I consider myself pretty well versed on the ins and outs of grammar and usage. I don’t have a degree in it. I have never taken classes that delve into the intricacies of our English (American) language, so I admit that my knowledge is limited. Once in a while, I learn something new.
My husband grew up in Miami in a closely knit Jewish (not Orthodox) neighborhood. I was raised out here in the wide open spaces of the American West. I know that each of us has our own learned speech patterns that originate from our respective backgrounds: I say “fixin’ to” instead of “getting ready to”, for example.
I am puzzled by one thing in particular that my husband says from time to time, and I was wondering if anyone could set me straight. Here is an example of something he might say:
What would’ve I done to avoid the problem?
Normally, I would say: What would I have done to avoid the problem?.
Splitting up the “would” and the “have” seems to flow better and, as a result, sound more correct to me. Is either configuration correct?
What my husband does is keep the “could”/“would”/“should” together with the “have” at all costs.
Instead of saying, “What should I have done to affect a different outcome?”
He says, “What should’ve I done to affect a different outcome?”
Notice in the first example that should and have are separated by I. Notice in the second example that he makes should and have into a contraction. Nevertheless, he keeps the two words together.
To me, his way of saying it sounds non-standard, but is it wrong?
A little idiomatic, but not wrong. Contractions can be screwy ("we’ve not " vs. “we haven’t”). Some choices are more usual than others, but less common doesn’t automatically mean wrong.
I won’t comment on the correctness, but your husband’s phrasing sounds “right” to me as a native New Yorker. There would certainly be a heavy New York influence in the Jewish community of Miami.
FWIW, as a native speaker, both “what would have I done to avoid the problem” and “what would I have done to avoid the problem” sound correct to me. I would actually prefer the former construction. I don’t think either is incorrect.
The question appears to me (don’t take this as gospel; this is just my first reaction) to be whether one or two auxiliary verbs are fronted. See, questions in English generally involve switching around the subject and verb, so the verb precedes the subject. “James is here. Is James here?” and so forth. If the verb is a compound, only the auxiliary verb is moved: “James has done the dishes. Has James done the dishes?” The main verb stays in the same place.
Now in your sort of question, you have a modal verb, ‘could’, ‘would’, ‘should’, plus an auxiliary verb and a main verb. Now I’m fairly sure most English dialects would only move the modal verb: “What could I have done?” Your husband moves the auxiliary as well; my gut tells me this is unusual for English. But I can’t make any grammaticality judgment on it because this is one of those cases where I just can’t decide. I’m fairly certain I wouldn’t say it, but I’m guessing I’ve heard it before. It sounds stranger with ‘I’ than with ‘you’ to me - “What could’ve you done?” sounds almost ordinary. But “What could’ve I done?” sounds strange.
When you screw around with other modals, it gets weirder. I don’t think anyone would say, “What can have she done?” So it may be that it only works when there’s a contraction. But I don’t want to make any sweeping statements because the examples in the OP seem to be sorta semi-grammatical to me. There’s extensive literature on the problem with native speaker grammaticality judgments - speakers will sometimes judge something ungrammatical and then use it a few sentences later. Or, as in this case, it’s just hard to judge what’s grammatical and what isn’t - I simply am not sure.
I think it’s nonstandard, though. It just doesn’t seem like something I’ve heard frequently.
If the conversation was about pushing a cart, which then falls over, unexpectedly leaving apples all over the floor:
And you wanted to know what you could have done to prevent the falling over bit, you would wonder “What should I have done to effect a different outcome?”
However if you wanted to know what you should have done once the unexpected apple spill had happened, I suppose you’d wonder “What should I have done to affect a different outcome.” But that doesn’t seem the likely context.
You’d be wrong if you meant it as in “bring about” a different outcome. That’s one of the uses of effect the verb. Usually it’s a noun, but it’s a verb sometimes.
There are two reasons why I feel his usage is incorrect. One is that it just sounds wrong to my ears. The other is that he makes other mistakes purely out of habit, such as saying should’ve went or could’ve did, both of which grate on my nerves. So it would be reasonable for me to assume that he could be making another habitual mistake.
He, knowing that my grammar and usage skills are at least better than his own, actually requested that I try to point out any mistakes I hear when he makes them. I only do this at home, though…never in public. He’s slowly getting better.
My curiosity is based solely on my wondering whether I should address this particular thing, or is it just a different way of saying something that is not necessarily wrong?
Without any clear grammatical rule being violated, I think the question of whether or not the enclitic “have” is acceptable in this case has to be based on liguistic description rather than proscription.
That said, I did a quick Google on the phrases below:
“What would you have” 939,000 hits, “What would’ve you” 142 hits. - 6612:1
“What could you have” 58,400 hits, “What could’ve you” 11 hits. - 5309:1
“What should you have” 18,800 hits, “What should’ve you” 2 hits. - 9400:1
“What would I have” 230,000 hits, “What would’ve I” 53 hits. - 4340:1
“What could I have” 138,000 hits, “What could’ve I” 28 hits. - 4929:1
“What should I have” 128,000 hits, “What should’ve I” 20 hits. - 6400:1
Throwing out the “should you have” example (too few hits), the ratios cluster somewhat around 5500:1 in favor of the non-enclitic form. This certainly makes it non-standard, and tends to support the idea it is present only in a particular region/dialect, but I wouldn’t venture to say much more than that.
FWIW, I also found a cite of usage from a relatively contemporary well-known author:
‘I should’ve never went on a stupid blind date. They
never work out.’
(1992 Armistead Maupin, Maybe the Moon)
Are you a Language Log reader? Cause your use of Google as a linguistic corpus looks familiar . . . interestingly, I find “I should’ve never” sounds perfectly normal to my ears. I’m guessing it’s not a standard usage, but one that’s common in many dialects.
So it’s probably not appropriate for formal usage, but it’s pretty ordinary by English grammatical rules.
