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

[theekorr]

Woulda coulda shoulda

 

[Kenyon]

The way I look at it is that the written word is often a valid means of determining a person's level of intelligence. When I read something like, "Wat U doing L8r?" I have to assume that the person who wrote it is probably uneducated at best. Obviously, context matters, but I'm sure you get my point.

 

[Doom!]

English is already overly complicated. I agree over simplifying it is just as bad. Why can't we have something in the middle?

 

[Mr.Duke]

This thread makes me want to take a bubble bath while Kenny G plays in the background

 

[Cheez]

 

[KvConivore]

I are waht I ar.
I don't worry about it.

 

[Grimbles]

The way I look at it is that the written word is often a valid means of determining a person's level of intelligence. When I read something like, "Wat U doing L8r?" I have to assume that the person who wrote it is probably uneducated at best. Obviously, context matters, but I'm sure you get my point.

I think you have confused intelligence with education here. Proper application of a rigidly taught set of rules tells you how educated someone is, not how intelligent they are. I know plenty of very intelligent people who have not been well educated (and vice versa).

 

[SrC]

^^^

 

[DRBNGR]

^^^

But come on, i didn't offend no one?!
At least i didn't want to.

 

[Greengaunja]

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.

Quick somebody! Grab his thesaurus away from him! Lol

English is already overly complicated. I agree over simplifying it is just as bad. Why can't we have something in the middle?

There is no middle until we stop driving on parkways and parking in driveways.
Or plurals. If many mouse's are mice why aren't houses hice? Or if the plural of goose is geese why are a few moose not meese?

 

[DRBNGR]

And finaly there are those funny homonyms.

https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-homonyms.html

 

[Grimbles]

Dearest creature in creation...

https://www.soto-mayor.com/index.php/blog/item/3-dearest-creature-a-tricky-pronunciation-poem

 

[gotnitro]

I know plenty of very intelligent people who have not been well educated (and vice versa).

Elon Musk just said that on LinkedIn yesterday.

 

[Grimbles]

Elon Musk just said that on LinkedIn yesterday.

He and I are aligned then! At least on this.

 

[Jon NC RC]

This thread makes me want to take a bubble bath while Kenny G plays in the background

Mr Moderator….

So a new idea has struck me

A new badge for “Lingustics Professional “

With all due respect, I feel as @Doom! , if it doesn’t regard RC…it doesn’t regard me….”

I found this thread to see if such a thing was on an RC thread…….nothing wrong with that I guess….

But never forget…..

Hukt awn phonix wurkt fer meeeee

Elon Musk just said that on LinkedIn yesterday.

Very true

 

[jondilly1974]

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/

People aren’t saying “would of”, they are saying “would’ve”, which is an abbreviation of “would have”.

 

[DRBNGR]

People aren’t saying “would of”, they are saying “would’ve”, which is an abbreviation of “would have”.

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.

Thats exactly what i wrote in my first post.

 

[Kenyon]

I think you have confused intelligence with education here. Proper application of a rigidly taught set of rules tells you how educated someone is, not how intelligent they are. I know plenty of very intelligent people who have not been well educated (and vice versa).

Yeah, I agree to am extent. I kind of ill-defined to that towards the end of my comment when I said they are uneducated at best, but I didn't really expound on it. I think in today's age of infinite information a lack of basic education (reading, writing, math) often indicates a low level of intelligence. Certainly, there are exceptions, but I think for the most part a person with any significant intelligence knows the importance of the "3 Rs" and when not given an opportunity recieve them through a formal education will seek them out on their own.

For clarity, I am not disagreeing with you, merely trying to better explain my own point of view. I am also not trying to trash talk anybody. I don't consider myself to be overly intelligent, so I certainly don't look down on my fellow half wits!

 

[SrC]

But come on, i didn't offend no one?!
At least i didn't want to.

It's all good. We are just having fun.
Its posted in the Gen. Chaos.... right?

 

[Grimbles]

Yeah, I agree to am extent. I kind of ill-defined to that towards the end of my comment when I said they are uneducated at best, but I didn't really expound on it. I think in today's age of infinite information a lack of basic education (reading, writing, math) often indicates a low level of intelligence. Certainly, there are exceptions, but I think for the most part a person with any significant intelligence knows the importance of the "3 Rs" and when not given an opportunity recieve them through a formal education will seek them out on their own.

For clarity, I am not disagreeing with you, merely trying to better explain my own point of view. I am also not trying to trash talk anybody. I don't consider myself to be overly intelligent, so I certainly don't look down on my fellow half wits!

To be honest, I was just being a bit fractious. I agree it is a solid (though not definitive) indicator!