Have vs. of

Nitefly · 10 Feb 2012 at 15:01

NuclearWinter said:
But that's exactly what smart as a verb means.

Edit:

No... It's been used that way since at least as far back as the 13th century. In fact it had that use before it ever meant "clever".

smart (v.)
O.E. smeortan "be painful," from W.Gmc. *smert- (cf. M.Du. smerten, Du. smarten, O.H.G. smerzan, Ger. schmerzen "to pain," originally "to bite"), from PIE base *(s)merd-, from base *(s)mer- "to rub, pound" (cf. Gk. smerdnos "terrible, dreadful," Skt. mardayati "grinds, rubs, crushes," L. mordere to bite").

smart (adj.)
late O.E. smeart "sharp, severe, stinging," related to smeortan (see smart (v.)). Meaning "quick, active, clever" is attested from c.1300, probably from the notion of "cutting" wit, words, etc.; meaning "trim in attire" first attested 1718, "ascending from the kitchen to the drawing-room c.1880." [Weekley] In ref. to devices, "behaving as though guided by intelligence" (e.g. smart bomb) first attested 1972. Smarts "good sense, intelligence," is first recorded 1968. Smart cookie is from 1948; smarty-pants first attested 1941.

-etymonline.com

You learn something everyday.

It still sounds silly though, such an irregular use of that word in modern times.

Glaucus · 10 Feb 2012 at 15:02

Mat said:
It doesn't matter whether you say "should have", or write it, it's still wrong.

Spoken is massively different to written language.
You point was you don't use maths etc most days. I would disagree. You'll use just as much simple maths as you do simple written English language. Unless you have a job that requires in depth writing.

RomanNose · 10 Feb 2012 at 15:04

I am not being funny but... Annoys me the most.

FNGsam · 10 Feb 2012 at 15:06

Why is this thread still going lol.

Richie · 10 Feb 2012 at 15:10

Glaucus said:
Spoken not written and certainly not queens English. Lots of colloquialisms and oddities in regional language.

There is a difference between the spoken word and the written word. If you wrote everything the way you spoke it then, for example, you would have the following:

"A launched at that wee arse an carted 'im oot 'an stoved ees melt in"

So, no, we shouldn't write down words or sentences the way they are actually said.

Glaucus · 10 Feb 2012 at 15:10

Not sure what that had to do with what I said and actually is pretty much what I saying. Far more people use spoken language than written. Written isn't widely used in any intensive way during most peoples days.

Jay794 · 10 Feb 2012 at 15:14

ScarySquirrel said:
Because one is wrong and the other is right.

Wrong or right is irrelevent when it comes to language as thanks to regional dialect nobody bar the Queens speaks correctly.

There is no R in Bath, yet Southerns say "Barth" hardly correct english is it

Mat · 10 Feb 2012 at 15:17

Glaucus said:
Spoken is massively different to written language.
You point was you don't use maths etc most days. I would disagree. You'll use just as much simple maths as you do simple written English language. Unless you have a job that requires in depth writing.

Not when it comes to correct sentence structure and the words you actually use; "would have" is no more correct/acceptable than "a apple", written or spoken.

My point was in reply to the post I quoted.

Glaucus · 10 Feb 2012 at 15:19

Mat said:
Not when it comes to correct sentence structure and the words you actually use.

My point was in reply to the post I quoted.

How the post you quoted had nothing to do with what you said.

Also your wrong.
Is
"where you going to"
Correct structure? But perfectly normal and acceptable in Bristol area.
There is no standard English spoken language. Well queens English, but no one speaks it.

Mat · 10 Feb 2012 at 15:23

Glaucus said:
How the post you quoted had nothing to do with what you said.

Also your wrong.
Is
"where you going to"
Correct structure? But perfectly normal and acceptable in Bristol area.
There is no standard English spoken language. Well queens English, but no one speaks it.

I'm not going to get drawn into an argument but I'm pretty sure you weren't taught "where you going to" as being correct.
Anyway, we all know people from Brizzle talk strangely

FlyingPig · 10 Feb 2012 at 15:23

Jay794 said:
Wrong or right is irrelevent when it comes to language as thanks to regional dialect nobody bar the Queens speaks correctly.

There is no R in Bath, yet Southerns say "Barth" hardly correct english is it

That is a lame excuse to massacre your own language in writing. Dialects are a great thing to have and should (in my opinion) be passed on over the generations, but it is equally important to have a common standard language that everybody can agree on. This has nothing to do with certain accents, as even the BBC these days has presenters with all kind of different accents and doesn't uphold the "Queen's English".
Written language is very different to spoken language, and there is nothing wrong with expecting a certain level of literacy on a public forum.

Glaucus · 10 Feb 2012 at 15:25

Mat said:
Anyway, we all know people from Brizzle talk strangely

everyone talks strange, there is no standard spoken English, ever region has its own versions.

Jay794 · 10 Feb 2012 at 15:31

FlyingPig said:
That is a lame excuse to massacre your own language in writing. Dialects are a great thing to have and should (in my opinion) be passed on over the generations, but it is equally important to have a common standard language that everybody can agree on. This has nothing to do with certain accents, as even the BBC these days has presenters with all kind of different accents and doesn't uphold the "Queen's English".

Written language is very different to spoken language, and there is nothing wrong with expecting a certain level of literacy on a public forum.

It's not a lame excuse, as language evolves so does dialect, new words are invented and old words retired.

Back in the 60's nobody said "cool" and now everyone below 30 says it

I'll happily agree that writting the words "nyt", "ryt", "alr8" and the like are just plain wrong. But you can hardly get so aggrovated when people write, "could have/should have/could have/should have"

As long as someone can get their point across legibly and articulate to a point they can hold a conversation whats the harm?

RichDuffy · 10 Feb 2012 at 15:47

Mat said:
Not necessarily... I do very little maths on a day to day basis and have nothing to do with photosynthesis anymore so my abilities with either would be far from acceptable in a mathematic of biological situation but I do use the English language all day everyday.

All day every day.

'Everyday' is an adjective meaning 'ordinary', 'commonly occurring'.

twozeronine · 10 Feb 2012 at 16:12

Jay794 said:
It's not a lame excuse, as language evolves so does dialect, new words are invented and old words retired.

Back in the 60's nobody said "cool" and now everyone below 30 says it

I'll happily agree that writting the words "nyt", "ryt", "alr8" and the like are just plain wrong. But you can hardly get so aggrovated when people write, "could have/should have/could have/should have"

As long as someone can get their point across legibly and articulate to a point they can hold a conversation whats the harm?

If someone said to you "I of a red car", or "it's on the top have the cupboard", would you think they were mentally deficient, or just using some cultural dialect? Just because "could have" sounds a bit like "could have" doesn't excuse it.

FlyingPig · 10 Feb 2012 at 16:29

twozeronine said:
If someone said to you "I of a red car", or "it's on the top have the cupboard", would you think they were mentally deficient, or just using some cultural dialect? Just because "could have" sounds a bit like "could have" doesn't excuse it.

To answer your question:

* Because people are willingly ignorant.

SexyGreyFox · 10 Feb 2012 at 16:42

Glaucus said:
Also your wrong.

Snigger

Glaucas knows 100% thet every time he writes 'of' after could, should or would that he's wrong but he does it on purpose now.

Jay794 · 10 Feb 2012 at 16:48

twozeronine said:
If someone said to you "I of a red car", or "it's on the top have the cupboard", would you think they were mentally deficient, or just using some cultural dialect? Just because "could have" sounds a bit like "could have" doesn't excuse it.

could have/Could have does not apply to those examples. I'm not an english teacher so I don't know why but could have/could have makes sense, I of a red car just doesn't.

You "could have" a red car

You "could have" done something about having a red car

still reads fine because of the nature of the sentances

twozeronine · 10 Feb 2012 at 16:56

Jay794 said:
could have/Could have does not apply to those examples. I'm not an english teacher so I don't know why but could have/could have makes sense, I of a red car just doesn't.

You "could have" a red car

You "could have" done something about having a red car

still reads fine because of the nature of the sentances

I disagree. Using your example, it would also make sense to ask the question "Of you done something about having a red car?", but it clearly doesn't. It's just because "could have" sounds like "could've" that it makes it sound like it makes sense.

Anyway, I'm no language expert either.

Lopéz · 10 Feb 2012 at 17:47

Jay794 said:
could have/Could have does not apply to those examples. I'm not an english teacher so I don't know why but could have/could have makes sense, I of a red car just doesn't.

You "could have" a red car

You "could have" done something about having a red car

still reads fine because of the nature of the sentances

No it doesn't. Just because "could have" sounds a little bit like "could've" doesn't make it correct, and it certainly doesn't make sense.
Except sounds quite similar to accept, but you cannot use the words interchangeably.