"Of" instead of "have"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    "Of" instead of "have"

    When it comes to the way people speak I am happy for them for them to deviate from what is known as Standard English. I confess though that I cannot escape from my education which has laid down tramlines in my brain which cause me to cringe when I hear what are regarded as solecisms. The feeling is stronger when I see them in writing. Today I had an email from the RLA (not sure how they got my email address since I am not a member) which contains this sentence: "These rules have always been in place but many of mistakenly thought different." My immediate thought was that I would not buy a precedent from or take legal advice from an organisation which printed that. Is that unreasonable?

    #2
    Not unreasonable mate. I am exactly the same. That sentence you quote looks almost so stupid as to have been written deliberately rather than in ignorance.

    Comment


      #3
      I admit that I am very casual about tidying up posts, and like many blur the styles of different mediums and interactions. Software auto checking spelling and sometimes changing words entirely, produce some odd reconstitutions.

      In this case I agree, it is unforgivable; a publication should not be simply checked for red and green lines produced by the software, but re read as if you were the purchaser parting with your hard earned cash for their wisdom and advice.


      And then sling it back.
      Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
        "thought different."
        It works with Apple but that doesn't mean everyone should try it...

        Comment


          #5
          Yes, shouldn't it also be 'differently'?

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by JK0 View Post
            Yes, shouldn't it also be 'differently'?
            Yep. They did great in such a short sentence...

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by leaseholdanswers View Post
              I admit that I am very casual about tidying up posts, and like many blur the styles of different mediums and interactions.
              And there was I thinking you just couldn't spell, punctuate or use standard English grammar
              'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
                Today I had an email from the RLA (not sure how they got my email address since I am not a member) which contains this sentence: "These rules have always been in place but many of mistakenly thought different." My immediate thought was that I would not buy a precedent from or take legal advice from an organisation which printed that. Is that unreasonable?
                I'm not defending the RLA for writing that, but in their defence(!) against that ghastly "of/have" thing, the above isn't the normal situation where the two words get interchanged by the ignorant. It's normally "I would of gone out last night if I hadn't been so tired".

                Also, looking at the RLA website source for the quote, the rest of the text seems reasonably adequate, and I suspect the cause is a straightforward case of the writer tinkering with the wording of a sentence and pressing "send" before proofreading.

                Still 100% unexcusable though.

                Comment


                  #9
                  That's why you proofread before publishing. Especially since this not the only mistake in that sentence.

                  Anyway, reading at their full article, they say
                  The wording of the legislation indicates that this does not apply to written advertisements such as those in newspapers magazines or to window displays.
                  The topic was previously discussed, and I believe that the medium of the ad is irrelevant, what matters is its content, as they have themselves listed in their article.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    As anointed Grand Vizier of Solecisms at LLZ, I declare that would of is actually a simple mistake, not a solecism. The term is would have, contracted to would've, but erroneously written down and spoken as would of.
                    Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.

                    Comment

                    Latest Activity

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X