This is a site that is mainly frequented by English teachers, isn’t it?
I have a query:
As a native English speaker, I never learned “would of” or “should of”. I did learn “woulda” and "shoulda”, along with “coulda”, but they were mostly only funny to use the first time or two.
What I’m trying to say is: What’s with using “of” after would, could or should??
This site is filled with too many instances of “would of”, “could of” and “should of”. I tried doing a search on those phrases to actually find out how many, but the reply was that there are too many to report!
I thought “would of” is just a phonetic phumble, and is more properly written as “would have”?
Ditto for “should of” and “could of".
I’d even settle for would’ve, could’ve, should’ve ….
If it were so common, you’d easily be able to provide a specific example. A search for the collocation comes up negative because the words are so common, not the combination. I grew up hearing it a lot though. Perhaps your privileged, upper-class background kept you immune to it. Keep up the grammar Nazism. We need to keep the language pure and all that. Tally-Ho!
This site is filled with too many instances of “would of”, “could of” and “should of”. I tried doing a search on those phrases to actually find out how many, but the reply was that there are too many to report!
[/quote]
If it were so common, you’d easily be able to provide a specific example. A search for the collocation comes up negative because the words are so common, not the combination. I grew up hearing it a lot though. Perhaps your privileged, upper-class background kept you immune to it. Keep up the grammar Nazism. We need to keep the language pure and all that. Tally-Ho![/quote]
Upper class, priveleged backgrounder that I mayof been, I was not born immune.
It is “could’ve” as in ‘could have’, ‘should have’.
I think we all occasionally say ‘could of’ when we mean in fact ‘could have’. We type what we hear ourselves say. It’s quaint.
As a non-native (but naive?) English speaker, while living in north America, i was exposed to those expressions to the extent that i couldn’t avoid learning them. Except that i would of wrote them “wuddyv” and “shuddyv” and “kuddyv”.
Yeah, English writing’s a phumble, alright: Indonesians would maybe call it “morfofonemik”?
The correct forms are ‘could have’, ‘should have,’ and ‘would have.’ The correct pronunciation of the ‘have’ in all these forms in unstressed positions is something like ‘ah’ or ‘v’, so it sounds like we are saying ‘could of’ and so on. If some people then write it as ‘could of’ - well, that’s wrong. I’d correct it in an essay I was being paid to proofread, and ignore it in informal writing.
I wrote “could of” when I was maybe 8 or 9 years old, because that’s what I thought the grammar pattern really was… after all, that’s what people said, so I thought. But then I learned what the grammar pattern really is, thanks to my parents and teachers.
I wrote “could of” when I was maybe 8 or 9 years old, because that’s what I thought the grammar pattern really was… after all, that’s what people said, so I thought. But then I learned what the grammar pattern really is, thanks to my parents and teachers.[/quote]
I beg to differ, but you taught yourself the right way, after hearing others use it properly, and possibly, point out the error of your ways. But you taught yourself how to use grammar properly. Take credit where credit is due.
So, when my dad said to me, “It’s not ‘could of’, it’s ‘could have’”, that’s teaching myself? Sure, I learned it, but he did make me aware of the error.
That’s what I believe, yes. Look at the propensity to use “I seen” as in “I seen The Godfather 3 times.” I’ve heard plenty of native language teachers use that. They think it’s alright. I point it out to them and they realize their conjugation is indeed wrong, yet they still continue using it. I have taught them. But they haven’t taught themselves. Isn’t learning just that? Study/ be lectured at all you want, but until you take the responsibility to teach yourself something, you can’t really master it.
That’s what I believe, yes. Look at the propensity to use “I seen” as in “I seen The Godfather 3 times.” I’ve heard plenty of native language teachers use that. They think it’s alright. I point it out to them and they realize their conjugation is indeed wrong, yet they still continue using it. I have taught them. But they haven’t taught themselves. Isn’t learning just that? Study/ be lectured at all you want, but until you take the responsibility to teach yourself something, you can’t really master it.[/quote]
An interesting question–though FWIW I’m not convinced of the relevance to Chris’s experience and simple thank you to those who aided him–but it’s becoming OT here. Would you care to start a thread on it? I’ll probably split it off if it continues developing.
Never in a million years. No Sir, not once. Do exclude me from your generalisation, as I were taught proper English.
I’ll grant you, the 2 sound similar…
The question you should ask is not why “should of,” but what should follow should have.
One of my biggest grammar peeves is hearing people say I should have ate, or I should have went. :fume:
“Should/would/could have” should be followed by a past participle: I should have eaten. I should have gone.
[quote=“Incubus”]The question you should ask is not why “should of,” but what should follow should have.
One of my biggest grammar peeves is hearing people say I should have ate, or I should have went. :fume:
“Should/would/could have” should be followed by a past participle: I should have eaten. I should have gone.[/quote]
And one of my pet projects is to get the English speaking world to use the past participle of scuba dive as scuba diven. I am effecting change, 1 dive group at a time.
Except that i would of wrote them “wuddyv” and “shuddyv” and “kuddyv”.