GENBRIT-L ArchivesArchiver > GENBRIT > 2005-07 > 1122239759
From: Charles Ellson <>
Subject: Re: Need Birth/Death reference 1940's - JACKSON
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:15:59 +0100
References: <00e501c58f84$d12b2d50$eb4f8b90@lindahardy> <20050723190721.2674B8BCD2C@smtp2.freeola.net> <KYJEe.23156$Pf3.firstname.lastname@example.org> <+sVQ90JKY34CFwHG@cedarbank81.fsnet.co.uk> <N6SEe.6375$dN6.email@example.com>
yyOn Sun, 24 Jul 2005 19:38:21 GMT, "C Rihan"
>"Jenny M Benson" <> wrote in message
>> In message <KYJEe.23156$>, C Rihan
>> <> writes
>>>I have some letters from some of my relatives which they wrote in their
>>>speaking style , and I'm glad they did. Much better than grammatically
>>>correct English for giving a better picture of the person.
>> But if one is to write the phrase in contention in "everyday" fashion,
>> rather than "Sunday best grammar" one would write "should've". The
>> "Sunday best" version is "should have."
>That doesn't demonstrate the way the phrase is spoken unless one
>happens to speak that way.
Neither does "should of". "Shud uv" would be closer but equally
nonsensical in written communication.
|Re: Need Birth/Death reference 1940's - JACKSON by Charles Ellson <>|