0
Usenet Posted 22 years ago
English in UK
Losing battle - "must of"
I'm fighting a losing battle with my six-year old son with "have" used as an auxilliary. He will say, for example, "I must of lost it." I correct him, and he remembers until he goes back to school - it must be in common usage in the playground. I'm assuming that as soon as his reading improves just a little, it will go away, but the fact that it must be part of playground English is interesting, if not a little scary.
I first came across this "corruption" (please provide a better description!) in an otherwise poorly written posting to a newsgroup in 1998. At that time, I put it down to the individual's poor level of literacy, but I've since noticed its written occurrence more and more often. However, my son's utterance was the first verbal example for me. Do I live too sheltered a life? Is this becoming a common colloquialism? Am I wrong in assuming it is a colloquialism that migrated to written English, rather than vice versa.
I first came across this "corruption" (please provide a better description!) in an otherwise poorly written posting to a newsgroup in 1998. At that time, I put it down to the individual's poor level of literacy, but I've since noticed its written occurrence more and more often. However, my son's utterance was the first verbal example for me. Do I live too sheltered a life? Is this becoming a common colloquialism? Am I wrong in assuming it is a colloquialism that migrated to written English, rather than vice versa.
Top answer
[nq:1]I'm fighting a losing battle with my six-year old son with "have" used as an auxilliary. He will say, for ... more often.
- [nq:1]I'm fighting a losing battle with my six-year old son with "have" used as an auxilliary.
- He will say, for ...
- more often.
- However, my son's utterance was the first verbal example for me.
- [/nq] If you had of got out more you would of come across it more often.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
60 Answers
0
[nq:1]I'm fighting a losing battle with my six-year old son with "have" used as an auxilliary. He will say, for ... more often. However, my son's utterance was the first verbal example for me. Do I live too sheltered a life?[/nq]
If you had of got out more you would of come across it more often. On the other hand, there can be benefits in a sheltered life.
[nq:1]Is this becoming a common
If you had of got out more you would of come across it more often. On the other hand, there can be benefits in a sheltered life.
[nq:1]Is this becoming a common
00
[nq:1]I'm fighting a losing battle with my six-year old son with "have" used as an auxilliary. He will say, for ... common colloquialism? Am I wrong in assuming it is a colloquialism that migrated to written English, rather than vice versa.[/nq]
The original (and correct) colloquialism is "must've" (and this is the one your son should be using). People who don't write very often who come to w
The original (and correct) colloquialism is "must've" (and this is the one your son should be using). People who don't write very often who come to w
00
[nq:1]I'm fighting a losing battle with my six-year old son with "have" used as an auxilliary. He will say, for ... common colloquialism? Am I wrong in assuming it is a colloquialism that migrated to written English, rather than vice versa.[/nq]
The weak pronunciation of "have" and the weak pronunciation of "of" are basically the same, so "must've" sounds like "must of". There's nothing basic
The weak pronunciation of "have" and the weak pronunciation of "of" are basically the same, so "must've" sounds like "must of". There's nothing basic
00
[nq:2]I'm fighting a losing battle with my six-year old son ... colloquialism that migrated to written English, rather than vice versa.[/nq]
[nq:1]The weak pronunciation of "have" and the weak pronunciation of "of" are basically the same, so "must've" sounds like "must ... standard English pronunciation and have been for a long time. The real problem is the incorrect spelling. Regards, Einde
[nq:1]The weak pronunciation of "have" and the weak pronunciation of "of" are basically the same, so "must've" sounds like "must ... standard English pronunciation and have been for a long time. The real problem is the incorrect spelling. Regards, Einde
00
[nq:1]The weak pronunciation of "have" and the weak pronunciation of "of" are basically the same, so "must've" sounds like "must ... normal part of standard English pronunciation and have been for a long time. The real problem is the incorrect spelling.[/nq]
And people who replace the weak pronunciation of "of/have" with the wrong strong form.
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
And people who replace the weak pronunciation of "of/have" with the wrong strong form.
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
00
[nq:1]I first came across this "corruption" (please provide a better description!) in an otherwise poorly written posting to a newsgroup ... since noticed its written occurrence more and more often. However, my son's utterance was the first verbal example for me.[/nq]
You're lucky; I first saw it /in writing/ in a position paper submitted by an Army Major on an MSc course back in the early
You're lucky; I first saw it /in writing/ in a position paper submitted by an Army Major on an MSc course back in the early
00
[nq:1]Aurally, the 've of "could've" has always sounded (in BrEnglish) like "of";[/nq]
...in its unstressed form /@v/: could've /kVd@v/, must've /mVst@v/.
[nq:1]the difference today seems to be that it's NOT being elided into the preceding word, but pronounced most distinctively separately.[/nq]
This is the phenomenon of "spelling pronunciation": pronouncing a word according to how you
...in its unstressed form /@v/: could've /kVd@v/, must've /mVst@v/.
[nq:1]the difference today seems to be that it's NOT being elided into the preceding word, but pronounced most distinctively separately.[/nq]
This is the phenomenon of "spelling pronunciation": pronouncing a word according to how you
00
Adrian Bailey > uk.culture.language.english
in <
Ok, but there was a not very good pronunciation in the first place, I guess.
Children learn to speak before they can write.
Enrico C ~ No native speaker
in <
Ok, but there was a not very good pronunciation in the first place, I guess.
Children learn to speak before they can write.
Enrico C ~ No native speaker
00
A prime example is the increasingly common American pronunciation of "en route" as "enn rowt". I call it "misplaced literacy", because they honestly believe that it should be pronounced like it is spellt.
It is interesting to me as a new phenomenon in linguistic change which is driven by the written word. Before the growth of universal literacy changes in pronunciation were driven mainly
It is interesting to me as a new phenomenon in linguistic change which is driven by the written word. Before the growth of universal literacy changes in pronunciation were driven mainly
00
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Dave Swindell (Email Removed) wrote in (Email Removed):
[nq:1]A prime example is the increasingly common American pronunciation of "en route" as "enn rowt". I call it "misplaced literacy", because they honestly believe that it should be pronounced like it is spellt.[/nq]
It'll be interesting when they get around to Grand Prix.
Molly Mockford
I think I've been
[nq:1]A prime example is the increasingly common American pronunciation of "en route" as "enn rowt". I call it "misplaced literacy", because they honestly believe that it should be pronounced like it is spellt.[/nq]
It'll be interesting when they get around to Grand Prix.
Molly Mockford
I think I've been
0
Related Questions