I've heard an American guy say "should've wrote", but as I far as I know, there is supposed to be a past participle (like "written") after "have".
Can anybody explain it to me?
-
It's contrary to standard grammar, but functionally the same as "should've written." (Should have written.)– RobustoOct 7, 2015 at 15:34
-
2Max, not everybody speaks good English.– CentaurusOct 7, 2015 at 15:43
-
... or knows the basics of conjugation and use of the base forms.– rogermueOct 7, 2015 at 16:35
-
1In some dialects the past participle and preterit forms have merged.– AnonymOct 7, 2015 at 17:54
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
Welcome to colloquial (informal) speech; not all formal language rules apply there.
I'm sure the guy meant the same thing as "should've written".
-
-
1The answer is that in colloquial speech the rules are a bit bent, and not the same ones as taught in language class. The OP is asking for an explanation about a native speaker saying something ungrammatical. Oct 7, 2015 at 15:46
-
1It is not ungrammatical, nor is it a question of "colloquial", per se. It is dialect. That form is perfectly grammatical in the particular dialect of English which that person speaks. Oct 7, 2015 at 17:47
-
Would a person write "I should've wrote a different comment instead." instead of "I should've written a different comment instead." ? Oct 7, 2015 at 18:21
Written is the past participle of write in standard varieties of English. Some other varieties use wrote or writ.
This is not a question of "colloquial" - my own colloquial English happens to have written. It is a question of dialect (or variety).
