Date   : Mon, 18 Aug 2008 07:58:38 +0100
From   : faz@... (neil f)
Subject: Master keyboard cables

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: bbc-micro-bounces+faz=nildram.co.uk@... 
> [mailto:bbc-micro-bounces+faz=nildram.co.uk@...
> ] On Behalf Of Jonathan Graham Harston
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 1:52 AM
> To: bbc-micro@...
> Subject: Re: [BBC-Micro] Master keyboard cables
> 
> > Message-ID: 
> > <d8834d20808160451w46d288e4o82a57a8c683b588b@...>
>  
> "Alex Taylor" wrote:
> > 2008/8/16 Mike Tomlinson <mike@...>:
> > > A grammar checker? The substitution of "of" for "have" is a 
> > > disgusting American abomination.
> > 
> > It makes no sense in American grammar either; it's simply caused by 
> > people spelling the phrase in a phonetic manner, and not actually
>  
> It's not even phonetic!
>  
> Could have could be written could av
> Could've could be written couldvv
>  
> There is no remote possible way for "have" to be phonectially 
> spelt as "of".

Yes, it's straight phonetic slurring, over time.

"Could have" becomes "could 'uv". 'Could 'uv' becomes "could of". Remember
spelling evolves from sounds, not the other way round.

-Neil F.