 |
 | 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 / ESL Teaching / April 2004I could of made it ??
Sometimes I read this, not in books, but in newsgroups, mails and other rather informal sources, and from native speakers (or so I believe). I think I know it should read "I could have made it", but what is it actually? Is it slang, hip language or just a typo? Juergen wrote on 19 Apr 2004: > Sometimes I read this, not in books, but in newsgroups, mails and > other rather informal sources, and from native speakers (or so I > believe). I think I know it should read "I could have made it", > but what is it actually? Is it slang, hip language or just a typo? It's incorrect English, but many native speakers who ought to know better use it. It's far from hip, is not slang, and most of the time is not a typo. Ignore it. It should be "could have" or "could've".  SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. For email, ehziuh htiw rehpycrebyc ecalper. >Sometimes I read this, not in books, but in newsgroups, mails and other >rather informal sources, and from native speakers (or so I believe). I >think I know it should read "I could have made it", but what is it >actually? Is it slang, hip language or just a typo? It's vernacular usage. Wrong, but quite common, and in casual speech, unremarked apon. "I could of made it." "I shoulda done it." "He would of if he could." > >Sometimes I read this, not in books, but in newsgroups, mails and other > >rather informal sources, and from native speakers (or so I believe). I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "I shoulda done it." > "He would of if he could." Hm, I wouldn't group those three together like that. "Shoulda" is a contraction of "should have", just like "should've" is. It is not "wrong". "Would of" is not a contraction, it is a misunderstanding of a contraction. Semi-literate native speakers who use "would've"/"should've" etc. in speech do not realise their origin and when they come to write them down they think the "v" sound at the end must be "of" (by analogy with eg. "bottle of beer"/*"bottle'v beer"). A positive feedback loop has been set in motion, and now many people even *say* "should of". Adrian > A positive feedback loop has been set in motion, and now many people even > *say* "should of". How can you tell they say "should of" rather than "should've"? Do they pronounce that in a different way? SignatureEnrico C News: www.40tude.com/dialog - Mail: www.ritlabs.com/the_bat Local News/Mail Server: http://tglsoft.de/misc/hamster_en.htm Enrico C wrote on 20 Apr 2004: >> A positive feedback loop has been set in motion, and now many >> people even *say* "should of". > > How can you tell they say "should of" rather than "should've"? > Do they pronounce that in a different way? Yes. The contraction is spoken with a very reduced vowel. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. For email, ehziuh htiw rehpycrebyc ecalper. > Yes. The contraction is spoken with a very reduced vowel. They are pronounced the same way in American English. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. Mxsmanic wrote on 20 Apr 2004: >> Yes. The contraction is spoken with a very reduced vowel. > > They are pronounced the same way in American English. I speak American English, maniac, and I don't agree with your judgment here. "should of" like "should have" is two words, and the second word takes secondary stress. "should've" is one word, and the second syllable takes tertiary stress. That, at least, is how this native speaker of American English says them all. My pronunciation is undoubtedly different from yours, but it is no less American English pronunciation. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. For email, ehziuh htiw rehpycrebyc ecalper. > I speak American English, maniac, and I don't agree with your judgment > here. "should of" like "should have" is two words, and the second word [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > undoubtedly different from yours, but it is no less American English > pronunciation. Why do you pronounce them both? SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. Mxsmanic wrote on 20 Apr 2004: >> I speak American English, maniac, and I don't agree with your >> judgment here. "should of" like "should have" is two words, and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Why do you pronounce them both? I do it when I explain that "should've" is the contraction for "should have" and not "should of". EFL students in Taiwan often read the illiterate postings and emails of native English speakers who don't know this, and they are confused to see that native speakers write "should of". Not such a mystery, I think. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. For email, ehziuh htiw rehpycrebyc ecalper. > How can you tell they say "should of" rather than "should've"? > Do they pronounce that in a different way? No, and that's why it is often incorrectly written in print. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. Bill Bonde ( Not the man who knows everything, just the man who knows the important things ) - 19 Apr 2004 18:23 GMT > Sometimes I read this, not in books, but in newsgroups, mails and other > rather informal sources, and from native speakers (or so I believe). I > think I know it should read "I could have made it", but what is it > actually? Is it slang, hip language or just a typo? It's the falling together of unaccented connecting words by native speakers who don't think consciously about grammar. In this case, "could have" could drop the 'h' to become "could ave", then the vowel could be reduced to schwa as in "could @ve" and then the speaker could end up writing it like it sounds, "could of". I'm not claiming this is the actual order or how it happened, but it is plausible, I think. Notice that a further dropping of the final 'v' sound makes the common "Coulda". > Sometimes I read this, not in books, but in newsgroups, mails and other > rather informal sources, and from native speakers (or so I believe). I > think I know it should read "I could have made it", but what is it > actually? Is it slang, hip language or just a typo? It's a phonetic transcription. Many people use this expression without realizing that they are saying "I could HAVE made it." Both "of" and "have" are pronounced the same way in this specific context. It's neither slang nor hip, it's just an incorrect transcription. I suppose it is illiterate. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
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.