|
Post by Tone on Jun 24, 2008 21:13:33 GMT
Paul, >I mentioned before, I think, how hard it is to convince people that train starts with a ch- sound: they know it starts with a t, so they hear a t sound.<And I recall that a few of us rebutted that contention. I have great difficulty trying to "force" a "ch" sound onto it! Chone
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jun 24, 2008 21:16:58 GMT
"But "would of" is just as accurate, although marked as wrong."
We've done this before, Paul, many a time. No, it's not just as accurate; it's wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jun 24, 2008 21:18:54 GMT
Well, there we have it! If it hasn't occurred to Twoddle it just can't be right. (And on that basis, presumably the Higgs Boson really doesn't exist.) Tone Particle physics. Not quite a simile for slang English, Tone. (And who said I hadn't heard of it?)
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 24, 2008 22:00:35 GMT
No, it's not just as accurate; it's wrong. I'm not reviving that, Twod. Depending on your definition of wrong, you may be right! But it's incontrovertible that would of is just as accurate a transcription of what most of us say as would have is. Wooduv would be more accurate than either.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 24, 2008 22:02:39 GMT
As for the ch- thing, I have a very good speech editing program on my PC now. I'll watch out for some reputable Radio Four speaker saying "train" and "church", chop the first phoneme off both, and challenge you to tell the difference.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 24, 2008 22:23:56 GMT
OK, but you won't catch me using it, says he gracelessly! I am genuinely surprised at this but it's all part of learning, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 24, 2008 22:25:59 GMT
Whoops, there I go! Premature posting - I missed a whole page.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 24, 2008 22:30:14 GMT
Like the "would of" thing -- what people say is something like "wooduv" and we know to write that as "would have". But "would of" is just as accurate, although marked as wrong. But isn't this the point I was making? I agree that as transcriptions of what is often said, we do see "would of" as well as "what's" meaning "what does". But in written English "would of" is not the correct formation of the conditional perfect tense and "what's" is not a recognised abbreviation for "what does".
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 24, 2008 22:30:50 GMT
And I shall now return to whipping a deceased equine.
|
|
|
Post by SusanB on Jun 25, 2008 2:32:46 GMT
I have to say that I also agree with most of yesterpage. However, I do prefer the whole 'does' to be used. So I would prefer to disagree, but I don't!
|
|
|
Post by SusanB on Jun 25, 2008 2:34:20 GMT
Given that the previous message has appeared at the top of a new page, I amend my comment to 'page before yesterpage'.
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jun 25, 2008 7:21:52 GMT
No, it's not just as accurate; it's wrong. I'm not reviving that, Twod. Depending on your definition of wrong, you may be right! But it's incontrovertible that would of is just as accurate a transcription of what most of us say as would have is. Wooduv would be more accurate than either. Ah, I see. I misunderstood your position.
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Jun 25, 2008 8:25:22 GMT
> except in slang speech. <
I reckon that the apostrophe esses for is, has and does are all a kind of "slang: we recognise that the language itself carries the full word, but sometimes write the representation of how people actually pronounce it. They say How's he doing? How's he reacted? and write it that way. We also say How's he feel? and - though that may be rarer (since the "how does" construction is rarer than the "how is", anyway) - it seems just as valid.
When we're wanting to retain formality, of course, we avoid the shortening in ANY of those constructions.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 25, 2008 8:41:16 GMT
I have to say that I also agree with most of yesterpage. However, I do prefer the whole 'does' to be used. So I would prefer to disagree, but I don't! Great new word!
|
|
|
Post by amanda on Jun 25, 2008 15:33:57 GMT
I mentioned before, I think, how hard it is to convince people that train starts with a ch- sound Er... is that because it doesn't? I do Jolly Phonics every day and train begins with t! To be fair, I have heard people say chrain, and similarly shtreet and shtrong. Listen to the Sugababes for a good example of shtronger! It tends to be younger folk who pronounce words this way, I've found.
|
|