(Post a new comment)

	bankai 2005-06-13 12:03 am UTC (link)
	Peephole knead two lurn theyselves sum Inglush. Werd. (Reply to this)

	bubosquared 2005-06-13 12:14 am UTC (link)
	*blink* I always thought that that is why people make that mistake, because it sounds that way when you pronounce it. Did I miss something? Have I been pronouncing it wrong all this time? (Reply to this)(Thread)

ladybirdsleeps 2005-06-13 12:30 am UTC (link)

No, you're pronouncing it correctly. It sounds identical for most dialects: schwa + v. (This post in fanficrants hurts me. So much ignorance concentrated into such a small space, spewed by people who are so sure they're superior. But then, that's how most discussions about grammar go, so I really should stop beating my head against the desk now and have some tea. I want to know what these people think of "would ofn't". Very fascinating development, I think, but I'm sure the reaction would be one of horror.) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	lukita 2005-06-13 03:36 am UTC (link)
	Okay I bite, what's "would ofn't"? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	ladybirdsleeps 2005-06-13 04:05 am UTC (link)
	*teehee* Some dialects of English have developed "would haven't", which is sometimes spelled as "would of'nt". It's hard to find good (linguistic) information online about it; the closest I could find was this post on LanguageLog. Apparently done by a phonologist on too little caffeine, but it's interesting speculation about what the fuck is going on nonetheless. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	elemcee 2005-06-13 01:16 pm UTC (link)
	That's certainly very interesting phrasing, there. I've never heard anybody say that. It's always been 'wouldn't have'. 'Would haven't' just doesn't sound right to me. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	the_wanlorn 2005-06-13 12:31 am UTC (link)
	Nope! For most people, "would've" and "would of" sound exactly the same. would've: leading young writers astray for decades! (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	nekoneko 2005-06-13 12:48 am UTC (link)
	At least it's slightly more understandable than my mother's confusion over the name Puss in Boots. She thought it was Puss and Boots. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	mastervex 2005-06-13 01:31 am UTC (link)
	I certainly couldn't tell the difference between a spoken "would've" and a spoken "would of", unless someone puts a big pause between "would" and "of". Which would be unusual. So...yeah. You didn't miss anything. (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Anonymous) 2005-06-13 03:10 am UTC (link)

Gah, I hate it in written English too, but good lord, you can't bloody tell when people speak it! It's not like it's "often" or something. And it's really freaky that people are advocating a return to grammatical drilling and diagramming sentences to fix it. Kids are having enough difficulty learning to read as it is--*coughs nervously, reaches for tissue* (Also, the business about "how I don't mean to be prejudiced about dialects from one region not being "proper" and that elocution and diction aren't being taught--jeez, are there any countries in the world that have their populations speaking exactly the same dialect, all the time?) *looks sheepish, wipes* eisoj5@lj (Reply to this)(Thread)

	ladybirdsleeps 2005-06-13 06:40 am UTC (link)
	Jo's point was that you can't tell the difference in speech, and that therefore "would of" is simply a misspelling, not a representation of a difference in speech. I don't really agree, but no sense in misrepresenting her. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2005-06-13 02:44 pm UTC (link)
	Oh, I wasn't trying to misrepresent her; I was responding to what I read from a number of people and not just the one commenter. Sorry for the lack of attribution... (Reply to this)(Parent)

elemcee 2005-06-13 01:26 pm UTC (link)

And it's really freaky that people are advocating a return to grammatical drilling and diagramming sentences to fix it. Kids are having enough difficulty learning to read as it is--*coughs nervously, reaches for tissue* Well, it's not exactly complex grammar. Most kids should know they should write 'have' or 'would've' and not 'of'. But yeah, it only really matters in writing, unless somebody is speaking really slowly and clearly. But, on the internet, everything is in writing, and it is obvious. *cleans up* *lights cigarette* (Reply to this)(Parent)

	dodyskin 2005-06-13 06:21 pm UTC (link)
	ow OW OW too stupid; shouldn't've read (Reply to this)(Thread)

(Deleted post)

dodyskin 2005-06-14 12:00 am UTC (link)

*weeps* I don't care. Stop talking about it. For the love of kittens. It's a homophone, and not the good kind with the amusing situational comedy arising from a simple misunderstanding which inevitably leads to high jinks and eventually true love, but just a simple switching of words with not even a hint of screwball comedy or merry fun. Leave it alone. *wishes for merry fun* (Reply to this)(Parent)

	memii 2005-06-13 11:46 pm UTC (link)
	If I remember this post correctly, the writing in question was dialogue. And when it comes to dialogue, spelling and grammar can be twisted pretty radically, depending on characterization or dialect. "Would have," then would read differently than, "would of," in dialogue. So joibish is just being really wanky here. (Reply to this)(Thread)

The wank lives on in her LJ - not in one, but two posts (Anonymous) 2005-06-13 11:56 pm UTC (link)

Amusing how nobody at fanficrants was really saying it was ok English (just sometimes ok in a character's dialogue, which was where her example of the offending grammar was from) but you wouldn't know that by her posts. Not agreeing with her = idiots! http://www.livejournal.com/users/joisbishmyoga/70557.html http://www.livejournal.com/users/joisbishmyoga/70867.html Favorite parts: 1) Citing a site that counters her rant but calling it rubbish anyway. Er...if it's possible to own yourself, she's done it. 2) Most of the replies aren't fully supportive either. These, one would assume, are coming from her own friends. Ouch. Not that any of it matters to her. Remember kids, characters must speak in perfect and proper English or feel the wrath of joisbishmyoga! (Reply to this)(Parent)

darkerthanpale 2005-06-14 08:19 am UTC (link)

Well, if I was convinced that the author did it intentionally, then I'd have no problem with them using 'would of' in dialogue, but I suspect that in almost all cases, it's not the character who's making the mistake, but the author. Characters making mistakes = fine, authors making mistakes = something to be corrected, so I think that her argument still stands. Still, her follow-ups are wanky. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous) 2005-06-14 01:38 pm UTC (link)

Exactly. And if I remember right, somebody made that same point in the replies to the orignal post. Something along the lines of if the fic is otherwise well written, who cares? That's your clue it was intentional and not the mistake of a "moronic" author. In dialog, it's nothing to have an aneurysm over at the very least. But of course it either went ignored or was railed against much like any other decent idea that went counter to 100% agreement with her. Wanky indeed. (Reply to this)(Parent)