2 ms·
The reason English speakers understand it is because "I would have" when contracted to the maximum "I'd've" sounds like "I'd of". The fact that the two are effe
by barrkel 9y ago
The reason English speakers understand it is because "I would have" when contracted to the maximum "I'd've" sounds like "I'd of". The fact that the two are effective homonyms doesn't make both spellings right. Rather, the "of" variant just looks a little bit ignorant. Not much, just a little.
- lillesvin 9y agoYes, the fact that they sound very much alike is exactly what's seeping into the written language, and as any linguist (like myself) will tell you, the written language is not what drives linguistic evolution, it's the spoken language. Writing commonly lags way behind, ergo the spoken language drives evolution of the written one, not vice versa.
- barrkel 9y agoThere's only a difference in the written word. In the spoken word, it's still "I'd've".
- lillesvin 9y agoYes, that's what I'm saying. They're pronounced the exact same and now the written language is starting to exhibit that very thing.
- barrkel 9y agoThe language isn't changing along your suggested dimension of change. People have been misspelling homonyms since the beginning of the written word. Variance in homonym spelling decreases over time, though. "I'd of" is no more likely to supplant "I'd've" than "their" is "they're" - i.e. it's just a weak signal that someone is ignorant.