Jewish Candy wrote:< sees your 'won't' and raises you 'shan't'
< doesn't see the problem with language evolving like that < can imagine schools explaining the 'of' in 'should of' as "indicating the participle belongs to the should" and everyone forgetting its true origin as a malapropism
But < thinks this is pretty unlikely anyway, as "shouldn't of" isn't used at all. ("shouldn't've" is awesome.)
Furthermore, < envisages a Future English in which perfective particle 'of' is extended through analogy to ALL modal verbs - 'can't of done', 'will of done' - perhaps even to the point where it loses perfectiveness (instead carried by the past participle), allowing imperfect/present constructions like 'can't of doing' and 'will of doing'! The anglosphere will become a world of Polandballs. An angloball.
PluMGMK wrote:If < had a chance to be immortal, < would pass it up if it meant listening to that.
< can of imagining it in a minority dialect, like AAVE but nowhere near as rich and beautiful
< might of contructing it, and naming it for Plum somehow