Private Message replies to threads.

[JohnW2]

Because people do not omit the 'ha' in speech but only the 'h'. The astoundingly stupid 'would of' has come about because some people pronounce 'would have' like that, thus proving that they do not even know what they are saying.

Exactly, which is why I don't really understand why you introduced the diversion of this discussion about how/why the 'abbreviated' form of "would have" should be written, since that is irrelevant to what started all this.

As you say, the 'astounding stupid' (I would say 'extremely irritating') "would of" is written by people who say that, and the reason that say is is that they have heard people voicing a strung-together/semi-abbreviated version of "would have" and think they are actually hearing (or maybe are hearing, if they are listening to another 'perpetrator') "would of". The start of this process has absolutely nothing to do with how abbreviations are written. Of course, once one person starts writing "would of" (for the above reason) then others might see and copy the same in writing.

Maybe I led you into your diversion by writing " would've " when trying to describe what it was that they had 'mis-heard' (or correctly heard from some other culprit!). Perhaps I would not have 'led you astray' had I described it with an attempt at a phonetic rendition, maybe something like " wood-erv " ?

I really do not understand why you think it necessary to invent excuses for such mistakes and think there is nothing wrong with them being perpetuated. If people aren't very bright then their mistakes should not be forced on the rest of us.

I know that you like having arguments with me about language at weekends, but that accusation really isn't fair In relation to the matter we've been discussing, there is no way that I have been inventing excuses for, or in any way defending, a particular 'sloppiness' of language which I dislike (and am irritated by) just as much as you do (or are). As I said at the very start ...

Is that not .... a case of someone 'mis-hearing' something they have only heard spoken, and not seen written? ...
Yes, that is 'sloppy' - presumably an attempt to write (phonetically) what people think is being said when others say (also 'sloppily', at least in the eyes of my late English teacher!) "would've" and "should've"?

I have never excused, or attempted to justify or support, such language.

Mind you, one way of looking at it (at least, part of the 'cause') is, as you say, that it is a case of " dropping 'h's " and, when people do that, there is nothing that you or I (or anyone else) can say or do that will change that habit (although I would probably 'stand well back' if I decided that I should try to 'correct' them ).

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

Speak ann tipe proper like wat I does.

the 'astounding stupid' (I would say 'extremely irritating')

these people may mash up the written and spoken language but that is no reason for us un-stupid, non-irritating people to sink to that level.

Do not type don't type do not, would have instead of wood off

We would have trees, wee wood of trees ( small timber from trees )

 

[SUNRAY]

At what time of history did the highly skilled travelling craftsman called a Botcher become the Bodger that we all loathe?

 

[JohnW2]

... these people may mash up the written and spoken language but that is no reason for us un-stupid, non-irritating people to sink to that level.

... and I hope, and believe, that most of us don't!

I certainly do not share EFLI's opposition to the 'evolution of language', per se, but I am just as irritated as him (and probably you, and many oithers) by many of the things I hear and see being done with language today.

However, what I think is unfair is to imply that those who use language which is irritating to us do so because of their own (individual) 'ignorance' or 'laziness'. I suppose one can argue that, at the very start, it is just one individual who, through 'laziness and/or ignorance' first utters or writes the 'error' in question, but once that process has been started (and subsequently spread/proliferated), the way in which any of us speaks and/or writes is primarily determined by what we have been exposed to during our language-formative years - and that varies dramatically between regional groups, age groups and socioeconomic groups (and all combinations thereof).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

At what time of history did the highly skilled travelling craftsman called a Botcher become the Bodger that we all loathe?

When a significant proportion of Botchers started 'bodging', perhaps?

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

When a significant proportion of Botchers started 'bodging', perhaps?

Kind Regards, John

Maybe

 

[SUNRAY]

Context is always important. When writing a formal document (a manual at work, a CV/application letter, etc), then using 'correct' English is important. When sending a note to a friend (paper / email / text / whatever) then it matters a lot less.

I have to add here that I'm a technical person and not a linguist, I never did pass my English O level even with 3 attempts. However technical writing [manuals, reports etc] requires precise technical detail and is commonly written using fewer words [albeit using less ' and therefore more full words] to remove some of the ambiguity which exists within the English language.
Technical accuracy and fewer words usurps linguistic accuracy.