Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Borges

But folks mostly don’t write. That’s part of what’s going on with a lot of this stuff. People talk all the time, but write rarely (unless they hang out on internet boards), then they’re cranking out an e-mail and they realize they don’t actually know the real words behind half the crap they say, especially when you’re a fan of contracts. When I say or write “I’m” I don’t think “I am” and shrink it, I think “I’m” in my brain (and the spell checker) “I’m” is a word. And it could be a word I’ve used so regularly and consistently I don’t even know what the parts are. Nobody says “would have”, between the contraction and the fact that it’s part of a sentence structure that people don’t use often it’s not something on the everyday tongue. So when they do try to use it they get it wrong. Of course if they do it enough it stops being wrong. That’s how language works.


88 posted on 11/03/2011 11:07:21 AM PDT by discostu (How Will I Laugh Tomorrow When I Can't Even Smile Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]


To: discostu

I don’t think would of and would’ve will ever be accepted substitutes for one another. Not in standard English anyway.


91 posted on 11/03/2011 11:18:03 AM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson