"of" for "have" in "would have" constructions

[Dennis R. Preston]

Funny. I'd call it a stage in the history of the language.

dInIs

>"would have" => "would've" => would of"
>
>I'd call it poor comprehension.
>
>
>
>
>
>--- Amy West <medievalist at W-STS.COM> wrote:
>
>>  I just spotted this substitution of "of" for "have"
>>  in a "would have"
>>  construction in a freshman comp. paper. This is
>>  probably a
>>  Linguistics 101-worthy question: what process is
>>  causing this
>>  subsitution/use of "of"? Faulty reanalysis? Is it an
>>  eggcorn?
>>
>>  ---Amy West
>>
>
>
>James D. SMITH                 |If history teaches anything
>South SLC, UT                  |it is that we will be sued
>jsmithjamessmith at yahoo.com     |whether we act quickly and decisively
>                                |or slowly and cautiously.
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.
>http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/


--
Dennis R. Preston
University Distinguished Professor
Department of English
Morrill Hall 15-C
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1036 USA
Office: (517) 353-4736
Fax: (517) 353-3755