must of have??

Laurence Horn laurence.horn at YALE.EDU
Tue Jan 12 14:51:29 UTC 2010

At 3:25 AM -0500 1/12/10, Victor Steinbok wrote:
>I've seen "could/must have" and I've seen "could/must of"--I've even
>seen "could/must off". But I've never seen "must of have". Was this an
>accurate transcript or an editorial error resulting from trying to
>correct "must of"?

That's my take, an editing error.  The first version, I would guess,
had "must of", and in correcting it to "must have" the "of" was
inadvertently not removed. (And since these were oral remarks, the
problem was with the writer and subsequent error and not with
Paterson himself, if I'm right.) The repercussions are perhaps less
serious than those incurred by leaving the sponge in at the operation
site, but somewhat analogous.


>Paterson slams Reid comments
>>"I'm just saying that it's disturbing a lot of people *must of have*
>>seen this," Paterson continued during a question-and-answer period
>>after a speech to Family Planning Advocates. "It's a very intrusive
>>and kind of degrading remark, but it's one that was probably close to
>>a different kind of way of phrasing it which might have been acceptable."
>     VS-)
>The American Dialect Society -

The American Dialect Society -

More information about the Ads-l mailing list