 |
 | 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 / July 2009big brother uk language lab: "I wish I would have"
I'm still watching Big Brother UK and listening to the English they speak. It's obvious that certain words and phrases that I've always thought of as AmE have found their way into BB Newspeak, and I would guess they have arrived via pop culture for the most part. But here's one that surprised me a bit, because it doesn't stem directly from pop culture. BrE: "I wish I had... " = AmE: "I wish I would have..." I've now heard a couple of the hamsters in the cage use "I wish I would have..." Is it in fact AmE, or is it perhaps regional BrE? The woman who said most recently is from Birmingham... but then so am I, and I don't recall ever hearing it in the Brummie wild.  Signature"Fiction writing is great. You can make up almost anything." - Ivana Trump > I'm still watching Big Brother UK and listening to the English they > speak. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Is it in fact AmE, or is it perhaps regional BrE? In the past few years I have become aware of that usage. It always sounds wrong to my ear. Please don't believe that all Americans subscribe to it. "If I had" or "I wish I had" is what I would say or write. Bill in Kentucky ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reverse parts of the user name and ISP name for my e-address > > I'm still watching Big Brother UK and listening to the English they > > speak. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Bill in Kentucky I have heard that sort of thing called "jock talk" in USA. And it often occurs along with the substitution of "may" for "might". Thus, instead of "We might have won the game if Joe had scored on his final shot," I hear, "We may have won the game if Joe would have scored on his final shot." To me, "may have won" sounds as though the speaker is uncertain whether his team did win or not. But I don't think that is the intended meaning. I think he knows that his team lost the game. Peter H. Ten Eyck Rhode Island, USA Peter Ten Eyck: > Thus, instead of "We might have won the game if Joe > had scored on his final shot," I hear, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > meaning. I think he knows that his team lost > the game. It sounds the same way to me, but I think we've lost that one already. "May" is the new past tense of "may", confusing as some of us may find it. SignatureMark Brader | "No, I'm disagreeing with you. That doesn't mean I'm not msb@vex.net | listening to you or understanding what you're saying: Toronto | I'm doing all three at the same time." -- Aaron Sorkin > To me, "may have won" sounds as though the > speaker is uncertain whether his team did win > or not. But I don't think that is the intended > meaning. I think he knows that his team lost > the game. Oh, but they did win the game in another possible world. The speaker is just reporting facts about a possible world where they did win the game. SignatureTom Morris <http://tommorris.org/> Matthew Cope: >> It's obvious that certain words and phrases that I've always thought of >> as AmE have found their way into BB Newspeak... But here's one that >> surprised me a bit, because it doesn't stem directly from pop culture. >> >> BrE: "I wish I had... " = AmE: "I wish I would have..." Bill McCray: > In the past few years I have become aware of that usage. It always > sounds wrong to my ear. Please don't believe that all Americans > subscribe to it. "If I had" or "I wish I had" is what I would say or > write. Here's the flip side of that usage. In 1794 Joseph Priestley emigrated from England to the US, and then, completely ignoring the signature quote I would be using on this posting, wrote the following in a letter about the voyage: We had very stormy weather, and one gust of wind as sudden and violent as, perhaps, was ever known. If it had not been for the passengers, many of the sails had been lost. In terms of modern English as I understand it, that last sentence is quite wrong and has to be: If it had not been for the passengers, many of the sails *would have* been lost. And I suppose the sort of speakers Matthew is talking about, if they uttered such a sentence, would apply the change again and say: If it *would not have* been for the passengers, many of the sails would have been lost. ! SignatureMark Brader "The world little knows or cares the storm through Toronto which you have had to pass. It asks only if you msb@vex.net brought the ship safely to port." -- Joseph Conrad My text in this article is in the public domain. > Matthew Cope: >>> It's obvious that certain words and phrases that I've always thought of [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > ! I'd say, "If it were not for the passengers...." Anything wrong with that? Is the time setting different? SignatureMarshall Price of Miami marshallprice@att.net http://marshallprice.wordpress.com > > I'm still watching Big Brother UK and listening to the English they > > speak. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Reverse parts of the user name and ISP name for my e-address I call the construction "faux subjunctive." It began with poorly educated Americans who, never having heard the term "subjunctive" but feeling a need for it, invented their own. And it's spreading. Everywhere. >I'm still watching Big Brother UK and listening to the English they >speak. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >The woman who said most recently is from Birmingham... but then so am I, >and I don't recall ever hearing it in the Brummie wild. I think we should be deeply grateful that it was not "I wish I'd of...". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) >>I'm still watching Big Brother UK and listening to the English they >>speak. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I think we should be deeply grateful that it was not "I wish I'd of...". My 5-year-old says "should of" and tells me I'm wrong if I say she is! We live in Birmingham, and I'm afraid these norms of English are spreading like wildfire. I hear the construction "has went"/"have ate" etc. in the media all the time now. Adrian http://idlish.blogspot.com/ > "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message >> I think we should be deeply grateful that it was not "I wish I'd >> of...". > > My 5-year-old says "should of" and tells me I'm wrong if I say she > is! Out of curiosity, how do you guys know it's "I'd of" and "should of" rather than "I'd've" and "should've"? They sound identical to me. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The mystery of government is not how 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Washington works, but how to make it Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stop. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Quoth Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com>, and I quote: >> "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Out of curiosity, how do you guys know it's "I'd of" and "should of" >rather than "I'd've" and "should've"? They sound identical to me. Yes, you can only be sure it's "of" when they write it - as they do. SignatureJames > Quoth Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com>, and I quote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Yes, you can only be sure it's "of" when they write it - as they > do. I thought we were talking about listening to people on TV and hearing a 5-year-old. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |"Revolution" has many definitions. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |From the looks of this, I'd say Palo Alto, CA 94304 |"going around in circles" comes |closest to applying... kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Richard M. Hartman (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Quoth Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com>, and I quote: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I thought we were talking about listening to people on TV and hearing > a 5-year-old. You can get an incontestable "of" at the end of a sentence or when the expression stands alone: "You wouldna done that!" "Yes I would of!" One of my daughters was very prone to it for a surprisingly large number of years. SignatureMike. > You can get an incontestable "of" at the end of a sentence or when the > expression stands alone: "You wouldna done that!" "Yes I would of!" Why is it incontestable? I can attest that if I said that--and it sounds like the sort of thing I would say--I would have been saying "would've". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Giving money and power to government 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |is like giving whiskey and car keys Palo Alto, CA 94304 |to teenage boys. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> You can get an incontestable "of" at the end of a sentence or when >> the expression stands alone: "You wouldna done that!" "Yes I would [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sounds like the sort of thing I would say--I would have been saying > "would've". Over here, the 'of' is incontestable. If, for you, saying "Of Mice and Men" and saying "Would've mice and men" has the same value of 'of' then you won't understand. The 'would of', 'should of' users here rhyme the 'of' with 'sov' (as in the abbreviation for one sovereign coin). SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>> You can get an incontestable "of" at the end of a sentence or when >>> the expression stands alone: "You wouldna done that!" "Yes I would [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > here rhyme the 'of' with 'sov' (as in the abbreviation for one > sovereign coin). Ah. For me "Would _Of Mice and Men_ ...?" and "Would've mice and men ...?" would, indeed, be the same (assuming that I didn't pause, as one sometimes does, before the title). I hadn't noticed a different vowel for BrE "of", but I see that the OED gives /Av/, /@v/, and /@/ for British pronunciations and /@v/ and /@/ for American ones. So They saw more than they should've today. They saw more than they should of _Today_. (with the same cadence and stress pattern) form a minimal pair for you. They don't for me. (And, given the other two BrE OED pronunciations for "of", it would appear that they don't for some BrE speakers, either.) I can attest that at least some speakers who pronounce them the same think of them as homonyms rather than the same word. (Even if the words do sometimes interfere with one another when typing.) My guess would be that what you're seeing is simply the pronunciation of "'ve" moving to match "of". I would be somewhat surprised if you were to ask for judgements about She ate more than she should've eaten. She ate more than she should of the pie. (spoken aloud) and found that the speakers thought that the same word followed "should" was the same in both sentences. (Or perhaps better, the word following "captain" in Should the captain 've left the team? Should the captain of the team left? to ensure that the "'ve" is heard as a separate word.) SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Sometimes I think the surest sign 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |that intelligent life exists Palo Alto, CA 94304 |elsewhere in the universe is that |none of it has tried to contact us. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Calvin (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>> You can get an incontestable "of" at the end of a sentence or when >>>> the expression stands alone: "You wouldna done that!" "Yes I would [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > ...?" would, indeed, be the same (assuming that I didn't pause, as one > sometimes does, before the title). But I was asking specifically for "Of Mice and Men", NOT "Would Of Mice and Men." IOW, if you didn't have anything to hang on the front of the 'of', would it still be a 've sound or would the 'o' have its full glory? SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>>>> You can get an incontestable "of" at the end of a sentence or when >>>>> the expression stands alone: "You wouldna done that!" "Yes I would [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > front of the 'of', would it still be a 've sound or would the 'o' > have its full glory? It's full glory. Pronounced identically to "'ve" and to the way it is when preceded by "would". But typically when you say that two words are pronounced the same or differently, you have to show that they're the same in all contexts or different in some context. The claim appeared to be that people were producing something that was recognizably "would of" as distinguishable from "would've", and I'm claiming that the two are indistinguishable for me (and, I believe, for most Americans). In that case, the appropriate test is to find a context in which either can appear. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |There are two types of people - 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |those who are one of the two types Palo Alto, CA 94304 |of people, and those who are not. | Leigh Blue Caldwell kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>>>> You can get an incontestable "of" at the end of a sentence or >>>>>> when the expression stands alone: "You wouldna done that!" "Yes [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > that case, the appropriate test is to find a context in which either > can appear. I don't dispute you pronounce them the same. Why do you dispute people you've never heard speak pronounce them differently? Let;s try the word 'off'. Is the vowel sound the same for you as 'of'? How about 'ovulate'? That should work. So. There are folks here who rhyme 'of' with the first syllable of 'ovulate'. There are folks who, like you, produce a schmeery schwa-v kind of sound. Many are the same folks. I do both at different times. Now. There are folks who use the 'rhymes with the 'ov' in ovulation type 'of' when the phrase they are trying to use is "I would have' but they substitute this 'rhymes with 'ov' 'of'' for 'have'. Lots of other folks do a slidey kind of "I would've' which would be familiar to you. But the first kind of folks exist. I have heard them. Others in the UK who have posted in this thread have heard them Countless others who've never even heard of aeu or aue have also heard it. 'would ov' and 'would've' are distinguishable to the ear. The fact that you've never heard two different ways of pronouncing this doesn't make any difference. These people think the construction "I would of" is grammatical and proper. If you plug "I would of thought" into a search engine you'll get a quarter of a million hits. Like: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/86574 "Some of my ps2 games work and some dont, i would of thought that it was a problem with the games " So I take it we're not in disagreement that the usage exists. We're just not in accord as to whether it can be distinguished by the naked ear. So, why do you think everybody in the UK pronounces "would've" the same way as everybody in the USA? SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>>>>>> You can get an incontestable "of" at the end of a sentence or >>>>>>> when the expression stands alone: "You wouldna done that!" "Yes [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > I don't dispute you pronounce them the same. Why do you dispute people > you've never heard speak pronounce them differently? I don't believe I have. I'm just trying to understand what you meant when you say that "would of", for you, is pronounced noticeably differently from "would've". > Let;s try the word 'off'. > Is the vowel sound the same for you as 'of'? No, that's /O/ > How about 'ovulate'? > That should work. > So. That's /A/, which is what the OED says some BrE use for "of". > There are folks here who rhyme 'of' with the first syllable of 'ovulate'. > There are folks who, like you, produce a schmeery schwa-v kind of sound. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 'of' when the phrase they are trying to use is "I would have' but > they substitute this 'rhymes with 'ov' 'of'' for 'have'. That's what I don't understand. Why are they substituting a "rhymes with 'ov' 'of' for 'have'" rather than simply using a rhymes-with-"ov" "have"? (or, rather, a rhymes-with-"ov" "'ve".) Other people who use a different "of" have a rhyming "'ve" without "substituting 'of'"; why not them? > Lots of > other folks do a slidey kind of "I would've' which would be familiar [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If you plug "I would of thought" into a search engine you'll get a quarter > of a million hits. How is this any different from any other typo involving homophones? I'm pretty sure you can find it in my postings, and I can attest that that's not how I think of it any more than that I substitute "there" for "their" or "to" for "too". > Like: > http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/86574 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > naked ear. So, why do you think everybody in the UK pronounces > "would've" the same way as everybody in the USA? I certainly don't. I'm just trying to understand what you mean by it being "indisputable" that that's what's going on. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |I value writers such as Fiske. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |They serve as valuable object Palo Alto, CA 94304 |lessons by showing that the most |punctilious compliance with the kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |rules of usage has so little to do (650)857-7572 |with either writing or thinking |well. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | --Richard Hershberger >> There are folks who use the 'rhymes with the 'ov' in ovulation type >> 'of' when the phrase they are trying to use is "I would have' but [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a different "of" have a rhyming "'ve" without "substituting 'of'"; why > not them? Who knows why? Who cares? (Apart, obviously, from you). This discussion wasn't, AFAICS, about 'why' but 'whether'. >> Lots of >> other folks do a slidey kind of "I would've' which would be familiar [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > How is this any different from any other typo involving homophones? Because, as we have patiently tried to explain to you, these are not homophones to many of our people. Anyway, my watch ends at tea-time so someone else can take up the "ploughing a lonely furrow" assignment if they feel so inclined. Bye. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>> There are folks who use the 'rhymes with the 'ov' in ovulation type >>> 'of' when the phrase they are trying to use is "I would have' but [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Who knows why? Who cares? (Apart, obviously, from you). This discussion > wasn't, AFAICS, about 'why' but 'whether'. I thought that *this* discussion started when I asked how you were sure. The issue in my mind is, indeed, whether. You say yes, and I don't understand why you're so sure. >>> Lots of other folks do a slidey kind of "I would've' which would >>> be familiar to you. But the first kind of folks exist. I have [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Because, as we have patiently tried to explain to you, these are not > homophones to many of our people. I understand that they're not homophones to *you*. My question is why you're so sure that they're not homophones to the people you're hearing pronounce them that way. If you had said "They pronounce 'would've' to sound like 'would of'", I would still have posted my question, because I wasn't aware that you pronounce "of" differently, but it would have made perfect sense when you said that you pronounce "of" like the first syllable in "ovulate". It's the assertion that they're necessarily actually *saying* "would of" that I don't follow. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |...as a mobile phone is analogous 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to a Q-Tip -- yeah, it's something Palo Alto, CA 94304 |you stick in your ear, but there |all resemblance ends. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Ross Howard (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>> There are folks who use the 'rhymes with the 'ov' in ovulation type >>>> 'of' when the phrase they are trying to use is "I would have' but [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >"of" like the first syllable in "ovulate". It's the assertion that >they're necessarily actually *saying* "would of" that I don't follow. When they write it they actually write "would of". Not a cheerful post: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=948421 There is nothing left here for me, I really want to kill myself. But I dont want to upset my parents because i love them so much. If they werent here I would of died a long time ago. Another miserable one - the first and third readers' comments: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5140511.ece I'm sorry my sweet that your life was based around so much cruelty. I wish I could of come and been your hero ... i wish i could of protected you little baby i feel like i failed you along with the system, i will never forget you! RIP little baby,... More cheerful. About a cycle race: http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/site/BC/roa/EventReports2009/20090516_Tour_ Milburys_.asp or http://tinyurl.com/qwhqcn If it had come down to a sprint, I would of hoped I would have won it,... Final post in the thread here: http://www.britsoc.co.uk/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=74&start=15 If I were in charge I would of organised a Job Fair here for employers to come to sit down with potential employees - as opposed to the more traditional method. Try this Google search for more examples: "i would of" site:.uk -"of course" SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) >>I understand that they're not homophones to *you*. My question is >>why you're so sure that they're not homophones to the people you're [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > When they write it they actually write "would of". Done it myself. It's a mistake when I do it and it's still a different word. But still, the question was how you tell *by listening*. I would be shocked if *everybody* who pronounces the word you hear as "would of" writes it as "would of" rather than "would've". Hearing them say it and seeing them (the same people) write it would indeed be evidence. Just hearing them say it, not so much. Just as seeing them write it doesn't really imply that they would use the pronunciation you hear as "of". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Bullwinkle: You sure that's the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | only way? Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Rocky: Well, if you're going to be | a hero, you've got to do kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | stupid things every once in (650)857-7572 | a while. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbaum filted: >>>I understand that they're not homophones to *you*. My question is >>>why you're so sure that they're not homophones to the people you're [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >seeing them write it doesn't really imply that they would use the >pronunciation you hear as "of". Have the people who say "would of" and think it's grammatically justifiable considered other word orders?...would they of still ended up speaking the same way?...r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >Evan Kirshenbaum filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Have the people who say "would of" and think it's grammatically justifiable I suspect that the population of that group is vanishingly small. If a person is sufficiently advanced in understanding that they can handle the concept of grammatical justification at all, are they then likely to be confident that "would of" cuts the mustard? >considered other word orders?...would they of still ended up speaking the same >way?...r SignaturePaul > Evan Kirshenbaum filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > justifiable considered other word orders?...would they of still ended > up speaking the same way?...r Bear in mind these are also the people who say "wouldn't of" SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>>I understand that they're not homophones to *you*. My question is >>>why you're so sure that they're not homophones to the people you're [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >seeing them write it doesn't really imply that they would use the >pronunciation you hear as "of". You have assumed that I was exaggerating the difference between "would've" and "would of" for effect. I wasn't. "Of" in "would of" is quite clearly a separate word pronounced identically to any other, more conventional and correct use of "of". Try a Google search for: "should of" site:.uk -"of course" I mentioned in AUE sometime in the last few years an incident in a reality TV show. A woman said "should've", I think it was. She was very firmly corrected by another woman who said that it should be "should of", pronounced as two distinct words. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) >>>>I understand that they're not homophones to *you*. My question is >>>>why you're so sure that they're not homophones to the people you're [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > quite clearly a separate word pronounced identically to any other, more > conventional and correct use of "of". I hear your clip as not only pronouncing them as separte words, but also with a somewhat heavier stress on "of" than on "would". Is that what these speakers are being heard to do? I agree that that would sound strange, but I'd think it would sound strange no matter what vowel was used. > Try a Google search for: > > "should of" site:.uk -"of course" As I said, homophones often do that. Do a search for "for there own" site:.uk I don't think that many people would say that the authors really say "there" when they mean "their". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |When all else fails, give the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |customer what they ask for. This Palo Alto, CA 94304 |is strong medicine and rarely needs |to be repeated. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Try a Google search for: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I don't think that many people would say that the authors really say > "there" when they mean "their". IMHO, this is a different kind of example. I believe that people who write 'there' instead of 'their' (or vice-versa), know the difference in meaning between the two, but mistakenly consider them to be spelled the same, since they sound the same. OTOH, it is much harder to argue for that in the case of 've' vs 'of', when (as in Britain, and most international speakers like me) they are pronounced noticeably differently. (Same goes for 'too' and 'to', which, to my immense surprise, /can/ be pronounced identically by some speakers, but not by default). SignatureYou'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone. > IMHO, this is a different kind of example. I believe that people > who write 'there' instead of 'their' (or vice-versa), know the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to', which, to my immense surprise, /can/ be pronounced identically by > some speakers, but not by default). It must be something that's been done to death round here, but while supporting every inch of what you've written about "of", not only do I pronounce "to" and "too" indistinguishably, I can't think I've every heard anyone pronounce them differently (NW English origin, living in SW/Mids for the last 20 years). SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu >> IMHO, this is a different kind of example. I believe that people >> who write 'there' instead of 'their' (or vice-versa), know the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >heard anyone pronounce them differently (NW English origin, living in >SW/Mids for the last 20 years). I think when I pronounce "to" and "too" with the same vowel sound that in "too" may be lengthened. I might sometimes pronounce "to" with a more or less indistinct vowel sound: "tuh" being the most indistinct. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) >>> IMHO, this is a different kind of example. I believe that people >>> who write 'there' instead of 'their' (or vice-versa), know the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >I might sometimes pronounce "to" with a more or less indistinct vowel >sound: "tuh" being the most indistinct. Me to. Doesn't everybody? There are occasions where you might want to stress both "to" or "too" (in which case the vowel is noticeably lengthened), but usually "to" is much shorter than "too". SignatureIan On 30 Jun 2009, Ian Jackson wrote >>>> IMHO, this is a different kind of example. I believe that >>>> people who write 'there' instead of 'their' (or vice-versa), [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > noticeably lengthened), but usually "to" is much shorter than > "too". Agreed; it's "two" and "too" that are identical for me, with "to" having the shorter vowel. "He went to the store and bought two too many apples" has two vowel sounds for the three words for me. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed Quoth HVS <usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>, and I quote: >On 30 Jun 2009, Ian Jackson wrote > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >"He went to the store and bought two too many apples" has two vowel >sounds for the three words for me. Try this: Desmond's wife went to the ballet store, where they treated Mrs Tutu to two tutus too many. SignatureJames > Quoth HVS <usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>, and I quote: > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Desmond's wife went to the ballet store, where they treated > Mrs Tutu to two tutus too many. You can hear the difference (schwa vs. full vowel) in "I have to go to too many meetings". When my sister worked at St George's Hospital she would occasionally find herself at the Tube station asking for "Two to Tooting". Peter Groves James Hogg filted: >Quoth HVS <usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>, and I quote: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Desmond's wife went to the ballet store, where they treated >Mrs Tutu to two tutus too many. How many minutes is it from two to two to two-two?...r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >>>>> I understand that they're not homophones to *you*. My question is >>>>> why you're so sure that they're not homophones to the people you're [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > sound strange, but I'd think it would sound strange no matter what > vowel was used. I would have said equal stress. >> Try a Google search for: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I don't think that many people would say that the authors really say > "there" when they mean "their". "Say" or "mean"? Since the words sound exactly the same for most of us, there's no way of telling. Anyway, I think this homophone stuff is a red herring since "ov" and "'ve" are not homophones in BrE. SignatureRob Bannister >>> You have assumed that I was exaggerating the difference between >>> "would've" and "would of" for effect. I wasn't. "Of" in "would of" >>> is quite clearly a separate word pronounced identically to any >>> other, more conventional and correct use of "of". >> I hear your clip as not only pronouncing them as separte words, but >> also with a somewhat heavier stress on "of" than on "would". Is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I would have said equal stress. For Peter's clip or for what the speakers in question say? If the latter--that is, if they never reduce past equal stress, I would think that that would be the noticeable feature. Perhaps this would be cleared up by posting links to some of the uses in question. I have to admit that I've never noticed it, which means that either I've never heard it or it registered as within what I'd expect from a British accent. >>> Try a Google search for: >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > "Say" or "mean"? Consider themselves to be saying. > Since the words sound exactly the same for most of us, there's no > way of telling. That's my point. > Anyway, I think this homophone stuff is a red herring since "ov" and > "'ve" are not homophones in BrE. First off, that's begging the question. The can't be homophones for these British speakers because they aren't homophones in BrE? Second, the OED implies that they are homophones for some British speakers who don't pronounce "of" the way you do, but rather the way I do. Indeed, if I had to posit an explanation, I'd guess that this arose from speakers who pronounced both "of" and "'ve" as /@v/. They would get it drummed into them that "of" should be /Av/, and "'ve" came along for the ride, much as non-rhotic speakers learn that "lore" should have a full /r/ when followed by a vowel and overgeneralize that to the homonym "law". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Bullwinkle: You sure that's the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | only way? Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Rocky: Well, if you're going to be | a hero, you've got to do kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | stupid things every once in (650)857-7572 | a while. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ [...] > You [scil. Evan] have assumed that I was exaggerating the difference > between [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > very firmly corrected by another woman who said that it should be > "should of", pronounced as two distinct words. When I (UK) was teaching teenage boys many of them wrote "might of" and so forth but usually pronounced the "of" as 've when they read their essays aloud. Clearly they did mean "of" when they wrote it. As others have said, the offending "of" is most often sounded clearly when at the end of a phrase - Father :"Did you leave the downstairs lights on last night?" Evasive son: "I might of". The problem usually cleared up - at least in writing - when we did some systematic work on tenses and moods; but grammar isn't much studied in schools these days. Alan Jones In alt.usage.english, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: >I would be shocked if *everybody* who pronounces the word >you hear as "would of" writes it as "would of" rather than "would've". I'd not be surprised at all (for some value of "everybody"). Why would somebody who writes "would've" say "would of"? I can just about see it during that unconscious temporary mimicry that goes on in some conversations, but otherwise, why? >Hearing them say it and seeing them (the same people) write it would >indeed be evidence. Just hearing them say it, not so much. If you're seeking hard evidence, that's true. But sheer weight of numbers leads me to believe that it's not simply coincidence that many people say "would of" and many people write "would of". >Just as >seeing them write it doesn't really imply that they would use the >pronunciation you hear as "of". That's true, but unrelated. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > In alt.usage.english, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: >>I would be shocked if *everybody* who pronounces the word you hear >>as "would of" writes it as "would of" rather than "would've". > > I'd not be surprised at all (for some value of "everybody"). Why > would somebody who writes "would've" say "would of"? If I can rephrase that as Why would somebody who writes "would've" say something that sounds identical to "would of"? I can answer by introspection "Because they're homophones for me". And I can extend that answer on behalf of a large number of Americans. No, I don't use the same pronunciation that you do for "of", but if they can be homophones with one pronunciation, I don't see why they can't be homophones for another pronunciation. > I can just about see it during that unconscious temporary mimicry > that goes on in some conversations, but otherwise, why? As I said in another article, my guess as to why it moved to your pronunciation of "of" would be a hypercorrection, not necessarily in this generation. The OED gives three British pronunciations for "of": /Av/, /@v/, and /@/. The last two imply that for some British speakers, "would of" would be pronounced the same as American "would've" and "woulda", and I see no reason why they wouldn't have been homonyms for them. These speakers would likely have been taught in school that they were pronouncing "of" in a substandard way, and that it really should be /Av/, and it wouldn't be uncommon for them to unconsciously move a homophone along with it. >>Hearing them say it and seeing them (the same people) write it would >>indeed be evidence. Just hearing them say it, not so much. > > If you're seeking hard evidence, that's true. But sheer weight of > numbers leads me to believe that it's not simply coincidence that > many people say "would of" and many people write "would of". In the US, I'd say that it's largely coincidence that many people say something identical to (their) "would of" and occasionally, often accidentally, write "would of". Speaking as one who does. >>Just as seeing them write it doesn't really imply that they would >>use the pronunciation you hear as "of". > > That's true, but unrelated. It's related in that pointing out Google hits for the phrase doesn't really provide a whole lot of evidence. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |A little government and a little luck 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |are necessary in life, but only a Palo Alto, CA 94304 |fool trusts either of them. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ In alt.usage.english, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: >> In alt.usage.english, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: >>>I would be shocked if *everybody* who pronounces the word you hear [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >they can be homophones with one pronunciation, I don't see why they >can't be homophones for another pronunciation. I'm not saying they can't. I'm saying it seems very unlikely. So I'd look for a more plausible explanation. >> I can just about see it during that unconscious temporary mimicry >> that goes on in some conversations, but otherwise, why? > >As I said in another article, my guess as to why it moved to your >pronunciation of "of" would be a hypercorrection, not necessarily in >this generation. It might help to know that "would of" is a recent phenomenon in my experience - it seems like about ten years, and given the way these things go, I'd allow twenty. Very much a younger-generation thing, like writing "loose" for "lose". >The OED gives three British pronunciations for "of": >/Av/, /@v/, and /@/. The last two imply that for some British [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >that it really should be /Av/, and it wouldn't be uncommon for them to >unconsciously move a homophone along with it. I would beware of assuming that you can divide Brits into three camps according to how they pronounce "of". Or assuming that only the "ov" pronunciation is standard. I suspect that most of us use all three from time to time. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > It might help to know that "would of" is a recent phenomenon in my > experience - it seems like about ten years, and given the way these > things go, I'd allow twenty. Very much a younger-generation thing, like > writing "loose" for "lose". Perhaps it has become more wide-spread in recent years, but I couldn't say it is a recent phenomenon. People were saying that when I was a boy over sixty years ago. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> There are folks who use the 'rhymes with the 'ov' in ovulation type >>>> 'of' when the phrase they are trying to use is "I would have' but [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > "of" like the first syllable in "ovulate". It's the assertion that > they're necessarily actually *saying* "would of" that I don't follow. Because they don't pronounce "have" as "ov" in any other context. SignatureRob Bannister >> I understand that they're not homophones to *you*. My question is >> why you're so sure that they're not homophones to the people you're [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Because they don't pronounce "have" as "ov" in any other context. Neither do I. I don't pronounce my "of" the way you do, but I pronounce my "'ve" like my "of" in many contexts. I will attest that I do *not* think I'm saying "would of" or "should of" or "would they of", but I don't see how your arguments would allow that I'm not. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |ActiveX is pretty harmless anyway. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |It can't affect you unless you Palo Alto, CA 94304 |install Windows, and who would be |foolish enough to do that? kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Peter Moylan (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>>>>>> You can get an incontestable "of" at the end of a sentence or >>>>>>>> when the expression stands alone: "You wouldna done that!" "Yes [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] >I certainly don't. I'm just trying to understand what you mean by it >being "indisputable" that that's what's going on. Does this audio clip of me saying "would've would of" three times clarify the point? http://www.peterduncanson.net/audio/Would%27ve%20would%20of.mp3 SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) >>>>>>>>> You can get an incontestable "of" at the end of a sentence or >>>>>>>>> when the expression stands alone: "You wouldna done that!" "Yes [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > clarify the point? > http://www.peterduncanson.net/audio/Would%27ve%20would%20of.mp3 Okay, that clears up the vowel. It would likely be /A/, as John and the OED said. I can certainly see why you would hear somebody using that vowel in "would've" as pronouncing the word differently from you. I can even see it as pronouncing the word the way you would pronounce "would of". I can even buy that having heard them use "of" in other contexts, you are confident that they pronounce "would've" and "would of" identically. The only thing that I'm having a hard time seeing as incontenstible is that what they're actually *saying* is "would of". *I* pronounce the words identically, with a vowel probably close to what you use in "would've" when less reduced, and I can attest that I'm not saying "would of". Why would someone who pronounces them identically but chooses the other vowel in your pair not be doing the same thing? As an aside, while your clip clears up the vowel, it has a problem in that the stress patterns are completely different, since you're trying to demonstrate the difference. (Recordings of words in isolation are rarely good for this sort of thing.) Unless part of the claim is that these speakers are pronouncing the putative "of" as a clearly separate word with at least equal stress to "would". I've got a "would've" like yours and also one with a less-reduced vowel (in which case it's identical with my vowel in "of"). Is it never other than fully reduced in BrE? If it isn't always fully reduced, perhaps a better set of examples would be something like I saw more than I should of Tuesday I saw more than I should've Tuesday with the stress pattern and timing as close as you can make them. Of course, there's a possibility that your "of" in that sentence isn't the one that you're claiming that they use. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |You cannot solve problems with the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |same type of thinking that created Palo Alto, CA 94304 |them. | Albert Einstein kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > I saw more than I should of Tuesday > I saw more than I should've Tuesday > >with the stress pattern and timing as close as you can make them. >Of course, there's a possibility that your "of" in that sentence isn't >the one that you're claiming that they use. I'll try those tomorrow. I'm going through the tail end of a cold and am coughing and croaking. It was as much as I could do to rehearse and then record "would've would of". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) > I saw more than I should of Tuesday > I saw more than I should've Tuesday Nice example, but in real life the first sentence has a very slight pause before "of". SignatureRob Bannister >> I saw more than I should of Tuesday >> I saw more than I should've Tuesday > > Nice example, but in real life the first sentence has a very slight > pause before "of". I pronounce "should of" as "should ov" and "should've" as "shouldiv", so they are noticeably different. (NZE influenced by AusE) >> I saw more than I should of Tuesday >> I saw more than I should've Tuesday > > Nice example, but in real life the first sentence has a very slight > pause before "of". Yeah, I know, but it's not easy coming up with perfect contexts. That was the closest I could come up with. I think I could pronounce them naturally with nearly equal cadence, but I don't know that I would by default. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Sorry, captain. Convenient 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |technobabble levels are dangerously Palo Alto, CA 94304 |low. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>>>>>> You can get an incontestable "of" at the end of a sentence or >>>>>>>> when the expression stands alone: "You wouldna done that!" "Yes [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > a different "of" have a rhyming "'ve" without "substituting 'of'"; why > not them? If we knew why, we could possibly explain to them why they are wrong. If they pronounced "have" as "ov" all the time, it would make some kind of sense, but it only occurs in these "would/could/should/etc. have" constructions. So they are not saying "would've" but "would 'ave", but giving it a different pronunciation and it truly sounds quite different as well as 'orrible. >> Lots of >> other folks do a slidey kind of "I would've' which would be familiar [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > that's not how I think of it any more than that I substitute "there" > for "their" or "to" for "too". I don't think we are talking about homophones. It's more a substitution which may have come about from confusing the homophones "would've" and "would of (with unstressed "of") and then replacing the full "ov" sound in the stressed form "would have". [I don't think I explained that very well, but I'm hoping you'll understand what I mean.] I have a female, London friend, whose speech is otherwise quite educated, but who invariably comes out with "would ov" where the "ov" is very noticeable. >> So I take it we're not in disagreement that the usage exists. We're >> just not in accord as to whether it can be distinguished by the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I certainly don't. I'm just trying to understand what you mean by it > being "indisputable" that that's what's going on. SignatureRob Bannister [..] >> How is this any different from any other typo involving homophones? >> I'm pretty sure you can find it in my postings, and I can attest that [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> I certainly don't. I'm just trying to understand what you mean by it >> being "indisputable" that that's what's going on. Grammar has not been taught in any consistent way in the UK for decades, so even people who are otherwise well educated don't know much about it. I have also noticed over the years that many people are not able to connect in their heads what they read and what they then subsequently write. There have been numerous comments about the appalling English found in first-year university students over the years. All of them, even if they only read the sports pages in the redtops, will have read "would've", "could've" etc. thousands of times, but they end up writing, and saying quite clearly, "would of", "could of", with a clear pause between the words, and a distinct "of". You cannot mistake it in BrE accents, particularly the further north you go, where the "o" in "of" or "cot" becomes shorter. Imagine one of these people growing up, always saying, and taught to say "would've" and so on, without a clue that "'ve" actually stands for "have". They get to the point in their lives where they have to write a letter to Aunt Gertrude, on their own without help, and they want to say "I would've come to see you but I caught a cold..." So what do they do, for they don't know how to write it, so they use words they know. "I would of come...." Then they start thinking that they've been mispronouncing it all their lives and start saying "I would of..." and they grow up into adults who insist that they are right. It's a theory that is probably not too far from the truth. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >>>>>> You can get an incontestable "of" at the end of a sentence or when >>>>>> the expression stands alone: "You wouldna done that!" "Yes I would [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > that case, the appropriate test is to find a context in which either > can appear. I'd think it very peculiar if I heard an American pronounce the "of" in any way other than "uhv". "Ahv" would sound strange. SignatureMarshall Price of Miami marshallprice@att.net http://marshallprice.wordpress.com > >Out of curiosity, how do you guys know it's "I'd of" and "should of" > >rather than "I'd've" and "should've"? They sound identical to me. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > James I have heard Bristolians say the 'of' very clearly in "would of" and 'could of'. >> >Out of curiosity, how do you guys know it's "I'd of" and "should of" >> >rather than "I'd've" and "should've"? They sound identical to me. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I have heard Bristolians say the 'of' very clearly in "would of" and > 'could of'. I have heard the same uttered by people from N.E. England. SignatureLes (BrE) >>>> Out of curiosity, how do you guys know it's "I'd of" and "should >>>> of" rather than "I'd've" and "should've"? They sound identical to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I have heard the same uttered by people from N.E. England. ---- and I've heard it in West London and Wiltshire. The "o" is fully sounded - the UK vowel as in "cot" and "pot" [A.]. Alan Jones >> "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Out of curiosity, how do you guys know it's "I'd of" and "should of" > rather than "I'd've" and "should've"? They sound identical to me. Or "Ida" and "shoulda", which don't sound identical at all, but are very often the spoken form. > > "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message > >> I think we should be deeply grateful that it was not "I wish I'd [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Out of curiosity, how do you guys know it's "I'd of" and "should of" > rather than "I'd've" and "should've"? They sound identical to me. Someone made that comment before, and I don't get it. "should've" is shwa-v and "should of" is o-v. Adrian >> > "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message >> >> I think we should be deeply grateful that it was not "I wish I'd [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Someone made that comment before, and I don't get it. "should've" is > shwa-v and "should of" is o-v. Maybe it depends on "of" not being pronounced with a (sometimes stressed) schwa, as it is here. When you say "'should of' is o-v" do you mean with your vowel in "coat" or your vowel in "cot" or something else? For me, "should have" reduces to either "should've" or "shoulda". The latter unquestionably ends with the vowel of "of". The former is often more reduced, but it appears to be reduced in the same way as "of". Looking at the following, with stress on "should" He should've crossed ... He should, of course, ... I don't hear any difference until you get to the last word. And when speaking in a measured fashion, so it isn't reduced, as in the response Yes, I should've. I hear an unreduced syllable that seems indistinguishable from "of". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |So when can we quit passing laws and 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |raising taxes? When can we say of Palo Alto, CA 94304 |our political system, "Stick a fork |in it, it's done?" kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> > "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message > >> >> I think we should be deeply grateful that it was not "I wish I'd [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > I hear an unreduced syllable that seems indistinguishable from "of". I claim that it is a question of what is in the speaker's mind. You would probably think I say "I should of", because my pronunciation of "I should have" sounds exactly like "I should of". My pronunciation in connected speech is just not particularly precise. But I would write it as "I should have" or, if I were wanting to illustrate my pronunciation, "I should 'ave". To find out what a person is intending to be saying, ask for a careful pronunciation or ask to have it written. Bill in Kentucky ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reverse parts of the user name and ISP name for my e-address > I claim that it is a question of what is in the speaker's mind. You > would probably think I say "I should of", because my pronunciation of > "I should have" sounds exactly like "I should of". My pronunciation > in connected speech is just not particularly precise. But I would > write it as "I should have" or, if I were wanting to illustrate my > pronunciation, "I should 'ave". I don't think that's the case. I've picked up my children clearly saying "should of". It's the clearly bit that makes me hear it. Of course, most of the time both are should@v. That's why people make the mistake I assume - they misanalyse it. But they then, just sometimes, when speaking slowly (perhaps thinking as they go) say it distinctly enough to show that they are saying "of" when they should say "have". SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu > >> > "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message > >> >> I think we should be deeply grateful that it was not "I wish I'd [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > When you say "'should of' is o-v" do you mean with your vowel in > "coat" or your vowel in "cot" or something else? The British short o, as in the word "of". My daughter said /shud ov/. If she'd said /shudv/ why would I have claimed that she was saying "should of"? Adrian >> >> > "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message >> >> >> I think we should be deeply grateful that it was not "I wish [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > The British short o, as in the word "of". Ah, the magic vowel that occurs only in that word. > My daughter said /shud ov/. If she'd said /shudv/ why would I have > claimed that she was saying "should of"? I don't know. That's what I was asking. As I said above, the two are, as far as I can tell, pronounced identically here, so I was trying to get a handle on what distinction you were making that would allow you to tell. From looking at the OED, they claim that it's the British vowel in "hot" and "copper", which would sound very strange for "of" to an American English speaker. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Code should be designed to make it 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |easy to get it right, not to work Palo Alto, CA 94304 |if you get it right. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> The British short o, as in the word "of". > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >British vowel in "hot" and "copper", which would sound very strange >for "of" to an American English speaker. And cot, as opposed to caught and cart - Richard Fontana's CINC thing. Many Americans do seem to pronounce both caught and cot as cart, so there wouldn't be a distinction. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > Many Americans do seem to pronounce both caught and cot as cart, so > there > wouldn't be a distinction. They do? Is the 'r' pronounced? I've never heard "caught" or "cot" pronounced as "cart" in the Midwest or South. I don't know about other areas. Maria Conlon >> Many Americans do seem to pronounce both caught and cot as cart, so >> there [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >pronounced as "cart" in the Midwest or South. I don't know about other >areas. To my ear they do. In another thread someone mentioned that in his dialect "born" and "dawn" rhyme, as they do in mine, but I hear many Americans pronouncing "dawn" as "darn". SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>> Many Americans do seem to pronounce both caught and cot as cart, so >>> there [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > "dawn" as > "darn". I hoping that you (or someone else in the group) can tell me where, in the USA, "caught" and "cot" are pronounced as "cart." Ditto for "born" and "dawn" rhyming, and for "dawn" sounding like "darn." (I'm thinking the Northeastearn states, but that may be too general.) Note that I've heard "dawn" sounding like "don." (Why, then, use a 'w' in the name/word?) SignatureMaria Conlon >>>> Many Americans do seem to pronounce both caught and cot as cart, >>>> so there >>>> wouldn't be a distinction. >>> They do? Is the 'r' pronounced? I've never heard "caught" or "cot" >>> pronounced as "cart" in the Midwest or South. I don't know about >>> other areas. >> To my ear they do. >> In another thread someone mentioned that in his dialect "born" and >> "dawn" >> rhyme, as they do in mine, but I hear many Americans pronouncing >> "dawn" as >> "darn". > I hoping that you (or someone else in the group) can tell me where, > in the USA, "caught" and "cot" are pronounced as "cart." > Ditto for "born" and "dawn" rhyming, and for "dawn" sounding like > "darn." (I'm thinking the Northeastearn states, but that may be too > general.) Note that I've heard "dawn" sounding like "don." (Why, > then, use a 'w' in the name/word?) Steve means the way *he* pronounces "cart" and "darn". He has an ironic turn of humour, and I've been wondering if this is not a comment on Areff's use (deliberately provocative, I think) of similar criteria, as when he would claim that Canadians pronounce "about" like "a boat". Many of us do, of course, at least approximately: not the same way *we* pronounce "a boat", but the way Areff does. > >>>> Many Americans do seem to pronounce both caught and cot as cart, > >>>> so there [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > "a boat". Many of us do, of course, at least approximately: not the > same way *we* pronounce "a boat", but the way Areff does. I'm glad you explained that. My first thought is that he was doing something to alter his perception of reality. Bill in Kentucky (who says "cot", "caught", and "cart" differently; but "of" and unstressed "'ave" alike) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reverse parts of the user name and ISP name for my e-address >>>>> Many Americans do seem to pronounce both caught and cot as cart, >>>>> so there [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >"a boat". Many of us do, of course, at least approximately: not the >same way *we* pronounce "a boat", but the way Areff does. Yes, I do mean the way I pronounce "cart" and "darn" -- I thought that was understood. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>> I hoping that you (or someone else in the group) can tell me where, >>> in the USA, "caught" and "cot" are pronounced as "cart." [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > was > understood. Hey, for some of us (namely me), Steve, you have to spell things out very clearly. Maria Conlon, losing more brain cells every day. (And note that brain cells don't weigh enough to make a difference when it comes to body weight. Phooey.) > Steve means the way *he* pronounces "cart" and "darn". He has an > ironic turn of humour, and I've been wondering if this is not a > comment on Areff's use (deliberately provocative, I think) of similar > criteria, as when he would claim that Canadians pronounce "about" like > "a boat". Many of us do, of course, at least approximately: not the > same way *we* pronounce "a boat", but the way Areff does. I suspect you're right. It's the thing that used to get me when a southern English writer would write of a northerner saying "booger". We don't, of course. We just don't say "begger". SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu >>>> Many Americans do seem to pronounce both caught and cot as cart, so >>>> there [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >general.) Note that I've heard "dawn" sounding like "don." (Why, then, >use a 'w' in the name/word?) Dawn sounding like "don" brings us full circle, back to "of" and "cot". SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > Dawn sounding like "don" brings us full circle, back to "of" and > "cot". Well, it certainly confuses things when Don is the husband and Dawn is the wife. SignatureMaria Conlon > > Dawn sounding like "don" brings us full circle, back to "of" and > > "cot". > > Well, it certainly confuses things when Don is the husband and Dawn is > the wife. Nothing like as confusing as the other way around. Signature"Fiction writing is great. You can make up almost anything." - Ivana Trump > > Dawn sounding like "don" brings us full circle, back to "of" and > > "cot". > > Well, it certainly confuses things when Don is the husband and Dawn is > the wife. It would be more confusing if the reverse were true. Bill in Kentucky ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reverse parts of the user name and ISP name for my e-address >> Dawn sounding like "don" brings us full circle, back to "of" and >>"cot". > >Well, it certainly confuses things when Don is the husband and Dawn is >the wife. I can imagine Loyd Grossman ('posh' Boston accent) pronouncing Don and Dawn exactly the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyd_Grossman SignatureIan > Maria Conlon <conlonmaria@sbcglobal.net> writes >>> Dawn sounding like "don" brings us full circle, back to "of" and >>> "cot". >> Well, it certainly confuses things when Don is the husband and >> Dawn is the wife. > I can imagine Loyd Grossman ('posh' Boston accent) pronouncing Don > and Dawn exactly the same. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyd_Grossman Unfortunately, the link to a linguistic analysis of his very strange accent offered at the end of the article is unproductive; but he appears to be saying "sauce" with the / O/ vowel at 1:37 of this YouTube clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dZ7UVaL6F4&NR=1 . The vowel is not as strongly marked as in the speech of his guest, who repeats the word, but I think it's there, and even has a hint of the Boston / O@/ glide that Areff used to mock as "swauce". So it would probably be "Dahn"and "Dwaun". CDB a écrit : [...] >> I can imagine Loyd Grossman ('posh' Boston accent) pronouncing Don >> and Dawn exactly the same. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyd_Grossman > > Unfortunately, the link to a linguistic analysis of his very strange > accent offered at the end of the article is unproductive; The link should be http://melys.ws/?cat=10, and the article is full of fascinating details about rhoticity, or the lack thereof, and "unusual vowels". > but he > appears to be saying "sauce" with the / O/ vowel at 1:37 of this [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Boston / O@/ glide that Areff used to mock as "swauce". So it would > probably be "Dahn"and "Dwaun". Youtube had this other video, suggested on the same page as the one you found: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NudgZnM2m0E&feature=related It's an ad in which three people spoof Loyd Grossman's accent. They're not in total agreement in their renditions of the word "sauce", but I found them very funny, especially the third one, who pronounces the word "whole" in a way that has to be heard to be believed --and which I wouldn't know how to transcribe in IPA. SignatureIsabelle Cecchini > >> Dawn sounding like "don" brings us full circle, back to "of" and > >>"cot". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Dawn exactly the same. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyd_Grossman My wife grew up in Dayton, Ohio. She pronounces both of them the way I pronounce "don". Bill in Kentucky ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reverse parts of the user name and ISP name for my e-address >> Many Americans do seem to pronounce both caught and cot as cart, so >> there [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > pronounced as "cart" in the Midwest or South. I don't know about other > areas. How about Dorset, England? Remember Robert Newton as Long John Silver in the movie "Treasure Island", 1950? SignatureMarshall Price of Miami marshallprice@att.net http://marshallprice.wordpress.com >>>>>> "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in >>>>>> message [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Ah, the magic vowel that occurs only in that word. Bollocks, as well as which it occurs in poverty, nonsense, shop and half a squillion other words. Not as pronounced by *you* obviously. It's a shame you can't understand that other people may pronounce English words differently from you and your compatriots. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>>>> Someone made that comment before, and I don't get it. "should've" >>>>> is shwa-v and "should of" is o-v. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Bollocks, as well as which it occurs in poverty, nonsense, shop and > half a squillion other words. And that would have been an answer. Come on! He gave a completely ad hoc representation for the vowel in "of", I asked him what he meant, and he said it's the vowel in the word "of". There's not a lot of information there. Especially when one of the possibilities I proffered was the vowel in the word "cot", which would be that vowel ("poverty", "nonsense", "shop") for me, and he didn't agree with it. > Not as pronounced by *you* obviously. It's a shame you can't > understand that other people may pronounce English words differently > from you and your compatriots. Render unto me a f.cking break. I wasn't responding to being unwilling to believe that you pronounce the word differently. I was responding to being unwilling to believe that the only way someone could describe their pronunciation of a word was to essentially say "the way we pronounce that particular word". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It's gotten to the point where the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |only place you can get work done is Palo Alto, CA 94304 |at home, because no one bugs you, |and the best place to entertain kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |yourself is at work, because the (650)857-7572 |Internet connections are faster. | Scott Adams http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbau wrote, in part: > For me, "should have" reduces to either "should've" or "shoulda". The > latter unquestionably ends with the vowel of "of". Maybe, but that's not necessarily a signal that "of" is what's being said. The saying "shoulda, woulda, coulda" doesn't automatically imply "of" usage to me -- just a slurring, likely, of "have." ICBW. > ......The former is > often more reduced, but it appears to be reduced in the same way as > "of". Looking at the following, with stress on "should" > > He should've crossed ... > He should, of course, ... Other than "should, of [course, necessity], is there any legit use of "should of"? I can't think of any. Maria Conlon, Who cringes when seeing "should of," "could of" and/or "would of" in writing. It always makes me think that the writer didn't/doesn't do much reading. That might not be the case, of course. > Evan Kirshenbau wrote, in part: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > said. The saying "shoulda, woulda, coulda" doesn't automatically imply > "of" usage to me -- just a slurring, likely, of "have." ICBW. That's my point. It makes no sense in my dialect (and I presume yours) to point to the pronunciation and say that somebody is saying "should of", since "should've" is pronounced the same. >> ......The former is often more reduced, but it appears to be >> reduced in the same way as "of". Looking at the following, with [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I can't think of any. There are other constructions, such as She ate more than she should of the pie. > Maria Conlon, Who cringes when seeing "should of," "could of" and/or > "would of" in writing. It always makes me think that the writer > didn't/doesn't do much reading. That might not be the case, of > course. I've made the typo myself. I think it's just a case of one homonym getting in the way of another, as with "their"/"there" or "to"/"too". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The Elizabethans had so many words 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |for the female genitals that it is Palo Alto, CA 94304 |quite hard to speak a sentence of |modern English without inadvertently kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |mentioning at least three of them. (650)857-7572 | Terry Pratchett http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > Evan Kirshenbau wrote, in part: > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > yours) to point to the pronunciation and say that somebody is saying > "should of", since "should've" is pronounced the same. And, unless I'm in a careful-pronunciation mode, I can even put a short break between "should" and "'ave" and it will often sound like "should of". But I'm thinking "have" and would write "have", so I claim that I'm saying "should have" sloppily, not "should of". Mine is a fairly normal central Kentucky accent. Bill in central Kentucky (and I've lived here all but four years of my life) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reverse parts of the user name and ISP name for my e-address Evan Kirshenbaum wrote, in part: > Maria Conlon writesi[n part]: >> Evan Kirshenbau wrote, in part: >>> For me, "should have" reduces to either "should've" or "shoulda". >>> The [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > yours) to point to the pronunciation and say that somebody is saying > "should of", since "should've" is pronounced the same. Agreed. No need to reply to this: You've got yourself fully occupied with several other posters in this thread. Btw, could "posters to threads" be shortened to "threadsters"? SignatureMaria Conlon >> "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Out of curiosity, how do you guys know it's "I'd of" and "should of" > rather than "I'd've" and "should've"? They sound identical to me. They wouldn't if you heard someone British saying them. The 'of' has its full value. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >> "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Out of curiosity, how do you guys know it's "I'd of" and "should of" > rather than "I'd've" and "should've"? They sound identical to me. As you know, BrE has a distinctive short o, and most of the people I have known who used "of" in this way did not use a schwa, but made quite a production of the "of". SignatureRob Bannister >> "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Out of curiosity, how do you guys know it's "I'd of" and "should of" >rather than "I'd've" and "should've"? They sound identical to me. Sounds like a smart kid. I don't mind your objecting to her pronunciation, once or twice, but beyond some point, I don't like the idea of stomping on her opinion when I don't think she's at the stage where she will get or can fully appreciate your objection. There are probably many other things to correct instead. I agree with Evan. I don't have kids and when I was 5, I spoke perfect English**, so maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that, at least now that you've made your point once, Adrian, and I get the feeling it's more than once, this correction seems like it could wait until she knows how to read. When she sees it in print, she'll recognize exactly what she was saying, and she may even modify her pronunciation if it's actually appropriate. Now, even if she is distinctly saying a separate word "of", even if that is what she intends, she does this because that what she has deduced others are saying. She thinks it's an exception to any of the rules she has deduced. When she reads it a few times, this will fade away. Do they use contractions like this in the first grade? If not, in this case, it would be good, after she can read, to come up with some game to write her notes. There is no reason one can't correct a child, but with some parents it's endless, and for them I recommend indirect methods for some of the time. If you don't think she'll see the word in print soon enough, when she learns how to read, come up with some reason to write her a note. At her current stage, she can't appreciate the distinction you're making. I doubt if I could either. **:) 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 > My 5-year-old says "should of" and tells me I'm wrong if I say she is! We > live in Birmingham Didn't you use to be in Toronto, Canada? Marius Hancu > I'm still watching Big Brother UK and listening to the English they > speak. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > The woman who said most recently is from Birmingham... but then so am > I, and I don't recall ever hearing it in the Brummie wild. I'm pretty sure it's AmE. I don't recollect hearing / seeing it over here until quite recently. Yet even the outgoing Speaker used it in his farewell: "I wish that party leaders would have shown then some of the leadership that they have shown now" SignatureJohn Dean Oxford |
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.