Should of will replace should've, because that's how we pronounce it. Those who read text, especially more formal text or older works will see the should. have. connection earlier in their careers, and the knowledge of its origin will mean more to them. But children aren't likely to encounter should've until 4th grade (reading level) at the earliest. Should of will be what they have heard all their lives up until that point and always retain some power.
In fifty years, bright children will encounter should've = should have, not should of, and have one of those lovely moments of epiphany "Oh, that makes much more sense. I see where that comes from now!" But it will be a curiosity, not a form that one changes to. The rest of the world speaking English will only accelerate that change.
Think not? Will he, n'ill he, ne cest pas?
8 comments:
Pretty sure you're correct on this.
"If I would have" ("would of"?) seems to have supplanted "if I had."
I think the distinction between "I may have" and "I might have" is as lost as the one between "shall" and "will."
Verbal constructions that make little sense to most speakers won't get passed down for too many more generations. That's how languages scrape things off.
Especially as "shall" and "will" follow the opposite convention in British English.
And that tricky business about reversing the rule for first person from the rule for second and third person. It never really came naturally to me. A rule that I have to think about that hard doesn't make its way into my personal grammar in a reliable way. I completely ignore it in speech, and normally in writing as well, even though I'm prepared to be pretty old-fashioned in many ways.
The only time I'm sure about the usage is in old-fashioned phrases like "Thou shalt not" and "Shall we?" But as you say, in an old Brit book you'd see "Will I pour you a cup of tea?" Its days are definitely numbered!
(I truly hate writing "it's" for "its.")
Heh. I hate it too, though I occasionally err. But the days for two flavors of "its" are clearly numbered as well. It's always clear from context which is meant.
I was never sure whether I had it's and its straight. I have a little trouble keeping mnemonics straight--if there's a way to scramble it I will. (Is it "spring forward and fall back" or is it "spring back and fall forward?")
I was reading about church history (I'm supposed to prepare the next barefoot romp through history) and looking at some of the things they argued about, and it occurred to me that "existence is prior to possession" would make a good way to remember which one gets to keep the apostrophe. Sledgehammer, meet peanut.
We could start the simplification now, starting with its and going on to some long-overdue spelling issues, but how do you simplify/correct a backlog of a few centuries worth of prolific writing? Google Books/Gutenberg translation services? Or say that the old stuff doesn't matter and bail?
"Who" and "whom" is just about gone. I often keep them straight in writing, but even I wouldn't say "Whom're you gonna call?"
Post a Comment