MoogleViper Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 I've just got back from the cinema and the first two threads I looked in used the word "of" instead of "have". e.g. "I would of done the same, import all the votes as they come into a csv file and had the computer count it. Oh well, people make mistakes etc." This is something that really irritates me. So please for the love of god, STOP DOING IT!!! /rant
MoogleViper Posted July 2, 2008 Author Posted July 2, 2008 Yeah but that's not how they use it. They use it for things like would of, could of, should of etc.
darksnowman Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 It's what happens when you don't actually study and learn your mother tongue with the same effort you put into learning foreign languages. Its so annoying, so thanks to Moogsy for pointing it out- I've been reading it more and more and more and more... to have = the auxiliary verb, use it! to of = nothing.
Supergrunch Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 *cough* *cough* Also, just be happy people only make pedagogical errors, so you can still understand them; things have can are much worse.
Dyson Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 I'm with MV on this one. I'm glad you of made a thread about it.
Supergrunch Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 Oh yes, to avoid paraphrasing myself: 1. You guys* are too prescriptive.2. The study of language is descriptive. 3. These things vary between dialects. 4. The only reason one thing is "correct" and the other is "incorrect" is due to convention. 5. No one dialect is better than any other, it just so happens that formal English is the way it is. 6. If you are told you have made an error and you cannot see why it is wrong, then it is not an error in your dialect. 7. Any errors you do make will only be pedagogically, rather than generatively wrong. 8. This means you will still be understood. 9. If you construct a sentence that breaks the rules of generative grammar, bad things happen. 10. "I have could done that." is generatively wrong. 11. "I could of done that." is pedagogically wrong. 12. See the difference? 13. Nevertheless, it's a good idea to conform to certain standards in formal writing and various other situations. 14. Words such as "could" are known as modal auxilliaries; they modify the mood of a verb. 15. When combined with "have" (a different auxilliary verb), in formal English they: (i) come before the non-modal auxilliary verb** (ii) do not change. 16. "Of" is a variant form of "have" in some dialects, used when it combines with a modal auxilliary. 17. It results from the "'ve" contraction of have. 18. This doesn't mean we have to stop berating people for getting things wrong. :wink: 19. In before "witty" replies using numbers or somesuch. *Note how this could be "y'all" or "you" in some dialects. **This is why 10 sounds so strange.
Raining_again Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 I dunno, this doesn't really bother me. We aren't in an english class here people. Its not like you can't understand what someones trying to convey cause they mix up words o_o It's informal and fun here, and thats why we love it! And the way we speak has partly to blame, isn't it derived from would've as in would have? In other words - calm yar baps.
Jonnas Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 Many spelling mistakes here come from people who actually speak english as their mother tongue. A few annoying examples: -"Would of" annoys me, because a "v" and an "f" aren't that similar. It's like somebody started using it to be funny, and people catched on. (reminds me of "Há-des" in Portuguese) -Confusing "accept" with "except". How the f*** can someone confuse two words that have completely different meanings? Their pronounciation isn't that similar either. It's unexceptable!
MoogleViper Posted July 2, 2008 Author Posted July 2, 2008 I dunno, this doesn't really bother me. We aren't in an english class here people. Its not like you can't understand what someones trying to convey cause they mix up words o_o It's informal and fun here, and thats why we love it! And the way we speak has partly to blame, isn't it derived from would've as in would have? In other words - calm yar baps. 1) That doesn't mean we can't speak (read: type) correctly. 2) Yes I believe it is. But that might be acceptable in speach. But when being typed people can't use that as an excuse and should know that it's have.
Raining_again Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 1) That doesn't mean we can't speak (read: type) correctly. 2) Yes I believe it is. But that might be acceptable in speach. But when being typed people can't use that as an excuse and should know that it's have. Uh huh They should but minor occurrences aren't that bad.
MoogleViper Posted July 2, 2008 Author Posted July 2, 2008 Uh huh They should but minor occurrences aren't that bad. Minor occurences??? It happens all the time. They should of learned it by now.
Raining_again Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 Minor occurences??? It happens all the time. They should of learned it by now. Please tell me that was irony or something.
MoogleViper Posted July 2, 2008 Author Posted July 2, 2008 Please tell me that was irony or something. Yeah it was a joke. I couldn't resist.
Supergrunch Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 Many spelling mistakes here come from people who actually speak english as their mother tongue. A few annoying examples: -"Would of" annoys me, because a "v" and an "f" aren't that similar. It's like somebody started using it to be funny, and people catched on. (reminds me of "Há-des" in Portuguese) It's the spoken, rather than the writen form, that is instrumental in the variation of language. Both "'ve" and unstressed "of" are pronounced identically as [əv], and so in some dialects the auxilliary changes. -Confusing "accept" with "except". How the f*** can someone confuse two words that have completely different meanings? Their pronounciation isn't that similar either. It's unexceptable! I don't know; the only difference between the pronunciations of the two words is the initial vowel - [æ] rather than [ə] for accept. In fast speech, [æ] can easily become [ə], and so there's some lexical confusion. It's worth noting that the people who speak English natively are those who define the language.
MoogleViper Posted July 2, 2008 Author Posted July 2, 2008 I hate it when people say borrowed instead of lent. "He borrowed it me." NO HE DIDN'T YOU THICK FUCKING RETARD!!! And don't get me started on learned.
Shorty Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 Living in New Jersey I had to deal with the stupidest stuff. One of the strangest things was people using 'anymore' in a positive way, instead of negative. For example "He's still coming home anymore" or "That's just as big anymore". They also say pronounce the word "Radiator" as in Radd ee-ate-or. Even though they say radiate, radiation and radio the normal way, they insist in RADDiator. It's worth noting that the people who speak English natively are those who define the language.In other words, if we all start saying "would of", eventually it will be you who is wrong.
Supergrunch Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 In other words, if we all start saying "would of", eventually it will be you who is wrong. No, I'm a native English speaker, so I'd just be speaking a different dialect to you. But yeah, people saying "would of" would be (and are!) correct for the dialect they speak.
Wesley Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 I've just got back from the cinema and the first two threads I looked in used the word "of" instead of "have". e.g. "I would of done the same, import all the votes as they come into a csv file and had the computer count it. Oh well, people make mistakes etc." This is something that really irritates me. So please for the love of god, STOP DOING IT!!! /rant Soon as you stop capitalising, motherfucker.
Shorty Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 I love the way that when people post in threads about grammar, they're very careful not to mess up anywhere
Supergrunch Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 I always thought you were an alien. Touché. You know, this thread title makes me think of the Japanese version of "Gotta Catch 'em All", ゲットだぜ！, which translates as something like "It's get!"
Wesley Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 I love the way that when people post in threads about grammar, they're very careful not to mess up anywhere Hell yeah, I spell checked every word. I also checked the original post for some ass ripping; but found everything in order.
MoogleViper Posted July 2, 2008 Author Posted July 2, 2008 Soon as you stop capitalising, motherfucker. If you get everybody to use have/of in the correct manner THEN i'LL STOP CAPITALISING.
Recommended Posts