Pronunciation of have

[davemclaren]

Thought I’d leave this here. A common mistake. ?

 

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/38-year-old-man-has-just-learned-its-could-have-not-could-of-20190126181822

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, davemclaren said:

Thought I’d leave this here. A common mistake. ?

 

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/38-year-old-man-has-just-learned-its-could-have-not-could-of-20190126181822

Someone should tell his wife it's Hy per bul ee.

[Morgan]

There’s no problem with the pronunciation, that’s just the way Scottish folk (in the main) say it.

 

It’s when it comes to actually writing it down that causes the consternation .

[davemclaren]

30 minutes ago, Morgan said:

There’s no problem with the pronunciation, that’s just the way Scottish folk (in the main) say it.

 

It’s when it comes to actually writing it down that causes the consternation .

Good point. ?

[Morgan]

4 minutes ago, jonnothejambo said:

 

Thick as two short planks !!

 

Not you, Dave....

 

?

You shouldn’t of said that!

 

Now you’re in soapy bubble.   

[Ray Gin]

I wish the admins could apply a filter that automatically corrected 'could/should/would of' to 'could/would/should have'. Folk on here do it all the time and it drives me nuts. 

[Morgan]

2 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

I wish the admins could apply a filter that automatically corrected 'could/should/would of' to 'could/would/should have'. Folk on here do it all the time and it drives me nuts. 

100% agreed.

 

Drives me flamin’ mad too.

[Morgan]

3 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

I wish the admins could apply a filter that automatically corrected 'could/should/would of' to 'could/would/should have'. Folk on here do it all the time and it drives me nuts. 

How about ‘allot’ or ‘alot’?

 

Infuriating.

 

 

[Morgan]

1 minute ago, jonnothejambo said:

 

I'll soon of more points than Hearts...

 

Ftfy.

 

 

[Ray Gin]

1 minute ago, Morgan said:

How about ‘allot’ or ‘alot’?

 

Infuriating.

 

 

 

[ri Alban]

21 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

I wish the admins could apply a filter that automatically corrected 'could/should/would of' to 'could/would/should have'. Folk on here do it all the time and it drives me nuts. 

People really need to sort their priorities. If this drives you nuts, you need to manage your time better. Some people using of instead of 've. Let's hang them.

[Morgan]

1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

People really need to sort their priorities. If this drives you nuts, you need to manage your time better. Some people using of instead of 've. Let's hang them.

Jings!

 

I take it you’re in a combative mood today?

 

[ri Alban]

Just now, Morgan said:

Jings!

 

I take it you’re in a combative mood today?

 

No Yet. But I can be persuaded.

[Morgan]

2 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

No Yet. But I can be persuaded.

Let’s go!

 

[Ray Gin]

52 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

People really need to sort their priorities. If this drives you nuts, you need to manage your time better. Some people using of instead of 've. Let's hang them.

 

It takes exactly the same amount of time to read a post containing grammatical errors whether I am annoyed by it or not.

 

 

[Morgan]

On 07/04/2019 at 16:14, Ray Gin said:

 

It takes exactly the same amount of time to read a post containing grammatical errors whether I am annoyed by it or not.

 

 

Correct. ?

 

It’s ten times more annoying though.

[I P Knightley]

On 07/04/2019 at 12:43, Morgan said:

There’s no problem with the pronunciation, that’s just the way Scottish folk (in the main) say it.

 

It’s when it comes to actually writing it down that causes the consternation .

Not just Scots. There's English folk all over the place writing and actually saying 'should of'. I've heard it clear as a bell with my very own ears.

 

On 07/04/2019 at 15:14, Ray Gin said:

 

It takes exactly the same amount of time to read a post containing grammatical errors whether I am annoyed by it or not.

 

 

It's quicker to deal with those containing grammatical errors. When I see a 'would of' (or similar abhorrence), I stop reading that post and move on to the next. My brain is fading enough as it is without doing it the harm of having to look at that sort of stuff.

[Sooperstar]

6 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

Not just Scots. There's English folk all over the place writing and actually saying 'should of'. I've heard it clear as a bell with my very own ears.

 

It's quicker to deal with those containing grammatical errors. When I see a 'would of' (or similar abhorrence), I stop reading that post and move on to the next. My brain is fading enough as it is without doing it the harm of having to look at that sort of stuff.

I'd say it's more of a thicko sounding London accent thing than a Scottish thing.

[I P Knightley]

8 minutes ago, Sooperstar said:

I'd say it's more of a thicko sounding London accent thing than a Scottish thing.

True. I always took the Scottish pronunciation to be more "uv" than "of"; just saying "should've" out loud.

[Morgan]

11 minutes ago, Sooperstar said:

I'd say it's more of a thicko sounding London accent thing than a Scottish thing.

 

That's actually a very good point. I'm still harping on though, that it's not so much the spoken version that is so bad (because that's the way it sounds) but the people who actually write it who are most at fault.

 

1 minute ago, I P Knightley said:

True. I always took the Scottish pronunciation to be more "uv" than "of"; just saying "should've" out loud.

 

Just tried saying it out loud (out of earshot of my wife) and you're right, that's what it sounds like.

 

18 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

Not just Scots. There's English folk all over the place writing and actually saying 'should of'. I've heard it clear as a bell with my very own ears.

 

It's quicker to deal with those containing grammatical errors. When I see a 'would of' (or similar abhorrence), I stop reading that post and move on to the next. My brain is fading enough as it is without doing it the harm of having to look at that sort of stuff.

 

Are they though?  Or is that just how it sounds?

 

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, there are some other aberrations of the English language that are rearing their ugly heads more and more nowadays, such as 'allot" or 'alot". To me at least, it is so much easier just to type "a lot".

 

Another one that gets my goat is folk (especially those born in Edinburgh) who write Princess Street.

 

Spiel over!!

 

 

[Uncle Buck]

On 07/04/2019 at 14:19, ri Alban said:

People really need to sort their priorities. If this drives you nuts, you need to manage your time better. Some people using of instead of 've. Let's hang them.

 

They could of at least given them a warning.

 

 

Seriously, it’s annoying.

[AlimOzturk]

Slowest thread ever as posters frantically check their posts for grammatical errors before posting on a thread about such. Personally, I post 99% of the time on my phone and it cause untold problems with errors all over the shot. 

[Francis Albert]

I think this sort of thing will grow as our culture becomes increasingly illiterate. In America even ten years ago fewer than half of the population read even one book a year, and it is only I think through reading that you develop a feel for grammar, sentence structure and all that - no-one ever learnt that through studying rules, and speech has always been more fluid.

in speech the "Coulda, woulda, shoulda" form solves this particular problem.

Developments in language are unstoppable especially if there is no reasonably universal written and read language. A lot of young people (white as much as black) now speak a form of black American slang which is causing problems in Courts and  elsewhere, for example for  judges, lawyers and juries who struggle to understand what is being said.

[Maple Leaf]

3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

I think this sort of thing will grow as our culture becomes increasingly illiterate. In America even ten years ago fewer than half of the population read even one book a year, and it is only I think through reading that you develop a feel for grammar, sentence structure and all that - no-one ever learnt that through studying rules, and speech has always been more fluid.

in speech the "Coulda, woulda, shoulda" form solves this particular problem.

Developments in language are unstoppable especially if there is no reasonably universal written and read language. A lot of young people (white as much as black) now speak a form of black American slang which is causing problems in Courts and  elsewhere, for example for  judges, lawyers and juries who struggle to understand what is being said.

 

A bit off-topic, but there is a funny scene in the film "My Cousin Vinny" where the judge (Fred Gwynne) is trying to understand the defense lawyer (Joe Pesci), who is referring to 'yoots', meaning youths.

[Ray Gin]

On 07/04/2019 at 13:56, Ray Gin said:

I wish the admins could apply a filter that automatically corrected 'could/should/would of' to 'could/would/should have'. 

 

Seriously admins, is this possible or can you only auto-change single words rather than combinations of words?

 

 

[Darren]

Send this on to Michael Stewart.

[Thommo414]

10 hours ago, AlimOzturk said:

Slowest thread ever as posters frantically check their posts for grammatical errors before posting on a thread about such. Personally, I post 99% of the time on my phone and it cause untold problems with errors all over the shot. 

Still trying to work out if that was intentional 

[Toggie88]

 

I was witness to a debate about this in the pub many years ago. It was argued by one participant that 'could of' is now part of the Scots vernacular and is as applicable as 'could've' these days. He was a lawyer, so it was a fairly convincing argument at the time. 

[Morgan]

2 hours ago, Thommo414 said:

Still trying to work out if that was intentional 

Saw it too, but was keeping quiet!

 

 

[AlimOzturk]

Shop guys ??

[hughesie27]

Loose rather than Lose.

 

Reverse education. Everybody is taught Win Lose or Draw very early on. Absolute muppets who then develop 'Loose'

[davemclaren]

17 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Seriously admins, is this possible or can you only auto-change single words rather than combinations of words?

 

 

We’ll be taking the spelling and grammar correction option next upgrade. We could of done it previously but didn’t see the need. 

[Ray Gin]

11 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

We’ll be taking the spelling and grammar correction option next upgrade. We could of done it previously but didn’t see the need. 

 

[Morgan]

13 hours ago, hughesie27 said:

Loose rather than Lose.

 

Reverse education. Everybody is taught Win Lose or Draw very early on. Absolute muppets who then develop 'Loose'

Yep, that’s another pearler.

 

Can I throw in these:  

 

There, their, they’re.

 

Were, where, we’re.

 

Whether, weather.

 

A lot, Allot, A lot.

 

 

[Morgan]

4 hours ago, davemclaren said:

We’ll be taking the spelling and grammar correction option next upgrade. We could of done it previously but didn’t see the need. 

[Ray Gin]

On 09/04/2019 at 11:31, Francis Albert said:

 

Developments in language are unstoppable especially if there is no reasonably universal written and read language. A lot of young people (white as much as black) now speak a form of black American slang which is causing problems in Courts and  elsewhere, for example for  judges, lawyers and juries who struggle to understand what is being said.

 

Imma/I'mma  

 

Bae  

Edited April 10, 2019 by Ray Gin