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

[Jonathan Lighter]

I'd modify that to "undergraduate level." I've seen plenty of exx.

  JL

"Dennis R. Preston" <preston at MSU.EDU> wrote:
  ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender: American Dialect Society
Poster: "Dennis R. Preston"

Subject: Re: "of" for "have" in "would have" constructions
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MW is clearly wrong. It shows up in a great deal of writing, even at
the college level.

dInIs


>It strikes me as one of those differences between the written and
>spoken language. I think the MW entry points out that it shows up in
>writing when dialect and dialogue are being shown. The only
>interesting thing about my example was that it wasn't in either of
>those contexts.
>
>Misanalysis. Reanalysis. Whatever you call it. I educate myself by
>reading this list since my one and only formal linguistics class was
>a million, billion years ago. Hence my query as to the underlying
>process.
>
>---Amy West
>
>>Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 14:10:40 -0500
>>From: "Dennis R. Preston"

>>Subject: Re: "of" for "have" in "would have" constructions
>>
>>Funny. I'd call it a stage in the history of the language.
>>
>>dInIs


--
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




---------------------------------
 Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less