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

[sagehen]

>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
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've seen the reverse of this mistake (or "stage," if it's that!)  in the
posts of a member of another listserv; i.e., "sort've" or "kind've" for
/sort of/ or /kind of/.
I may have (may've) mentioned this here before.  The writer appears to be
otherwise perfectly literate, in fact is a librarian, IIRC.
A. Murie

~@:>   ~@:>   ~@:>   ~@:>