Yet more censorship

[SUNRAY]

Nonsense.

"Would of" is used daily.

Just because we know what is meant is no reason to continue using it.

Why not?
It now appears in dictionaries.

 

[JohnW2]

For what is worth ( and I cannot find images to prove it ) there was decades ago a type of plug that had semi-protected terminals for wires and supplied separately were covers which provided full protection from inquisitive or wandering fingers. Not intended for domestic use.

OK - but it was surely those separately-supplied covers (not the combination of them and the 'plug' itself) which might, back then, have reasonable been called a 'plug top' wasn't it?

We don't call (the entirety of) a saucepan with its lid a "lid", even if (as I understand is the case with some professional pans) the lid is supplied/bought separately, do we?

Kind Regards, John

 

[RandomGrinch]

We've tried that on a number of occasions in the past, and have essentially got nowhere.

Kind Regards, John

I don't know if this is going anywhere:

Hubbell's 1904, US patent for a plug and socket is listed as a 'Seperable attachment-plug'

What we call the socket is listed as the 'Base' and the plug is the 'Cap'

Link to patent here:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US774251

Also, in this advertisement; the 'Plug' in the 'Flush Attachment-Plug', refers to the socket!

"When connected, the cap only projects one half-inch above the surface of the plug..."

And

"The cap to our regular plug, now so universally adopted, can be used on this flush plug..."

George Knapp, working for Hubbell made a three pin version of the cap in 1915:

Not quite an explanation for a plug top. But it's as close as I can get to an explanation, in an evening!

...and if it's good enough for the inventors, I'm more than happy to call it a 'plug-cap' from now on

Sources:
https://www.plugsocketmuseum.nl/NorthAm3.html
https://connecticuthistory.org/first-us-detachable-electric-plug-today-in-history-november-8/

 

[EFLImpudence]

Referring to "would of":

Why not?
It now appears in dictionaries.

Does it?

If it does and is stated as anything other than a stupid mistake, then I would say it shows the inadequacy of the compilers and I suggest you stop using that dictionary.


https://www.stgeorges.co.uk/would-have-vs-would-of-in-english-grammar/
"WOULD OF

WOULD OF is NOT the same as WOULD HAVE
If you write WOULD OF in sentences like the examples above, it is a big grammatical mistake!
If you are taking an English test like IELTS or FCE and you write WOULD OF, you will definitely lose marks for grammar knowledge.

DO NOT write WOULD OF!!!"

 

[JohnW2]

Referring to "would of":

As we have often discussed, I personally don't think this is quite the same as many other issues of 'evolution of language' which we discuss. Rather, it seems to be a case of 'propagated sloppiness', aided (as you say) by grammatical/linguistic ignorance. I don't regard it as all that different from "dropping H's " [I know that apostrophe is grammatically incorrect, but I can't think of a better way of writing it! ]

I think you disagree, but my belief is that it has arisen from people hearing " would've " (an abbreviated version of "would have") and thinking that what they are hearing is a verbalisation of "would of".

I think it also differs is that it has in no way come into widespread use in written English. In terms of spoken English, it is often/usually impossible to tell what 'wording' is being used. When one hears something which sounds like " should [rhyming with 'wood'] - erv ", it is (particularly with some accents) essentially impossible to know whether they are verbalising " should've " or " should of ".

When it comes to written English, I would suggest that very few (other than those very grammatically/linguistically 'ignorant') would write "should of". In fact (increasingly true the more 'formal' the writing becomes) many would not even write " should've " - but, instead, would write the full version of "should have ".

The situation is more clear-cut in the case of 'linguistic purists' (like my late English teachers), since they would not usually accept/tolerate abbreviated versions like " should've " - and if someone verbalises the full " should have" (without 'dropping the H') it shouldn't be possible to think they are saying "should of".

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

In fact (increasingly true the more 'formal' the writing becomes) many would not even write " should've " - but, instead, would write the full version of "should have ".

I always do write 'should have'.
I do not accept 'should've' is an appropriate abbreviation as should be pronounced 'should ve' and people still pronounce the 'a'; with some actually pronouncing it as an 'o' leading to the stupid error.

If it must be written as an abbreviation then it should be written as "should'ave" with or without the 'e'; merely dropping the 'h' as people frequently do - but no other words are written with an apostrophe instead of the dropped 'h'.

 

[JohnW2]

I always do write 'should have'.

So do I (other than in very 'informal' writing) - and, as I said, I would imagine that the same is true for the vast majority of people. Indeed, it's only in fairly 'informal' writing that I would use any such abbreviations - hence (in more 'formal' writing) I probably wouldn't write the " it's " I've just typed (I regard forum posts as 'informal' writing ), nor things of the form ***n't, ***'ll, ***'re etc. etc.

I do not accept 'should've' is an appropriate abbreviation as should be pronounced 'should ve' and people still pronounce the 'a'; with some actually pronouncing it as an 'o' leading to the stupid error.

You may not 'accept' it, but you'll (i.e. "you will" !) very often see it written - and, indeed, I write such things myself (in 'informal' writing), and certainly use them widely in my spoken English - and the same with "would've", "could've", "might've" etc. One problem is that, as far as I am aware, none of these sorts of abbreviation are really 'officially recognised' (although dictionaries may 'document' them), so there are probably no 'rules'.

When I (as I often do) verbalise "should've" (or "would've", "could've", "might've" etc.), I make no attempt to verbalise the ('missing') "ha" and, although I do not deliberately verbalise an "o", I think I verbalise the last syllable as something like "erv" (or "erve"), which can easily sound like an "o".

I realise that some people do, but I would never pronounce the word as "should-av" (which 'stinks of a dropped H') - as I've said, it's always something like "should-erv".

If it must be written as an abbreviation then it should be written as "should'ave" with or without the 'e' ...

Interesting suggestions, but since I have never seen either of those done, I think you're onto a loser there!

... merely dropping the 'h' as people frequently do - but no other words are written with an apostrophe instead of the dropped 'h'.

As I said, I'm aware of no 'rules', but if an apostrophe is used to indicate the omission of, say, "o", "i", "a" or "wi", I don't see why it can't be used to indicate omission of "ha".

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I do not maintain there are any rules but surely even informal writing should represent what sounds are made.

As I said, I'm aware of no 'rules', but if an apostrophe is used to indicate the omission of, say, "o", "i", "a" or "wi", I don't see why it can't be used to indicate omission of "ha".

That's my point. The 'a' of the 'ha' is not omitted.

How ever they pronounce it, people say 'shouldav'.