Talk:Must of Got Lost

Incorrect English

Why do people keep removing this section? It's highly relevant, because obviously not everyone knows correct grammar well enough to title song correctly, so if some other person can learn something they did't previously know (and Wikipedia is all about learning correct information), then that makes it relevant and informative. --Meve Stills (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

What is "did't"? FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The section looks like a ramble about how the title is incorrect grammar. AmericanLeMans (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Then someone should offer to rewrite it instead of just deleting it. I'm not the original author, only its defender. --Meve Stills (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It's NOT poetic license. It's Peter Wolf or J. Geils or whoever came up with it simply being uneducated. By taking out this important bit of information (NOT trivia), you perpetuate the notion that "must of" is correct instead of "must've". Wouldn't you rather educate those who come here for correct information? I guess not. --Meve Stills (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• It doesn't require an English degree to recognize the glaring grammatical error in the title of this song. I could understand the label or those who made the error being embarrassed by the oversight, but am gobsmacked that anyone else would want to omit attention to this fact. Mentioning it may be a bit pedantic, but I concur with Meve that removing it will not only serve to perpetuate the (very common) misuse but is also unencyclopedic. JGabbard (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

What's your reaction to Pink Floyd's "We don't need no education" or the Rolling Stones' "I can't get no satisfaction"? FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd point out that those bands knew better than to use "we don't need no education" and "I can't get no satisfaction" as the titles of those songs. Also, those are deliberate misuses of "no" for poetic purposes, whereas "must of" is just an ignorant error. I actually find it impressive/depressing that nobody in the band, producers, engineers, guitar techs, session musicians, label reps/execs, wives, girlfriends, groupies, etc. pointed this out. Also, I'm hopeful that you can see the irony of using "we don't need no education" to attack a conversation about proper English. Curtmcgirt (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Substituting of for have makes it nonsensical. Therefore, I believe "I must of got lost" is a malapropism, not "a common eggcorn." Rich r (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I dunno; look at the album cover art. It clearly spells out “Geils” as “Geil’s” (with an apostrophe). That’s obviously wrong, but there’s no way it’s just the band being ignorant, because it’s the guitarist’s actual surname. So they were probably just having a bit of fun with the title and cover.

Also, speaking as a Minnesotan here—purposely-misspelled song titles were practically bread and butter for our most famous export. I don’t think anyone thinks _he_ was just ignorant, he was just a really eccentric character.

Finally, I don’t get the earlier remark that the Stones were too smart to use “I Can’t Get No Satisfaction” as a song title. That literally is the title of that song, minus the parentheses. And then of course there’s “Ain’t No Mountain High Enough”, etc. I could go on and list dozens or hundreds of other examples, but to save you all the time, I won’t. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The lack of an apostrophe in J. Geils Band is not an error. Look at the Marshall Tucker Band or The Marshall Tucker Band or The Greg Kihn Band. It is fairly common for a band's name to just be the founder's name followed by "Band". The real error is they did not put "The" before "J. Geils Band" on the album cover, but that may have been an aesthetic decision. 199.120.30.205 (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)