"I wish i would have done that..." -- bad english?

Drue and Invité d'honneur -

Drue - I can agree with you in part, the speakers of the language do control how that language is used. This is a basic principle that Mikhail Bakhtin came up with over a century ago. That, indeed, is why language changes. At the same time, you cannot break from standards too far without losing communication, and I can name several annoying instances when I have heard someone use "is" for "are" or "was" for "were" (makes me want to pull my hair out). So, don't always go with what a native speaker says-- British, American, Canadian, or otherwise.

In this instance, "wish I would have" is not so unusual or egregious that it would be noticed much in a typical conversation.

Invité d'honneur - And no, the French, as much as they may want to, cannot have control over the English language. I certainly don't have the option of making French spelling more phonetic, as much as I would love to. Really, what a waste of time writing all those letters you don’t even pronounce. It is just like the French to be so overly elaborate.

Isn't English "correctness" determined by what sounds nicer and is easier and faster to pronounce (basic principle that applies to most languages, I believe)?? I'm no native speaker but something tells me that saying: "I wish I'd done" is faster, easier, which is what makes it preferable over the other form. Don't you think so?

I've heard it the other way sometimes, but I don't like it so I don't say it myself. But anyway, I just speak English as a second language so you guys know better.

Regards

Isn't English "correctness" determined by what sounds nicer and is easier and faster to pronounce (basic principle that applies to most languages, I believe)??

French sounds nicer, easier and faster to pronounce than Spanish, so French wins.

You also sometimes hear

'I WISHED I would have/had'

I'm not sure why some people put the 'wish' into the past tense when they are obviously referring to what they wish at the present time.

You will also hear some Brits saying

'I wish I had have done that'

Wintereis: «And no, the French, as much as they may want to, cannot have control over the English language.»

It would seem you are attributing to me a wish that I don't have...

The meaning of my previous post was this: since only certain ungrammaticalities(1) are accepted and not others, depending on the nativeness or non-nativeness of their utterers, then it is not true that only communication, not the rules, matters. It's just that the rule "native and therefore accepted" is sometimes (often?) more important than the rule "grammatical and therefore correct". It's not communication prevailing over rules, it's one rule prevailing over another.


(1) Yes, I did make up this word. I don't always like rules.

I think the point is that, while language is certainly not static, what is acceptable and what isn't, is ultimately down to native speakers.

So, for example, if some native speakers insist on saying:

'I have wrote to my friend'

It won't be correct, because the majority of native speakers don't say that.

But if the majority start saying it, then it will become correct.

Likewise, non-native speakers can change what is deemed acceptable in the same way.

So, if as a result of international English, a majority of native speakers started saying 'I have wrote to my friend' because they hear it from foreigners so frequently (and I know they propably wouldn't, this is simply a crude example for the sake of illustration), then it would become correct, because the language would have truly changed due to a certain influence. But until non-native speakers' English has such a profound effect on any given aspect of English, it will be seen as wrong.

This has obviously happened in the past with English, foreign speakers have changed the language beyond all recognition, but the point is, it only becomes correct when the majority of native speakers start using the changes that have been introduced or heard as a result of non-native speakers.

<<Isn't English "correctness" determined by what sounds nicer and is easier and faster to pronounce (basic principle that applies to most languages, I believe)?? I'm no native speaker but something tells me that saying: "I wish I'd done" is faster, easier, which is what makes it preferable over the other form. Don't you think so? >>


No. Correctness has nothing to do with what is easier and faster to pronounce. I could instead say

"I am experiencing a feeling of regret and hesitation, both engendered by the fact that I did not do that, to the extent that if I were to find myself once again in that very same circumstance in which I took the decision which is now causing me such unpleasant feelings, I should without fail elect to act in the most opposite manner, thus avoiding these aforementioned unforeseen consequences in exchange for an outcome more to my liking that would not lead me to feel the need to question my former actions"

It is convoluted and sounds retarded, but nevertheless it is correct.

To me it sounds uneducated (or at least unpolished) when native speakers say "would have" in this situation. This is pretty far down the list of things one should learn for good communication in English, however, and I would not have a judgmental reaction if I heard a non-native speaker say it.

<<Isn't English "correctness" determined by what sounds nicer and is easier and faster to pronounce (basic principle that applies to most languages, I believe)?? I'm no native speaker but something tells me that saying: "I wish I'd done" is faster, easier, which is what makes it preferable over the other form. Don't you think so? >>

Nope. Concise versus flowery is a stylistic choice more than anything. English lets you say the same thing in lots of different ways, all of them correct. Read a Dickens novel and a Hemingway story back to back sometime. Dig your way through Faulkner, if you have the fortitude. One chapter feels like you ran a mile and did fifty push-ups. And it's not just that those are older writers from another era; there are authors today whose works are just as tortured and turgid, along with others whose writing is fast and slick.

Plus, I think lots of phrases are said out of habit; "I wish I would have" is probably one of them. Heck, the British come out with oddities like "I did do," which sounds comical to me, because I grew up on the simpler "I did". But both constructions are used by contemporary speakers of the language; the shorter one isn't winning out over the longer one.

< So, for example, if some native speakers insist on saying:
'I have wrote to my friend'
It won't be correct, because the majority of native speakers don't say that.
But if the majority start saying it, then it will become correct. >

It's more complicated than majority rule: a minority form may be preferred to a majority form, e.g. in academic publications, if the minority consists of speakers with greater prestige.

<<It's more complicated than majority rule: a minority form may be preferred to a majority form, e.g. in academic publications, if the minority consists of speakers with greater prestige.>>

I take it you have never edited an academic article. Academics are notorious for long, convoluted sentence structures (which are not necessarily correct). I remember one sentence in particular I had to pare down from twelve lines with 5 separate clauses. And, though they do adhere more firmly to the guidelines of their separate fields in writing, Academics do not tend to do so in their daily speech nor are they always correct in their writing.

But, yes, certain ways of speaking and writing are adopted for certain situations. I believe that this is fairly universal. I doubt that my German friend, Sandra, would speak to her Grandmother the same way she speaks with her friends and vice-versa.

You know, there is such a thing as colloquial grammar. Either way, the English language is often more confusing than others due to the fact that it does not have a language academy which (that? whatever) regulates the grammar and usage of the language. This results in both spelling and grammar variations. While I would have... is incorrect in this context (grammatically speaking) it is not in colloquial American grammar. 'I would've done is the conditional perfect and IS used in the English language, just differently. For example, referring to that dog fell off the couch sentence mentioned earlier, we could say 'if I hadn't called the doctor then he would have died'. Notice that we cannot substitute would have with had in this sentence. I would have is used with 'then...' while we used 'I had' with an if clause. Either way, don't make such a big fuzz about it and that whole google thing is dumb in this case seeing as how both phrases are used and it is just a matter of context. Sorry if anything in my post was wrong but I am just 18 and without a high school diploma (as if that were an excuse).

< I take it you have never edited an academic article. >

That would be an incorrect assumption.

<I remember one sentence in particular I had to pare down from twelve lines with 5 separate clauses...nor are they always correct in their writing.>

It sounds a marvellous feat of redaction: "fünf auf einen Streich", as the little tailor might have said. But the submitted text is irrelevant. I was talking about the edited and published text.

<<I wish i would have done that...
>>


Umm, interesting... Years ago I usually had this mistake because it is a direct translation of the equivalent construction in Spanish. Being an English student it's funny to see that one's mistakes are present in natives' speech too. But I guess that being natives they can afford to speak that way.