I wonder if it's a back formation from the vernacular 

He'd oughta a been here.

where the 'd in the vernacular would not be expanded to had.  In the negative, OTOH, it can't contract, and so the hadn't form comes out.  It's not clear, BTW, that in vernacular English the 'd is related to "had".  I've heard speakers replace it with "would" for emphasis.

Herb Stahlke 

>>> [log in to unmask] 10/22/01 09:27AM >>>
In a message dated 10/22/2001 6:40:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< Hadn't ought to be, I think,
 finesses the need for past participle by simply breaking the rule.  The
 pressure of meaning -- his desire to give us a verb phrase that combines
 past, plus perfect, plus the modal notion of desirabilty -- has pushed
 him to create a brand new form. Or so I see it.  My questioin, again, is
 whether we should give him credit for creating it or simply credit for
 using a colloquial form that he might have heard >>


Just FYI - I grew up hearing "hadn't ought" as a child in New England as in
"He hadn't ought to stack the wood on his porch; the termites will eat his
house."  It was perfectly acceptable grammar and widely used.

Gretchen in San Jose
[log in to unmask] 

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html 
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/