Has "would of" become acceptable now?

[aliceBB]

In the cases of using "of" instead of "have", "been" instead of "being" or "pacific" instead of "specific", completely different words with different meanings are being used, rather than non-standard form.

You are confusing grammatical and lexical non-standard forms. 'Would of'/'Would have' and 'Been ridiculous/Being ridiculous' confusion is a grammatical issue. 'Specific/pacific' is a lexical issue. Non-standard lexis or grammar can become standard if enough people use it enough times. The same word can acquire a different meaning over time. The meaning of a word is exactly that - what it conveys to the people who hear/read it. It's not some pre-ordained concept which can never change. (Think of the words 'wicked' or 'enthusiastic', for example. Look up their etymology and you'll see how their meanings have changed radically). It can be irritating(to purists) if someone says 'pacific' when they mean 'specific', but it only matters if it causes genuine confusion (unlikely, in most contexts) or it's used in a situation (like an English exam) where not knowing the standard word can be detrimental to your chances of success.

 

It's like someone referring to you as "aleckPP"

No, it isn't.

 

FWIW, the one which gets my goat is 'evidently' being used where 'apparently' would be more appropriate. But I cope.

Edited November 15, 2015 by aliceBB

[RootsBooster]

You are confusing grammatical and lexical non-standard forms. 'Would of'/'Would have' and 'Been ridiculous/Being ridiculous' confusion is a grammatical issue. 'Specific/pacific' is a lexical issue. Non-standard lexis or grammar can become standard if enough people use it enough times. The same word can acquire a different meaning over time. The meaning of a word is exactly that - what it conveys to the people who hear/read it. It's not some pre-ordained concept which can never change. (Think of the words 'wicked' or 'enthusiastic', for example. Look up their etymology and you'll see how their meanings have changed radically). It can be irritating(to purists) if someone says 'pacific' when they mean 'specific', but it only matters if it causes genuine confusion (unlikely, in most contexts) or it's used in a situation (like an English exam) where not knowing the standard word can be detrimental to your chances of success.

 

 

No, it isn't.

 

FWIW, the one which gets my goat is 'evidently' being used where 'apparently' would be more appropriate. But I cope.

 

aleckPP, you do realise that Pacific is an ocean, don't you?

[aliceBB]

aleckPP, you do realise that Pacific is an ocean, don't you?

 

Of course, although when you first quoted it, you didn't capitalise it. Without the capital P, the standard semantic meaning of 'pacific' (when written, obviously), is peace-loving or peace-seeking. There are indeed many English words and terms which can mean more than one thing.

 

Your question shows just how blunt an instrument your mind is!

 

Context is all. If someone uses 'pacific' when they mean 'specific', we will probably grasp their meaning in context and especially in conversation. If it annoys the hell out of you, then you will probably choose not to converse with that person unless you are obliged to. The real problem with people using words language whose meaning is not transparent is...well, just look at the weasel words of poliitiicans. They mislead people, often disastrously.

 

But please stop assuming that you (or anyone) owns the monopoly on 'meaning'. The meaning of bits of language has changed - sometimes beyond recognition - since the grammar books of the 19th century by which some people seem to set such store.

 

Words and phrases mean what they mean - in their context (time, place and social/cultural situation), to their audience, by popular agreement. Standard English is very useful as it means that on average more people can understand you than if you speak or write in a dialect or an accent unfamiliar to your audience. But it's not the Holy Grail and the language people use when they are not addressing a wide audience, or someone unknown to them, is up to them, not you!

 

So the answer to your original question ('Has would of become acceptable now?) is clearly 'yes', to some people and 'no' to others.

 

Next question?!

Edited November 16, 2015 by aliceBB

[RootsBooster]

Of course, although when you first quoted it, you didn't capitalise it. Without the capital P, the standard semantic meaning of 'pacific' (when written, obviously), is peace-loving or peace-seeking. There are indeed many English words and terms which can mean more than one thing.

Either way, pacific does not mean the same as specific.

 

Your question shows just how blunt an instrument your mind is!

You say that, but you've also said it annoys you when people use "evidently" instead of "apparently"

 

From Oxy Dic:

Evidently

-In a way that is clearly seen or understood

-[sENTENCE ADVERB] It would seem that

-Used as an affirmative response

 

Apparently

-As far as one knows or can see

How blunt an instrument must someone's mind be for them to not see the interchangeability of these two words?

 

As far as one knows or can see:Context is all. If someone uses 'pacific' when they mean 'specific', we will probably grasp their meaning in context and especially in conversation. If it annoys the hell out of you, then you will probably choose not to converse with that person unless you are obliged to. The real problem with people using words language whose meaning is not transparent is...well, just look at the weasel words of poliitiicans. They mislead people, often disastrously.

 

But please stop assuming that you (or anyone) owns the monopoly on 'meaning'. The meaning of bits of language has changed - sometimes beyond recognition - since the grammar books of the 19th century by which some people seem to set such store.

That's an asumption you've made about me which isn't true., I've asked others what they think, particularly when these words are used in such a way within professional journalism.

 

Words and phrases mean what they mean - in their context (time, place and social/cultural situation), to their audience, by popular agreement. Standard English is very useful as it means that on average more people can understand you than if you speak or write in a dialect or an accent unfamiliar to your audience. But it's not the Holy Grail and the language people use when they are not addressing a wide audience, or someone unknown to them, is up to them, not you!

 

So the answer to your original question ('Has would of become acceptable now?) is clearly 'yes', to some people and 'no' to others.

 

Next question?!

If 'of' has come to mean the same as 'have' then surely the people who use it this way would know what you mean if you asked them "Did you of a nice birthday?"

 

Have course they would.

[leviathan13]

The dictionary increases in size all the time. Unfortunately, some of the new definitions come about from those who just can't be bothered to learn the language in the first place innit.

Text speak's another one of my pet hates … just plain lazy, especially due to the fact that most phones of any technological merit (as used by gangstas) have perfectly good predictive capabilities in the first place.

 

'Text speak' came about from the early-ish days of mobile phones when you only had 160 characters with which to produce your message or it would cost you the charge of extra messages. Nowadays, with the introduction of so many free texts as part of your package, you can send longer messages without incurring any further costs.

 

Due to that, there is no need for text speak anymore... although, Slade were doing it in the 70's!

[aliceBB]

Either way, pacific does not mean the same as specific.

Clearly it does, to some people.

 

 

You say that, but you've also said it annoys you when people use "evidently" instead of "apparently"

I was being postmodernly ironic.

 

How blunt an instrument must someone's mind be for them to not see the interchangeability of these two words?

They are only interchangeable in the minds of people who cannot appreciate the subtle difference between them. It's a matter of semantic degree, rather than phonics (as with specific/pacific). And I did add that I can cope with people misusing them. The irony is, it's usually people who moan about other people's linguistic failings who mix up 'apparently' and 'evidently'...and the other old chestnut favoured by those who think (incorrectly) they are being 'correct' when they say 'between you and I'.

 

 

That's an assumption you've made about me which isn't true., I've asked others what they think, particularly when these words are used in such a way within professional journalism.

You can, I'm sure, spot the non-standard spelling, punctuation and grammar yourself. Ask if you need any help. However, if you read what I said about context, you will have understood that professional journalism is one of those contexts in which standard English grammar is important. Any journalist who writes 'would of' is not really a professional, is he/she?

 

 

If 'of' has come to mean the same as 'have' then surely the people who use it this way would know what you mean if you asked them "Did you of a nice birthday?"If you were speaking, then yes, I'm sure they would.

Have course they would.

Ditto. I have however never seen anyone mix up 'have' and 'of' in writing, except after modal verbs (would, could, should, must), where the contraction 've tends to morph in speech to 'of'. You can see how it happens. It's not a hanging offence. And people do generally understand what is meant, which is the important thing, in the end. Edited November 16, 2015 by aliceBB

[WiseOwl182]

Sometimes this forum needs the odd light hearted thread to break up the rest of it. Somehow this thread has taken another turn instead. So, back on topic...

 

Another bugbear of mine is the trend to pronounce "new" as "noo".

[aliceBB]

Sometimes this forum needs the odd light hearted thread to break up the rest of it. Somehow this thread has taken another turn instead. So, back on topic...

How sanctimonious! The thread was never off-topic, by the way. Just because it became an informed discussion rather than an uneducated general whinge, doesn't mean it was 'off topic'. Not such a Wise Old Fart, sorry Owl, after all!

 

Another bugbear of mine is the trend to pronounce "new" as "noo".

Then get over yourself.

[cassity]

. Not such a Wise Old Fart, sorry Owl, after all!

 

.

 

 

:hihi:

[WiseOwl182]

How sanctimonious! The thread was never off-topic, by the way. Just because it became an informed discussion rather than an uneducated general whinge, doesn't mean it was 'off topic'. Not such a Wise Old Fart, sorry Owl, after all!

 

Then get over yourself.

 

Yawn.

 

This thread is off topic because, by your own flawed logic, I've single handedly redefined language to mean whatever I want it to. Not such a (self appointed) English language authority after all! Alice? Who the %#@& is Alice?!