I like the attitude of my fellow the murkins on the subject. It's not worth
loosing sleep over it...:o
It just makes easier to evaluate the brainpower of the individual. Btw, if
they made mistakes that simple, what are the chances that they would bother to
learn better?
Boris
P.S. I once met at a wedding a furriner and he spend the whole time bitching
to people how when peops from East St. Louis come to his office (he was a
doctor of some kind) tell him "Doc I feel worser today". I think he talked to
almost everybody...for a very short time...
From: "Jon Mitchell" <jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [OM] Re: OT English as she is spoke
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:28:45 -0000
A hearty round of applause from here - and you picked on one of my pet
hates. People using "could of" instead of "could have" stems, I
believe, from a general lack of reading. It is easy to see how, when
listening to spoken English, one might assume that the word "could've"
is in fact "could of" (they sound similar) instead of the abbreviation
for "could have". When seeing the abbreviation written down, it is
clear that it can in no way be "could of".
And I'm with you on the opinion of it being just plain wrong. If we
extrapolate Roberts argument to its natural conclusion, then the
English
language would descend into an endless stream of "innit", "nah wot I
mean", "like", and other such vagaries that I witness daily.
I know, I'm not perfect. And there are probably errors in my rant
above. But at least I try to get it right. Telling people that it
doesn't matter whether they get it right or not, as eventually their
mistakes will be accepted, is like telling someone that if they commit
a
crime often enough it will become legal.
Sorry. Rant ended !
Jon
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|