 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / May 2009"must've" -- not correct?
Why does my spellchecker question this -- and other contractions like "must'nt"? >Why does my spellchecker question this What is "this"? -- and other contractions like >"must'nt"? Mustn't is spelled mustn't, like all the other n't abbreviations.  SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years > Why does my spellchecker question this -- and other contractions like > "must'nt"? Because it's not a very good spilling chucker? Or are you able to educate it? With best wishes, Peter. SignaturePeter Young, (BrE), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004. (US equivalent: Attending Anesthesiologist) Now happily retired. Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk >> Why does my spellchecker question this -- and other contractions like >> "must'nt"? > >Because it's not a very good spilling chucker? Or are you able to >educate it? Occasionally, my spell checker also allows something which I don't recognise as being correct. I put it down to the fact that, at some time in the past, it was flagged up as being a possible mistake, and I accidentally clicked on 'Add'. SignatureIan On May 17, 12:41 pm, tweeny90...@mypacks.net wrote: > Why does my spellchecker question this -- and other contractions like > "must'nt"? "Must've" isn't an actual contraction. The correct application is "must have." On 17 May 2009, BMCT2010 wrote > On May 17, 12:41 pm, tweeny90...@mypacks.net wrote: >> Why does my spellchecker question this -- and other >> contractions like "must'nt"? > > "Must've" isn't an actual contraction. The correct application > is "must have." If "must've" isn't an "actual contraction" of "must have", then what the devil is it, actually? SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 17 May 2009, BMCT2010 wrote > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >If "must've" isn't an "actual contraction" of "must have", then what >the devil is it, actually? A visual representation of slurred speech. SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years On 18 May 2009, mm wrote >> On 17 May 2009, BMCT2010 wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > A visual representation of slurred speech. Nah; that't haffta be "muzz'n"... SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >> On 17 May 2009, BMCT2010 wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > A visual representation of slurred speech. In my experience "must have" is always pronounced "must've" by native speakers unless there is a particular reason to emphasize these two words. (That's why it's often spelt "must of" by people whose hearing is better than their spelling.) For representing the sound of spoken dialogue "must've" is a normal everyday spelling. Signatureathel >>> On 17 May 2009, BMCT2010 wrote >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >is better than their spelling.) For representing the sound of spoken >dialogue "must've" is a normal everyday spelling. Agreed. However, "must of" has taken on a life of its own. Some people now pronounce it as two distinct words. I commented a few years ago that on a reality TV show (BBC Fame Academy) one day two of the contestants were having a conversation. They were both articulate and could have been classed as well-educated although not to university degree level. One of them used "must've", the other stopped her and told the young woman that "must" pause "of" was the correct way of saying it. She was too stunned to reply. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) >>>> On 17 May 2009, BMCT2010 wrote >>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >"must" pause "of" was the correct way of saying it. She was too stunned >to reply. It's a bit like "bored of". There's even a rather rude and silly 'skit' book called "Bored of the Rings". SignatureIan >>>>> On 17 May 2009, BMCT2010 wrote >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > It's a bit like "bored of". There's even a rather rude and silly > 'skit' book called "Bored of the Rings". Published 1969, so hardly a recent trend. Chris R >>>>>> On 17 May 2009, BMCT2010 wrote >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >Published 1969, so hardly a recent trend. I'm surprised it's quite as early as 1969. It seemed to me that is was a 'response' to the first film, and when was that? Late 70s? If it was 1969, maybe it was simply ahead of its time! SignatureIan On 18 May 2009, Ian Jackson wrote > In message <X_KdnQwQsdeo24zXnZ2dnUVZ8tmdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, > Chris R [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > I'm surprised it's quite as early as 1969. It seemed to me that > is was a 'response' to the first film, LOTR was a cult thing which attracted satire long before it was filmed. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 18 May 2009, Ian Jackson wrote > > >> In news:1k7NKkROtTEKFwnO@g3ohx.demon.co.uk, Ian Jackson opined: [snip] > >>> It's a bit like "bored of". There's even a rather rude and > >>> silly 'skit' book called "Bored of the Rings". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > LOTR was a cult thing which attracted satire long before it was > filmed. And in the late 60's it was popular among university students. "Bored of the Rings" was written by the Harvard Lampoon staff; it contains many references to recreational drug usage -- I particularly remember the song of "Tim Benzadrine". Signature--------------------------- | BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk | B B aa rrr b | | BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit, | B B a a r b b | altum viditur. | BBB aa a r bbb | ----------------------------- > It's a bit like "bored of". There's even a rather rude and silly 'skit' > book called "Bored of the Rings". Those musty old rings. ¬R >>>> On 17 May 2009, BMCT2010 wrote >>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > told the young woman that "must" pause "of" was the correct way of > saying it. She was too stunned to reply. "Musta" is a standard pronunciation for people who swallow the ends of their mouthings. "He musta mista train." It fits into the pattern of "shoulda, woulda, coulda" and "gonna, gotta, gedda". >>>>> On 17 May 2009, BMCT2010 wrote >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > "Musta" is a standard pronunciation for people who swallow the ends of > their mouthings. "He musta mista train." I've been wondering how I'd say that if I weren't thinking about careful diction. Probably there'd be a v sound, but it would be very faint, so "He musta mista train" would be fairly close to reality. Signatureathel >>>>>> On 17 May 2009, BMCT2010 wrote >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > diction. Probably there'd be a v sound, but it would be very faint, so "He > musta mista train" would be fairly close to reality. Dialect is acceptable in informal writing. If you're going to use dialect, "...use the minimum, not the maximum, of deviation from the norm, thus sparing the reader as well as convincing him." Strunk & White "Rule 15. _Do not use dialect unless your ear is good._" >>>>> On 17 May 2009, BMCT2010 wrote >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>> is better than their spelling.) For representing the sound of spoken >>> dialogue "must've" is a normal everyday spelling. Okay. Then it's a visual representation of normal speech. >> Agreed. >> >> However, "must of" has taken on a life of its own. Some people now >> pronounce it as two distinct words. I commented a few years ago that >> on a reality TV show (BBC Fame Academy) one day two of the Were these Brits? >> contestants were having a conversation. They were both articulate and >> could have been classed as well-educated although not to university >> degree level. One of them used "must've", the other stopped her and >> told the young woman that "must" pause "of" was the correct way of >> saying it. She was too stunned to reply. I'm stunned too. I'm glad the second one tried to set her straight. I hope it worked. >"Musta" is a standard pronunciation for people who swallow the ends of >their mouthings. "He musta mista train." Isn't this spelled "musta misda"? >It fits into the pattern of >"shoulda, woulda, coulda" and "gonna, gotta, gedda". SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years >>>>>> On 17 May 2009, BMCT2010 wrote >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >Were these Brits? Yes, >>> contestants were having a conversation. They were both articulate and >>> could have been classed as well-educated although not to university [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>It fits into the pattern of >>"shoulda, woulda, coulda" and "gonna, gotta, gedda". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) >>>>>> On 17 May 2009, BMCT2010 wrote >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Isn't this spelled "musta misda"? No. If one spells "missed" and only _then_ slips into dialect, I suppose one would write "da train". However, the sibilant keeps the "t" unvoiced for me. Notice the "unvoist" ending? Do you pronounce it with a sounded "d"? Anyway, "mista train" could also mean "Mister Train" to some people, and "missed a train" for others. Context. OK. I was not careful below: "gotta" shoulda bin "godda". As in the song. Inna gadda (really, now. . .godda) da vida. >> It fits into the pattern of >> "shoulda, woulda, coulda" and "gonna, gotta, gedda". > >>> On 17 May 2009, BMCT2010 wrote > >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >> > >> A visual representation of slurred speech. I think it is a matter of what the speaker is thinking. If I am thinking "must have" and say "must've", it is sloppy speech (and I'm guilty of a lot of that). In that case, "must have" is the correct spelling of what I said and "must've" would be a visual representation of what listeners heard. But if I'm thinking "must've" and say "must've", I intended to use a contraction and did so. In that case, "must've" is the proper representation of what I said. Bill in Kentucky (who says "you all" even if you all think you are hearing "y'all") ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reverse parts of the user name and ISP name for my e-address >>>>> On 17 May 2009, BMCT2010 wrote >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Bill in Kentucky (who says "you all" even if you all think you are > hearing "y'all") Or "yawl"? On 18 May 2009, Pat Durkin wrote >> Bill in Kentucky (who says "you all" even if you all think you >> are hearing "y'all") > > Or "yawl"? Ketch it while ya' can. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 18 May 2009, Pat Durkin wrote > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ketch it while ya' can. You really think we yachter? SignatureOdysseus >>> [ ... ] > I think it is a matter of what the speaker is thinking. > > If I am thinking "must have" and say "must've", it is sloppy speech > (and I'm guilty of a lot of that). If "have" means "possess" then that's a possibility (though I can't easily believe that anyone would use the contraction with that meaning), but if it's the auxiliary then "must've" is the only possible pronunciation unless one needs to emphasize the two words. I don't find it sloppy in the least. I'm reminded of a usage guide from the past (maybe Fowler, though I can't find it in the 2nd edition) that gave as an example a sentence like Harry has hurt his head and pointed out that no native speaker would pronounce every h. It doesn't sound sloppy to say 'as and 'is, whereas it would sound very artificial (or foreign) to pronounce them with h. Again, of course, the need for emphasis might require one or other h -- e.g. in response to some who doubted that Harry had really hurt his head or thought, bizarrely, that he had hurt someone else's head. It used to be very common in novels to use 'as and 'is to represent words spoken by a character with a lower-class British accent, but that was often an absurdity as no one always pronounces the h in these words. > In that case, "must have" is the > correct spelling of what I said and "must've" would be a visual [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Bill in Kentucky (who says "you all" even if you all think you are > hearing "y'all") Signatureathel >>>> On 17 May 2009, BMCT2010 wrote >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>is better than their spelling.) For representing the sound of spoken >>dialogue "must've" is a normal everyday spelling. Okay. Then it's a visual representation of normal speech. >Agreed. > >However, "must of" has taken on a life of its own. Some people now >pronounce it as two distinct words. I commented a few years ago that on >a reality TV show (BBC Fame Academy) one day two of the contestants were Were these Brits? >having a conversation. They were both articulate and could have been >classed as well-educated although not to university degree level. One of >them used "must've", the other stopped her and told the young woman that >"must" pause "of" was the correct way of saying it. She was too stunned >to reply. I'm stunned too. I'm glad the second one tried to set her straight. I hope it worked. SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years >On May 17, 12:41 pm, tweeny90...@mypacks.net wrote: >> Why does my spellchecker question this -- and other contractions like >> "must'nt"? > >"Must've" isn't an actual contraction. You'd better tell the author and publisher of this book, then: http://www.amazon.com/Mustve-Been-Something-I-Ate/dp/0375727124 It Must've Been Something I Ate (Paperback) by Jeffrey Steingarten and the writers of the other two million hits found by Google. >The correct application is >"must have." "Must have" is formal. "Must've" is informal and colloquial. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) > Why does my spellchecker question this -- and other contractions like > "must'nt"? I suppose it shouldn't've done that. kt. SignatureSo I went to buy a watch, and the man in the shop said "Analogue." I said "No, just a watch." >> Why does my spellchecker question this -- and other contractions like >> "must'nt"? > >I suppose it shouldn't've done that. LOL Very good. My spell checker offers to change shouldn't've to shouldn' t've or shouldn't 've or shouldering, among others. >kt. SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years On May 17, 12:41 pm, tweeny90...@mypacks.net wrote: > Why does my spellchecker question this -- and other contractions like > "must'nt"? Oops - meant MUSTN'T. Sorry to confuse. On May 17, 9:41 am, tweeny90...@mypacks.net wrote: > Why does my spellchecker question this -- and other contractions like > "must'nt"? You could've spent the time thinking about the fact that spell checkers are written by humans, often those without contemporary English skills. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.