Re: USAGE: would've verses would of

Tristan Alexander McLeay scripsit:

> So what, exactly, is the status of 'would of' and its friends? Would it
> normally be considered right or wrong? and why?
The answers are that the historic form is "would have" and that "would of"
is universally considered non-standard: that is, it is not part of
{American,British,Canadian,Australian} Standard English, whereas
"would've" is a standard abbreviation.

That said, historic forms don't necessarily *control* the standard,
otherwise we'd say *bridegoom instead of bridegroom (< OE bryd-guma,
'bride-man').

--
John Cowan           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@ccil.org
Please leave your values        |       Check your assumptions.  In fact,
   at the front desk.           |          check your assumptions at the door.
     --sign in Paris hotel      |            --Miles Vorkosigan