poohcarrot wrote:Can you give me a page number from Good Omens where "of" is used instead of "have" in non-dialogue?
But that's just my point - they don't (apart from a stupid copper). We all say should've or would've, but isn't it obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary education that it means should have or would have?Tonyblack wrote:People (as you pointed out) speak that way.
Tonyblack wrote:Welcome to the site, Major Eyeswater!
If it's used in dialogue then I don't have a problem with it. People (as you pointed out) speak that way.
I can't say that I noticed it otherwise. I did notice that, on a few occasions, the word 'ordinance' was used instead of 'ordnance' when referring to maps in Good Omens. That kind of bugged me, but it's a common mistake that people make.
The odd spelling mistake I can deal with . I spent a while editing a magazine and know how easy it s to let one through, but after four or five books where an error appears so frequently, surely someone would have picked up on it.pip wrote: As i said before i used to work in the Ordnance Survey and myself and others there made that mistake regularly . Think i've learned now
Beautiful Dirt wrote:With respect, don't you think that if all books were written in the Queen's English - particularly dialogue - the scope of them would be quite uniform and bland?
I agree wholeheartedly, but that too is dialogue, not prose. Try deciphering Agnes Nutter's scribblings in Good Omens .Beautiful Dirt wrote:In Discworld I particularly like Granny's turn of phrase, as strange as I find it sometimes.
Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 3 guests