Common Spoken Errors Become Written Errors
Published October 21st, 2006 in English LanguageIt is time for another English lesson. Last time, I covered quite a few of the really common mistakes in speech and on blogs in particular. This time I am going to focus on some of the spelling/grammar errors that result from the human tendency to have a lazy mouth that does not properly pronounce anything. Exciting, I know…
Could of/have, Would of/have
This type of mistake is very common in speech and often leaks into writing. You mean “I could have learned English, but I was too busy playing GTA.” It comes out as “I coulda learned…” When your brain’s army of neurons try to decipher those auxiliary (helping) verbs, they turn into “I could of learned…” Wrong! “Could” and “would” are auxiliary verbs, so they have to connect with another verb (or more auxiliary verbs). “Of” is not a verb; it’s a preposition. Just remember, you can say “I have learned,” but you cannot say “I of learned” (unless you enjoy sounding like an idiot).
Aren’t I?
“Aren’t I great with English?” No, you are not. This one comes from our tendency to use contractions for everything. It is so hard to say “I am” that we say “I’m.” Unfortunately, “aren’t” means “are not.” Now say it: “Are not I great with English?” You would actually move the negative to the other side of the subject, changing it to “are I not,” which still sounds stupid, unless you have multiple personalities. “Are” is plural. “I” is singular. You have to say, “am I not,” unless you prefer “ain’t…”
Supposed to, Used to
“You are supposed to have a ‘d’ in there.” Since the ‘d’ sound blends in with the ‘t’ sound, people often do not write the ‘d.’ You should always say “supposed to” and “used to” and never drop the ‘d.’ That’s it. No ‘i’ before ‘e’ crap, just always include the ‘d.’
Adverbs and ‘ly’
Compare “I run real quick” to “I run really quickly.” The word “real” is supposed to be used as an adjective as in “He is a real grammar nazi.” It is considered informal (and incorrect by some) to use it as an adverb. Guess what? The same thing is the case with “quick.” If you are using the word to modify a verb or adjective and it sounds okay with an ‘-ly,’ you should use that. “Drive carefully!”
DVD Discs
Redundant acronyms are fairly common. The problem is that people often do not think of the acronym as a noun. I heard quite a few of these while in the military. One of our pieces of equipment was the SMART-T, and people would say “Let’s set up the SMART-T terminal over there.” That translates to “Let’s set up the Secure, Mobile, Anti-jam, Reliable, Tactical Terminal terminal over there.” “Do you know anything about the GPS system?” “Do you know anything about the Global Positioning System system?” Back when “CDROM” was worth the extra syllable, people often said, “CDROM Disc” despite that the ‘d’ stands for “disc.”
How is “coulda” a speech error? Are you suggesting that we should all say [kÊŠd hæv] all the time, in all situations, instead of [kÊŠdv] or [kÊŠdÉ™]? Doesn’t that seem a bit ridiculous?
As for “ly” - This is from Merriam-Webster’s Concise Dictionary of English Usage:
A flat adverb is an adverb that has the same form as its
related adjective: fast in “drive fast,” slow in “go slow,” sure in
“you sure fooled me, ” bright in “the moon is shining bright,” flat
in “she turned me down flat,” hard and right in “he hit the ball hard
but right at the shortstop.” Flat adverbs have been a problem for
grammarians and schoolmasters for a couple of centuries now, and more
recently usage writers have continued to wrestle with them.
Flat adverbs were more abundant and used in greater variety formerly
than they are now. They were used then as ordinary adverbs and as
intensifiers:
… commanding him incontinent to avoid out of his realm and to make
no war - Lord Berners, translation of Froissart’s Chronicles, 1523
… Iwas horrid angry, and would not go - Samuel Pepys, diary, 29 May
1667
… the weather was so violent hot - Daniel Defoe, Robinson Crusoe, 119
… the five ladies were monstrous fine - Jonathan Swift, Journal to
Stella, 6 Feb. 1712
… I will not be extreme bitter - William Wycherly, The Country
Wife, 1675
You would be hard pressed to find modern examples of these particular
uses.
Originally such adverbs had not been identical with adjectives; they
had been marked by case endings, but over the course of Middle
English the endings disappeared. The 18th-century grammarians, such
as Lowth 1762, explain how these words were adverbs. They saw them as
adjectives, and they considered it a grammatical mistake to use an
adjective for an adverb. They preferred adverbs ending in -ly.
Two centuries of chipping away by schoolmasters and grammarians has
reduced the number of flat adverbs in common use and has lowered the
status of quite a few others. Many continue in standard use, but most
of them compete with an -ly form. Bernstein 1971, for instance, list
such pairs as bad, badly; bright, brightly; close, closely; fair,
fairly; hard, hardly; loud, loudly; right, rightly; sharp, sharply;
tight, tightly. Many of these pairs have become differentiated, and
now the flat adverb fits in some expressions while the -ly adverb
goes in others. And a few flat adverbs - fast and soon, for instance
- have managed to survive as the only choice.
Thanks for the interesting post, John.
I would regard “coulda” as an error because it simply isn’t a word (nor is it a proper contraction). It’s a common change in daily speech because of the “d” sound (post-dental or alveolar) is so far from the “h” sound (glottal). The “a” added on (really a schwa) is a mid-central vowel, so it’s pretty easy to say coming from most types of sounds. That’s also the reason most non-stressed vowels are schwas. Rather than regarding it as an “error,” you could call it a linguistic change similar to the “d + y = j” phenomenon. The “j” sound is between the “d” and “y” sounds, so phrases like “Could you help me out” turn into “Couldja help me out.” Of course that doesn’t mean you can’t use “incorrect” speech, but that you should be aware of what is considered “proper” or “improper” and use the appropriate language. “Coulda” is fine when you are talking to a buddy, but I wouldn’t consider it acceptable in a presidential speech.
The “-ly” information in the MW dictionary is interesting. Obviously, grammarians found value in making an easy distinction between an adverb and an adjective, which definitely makes sense to me. “You should kill QUICK runners” means two entirely different things depending on whether it’s an adverb (”quickly kill runners”) or an adjective (”kill runners who are quick”). I’m not sure what the Middle English rules were as far as the juxtaposition of adverbs.
With as complex (and infinite) as English sentences can be, making easy distinctions based on suffixes is extremely valuable. Many languages rely heavily on affixes (such as Turkish), but much of English is still context-based. We use “-ing” for gerunds, but it can also be the present tense (”Skiing is fun” compared to “I am skiing”) and combining it with auxiliary verbs can make it different still (”I was skiing”).
Your post brings up the point that I should have been more specific when talking about the adverbs. Adverbs don’t always need “-ly,” but, in many cases, it is considered more proper/formal. In general, if adding the “-ly” suffix sounds right, that’s the better way to go.
I guess I’m confused about what you’re talking about. If you’re talking about formal speech and writing, then fair enough.
However “coulda” might be inappropriate in a presidential speech, as you say, but I can’t see how you can call it an error in everyday speech. It’s completely normal. It’s nothing to do with laziness or not pronouncing things. It’s simply how the words are pronounced.
This one comes from our tendency to use contractions for everything. It is so hard to say “I am†that we say “I’m.â€Â
It’s got nothing to do with difficulty or easiness. A contraction is the formation of a new word from two or more words. In English, the words are usually the pronoun, auxillary, and negative. Contractions are restricted to a specific morphological and syntactic environments. We don’t write things like
*th’other side’f the subject
*It’s considered’nformal (and’ncorrect by some) to’se it as’n'dverb
We only form contractions in a restricted set of circumstances. We don’t just omit letters because we’re lazy. We follow rules. Why do we say it’s instead of ’tis? Why do we say won’t instead of wiln’t?
I suppose these English Language posts are meant to apply to formal and semi-formal communication, whether written or spoken. I’m sure it’s fine to put “I coulda called grandma tonight, but I didn’t have time” in a personal blog, but, when I see that in a “professional” blog, I tend to not return. Would you consider pronouncing “library” as “lie berry” incorrect? I would, but pronunciations that were originally “wrong” are quickly finding their way into dictionaries.
Shifts in the English language have occurred throughout history, the most famous of which would probably be the great vowel shift. You can hear the difference between “normal” American English and Southern English (ten becomes “teh-yen”), Northeastern English (coffee becomes “kwah-fee”), and British English (blouse becomes “blouz”).
What I meant by laziness was more along the lines of the “not strict” definition. It takes more energy to say “could have” than “coulda,” so we tend to use the easier version. That’s not the proper way to say it, but you still communicate what you are trying to get across, so it’s not really a concern for everyday communication. The point of these posts, however, is to educate people who are letting these informal communication tendencies slip into more formal writings (especially blogs). A lot of people do not realize that “could of tried” is incorrect, because that’s how it often sounds.
I’m in Canada, and all native speakers here say [kÊŠdv] or [kÊŠdÉ™]. It’s normal. I don’t see how it can possibly be “not the proper way to say it.”
It’s one thing to talk about spelling errors - of course you should probably write “could have” instead of “could of”. But it’s quite another thing to say that our normal way of talking is improper.
By “proper” I am going back to the “strict” definition that arose from the old use of “proper” specifically to describe the gentry. It isn’t strictly accurate to pronounce “have” as a schwa. It might be normal, but there are also regions in the US where “ain’t” is still prevalent. It is normal there, but I still would not consider it proper. I don’t think normality equates to proper. Classically, sitting up straight would be considered proper, but more people slouch, so does that make slouching “proper?” Is driving above the speed limit proper?
gentry?
You’re right that “could of” is a mistake, but it’s a mistake to say that the spelling is wrong because the pronunciation is wrong - there’s nothing wrong with the pronunciation.
You still haven’t provided any evidence as to why [kÊŠdv] or [kÊŠdÉ™] are anything other than completely normal.
We shouldn’t rely on spelling as a guide to pronunciation. “have” is sometimes [hæv] but it’s very often [É™] or [v], even in careful pronunciation - in my experience.
eg the conjuction “that” is almost always pronounced [ðət], very seldom [ðæt]. [ðæt] is the demonstrative, as in “that book is mine.”
ok, you do say it’s normal, but you claim it’s not formal. I’m not convinced that [kÊŠdv] or [kÊŠdÉ™] are not used in formal speech. But I’m not familiar with the evidence.
In any case, my point is: You’re right that “could of†is a mistake, but it’s a mistake to say that the spelling is wrong because the pronunciation is wrong - there’s nothing wrong with the pronunciation.
Well, let me ask you this: At what point is pronunciation incorrect? If someone were to pronounce your name like “Joan,” would you correct that person? That’s less of a change than “have” to “of” is.
The other point is that if people are writing it as “could of” that means when they are pronouncing it, they don’t mean “could have” they mean “could of.”
What makes a “correct” usage is quite complicated. Two factors that make something correct is whether its intended audience comprehends it, and whether it conforms to the norms of usage. Pronouncing my name like “Joan” is incorrect because that is not how speakers pronounce “John”. If someone calls me “Joan” I might not understand. Furthermore, no one is going to call me “Joan” in the first place for those reasons, so it doesn’t make sense to compare this to [kÊŠdv], which people actually do say.
On the other hand, everyone pronounces “could have” as [kÊŠdv] or [kÊŠdÉ™] in normal speech. This is what people expect to hear, and it is what people say. It conforms to the norms of usage, and there is no breakdown in communication.
You seem to be saying that when people write “could of” or say [kÊŠdv], they don’t actually mean “could have,” they mean “could of.” This is a strange thing to say. I don’t think anyone is confused about the usage of the preposition “of” and the auxillary verb “have”. Everyone knows how they are used. If they didn’t, they might say or write things like “the meaning have life” or “the end have the day”, when they mean “of”, and I don’t think anyone does that.
What’s happening is that they’re writing “of” instead of “have” in this specific environment, and this makes sense, since “have” in this environment is pronounced almost exactly like “of”. I’m not saying that makes it right, I’m just saying that it’s a trivial respelling based on pronunciation, and not the result of confusion over verbs and prepositions.
My point in “John/Joan” is that someone who doesn’t know that name specifically and is just learning English might pronounce it incorrectly (”oh” being pronounced like the “oa” in “Joan”). When you say “everyone” pronounces “could have” a certain way, you mean people who are very familiar with the language. It’s also context-based. If you were testifying in court and the prosecutor asked, “Could you or could you not have done X.” A reply of “I could have” would likely be properly articulated. Do you ever say “…could not É™ done that…” or “…could you É™ done that…?” Two sentences together (”I could. Of the three people, I was the only one who could.”) can make the distinction more important (thus, we would probably be sure to pause between sentences, where other cases would not require as long of a pause).
My point isn’t that people are using “have” where they should use “of,” but that they are writing “could of” rather than “could have.” If they truly understood the difference, they wouldn’t be doing it. I’m sure if you search for “could of” in quotes in Google or another search engine you’ll see many pages explaining that it is incorrect to write, but also many people actually writing it that way.
You say that it “makes sense” and that they mean “have” but write “of.” That’s partly hitting on the point. People think they hear “of” when they are hearing a less articulated version of “have.” Writing “of” means they don’t understand that it is incorrect. It’s similar to people writing “half to” as in “I have to do X.” Fortunately, that’s a much less common mistake and, I think, illustrates that in the “have to” case, people realize the function “have” is playing in the sentence. If people fully understood that it is an auxiliary verb, these two mistakes would be closer to equally frequent.
Of course I’m talking about native speakers. The native speaker population makes the rules.
You’re right that if students were explicitly taught about auxillary verbs they might not write “could of”. But it seemed to me that you were confusing this sensible advice with the mistaken belief that native speakers are not pronouncing “have” correctly.
Well, you can go back to what I said before about the pronunciation: “Rather than regarding it as an ‘error,’ you could call it a linguistic change…” Either way, the point is more that the pronunciation “kÊŠdv” is sometimes written as “could of,” which is incorrect, than whether that pronunciation is correct. Whether you want to call “kÊŠdv” “incorrect,” “informal,” or “just right” depends on your stance. Is it correct because a large number of people do it? Does that mean saying “like” every few words is correct or adding “you know” at the end of each phrase is correct? Is saying “um” every few words correct in a speech?
According to Merriam-Webster’s Concise Dictionary of English Usage, “aren’t I” first appeared in writing in the early 20th century. It’s a British spelling pronunciation for “an’t I”, which used to be a widespread form. British speakers don’t pronounce the “r”, but American writers didn’t understand the reason for the spelling and saw “aren’t I” as completely incorrect.