4 ms·

I'm pretty sure the construct <conditional modal verb> 'of' <past participle> is now accepted as grammatically correct, if not in "main" English (if such a thin

• notJim 13y ago
  It's a double contraction, the word “of” doesn't appear at all: who'd've (who would -> who'd, would have -> would've, who'd + would've -> who'd've)
• fingerfood 13y ago
  While you seem to admit that "main" English does not exist, you make the mistake of assuming that there is a "main" "accepted". Accepted by whom? The hordes on youtube or twitter certainly don't mind. And no, it is not part of an American dialect. An English litt. major could get reprimanded for using such spelling in their reports, even in America. It is a part of uneducated dialects all over the world.
• laureny 13y ago
  Do you have a recognized dictionary agreeing with you that you can cite? If not, you are wrong, simple as that. Using "of" instead of "have" in 2013 is a spelling mistake, period.
  • dllthomas 13y ago
    Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive. It is possible for something to be correct, and dictionaries to have simply not caught up (or for it to be correct within a subculture the dictionaries do not cover). I agree with you that the former is not the case for "of" in place of "'ve", nor the latter in any subculture I am familiar with although that could certainly be my own lack of exposure. Regardless, it is worth knowing that many people will see it as an error and likely judge you for it.