BS: Jon Cleary/Aus grammar question

Subject: BS: Jon Cleary/Aus grammar question
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 07:51 AM

I'm reading a Jon Cleary Book, Five Ring Circus. It's set in Sydney, and a lot of the dialogue has hints of the local accent. But one thing keeps leaping of the page: his use of "could of" for "could have" (or "could've", maybe). It's not just one or two less well educated characters that use it; most of them do. I'm pretty confident it's not simply down to ignorance on Cleary's part; somebody would have told him (wouldn't they?) I feel he's overdoing it. Or is it something esentially Australian: an Oz thing tha aPom wouldn't understand?

Do let me know before I finish the book!

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Jon Cleary/Aus grammar question
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 07:55 AM

G'day
You wait till the verbs start nounforming. You will get so befuddled you will need a relx.

Spotyer

Subject: RE: BS: Jon Cleary/Aus grammar question
From: Helen
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 08:04 AM

It's a very common spoken and even written expression here in Oz. Even when I am marking University level essays I am often crossing out "could of" "would of" "had of" etc etc and replacing it with the correct grammar.

Helen

Subject: RE: BS: Jon Cleary/Aus grammar question
From: GUEST,Shelley C at work
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 08:12 AM

Steve, even if you're a Pom, I'm surprised you haven't come accross it before, as in my experience it's rife here in Pom land (at least in London and Birmingham - I can't speak for elswhere). As a college adiminstrator I also come accross the written version frequently (only from students though - the habit hasn't spread to staff, yet!)

Shelley

Subject: RE: BS: Jon Cleary/Aus grammar question
From: artbrooks
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 08:25 AM

It is not an unusual verbal useage in the US, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Jon Cleary/Aus grammar question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 08:53 AM

In spoken English, in my part of England too, "could of" is often closer to representing what people actually say than "could have" or "could've".

Subject: RE: BS: Jon Cleary/Aus grammar question
From: Snuffy
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 09:21 AM

It's been around in England since at least the late 60s, which was when I first saw it written. (Where are you now, Yvonne Street?)

Subject: RE: BS: Jon Cleary/Aus grammar question
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 09:49 AM

I remember discussing this with an English teacher when I was still at school, Steve, ( yes way back then!)after a broadcast by writer Ba Mason who used it a lot (but probably not in print). I've certainly seen it in print more and more as the years roll by, and it does annoy me. Whatever the pronunciation, IMHO it should always be written as "'ve" NOT "of".

RtS
(for what it's worth!)

Subject: RE: BS: Jon Cleary/Aus grammar question
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 10:18 AM

Ah, good old Roger - we pedants should stick together!

I would have [ahem!] mentioned that I was very much aware of this use of "of", but I just assumed^* everyone would be so familiar with it that it wasn't worth mentioning. I think I first encountered it (in print) in The Catcher in The Rye in around 1969 (I know the date, 'cos I borrowed it off my (then) girlfriend's father). I'd come across it in primary school, of course; although I was too much of a pedant even in those days to have used it myself.


Do you have those awful aberrant apostrophes in Australia? You know the kind of thing: "those larrikin's keep making gramatical error's". Maybe it's the same kind of thing -- I know it's drummed into kids over here, but there are still plenty who just don't take it in.

Steve

^*"Assume" makes an ass of u and me", as I was told once on a course.

Subject: RE: BS: Jon Cleary/Aus grammar question
From: Peace
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 11:00 AM

Yeah the studdy of grammer shoud of been on everyones' list, I seen it coming years' ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Jon Cleary/Aus grammar question
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 11:20 AM

And spelling...!

Subject: RE: BS: Jon Cleary/Aus grammar question
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 11:25 AM

"could've" is probably how it should've been written, as it is just as much a common contraction in everyday speech as "you're"...

Subject: RE: BS: Jon Cleary/Aus grammar question
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 01:14 PM

Brucie:
"Who was that lady I seen you with last night?"

Pedant: "You mean 'I saw''"

"O.k. who was that eyesore I seen you with last night?"

Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: Jon Cleary/Aus grammar question
From: Peace
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 01:20 PM

Good one, Nigel. I will steal that. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Jon Cleary/Aus grammar question
From: Cattail
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 03:35 PM

What really annoys me in books, media etc, is when someone states
that they stayed in "an" hotel for the night (for example) instead
of using "a".

There are other examples which I can't think of at the moment, but
they sure get my dander up.

Cheers for now.

Cattail !

Subject: RE: BS: Jon Cleary/Aus grammar question
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 04:06 PM

"An" is correct before 'hotel' as it is before 'histor(ic)' etc. Hotel used to be pronounced with a silent 'h'... just as in the US 'herb' still is.

Subject: RE: BS: Jon Cleary/Aus grammar question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 04:19 PM

"What really annoys me in books, media etc, is when someone states
that they stayed in "an" hotel for the night (for example) instead
of using 'a'."

Because that's a bit pedantic you mean? It is the older form, and still perfectly correct English, so long as 'hotel' is pronounced with a silent 'h'. "...the sort of thing about which we ought to be allowed to do as we please, so long as we are consistent" is how Modern Engish Usage puts

Subject: RE: BS: Jon Cleary/Aus grammar question
From: Joybell
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 04:34 PM

Well we solve that one by having pubs instead. We do say "could of" but since it sounds the same as "could've" I don't see any good reason for spelling it the way Cleary does. Sometimes someone might emphasise the "of" in speech but you don't usually hear that.
As for Apostrophe's (hmm!) they give sign writer's (hmm)a terrible time here as well. We had a sign made for our place and the sign writer really wanted to have it read "The Hildebrand's". Just like that. He thought we were illiterate. We won in the end but he was not happy. The whole thing drives us crazy. And I think they're winning.

Subject: RE: BS: Jon Cleary/Aus grammar question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 04:41 PM

Well, we had a thread here the other day talking about "Veteran's Day"...

Subject: RE: BS: Jon Cleary/Aus grammar question
From: Snuffy
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 07:15 PM

It's also alive and well in Canada (well some parts of it)

From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River - PM
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 01:07 PM

I wish I'd of seen that show...even if it was an impoaster.

Subject: RE: BS: Jon Cleary/Aus grammar question
From: Helen
Date: 20 Nov 03 - 12:19 AM

*Apostrophitis! Its contagious!

See, I've caught it now.

Helen

* the overwhelming urge to put apostrophes where they don't belong and leave them out from where they do belong.

Subject: RE: BS: Jon Cleary/Aus grammar question
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 20 Nov 03 - 05:01 AM

The rule about "an" before "h"+vowel used to be: always; you'll find it in the Bible, e.g. when Moses tells Sarah to take "an handful of meal".

More recently it was: use "a" if the first syllable is stressed, e.g. "a handful"; use "an" if the first sylable is unstressed, e.g. "an historical novel". This applies (if you apply it at all!) even when the "h" is voiced, as well as when it's unvoiced, as in "honour". The French make the distinction, even though they never voice their aitches: "l'hiver", but "le hibou".

"Hotel" is problematic because both syllables have equal stress, so it's not incorrect to say " a hotel", but it's not pedantic (if your'e a bit old-fashioned!) to say "an hotel".

The modern trend, of course, is to use "a" in front of all cases where the "h" is voiced. I'm fifty-two; I'm English; and I went to a Grammar School that was founded in 1554: I reckon that entitles me to be a bit snooty about the way I write, if I want to be. (But not the way I speak!) I don't have a problem about any of you not wanting to be pedantic if you choose not to be. (And one of Cleary's characters says "could have" later on, so I know he knows better!)

That's enough: it's nearly ten o'clock here time to put the kettle on. (And woe betide the first one to ask "put the kettle on what?"!

Steve