Have! Have! It's have not of!

[RhondaJean]

You HAVE done something. You have not OF something.

It makes me want to scream. Aaaaargh. AAAAAARGH!

Thank you!

[DrankSangriaInThePark]

Pedants' corner

To of done this
Thread deleted

Message from MNHQ: Due to being a personal attack on the OP of another thread

[TinyTear]

Just because it sounds like OF, written English is different to spoken English... I would probably tolerate it in a book such as Trainspotting or trying to read verbally with a specific accent...

But I do hate to see it written down...

[TinyTear]

Arse! I usually check dates before posting on Zombies...

[Nennypops]

Really weird, I don't have any message from MN at all, I've just double checked.

I'm perfectly sure the thread didn't mention any particular poster: the chances of my remembering a name are zero. Equally I don't recall mentioning any specific thread, and I'm heartened to see that Edith backs that. The post may well have been prompted by a particular thread - as I said, that particular frustration has been building up for some time - but isn't that what happens regularly in Pedants' Corner? It's pretty obvious that a number of threads have been prompted by something specific which has caused someone to boil over, and which could be identifiable if someone seriously wanted to go looking.

I do recall a thread with that or a similar error in the title getting quite a lot of picky responses which I certainly did not join in with, and I'm seriously wondering whether for that reason it was high profile in some readers' minds and two and two were put together to make five.

[Icimoi]

Agreed, I didn't see any personal attack.

I simply don't understand MN's policy on personal attacks, nor do I understand the selective attitude of people who report posts or threads for that reason. If you look at AIBU, some threads are little more than a string of personal attacks. Often you get TAATs which are blatantly attacks on the posters who started the original thread. Yet those threads stay, even when they get very active and sometimes quite vitriolic. On here, anyone who has ever written, say, recipy instead of recipe could choose to think one of the threads is about them.

[CheesyBadger]

God this gets to me. My sister texts it too. Assume it comes from how some of us now speak as we don't say have eg should have, we say should uv, quite close to of.

[LineRunner]

My DD has excellent diction and says 'should of' because she is getting it horribly wrong, not because of some homophonic linguistic quirk.

[Sesamebagelwith]

Yes, writing 'could of' is uneducated. Seriously, how don't people learn this in school?

[meditrina]

Yes, this is an old thread.

I'm sorry it came across as 'humphy' to resurrect it like this.

But I thought users of Pedants' Corner might want to be aware of the post-PB attitude to deletions of threads talking about use of language. My reading of the deleted thread was that it was - just like this one - a discussion of use of language. There was nothing about substance of any post, nor links to example. Like this one - who knows now the specific bit of writing that lay behind it?

It's quite a change that Pedants' Corner now cannot discuss (in isolation) language use if any such uses have appeared on MN (even when unreferenced in the thread).

[Icimoi]

I'm formulating a theory that MN's attitude may be dictated by the way something is reported to them.

I don't go in for reporting other than when I think a post is seriously offensive, but have reported one or two posts which are really quite vitriolic personal attacks. I do so in a matter of fact way without going into detail, and have had responses from MN along the lines of "it's a lively discussion" or "we'll keep an eye on it". This thread wasn't even identifiable and was, let's face it, in a discussion group which only pedants visit, yet MN decided to delete it. I'm therefore wondering whether it was reported in particularly emotive terms and deleted by an MN bod who was over-influenced by that and decided that it wasn't worth arguing about. It does happen, I remember a couple of threads in site stuff when people have queried deletions and MN have taken another look and reinstated the posts in question.

It's particularly interesting that MN weren't sufficiently bothered to tell the OP here that the thread had been deleted, let alone tell her off.

[DrankSangriaInThePark]

I've said before, I'll say again, as many times as I need to.

I reported Nennypop's thread in PC. I would do it again. She wasn't on the paintbrush (FFS) thread correcting the OP's English, but plenty of others who then joined her thread were.

It was not discussing the mistaken use of "of" like this one is.

There were some vile smug comments on the thread, and I reported it as a TAAT and personal attack.

I can, and will, out-pedant any of you. It's my job. I will not stoop to slagging off other posters' English to make myself feel clever.

PC did use to be a place for discussing the finer points of language and usage. That's how I still use it because it's my passion, and my livelihood. It is not, and never will be, if I can help it, a place where posters start threads saying things like "just seen a thread on here where yet again some thicko is using "of" wrongly"

(No, you didn't say that Nenny- but the people who were attracted to your thread more or less did)

[Motherinlawsdung]

What is PB please?

[DrankSangriaInThePark]

PB is penis beaker. When a thread about a MNer's husband dipping his penis into a cup of water by the bed caused such hilarity that MN servers were broken by the influx of new posters.

Some MNers feel that this new influx never went away and has lowered the tone.

I think it has too, but not grammatically. Just that there are more squalid pervy threads now, because they're "funny". Apparently

[Bunbaker]

I hate seeing it written down as well. My background is in publications and I have spent many years proofreading, so it makes me far too unreasonable when I see badly written texts.

I live in South Yorkshire and if people wrote phonetically the way they speak it would make reading anything really hard work.

"Ey oop, how's tha doin'?" (Hi how are you doing?)
"Ar reet. Are you join' to t'poob later?" (All right, are you going to the pub later)
"I have to tidy oop t'art house first" (I have to tidy up the out house first)

I am not taking the mick, these are genuine conversations.

[DrankSangriaInThePark]

That must be Sheffield or Rotherham Bun?

I am 15 minutes down the road and my Grandad spoke like that.

That's not a mistake though, is it, it's dialect.

And yes, I think most people cringe when they see "could of" written down. I do. (but on here, I cringe because I know the smugsters are going to leap on the OP and correct her. "My husband was just eaten by a mountain lion and is stone dead and all that's left are the bone's")

"I think you misplaced an apostrophe there!"

[Bunbaker]

No not dee dahs Drank Sangria

[Motherinlawsdung]

Thank you Drank! Was actually around when PB happened, but I must "of" erased it from my memory...

[DrankSangriaInThePark]

I wish I could erase it from mine. Yuck. More brain bleach needed.

[SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius]

I applauded loudly when Richard Osman said he would put this one grammatical error in room 101, the other night!!

I can understand how it happens - as others have said, would've/should've/could've do look really strange, written down, so I can see how someone might have heard one of them, and think that would of etc are correct.

But I hate, hate, hate it. I do manage to prevent myself from correcting it on threads (because that is so frowned upon) but I can't stop myself from giving a silent cheer if someone else points it out. I am a bad person.

[SanityClause]

PC did use to be a place for discussing the finer points of language and usage.

"Did used to", perhaps?

[DrankSangriaInThePark]

Nope.

People make the mistake of saying "did used to" because of the fact that the verb "to use to", referring only to past habits, is only really used, obviously, in the past. So they erroneously believe that the verb is "used to".

You see it regularly in print as well.

[OhChristHasRisenFENTON]

That's interesting about used to/use to Drank , I have always got that wrong.

I am glad to be corrected on that one, 'used to' is actually quite tricky to say clearly, so I'll be happy to not bother anymore.

Hang on what about the use of use/used in becoming accustomed to meaning?

[DrankSangriaInThePark]

The confusion is because there are 3 very similar verbs:

1. To use
2. To be used to
3. To use to

1. Bog standard verb "I used the washing machine to wash my clothes" (nb, pronunciation of the "s" is /z/, and consequently, the "d" is pronounced as a /d/)
2. To be accustomed to/present habit "I am used to explaining grammar" (here, the "s" is pronounce as an /s/ and so the "d" is pronounced as a /t/ which sticks itself onto the "t" in "to" and becomes one sound)
3. "I used to use the washing machine" - past habit, doesn't happen now. (pronunciation of the "s" and "d" the same as n2) Question form "Did you use to use the washing machine?" (although the awful form "Used you to....." also exists, but is a bit defunct. Negative form "I didn't use to use etc etc)

Can you imagine my poor furriners and how confuddled they get! (actually they pronounce all of them oooh-zed, until I get hold of them. )

Here endeth today's lesson

[OhChristHasRisenFENTON]

Thank you