LETTER: Wot an eye for English dialect
From Mr Dennis Freeborn
Sir: Meridel Holland's "should of" (Letters, 18 October) is a misspelling of "should've", the normal reduced spoken form of "should have" that everyone uses. "Should of" is the kind of written form called "eye-dialect" that novelists use to indicate a lower class character, like "wot" and "me moother" for "what" and "my mother". So it is inadmissible as evidence for a "new illiteracy".
Dr Holland's letter is patronising in its reference to "time-honoured and charming dialect usage". Non-standard dialect forms of English are neither more nor less "charming" than standard English. Objectively, they simply differ in their choice of a relatively small number of grammatical forms.
"Might've went" (Meridel Holland's second example) is dialectal. By what criterion is it to be judged a "creeping bane" rather than "charming", or even "exquisite", like "who telled thee it were one?", quoted in Ruth Clarke's letter (17 October)?
Yours faithfully,
Dennis Freeborn
York
18 October
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies