Really? There’s precedent in my other comments. Massacring grammar is a compulsion I indulge in when I don’t want to be seen as unreservedly endorsing something, in this case Eugine_Nier’s comments.
E.g. I sent this to Vladimir_M in a private message:
Subject: I quite like your LW comments Body: does you has blog or summat?
May I suggest looking in period literature? If I Google Books “Hast thou a ”, I see in the first page of results hits from John Bunyan, 1678-1684 and William Shakespeare, c. 1591, among lesser lights.
Downvoted for incorrect subject-verb agreement.
It was purposeful. It’s like “can i haz cheezburger?” but olde schoole.
You can’t get ye flask.
Un-downvoted. Sorry.
But it’s “i can haz cheesburger?” btw. ;)
I don’t believe you.
Really? There’s precedent in my other comments. Massacring grammar is a compulsion I indulge in when I don’t want to be seen as unreservedly endorsing something, in this case Eugine_Nier’s comments.
E.g. I sent this to Vladimir_M in a private message:
That’s a little much even for me, and I know what you’re talking about.
Edit: Ok, so apparently people think it actually is important to phrase it “hast thou a blog”. Shows what I know.
I would think it should be “Dost thou havest a blog?”
I’m voting for “Hast thou a blog?” if one wants to use period English, but I’m going by feel. Does anyone actually know?
May I suggest looking in period literature? If I Google Books “Hast thou a ”, I see in the first page of results hits from John Bunyan, 1678-1684 and William Shakespeare, c. 1591, among lesser lights.
Good point. Googling “Dost thou havest a ” turns up two results, one of which is Eliezer’s comment.
On the other hand, my instincts aren’t perfect. I’d have bet that “havest” wasn’t a word, but it is. “Hast” is a contraction of “havest”.
I was wondering whether the problem was that “dost havest” is redundant, but “havest thou a” doesn’t turn up anything period.
Yeah, “dost thou havest” would be much like “does he has”...