Hadn't of said that?

Status
Not open for further replies.

abda2405

Senior Member
Russian
Hello there! I heard this on tv show "Friends", and I don't understand why "If you hadn't OF said that"? What's "of" doing there? It doesn't make any sense to me, I've searched the internet and I got nothing.. Maybe you could help me with this...
 
  • Scholiast

    Senior Member
    Greetings

    There must be previous threads on this one, but I just don't have the time or expertise to pursue them.

    This is lazy colloquial English (mostly BrE and AusE - Americans are usually more fastidious) development from "mustn't/shouldn't/can't HAVE said that". "Hadn't have..." is equally wrong in the context, but I'm afraid that is where we are with popular "culture".

    It's a bane for teachers of English in England, and has been for decades.

    Σ
     

    JustKate

    Senior Member
    One of two things is going on here. The most likely is that it's really 've - that is, it's the contracted form of have. In many dialects, including mine, 've and of sound exactly the same.

    The second possibility hinges on the fact that saying/writing of for 've is a common error. I am pretty sure this isn't an error the writers of Friends would make, because it isn't the sort of mistake professional writers make, but they could have included it deliberately, perhaps to sound colloquial, perhaps to indicate that the speaker isn't a terribly literate person.

    I know for a fact that we've had other threads on this, but I can't find a good one right at the moment. If I do, or someone else does, we'll post a link for you.

    (Cross-posted with... well, everybody.:) )
     
    Last edited:

    abda2405

    Senior Member
    Russian
    Well, it can't be 've contraction because that way it would be totally incorrect grammarwise! You can't say "I had have said that", "I had said that" would be correct. So I don't know what you're talking about.
     

    Chasint

    Senior Member
    English - England
    Well, it can't be 've contraction because that way it would be totally incorrect grammarwise! You can't say "I had have said that", "I had said that" would be correct. So I don't know what you're talking about.
    It is an error that has transferred from the equally incorrect 'should of'
    should of
     

    JustKate

    Senior Member
    abda2405 said:
    Well, it can't be 've contraction because that way it would be totally incorrect grammarwise! You can't say "I had have said that", "I had said that" would be correct. So I don't know what you're talking about.

    It's short for "If you had not have said that." That's perfectly grammatical:
    If you hadn't (had not) have said that, I wouldn't have believed it.
    If he hadn't
    (had not) have said that, I would have gone to the party.

    Those are both absolutely fine.
     
    Last edited:

    cyberpedant

    Senior Member
    English USA, Northeast, NYC
    There is a series of grammatical errors in the original quote, all of which are attributable to the character, not the writer. "Hadn't" should have been "shouldn't" and "of" as others have pointed out, is an incorrectly written representation of "ve," the contraction of "have."
     

    abda2405

    Senior Member
    Russian
    It's short for "If you had not have said that." That's perfectly grammatical:
    If you hadn't (had not) have said that, I wouldn't have believed it.
    If he hadn't
    (had not) have said that, I would have gone to the party.

    Those are both absolutely fine.

    If you had not HAVE said that is not grammatical EVEN A LITTLE.

    According to English grammar, Past Perfect (that's what it looks like) is formed the following way: subject + the verb have in the past form (had) + past participle, thus I hadn't HAVE is wrong, incorrect and shouldn't even be acceptable. I hadn't HAD is grammatically correct, since the participle form of the verb TO HAVE is HAD. You wouldn't say "I had do it before he came", would you? Well if you would then I don't know what to think. It should be "If I hadn't said that", not "If I hadn't have said that", that doesn't even make ANY sense.
     

    Andygc

    Senior Member
    British English
    Well, it can't be 've contraction because that way it would be totally incorrect grammarwise! You can't say "I had have said that", "I had said that" would be correct. So I don't know what you're talking about.
    We're talking about " 've" being pronounced "of".
    Your sentence was "If you hadn't OF said that"
    It becomes
    "If you had not have said that"
    It's a conditional sentence, so the unlikely
    "I had have said that" is not relevant. In any case, you can't expect people who use the non-existent verb "to of" to use flawless grammar - although there's nothing wrong with this one.

    "You have said that pigs will fly."
    "If you had not have said that pigs will fly, we would not have been out here looking at the sky."
     

    JustKate

    Senior Member
    If you had not HAVE said that is not grammatical EVEN A LITTLE.

    According to English grammar, Past Perfect (that's what it looks like) is formed the following way: subject + the verb have in the past form (had) + past participle, thus I hadn't HAVE is wrong, incorrect and shouldn't even be acceptable. I hadn't HAD is grammatically correct, since the participle form of the verb TO HAVE is HAD. You wouldn't say "I had do it before he came", would you? Well if you would then I don't know what to think.

    Yes, I would say "I had to do it before you came" (meaning "I had to have it done before you got here"). And I would also say, "If he hadn't have said that, I wouldn't have gone." That is absolutely grammatical, it makes perfect sense, and I stand by that.
     

    JustKate

    Senior Member
    Perhaps "idiomatic" is a better term than "grammatical." But I still stand by it. I'm not saying I'd use it in formal writing, but in casual conversation, I don't see anything wrong with it.
     

    sonorous

    Banned
    Polish
    It's short for "If you had not have said that." That's perfectly grammatical:
    If you hadn't (had not) have said that, I wouldn't have believed it.
    If he hadn't
    (had not) have said that, I would have gone to the party.

    Those are both absolutely fine.

    This is incorrect, Kate. Are you trying to invent a new English grammar structure?
     

    sonorous

    Banned
    Polish
    It's short for "If you had not have said that." That's perfectly grammatical:
    If you hadn't (had not) have said that, I wouldn't have believed it.
    If he hadn't
    (had not) have said that, I would have gone to the party.

    Those are both absolutely fine.

    Perhaps "idiomatic" is a better term than "grammatical." But I still stand by it. I'm not saying I'd use it in formal writing, but in casual conversation, I don't see anything wrong with it.
    It's simply wrong and ill-educated.
     

    abda2405

    Senior Member
    Russian
    Perhaps "idiomatic" is a better term than "grammatical." But I still stand by it. I'm not saying I'd use it in formal writing, but in casual conversation, I don't see anything wrong with it.

    What are you basing on? Please share your sources! You are being completely wrong. I can agree that it's an ERROR as others said. But I don't think it's grammatically correct, nor is it an idiomatic expression.
     

    JustKate

    Senior Member
    Abda2405, can you cite sources for idiomatic uses in your native language? "Hadn't have said that" is idiomatic - you may not like it, and others may not like it, but that doesn't change the simple fact that it is, indeed, used by native speakers, including ones that I believe you would consider educated. I don't really know what else to say.
     

    Scholiast

    Senior Member
    Greetings all

    JustKate (# 11):

    It's short for "If you had not have said that." That's perfectly grammatical:

    I note andygc's remarks, and more especially panjandrum's about things becoming "heated". I think JustKate is wrong, but I fervently hope that everything I have said in this Thread has been appropriately courteous.

    "If you had not have said that" is most certainly not conventional, idiomatic, grammatical or acceptable English, and were I an employer looking at an application containing these words I would discard it at once.

    Sincerely to all,

    Σ
     

    abda2405

    Senior Member
    Russian
    Greetings all

    JustKate (# 11):



    I note andygc's remarks, and more especially panjandrum's about things becoming "heated". I think JustKate is wrong, but I fervently hope that everything I have said in this Thread has been appropriately courteous.

    "If you had not have said that" is most certainly not conventional, idiomatic, grammatical or acceptable English, and were I an employer looking at an application containing these words I would discard it at once.

    Sincerely to all,

    Σ

    Thank you!
     

    abda2405

    Senior Member
    Russian
    Abda2405, can you cite sources for idiomatic uses in your native language? "Hadn't have said that" is idiomatic - you may not like it, and others may not like it, but that doesn't change the simple fact that it is, indeed, used by native speakers, including ones that I believe you would consider educated. I don't really know what else to say.

    Yes, I believe I can cite sources for idioms in my language. And I'll be glad to help you. Sorry for acting a little aggressive, I didn't mean to:).
     

    JustKate

    Senior Member
    Scholiast said:
    I note andygc's remarks, and more especially panjandrum's about things becoming "heated". I think JustKate is wrong, but I fervently hope that everything I have said in this Thread has been appropriately courteous.
    Scholiast said:
    "If you had not have said that" is most certainly not conventional, idiomatic, grammatical or acceptable English, and were I an employer looking at an application containing these words I would discard it at once.


    I might concede "conventional" and "grammatical" - although I still say it makes perfect sense - but I cannot concede the "idiomatic" part.

    But honestly, there are no hard feelings from me.
     

    sdgraham

    Senior Member
    USA English
    It's short for "If you had not have said that." That's perfectly grammatical:
    If you hadn't (had not) have said that, I wouldn't have believed it.
    If he hadn't
    (had not) have said that, I would have gone to the party.

    Those are both absolutely fine.

    Perhaps "idiomatic" is a better term than "grammatical." But I still stand by it. I'm not saying I'd use it in formal writing, but in casual conversation, I don't see anything wrong with it.


    Sorry :eek:, but none of the above would have survived my editor's red pen.

    "Casual speech" opens a Pandora's box of assaults on the English language - now don't it? :rolleyes:
     

    velisarius

    Senior Member
    British English (Sussex)
    It's a common construction in spoken British English.

    "If you hadn't have been there I might have drowned." It means the same as "If you hadn't been there I might have drowned."
    This article from the British newspaper Daily Mail quotes a deputy head-teacher: "If they hadn't have told me to get out..."..."If they hadn't have been there..."
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ritans-feared-carjackers-ordered-vehicle.html

    These are quite unremarkable colloquial verb forms, though when they are written with "of" - "If you hadn't of been there" - it looks decidedly non-standard and rather uneducated.
     

    JustKate

    Senior Member
    Sorry :eek:, but none of the above would have survived my editor's red pen.

    "Casual speech" opens a Pandora's box of assaults on the English language - now don't it? :rolleyes:

    It wouldn't survive my editor's red pen either. It might survive my ear, though (which is much less picky), depending on the circumstances.

    As for "casual speech," you are so right, my friend. But it really doesn't assault my ear. Sorry if that disappoints anybody, but it doesn't at all. It is as common in spoken AmE as it is in BE (thanks for the citations, velisarius), I am sure.
     

    abda2405

    Senior Member
    Russian
    It's a common construction in spoken British English.

    "If you hadn't have been there I might have drowned." It means the same as "If you hadn't been there I might have drowned."
    This article from the British newspaper Daily Mail quotes a deputy head-teacher: "If they hadn't have told me to get out..."..."If they hadn't have been there..."
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ritans-feared-carjackers-ordered-vehicle.html

    These are quite unremarkable colloquial verb forms, though when they are written with "of" - "If you hadn't of been there" - it looks decidedly non-standard and rather uneducated.
    Adding "have" there makes no sense at all, but what are you going to do... That's a language..
     

    Andygc

    Senior Member
    British English
    I still think it's arguable that it's grammatical as well as idiomatic. It's a very common construction, and it has several times been argued here that if something is very common it should be considered grammatical.

    "You said that pigs will fly."
    "If you had said that pigs will fly, we would be out here looking at the sky."
    "If you had not said that pigs will fly, we would not be out here looking at the sky."

    "You have said that pigs will fly."
    "If you had have said that pigs will fly, we would have been out here looking at the sky."
    "If you had not have said that pigs will fly, we would not have been out here looking at the sky."

    I think you could even argue for "If you had not had said that pigs will fly, .....", but I won't now.
     

    Einstein

    Senior Member
    UK, English
    I agree with those who say that hadn't have makes no sense at all. But let's look at the origin:

    If I had known, I'd have told you.

    This contracts to If I'd known...
    I'd known may seem too short compared with I'd have told, so some speakers insert an extra syllable:
    3) If I'd've known, I'd have told you. This already makes no sense, and it's not even clear whether it means If I would have known or If I had have known. Of course I would have known is a correct form in other contexts (though not generally after "if").

    A further problem arises when we make the negative, where we have to decide whether 'd means had or would - and so we get If I hadn't have known.
    I've heard If I'd have known plenty of times and maybe also If I hadn't've known. But those who think this sounds natural should ask themselves if also the positive sounds right when uncontracted: If I had have known...

    I certainly don't think so and I'll stick with If I'd known and If I hadn't known.

    Of course, saying of instead of 've is just a phonetic substitution (Raymond Chandler style), like their for they're.

    PS I don't agree at all with Andygc!
     

    panjandrum

    Lapsed Moderator
    English-Ireland (top end)
    This thread managed to work its way through to a reasonably amicable impasse at around post #33.
    It is, nevertheless, an impasse, and that is why I have closed the thread.

    If anyone has a startling new insight to offer, feel free to request that the thread be re-opened.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top