LINGUIST List 6.39

Sun 15 Jan 1995

Disc: have > of

Editor for this issue: <>

Directory

1. Frits Stuurman, have) of
2. , could of

hi

i don't remember who started the thread about ***have*** and ***of***, or when
and why. still, i thought what follows might be of some interest.

one of the more enjoyable aspects of being a linguist, in my book, is
that one can read p.g. wodehouse, for instance, "for research
purposes". in *** the luck of the bodkins *** (london: h. jenkins,
1956), the plot largely revolves around most of the cast's inability
to spell ***inexplicable***. in this sophisticated linguistic context,
wodehouse has two characters, one american, one english, say the
following:

american movie-mogul:
p. 56: How should I know how to spell 'inexplicable"? And if I had of known,
 do
you think I was in shape to tell anybody how to spell anything? ^^^^^^^^^^^^
p. 58: If he'd of had pimples I could have counted each individual one.
 ^^^^^^^^

british purser (and amateur philosopher):
p. 66: ... a living organism ... would pretty near have took the of my thumb off
if I hadn't of looked slippy ...
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
p. 77: Suppose, as might quite well have happened, he'd of become during his
lifetime a sufferer from asthma ... ^^^^^^^^^^^^

and also p. 71: ... if that bloke hadn't have shot the Emperor, there wouldn't
have been no war ... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

but for p. 71, I guess on 56 and 66 i would hardly of expected 'had(n't) have
known / looked'? (and what about * the luck have the bodkins *?).

f

Just for fun: A student of mine who spells completely by sound
recently handed in a paper including the expression "kind've"
for "kind of".

Grist for anyone's mill?

Johanna Rubba
Assistant Professor
Humboldt State University
Arcata, CA 95521-8299
rubbajaxe.humboldt.edu