The 'had' and 'to' are quite distinct here, as is the use of the root form of the verb rather than the participle; that's what made me notice it when I started hearing it.  I think I've heard constructions like 'If I'd've/I'd'a known' (which seems to be a case of adding an extra auxiliary just to be on the safe side, so to speak) quite frequently elsewhere, and on TV, etc., but this was something new to me.

Cheers,

George


Michael J. Smith wrote:

On Sunday 30 April 2006 13:45, G.I.C. Robertson wrote:

This reminds me of another peculiarity I've noticed here in Newfoundland: the construction of past contrary to fact protases with 'had to' + verb (or would it be considered 'had' + infinitive?) rather than 'had' + past participle. E.g.: 'If I had to know you were there, I would have gone', rather than 'If I had known ...'.

In Kentucky where I grew up, we had a similar locution: If I'd've known... not clear to me whether the "'ve" is a reflex of "have" or "of", or whether the"'d" is "had" or "would." In fact since the actual phonetic shape was closer to "If I'd'a known..." I'm wondering if it isn't maybe just the same locution as the Newfoundland one. How distinct are the "had" and "to" up yonder?

-- G.I.C. Robertson Department of Classics Memorial University of Newfoundland St John's, Newfoundland A1C 5S7 Canada Tel. 709-737-8708 Fax 709-737-4569 robertso <at> mun.ca