Why do some Americanisms irritate people? 9

[Annihilannic]

Actually, I think that one is just another wrongism which occurs when people intend to say "had've" as a contraction of "had have".

"If I had of seen it in time I'd of jumped out've the way!"

Annihilannic.

 

[BadBigBen]

CC,

"I gar-on-tee" that that looks scrumptious... ;-)

Ben
"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."
How to ask a question, when posting them to a professional forum.
Only ask questions with yes/no answers if you want "yes" or "no"

 

[CajunCenturion]

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something. - Plato

 

[SantaMufasa]

If I had of seen it in time I'd of jumped out've the way!

Even then, I believe that grammatically it should be "...would have seen it...". I just cannot think of a correct use of "had have".

But, yes...the confusion between "have" and "of" aggravates me in significant ways: "would of", "should of", "could of", et cetera.

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
“People may forget what you say, but they will never forget how you made them feel.

 

[strongm]

> I believe that grammatically it should be "...would have seen it...".

"If I had seen it" or "If I were to have seen it

 

[SantaMufasa]

Strongm,

I totally agree with you. What I am asserting is that I cannot recall anyone ever trying to "pass off" the use of "had have" in a sentence.

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
“People may forget what you say, but they will never forget how you made them feel.

 

[Annihilannic]

True. I can't think of a place where it would make sense either.

I do believe the use of "would" as part of a condition is incorrect, although widely used.

"If I would have seen it I would have jumped out of the way."

"would" should only be used to describe the behaviour dependent upon the condition.

Annihilannic.

 

[CajunCenturion]

In keeping with the last few posts, it is a common grammatical error to use the wrong verb form when using an if-then statement to talk about things that did not happen in the past. You should always use the past perfect form in the if clause and the conditional perfect form in the then clause.
If <past perfect> then <conditional perfect>.
The <past perfect> is "had" plus a past participle, and the <conditional perfect> is "would have" plus a past participle.
If I had seen it, then I would have jumped out of the way.

==> I cannot recall anyone ever trying to "pass off" the use of "had have" in a sentence.
Me neither.




--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something. - Plato

 

[N1GHTEYES]

Sometime soon, somebody is bound to crack and post the following link. I suppose it might as well be me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_...ad_had_had_had_a_better_effect_on_the_teacher

Tony

 

[hjgoldstein]

It seems to be another symptom of slothful speech - "Shoulda Coulda Woulda..."

It is time for pacifists to stand up and fight for their beliefs.

 

[CajunCenturion]

As a New Orleans Saints fan, I have a certain affinity for the "Shoulda Coulda Woulda..." phrase.


--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something. - Plato

 

[djj55]

Thank you Nighteyes. I "had" thought of that, as I first saw it in a magazine in the 1980's. I did not know it was an actual "English sentence used to demonstrate lexical ambiguity and the necessity of punctuation".

djj
The Lord is my shepherd (Psalm 23) - I need someone to lead me!

 

[sleipnir214]

Okay, that does it. I'm invoking that mad Welshman, Jasper Fforde. This is from one of his fourth "Thursday Next" novel, The Well of Lost Plots. If you like book- and grammar-related humor and puns but have not read Fforde, you're missing out on quite a lot of fun. With apologies in advance to Mr Fforde should I get the italics wrong.

'Good. Item seven. The had had and that that problem. Lady Cavendish, weren't you working on this?'

Lady Cavendish stood up and gathered her thoughts. . . . 'It's mostly an unlicensed usage problem. At the last count David Copperfield alone had had had had sixty-three times, all but ten unapproved. Pilgrim's Progress may also be a problem owing to its had had / that that ratio.'

'So what's the problem in Progress?'

'That that had that that ten times but had had had had only thrice. Increased had had usage had had to be overlooked but not if the number exceeds that that that usage.'

'Hmm,' said the Bellman. 'I thought had had had had TGC's approval for use in Dickens? What's the problem?'

'Take the first had had and that that in the book by way of example,' explained Lady Cavendish. 'You would have thought that that first had had had had good occasion to be seen as had, had you not? Had had had approval but had had had not; equally it is true to say that that that that had had approval but that that other that that had not.'

'So the problem with that other that that was that--?

'That that other--other that that had had approval.'

'Okay,' said the Bellman, whose head was in danger of falling apart like a chocolate orange, 'let me get this straight: David Copperfield, unlike Pilgrim's Progress, which had had had, had had had had. Had had had had TGC's approval?'

There was a very long pause.

'Right,' said the Bellman with a sigh.

Want to ask the best questions? Read Eric S. Raymond's essay "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way". TANSTAAFL!

 

[1DMF]

Zulu is about the remarkable victory of a small British force at Rorke's Drift

ok, I thionk it is quite clear we will have to agree to disagree!

Victory, I haven't laughed so much in ages!

"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you."

"If a shortcut was meant to be easy, it wouldn't be a shortcut, it would be the way!"

Google Rank Extractor -> Perl beta with FusionCharts

 

[IPGuru]

Then How would you Describe it?

The simple fact was the Zulus attacked the mission statement & were held of by a small force of soldiers. (admittedly the Film exaggerates the quality of the Zulu force somewhat)

The Zulus decided to disengage, this is normally considered a victory for the defending side.

this is why the Battle of Britain is considered a British victory although it was not necessarily a decisive defeat for the Germans.


I do not Have A.D.D. im just easily, Hey look a Squirrel!

 

[1DMF]

If you watch Zulu Dawn where the REAL battle took place the British were anihilated, not as popular a film , but it shows the real truth about the British anihilation on that day!

Rouke's drift was a small outpost, and the Zulu's gave respect to those who fought hard as warriors and so let them live.

Deciding not to kill your enemy is not your enemy having a victory!

Showing respect and compassion to brave soldiers does not mean you lost and they won.

My definition of a victory is clearly not the same as others, so we shall just leave it here.

just like USA war of independence, the British government decided to not fight as we had bigger, more important fish to fry i.e. the French & Spanish, when the British wished to fight the USA, in the second war of independece in 1812 USA LOST! Washington was overrun and the whitehouse was torched, that's why they now paint it white, to cover up the burn marks!

USA thought they would liberate Canada only the Candians didn't want to be liberated!

It is quite clear that some people's interpretation of 'victory' is not mine. I have accepted I was wrong thinking the British lost the Boer war, due to the fact I am fully aware of the beating we took by the colonies / German / French / Dutch and Zulu's, but I will never accept USA won the war of independence or Rouke's drift was a 'victory', there may have been survivors but they were far from victorious!



"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you."

"If a shortcut was meant to be easy, it wouldn't be a shortcut, it would be the way!"

Google Rank Extractor -> Perl beta with FusionCharts

 

[1DMF]

oh and on the other point of WWII, not all Germans even surrendered when pressed, the Hitler Youth, fought to the bitter end! - Nazi Germay was beaten.

I find it rather interesting the gulf between some people's interpretaions of victory / defeat & surrender!

"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you."

"If a shortcut was meant to be easy, it wouldn't be a shortcut, it would be the way!"

Google Rank Extractor -> Perl beta with FusionCharts

 

[IPGuru]

My other point was the battle of Britain not WWII as a whole
where the Germans decided to cancel the invasion of Britain because they thought did not think they had Air supremacy, by your definition this was not a victory.

I would also add that a number of people who were around at the time would consider the Battle of Britain as the worlds most successful confidence trick as the Germans would have had a walkover if they had chosen to invade. my late grandfather was on coastal patrol at the time armed with the latest in secret anti tank weaponry - A pick axe handle.

Orders given at the time were:-
"if you think you see something throw a green flare. if you know you have seen something throw a red flare. if you see a read flare RUN LIKE F**K!"

I do not Have A.D.D. im just easily, Hey look a Squirrel!

 

[strongm]

Goodness, yet again

a) you move the goal posts
b) you redefine things to suit your own personal interpretation

>If you watch Zulu Dawn where the REAL battle took place the British were anihilated, not as popular a film , but it shows the real truth about the British anihilation on that day!

Nobody disagreed that Zulu Dawn showed a defeat, the Battle of Isandhlwana. The issue was about claiming Rorke's Drift showed a defeat

>the Zulu's gave respect to those who fought hard as warriors and so let them live

Oh dear - you seem to have decided that what the film is an accurate historical document. It isn't. No wonder you are confused. The Zulus fled the battle in the aerly hours of the morning after failing to defeat the defenders and suffering hundreds of deaths and hundreds more wounded, whilst the British suffered only 17 deaths. They did not salute the brave defenders and let them live. This is a myth (and one the film is perhaps to blame for), no matter how much you wish it to have been the case.

>My definition of a victory is clearly not the same as others

The tactical objectives for the British at Rorkes' Drift were to hold the mission and beat off the Zulus. The Zulu objective was to take the mission. The British achieved their objectives, the Zulus failed in theirs. This is one of the things we call a victory.

>in the second war of independece in 1812 USA LOST

Oh, for goodness sake ...

>that's why they now paint it white, to cover up the burn marks!

Oh dear

>USA thought they would liberate Canada

Nope. The idea that the USA intended to liberate Canada has been pretty much debunked. The goal, once the war was started, was to annexe Canada in order to strangle British trade routes, thus forcing the Brits to surrender or at least come to the negotiation table to address the issues that had actually started the war, rather than being a direct war aim in itself.

>I will never accept USA won the war of independence

What colour is the sky on your planet?

 

[1DMF]

OIC, yes of course the air battle of 1940 was a victory for the Brits.

We were talking about 1945 and the end of the war in Europe where the Germans suposedly 'surrendered'. Nazi Germany NEVER surrendered, I'm not sure some people realise that not all Germans were Nazis, some were decent, honest soldiers who were simply following orders and knew the consequenses of failure to do so.

As soon as some saw the allies comming and had the opportunity to surrender , they did, they were just as appauled by what the Nazis were up to, and jumped at the chance to get out with their lives!

But there are plenty of missrepresented battles throughout the war, take Arnhem - a bridge too far. Monty was critisized and it was considred a blunder and defeat by USA's Eisenhower, just because we lost 8,000 men (roughly killed or captured), so he ended up having to give control to Eisenhower, who then dug in and cost the allies 100,000 men (wounded or killed) during the battle of the bulge... so you tell me who's strategy was best and which battle was actually a loss / victory?

Unfortunately these things are rarley black and white!

And as you say the home guard was actually a joke, but properganda and miss information has always played a big role in warefare and controlling / brain washing the people to fight for your cause.





"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you."

"If a shortcut was meant to be easy, it wouldn't be a shortcut, it would be the way!"

Google Rank Extractor -> Perl beta with FusionCharts