It is an error that has transferred from the equally incorrect 'should of'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.
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.
We're talking about " 've" being pronounced "of".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.
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'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.
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.
It's simply wrong and ill-educated.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.
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 short for "If you had not have said that." That's perfectly grammatical:
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
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 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.
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, 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?![]()
Adding "have" there makes no sense at all, but what are you going to do... That's a language..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..