Re: CHAT: which's

On Wednesday 26 February 2003 3:58 pm, Muke Tever wrote:
> From: "Tristan" <kesuari@...>
>
> > > OTOH something like
> > > "wouldn't've", also reflecting the usual pronunciation [wUdn=t@v]--
> > > might well occur in a novel or story that was trying to indicate
> > > colloquial or relaxed speech ("wouldn't of..." would be an alternative
> > > writing but probably wouldn't get past a good editor).
> >
> > Or even a bad one. I doubt they could be called an editor if they let
> > that through.
>
> I have seen <of> forms in print...  Terry Pratchett's books use standard
> <have> forms generally, but <of> forms appear sometimes in the speech of
> uneducated characters.
>
> I always thought <of> forms were just spelling errors, until I met someone
> who insisted that the word was <of> (presumably on the analogy of other
> verb + preposition combinations), so this use isnt entirely farfetched.
>
>     *Muke!
It was probably originally a spelling error, but since has spread.

Reply