when state lines move

[grodney]

Semi-interesting, semi-map-related story about the NC/SC state line being refined, and thus moving about 150 feet in some areas. This has probably happened with some frequency through the years, but this one seems pretty late in the game to me.

Anyway, as the article says, the impacts to the homeowners and business-owners is a bureaucratic nightmare. Although a commission is "expected to work on proposals they hope will be passed in each state to grandfather in where landowners send their children to school, forgive them for back taxes they may owe and allow utilities to cross state lines to serve customers without disruption."

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/0 ... folks.html

[skullturfq]

Minutes from where I live is a small region that was disputed until 1921 when it was given to Delaware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wedge_%28border%29

[Paucle]

From Grodney's link:

It’s all about saving money, right?” Taule said. “If this place had
North Carolina prices, I’d of just waved and passed right by.”

Oy. Newspapers just don't care anymore, do they?

[TheConfessor]

From Grodney's link:

It’s all about saving money, right?” Taule said. “If this place had
North Carolina prices, I’d of just waved and passed right by.”

Oy. Newspapers just don't care anymore, do they?

Maybe the quote was accurate. Since it was spoken, it's hard to know for sure. But I feel your pain and was also appalled.

[Paucle]

No sale. They sound exactly alike. So it should be presented accurately. Even if the speaker "saw" himself saying "of," the reporter should've gotten it right. (Otherwise, when a teen says out loud "If you're a loser, then your friends, they're losers too," the modern reporter would have to transcribe that into his story as "f your a looser than you're freind's their looser's to."

In Robert Bloch's The Kidnappers, the entire book is written that way, not a single `ve in the entire novel. Both the prose and the dialogue! When I pointed the error out to my English teacher, she was bothered by the ones in prose, but said the same thing you did re: the quotes. "Maybe he was using that as a type of vocal style."
But I don't get it: if they said "of," then they said "`ve." There's absolutely no difference in the sound. The only time it should be "accurate" in print is when a character's written note is being presented verbatim, and the character made the error in their presentation.

[Muskrat]

No sale. They sound exactly alike. So it should be presented accurately. Even if the speaker "saw" himself saying "of," the reporter should've gotten it right. (Otherwise, when a teen says out loud "If you're a loser, then your friends, they're losers too," the modern reporter would have to transcribe that into his story as "f your a looser than you're freind's their looser's to."

In Robert Bloch's The Kidnappers, the entire book is written that way, not a single `ve in the entire novel. Both the prose and the dialogue! When I pointed the error out to my English teacher, she was bothered by the ones in prose, but said the same thing you did re: the quotes. "Maybe he was using that as a type of vocal style."
But I don't get it: if they said "of," then they said "`ve." There's absolutely no difference in the sound. The only time it should be "accurate" in print is when a character's written note is being presented verbatim, and the character made the error in their presentation.

But it's not necessarily a spelling error. The deliberate (however incorrect) use of "would of" instead of "would have" is common enough that it's entirely possible that the speaker, if asked to write his words out, would have written "would of." Maybe particularly so in that region. In which case the reporter was correct.

[Paucle]

Guess we have to agree to disagree. The reporter was given a quote. The witness said "I'd've just waved," and we know he said it exactly that way (not "I'd have"), because that's how the reporter phonetically spelled it. I find it hard to believe the writer knew it was properly "I'd've" but realized that the speaker totally meant "I'd of" so he wrote that instead. Or perhaps he was very diligent in taking his notes and actually asked him afterwards if he had used the helping verb contraction, or "of"? Now that's "getting it right" reporting!

So Muskrat, if you're of the school that quotes should be written according to the speaker's vision of how they're spelling them as they roll past their tongues, you'd be okay with my other example (in green)?

[Muskrat]

Guess we have to agree to disagree. The reporter was given a quote. The witness said "I'd've just waved," and we know he said it exactly that way (not "I'd have"), because that's how the reporter phonetically spelled it. I find it hard to believe the writer knew it was properly "I'd've" but realized that the speaker totally meant "I'd of" so he wrote that instead. Or perhaps he was very diligent in taking his notes and actually asked him afterwards if he had used the helping verb contraction, or "of"? Now that's "getting it right" reporting!

So Muskrat, if you're of the school that quotes should be written according to the speaker's vision of how they're spelling them as they roll past their tongues, you'd be okay with my other example (in green)?

Well, no, because as I said there's a difference between spelling and word choice. When you say "I find it hard to believe the writer knew it was properly "I'd've" but realized that the speaker totally meant "I'd of" so he wrote that instead." I reserve the possibility that in fact he did exactly that, based on local usage customs. Local dialects encompass a wide variety of oddball usages, and a good local reporter knows what he hears. I would be glad to settle this issue with a joint field trip tot he swampy parts of the North Carolina-South Carolina border; the barbecue alone would be worth the trip.

[marpocky]

Guess we have to agree to disagree. The reporter was given a quote. The witness said "I'd've just waved," and we know he said it exactly that way (not "I'd have"), because that's how the reporter phonetically spelled it. I find it hard to believe the writer knew it was properly "I'd've" but realized that the speaker totally meant "I'd of" so he wrote that instead. Or perhaps he was very diligent in taking his notes and actually asked him afterwards if he had used the helping verb contraction, or "of"? Now that's "getting it right" reporting!

So Muskrat, if you're of the school that quotes should be written according to the speaker's vision of how they're spelling them as they roll past their tongues, you'd be okay with my other example (in green)?

Well, no, because as I said there's a difference between spelling and word choice. When you say "I find it hard to believe the writer knew it was properly "I'd've" but realized that the speaker totally meant "I'd of" so he wrote that instead." I reserve the possibility that in fact he did exactly that, based on local usage customs. Local dialects encompass a wide variety of oddball usages, and a good local reporter knows what he hears. I would be glad to settle this issue with a joint field trip tot he swampy parts of the North Carolina-South Carolina border; the barbecue alone would be worth the trip.

Even if your proposed scenario is accurate, it's an irresponsible and condescending assumption for the writer to make, especially when there is no phonetic difference. What the speaker said is properly spelled "I'd've", regardless of whether he knew it or not. If the writer intentionally wrote "I'd of" in an attempt to indicate that that's how the speaker would have written it, had they been writing, that's just unnecessarily mean and elitist, without being especially relevant to journalistic integrity. It's not a situation like, for instance, quoting someone as saying "s'pos'ta" (or however you would spell it) to more accurately convey the way they actually spoke.

[Muskrat]

I looked for the guy who wrote the article and found him on Twitter. (JSCollinsAP) Asked about this, he replied ""I'd of just ..." is the way he said it."I'd have" is grammatically correct, but you have to go with what is said." I followed up asking how they sounded different, but no reply yet. I'm comfortable with the idea that some people really mean to say "I would of" in place of "I would have." I can certainly see the argument for reporting that phrase as "I'd've" or "I'd have" but I can also see choosing "I'd of," especially if you can hear the difference between the 'o' and 'a' vowel sounds because of, e.g., a twangy a.

[Paucle]

"I'd've" and "I'd of" sound precisely, exactly, unequivocally alike.
If the reporter says the quote was the "I'd of" sound, then the proper way for the reporter to represent it is "I'd've."
One is grammatically correct, the other is not.

[grodney]

"I'd've" and "I'd of" sound precisely, exactly, unequivocally alike.

I don't know. Would you say the same for "would of" and "would've"? My Mom says "would of", and you can tell she's saying that. She also writes it that way, although I don't think that taints my opinion of what she's saying. (I'm not saying which way it should properly be quoted in the paper -- I'm just saying they sound different.)

[PhygLeGuy]

I would be glad to settle this issue with a joint field trip tot he swampy parts of the North Carolina-South Carolina border; the barbecue alone would be worth the trip.

For dessert we could have Dove Bars in popular regional flavors: Shad Dove, Cod Dove, Wood Dove, and, if it's in season, Aye-Aye Dove.

[Cayuga]

"I'd've" and "I'd of" sound precisely, exactly, unequivocally alike.

Absolutely untrue.

Try this: "I'd." "Of."

Now this: "I'd … of."

They sound nothing like "I'd've."

Just this morning I poked fun at my wife (who's a writer and editor, and so knows better) because she said, "I should of done that," clearly enunciating the "of."

[skullturfq]

"I'd've" and "I'd of" sound precisely, exactly, unequivocally alike.

Absolutely untrue.

Try this: "I'd." "Of."

Now this: "I'd … of."

They sound nothing like "I'd've."

Just this morning I poked fun at my wife (who's a writer and editor, and so knows better) because she said, "I should of done that," clearly enunciating the "of."

We're probably beating a dead horse here, but I agree with Paucle. If we're talking about typical everyday speech, where people aren't singling out particular words for emphasis, then "I'd of" and "I'd've" would sound the same in any reasonably paced natural conversation.

With everyday speech in general, when you record people talking, and make a spectrogram of the sounds that they actually produce, you'll find that we don't enunciate individual words and sounds as much as we might think, and the boundaries between different words are not as distinct as we might think. (This is a topic that has come up from time to time on the Language Log website.)

EDIT: See for example here, which I hope people may find interesting whether or not they agree with me on the particular point of "I'd of"/"I'd've".

EDIT #2: I want to stress that the blurring of distinctions such as "I'd of"/"I'd've" (or "tsunami"/"sunami", or "handbag"/"hambag") is NOT something that only happens when people are "being sloppy"; these kinds of things in fact happen all the time, including in the speech of articulate people in formal or professional contexts.

[Paucle]

I'd've
I'd of.

Sounds the same to me.

But even if there is a minor quibble in delay/ pronunciation, by all means, let's intentionally misspell it to indicate such subtle distinctions. ("Did he say 'I'd've' or 'I'd of'? I don't care that the verb tense necessitated, 'I'd've,' I'm going to spell what I heard. Maybe I'll go with 'eye dove' to be really different.")

[Muskrat]

Hey, this issue made the New York Times! http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/us/th ... rs.html?hp It really must be important! Sadly, there is no mention of the linguistic intricacies of the changeover, although the barbecue issued is broached. Seriously, you cannot believe how good North Carolina barbecue is.

[Cayuga]

Really? You guys have never heard someone say "would of" or "could of" or "should of" and clearly enunciate both words? I'm astounded, because I've heard it dozens and dozens of times over the years.

[Paucle]

Really? You guys have never heard someone say "would of" or "could of" or "should of" and clearly enunciate both words? I'm astounded, because I've heard it dozens and dozens of times over the years.

If you're asking me if I've heard a separation between the conditional should and the helping verb contraction 've, yes, I have. But that doesn't morph 've into of.

If it's ok to spell it that way because it's what's heard, let's suppose you're interviewing someone with certain life-long speech tendencies and they say (in their down-home way), "And then he asked me who that was...." Well, let's make sure we get this exactly right! I hope I see in your article the next day...

N den he axed me whodat was.

[Paucle]

Hey, this issue made the New York Times! http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/us/th ... rs.html?hp It really must be important!.

No mention of President Jackson. Guess his state of birth shall remain a mystery.

[Cayuga]

Really? You guys have never heard someone say "would of" or "could of" or "should of" and clearly enunciate both words? I'm astounded, because I've heard it dozens and dozens of times over the years.

If you're asking me if I've heard a separation between the conditional should and the helping verb contraction 've, yes, I have. But that doesn't morph 've into of.

Well, that depends. If the person says, "Should … V," then you're right. But if the person puts a vowel sound in there, then by definition it is no longer a contraction; it has become "Should … of."

Millions and millions of people believe "should of" is correct, and express it that way in writing. Why can you not accept that some of them express it that way in speech as well?

[Momma Snider]

Millions and millions of people believe "should of" is correct, and express it that way in writing.



Exactly. Just as a lot of people think "I'm older THEN my sister" is correct. Doesn't make it correct, but it's appallingly common.
(Appallingly Common. That's the name of my next band.)

[marpocky]

Well, that depends. If the person says, "Should … V," then you're right. But if the person puts a vowel sound in there, then by definition it is no longer a contraction; it has become "Should … of."

Millions and millions of people believe "should of" is correct, and express it that way in writing. Why can you not accept that some of them express it that way in speech as well?

"Should've" can absolutely be pronounced as "should of" (and indeed, that's where the confusion comes from!). Think of it more as "should'ave", with the h in have getting swallowed and the a getting a schwa sound.

Momma Snider makes the perfect analogy. If someone says "older than my sister," thinking they are saying "older then my sister," I still think you have to spell it properly. Unless they (for some reason) specifically tell you what they meant, in which case, I guess put a "then", but also a (sic). Ditto with this "should've/should of" business. If you are absolutely certain they said "should of," and that they want to be quoted that way, then write it that way with a (sic). Without clearing that up though, you can't be certain that's what they said, and you should write it correctly.

I'm rather surprised that some of you are arguing a reporter should assume it's wrong and write it that way without comment. That just makes no sense to me.

[econgator]

I'm rather surprised that some of you are arguing a reporter should assume it's wrong and write it that way without comment. That just makes no sense to me.

qft

[Paucle]

I'm rather surprised that some of you are arguing a reporter should assume it's
wrong and write it that way without comment. That just makes no sense to me.

that.

Remember, "should/would/could of" isn't the end of the story. There's also usually a third word involved, that being the verb being helped.
've helps it. It's the contraction of "have," as in "should have written it properly."

of does nothing other than place a preposition where it doesn't belong, and steal a helping verb from written (have). More accurately, two, since "should written" makes no sense without "have" and the reader must now assume the "should" is a stand alone verb.