Re: "To whom"

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:28:43 -0500, # 1 <salut_vous_autre@...>
wrote:

>> [1] Yes, for some few people "could of" actually involves a real "of",
>> and
>> writing it that way might be justifiable [albeit not to prescriptivist
>> grammarians] but IME most people who write 'could of' actually say
>> "could've".
>
> Forgive my ignorance, but may I ask for a little example using "could
> of" as
> "of"? :-)
>
> I've never seen this in a sentence (or I've not understand and forget or
> mis-interpreted it :-P)
>
> What kind of "of" can it replace in natural speech?
It can't.

"Could have" is pronounced /'kUd@v/ or even /'ku\dv=/ (or somewhere
between the two), and this sometimes gets wrongly written as "could of".
Likewise the eggcorns "would of", "should of", and so on.

> I know how to pronounce "I'd go", "you'd go", "he'd go", "we'd go"...
>
> but how is pronounced "it'd go"?
>
> [It@d] with a very short schwa?
/'It@d/ is good, until you get dialectical, when things like /?I_q?i\d/ or
/Ijd/ become plausible.




Paul

Reply