15 02:39:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Dingbat
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by Ross
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
--
Katy Jennison
What's different from what?
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of".
Same in AmE pronunciation. However, if "should have" is said quickly
and sloppily, it can come out sounding like "should of." That's even
of those us like me who know that it should be "should have" and
always write it that way.
Depends on the sentence. These are usually different in AmE dialects.
Are they ever the same in BrE?
"I should have a chisel here somewhere."
"I should have put the chisel where I could find it easily."
In the first one, "have" is the main verb. It will normally be /h&v/.
speech. But I'd be very surprised to see it written as "of".
The case we're really interested in is the second, where "have" is
could, would, might, must). That's the case where I think the word has
(in the actual grammars of present day English speakers) taken leave
of the verb "have". Not that it's somehow changed into the preposition
"of". It's a grammatical element that doesn't have a spelling of its own;
if not better. "Uv" would be just as good a spelling. But since that
is a non-word from the orthographic point of view, it would attract even
more opprobrium.
Wouldn't "uv" suggest a vowel of /ʌ/, which, by definition, is "full"
and doesn't reflect a schwa? Therefore, couldn't a spelling of e.g.
"uhv" be more appropriate for an unstressed "have"?
To me <uhv> doesn't suggest a different vowel from <uv>. Anyway
some people consider schwa to be an unstressed allophone of /ʌ/.
Thanks. For some reason, I have the impression that the added h suggests
a shortened vowel, precisely turning /ʌ/ into its unstressed allophone.
...among the many curious uses to which h can be put.
I think this starts in describing, by informal or ad-hoc means, the
pronunciation of (e.g.) "love" as "luv", But what what if one wants to
describe the pronunciation of "sofa"? Clearly "sofu" is inadequate,
that might be taken for something like ['soufu] or [ˈsoufju], so
"sofuh" is born. But at this point, does one attempt to be more
consistent and indicate the pronunciation of "love" as "luhv" rather
than "luv"? This kind of thing is inevitable with informal methods of
indicating pronunciations.
The Arpabet is formal since it's defined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPABET
lahv, sofx
Unfortunately, the Arpabet, like other formal phonetic spelling conventions,
is inscrutable to the uninitiated.
Indeed, so what's the point?
... that there's no intuitive ASCII based phonetic notation, possibly.
Post by Will Parsons
The point of phonetic spellings like
"lu(h)v" is that they immediately convey a specific pronunciation to a
speaker of English who doesn't have any phonetic training.
An English phonetic alphabet, different from IPA, might conceivably be
designed to be readable without much learning. IPA requires unlearning
and learning. If you want me to elaborate, I will. EPA should use
graphemes different from IPA, where it differs from IPA, to avoid
conflict with IPA.
Post by Will Parsons
If one
complains that it is inadequate for proper representations of
pronunciations, well, then, that's what *formal* phonetic
transcriptions are for, whether it's a traditional dictionary /lŭv/ or
an IPA [lʌv]. Arpabet seems completely pointless.
Arpabet seems useful as an ASCII input method.
Will Parsons
2018-01-16 02:52:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Dingbat
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by Ross
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
--
Katy Jennison
What's different from what?
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of".
Same in AmE pronunciation. However, if "should have" is said quickly
and sloppily, it can come out sounding like "should of." That's even
of those us like me who know that it should be "should have" and
always write it that way.
Depends on the sentence. These are usually different in AmE dialects.
Are they ever the same in BrE?
"I should have a chisel here somewhere."
"I should have put the chisel where I could find it easily."
In the first one, "have" is the main verb. It will normally be /h&v/.
speech. But I'd be very surprised to see it written as "of".
The case we're really interested in is the second, where "have" is
could, would, might, must). That's the case where I think the word has
(in the actual grammars of present day English speakers) taken leave
of the verb "have". Not that it's somehow changed into the preposition
"of". It's a grammatical element that doesn't have a spelling of its own;
if not better. "Uv" would be just as good a spelling. But since that
is a non-word from the orthographic point of view, it would attract even
more opprobrium.
Wouldn't "uv" suggest a vowel of /ʌ/, which, by definition, is "full"
and doesn't reflect a schwa? Therefore, couldn't a spelling of e.g.
"uhv" be more appropriate for an unstressed "have"?
To me <uhv> doesn't suggest a different vowel from <uv>. Anyway
some people consider schwa to be an unstressed allophone of /ʌ/.
Thanks. For some reason, I have the impression that the added h suggests
a shortened vowel, precisely turning /ʌ/ into its unstressed allophone.
...among the many curious uses to which h can be put.
I think this starts in describing, by informal or ad-hoc means, the
pronunciation of (e.g.) "love" as "luv", But what what if one wants to
describe the pronunciation of "sofa"? Clearly "sofu" is inadequate,
that might be taken for something like ['soufu] or [ˈsoufju], so
"sofuh" is born. But at this point, does one attempt to be more
consistent and indicate the pronunciation of "love" as "luhv" rather
than "luv"? This kind of thing is inevitable with informal methods of
indicating pronunciations.
The Arpabet is formal since it's defined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPABET
lahv, sofx
Unfortunately, the Arpabet, like other formal phonetic spelling conventions,
is inscrutable to the uninitiated.
Indeed, so what's the point?
... that there's no intuitive ASCII based phonetic notation, possibly.
Post by Will Parsons
The point of phonetic spellings like
"lu(h)v" is that they immediately convey a specific pronunciation to a
speaker of English who doesn't have any phonetic training.
An English phonetic alphabet, different from IPA, might conceivably be
designed to be readable without much learning.
So, do *you* think that a phonetic transcription of "bought" as either
"bct" or "baot" is immediately suggestive to an English speaker? No,
it requires learning. And if it requires learning, then one might as
well learn something that is more generally useful - like the IPA
[bɔt].
Post by Dingbat
IPA requires unlearning and learning.
As does "Arpabet".
Post by Dingbat
If you want me to elaborate, I will. EPA should use
graphemes different from IPA, where it differs from IPA, to avoid
conflict with IPA.
So, what's the point? Why not simply use the IPA in the first place?
Post by Dingbat
Post by Will Parsons
If one
complains that it is inadequate for proper representations of
pronunciations, well, then, that's what *formal* phonetic
transcriptions are for, whether it's a traditional dictionary /lŭv/ or
an IPA [lʌv]. Arpabet seems completely pointless.
Arpabet seems useful as an ASCII input method.
Input method? Meaning that if one types in (e.g.) the letters "ao",
this is automatically transformed into an IPA [ɔ] (unicode)?
--
Will
Dingbat
2018-01-16 17:07:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Dingbat
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Dingbat
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by Ross
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
--
Katy Jennison
What's different from what?
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of".
Same in AmE pronunciation. However, if "should have" is said quickly
and sloppily, it can come out sounding like "should of." That's even
of those us like me who know that it should be "should have" and
always write it that way.
Depends on the sentence. These are usually different in AmE dialects.
Are they ever the same in BrE?
"I should have a chisel here somewhere."
"I should have put the chisel where I could find it easily."
In the first one, "have" is the main verb. It will normally be /h&v/.
speech. But I'd be very surprised to see it written as "of".
The case we're really interested in is the second, where "have" is
could, would, might, must). That's the case where I think the word has
(in the actual grammars of present day English speakers) taken leave
of the verb "have". Not that it's somehow changed into the preposition
"of". It's a grammatical element that doesn't have a spelling of its own;
if not better. "Uv" would be just as good a spelling. But since that
is a non-word from the orthographic point of view, it would attract even
more opprobrium.
Wouldn't "uv" suggest a vowel of /ʌ/, which, by definition, is "full"
and doesn't reflect a schwa? Therefore, couldn't a spelling of e.g.
"uhv" be more appropriate for an unstressed "have"?
To me <uhv> doesn't suggest a different vowel from <uv>. Anyway
some people consider schwa to be an unstressed allophone of /ʌ/.
Thanks. For some reason, I have the impression that the added h suggests
a shortened vowel, precisely turning /ʌ/ into its unstressed allophone.
...among the many curious uses to which h can be put.
I think this starts in describing, by informal or ad-hoc means, the
pronunciation of (e.g.) "love" as "luv", But what what if one wants to
describe the pronunciation of "sofa"? Clearly "sofu" is inadequate,
that might be taken for something like ['soufu] or [ˈsoufju], so
"sofuh" is born. But at this point, does one attempt to be more
consistent and indicate the pronunciation of "love" as "luhv" rather
than "luv"? This kind of thing is inevitable with informal methods of
indicating pronunciations.
The Arpabet is formal since it's defined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPABET
lahv, sofx
Unfortunately, the Arpabet, like other formal phonetic spelling conventions,
is inscrutable to the uninitiated.
Indeed, so what's the point?
... that there's no intuitive ASCII based phonetic notation, possibly.
Post by Will Parsons
The point of phonetic spellings like
"lu(h)v" is that they immediately convey a specific pronunciation to a
speaker of English who doesn't have any phonetic training.
An English phonetic alphabet, different from IPA, might conceivably be
designed to be readable without much learning.
So, do *you* think that a phonetic transcription of "bought" as either
"bct" or "baot" is immediately suggestive to an English speaker?
That doesn't look designed to be readable without much learning.
Post by Will Parsons
No, it requires learning. And if it requires learning, then one might as
well learn something that is more generally useful - like the IPA
[bɔt].
Post by Dingbat
IPA requires unlearning and learning.
As does "Arpabet".
Did I say otherwise? I said readability with little learning would require
an "English Phonetic Alphabet", not Arpabet or IPA, although I cautioned
that EPA ought to add new graphemes rather than redefine the meaning
of graphemes already used in IPA.
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Dingbat
If you want me to elaborate, I will. EPA should use
graphemes different from IPA, where it differs from IPA, to avoid
conflict with IPA.
So, what's the point?
How would Joe Sixpack read "yeah" or "cheese" converted to IPA without much
learning and unlearning.
Post by Will Parsons
Why not simply use the IPA in the first place?
One example:
Even if a phonetic alphabet is used, it need not be used for everything.
Japanese writing normally has only foreign loans in Katakana.
In an English text with IPA used only for foreign words (or foreign names),
<x> would have one meaning in the English words in the text and a
different meaning in the foreign words in the text.
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Dingbat
Post by Will Parsons
If one
complains that it is inadequate for proper representations of
pronunciations, well, then, that's what *formal* phonetic
transcriptions are for, whether it's a traditional dictionary /lŭv/ or
an IPA [lʌv]. Arpabet seems completely pointless.
Arpabet seems useful as an ASCII input method.
Input method? Meaning that if one types in (e.g.) the letters "ao",
this is automatically transformed into an IPA [ɔ] (unicode)?
Correct, if output in IPA is what's desired.
Peter Moylan
2018-01-15 01:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Will Parsons
I think this starts in describing, by informal or ad-hoc means, the
pronunciation of (e.g.) "love" as "luv", But what what if one wants
to describe the pronunciation of "sofa"? Clearly "sofu" is
inadequate, that might be taken for something like ['soufu] or
[ˈsoufju], so "sofuh" is born. But at this point, does one attempt
to be more consistent and indicate the pronunciation of "love" as
"luhv" rather than "luv"? This kind of thing is inevitable with
informal methods of indicating pronunciations.
It's not even cross-pondian. The AmE "uh" vowel is the BrE "er" vowel,
approximately.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
b***@aol.com
2018-01-15 02:58:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by Ross
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
--
Katy Jennison
What's different from what?
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of".
Same in AmE pronunciation. However, if "should have" is said quickly
and sloppily, it can come out sounding like "should of." That's even
of those us like me who know that it should be "should have" and
always write it that way.
Depends on the sentence. These are usually different in AmE dialects.
Are they ever the same in BrE?
"I should have a chisel here somewhere."
"I should have put the chisel where I could find it easily."
In the first one, "have" is the main verb. It will normally be /h&v/.
speech. But I'd be very surprised to see it written as "of".
The case we're really interested in is the second, where "have" is
could, would, might, must). That's the case where I think the word has
(in the actual grammars of present day English speakers) taken leave
of the verb "have". Not that it's somehow changed into the preposition
"of". It's a grammatical element that doesn't have a spelling of its own;
if not better. "Uv" would be just as good a spelling. But since that
is a non-word from the orthographic point of view, it would attract even
more opprobrium.
Wouldn't "uv" suggest a vowel of /ʌ/, which, by definition, is "full"
and doesn't reflect a schwa? Therefore, couldn't a spelling of e.g.
"uhv" be more appropriate for an unstressed "have"?
To me <uhv> doesn't suggest a different vowel from <uv>. Anyway
some people consider schwa to be an unstressed allophone of /ʌ/.
Thanks. For some reason, I have the impression that the added h suggests
a shortened vowel, precisely turning /ʌ/ into its unstressed allophone.
...among the many curious uses to which h can be put.
I think this starts in describing, by informal or ad-hoc means, the
pronunciation of (e.g.) "love" as "luv", But what what if one wants to
describe the pronunciation of "sofa"? Clearly "sofu" is inadequate,
that might be taken for something like ['soufu] or [ˈsoufju], so
"sofuh" is born. But at this point, does one attempt to be more
consistent and indicate the pronunciation of "love" as "luhv" rather
than "luv"? This kind of thing is inevitable with informal methods of
indicating pronunciations.
But what if a given word can be pronounced with /ʌ/ and /ə/?

For instance, "'cause" in AmE can be pronounced /kɔz], /kʌz/ and /kəz/.
How can /kʌz/ and /kəz/ be rendered distinctively using "irregular"
spellings? /kʌz/, obviously, is rendered as "cuz", but Google also
returns many hits for "cuhz". Couldn't the latter specifically reflect
/kəz/?
Post by Will Parsons
--
Will
Ken Blake
2018-01-15 19:57:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 18:58:08 -0800 (PST), ***@aol.com wrote:

\
But what if a given word can be pronounced with /?/ and /?/?
For instance, "'cause" in AmE can be pronounced /k?z], /k?z/ and /k?z/.
How can /k?z/ and /k?z/ be rendered distinctively using "irregular"
spellings? /k?z/, obviously, is rendered as "cuz", but Google also
returns many hits for "cuhz". Couldn't the latter specifically reflect
/k?z/?
I keep meaning to ask this question.

I use Agent 6.0 as my newsreader. Are those /?/ /?/? /k?z] /k?z/
/k?z etc. characters IPA? Can you or someone else here tell me what
settings I
Snidely
2018-01-16 09:49:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
\
But what if a given word can be pronounced with /?/ and /?/?
For instance, "'cause" in AmE can be pronounced /k?z], /k?z/ and /k?z/.
How can /k?z/ and /k?z/ be rendered distinctively using "irregular"
spellings? /k?z/, obviously, is rendered as "cuz", but Google also
returns many hits for "cuhz". Couldn't the latter specifically reflect
/k?z/?
I keep meaning to ask this question.
I use Agent 6.0 as my newsreader. Are those /?/ /?/? /k?z] /k?z/
/k?z etc. characters IPA? Can you or someone else here tell me what
settings I need to be to read them correctly.
You might start with this post, and then check others in that thread by
the same posters.
<URL:https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usage.english/H5lxAMNh5Kw/MWTFdBO1AwAJ>
But you participated in that thread, so all this should be old-hat to
you. I'm not sure if instructions specific to Forte appeared in that
thread, but they are certainly hinted at:
<URL:https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usage.english/H5lxAMNh5Kw/Ha2zuRt6AwAJ>

/dps
--
"That's a good sort of hectic, innit?"

" Very much so, and I'd recommend the haggis wontons."
-njm
Ken Blake
2018-01-16 16:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by Ken Blake
\
But what if a given word can be pronounced with /?/ and /?/?
For instance, "'cause" in AmE can be pronounced /k?z], /k?z/ and /k?z/.
How can /k?z/ and /k?z/ be rendered distinctively using "irregular"
spellings? /k?z/, obviously, is rendered as "cuz", but Google also
returns many hits for "cuhz". Couldn't the latter specifically reflect
/k?z/?
I keep meaning to ask this question.
I use Agent 6.0 as my newsreader. Are those /?/ /?/? /k?z] /k?z/
/k?z etc. characters IPA? Can you or someone else here tell me what
settings I need to be to read them correctly.
You might start with this post, and then check others in that thread by
the same posters.
<URL:https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usage.english/H5lxAMNh5Kw/MWTFdBO1AwAJ>
But you participated in that thread, so all this should be old-hat to
you. I'm not sure if instructions specific to Forte appeared in that
<URL:https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usage.english/H5lxAMNh5Kw/Ha2zuRt6AwAJ>
Yes, I remember that thread, but I didn't learn how to
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-15 04:26:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
The case we're really interested in is the second, where "have" is
could, would, might, must). That's the case where I think the word has
(in the actual grammars of present day English speakers) taken leave
of the verb "have". Not that it's somehow changed into the preposition
"of". It's a grammatical element that doesn't have a spelling of its own;
if not better. "Uv" would be just as good a spelling. But since that
is a non-word from the orthographic point of view, it would attract even
more opprobrium.
Wouldn't "uv" suggest a vowel of /ʌ/, which, by definition, is "full"
and doesn't reflect a schwa? Therefore, couldn't a spelling of e.g.
"uhv" be more appropriate for an unstressed "have"?
To me <uhv> doesn't suggest a different vowel from <uv>. Anyway
some people consider schwa to be an unstressed allophone of /ʌ/.
Thanks. For some reason, I have the impression that the added h suggests
a shortened vowel, precisely turning /ʌ/ into its unstressed allophone.
...among the many curious uses to which h can be put.
I think this starts in describing, by informal or ad-hoc means, the
pronunciation of (e.g.) "love" as "luv", But what what if one wants to
describe the pronunciation of "sofa"? Clearly "sofu" is inadequate,
that might be taken for something like ['soufu] or [ˈsoufju], so
"sofuh" is born. But at this point, does one attempt to be more
consistent and indicate the pronunciation of "love" as "luhv" rather
than "luv"? This kind of thing is inevitable with informal methods of
indicating pronunciations.
Were you here when some of them were claiming that "lurv" or "lurve" (apparently
found in some Britpop music lyrics) indicated some special pronunciation
of "love" in some special context?

After much discussion, it turned out that it's at best eye-dialect, but in fact
indicates nothing at all.
Dingbat
2018-01-15 05:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
The case we're really interested in is the second, where "have" is
could, would, might, must). That's the case where I think the word has
(in the actual grammars of present day English speakers) taken leave
of the verb "have". Not that it's somehow changed into the preposition
"of". It's a grammatical element that doesn't have a spelling of its own;
if not better. "Uv" would be just as good a spelling. But since that
is a non-word from the orthographic point of view, it would attract even
more opprobrium.
Wouldn't "uv" suggest a vowel of /ʌ/, which, by definition, is "full"
and doesn't reflect a schwa? Therefore, couldn't a spelling of e.g.
"uhv" be more appropriate for an unstressed "have"?
To me <uhv> doesn't suggest a different vowel from <uv>. Anyway
some people consider schwa to be an unstressed allophone of /ʌ/.
Thanks. For some reason, I have the impression that the added h suggests
a shortened vowel, precisely turning /ʌ/ into its unstressed allophone.
...among the many curious uses to which h can be put.
I think this starts in describing, by informal or ad-hoc means, the
pronunciation of (e.g.) "love" as "luv", But what what if one wants to
describe the pronunciation of "sofa"? Clearly "sofu" is inadequate,
that might be taken for something like ['soufu] or [ˈsoufju], so
"sofuh" is born. But at this point, does one attempt to be more
consistent and indicate the pronunciation of "love" as "luhv" rather
than "luv"? This kind of thing is inevitable with informal methods of
indicating pronunciations.
Were you here when some of them were claiming that "lurv" or "lurve"
(apparently found in some Britpop music lyrics) indicated some special
pronunciation of "love" in some special context?
After much discussion, it turned out that it's at best eye-dialect, but in
fact indicates nothing at all.
It indicates that in contexts where lurve speakers are imitated,
it's closer to [lɤv] than to [lɐv] or [lʌv].
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-01-15 13:12:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 20:26:13 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by Ross
The case we're really interested in is the second, where "have" is
could, would, might, must). That's the case where I think the word has
(in the actual grammars of present day English speakers) taken leave
of the verb "have". Not that it's somehow changed into the preposition
"of". It's a grammatical element that doesn't have a spelling of its own;
if not better. "Uv" would be just as good a spelling. But since that
is a non-word from the orthographic point of view, it would attract even
more opprobrium.
Wouldn't "uv" suggest a vowel of /?/, which, by definition, is "full"
and doesn't reflect a schwa? Therefore, couldn't a spelling of e.g.
"uhv" be more appropriate for an unstressed "have"?
To me <uhv> doesn't suggest a different vowel from <uv>. Anyway
some people consider schwa to be an unstressed allophone of /?/.
Thanks. For some reason, I have the impression that the added h suggests
a shortened vowel, precisely turning /?/ into its unstressed allophone.
...among the many curious uses to which h can be put.
I think this starts in describing, by informal or ad-hoc means, the
pronunciation of (e.g.) "love" as "luv", But what what if one wants to
describe the pronunciation of "sofa"? Clearly "sofu" is inadequate,
that might be taken for something like ['soufu] or [?soufju], so
"sofuh" is born. But at this point, does one attempt to be more
consistent and indicate the pronunciation of "love" as "luhv" rather
than "luv"? This kind of thing is inevitable with informal methods of
indicating pronunciations.
Were you here when some of them were claiming that "lurv" or "lurve" (apparently
found in some Britpop music lyrics) indicated some special pronunciation
of "love" in some special context?
After much discussion, it turned out that it's at best eye-dialect, but in fact
indicates nothing at all.
For what it's worth:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lurve

lurve
NOUN & VERB

non-standard spelling of love (used in humorous reference to
romantic infatuation)
Origin
1930s: as a parody of the pronunciation of love in popular romantic
songs.

Note that "ur" in "lurve" is a nonrhotic sound. It is similar to
nonrhotic "er". It represents the vowel sound used in "popular romantic
songs" that can be extended indefinitely: "luuuuuurve". The usual "o"
sound in "love", in BrE, rhymes with that in "up" which cannot be
readily extended in the same way.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-15 15:29:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 20:26:13 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by Ross
The case we're really interested in is the second, where "have" is
could, would, might, must). That's the case where I think the word has
(in the actual grammars of present day English speakers) taken leave
of the verb "have". Not that it's somehow changed into the preposition
"of". It's a grammatical element that doesn't have a spelling of its own;
if not better. "Uv" would be just as good a spelling. But since that
is a non-word from the orthographic point of view, it would attract even
more opprobrium.
Wouldn't "uv" suggest a vowel of /?/, which, by definition, is "full"
and doesn't reflect a schwa? Therefore, couldn't a spelling of e.g.
"uhv" be more appropriate for an unstressed "have"?
To me <uhv> doesn't suggest a different vowel from <uv>. Anyway
some people consider schwa to be an unstressed allophone of /?/.
Thanks. For some reason, I have the impression that the added h suggests
a shortened vowel, precisely turning /?/ into its unstressed allophone.
...among the many curious uses to which h can be put.
I think this starts in describing, by informal or ad-hoc means, the
pronunciation of (e.g.) "love" as "luv", But what what if one wants to
describe the pronunciation of "sofa"? Clearly "sofu" is inadequate,
that might be taken for something like ['soufu] or [?soufju], so
"sofuh" is born. But at this point, does one attempt to be more
consistent and indicate the pronunciation of "love" as "luhv" rather
than "luv"? This kind of thing is inevitable with informal methods of
indicating pronunciations.
Were you here when some of them were claiming that "lurv" or "lurve" (apparently
found in some Britpop music lyrics) indicated some special pronunciation
of "love" in some special context?
After much discussion, it turned out that it's at best eye-dialect, but in fact
indicates nothing at all.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lurve
lurve
NOUN & VERB
non-standard spelling of love (used in humorous reference to
romantic infatuation)
Origin
1930s: as a parody of the pronunciation of love in popular romantic
songs.
Note that "ur" in "lurve" is a nonrhotic sound. It is similar to
nonrhotic "er". It represents the vowel sound used in "popular romantic
songs" that can be extended indefinitely: "luuuuuurve". The usual "o"
sound in "love", in BrE, rhymes with that in "up" which cannot be
readily extended in the same way.
Why on earth not?

I immediately thought of this song (which I thought might be from a movie, but seems to be a
Britpop original):

Lyrics

… Love, this is my song
Here is a song, a serenade to you
The world cannot be wrong
If in this world there is you…

Full lyrics on Google Play Music

Artist: Petula Clark
Album: Colour My World
Released: 1967

It begins with an extended "Love," which sounds like "love," not like a
centered rounded "ur" version.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-01-15 15:54:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 20:26:13 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by Ross
The case we're really interested in is the second, where "have" is
could, would, might, must). That's the case where I think the word has
(in the actual grammars of present day English speakers) taken leave
of the verb "have". Not that it's somehow changed into the preposition
"of". It's a grammatical element that doesn't have a spelling of its own;
if not better. "Uv" would be just as good a spelling. But since that
is a non-word from the orthographic point of view, it would attract even
more opprobrium.
Wouldn't "uv" suggest a vowel of /?/, which, by definition, is "full"
and doesn't reflect a schwa? Therefore, couldn't a spelling of e.g.
"uhv" be more appropriate for an unstressed "have"?
To me <uhv> doesn't suggest a different vowel from <uv>. Anyway
some people consider schwa to be an unstressed allophone of /?/.
Thanks. For some reason, I have the impression that the added h suggests
a shortened vowel, precisely turning /?/ into its unstressed allophone.
...among the many curious uses to which h can be put.
I think this starts in describing, by informal or ad-hoc means, the
pronunciation of (e.g.) "love" as "luv", But what what if one wants to
describe the pronunciation of "sofa"? Clearly "sofu" is inadequate,
that might be taken for something like ['soufu] or [?soufju], so
"sofuh" is born. But at this point, does one attempt to be more
consistent and indicate the pronunciation of "love" as "luhv" rather
than "luv"? This kind of thing is inevitable with informal methods of
indicating pronunciations.
Were you here when some of them were claiming that "lurv" or "lurve" (apparently
found in some Britpop music lyrics) indicated some special pronunciation
of "love" in some special context?
After much discussion, it turned out that it's at best eye-dialect, but in fact
indicates nothing at all.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lurve
lurve
NOUN & VERB
non-standard spelling of love (used in humorous reference to
romantic infatuation)
Origin
1930s: as a parody of the pronunciation of love in popular romantic
songs.
Note that "ur" in "lurve" is a nonrhotic sound. It is similar to
nonrhotic "er". It represents the vowel sound used in "popular romantic
songs" that can be extended indefinitely: "luuuuuurve". The usual "o"
sound in "love", in BrE, rhymes with that in "up" which cannot be
readily extended in the same way.
Why on earth not?
I immediately thought of this song (which I thought might be from a movie, but seems to be a
Lyrics
… Love, this is my song
Here is a song, a serenade to you
The world cannot be wrong
If in this world there is you…
Full lyrics on Google Play Music
Artist: Petula Clark
Album: Colour My World
Released: 1967
It begins with an extended "Love," which sounds like "love," not like a
centered rounded "ur" version.
It is from a movie. "A Countess from Hong Kong" starring Loren & Brando.
Screenplay and song both written by one Charles Chaplin.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-15 16:11:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 20:26:13 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by Ross
The case we're really interested in is the second, where "have" is
could, would, might, must). That's the case where I think the word has
(in the actual grammars of present day English speakers) taken leave
of the verb "have". Not that it's somehow changed into the preposition
"of". It's a grammatical element that doesn't have a spelling of its own;
if not better. "Uv" would be just as good a spelling. But since that
is a non-word from the orthographic point of view, it would attract even
more opprobrium.
Wouldn't "uv" suggest a vowel of /?/, which, by definition, is "full"
and doesn't reflect a schwa? Therefore, couldn't a spelling of e.g.
"uhv" be more appropriate for an unstressed "have"?
To me <uhv> doesn't suggest a different vowel from <uv>. Anyway
some people consider schwa to be an unstressed allophone of /?/.
Thanks. For some reason, I have the impression that the added h suggests
a shortened vowel, precisely turning /?/ into its unstressed allophone.
...among the many curious uses to which h can be put.
I think this starts in describing, by informal or ad-hoc means, the
pronunciation of (e.g.) "love" as "luv", But what what if one wants to
describe the pronunciation of "sofa"? Clearly "sofu" is inadequate,
that might be taken for something like ['soufu] or [?soufju], so
"sofuh" is born. But at this point, does one attempt to be more
consistent and indicate the pronunciation of "love" as "luhv" rather
than "luv"? This kind of thing is inevitable with informal methods of
indicating pronunciations.
Were you here when some of them were claiming that "lurv" or "lurve" (apparently
found in some Britpop music lyrics) indicated some special pronunciation
of "love" in some special context?
After much discussion, it turned out that it's at best eye-dialect, but in fact
indicates nothing at all.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lurve
lurve
NOUN & VERB
non-standard spelling of love (used in humorous reference to
romantic infatuation)
Origin
1930s: as a parody of the pronunciation of love in popular romantic
songs.
Note that "ur" in "lurve" is a nonrhotic sound. It is similar to
nonrhotic "er". It represents the vowel sound used in "popular romantic
songs" that can be extended indefinitely: "luuuuuurve". The usual "o"
sound in "love", in BrE, rhymes with that in "up" which cannot be
readily extended in the same way.
Why on earth not?
I immediately thought of this song (which I thought might be from a movie, but seems to be a
Lyrics
… Love, this is my song
Here is a song, a serenade to you
The world cannot be wrong
If in this world there is you…
Full lyrics on Google Play Music
Artist: Petula Clark
Album: Colour My World
Released: 1967
It begins with an extended "Love," which sounds like "love," not like a
centered rounded "ur" version.
It is from a movie. "A Countess from Hong Kong" starring Loren & Brando.
Screenplay and song both written by one Charles Chaplin.
Good! If P.C. sings "Lurve," then there is no difference at all between "Lurve" and "Love."
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-01-15 17:49:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 07:29:43 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 20:26:13 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by Ross
The case we're really interested in is the second, where "have" is
could, would, might, must). That's the case where I think the word has
(in the actual grammars of present day English speakers) taken leave
of the verb "have". Not that it's somehow changed into the preposition
"of". It's a grammatical element that doesn't have a spelling of its own;
if not better. "Uv" would be just as good a spelling. But since that
is a non-word from the orthographic point of view, it would attract even
more opprobrium.
Wouldn't "uv" suggest a vowel of /?/, which, by definition, is "full"
and doesn't reflect a schwa? Therefore, couldn't a spelling of e.g.
"uhv" be more appropriate for an unstressed "have"?
To me <uhv> doesn't suggest a different vowel from <uv>. Anyway
some people consider schwa to be an unstressed allophone of /?/.
Thanks. For some reason, I have the impression that the added h suggests
a shortened vowel, precisely turning /?/ into its unstressed allophone.
...among the many curious uses to which h can be put.
I think this starts in describing, by informal or ad-hoc means, the
pronunciation of (e.g.) "love" as "luv", But what what if one wants to
describe the pronunciation of "sofa"? Clearly "sofu" is inadequate,
that might be taken for something like ['soufu] or [?soufju], so
"sofuh" is born. But at this point, does one attempt to be more
consistent and indicate the pronunciation of "love" as "luhv" rather
than "luv"? This kind of thing is inevitable with informal methods of
indicating pronunciations.
Were you here when some of them were claiming that "lurv" or "lurve" (apparently
found in some Britpop music lyrics) indicated some special pronunciation
of "love" in some special context?
After much discussion, it turned out that it's at best eye-dialect, but in fact
indicates nothing at all.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lurve
lurve
NOUN & VERB
non-standard spelling of love (used in humorous reference to
romantic infatuation)
Origin
1930s: as a parody of the pronunciation of love in popular romantic
songs.
Note that "ur" in "lurve" is a nonrhotic sound. It is similar to
nonrhotic "er". It represents the vowel sound used in "popular romantic
songs" that can be extended indefinitely: "luuuuuurve". The usual "o"
sound in "love", in BrE, rhymes with that in "up" which cannot be
readily extended in the same way.
Why on earth not?
Because of the way it is spoken in BrE.[1]

The audio clips by palashdave and Jazzy9 here:
https://forvo.com/word/up/#en

If extended those "u" sounds would be a croak.

[1] In some dialects of BrE "up" does not rhyme with any version of the
"o" in "love".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-15 21:54:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 07:29:43 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 20:26:13 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by Ross
The case we're really interested in is the second, where "have" is
could, would, might, must). That's the case where I think the word has
(in the actual grammars of present day English speakers) taken leave
of the verb "have". Not that it's somehow changed into the preposition
"of". It's a grammatical element that doesn't have a spelling of its own;
if not better. "Uv" would be just as good a spelling. But since that
is a non-word from the orthographic point of view, it would attract even
more opprobrium.
Wouldn't "uv" suggest a vowel of /?/, which, by definition, is "full"
and doesn't reflect a schwa? Therefore, couldn't a spelling of e.g.
"uhv" be more appropriate for an unstressed "have"?
To me <uhv> doesn't suggest a different vowel from <uv>. Anyway
some people consider schwa to be an unstressed allophone of /?/.
Thanks. For some reason, I have the impression that the added h suggests
a shortened vowel, precisely turning /?/ into its unstressed allophone.
...among the many curious uses to which h can be put.
I think this starts in describing, by informal or ad-hoc means, the
pronunciation of (e.g.) "love" as "luv", But what what if one wants to
describe the pronunciation of "sofa"? Clearly "sofu" is inadequate,
that might be taken for something like ['soufu] or [?soufju], so
"sofuh" is born. But at this point, does one attempt to be more
consistent and indicate the pronunciation of "love" as "luhv" rather
than "luv"? This kind of thing is inevitable with informal methods of
indicating pronunciations.
Were you here when some of them were claiming that "lurv" or "lurve" (apparently
found in some Britpop music lyrics) indicated some special pronunciation
of "love" in some special context?
After much discussion, it turned out that it's at best eye-dialect, but in fact
indicates nothing at all.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lurve
lurve
NOUN & VERB
non-standard spelling of love (used in humorous reference to
romantic infatuation)
Origin
1930s: as a parody of the pronunciation of love in popular romantic
songs.
Note that "ur" in "lurve" is a nonrhotic sound. It is similar to
nonrhotic "er". It represents the vowel sound used in "popular romantic
songs" that can be extended indefinitely: "luuuuuurve". The usual "o"
sound in "love", in BrE, rhymes with that in "up" which cannot be
readily extended in the same way.
Why on earth not?
Because of the way it is spoken in BrE.[1]
https://forvo.com/word/up/#en
If extended those "u" sounds would be a croak.
? Ms. Jazzy9 either is afflicted with perpetual creaky voice or should have
cleared her throat before recording. The creakiness has nothing to do with
the timbre of the vowel. I don't find anything creaky about Mr palashdave.

Since the croak has nothing to do with the pronunciation of the vowel, there's
no reason it can't be extended like any other vowel.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
[1] In some dialects of BrE "up" does not rhyme with any version of the
"o" in "love".
And that's why phonetic transcription is needed. In AmE, both are [ʌ]. I know
that there are varieties of BrE that have [ʊ] in "up" and in "love," and it
would make sense if any particular dialect has that sound in both words (the
conditioning environments are quite similar, viz., a following labial consonant
that's liable to cause rounding of the preceding vowel). For instance, Mr Lennon
(and presumably his bandmates) have [ʊ] in both words when speaking. (In "She
Loves Me, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah," it's clearly [lʌv].)

What are the respective vowels in your "some dialects"?
Snidely
2018-01-16 09:58:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 07:29:43 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 20:26:13 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by Ross
The case we're really interested in is the second, where "have" is
an auxiliary, and follows "should" (or one of its little modal
friends: could, would, might, must). That's the case where I think
the word has (in the actual grammars of present day English
speakers) taken leave of the verb "have". Not that it's somehow
changed into the preposition "of". It's a grammatical element that
"of" is as good a spelling as "have", if not better. "Uv" would be
just as good a spelling. But since that is a non-word from the
orthographic point of view, it would attract even more opprobrium.
Wouldn't "uv" suggest a vowel of /?/, which, by definition, is
"full" and doesn't reflect a schwa? Therefore, couldn't a spelling
of e.g. "uhv" be more appropriate for an unstressed "have"?
To me <uhv> doesn't suggest a different vowel from <uv>. Anyway
some people consider schwa to be an unstressed allophone of /?/.
Thanks. For some reason, I have the impression that the added h
suggests a shortened vowel, precisely turning /?/ into its unstressed
allophone.
...among the many curious uses to which h can be put.
I think this starts in describing, by informal or ad-hoc means, the
pronunciation of (e.g.) "love" as "luv", But what what if one wants to
describe the pronunciation of "sofa"? Clearly "sofu" is inadequate,
that might be taken for something like ['soufu] or [?soufju], so
"sofuh" is born. But at this point, does one attempt to be more
consistent and indicate the pronunciation of "love" as "luhv" rather
than "luv"? This kind of thing is inevitable with informal methods of
indicating pronunciations.
Were you here when some of them were claiming that "lurv" or "lurve"
(apparently found in some Britpop music lyrics) indicated some special
pronunciation of "love" in some special context?
After much discussion, it turned out that it's at best eye-dialect, but
in fact indicates nothing at all.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lurve
lurve
NOUN & VERB
non-standard spelling of love (used in humorous reference to
romantic infatuation)
Origin
1930s: as a parody of the pronunciation of love in popular romantic
songs.
Note that "ur" in "lurve" is a nonrhotic sound. It is similar to
nonrhotic "er". It represents the vowel sound used in "popular romantic
songs" that can be extended indefinitely: "luuuuuurve". The usual "o"
sound in "love", in BrE, rhymes with that in "up" which cannot be
readily extended in the same way.
Why on earth not?
Because of the way it is spoken in BrE.[1]
https://forvo.com/word/up/#en
If extended those "u" sounds would be a croak.
? Ms. Jazzy9 either is afflicted with perpetual creaky voice or should have
cleared her throat before recording. The creakiness has nothing to do with
the timbre of the vowel. I don't find anything creaky about Mr palashdave.
I'd be hard pressed to describe any difference other than pitch. Even
the Aussies don't sound [to me] much different. Perhaps it's my tin
ear, or perhaps the shortness of the clips.

[My boss, born in Oz but raised in different parts of fair Albion
(including somewhere where Welsh was required) has been in the US for
20-odd years, but his a->ar and some rhythms are still noticeable. I
haven't heard anything in his "up" that stands out, though.)
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Since the croak has nothing to do with the pronunciation of the vowel,
there's no reason it can't be extended like any other vowel.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
[1] In some dialects of BrE "up" does not rhyme with any version of the
"o" in "love".
And that's why phonetic transcription is needed. In AmE, both are [ʌ]. I know
that there are varieties of BrE that have [ʊ] in "up" and in "love," and it
would make sense if any particular dialect has that sound in both words (the
conditioning environments are quite similar, viz., a following labial
consonant that's liable to cause rounding of the preceding vowel). For
instance, Mr Lennon (and presumably his bandmates) have [ʊ] in both words
when speaking. (In "She Loves Me, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah," it's clearly [lʌv].)
What are the respective vowels in your "some dialects"?
We waits with bated breadth.

/dps "or baited baths?"
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-16 14:04:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 07:29:43 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 20:26:13 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by Ross
The case we're really interested in is the second, where "have" is
an auxiliary, and follows "should" (or one of its little modal
friends: could, would, might, must). That's the case where I think
the word has (in the actual grammars of present day English
speakers) taken leave of the verb "have". Not that it's somehow
changed into the preposition "of". It's a grammatical element that
"of" is as good a spelling as "have", if not better. "Uv" would be
just as good a spelling. But since that is a non-word from the
orthographic point of view, it would attract even more opprobrium.
Wouldn't "uv" suggest a vowel of /?/, which, by definition, is
"full" and doesn't reflect a schwa? Therefore, couldn't a spelling
of e.g. "uhv" be more appropriate for an unstressed "have"?
To me <uhv> doesn't suggest a different vowel from <uv>. Anyway
some people consider schwa to be an unstressed allophone of /?/.
Thanks. For some reason, I have the impression that the added h
suggests a shortened vowel, precisely turning /?/ into its unstressed
allophone.
...among the many curious uses to which h can be put.
I think this starts in describing, by informal or ad-hoc means, the
pronunciation of (e.g.) "love" as "luv", But what what if one wants to
describe the pronunciation of "sofa"? Clearly "sofu" is inadequate,
that might be taken for something like ['soufu] or [?soufju], so
"sofuh" is born. But at this point, does one attempt to be more
consistent and indicate the pronunciation of "love" as "luhv" rather
than "luv"? This kind of thing is inevitable with informal methods of
indicating pronunciations.
Were you here when some of them were claiming that "lurv" or "lurve"
(apparently found in some Britpop music lyrics) indicated some special
pronunciation of "love" in some special context?
After much discussion, it turned out that it's at best eye-dialect, but
in fact indicates nothing at all.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lurve
lurve
NOUN & VERB
non-standard spelling of love (used in humorous reference to
romantic infatuation)
Origin
1930s: as a parody of the pronunciation of love in popular romantic
songs.
Note that "ur" in "lurve" is a nonrhotic sound. It is similar to
nonrhotic "er". It represents the vowel sound used in "popular romantic
songs" that can be extended indefinitely: "luuuuuurve". The usual "o"
sound in "love", in BrE, rhymes with that in "up" which cannot be
readily extended in the same way.
Why on earth not?
Because of the way it is spoken in BrE.[1]
https://forvo.com/word/up/#en
If extended those "u" sounds would be a croak.
? Ms. Jazzy9 either is afflicted with perpetual creaky voice or should have
cleared her throat before recording. The creakiness has nothing to do with
the timbre of the vowel. I don't find anything creaky about Mr palashdave.
I'd be hard pressed to describe any difference other than pitch. Even
the Aussies don't sound [to me] much different. Perhaps it's my tin
ear, or perhaps the shortness of the clips.
As I clicked down the list some of them sounded like [ap] and some like [ʌp], but that
differing perception didn't correlate with the locations of the speakers. There were no [ʊp]s.
Post by Snidely
[My boss, born in Oz but raised in different parts of fair Albion
(including somewhere where Welsh was required) has been in the US for
20-odd years, but his a->ar and some rhythms are still noticeable. I
haven't heard anything in his "up" that stands out, though.)
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Since the croak has nothing to do with the pronunciation of the vowel,
there's no reason it can't be extended like any other vowel.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
[1] In some dialects of BrE "up" does not rhyme with any version of the
"o" in "love".
And that's why phonetic transcription is needed. In AmE, both are [ʌ]. I know
that there are varieties of BrE that have [ʊ] in "up" and in "love," and it
would make sense if any particular dialect has that sound in both words (the
conditioning environments are quite similar, viz., a following labial
consonant that's liable to cause rounding of the preceding vowel). For
instance, Mr Lennon (and presumably his bandmates) have [ʊ] in both words
when speaking. (In "She Loves Me, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah," it's clearly [lʌv].)
What are the respective vowels in your "some dialects"?
We waits with bated breadth.
/dps "or baited baths?"
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-01-16 12:35:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:54:04 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 07:29:43 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 20:26:13 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by Ross
The case we're really interested in is the second, where "have" is
could, would, might, must). That's the case where I think the word has
(in the actual grammars of present day English speakers) taken leave
of the verb "have". Not that it's somehow changed into the preposition
"of". It's a grammatical element that doesn't have a spelling of its own;
if not better. "Uv" would be just as good a spelling. But since that
is a non-word from the orthographic point of view, it would attract even
more opprobrium.
Wouldn't "uv" suggest a vowel of /?/, which, by definition, is "full"
and doesn't reflect a schwa? Therefore, couldn't a spelling of e.g.
"uhv" be more appropriate for an unstressed "have"?
To me <uhv> doesn't suggest a different vowel from <uv>. Anyway
some people consider schwa to be an unstressed allophone of /?/.
Thanks. For some reason, I have the impression that the added h suggests
a shortened vowel, precisely turning /?/ into its unstressed allophone.
...among the many curious uses to which h can be put.
I think this starts in describing, by informal or ad-hoc means, the
pronunciation of (e.g.) "love" as "luv", But what what if one wants to
describe the pronunciation of "sofa"? Clearly "sofu" is inadequate,
that might be taken for something like ['soufu] or [?soufju], so
"sofuh" is born. But at this point, does one attempt to be more
consistent and indicate the pronunciation of "love" as "luhv" rather
than "luv"? This kind of thing is inevitable with informal methods of
indicating pronunciations.
Were you here when some of them were claiming that "lurv" or "lurve" (apparently
found in some Britpop music lyrics) indicated some special pronunciation
of "love" in some special context?
After much discussion, it turned out that it's at best eye-dialect, but in fact
indicates nothing at all.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lurve
lurve
NOUN & VERB
non-standard spelling of love (used in humorous reference to
romantic infatuation)
Origin
1930s: as a parody of the pronunciation of love in popular romantic
songs.
Note that "ur" in "lurve" is a nonrhotic sound. It is similar to
nonrhotic "er". It represents the vowel sound used in "popular romantic
songs" that can be extended indefinitely: "luuuuuurve". The usual "o"
sound in "love", in BrE, rhymes with that in "up" which cannot be
readily extended in the same way.
Why on earth not?
Because of the way it is spoken in BrE.[1]
https://forvo.com/word/up/#en
If extended those "u" sounds would be a croak.
? Ms. Jazzy9 either is afflicted with perpetual creaky voice or should have
cleared her throat before recording. The creakiness has nothing to do with
the timbre of the vowel. I don't find anything creaky about Mr palashdave.
Since the croak has nothing to do with the pronunciation of the vowel, there's
no reason it can't be extended like any other vowel.
My use of "croak" may not be precise.

Here is an audio clip from the AUE website of two people attempting to
speak an extended "u" as in "up" or "hurry", the ASCII IPA /V/:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160707192557/http://alt-usage-english.org/ipa/london_opn_mid_bck_urd_crd_14_4_bit.wav

I'm not sure that those are good representations of an extended /V/. To
me /V/ is not readily extendible. When I speak "u" in "up" it is
unvoiced or very slightly voiced. To extend it, it needs to be voiced,
which changes the sound.

This is "hurry", using the same /V/ sound:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160707192708/http://alt-usage-english.org/ipa/hurry4.wav

From:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160707184522/http://alt-usage-english.org/ipa/ascii_ipa_combined.shtml#cnv
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
[1] In some dialects of BrE "up" does not rhyme with any version of the
"o" in "love".
And that's why phonetic transcription is needed. In AmE, both are [?]. I know
that there are varieties of BrE that have [?] in "up" and in "love," and it
would make sense if any particular dialect has that sound in both words (the
conditioning environments are quite similar, viz., a following labial consonant
that's liable to cause rounding of the preceding vowel). For instance, Mr Lennon
(and presumably his bandmates) have [?] in both words when speaking. (In "She
Loves Me, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah," it's clearly [l?v].)
What are the respective vowels in your "some dialects"?
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-16 14:13:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:54:04 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 07:29:43 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 20:26:13 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Will Parsons
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by Ross
The case we're really interested in is the second, where "have" is
could, would, might, must). That's the case where I think the word has
(in the actual grammars of present day English speakers) taken leave
of the verb "have". Not that it's somehow changed into the preposition
"of". It's a grammatical element that doesn't have a spelling of its own;
if not better. "Uv" would be just as good a spelling. But since that
is a non-word from the orthographic point of view, it would attract even
more opprobrium.
Wouldn't "uv" suggest a vowel of /?/, which, by definition, is "full"
and doesn't reflect a schwa? Therefore, couldn't a spelling of e.g.
"uhv" be more appropriate for an unstressed "have"?
To me <uhv> doesn't suggest a different vowel from <uv>. Anyway
some people consider schwa to be an unstressed allophone of /?/.
Thanks. For some reason, I have the impression that the added h suggests
a shortened vowel, precisely turning /?/ into its unstressed allophone.
...among the many curious uses to which h can be put.
I think this starts in describing, by informal or ad-hoc means, the
pronunciation of (e.g.) "love" as "luv", But what what if one wants to
describe the pronunciation of "sofa"? Clearly "sofu" is inadequate,
that might be taken for something like ['soufu] or [?soufju], so
"sofuh" is born. But at this point, does one attempt to be more
consistent and indicate the pronunciation of "love" as "luhv" rather
than "luv"? This kind of thing is inevitable with informal methods of
indicating pronunciations.
Were you here when some of them were claiming that "lurv" or "lurve" (apparently
found in some Britpop music lyrics) indicated some special pronunciation
of "love" in some special context?
After much discussion, it turned out that it's at best eye-dialect, but in fact
indicates nothing at all.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lurve
lurve
NOUN & VERB
non-standard spelling of love (used in humorous reference to
romantic infatuation)
Origin
1930s: as a parody of the pronunciation of love in popular romantic
songs.
Note that "ur" in "lurve" is a nonrhotic sound. It is similar to
nonrhotic "er". It represents the vowel sound used in "popular romantic
songs" that can be extended indefinitely: "luuuuuurve". The usual "o"
sound in "love", in BrE, rhymes with that in "up" which cannot be
readily extended in the same way.
Why on earth not?
Because of the way it is spoken in BrE.[1]
https://forvo.com/word/up/#en
If extended those "u" sounds would be a croak.
? Ms. Jazzy9 either is afflicted with perpetual creaky voice or should have
cleared her throat before recording. The creakiness has nothing to do with
the timbre of the vowel. I don't find anything creaky about Mr palashdave.
Since the croak has nothing to do with the pronunciation of the vowel, there's
no reason it can't be extended like any other vowel.
My use of "croak" may not be precise.
Here is an audio clip from the AUE website of two people attempting to
https://web.archive.org/web/20160707192557/http://alt-usage-english.org/ipa/london_opn_mid_bck_urd_crd_14_4_bit.wav
? I hear a woman saying [a:::] and a man saying [ʌ:::]. No problem extending it indefinitely.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
I'm not sure that those are good representations of an extended /V/. To
me /V/ is not readily extendible. When I speak "u" in "up" it is
unvoiced or very slightly voiced. To extend it, it needs to be voiced,
which changes the sound.
Japanese has what are perceived as "unvoiced vowels." English doesn't. In question here are
"citation forms," so what "natural phonology" does to it in context doesn't come into it.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://web.archive.org/web/20160707192708/http://alt-usage-english.org/ipa/hurry4.wav
Perfectly clear [ʌ] -- and perfectly clearly BrE, I think because the [ʌ] seems completely
unaffected by the following [r] (which thus shows no hint of ambisyllabicity) and
because the vowel of the second syllable is a bit diphthongized, whereas in AmE it would be
destressed and briefer.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://web.archive.org/web/20160707184522/http://alt-usage-english.org/ipa/ascii_ipa_combined.shtml#cnv
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
[1] In some dialects of BrE "up" does not rhyme with any version of the
"o" in "love".
And that's why phonetic transcription is needed. In AmE, both are [?]. I know
that there are varieties of BrE that have [?] in "up" and in "love," and it
would make sense if any particular dialect has that sound in both words (the
conditioning environments are quite similar, viz., a following labial consonant
that's liable to cause rounding of the preceding vowel). For instance, Mr Lennon
(and presumably his bandmates) have [?] in both words when speaking. (In "She
Loves Me, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah," it's clearly [l?v].)
What are the respective vowels in your "some dialects"?
This was the crucial question!
Peter Young
2018-01-13 07:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by Ross
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
--
Katy Jennison
What's different from what?
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of".
Same in AmE pronunciation. However, if "should have" is said quickly
and sloppily, it can come out sounding like "should of." That's even
of those us like me who know that it should be "should have" and
always write it that way.
My sister-in-law clearly enunciates the "of" in "should of".

Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Pt)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-01-13 13:37:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Young
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by Ross
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
--
Katy Jennison
What's different from what?
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of".
Same in AmE pronunciation. However, if "should have" is said quickly
and sloppily, it can come out sounding like "should of." That's even
of those us like me who know that it should be "should have" and
always write it that way.
My sister-in-law clearly enunciates the "of" in "should of".
A lot of people do now. It's a fascinating example of the Chinese
Whisper transmission of language .. have to 've to uv to of ...
the last now being widely considered to be 'correct' (and quite
possibly becoming so in future generations).
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-01-12 23:50:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Young
Post by Ross
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
--
Katy Jennison
What's different from what?
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of". I can't do ASCII IPA, and I can't record the speech of one of my
sisters-in-law. Otherwise I could demonstrate it to you.
Peter.
The are two pronunciations of "of" in BrE. (I'm ignoring dialect
differences.)

There is "of" with the BrE short-o, /A./, and there is "of" in which the
"o" is indistinct, a schwa, /@/.

Here are two audio clips of "one of us", BrE and AmE. They both have the
latter, schwa version of "of".
https://forvo.com/word/one_of_us/#en

This gives clips of both pronunciations of "of" in BrE:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/of
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Ross
2018-01-13 00:42:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Peter Young
Post by Ross
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
--
Katy Jennison
What's different from what?
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of". I can't do ASCII IPA, and I can't record the speech of one of my
sisters-in-law. Otherwise I could demonstrate it to you.
Peter.
The are two pronunciations of "of" in BrE. (I'm ignoring dialect
differences.)
There is "of" with the BrE short-o, /A./, and there is "of" in which the
Here are two audio clips of "one of us", BrE and AmE. They both have the
latter, schwa version of "of".
https://forvo.com/word/one_of_us/#en
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/of
Yes, of course. Same in other Englishes. A stressed version /A.v/, and
an unstressed one /@v/. Just as there are two versions of "have",
/h&v/ and /@v/. And the normal way of pronouncing the two in sequences
like "could have seen" or "lots of time" is the unstressed one /@v/, which
is phonetically the same for the two words. That's normal English
pronunciation; it's not "sloppy" or "incorrect". And it's why many
people spell the word in the position after could/should etc. as <of>.
For these people, it seems clear, this word is no longer associated with the verb "have", so that on occasions when it gets a little stress, it might actually be pronounced with the full vowel, e.g. in "I don't think he stole anything, but he could of." /A.v/
I think that's the "sister-in-law" pronunciation that PeterY was
talking about. And of course a person with the conservative system
would say "...could have." /h&v/, which contrast I think Katy was
referring to as "quite different and distinctive".
John Varela
2018-01-14 00:13:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Young
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of". I can't do ASCII IPA, and I can't record the speech of one of my
sisters-in-law. Otherwise I could demonstrate it to you.
As it is in AmE. "Should of" is pronounced the same as "should've".
Is this contraction not used in Britain?
--
John Varela
Peter Young
2018-01-14 07:29:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Young
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of". I can't do ASCII IPA, and I can't record the speech of one of my
sisters-in-law. Otherwise I could demonstrate it to you.
As it is in AmE. "Should of" is pronounced the same as "should've".
Is this contraction not used in Britain?
Not as much as Over There.

Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Pt)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
John Varela
2018-01-15 22:24:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Young
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Young
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of". I can't do ASCII IPA, and I can't record the speech of one of my
sisters-in-law. Otherwise I could demonstrate it to you.
As it is in AmE. "Should of" is pronounced the same as "should've".
Is this contraction not used in Britain?
Not as much as Over There.
Errr... We are Over Here, you are Over There.
--
John Varela
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-01-15 23:47:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Young
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Young
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of". I can't do ASCII IPA, and I can't record the speech of one of my
sisters-in-law. Otherwise I could demonstrate it to you.
As it is in AmE. "Should of" is pronounced the same as "should've".
Is this contraction not used in Britain?
Not as much as Over There.
Errr... We are Over Here, you are Over There.
--
Then who's on first?
Snidely
2018-01-16 09:59:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Young
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Young
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of". I can't do ASCII IPA, and I can't record the speech of one of my
sisters-in-law. Otherwise I could demonstrate it to you.
As it is in AmE. "Should of" is pronounced the same as "should've".
Is this contraction not used in Britain?
Not as much as Over There.
Errr... We are Over Here, you are Over There.
Then who's on first?
Yes.

/dps
--
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain
Janet
2018-01-16 15:03:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Young
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Young
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of". I can't do ASCII IPA, and I can't record the speech of one of my
sisters-in-law. Otherwise I could demonstrate it to you.
As it is in AmE. "Should of" is pronounced the same as "should've".
Is this contraction not used in Britain?
Not as much as Over There.
Errr... We are Over Here, you are Over There.
We Over Here were Over Here long before you lot went Over There.
Therefore Here is Where We Are and There is Where You Went.

Janet.
Jerry Friedman
2018-01-16 17:52:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Young
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Young
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of". I can't do ASCII IPA, and I can't record the speech of one of my
sisters-in-law. Otherwise I could demonstrate it to you.
As it is in AmE. "Should of" is pronounced the same as "should've".
Is this contraction not used in Britain?
Not as much as Over There.
Errr... We are Over Here, you are Over There.
We Over Here were Over Here long before you lot went Over There.
Therefore Here is Where We Are and There is Where You Went.
But so Many of Us moved Over Here from Over There that We brought
Here from There to Here.
--
Jerry Friedman is being here now.
s***@gmail.com
2018-01-16 20:28:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Janet
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Young
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Young
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of". I can't do ASCII IPA, and I can't record the speech of one of my
sisters-in-law. Otherwise I could demonstrate it to you.
As it is in AmE. "Should of" is pronounced the same as "should've".
Is this contraction not used in Britain?
Not as much as Over There.
Errr... We are Over Here, you are Over There.
We Over Here were Over Here long before you lot went Over There.
Therefore Here is Where We Are and There is Where You Went.
But so Many of Us moved Over Here from Over There that We brought
Here from There to Here.
-- [sig retained]
Jerry Friedman is being here now.
I did reed aheed this time.

/dps
Janet
2018-01-16 21:24:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Janet
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Young
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Young
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of". I can't do ASCII IPA, and I can't record the speech of one of my
sisters-in-law. Otherwise I could demonstrate it to you.
As it is in AmE. "Should of" is pronounced the same as "should've".
Is this contraction not used in Britain?
Not as much as Over There.
Errr... We are Over Here, you are Over There.
We Over Here were Over Here long before you lot went Over There.
Therefore Here is Where We Are and There is Where You Went.
But so Many of Us moved Over Here from Over There that We brought
Here from There to Here.
Then give it back, it's ours.


Janet.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-01-16 22:01:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Janet
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Young
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Young
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of". I can't do ASCII IPA, and I can't record the speech of one of my
sisters-in-law. Otherwise I could demonstrate it to you.
As it is in AmE. "Should of" is pronounced the same as "should've".
Is this contraction not used in Britain?
Not as much as Over There.
Errr... We are Over Here, you are Over There.
We Over Here were Over Here long before you lot went Over There.
Therefore Here is Where We Are and There is Where You Went.
But so Many of Us moved Over Here from Over There that We brought
Here from There to Here.
Then give it back, it's ours.
Is that 'ours' in the Shakespeare manuscript sense or the Elgin
Marbles sense?
Jerry Friedman
2018-01-16 22:23:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Janet
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Young
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Young
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of". I can't do ASCII IPA, and I can't record the speech of one of my
sisters-in-law. Otherwise I could demonstrate it to you.
As it is in AmE. "Should of" is pronounced the same as "should've".
Is this contraction not used in Britain?
Not as much as Over There.
Errr... We are Over Here, you are Over There.
We Over Here were Over Here long before you lot went Over There.
Therefore Here is Where We Are and There is Where You Went.
But so Many of Us moved Over Here from Over There that We brought
Here from There to Here.
Then give it back, it's ours.
I was There a few years ago and brought some Here with me, but nobody
seemed to want it.
--
Jerry Friedman
Mack A. Damia
2018-01-16 23:08:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:52:10 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Janet
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Young
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Young
In BrE pronunciation "Should have" is totally different from "Should
of". I can't do ASCII IPA, and I can't record the speech of one of my
sisters-in-law. Otherwise I could demonstrate it to you.
As it is in AmE. "Should of" is pronounced the same as "should've".
Is this contraction not used in Britain?
Not as much as Over There.
Errr... We are Over Here, you are Over There.
We Over Here were Over Here long before you lot went Over There.
Therefore Here is Where We Are and There is Where You Went.
But so Many of Us moved Over Here from Over There that We brought
Here from There to Here.
Goo-goo-gjoob.

(Thinking Janet may be a crabalocker fishwife)
Peter Moylan
2018-01-18 01:30:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Janet
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Young
Post by John Varela
As it is in AmE. "Should of" is pronounced the same as "should've".
Is this contraction not used in Britain?
Not as much as Over There.
Errr... We are Over Here, you are Over There.
We Over Here were Over Here long before you lot went Over There.
Therefore Here is Where We Are and There is Where You Went.
But so Many of Us moved Over Here from Over There that We brought
Here from There to Here.
Here here.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Dingbat
2018-01-18 04:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Janet
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Young
Post by John Varela
As it is in AmE. "Should of" is pronounced the same as "should've".
Is this contraction not used in Britain?
Not as much as Over There.
Errr... We are Over Here, you are Over There.
We Over Here were Over Here long before you lot went Over There.
Therefore Here is Where We Are and There is Where You Went.
But so Many of Us moved Over Here from Over There that We brought
Here from There to Here.
Here here.
There There.
Dingbat
2018-01-18 04:58:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
But so Many of Us moved Over Here from Over There that We brought
Here from There to Here.
.
Post by Peter Moylan
Here here.
There there.

Getrude Stein might say:
There was no there there, and now there is no here here.
Dingbat
2018-01-18 06:16:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
But so Many of Us moved Over Here from Over There that We brought
Here from There to Here.
Here here.
There There.

Getrude Stein can say:
"There is no There there", but not "there is no Here here,"
since if it were not here, it wouldn't be Here.
Snidely
2018-01-18 08:05:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
But so Many of Us moved Over Here from Over There that We brought
Here from There to Here.
Here here.
There There.
"There is no There there", but not "there is no Here here,"
since if it were not here, it wouldn't be Here.
I am not Satre ain you are right.

/dps
--
"What do you think of my cart, Miss Morland? A neat one, is not it?
Well hung: curricle-hung in fact. Come sit by me and we'll test the
springs."
(Speculative fiction by H.Lacedaemonian.)
Dingbat
2018-01-18 08:40:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Remember when Dingbat bragged outrageously?
... bragged about what, and who was outraged?
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
But so Many of Us moved Over Here from Over There that We brought
Here from There to Here.
Here here.
There There.
"There is no There there", but not "there is no Here here,"
since if it were not here, it wouldn't be Here.
I am not Satre ain you are right.
/dps
--
"What do you think of my cart, Miss Morland? A neat one, is not it?
Well hung: curricle-hung in fact. Come sit by me and we'll test the
springs."
(Speculative fiction by H.Lacedaemonian.)
Snidely
2018-01-18 08:50:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Remember when Dingbat bragged outrageously?
... bragged about what,
evidently about logic constraints faced by Gertrude Stein in a
hypothetical comment.
Post by Dingbat
and who was outraged?
Ah, for the simple joys of formerly literal meanings! "outrageous" in
English hasn't required outrage for lo these many lunations.
Post by Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
But so Many of Us moved Over Here from Over There that We brought
Here from There to Here.
Here here.
There There.
"There is no There there", but not "there is no Here here,"
since if it were not here, it wouldn't be Here.
I am not Satre ain you are right.
And Hamlet stands between you and Descartes.

/dps "and those other carts, too"
--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.
CDB
2018-01-18 15:24:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by Dingbat
Remember when Dingbat bragged outrageously?
... bragged about what,
evidently about logic constraints faced by Gertrude Stein in a
hypothetical comment.
Post by Dingbat
and who was outraged?
Ah, for the simple joys of formerly literal meanings!  "outrageous" in
English hasn't required outrage for lo these many lunations.
Post by Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
But so Many of Us moved Over Here from Over There that We brought
Here from There to Here.
Here here.
There There.
"There is no There there", but not "there is no Here here,"
Quoting AElfred the Great she could. "Se Here", the Army, was what they
called visiting Danes back then.
.
Post by Snidely
Post by Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
since if it were not here, it wouldn't be Here.
I am not Satre ain you are right.
And Hamlet stands between you and Descartes.
The true philosopher will choose
Divine geometry before the stews.
His heart he'll offer to Descartes
And other, less aesthetic, parts,
With bursary money, to the tarts.
Post by Snidely
/dps "and those other carts, too"
There's always a handcart, if you're really in need.

Dingbat
2018-01-15 00:42:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
But it's quite different and distinctive in BrE pronunciation.
--
Katy Jennison
What's different from what?
That the realization of "have" is always different from "of" in BrE
is what that seems to mean, which must in turn mean that
at least one of them is never [@v].
Dingbat
2018-01-14 23:56:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
In a sentence like "The Yankees have won more titles than any other
franchise in the four major North American sports leagues.", isn't
If you're responding to a claim that the Yankees haven't won anything,
Post by Ken Blake
Of course you would never write it that way, but that's because you
are familiar with the standard written language, and "have" is how it's
supposed to be spelled. Also, in that type of construction, you can get
a stress on the "have", e.g. if someone was skeptical and asked: "They have?"
But in the case of "could/should/would/might/must have", the "have" is
almost inevitably unstressed, so it's hard to tell what its "real"
happens to be the spelling of "of", so they write it that way.
Ross
2018-01-15 01:10:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
In a sentence like "The Yankees have won more titles than any other
franchise in the four major North American sports leagues.", isn't
If you're responding to a claim that the Yankees haven't won anything,
you'd say [h&:v].
Well, actually, that would be appropriate in responding to a claim
that precisely negates the above: "The Yankees have not won more titles
than...". To contradict that you use the stressed form of the auxiliary.
I would not be so foolish as to make a claim that "every anglophone"
does any particular thing. Not having time to root about for detailed
phonetic studies of casual English, I'll just reach for my everyday
reference books, and note that Kenyon & Knott (1944) allow both
[***@v] and [@v] for AmEng when unstressed (without going into details
about the conditions) and Daniel Jones (5th ed., 1940) has [***@v], [@v]
and [v] (think of "I've", "you've" etc.).
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
Of course you would never write it that way, but that's because you
are familiar with the standard written language, and "have" is how it's
supposed to be spelled. Also, in that type of construction, you can get
a stress on the "have", e.g. if someone was skeptical and asked: "They have?"
But in the case of "could/should/would/might/must have", the "have" is
almost inevitably unstressed, so it's hard to tell what its "real"
happens to be the spelling of "of", so they write it that way.
Dingbat
2018-01-15 01:33:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
In a sentence like "The Yankees have won more titles than any other
franchise in the four major North American sports leagues.", isn't
If you're responding to a claim that the Yankees haven't won anything,
you'd say [h&:v].
Well, actually, that would be appropriate in responding to a claim
that precisely negates the above: "The Yankees have not won more titles
than...". To contradict that you use the stressed form of the auxiliary.
Quite! "If you're contradicting a claim that ..." is what I meant.
Post by Ross
I would not be so foolish as to make a claim that "every anglophone"
does any particular thing. Not having time to root about for detailed
phonetic studies of casual English, I'll just reach for my everyday
reference books, and note that Kenyon & Knott (1944) allow both
and [v] (think of "I've", "you've" etc.).
Thanks for the references confirming my observation that both [***@v] and
[@v] occur. I was writing from observation, not by consulting references.
David Kleinecke
2018-01-15 06:26:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
In a sentence like "The Yankees have won more titles than any other
franchise in the four major North American sports leagues.", isn't
If you're responding to a claim that the Yankees haven't won anything,
you'd say [h&:v].
Well, actually, that would be appropriate in responding to a claim
that precisely negates the above: "The Yankees have not won more titles
than...". To contradict that you use the stressed form of the auxiliary.
I would not be so foolish as to make a claim that "every anglophone"
does any particular thing. Not having time to root about for detailed
phonetic studies of casual English, I'll just reach for my everyday
reference books, and note that Kenyon & Knott (1944) allow both
and [v] (think of "I've", "you've" etc.).
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
Of course you would never write it that way, but that's because you
are familiar with the standard written language, and "have" is how it's
supposed to be spelled. Also, in that type of construction, you can get
a stress on the "have", e.g. if someone was skeptical and asked: "They have?"
But in the case of "could/should/would/might/must have", the "have" is
almost inevitably unstressed, so it's hard to tell what its "real"
happens to be the spelling of "of", so they write it that way.
In my speech at least "have" has been reduced to a schwa /ə/
after modals.
Dingbat
2018-01-16 23:37:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Ross
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
In a sentence like "The Yankees have won more titles than any other
franchise in the four major North American sports leagues.", isn't
If you're responding to a claim that the Yankees haven't won anything,
you'd say [h&:v].
Well, actually, that would be appropriate in responding to a claim
that precisely negates the above: "The Yankees have not won more titles
than...". To contradict that you use the stressed form of the auxiliary.
I would not be so foolish as to make a claim that "every anglophone"
does any particular thing. Not having time to root about for detailed
phonetic studies of casual English, I'll just reach for my everyday
reference books, and note that Kenyon & Knott (1944) allow both
and [v] (think of "I've", "you've" etc.).
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
Of course you would never write it that way, but that's because you
are familiar with the standard written language, and "have" is how it's
supposed to be spelled. Also, in that type of construction, you can get
a stress on the "have", e.g. if someone was skeptical and asked: "They
But in the case of "could/should/would/might/must have", the "have" is
almost inevitably unstressed, so it's hard to tell what its "real"
happens to be the spelling of "of", so they write it that way.
In my speech at least "have" has been reduced to a schwa /ə/
after modals.
Yet, it looks odd to spell it with apostrophes for what's elided, like so:
<should 'a'>
David Kleinecke
2018-01-17 01:46:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Ross
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
In a sentence like "The Yankees have won more titles than any other
franchise in the four major North American sports leagues.", isn't
If you're responding to a claim that the Yankees haven't won anything,
you'd say [h&:v].
Well, actually, that would be appropriate in responding to a claim
that precisely negates the above: "The Yankees have not won more titles
than...". To contradict that you use the stressed form of the auxiliary.
I would not be so foolish as to make a claim that "every anglophone"
does any particular thing. Not having time to root about for detailed
phonetic studies of casual English, I'll just reach for my everyday
reference books, and note that Kenyon & Knott (1944) allow both
and [v] (think of "I've", "you've" etc.).
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
Of course you would never write it that way, but that's because you
are familiar with the standard written language, and "have" is how it's
supposed to be spelled. Also, in that type of construction, you can get
a stress on the "have", e.g. if someone was skeptical and asked: "They
But in the case of "could/should/would/might/must have", the "have" is
almost inevitably unstressed, so it's hard to tell what its "real"
happens to be the spelling of "of", so they write it that way.
In my speech at least "have" has been reduced to a schwa /ə/
after modals.
<should 'a'>
I think most US speakers would spell it "should-a"
s***@gmail.com
2018-01-17 02:26:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Dingbat
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Ross
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
Post by Ken Blake
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
Do you really think you are "mispronouncing" it when you say
of the word in that context?
In a sentence like "The Yankees have won more titles than any other
franchise in the four major North American sports leagues.", isn't
If you're responding to a claim that the Yankees haven't won anything,
you'd say [h&:v].
Well, actually, that would be appropriate in responding to a claim
that precisely negates the above: "The Yankees have not won more titles
than...". To contradict that you use the stressed form of the auxiliary.
I would not be so foolish as to make a claim that "every anglophone"
does any particular thing. Not having time to root about for detailed
phonetic studies of casual English, I'll just reach for my everyday
reference books, and note that Kenyon & Knott (1944) allow both
and [v] (think of "I've", "you've" etc.).
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
Of course you would never write it that way, but that's because you
are familiar with the standard written language, and "have" is how it's
supposed to be spelled. Also, in that type of construction, you can get
a stress on the "have", e.g. if someone was skeptical and asked: "They
But in the case of "could/should/would/might/must have", the "have" is
almost inevitably unstressed, so it's hard to tell what its "real"
happens to be the spelling of "of", so they write it that way.
In my speech at least "have" has been reduced to a schwa /ə/
after modals.
<should 'a'>
I think most US speakers would spell it "should-a"
I use "shudda"

/dps
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-01-12 09:21:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Young
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Ain't no language error. Just a spelling error.
Oh, no it isn't. People here clearly enunciate "should of".
Same in the USA. But I suspect that many people who say it would write
"should have." They're just mispronouncing "have."
I probably sometimes say 'Should of" myself. But I would never write
it that way.
In my speech I don't think that there is any audible difference
whatever between how I say "should've" and how I would say "should of",
so I agree with David that's it's a spelling error, not a language
error, except for people who live near Peter Young and clearly
enunciate the "of" as [ɔv].
--
athel
y***@gmail.com
2018-01-18 06:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The normal pronunciation of "of" is also an alternative pronunciation of "have" in certain contexts. Therefore, "should of" is merely a spelling error.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-01-18 12:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by y***@gmail.com
The normal pronunciation of "of" is also an alternative pronunciation of "have" in certain contexts. Therefore, "should of" is merely a spelling error.
I think it is more than a spelling error. It is a misunderstanding of
what the "'ve" sound is a version of. As several people have already
said, some people say "should of", "could of", "must of", etc, in place
of "should've", "could've", "must've", etc, with "of" having a definite
short-o. In those cases "of" is an accurate spelling of what is spoken.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
b***@aol.com
2018-01-11 20:00:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
It's "eye dialect" and may be used deliberately in "serious literature",
as part of dialogs involving low literate characters.

According to https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/48686/how-did-the-use-of-could-of-and-should-of-originate-and-is-it-considered-co,

"The earliest recorded use is dated 1814, and it appears in a letter
written in 1853 by the British novelist Charlotte Brontë."
Jerry Friedman
2018-01-11 20:55:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
It's "eye dialect" and may be used deliberately in "serious literature",
as part of dialogs involving low literate characters.
According to https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/48686/how-did-the-use-of-could-of-and-should-of-originate-and-is-it-considered-co,
"The earliest recorded use is dated 1814, and it appears in a letter
written in 1853 by the British novelist Charlotte Brontë."
1773 in the OED (which lists it as "of, v.". The next citation is from
a well-known person.

1773 A. Legh Let. 27 Apr. in S. Elspass et al. Germanic Lang. Hist.
(2007) 122 The servant to the old Lady I sho~ld not of thought of
after what had past.
1813 T. Jefferson Let. 26 May in Papers (2009) Retirement Ser. VI. 134
It was more then we could of asked of you.
--
Jerry Friedman
Dingbat
2018-01-12 00:28:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
I've seen "woulda, shoulda, coulda".
I wouldn't change these spellings to anything else.
John Varela
2018-01-12 01:56:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:10:08 UTC, Harrison Hill
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Not serious literature, but a secretary once sent me a note saying
that she "should of" done something.
--
John Varela
Colonel Edmund J. Burke
2018-01-17 02:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Listen up, snot nose. A real writer uses the living language. Stuff like that is good shit, fucktard limey.
Brennus
2018-01-17 02:37:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Colonel Edmund J. Burke
Post by Harrison Hill
Whilst I'm picking faults in other people's grammar - picking
out errors - many of these errors are *so* common, that they have
already entered the language.
I'd of advocated this one for acceptance. Can anyone supply me with
early "would of", "should of", in serious literature? I think I
can take you back to the 1930s.
Listen up, snot nose. A real writer uses the living language. Stuff
like that is good shit, fucktard limey.
Says trannie-loving homo Urinal Edwina Burqa. LOL!
Loading...