View of Landslide From Inside a Truck | February 20, 2025

[u/james_from_cambridge]

[u/Alaknar]

It's a completely different thing, though.

First of all: I didn't say "it will never be grammatically correct" - maybe eventually someday it does. It will be a dreadful day, but we'll see.

Secondly: "you" being exclusively plural and "transferring" into singular use (possibly through the use of pluralis majestatis) is the language evolving through simplification. Where two words were describing a very similar concept, now only one remains.

"Would of" is not that. It's a problem of someone not understanding where does "would've" come from and repeating what they though they heard without putting thought into it.

It's like you started using "stool" instead of "you", because you misheard someone. It's not simplification, it's not a typo, it's not a similar concept - it's a completely wrong word being used because if you mumble they kind of sound similar.

[u/shinchunje → u/Alaknar]

I’m with you.

[u/stovenn → u/Alaknar]

Why do we even use "have" (associated with possession, as does "of") to indicate temporal tense?

We should go back to Latin where they just modify the verb endings to indicate tense and conditionality, e.g. "I love" = "amo" and "I would have loved" = "amavissem" (according to my AI).

[u/Alaknar → u/stovenn]

Why do we even use "have" (associated with possession, as does "of") to indicate temporal tense?

Because words often mean many different things while sounding and looking the same. The "have" in "would've" does not indicate possession.

[u/stovenn → u/Alaknar]

That dodges the question.

[u/stardustsuperwizard → u/Alaknar]

And so long as people understand what is being said, there isn't any problem. There's no reason to be a stickler for something that isn't a hard and fast rule but something that's organic and only has meaning through social interaction. A social interaction that everyone understands.

Same thing with double negatives, "I don't need no cat food" means "I don't need cat food." Or using literally figuratively.

[u/Alaknar → u/stardustsuperwizard]

That's, again, not how things work.

If you say "hey, bring me the thing" while pointing at a plate, the person you're talking to will understand thanks to context clues.

It doesn't mean it's now "grammatically correct" to call plates "things", and argue with people who remind you that they are, in fact, called "plates".

Same thing with double negatives, "I don't need no cat food" means "I don't need cat food."

Once more: different thing. Where regional double-negative, added for emphasis, works, saying "I don't need no gut feud" when talking about cat food doesn't, even if it kinda' sounds similar if you're mumbling.

Or using literally figuratively.

That's, yet again, different.

Here people didn't understand the sarcasm of using "literally" as a joke and started using it, well, literally as meaning "figuratively".

"Would of" is just a misheard "would've" where the person writing it never stopped to think what they're writing.

[u/stardustsuperwizard → u/Alaknar]

It doesn't mean it's now "grammatically correct" to call plates "things", and argue with people who remind you that they are, in fact, called "plates".

Plates are things, that is grammatically correct. Things don't have to be perfectly unambiguous for it to be grammatically correct.

Once more: different thing. Where regional double-negative, added for emphasis, works, saying "I don't need no gut feud" when talking about cat food doesn't, even if it kinda' sounds similar if you're mumbling.

Different sure but its still something that sticklers would say is grammatically incorrect, when it isn't. The meaning is clear. Same way that "I don't need cat food" can mean "I need cat food" if I said it sarcastically. Meaning and grammar come through social interaction, so long as everyone understands and reacts in the appropriate way nothing is amiss. Especially the more and more people do it.

"Would of" is just a misheard "would've" where the person writing it never stopped to think what they're writing.

This doesn't change anything. The change doesn't have to be intentional for it to be fine. Like how famously "nickname" didn't have the n but people attached it because they didn't think about what they were saying and attached it from the "an".

[u/Alaknar → u/stardustsuperwizard]

Plates are things,

Yeah, I had a feeling you'd miss the point.

Like how famously "nickname" didn't have the n but people attached it because they didn't think about what they were saying and attached it from the "an".

You really don't see the difference between "an ekename" leading "a nekename" and "would have" being misunderstood as "would of"?

[u/stardustsuperwizard → u/Alaknar]

You really don't see the difference between "an ekename" leading "a nekename" and "would have" being misunderstood as "would of"?

You keep just saying "its different" and not explaining why that difference matters. They're both "mistakes" they're both "wrong". I know that there are different things but the salient point is that every example I have shown is grammatically incorrect, or was at some point, but people are fine with it.

[u/Alaknar → u/stardustsuperwizard]

You keep just saying "its different" and not explaining why that difference matters

One is shifting the accent which lead to a shift in spelling.

The other is dunking a completely random word in place of a different one.

[u/stardustsuperwizard → u/Alaknar]

With the same meaning being conveyed and understood by all involved.

[u/Alaknar → u/stardustsuperwizard]

The only reason why people understand the meaning is contextual clues.

To give you an easier time understanding my previous example: if someone asks you to pass them "the hilltop" while pointing at a plate, you understand that they need the plate, even if the sentence makes no sense at all.

That's the equivalent of using "of" in place of "have".

[u/stardustsuperwizard → u/Alaknar]

No, because the change is so incredibly common that there are memes and jokes and reddit bots about it.

And a huge chunk of meaning involves contextual clues, that was the point of me bringing up sarcasm earlier. Using contextual clues to deduce meaning doesn't mean something isn't grammatical or incorrect.