We all know grammar Nazis. What incorrect grammar are you completely in defence of?
We all know grammar Nazis. What incorrect grammar are you completely in defence of?
As in, doesn't matter at all to you.
You're viewing a single thread.
133 comments
-
I don't know if shouldn't've is grammatically correct but I hear it a lot so it seems like fair play. Same for other contractions that I never see in text, possibly because they're wrong. Because've. He'd've.
Also like I'ma which can't possibly be ok, but "I am going to" is for suckers.
-
Would've: fine. Would have: fine. Would of: me go mental! Why do people do this?! Argh!
-
I will accept "would ve" before "would of"
-
Agreed. I enjoy that I confused "because of" with "because have" in my own example tho
-
-
Don't confuse dialectal differences with bad grammar, please.
-
-
I like y'all're
-
Y'all'd've (YAWL-duh if your drawl is heavy enough): You all would have
-
Good effort, let's make it bigger: y'all'd'nt've
-
-
-
Because have? When and how has that ever been used?
-
Hah! I mightn't've thought enough about that example, probably because of a lack of sleep.
-
-
I think double contractions are cool. Maybe unnecessary, but cool and reflect real-world speech.
If I may also propose some triple contraction abominations: I'dn't've (I would not have), he'dn't've (he would not have), she'dn't've (she would not have), etc.
-
133 comments