[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 30 KB, 295x475, game.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1779373 No.1779373 [Reply] [Original]

>my bookface when "would of" not "would have" a fucking brazillion times in Game of Thrones

>> No.1779382
File: 37 KB, 355x445, jim-carrey.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1779382

>mfw I use "woulda".

>> No.1779381

>about to buy this book
>happen to come here and read this

Really? For fuck's sake.

>> No.1779418

>>1779382
"woulda" is colloquial and fine—it does not pretend to be the "correct" spelling
"would of" is not colloquial; it is an error in spelling masquerading as a dictionary phrase

>> No.1779454

Game of Thrones - not worth any readers time.

The author, however creative, sucks at de writingz.

>> No.1779463

>>1779418
I think you'll find it is colloquial and/or idiomatic. I mean, if you're going to use terms that point to subjective language use...

>> No.1779474

>>1779463
No one pronounces "would've" as "would of" but they do come close

And I never used "idiomatic." It would behoove you to recognize the difference between "colloquial" and "idiomatic," too. Beyond that, it is idiomatic, but it is not idiomatic to Game of Thrones' target readers—fantasy queers—or to baby boomer New Jerseyites like GRRM himself. It is just plain wrong in their coteries.

>> No.1779475

>implying language doesn't evolve

>implying would of is incorrect when speaking between friends

>implying GRRM isn't my bff

>> No.1779477

>caring whether shit is served on a silver platter or the floor

>> No.1779478

>>1779474
>No one pronounces "would've" as "would of" but they do come close
This is your counter to someone actually using "would of" as "would have" in SE? You realize you're saying the real life usage simply isn't real here, right?

>> No.1779480

>>1779474
(nor is "would of" idiomatic to the characters saying "would of" in Game of Thrones—high-born nobles)

>>1779475
A phrase is as correct as the purpose of use. There is nothing in game of thrones to suggest "would of" was intentionally chosen to reflect speech patterns (the characters are quite careful speakers with otherwise high levels of diction) or to accomplish any purpose. Deviation from the accepted usage is only correct if it is done with purpose—you break the rules only when you know why you do.

Here, it is sloppy guido editing.

tl;dr your post is baby's first book on grammatical relativism, FAGIT

>> No.1779485

>>1779478
I have no idea what "SE" means.

Also, it has been said many times that ASOFAI is intended to reflect medieval English society. So book usage is rightfully presumed to be analogous to something resembling medieval English modernized to make it more easily readable to American dumbshits.

>> No.1779486

>>1779480
>(nor is "would of" idiomatic to the characters saying "would of" in Game of Thrones—high-born nobles)
That would exactly be idiomatic, being to do with the individual and not social influence.

>> No.1779488

>>1779485
...Standard English.

>> No.1779489

>>1779486
>being to do with individual not society
You're confusing "idiomatic" with "idiosyncratic"
So please leave the discussion on grammatical deviation to the adults.

>> No.1779491

>>1779488
Well in that case, the reference to SE you make is irrelevant to the discussion, as the speakers of the books do not hail from America (assuming "SE" is your abbreviation of "standard American English" since there is no such thing as Standard English that spans the Atlantic)

>> No.1779492

>>1779489
Correction: not grammatical deviation, but orthographic deviation
Perhaps semantic deviation, if we're being forgiving

>> No.1779495

ITT a thick veiny cock pwns all your cunny

now exuse me while I go rejoin the adults in /sci/ you fucking twinky FAGIT

>> No.1779499

>>1779491
Standard English is simply shorthand for the formal dialect of English that is considered "correct" in some sense. There are regional variations, but one can refer universally to SE without any problems. "Would of" not being a part of that dialect (American or otherwise) doesn't make it incorrect in a language sense. You understand what is meant (which is why you know what to "correct" it to), which is all we can really ask of any utterance meant to communicate.

>> No.1779506

>>1779499


OHHHHHHHH SHIT

looks like Thick, Faggy got FUCKING OWNED.

>> No.1779513

>>1779506
Looks like not. Now go back to shlicking yourself over Twilight fnafiction.

>> No.1779510

>>1779499
That being said, a deviation that makes it more difficult to read a novel is a shitty deviation. In this case, any remotely educated reader (whom, we can presume safely, the author of the books is aiming to target—see the length and content of the books for more evidence) will be thrown off by "would of."

And come off your high horse; we all know everyone posting in this thread agrees with me thath "would of" is shoddy copyediting, and it's nigh indefensible to argue orthographic relativism to defend its usage in a book that prides itself on the use of "high" middle English updated to be more readable.

It's just too many GRRM bros on here for /lit/'s own good.

>> No.1779512

>>1779489
Not at all. In fact, both refer to a "special or unusual feature". As a metalinguistic term, it's usually used to denote any unexpected use or feature of language that can't be described in other ways, often features that are only present among individuals or small groups.

>> No.1779518

>>1779495
I tend to dislike tripfags, particularly the ones on /lit/

But,

you're okay

>> No.1779520

>>1779513

I would but i don't know what "fnafiction" is.

>> No.1779521

>>1779510
>That being said, a deviation that makes it more difficult to read a novel is a shitty deviation.
Maybe it's difficult to read for you, but I would think you're in the minority there. I also don't see how lack of reading comprehension equates to education.

>> No.1779523

>>1779512
Yeah, you're right, actually.

That being said, none of my points hinge on this, and you only win if "a group of really dumbfuck uneducated proles in the US use the phrase, therefore it's acceptable for a widely-read fantasy author to use it accidentally."

Because, let's face it, GRRM didn't choose "would of" because it was acceptable to him personally (it's not; he came of age decades before "would of" became even remotedly acceptable in society). He didn't choose it explicitly, either. Why would he choose "would of" and then go on with his modified middle English?

The truth is far simpler: Editor is a balllicker.

>> No.1779529

>>1779521
If you don't cringe when you read "would of" you're pleb as fuck.

>> No.1779534

>>1779523
>That being said, none of my points hinge on this, and you only win if "a group of really dumbfuck uneducated proles in the US use the phrase, therefore it's acceptable for a widely-read fantasy author to use it accidentally."
You are now aware it's a primary feature of British English dialects, particularly Estuary English.

>> No.1779536

>>1779529
>If you don't cringe when you read "pleb as fuck" you're pleb as fuck.
ftfy

>> No.1779539

>>1779521
It's not a lack of reading comprehension. It is a scientific fact (studies are done on this type of thing according to my writing professors) that deviations in spelling throw readers off and slow them down measurably, knocking them out of the fantasy (pardon the accidental pun) for moments.

This decreases enjoyment of the work.

If "would have" had been caught, it would have thrown NO one off, but would have afforded more pleasure to a group of readers (which I argue is large, while you argue is small).

I think above the age of 30, the group rises precipitously. The under-30s seem a lot more forgiving of—or even enamored by—"would of"

Same people who say
>let me get pacific
>it's a doggy dog world
>for all intensive purposes
etc.

I hope you'll agree with me that if GRRM had used these phrases in the novel, it would be acceptable to say they were shitty usages that debase the books.

>>1779520
You inadvertently bolster my point that misspellings make conveying a message more difficult. Thanks for that one. Also, you're an idiot for confounding the editing standards of a published novel and the editing standards of a post on the worst website in the fucking world.

>>1779518
Probably because I'm not usually a tripfag. After 7 years of anon, I decided to tripfag occasionally by being a boisterous, haughty asshole. It's fun.

I'm sure in a couple days, I'll tire of it and reanon myself.

>> No.1779538
File: 26 KB, 279x320, 1305520138660.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1779538

>>My face when a character walks past a cat while going through the secret walls of the Red Keep and said cat is briefly described as the same cat that Arya used to run after under Syrio Forel's training
>>Author remembered THAT DAMN CAT about 800 pages later.

>> No.1779546

>>1779534
>you are now aware that I live in London and no it's not.

>> No.1779551

>>1779539
>studies are done on this type of thing according to my writing professors
Highschool, eh?
>After 7 years of anon,
Ahahaha!

>> No.1779556

sure is ocd in here

>> No.1779558

>>1779546
>>you are now aware that I live in London and no it's not.
>Doesn't know Estuary exists across the UK
>Thinks is the only person here to live in London
And I live on the moon!

Seriously, get out more. People use would of, both in writing and talking, all the time.

>> No.1779564

>>1779551
>high school eh
No, graduate school.
>ahaha
Yeah, late 2003, fagit.

>>1779558
>people use "would of"
Not as a substitution for "would have." Well, NO EDUCATED PERSON does. And then see my arguments above for why this point matters to the discussion.

>> No.1779567

>>1779539

The only part of your post i agree with is that you are an asshole, not particularly boisterous or haughty, more effeminate and punctilious. But then you do live in London so i guess you're just another uppity noble wannabe.

>> No.1779581

>ITT: GRRM fanboys line up to have their anuses penetrated by a thick, veiny cock

Seriously, how can you even have an arguement with a guy by the pseudonym of Thick, Veiny?

>> No.1779585

>>1779581
>implying I've ever read any GRRM
I just like to post small comments that completely undermine long winded, stupid ones.

>> No.1779608

Is this for real?

Typical American's cannot into language.

>> No.1779655

>>1779585
>i like to post small comments that completely undermine my own thesis
You sure do accomplish that, man

>>1779608
Yes, it is for real. Americans have honestly started accepting "would of" as a valid and correct alternative for "would have"

The under-20 crowd even hands in ENGLISHH papers they expect to get As on using this phrase. When I was in grad school, I'd give them Fs the first time I saw this.

>> No.1779662

>>1779655

It's only a matter of time before we start to see 'diamond dozen' and the like.

>> No.1779664

>>1779662
FFFFFUUUUUU

>> No.1779667

>>1779655
>When I was in grad school, I'd give them Fs the first time I saw this.
>No longer in grad school
>Using American terms
facepalm.jpg

>> No.1779669

Is this actually worth reading?

Is any fantasy literature worth reading?

>> No.1779680

>>1779669

Fantasy is on a par with romance novels. Dredges at the bottom of the barrel.

>> No.1779710

>>1779680
Dredge the noun refers to the apparatus meant to dredge things.

I think you mean dregs? Or dross.

Those are right words.

>> No.1779715

>>1779710

Are you not a native English speaker? He obviously omitted the subject and that's the verb form of 'to dredge'. It's not technically correct to do in English, but it's often done in casual conversation.

>[It] dredges at the bottom of the barrel.

>> No.1779719

>>1779667
>using American terms
>implying no Americans live in London

>> No.1779722

>>1779669
It's one of the better fantasies I've read. However, I have a hard-on for political intrigue. West Wing was the most boner-inducing show I've ever watched.

>> No.1779723

>>1779715
In that case, "to dredge" does not take "at" as a preposition. It takes "the bottom..." as its DIRECT OBJECT. "dredges the bottom of the barrel" is what is correct

>> No.1779725

>>1779723

Yeah, you're right.

Still, it's the verb, not the noun.

>> No.1779737

I can't believe you faggots have sat here and argued about this without finding multiple examples of this happening in GoT. I'm willing to bet substantial amounts of internets that OP found it once and decided to make this thread. The phrase "had had" appears in The Hobbit at least twice, and it's still a defining piece of fantasy literature. Get over yourselves.

>> No.1779742

>>1779725
I mean, I guess technically it could dredge at the bottom. But in this case it seems silly. I guess "it dredges the deck of the sunken ship at the bottom"

Here it's more likely to have been a mistake in inserting "at" or an attempt to mask the error in using "dredge" instead of "dreg" (thhe latter I believe more likely)

>> No.1779765

>>1779373
"would of" is used instead of "would have" exactly twice in the whole novel, both occurrences were in informal speech. That's what Notepad finds, anyway.

>> No.1779774

>>1779737
But had had is correct. It's also not a phrase.

>> No.1779786

>>1779737
"had had" is correct English. The first in the series is auxiliary in nature, while the second is a synonym for "to possess" or "must"

He had had to run.
He had had two bottles.

These are correct sentences.

"would of" is wrong

>>1779765
Post the sentences. Regardless, informal speech in a book set in a fantasy medieval England should not ever employ "would of"

>> No.1779791

>>1779786
>should not ever
Either shouldn't ever or should never.

>> No.1779794

>>1779786
"They come and drank their fill and spilled the rest before they fired my roof, and they would of spilled my blood too, if they'd caught me."

They would of done the same for us, but the Sherrer holdfast's made of stone," Joss said."

>> No.1779796

I almost always prefer books to adaptations, but the HBO series is so good, I've never felt the need to read this one.

It sounds like that is the wiser thing to do.

>> No.1779797

>>1779786
Right, you're also the particular breed of faggot that thinks all fantasy takes place in medieval england because FIELDS and CASTLES and SWORDS.

>> No.1779801

>>1779794
To me that reads like an intentional usage, meant to express the speaker's lack of literacy.

OP are an faggot.

>> No.1779929

>>1779791
bzzt wrong
are you seriously dumb enough to suggest "not ever" is not correct English?!

you're so desperate to prove that "should of" is acceptable that you'd stoop to inventing rules

http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/quatrain-411-do-not-ever-let-anger/
>implying professional poets are wrong to say "not ever"

>> No.1779934

>>1779797
No, THE AUTHOR HIMSELF HAS SAID HE MODELED IT AFTER THE WARS OF THE FUCKING ROSES YOU FAGIT

>> No.1779998

>>1779929
Poetic language doesn't always use "correct" grammar, although in this case it's fine Anyway, the issue is with separating not from the active verb. It's equivalent to saying "Will not you do this" instead of "Will you not do this". All educated people know this.

>> No.1780002

>>1779934
>Authorial intent
When will you learn?

>> No.1780046

>>1779381
same here.

>> No.1780065

Never read this series, but the same author wrote Sandkings short story which is spectacular; it reminds me of Age of Empires where you get to play God. I read it every now and then.

>> No.1780185

Just checked, would of is used 2 times and both times by ''commoners''.

>> No.1780942

>>1779794
This is fucking hilarious and I want all /lit/izens to learn from it.

>OP claims wrong usage throughout the book
>people argue for ages over correct usage, presumably because they want to look smart
>turns out it actually appears twice in the book
>really, you trolled yourselves there

>> No.1780962

What? It only shows up in the dialogue of the lower class, pretty clearly meant to emulate their speech patterns.

>> No.1780971

Terry Pratchett, obviously not the most prestigious author, but still, uses "would of" a lot in similar places. It's just a way to add a level of realism and make dialogue read more like how it would be spoken. You wouldn't expect medieval peasants to have perfect grammar or to enunciate all their words correctly, so it's better than having them say "would have."

>> No.1781019
File: 5 KB, 280x312, 1295883021983.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1781019

>MFW he only uses this in direct speech between peasants and other uneducated people and the OP is a big faggot.

>> No.1781032

>>1781019
But no one actually pronounces it that way.
no u da faggot

>> No.1781052

>>1780971
It's okay in dialog, but not in prose.

>> No.1781060

>>1781032
a lot of people do pronounce it that way
>>1781052
and of course it's not okay in prose, that's retarded. nobody uses it in prose

>> No.1781085

i say
>would've
which kind of sounds like
>would of

>> No.1781090

>They have taken it
>Dey have taken it
>Dey've taken it
>Dave taken it