Not where I come from. I say "didn't. Never heard "wouldn't" used this way that I can recall.
I don't say it is widespread or universal across the US. You often see would/wouldn't used in a non standard way in informal US usage - e.g. "If I would have (had) remembered to put out the garbage"
You don't know anything about American usages, obviously. Jesus . . . "If i would had remembered ? ! ? ! ?" Come on, you're just making this sh*t up as you go along.
Sometimes, I wish I wouldn't have to wear glasses or contact lenses.
Is this grammatically correct?
Yes, it is grammatically correct.
0 Replies
Jack of Hearts
1
Reply
Sat 16 Nov, 2013 02:42 pm
@three3nity,
Would not the word, "nor", be used to reflect the continuing negativity?
0 Replies
tsarstepan
1
Reply
Sat 16 Nov, 2013 02:46 pm
@Roberta,
Roberta wrote:
contrex wrote:
No. It is US colloquial. Replace "wouldn't" with "didn't" for standard English.
Not where I come from. I say "didn't. Never heard "wouldn't" used this way that I can recall.
Seconding this.
0 Replies
contrex
1
Reply
Sat 16 Nov, 2013 03:14 pm
One example forum post (that I linked to above, but maybe people don't want to click links...)
Hi world! Reformed grammar stickler and TESL teacher here.
My question is about one particular feature of spoken American English.
For want of a better word allow me to use the term "written form" (in place of some other words such as "standard" etc) to describe how I would write (say and teach) this sentence and "AE colloq" to refer to the other form often heard.
In a sentence explaining the likely results from a hypothetical situation in the past. (Yes grammarians, its called Conditional III/3rd Conditional)
WF: If I had known you were coming I would have made a bigger cake.
AE colloq: If I would have known you were coming I would have made a bigger cake.
I notice this almost exclusively in unscripted TV like folks on talk shows so I had written off this style in my mind to a slip of the tongue or well, er a gap in Education. But this morning I heard someone working on a Nasa mission (where I assume you need a Masters degree just to make the coffee) use the form. However at the same time I can't recall seeing it on scripted TV. So that makes me wonder whether it is still considered er "grammatically-challenged" to write it?
JTT, who revels in being as viscious and bad-mannered as he is supercilious.
Viscious... a lovely word. An apt blend of viscous - oozing and thick like phlegm or the faeces of a constipated sow, and vicious. Out of typos comes forth wisdom!
is what you said. How can anyone trust your judgment when you make such obvious errors?
Quote:
Explain how it isn't grammatical, Contrex.
The likelihood of Contrex showing up to address this or any language issue is about the same as a snowball's chance in hell. Maybe you'd like to pick up the slack for the English "teacher".
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace