Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: May 16, 2022, 1:10 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The 'have', 'of' mixup...
#1
The 'have', 'of' mixup...
Anyone else know about the following?:

Some people say 'could of' 'should of' 'would of' etc...when it should be 'could have' 'should have' 'would have'...weird huh? Its something thats developed over the years I think...or has it been going ages?

My guess is it probably started something like this: Because people short could/should/would have to could've/should've/would've...etc...the ''ve' bit is pronounced slightly like 'of'...and through sort of 'chinese whispers' of people with slightly different - or entirely different - accents...somehow ''ve' became 'of'... so people often type it like could of, should of, would of, etc....

Is this just nonsense? I've heard about this and observed it....

Finally, I've also heard this could 'of' etc etc thing has became the norm in some parts of the world....so in some places it is treated as correct english and even defended against could 'have' etc etc etc.

Trivial...but I find it interesting anyhow...

Like QI says: "Whatever is interesting we are interested in. Whatever is not interesting, we are even more interested in. Everything is interesting if looked at in the right way."

QI website:http://www.qi.com/
Reply
#2
RE: The 'have', 'of' mixup...
That's interesting. I've not noticed it before, but I'll make a point of making sure I'm not making that mistake in future posts.
Hoi Zaeme.
Reply
#3
RE: The 'have', 'of' mixup...
I think it arose out of laziness. Here in south Texas it's been reduced to coulda, woulda, & shoulda. All three brazenly spitting in the face of correct use of the English language. However, this is how language evolves and changes over time. There may come a point in time where could of may replace or be seen as equal to could have in its usage. Just as some popular slang makes it into respected dictionaries such may also be the case with these linguistic anomalies.

I can't say that I'm immune from such abuse of the language either. However, such instances do become a bit worrisome when something is stated or written correctly according to the rules of the language and an entire classroom of students tell you, "that don't sound right. It just sounds weird".
Reply
#4
RE: The 'have', 'of' mixup...
(October 19, 2008 at 10:18 pm)solidsquid Wrote: I think it arose out of laziness. Here in south Texas it's been reduced to coulda, woulda, & shoulda. All three brazenly spitting in the face of correct use of the English language. However, this is how language evolves and changes over time. There may come a point in time where could of may replace or be seen as equal to could have in its usage. Just as some popular slang makes it into respected dictionaries such may also be the case with these linguistic anomalies.

I can't say that I'm immune from such abuse of the language either. However, such instances do become a bit worrisome when something is stated or written correctly according to the rules of the language and an entire classroom of students tell you, "that don't sound right. It just sounds weird".


I agree entirely...

I would also say though...that even though where you live in South Texas...people say Coulda/etc etc...the coulda/etc thing is still used a bit in other places like here in the UK....maybe it started in Texas and is spreading over the world!

I dunno where it started...who knows?

lolSmile

As for the 'of' thing...I dunno where the national origins for that is either...

Like I said I do have an idea that ''ve' could have been misheard and repeated as 'of'.....but whatever lol Smile

P.S: There is some apparently incorrect English that I do, knowingly conform to myself, for example, my spelling/grammar correcter corrects when I say, 'atleast' to 'at least' it seperates the two words, which is correct. But for some reason I prefer to reduce 'at least' to one word - 'atleast', as what ever is reduced to whatever - and it doesn't correct that. But I guess thats just deleting a space, not changing the language too much. So arguably thats more acceptable.

P.P.S: I dunno where my spelling/grammar correcter comes from! Well it doesn't really correct it, just a red underline tells me when something is bad spelling etc....

Dunno where its from - maybe it comes free with vista. I have never seen it on a comp with XP.
Reply
#5
RE: The 'have', 'of' mixup...
Pedant!

I agree with you BTW but you're still a pedant Wink

Kyu
Reply
#6
RE: The 'have', 'of' mixup...
(October 22, 2008 at 6:58 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Pedant!

I agree with you BTW but you're still a pedant Wink

Kyu

Lol seriously? Undecided

EDIT: Lol i checked the defintion and I'd agree I am a bit pedantic lol, I thought pedantic was more negative than the defintion seems to be lol.

I thought it was like dogmatic or preachy, seems to be more obsessively passionate about language and learning lol.

Doesn't sound as bad as I thought it was lol...I think informally it is used to mean worse than the formal definition implies. If that makes any sense lol.

P.S, from Wikipedia: 'Being referred to as a pedant, or pedantic, is generally considered insulting.[1] However some people take pride in being a pedant, especially with regard to the use of the English language.[2] In an attempt to avoid censure, people who wish to make a correction might preface it with "not wishing to be pedantic, but ..." or "without being a pedant, ...".'
Reply
#7
RE: The 'have', 'of' mixup...
(October 22, 2008 at 9:15 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:
(October 22, 2008 at 6:58 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Pedant!

I agree with you BTW but you're still a pedant Wink

Kyu

Lol seriously? Undecided

EDIT: Lol i checked the defintion and I'd agree I am a bit pedantic lol, I thought pedantic was more negative than the defintion seems to be lol.

I suppose it is but then most things can be used in that way with the "proper" inflexion (for example you can say someone's good but said in the "right" way it can mean something else entirely) ... when I said that to you it was meant as a kind of jokey insult especially since I know I can be much the same (people who don't know the difference between "effect" and "affect" for example drive me up the wall). Anyway, there was no criticism intended mate Big Grin

Kyu
Reply
#8
RE: The 'have', 'of' mixup...
(October 23, 2008 at 5:03 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:
(October 22, 2008 at 9:15 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:
(October 22, 2008 at 6:58 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Pedant!

I agree with you BTW but you're still a pedant Wink

Kyu

Lol seriously? Undecided

EDIT: Lol i checked the defintion and I'd agree I am a bit pedantic lol, I thought pedantic was more negative than the defintion seems to be lol.

I suppose it is but then most things can be used in that way with the "proper" inflexion (for example you can say someone's good but said in the "right" way it can mean something else entirely) ... when I said that to you it was meant as a kind of jokey insult especially since I know I can be much the same (people who don't know the difference between "effect" and "affect" for example drive me up the wall). Anyway, there was no criticism intended mate Big Grin

Kyu

That's what I suspected, just checking, being 'pedantic' again.
I can think I've heard some people say Dawkins is pedantic, so I guess the whole thing is about whether you think the details are important, I mean they're not always insignificant. For example when a very long equation is only slightly wrong, to correct it certainly isn't pedantic, obviously because people consider it important.
Or am I just being stupid now? If so, sorry.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Have you ever tried to debate Christians that have no clue? Dean-o 39 7884 June 22, 2011 at 10:41 pm
Last Post: tackattack



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)