> so you're holding that up as snobbery, when it's the exact opposite?
I've offended you. That was not my intention. My apologies.
> but someone had to start. It didn't just come out of nowhere.
Your statement is painting everyone who talks that way with the same brush. It's unlikely that anyone you encounter who uses those phrases was responsible for coining them.
> painting everyone who talks that way with the same brush.
I don't see what point you're making. Everyone is influenced by the people around them. That's how we have dialects and regional speech patterns. So what?
I actually like those examples I gave. "We might be able to fix that" is certainly a lot more trouble to say than "we might could fix that" and people who say the latter are being a bit creative in their rule-breaking.
someone who expresses 'i might be able to drive' as 'quizás podría manejar' isn't creatively breaking the rules of english. they're speaking spanish. similarly, someone who says 'i might could drive' is not creatively breaking the rules of your dialect of english. they're following the rules of their dialect. you're insisting on treating it as a poor approximation of your own dialect, whether due to creativity or to simple incompetence. that is unbelievably arrogant and thus extremely annoying
double modals have been permitted by the rules of many dialects of american english for decades if not centuries, possibly calqued from scots or german. double modal dialects of english are also common in scotland. there's nothing rule-breaking about 'might could'. 'might could' is probably the absolute most common double modal in american english, so saying 'might could' is no more creative than saying 'eat supper'
I've offended you. That was not my intention. My apologies.
> but someone had to start. It didn't just come out of nowhere.
Your statement is painting everyone who talks that way with the same brush. It's unlikely that anyone you encounter who uses those phrases was responsible for coining them.