Just a little bit of grammar. "would of" or "would have"

[DRBNGR]

When spoken aloud, would of and its fellows should of and could of sound exactly like would’ve, could’ve and should’ve. But even if no one can tell the difference when you’re speaking, the mistake becomes obvious as soon as you write it down.

The Right Way to Spell Would of, Should of, and Could of

When people write would of, should of, could of, will of or might of, they are usually confusing the verb have with the preposition of. So would of is would have, could of is could have, should of is should have, will of is will have, and might of is might have:

Incorrect:

I would of come earlier, but I got stuck at work.

Correct:

He would have stayed if he’d known you were coming.

Incorrect:

You should of called yesterday.

Correct:

You should have finished your homework by now.

This common mistake is likely caused by the similar pronunciation of the words of and have, especially when have is contracted, as in should’ve. This mistake also happens with the negations of modal verbs:

Incorrect:

Stella couldn’t of known she was going to win the lottery.

Correct:

John couldn’t have come any e arlier.

Stolen from this Website:
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/would-of-could-of-should-of/

 

[Mr.Duke]

Wut?

 

[Kenyon]

When spoken aloud, would of and its fellows should of and could of sound exactly like would’ve, could’ve and should’ve. But even if no one can tell the difference when you’re speaking, the mistake becomes obvious as soon as you write it down.

The Right Way to Spell Would of, Should of, and Could of

When people write would of, should of, could of, will of or might of, they are usually confusing the verb have with the preposition of. So would of is would have, could of is could have, should of is should have, will of is will have, and might of is might have:

Incorrect:

I would of come earlier, but I got stuck at work.

Correct:

He would have stayed if he’d known you were coming.

Incorrect:

You should of called yesterday.

Correct:

You should have finished your homework by now.

This common mistake is likely caused by the similar pronunciation of the words of and have, especially when have is contracted, as in should’ve. This mistake also happens with the negations of modal verbs:

Incorrect:

Stella couldn’t of known she was going to win the lottery.

Correct:

John couldn’t have come any e arlier.

Stolen from this Website:
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/would-of-could-of-should-of/

I'm not sure this is the right place for that, but as a fellow "Grammar Nazi" I also notice when people use "of" in place of "have."

 

[Jackjax801]

I correct people at work about this quite often. And when they incorrectly use farther vs further. Pretty sure my coworkers hate me for it.

 

[travykat]

Yea when speaking i say would have & when writing i say woulda
Lmao ain't no body got time for that

 

[Grimbles]

Ahhh contractions. This beauty has a contorted route to the current "incorrect" usage:

Should have->should've->should'f->should of

When it comes to linguistics I find rigid application of historic rules tedious. The language is alive and constantly changing. Today's spoken English is a bastardisation of broken rules from a number of languages including French, Latin, Anglo saxon, various norse tongues (especially Danish which c.10th century was practically interchangeable with the language spoken by most of the people then living in England) and even some random languages ("mango" comes from either tamil or mandarin depending on which particular scholar you believe).

More interestingly though, at least for someone who is interested in languages and etymology, is the emergence of "international english" - that is English spoken as a language of communication for people for whom English is a second language. Spoken by more people than those whose native tongue is English, it doesn't conform to the (current) rules of "gramatically correct" English. So... is it wrong? More people speak English this way.

My point is this - like any language, it doesn't matter so much that you comply with the "rules" of English in common parlance/writing. What matters is that your audience understands.

IMO at least.

 

[DRBNGR]

Just trying to make the world a better place by steeling your time reading this and replying to it.
And my parts didn't show up today so i am bored.

 

[Grimbles]

Just trying to make the world a better place by steeling your time reading this and replying to it.
And my parts didn't show up today so i am bored.

My time rusts constantly

 

[DRBNGR]

Ahhh contractions. This beauty has a contorted route to the current "incorrect" usage:

Should have->should've->should'f->should of

When it comes to linguistics I find rigid application of historic rules tedious. The language is alive and constantly changing. Today's spoken English is a bastardisation of broken rules from a number of languages including French, Latin, Anglo saxon, various norse tongues (especially Danish which c.10th century was practically interchangeable with the language spoken by most of the people then living in England) and even some random languages ("mango" comes from either tamil or mandarin depending on which particular scholar you believe).

More interestingly though, at least for someone who is interested in languages and etymology, is the emergence of "international english" - that is English spoken as a language of communication for people for whom English is a second language. Spoken by more people than those whose native tongue is English, it doesn't conform to the (current) rules of "gramatically correct" English. So... is it wrong? More people speak English this way.

My point is this - like any language, it doesn't matter so much that you comply with the "rules" of English in common parlance/writing. What matters is that your audience understands.

IMO at least.

In most points i agree with you.
But in this special case i see it a little different.

I don't see a "problem" with would'f or would've bot have and of have a total different meaning.
So the spoken is totally fine to me but the written... not so much.

 

[Grimbles]

In most points i agree with you.
But in this special case i see it a little different.

I don't see a "problem" with would'f or would've bot have and of have a total different meaning.
So the spoken is totally fine to me but the written... not so much.

But what is writing if not just a visual representation of a noise? A graphical representation of a phoneme... and the phonemes have changed so why should the graphical representation not reflect the actual noises we make. That is pretty much the point of writing.

Edit: had to look it up again as I had forgotten it, but the word is "grapheme". writing is just a series of "graphemes" and for "should have" -> "should of" the phonemes have changed so (given the spoken preceded the written) I would argue the grapheme should follow suit!

 

[DRBNGR]

I like the way you see this. But as a german i love language rules so it's hard to understand and accept that written language could work without rules.
And i think that written language that follows absolutely no rules might get difficult to understand.
I love to discuss stuff like this.

 

[Grimbles]

I like the way you see this. But as a german i love language rules so it's hard to understand and accept that written language could work without rules.
And i think that written language that follows absolutely no rules might get difficult to understand.
I love to discuss stuff like this.

I am not saying there should be no rules. Verbs still conjugate, pronouns still precede nouns... but the fundamental meaning of the word (and its effect on the others around it) hasn't changed. Just the noise it makes.

 

[travykat]

But at the same time shiit im almost 30 years old & honestly whens the last time you had to hand write some poop out everything is online autocorrect like a MF & im from down south so my words in real life are not accurate as say someone from Nebraska but when i do write messages i try to write as proper and correct as i can so im easily understandable

 

[DRBNGR]

But at the same time shiit im almost 30 years old & honestly whens the last time you had to hand write some poop out everything is online autocorrect like a MF & im from down south so my words in real life are not accurate as say someone from Nebraska but when i do write messages i try to write as proper and correct as i can so im easily understandable

Its the same here. I am from south germany and speaking no one up north would understand me but writing i try to do my very best.

 

[travykat]

I am not saying there should be no rules. Verbs still conjugate, pronouns still precede nouns... but the fundamental meaning of the word (and its effect on the others around it) hasn't changed. Just the noise it makes.

Yes very true in real life i say doe in place of though & bouta in place of about to but when writing i use the correct form depending on if its someone i kno would understand what im saying

 

[Grimbles]

Yes very true in real life i say doe in place of though & bouta in place of about to but when writing i use the correct form depending on if its someone i kno would understand what im saying

This is fair - it's the essence of communication. You adapt your communication for your audience!

Its the same here. I am from south germany and speaking no one up north would understand me but writing i try to do my very best.

I love south Germany. I went to a wedding in ravensburg a couple of years ago and have friends in Munich. Beautiful, friendly part of the world. And all the helles you could hope for!

 

[gotnitro]

While were on this topic of random word salad, crap...

Here's a commonly misused idiom that I cant stand and people should be skinned for using..

"I could care less".. Dude, WHAT??

It's "I couldn't care less"!

 

[Ginglehopper]

When spoken aloud, would of and its fellows should of and could of sound exactly like would’ve, could’ve and should’ve. But even if no one can tell the difference when you’re speaking, the mistake becomes obvious as soon as you write it down.

The Right Way to Spell Would of, Should of, and Could of

When people write would of, should of, could of, will of or might of, they are usually confusing the verb have with the preposition of. So would of is would have, could of is could have, should of is should have, will of is will have, and might of is might have:

Incorrect:

I would of come earlier, but I got stuck at work.

Correct:

He would have stayed if he’d known you were coming.

Incorrect:

You should of called yesterday.

Correct:

You should have finished your homework by now.

This common mistake is likely caused by the similar pronunciation of the words of and have, especially when have is contracted, as in should’ve. This mistake also happens with the negations of modal verbs:

Incorrect:

Stella couldn’t of known she was going to win the lottery.

Correct:

John couldn’t have come any e arlier.

Stolen from this Website:
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/would-of-could-of-should-of/

Who could of promted you to write this?

 

[BashingBrian]

R U the grammer police..!!

 

[Doom!]

If it doesn't improve my RC's performance, I'm not to concerned.