How come people say “Would of”? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In“Based on” instead of “based off of”What is the origin of the “should of” instead of “should have” mistake?What is the origin of “bite me”?Why do we say “to be a laughing stock”?Chuffed - happy or unhappy?Why (so) sure? vs How (so) sure?How nutty are the terms “nut case”, “health nut” and “sports nut”?use of “not on purpose”How long is a piece of string?Non-racial alternative for “Chinese fire drill”What precipitated the rise of “frustrated” as a euphemism for “annoyed”?Word (or expression) meaning to reply without answering

Worn-tile Scrabble

Keeping a retro style to sci-fi spaceships?

Kerning for subscripts of sigma?

A word that means fill it to the required quantity

What is this business jet?

I am an eight letter word. What am I?

What to do when moving next to a bird sanctuary with a loosely-domesticated cat?

How do I free up internal storage if I don't have any apps downloaded?

Is it ok to offer lower paid work as a trial period before negotiating for a full-time job?

Does adding complexity mean a more secure cipher?

Is it ethical to upload a automatically generated paper to a non peer-reviewed site as part of a larger research?

Why does the nucleus not repel itself?

Inverse Relationship Between Precision and Recall

What do these terms in Caesar's Gallic wars mean?

Deal with toxic manager when you can't quit

Accepted by European university, rejected by all American ones I applied to? Possible reasons?

What is this sharp, curved notch on my knife for?

Falsification in Math vs Science

Correct punctuation for showing a character's confusion

Can we generate random numbers using irrational numbers like π and e?

Match Roman Numerals

What is the meaning of Triage in Cybersec world?

Why was M87 targeted for the Event Horizon Telescope instead of Sagittarius A*?

Why are there uneven bright areas in this photo of black hole?



How come people say “Would of”?



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In“Based on” instead of “based off of”What is the origin of the “should of” instead of “should have” mistake?What is the origin of “bite me”?Why do we say “to be a laughing stock”?Chuffed - happy or unhappy?Why (so) sure? vs How (so) sure?How nutty are the terms “nut case”, “health nut” and “sports nut”?use of “not on purpose”How long is a piece of string?Non-racial alternative for “Chinese fire drill”What precipitated the rise of “frustrated” as a euphemism for “annoyed”?Word (or expression) meaning to reply without answering



.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








32















I often read the expression “would of” used instead of “would have”. Each time I read it I get annoyed so I googled it and found out -as I expected- that it is an incorrect way to say “would have”. Now, there are a lot of brilliant slang words/expressions, so my question is, why do people use this one? It’s so annoying to read, stupid and clearly wrong, it is pointless, why did they come up with this expression?




Edit: I don't think my question is a duplicate as I didn't ask how can somebody use it (since I know it's incorrect and I know that I can use it with commas giving it a different meaning) but I asked why and how people came up with this expression.










share|improve this question



















  • 32





    Your ears are deceiving you. In most (maybe all) varieties of English, in rapid speech "would have" and "would of" are 100% indistinguishable. Nobody is "saying" something incorrect. But spelling, being part of the invented and learnt technology called "writing" (and thus almost entirely different from the natural faculty called "language") is often imperfectly learnt - especially when the rules of spelling make a distinction which is not there in the real (spoken) language.

    – Colin Fine
    2 days ago






  • 11





    Consider that it's "would 'ave". Some people know this and realize that "would have" is the unabbreviated form, while others, probably as a child, heard "would 'ave" and took it to be "would of", and thus say and write "would of".

    – Hot Licks
    2 days ago






  • 32





    @ColinFine: I disagree. You're right that they're nearly indistinguishable, but as a result, there's a lot of people who learned it wrong, and now say and type "would of".

    – Mooing Duck
    2 days ago







  • 8





    @Marybnq - As a non-native speaker you probably were not speaking English for 5 years before you learned how to read/write it. In fact, you may even have been exposed to written English before you learned to speak it.

    – Hot Licks
    yesterday






  • 19





    @Marybnq - Actually, "would've" and "would of" are virtually indistinguishable.

    – Hot Licks
    yesterday

















32















I often read the expression “would of” used instead of “would have”. Each time I read it I get annoyed so I googled it and found out -as I expected- that it is an incorrect way to say “would have”. Now, there are a lot of brilliant slang words/expressions, so my question is, why do people use this one? It’s so annoying to read, stupid and clearly wrong, it is pointless, why did they come up with this expression?




Edit: I don't think my question is a duplicate as I didn't ask how can somebody use it (since I know it's incorrect and I know that I can use it with commas giving it a different meaning) but I asked why and how people came up with this expression.










share|improve this question



















  • 32





    Your ears are deceiving you. In most (maybe all) varieties of English, in rapid speech "would have" and "would of" are 100% indistinguishable. Nobody is "saying" something incorrect. But spelling, being part of the invented and learnt technology called "writing" (and thus almost entirely different from the natural faculty called "language") is often imperfectly learnt - especially when the rules of spelling make a distinction which is not there in the real (spoken) language.

    – Colin Fine
    2 days ago






  • 11





    Consider that it's "would 'ave". Some people know this and realize that "would have" is the unabbreviated form, while others, probably as a child, heard "would 'ave" and took it to be "would of", and thus say and write "would of".

    – Hot Licks
    2 days ago






  • 32





    @ColinFine: I disagree. You're right that they're nearly indistinguishable, but as a result, there's a lot of people who learned it wrong, and now say and type "would of".

    – Mooing Duck
    2 days ago







  • 8





    @Marybnq - As a non-native speaker you probably were not speaking English for 5 years before you learned how to read/write it. In fact, you may even have been exposed to written English before you learned to speak it.

    – Hot Licks
    yesterday






  • 19





    @Marybnq - Actually, "would've" and "would of" are virtually indistinguishable.

    – Hot Licks
    yesterday













32












32








32


9






I often read the expression “would of” used instead of “would have”. Each time I read it I get annoyed so I googled it and found out -as I expected- that it is an incorrect way to say “would have”. Now, there are a lot of brilliant slang words/expressions, so my question is, why do people use this one? It’s so annoying to read, stupid and clearly wrong, it is pointless, why did they come up with this expression?




Edit: I don't think my question is a duplicate as I didn't ask how can somebody use it (since I know it's incorrect and I know that I can use it with commas giving it a different meaning) but I asked why and how people came up with this expression.










share|improve this question
















I often read the expression “would of” used instead of “would have”. Each time I read it I get annoyed so I googled it and found out -as I expected- that it is an incorrect way to say “would have”. Now, there are a lot of brilliant slang words/expressions, so my question is, why do people use this one? It’s so annoying to read, stupid and clearly wrong, it is pointless, why did they come up with this expression?




Edit: I don't think my question is a duplicate as I didn't ask how can somebody use it (since I know it's incorrect and I know that I can use it with commas giving it a different meaning) but I asked why and how people came up with this expression.







word-choice etymology expressions






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 13 hours ago







Marybnq

















asked 2 days ago









MarybnqMarybnq

465213




465213







  • 32





    Your ears are deceiving you. In most (maybe all) varieties of English, in rapid speech "would have" and "would of" are 100% indistinguishable. Nobody is "saying" something incorrect. But spelling, being part of the invented and learnt technology called "writing" (and thus almost entirely different from the natural faculty called "language") is often imperfectly learnt - especially when the rules of spelling make a distinction which is not there in the real (spoken) language.

    – Colin Fine
    2 days ago






  • 11





    Consider that it's "would 'ave". Some people know this and realize that "would have" is the unabbreviated form, while others, probably as a child, heard "would 'ave" and took it to be "would of", and thus say and write "would of".

    – Hot Licks
    2 days ago






  • 32





    @ColinFine: I disagree. You're right that they're nearly indistinguishable, but as a result, there's a lot of people who learned it wrong, and now say and type "would of".

    – Mooing Duck
    2 days ago







  • 8





    @Marybnq - As a non-native speaker you probably were not speaking English for 5 years before you learned how to read/write it. In fact, you may even have been exposed to written English before you learned to speak it.

    – Hot Licks
    yesterday






  • 19





    @Marybnq - Actually, "would've" and "would of" are virtually indistinguishable.

    – Hot Licks
    yesterday












  • 32





    Your ears are deceiving you. In most (maybe all) varieties of English, in rapid speech "would have" and "would of" are 100% indistinguishable. Nobody is "saying" something incorrect. But spelling, being part of the invented and learnt technology called "writing" (and thus almost entirely different from the natural faculty called "language") is often imperfectly learnt - especially when the rules of spelling make a distinction which is not there in the real (spoken) language.

    – Colin Fine
    2 days ago






  • 11





    Consider that it's "would 'ave". Some people know this and realize that "would have" is the unabbreviated form, while others, probably as a child, heard "would 'ave" and took it to be "would of", and thus say and write "would of".

    – Hot Licks
    2 days ago






  • 32





    @ColinFine: I disagree. You're right that they're nearly indistinguishable, but as a result, there's a lot of people who learned it wrong, and now say and type "would of".

    – Mooing Duck
    2 days ago







  • 8





    @Marybnq - As a non-native speaker you probably were not speaking English for 5 years before you learned how to read/write it. In fact, you may even have been exposed to written English before you learned to speak it.

    – Hot Licks
    yesterday






  • 19





    @Marybnq - Actually, "would've" and "would of" are virtually indistinguishable.

    – Hot Licks
    yesterday







32




32





Your ears are deceiving you. In most (maybe all) varieties of English, in rapid speech "would have" and "would of" are 100% indistinguishable. Nobody is "saying" something incorrect. But spelling, being part of the invented and learnt technology called "writing" (and thus almost entirely different from the natural faculty called "language") is often imperfectly learnt - especially when the rules of spelling make a distinction which is not there in the real (spoken) language.

– Colin Fine
2 days ago





Your ears are deceiving you. In most (maybe all) varieties of English, in rapid speech "would have" and "would of" are 100% indistinguishable. Nobody is "saying" something incorrect. But spelling, being part of the invented and learnt technology called "writing" (and thus almost entirely different from the natural faculty called "language") is often imperfectly learnt - especially when the rules of spelling make a distinction which is not there in the real (spoken) language.

– Colin Fine
2 days ago




11




11





Consider that it's "would 'ave". Some people know this and realize that "would have" is the unabbreviated form, while others, probably as a child, heard "would 'ave" and took it to be "would of", and thus say and write "would of".

– Hot Licks
2 days ago





Consider that it's "would 'ave". Some people know this and realize that "would have" is the unabbreviated form, while others, probably as a child, heard "would 'ave" and took it to be "would of", and thus say and write "would of".

– Hot Licks
2 days ago




32




32





@ColinFine: I disagree. You're right that they're nearly indistinguishable, but as a result, there's a lot of people who learned it wrong, and now say and type "would of".

– Mooing Duck
2 days ago






@ColinFine: I disagree. You're right that they're nearly indistinguishable, but as a result, there's a lot of people who learned it wrong, and now say and type "would of".

– Mooing Duck
2 days ago





8




8





@Marybnq - As a non-native speaker you probably were not speaking English for 5 years before you learned how to read/write it. In fact, you may even have been exposed to written English before you learned to speak it.

– Hot Licks
yesterday





@Marybnq - As a non-native speaker you probably were not speaking English for 5 years before you learned how to read/write it. In fact, you may even have been exposed to written English before you learned to speak it.

– Hot Licks
yesterday




19




19





@Marybnq - Actually, "would've" and "would of" are virtually indistinguishable.

– Hot Licks
yesterday





@Marybnq - Actually, "would've" and "would of" are virtually indistinguishable.

– Hot Licks
yesterday










7 Answers
7






active

oldest

votes


















102














Correction: what annoys you is people writing “would of” when they are saying /ˈwʊdəv/, which is the standard pronunciation of the contraction would’ve.



The vowel of the preposition “of” is almost always reduced in actual speech, yielding /əv/. Thus “would’ve” and “would of” are homophones. So no surprise that some people spell it that way, even though it makes no grammatical sense.



Would’ve can be even further reduced to /ˈwʊdə/, which some people spell woulda as a kind of phonetic eye dialect to represent actual speech or set an informal tone. The same goes for the modals, shoulda, coulda, musta.



Spelling as it sounds can yield amusing results:




Along the way the details of his past are sordid out and he realizes that what he once thought about his parents isn't the truth at all. — Amazon.com Review.




A speaker of British English, of course, would never write sorted in this manner, but with an American flapped t, it’s a perfect fit.






share|improve this answer




















  • 47





    In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.

    – Rusty Core
    2 days ago






  • 10





    +1 for sordid out

    – Orangesandlemons
    yesterday






  • 9





    @RustyCore If you're going to be a prescriptionist, be aware that the OED lists "of" as a dialectal variant of "have".

    – chepner
    yesterday






  • 4





    People write their for there, this is the same deal. These are homophones as KarlG says.

    – Lambie
    yesterday






  • 5





    @tchrist "[woulda] is clearly a misspelling of would've just as much as would of is." — not to me. I perceive the first as intentional mangling of written language, hopefully by someone who knows how to write correctly if needed. The latter to me is clearly a mistake made by someone who picks sounds from the air and puts them to paper so to speak. Similarly, I accept cursing from someone who knows how to speak eloquently, and I despise those who use curse words as everyday interjections.

    – Rusty Core
    yesterday



















25














"Would of" is a garden variety malapropism (Wikipedia - Malapropism).



Some more interesting malapropisms are "tantrum bicycle" instead of tandem bicycle, "Alcoholics Unanimous" instead of Alcoholics Anonymous, "a vast suppository of information" instead of repository of information, "Miss-Marple-ism" instead of malapropism¹ and Mike Tyson's "I might fade into Bolivian" instead of oblivion (these are all borrowed from that same Wikipedia article).



The basic idea is that no one has perfect knowledge of any language, not even the ones they speak natively. We hear things incorrectly and then repeat the mistake.



We know that English speakers often contract "would have" into "would've." This is pronounced identically (in some dialects) to "would of," so the mistake is easy to make.




¹ This one seems too perfect to be a complete mistake. The "miss" sound is totally absent from "malapropism" and the term, for those who didn't follow the Wikipedia link, comes from a character named Mrs Malaprop. It seems unlikely that the supposed speaker of "Miss-Marple-ism" wasn't aware, at least subconsciously, of the correct word, or at least its origins. In which case, this neologism may really be an eggcorn.






share|improve this answer




















  • 8





    A popular example of this is the "it's a dog-eat-dog world" being written "it's a doggy dog world."

    – barbecue
    2 days ago






  • 7





    I would not call it a malapropism, because those are errors of (real, spoken) language. These are utterly different from errors in using the learnt technology called writing.

    – Colin Fine
    2 days ago






  • 2





    @ColinFine not sure I follow. Are you saying that the term "malapropism" can't be used for written language? That seems pretty far-fetched to me. Got a citation?

    – barbecue
    2 days ago






  • 1





    Though I've never read any of Miss Marple, I would take "Miss-Marple-ism" to be an intentional reference to the way Miss Marple spoke.

    – Hot Licks
    yesterday






  • 12





    I would argue that this is less a case of a malapropism, and more of a mondegreen - "Would have" was contracted to "Would've", and then misheard as "would of"

    – Chronocidal
    yesterday


















6














This is probably a case of hearing a phrase and assuming/guessing how it should be spelled. Would have can be abbreviated as would've, and in rapid conversation, the pronunciation of "would've" is basically the same as "would of."






share|improve this answer






























    2














    What most of you are missing is that "of" is preposition, and prepositions are slippery beasts. The "rules" for prepositions are complex and, for most people, in large part incomprehensible.



    While an English purist would quickly cry "foul!", someone with, say, a 5th-grade education might easily believe (without applying much critical thought) that, in "If I had the time I would of eaten sooner", "of eaten sooner" is a prepositional phrase which somehow modifies "I would".



    They are speaking/writing without applying an English teacher's "starch", and to them it makes perfect sense. After all, that's how (they think) their parents speak.






    share|improve this answer


















    • 2





      The lovely thing about languages is that when enough people have made a mistake they are no longer mistaken :)

      – Orangesandlemons
      8 hours ago






    • 1





      I think there's also a chance that people are just writing fast. Sometimes I make these kinds of mistakes when I am rushing out an email such as using "their" when I mean "they're". It's not that I don't know the difference. It's just crossed up in my head for the obvious reasons. Spell check won't flag these as errors so it just happens.

      – JimmyJames
      4 hours ago











    • @JimmyJames -- Yep, I'm pretty sure I've written "would of" a few times, then caught myself on briefly rereading what I wrote. Though a few may have slipped out. Of course, if I didn't have the "reflex education" to tell me that "would of" is wrong, I wouldn't catch these, even if, on deeper reflection, I really knew better.

      – Hot Licks
      4 hours ago


















    1














    Great question. I also get annoyed when I see this phrase, especially from people who should know better. At one of my old jobs year ago, I worked with an account manager who actually used that phrase in an e-mail, saying something like "I should of known better". Yes, an account manager "should of" had a better education to know proper grammar... or at least know that's not a phrase used by professionals.



    Even though the phrase might be pronounced and heard as "should of" (or "would of" or "could of"), there's no such phrase in written English. No school that I've heard of teaches this phrase and basic rules of grammar "abbreviate the word have as 've".
    And writing "should of" takes just as many characters to write as "should've", so it's not like it's text-speak.



    In my opinion, it's people being stupid, ignorant, or trying to be funny/ hip/ trendy by using the wrong phrase. Then other people see it and want to be in on the joke, so they use it also.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    John is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.



























      1














      It's simply because, in many dialects, the sounds of "'ve" and "of" in "I would've bought two of them" are very similar or identical. People often confuse words that sound the same: there/their/they're, your/you're, etc.






      share|improve this answer






























        0














        In addition to KarlG's answer, there's a paper that argues that speakers in some dialects have actually reanalyzed the reduced have as "of" acting as a complementizer, i.e. working similarly to the 'to' in English infinitives, giving the bracketing I would (of worked). The gist of the argument is that have cannot further reduce from [əv] to [ə] while of can always reduce from [əv] to [ə]. However in the construct under discussion, the supposed reduced version of have can in fact reduce from [əv] to [ə]. Therefore, according to the paper's argument, the [əv] in [aɪ wʊd əv dən ɪt] is not actually have, but of.






        share|improve this answer























          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "97"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f493269%2fhow-come-people-say-would-of%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          7 Answers
          7






          active

          oldest

          votes








          7 Answers
          7






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          102














          Correction: what annoys you is people writing “would of” when they are saying /ˈwʊdəv/, which is the standard pronunciation of the contraction would’ve.



          The vowel of the preposition “of” is almost always reduced in actual speech, yielding /əv/. Thus “would’ve” and “would of” are homophones. So no surprise that some people spell it that way, even though it makes no grammatical sense.



          Would’ve can be even further reduced to /ˈwʊdə/, which some people spell woulda as a kind of phonetic eye dialect to represent actual speech or set an informal tone. The same goes for the modals, shoulda, coulda, musta.



          Spelling as it sounds can yield amusing results:




          Along the way the details of his past are sordid out and he realizes that what he once thought about his parents isn't the truth at all. — Amazon.com Review.




          A speaker of British English, of course, would never write sorted in this manner, but with an American flapped t, it’s a perfect fit.






          share|improve this answer




















          • 47





            In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.

            – Rusty Core
            2 days ago






          • 10





            +1 for sordid out

            – Orangesandlemons
            yesterday






          • 9





            @RustyCore If you're going to be a prescriptionist, be aware that the OED lists "of" as a dialectal variant of "have".

            – chepner
            yesterday






          • 4





            People write their for there, this is the same deal. These are homophones as KarlG says.

            – Lambie
            yesterday






          • 5





            @tchrist "[woulda] is clearly a misspelling of would've just as much as would of is." — not to me. I perceive the first as intentional mangling of written language, hopefully by someone who knows how to write correctly if needed. The latter to me is clearly a mistake made by someone who picks sounds from the air and puts them to paper so to speak. Similarly, I accept cursing from someone who knows how to speak eloquently, and I despise those who use curse words as everyday interjections.

            – Rusty Core
            yesterday
















          102














          Correction: what annoys you is people writing “would of” when they are saying /ˈwʊdəv/, which is the standard pronunciation of the contraction would’ve.



          The vowel of the preposition “of” is almost always reduced in actual speech, yielding /əv/. Thus “would’ve” and “would of” are homophones. So no surprise that some people spell it that way, even though it makes no grammatical sense.



          Would’ve can be even further reduced to /ˈwʊdə/, which some people spell woulda as a kind of phonetic eye dialect to represent actual speech or set an informal tone. The same goes for the modals, shoulda, coulda, musta.



          Spelling as it sounds can yield amusing results:




          Along the way the details of his past are sordid out and he realizes that what he once thought about his parents isn't the truth at all. — Amazon.com Review.




          A speaker of British English, of course, would never write sorted in this manner, but with an American flapped t, it’s a perfect fit.






          share|improve this answer




















          • 47





            In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.

            – Rusty Core
            2 days ago






          • 10





            +1 for sordid out

            – Orangesandlemons
            yesterday






          • 9





            @RustyCore If you're going to be a prescriptionist, be aware that the OED lists "of" as a dialectal variant of "have".

            – chepner
            yesterday






          • 4





            People write their for there, this is the same deal. These are homophones as KarlG says.

            – Lambie
            yesterday






          • 5





            @tchrist "[woulda] is clearly a misspelling of would've just as much as would of is." — not to me. I perceive the first as intentional mangling of written language, hopefully by someone who knows how to write correctly if needed. The latter to me is clearly a mistake made by someone who picks sounds from the air and puts them to paper so to speak. Similarly, I accept cursing from someone who knows how to speak eloquently, and I despise those who use curse words as everyday interjections.

            – Rusty Core
            yesterday














          102












          102








          102







          Correction: what annoys you is people writing “would of” when they are saying /ˈwʊdəv/, which is the standard pronunciation of the contraction would’ve.



          The vowel of the preposition “of” is almost always reduced in actual speech, yielding /əv/. Thus “would’ve” and “would of” are homophones. So no surprise that some people spell it that way, even though it makes no grammatical sense.



          Would’ve can be even further reduced to /ˈwʊdə/, which some people spell woulda as a kind of phonetic eye dialect to represent actual speech or set an informal tone. The same goes for the modals, shoulda, coulda, musta.



          Spelling as it sounds can yield amusing results:




          Along the way the details of his past are sordid out and he realizes that what he once thought about his parents isn't the truth at all. — Amazon.com Review.




          A speaker of British English, of course, would never write sorted in this manner, but with an American flapped t, it’s a perfect fit.






          share|improve this answer















          Correction: what annoys you is people writing “would of” when they are saying /ˈwʊdəv/, which is the standard pronunciation of the contraction would’ve.



          The vowel of the preposition “of” is almost always reduced in actual speech, yielding /əv/. Thus “would’ve” and “would of” are homophones. So no surprise that some people spell it that way, even though it makes no grammatical sense.



          Would’ve can be even further reduced to /ˈwʊdə/, which some people spell woulda as a kind of phonetic eye dialect to represent actual speech or set an informal tone. The same goes for the modals, shoulda, coulda, musta.



          Spelling as it sounds can yield amusing results:




          Along the way the details of his past are sordid out and he realizes that what he once thought about his parents isn't the truth at all. — Amazon.com Review.




          A speaker of British English, of course, would never write sorted in this manner, but with an American flapped t, it’s a perfect fit.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 16 hours ago

























          answered 2 days ago









          KarlGKarlG

          23.7k73565




          23.7k73565







          • 47





            In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.

            – Rusty Core
            2 days ago






          • 10





            +1 for sordid out

            – Orangesandlemons
            yesterday






          • 9





            @RustyCore If you're going to be a prescriptionist, be aware that the OED lists "of" as a dialectal variant of "have".

            – chepner
            yesterday






          • 4





            People write their for there, this is the same deal. These are homophones as KarlG says.

            – Lambie
            yesterday






          • 5





            @tchrist "[woulda] is clearly a misspelling of would've just as much as would of is." — not to me. I perceive the first as intentional mangling of written language, hopefully by someone who knows how to write correctly if needed. The latter to me is clearly a mistake made by someone who picks sounds from the air and puts them to paper so to speak. Similarly, I accept cursing from someone who knows how to speak eloquently, and I despise those who use curse words as everyday interjections.

            – Rusty Core
            yesterday













          • 47





            In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.

            – Rusty Core
            2 days ago






          • 10





            +1 for sordid out

            – Orangesandlemons
            yesterday






          • 9





            @RustyCore If you're going to be a prescriptionist, be aware that the OED lists "of" as a dialectal variant of "have".

            – chepner
            yesterday






          • 4





            People write their for there, this is the same deal. These are homophones as KarlG says.

            – Lambie
            yesterday






          • 5





            @tchrist "[woulda] is clearly a misspelling of would've just as much as would of is." — not to me. I perceive the first as intentional mangling of written language, hopefully by someone who knows how to write correctly if needed. The latter to me is clearly a mistake made by someone who picks sounds from the air and puts them to paper so to speak. Similarly, I accept cursing from someone who knows how to speak eloquently, and I despise those who use curse words as everyday interjections.

            – Rusty Core
            yesterday








          47




          47





          In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.

          – Rusty Core
          2 days ago





          In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.

          – Rusty Core
          2 days ago




          10




          10





          +1 for sordid out

          – Orangesandlemons
          yesterday





          +1 for sordid out

          – Orangesandlemons
          yesterday




          9




          9





          @RustyCore If you're going to be a prescriptionist, be aware that the OED lists "of" as a dialectal variant of "have".

          – chepner
          yesterday





          @RustyCore If you're going to be a prescriptionist, be aware that the OED lists "of" as a dialectal variant of "have".

          – chepner
          yesterday




          4




          4





          People write their for there, this is the same deal. These are homophones as KarlG says.

          – Lambie
          yesterday





          People write their for there, this is the same deal. These are homophones as KarlG says.

          – Lambie
          yesterday




          5




          5





          @tchrist "[woulda] is clearly a misspelling of would've just as much as would of is." — not to me. I perceive the first as intentional mangling of written language, hopefully by someone who knows how to write correctly if needed. The latter to me is clearly a mistake made by someone who picks sounds from the air and puts them to paper so to speak. Similarly, I accept cursing from someone who knows how to speak eloquently, and I despise those who use curse words as everyday interjections.

          – Rusty Core
          yesterday






          @tchrist "[woulda] is clearly a misspelling of would've just as much as would of is." — not to me. I perceive the first as intentional mangling of written language, hopefully by someone who knows how to write correctly if needed. The latter to me is clearly a mistake made by someone who picks sounds from the air and puts them to paper so to speak. Similarly, I accept cursing from someone who knows how to speak eloquently, and I despise those who use curse words as everyday interjections.

          – Rusty Core
          yesterday














          25














          "Would of" is a garden variety malapropism (Wikipedia - Malapropism).



          Some more interesting malapropisms are "tantrum bicycle" instead of tandem bicycle, "Alcoholics Unanimous" instead of Alcoholics Anonymous, "a vast suppository of information" instead of repository of information, "Miss-Marple-ism" instead of malapropism¹ and Mike Tyson's "I might fade into Bolivian" instead of oblivion (these are all borrowed from that same Wikipedia article).



          The basic idea is that no one has perfect knowledge of any language, not even the ones they speak natively. We hear things incorrectly and then repeat the mistake.



          We know that English speakers often contract "would have" into "would've." This is pronounced identically (in some dialects) to "would of," so the mistake is easy to make.




          ¹ This one seems too perfect to be a complete mistake. The "miss" sound is totally absent from "malapropism" and the term, for those who didn't follow the Wikipedia link, comes from a character named Mrs Malaprop. It seems unlikely that the supposed speaker of "Miss-Marple-ism" wasn't aware, at least subconsciously, of the correct word, or at least its origins. In which case, this neologism may really be an eggcorn.






          share|improve this answer




















          • 8





            A popular example of this is the "it's a dog-eat-dog world" being written "it's a doggy dog world."

            – barbecue
            2 days ago






          • 7





            I would not call it a malapropism, because those are errors of (real, spoken) language. These are utterly different from errors in using the learnt technology called writing.

            – Colin Fine
            2 days ago






          • 2





            @ColinFine not sure I follow. Are you saying that the term "malapropism" can't be used for written language? That seems pretty far-fetched to me. Got a citation?

            – barbecue
            2 days ago






          • 1





            Though I've never read any of Miss Marple, I would take "Miss-Marple-ism" to be an intentional reference to the way Miss Marple spoke.

            – Hot Licks
            yesterday






          • 12





            I would argue that this is less a case of a malapropism, and more of a mondegreen - "Would have" was contracted to "Would've", and then misheard as "would of"

            – Chronocidal
            yesterday















          25














          "Would of" is a garden variety malapropism (Wikipedia - Malapropism).



          Some more interesting malapropisms are "tantrum bicycle" instead of tandem bicycle, "Alcoholics Unanimous" instead of Alcoholics Anonymous, "a vast suppository of information" instead of repository of information, "Miss-Marple-ism" instead of malapropism¹ and Mike Tyson's "I might fade into Bolivian" instead of oblivion (these are all borrowed from that same Wikipedia article).



          The basic idea is that no one has perfect knowledge of any language, not even the ones they speak natively. We hear things incorrectly and then repeat the mistake.



          We know that English speakers often contract "would have" into "would've." This is pronounced identically (in some dialects) to "would of," so the mistake is easy to make.




          ¹ This one seems too perfect to be a complete mistake. The "miss" sound is totally absent from "malapropism" and the term, for those who didn't follow the Wikipedia link, comes from a character named Mrs Malaprop. It seems unlikely that the supposed speaker of "Miss-Marple-ism" wasn't aware, at least subconsciously, of the correct word, or at least its origins. In which case, this neologism may really be an eggcorn.






          share|improve this answer




















          • 8





            A popular example of this is the "it's a dog-eat-dog world" being written "it's a doggy dog world."

            – barbecue
            2 days ago






          • 7





            I would not call it a malapropism, because those are errors of (real, spoken) language. These are utterly different from errors in using the learnt technology called writing.

            – Colin Fine
            2 days ago






          • 2





            @ColinFine not sure I follow. Are you saying that the term "malapropism" can't be used for written language? That seems pretty far-fetched to me. Got a citation?

            – barbecue
            2 days ago






          • 1





            Though I've never read any of Miss Marple, I would take "Miss-Marple-ism" to be an intentional reference to the way Miss Marple spoke.

            – Hot Licks
            yesterday






          • 12





            I would argue that this is less a case of a malapropism, and more of a mondegreen - "Would have" was contracted to "Would've", and then misheard as "would of"

            – Chronocidal
            yesterday













          25












          25








          25







          "Would of" is a garden variety malapropism (Wikipedia - Malapropism).



          Some more interesting malapropisms are "tantrum bicycle" instead of tandem bicycle, "Alcoholics Unanimous" instead of Alcoholics Anonymous, "a vast suppository of information" instead of repository of information, "Miss-Marple-ism" instead of malapropism¹ and Mike Tyson's "I might fade into Bolivian" instead of oblivion (these are all borrowed from that same Wikipedia article).



          The basic idea is that no one has perfect knowledge of any language, not even the ones they speak natively. We hear things incorrectly and then repeat the mistake.



          We know that English speakers often contract "would have" into "would've." This is pronounced identically (in some dialects) to "would of," so the mistake is easy to make.




          ¹ This one seems too perfect to be a complete mistake. The "miss" sound is totally absent from "malapropism" and the term, for those who didn't follow the Wikipedia link, comes from a character named Mrs Malaprop. It seems unlikely that the supposed speaker of "Miss-Marple-ism" wasn't aware, at least subconsciously, of the correct word, or at least its origins. In which case, this neologism may really be an eggcorn.






          share|improve this answer















          "Would of" is a garden variety malapropism (Wikipedia - Malapropism).



          Some more interesting malapropisms are "tantrum bicycle" instead of tandem bicycle, "Alcoholics Unanimous" instead of Alcoholics Anonymous, "a vast suppository of information" instead of repository of information, "Miss-Marple-ism" instead of malapropism¹ and Mike Tyson's "I might fade into Bolivian" instead of oblivion (these are all borrowed from that same Wikipedia article).



          The basic idea is that no one has perfect knowledge of any language, not even the ones they speak natively. We hear things incorrectly and then repeat the mistake.



          We know that English speakers often contract "would have" into "would've." This is pronounced identically (in some dialects) to "would of," so the mistake is easy to make.




          ¹ This one seems too perfect to be a complete mistake. The "miss" sound is totally absent from "malapropism" and the term, for those who didn't follow the Wikipedia link, comes from a character named Mrs Malaprop. It seems unlikely that the supposed speaker of "Miss-Marple-ism" wasn't aware, at least subconsciously, of the correct word, or at least its origins. In which case, this neologism may really be an eggcorn.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited yesterday









          Toby Speight

          1,078715




          1,078715










          answered 2 days ago









          JuhaszJuhasz

          3,5721915




          3,5721915







          • 8





            A popular example of this is the "it's a dog-eat-dog world" being written "it's a doggy dog world."

            – barbecue
            2 days ago






          • 7





            I would not call it a malapropism, because those are errors of (real, spoken) language. These are utterly different from errors in using the learnt technology called writing.

            – Colin Fine
            2 days ago






          • 2





            @ColinFine not sure I follow. Are you saying that the term "malapropism" can't be used for written language? That seems pretty far-fetched to me. Got a citation?

            – barbecue
            2 days ago






          • 1





            Though I've never read any of Miss Marple, I would take "Miss-Marple-ism" to be an intentional reference to the way Miss Marple spoke.

            – Hot Licks
            yesterday






          • 12





            I would argue that this is less a case of a malapropism, and more of a mondegreen - "Would have" was contracted to "Would've", and then misheard as "would of"

            – Chronocidal
            yesterday












          • 8





            A popular example of this is the "it's a dog-eat-dog world" being written "it's a doggy dog world."

            – barbecue
            2 days ago






          • 7





            I would not call it a malapropism, because those are errors of (real, spoken) language. These are utterly different from errors in using the learnt technology called writing.

            – Colin Fine
            2 days ago






          • 2





            @ColinFine not sure I follow. Are you saying that the term "malapropism" can't be used for written language? That seems pretty far-fetched to me. Got a citation?

            – barbecue
            2 days ago






          • 1





            Though I've never read any of Miss Marple, I would take "Miss-Marple-ism" to be an intentional reference to the way Miss Marple spoke.

            – Hot Licks
            yesterday






          • 12





            I would argue that this is less a case of a malapropism, and more of a mondegreen - "Would have" was contracted to "Would've", and then misheard as "would of"

            – Chronocidal
            yesterday







          8




          8





          A popular example of this is the "it's a dog-eat-dog world" being written "it's a doggy dog world."

          – barbecue
          2 days ago





          A popular example of this is the "it's a dog-eat-dog world" being written "it's a doggy dog world."

          – barbecue
          2 days ago




          7




          7





          I would not call it a malapropism, because those are errors of (real, spoken) language. These are utterly different from errors in using the learnt technology called writing.

          – Colin Fine
          2 days ago





          I would not call it a malapropism, because those are errors of (real, spoken) language. These are utterly different from errors in using the learnt technology called writing.

          – Colin Fine
          2 days ago




          2




          2





          @ColinFine not sure I follow. Are you saying that the term "malapropism" can't be used for written language? That seems pretty far-fetched to me. Got a citation?

          – barbecue
          2 days ago





          @ColinFine not sure I follow. Are you saying that the term "malapropism" can't be used for written language? That seems pretty far-fetched to me. Got a citation?

          – barbecue
          2 days ago




          1




          1





          Though I've never read any of Miss Marple, I would take "Miss-Marple-ism" to be an intentional reference to the way Miss Marple spoke.

          – Hot Licks
          yesterday





          Though I've never read any of Miss Marple, I would take "Miss-Marple-ism" to be an intentional reference to the way Miss Marple spoke.

          – Hot Licks
          yesterday




          12




          12





          I would argue that this is less a case of a malapropism, and more of a mondegreen - "Would have" was contracted to "Would've", and then misheard as "would of"

          – Chronocidal
          yesterday





          I would argue that this is less a case of a malapropism, and more of a mondegreen - "Would have" was contracted to "Would've", and then misheard as "would of"

          – Chronocidal
          yesterday











          6














          This is probably a case of hearing a phrase and assuming/guessing how it should be spelled. Would have can be abbreviated as would've, and in rapid conversation, the pronunciation of "would've" is basically the same as "would of."






          share|improve this answer



























            6














            This is probably a case of hearing a phrase and assuming/guessing how it should be spelled. Would have can be abbreviated as would've, and in rapid conversation, the pronunciation of "would've" is basically the same as "would of."






            share|improve this answer

























              6












              6








              6







              This is probably a case of hearing a phrase and assuming/guessing how it should be spelled. Would have can be abbreviated as would've, and in rapid conversation, the pronunciation of "would've" is basically the same as "would of."






              share|improve this answer













              This is probably a case of hearing a phrase and assuming/guessing how it should be spelled. Would have can be abbreviated as would've, and in rapid conversation, the pronunciation of "would've" is basically the same as "would of."







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered 2 days ago









              barbecuebarbecue

              4,5861128




              4,5861128





















                  2














                  What most of you are missing is that "of" is preposition, and prepositions are slippery beasts. The "rules" for prepositions are complex and, for most people, in large part incomprehensible.



                  While an English purist would quickly cry "foul!", someone with, say, a 5th-grade education might easily believe (without applying much critical thought) that, in "If I had the time I would of eaten sooner", "of eaten sooner" is a prepositional phrase which somehow modifies "I would".



                  They are speaking/writing without applying an English teacher's "starch", and to them it makes perfect sense. After all, that's how (they think) their parents speak.






                  share|improve this answer


















                  • 2





                    The lovely thing about languages is that when enough people have made a mistake they are no longer mistaken :)

                    – Orangesandlemons
                    8 hours ago






                  • 1





                    I think there's also a chance that people are just writing fast. Sometimes I make these kinds of mistakes when I am rushing out an email such as using "their" when I mean "they're". It's not that I don't know the difference. It's just crossed up in my head for the obvious reasons. Spell check won't flag these as errors so it just happens.

                    – JimmyJames
                    4 hours ago











                  • @JimmyJames -- Yep, I'm pretty sure I've written "would of" a few times, then caught myself on briefly rereading what I wrote. Though a few may have slipped out. Of course, if I didn't have the "reflex education" to tell me that "would of" is wrong, I wouldn't catch these, even if, on deeper reflection, I really knew better.

                    – Hot Licks
                    4 hours ago















                  2














                  What most of you are missing is that "of" is preposition, and prepositions are slippery beasts. The "rules" for prepositions are complex and, for most people, in large part incomprehensible.



                  While an English purist would quickly cry "foul!", someone with, say, a 5th-grade education might easily believe (without applying much critical thought) that, in "If I had the time I would of eaten sooner", "of eaten sooner" is a prepositional phrase which somehow modifies "I would".



                  They are speaking/writing without applying an English teacher's "starch", and to them it makes perfect sense. After all, that's how (they think) their parents speak.






                  share|improve this answer


















                  • 2





                    The lovely thing about languages is that when enough people have made a mistake they are no longer mistaken :)

                    – Orangesandlemons
                    8 hours ago






                  • 1





                    I think there's also a chance that people are just writing fast. Sometimes I make these kinds of mistakes when I am rushing out an email such as using "their" when I mean "they're". It's not that I don't know the difference. It's just crossed up in my head for the obvious reasons. Spell check won't flag these as errors so it just happens.

                    – JimmyJames
                    4 hours ago











                  • @JimmyJames -- Yep, I'm pretty sure I've written "would of" a few times, then caught myself on briefly rereading what I wrote. Though a few may have slipped out. Of course, if I didn't have the "reflex education" to tell me that "would of" is wrong, I wouldn't catch these, even if, on deeper reflection, I really knew better.

                    – Hot Licks
                    4 hours ago













                  2












                  2








                  2







                  What most of you are missing is that "of" is preposition, and prepositions are slippery beasts. The "rules" for prepositions are complex and, for most people, in large part incomprehensible.



                  While an English purist would quickly cry "foul!", someone with, say, a 5th-grade education might easily believe (without applying much critical thought) that, in "If I had the time I would of eaten sooner", "of eaten sooner" is a prepositional phrase which somehow modifies "I would".



                  They are speaking/writing without applying an English teacher's "starch", and to them it makes perfect sense. After all, that's how (they think) their parents speak.






                  share|improve this answer













                  What most of you are missing is that "of" is preposition, and prepositions are slippery beasts. The "rules" for prepositions are complex and, for most people, in large part incomprehensible.



                  While an English purist would quickly cry "foul!", someone with, say, a 5th-grade education might easily believe (without applying much critical thought) that, in "If I had the time I would of eaten sooner", "of eaten sooner" is a prepositional phrase which somehow modifies "I would".



                  They are speaking/writing without applying an English teacher's "starch", and to them it makes perfect sense. After all, that's how (they think) their parents speak.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered yesterday









                  Hot LicksHot Licks

                  19.5k23777




                  19.5k23777







                  • 2





                    The lovely thing about languages is that when enough people have made a mistake they are no longer mistaken :)

                    – Orangesandlemons
                    8 hours ago






                  • 1





                    I think there's also a chance that people are just writing fast. Sometimes I make these kinds of mistakes when I am rushing out an email such as using "their" when I mean "they're". It's not that I don't know the difference. It's just crossed up in my head for the obvious reasons. Spell check won't flag these as errors so it just happens.

                    – JimmyJames
                    4 hours ago











                  • @JimmyJames -- Yep, I'm pretty sure I've written "would of" a few times, then caught myself on briefly rereading what I wrote. Though a few may have slipped out. Of course, if I didn't have the "reflex education" to tell me that "would of" is wrong, I wouldn't catch these, even if, on deeper reflection, I really knew better.

                    – Hot Licks
                    4 hours ago












                  • 2





                    The lovely thing about languages is that when enough people have made a mistake they are no longer mistaken :)

                    – Orangesandlemons
                    8 hours ago






                  • 1





                    I think there's also a chance that people are just writing fast. Sometimes I make these kinds of mistakes when I am rushing out an email such as using "their" when I mean "they're". It's not that I don't know the difference. It's just crossed up in my head for the obvious reasons. Spell check won't flag these as errors so it just happens.

                    – JimmyJames
                    4 hours ago











                  • @JimmyJames -- Yep, I'm pretty sure I've written "would of" a few times, then caught myself on briefly rereading what I wrote. Though a few may have slipped out. Of course, if I didn't have the "reflex education" to tell me that "would of" is wrong, I wouldn't catch these, even if, on deeper reflection, I really knew better.

                    – Hot Licks
                    4 hours ago







                  2




                  2





                  The lovely thing about languages is that when enough people have made a mistake they are no longer mistaken :)

                  – Orangesandlemons
                  8 hours ago





                  The lovely thing about languages is that when enough people have made a mistake they are no longer mistaken :)

                  – Orangesandlemons
                  8 hours ago




                  1




                  1





                  I think there's also a chance that people are just writing fast. Sometimes I make these kinds of mistakes when I am rushing out an email such as using "their" when I mean "they're". It's not that I don't know the difference. It's just crossed up in my head for the obvious reasons. Spell check won't flag these as errors so it just happens.

                  – JimmyJames
                  4 hours ago





                  I think there's also a chance that people are just writing fast. Sometimes I make these kinds of mistakes when I am rushing out an email such as using "their" when I mean "they're". It's not that I don't know the difference. It's just crossed up in my head for the obvious reasons. Spell check won't flag these as errors so it just happens.

                  – JimmyJames
                  4 hours ago













                  @JimmyJames -- Yep, I'm pretty sure I've written "would of" a few times, then caught myself on briefly rereading what I wrote. Though a few may have slipped out. Of course, if I didn't have the "reflex education" to tell me that "would of" is wrong, I wouldn't catch these, even if, on deeper reflection, I really knew better.

                  – Hot Licks
                  4 hours ago





                  @JimmyJames -- Yep, I'm pretty sure I've written "would of" a few times, then caught myself on briefly rereading what I wrote. Though a few may have slipped out. Of course, if I didn't have the "reflex education" to tell me that "would of" is wrong, I wouldn't catch these, even if, on deeper reflection, I really knew better.

                  – Hot Licks
                  4 hours ago











                  1














                  Great question. I also get annoyed when I see this phrase, especially from people who should know better. At one of my old jobs year ago, I worked with an account manager who actually used that phrase in an e-mail, saying something like "I should of known better". Yes, an account manager "should of" had a better education to know proper grammar... or at least know that's not a phrase used by professionals.



                  Even though the phrase might be pronounced and heard as "should of" (or "would of" or "could of"), there's no such phrase in written English. No school that I've heard of teaches this phrase and basic rules of grammar "abbreviate the word have as 've".
                  And writing "should of" takes just as many characters to write as "should've", so it's not like it's text-speak.



                  In my opinion, it's people being stupid, ignorant, or trying to be funny/ hip/ trendy by using the wrong phrase. Then other people see it and want to be in on the joke, so they use it also.






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  John is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.
























                    1














                    Great question. I also get annoyed when I see this phrase, especially from people who should know better. At one of my old jobs year ago, I worked with an account manager who actually used that phrase in an e-mail, saying something like "I should of known better". Yes, an account manager "should of" had a better education to know proper grammar... or at least know that's not a phrase used by professionals.



                    Even though the phrase might be pronounced and heard as "should of" (or "would of" or "could of"), there's no such phrase in written English. No school that I've heard of teaches this phrase and basic rules of grammar "abbreviate the word have as 've".
                    And writing "should of" takes just as many characters to write as "should've", so it's not like it's text-speak.



                    In my opinion, it's people being stupid, ignorant, or trying to be funny/ hip/ trendy by using the wrong phrase. Then other people see it and want to be in on the joke, so they use it also.






                    share|improve this answer








                    New contributor




                    John is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                      1












                      1








                      1







                      Great question. I also get annoyed when I see this phrase, especially from people who should know better. At one of my old jobs year ago, I worked with an account manager who actually used that phrase in an e-mail, saying something like "I should of known better". Yes, an account manager "should of" had a better education to know proper grammar... or at least know that's not a phrase used by professionals.



                      Even though the phrase might be pronounced and heard as "should of" (or "would of" or "could of"), there's no such phrase in written English. No school that I've heard of teaches this phrase and basic rules of grammar "abbreviate the word have as 've".
                      And writing "should of" takes just as many characters to write as "should've", so it's not like it's text-speak.



                      In my opinion, it's people being stupid, ignorant, or trying to be funny/ hip/ trendy by using the wrong phrase. Then other people see it and want to be in on the joke, so they use it also.






                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      John is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.










                      Great question. I also get annoyed when I see this phrase, especially from people who should know better. At one of my old jobs year ago, I worked with an account manager who actually used that phrase in an e-mail, saying something like "I should of known better". Yes, an account manager "should of" had a better education to know proper grammar... or at least know that's not a phrase used by professionals.



                      Even though the phrase might be pronounced and heard as "should of" (or "would of" or "could of"), there's no such phrase in written English. No school that I've heard of teaches this phrase and basic rules of grammar "abbreviate the word have as 've".
                      And writing "should of" takes just as many characters to write as "should've", so it's not like it's text-speak.



                      In my opinion, it's people being stupid, ignorant, or trying to be funny/ hip/ trendy by using the wrong phrase. Then other people see it and want to be in on the joke, so they use it also.







                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      John is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer






                      New contributor




                      John is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                      answered yesterday









                      JohnJohn

                      271




                      271




                      New contributor




                      John is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.





                      New contributor





                      John is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






                      John is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                          1














                          It's simply because, in many dialects, the sounds of "'ve" and "of" in "I would've bought two of them" are very similar or identical. People often confuse words that sound the same: there/their/they're, your/you're, etc.






                          share|improve this answer



























                            1














                            It's simply because, in many dialects, the sounds of "'ve" and "of" in "I would've bought two of them" are very similar or identical. People often confuse words that sound the same: there/their/they're, your/you're, etc.






                            share|improve this answer

























                              1












                              1








                              1







                              It's simply because, in many dialects, the sounds of "'ve" and "of" in "I would've bought two of them" are very similar or identical. People often confuse words that sound the same: there/their/they're, your/you're, etc.






                              share|improve this answer













                              It's simply because, in many dialects, the sounds of "'ve" and "of" in "I would've bought two of them" are very similar or identical. People often confuse words that sound the same: there/their/they're, your/you're, etc.







                              share|improve this answer












                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer










                              answered 14 hours ago









                              David RicherbyDavid Richerby

                              3,64811532




                              3,64811532





















                                  0














                                  In addition to KarlG's answer, there's a paper that argues that speakers in some dialects have actually reanalyzed the reduced have as "of" acting as a complementizer, i.e. working similarly to the 'to' in English infinitives, giving the bracketing I would (of worked). The gist of the argument is that have cannot further reduce from [əv] to [ə] while of can always reduce from [əv] to [ə]. However in the construct under discussion, the supposed reduced version of have can in fact reduce from [əv] to [ə]. Therefore, according to the paper's argument, the [əv] in [aɪ wʊd əv dən ɪt] is not actually have, but of.






                                  share|improve this answer



























                                    0














                                    In addition to KarlG's answer, there's a paper that argues that speakers in some dialects have actually reanalyzed the reduced have as "of" acting as a complementizer, i.e. working similarly to the 'to' in English infinitives, giving the bracketing I would (of worked). The gist of the argument is that have cannot further reduce from [əv] to [ə] while of can always reduce from [əv] to [ə]. However in the construct under discussion, the supposed reduced version of have can in fact reduce from [əv] to [ə]. Therefore, according to the paper's argument, the [əv] in [aɪ wʊd əv dən ɪt] is not actually have, but of.






                                    share|improve this answer

























                                      0












                                      0








                                      0







                                      In addition to KarlG's answer, there's a paper that argues that speakers in some dialects have actually reanalyzed the reduced have as "of" acting as a complementizer, i.e. working similarly to the 'to' in English infinitives, giving the bracketing I would (of worked). The gist of the argument is that have cannot further reduce from [əv] to [ə] while of can always reduce from [əv] to [ə]. However in the construct under discussion, the supposed reduced version of have can in fact reduce from [əv] to [ə]. Therefore, according to the paper's argument, the [əv] in [aɪ wʊd əv dən ɪt] is not actually have, but of.






                                      share|improve this answer













                                      In addition to KarlG's answer, there's a paper that argues that speakers in some dialects have actually reanalyzed the reduced have as "of" acting as a complementizer, i.e. working similarly to the 'to' in English infinitives, giving the bracketing I would (of worked). The gist of the argument is that have cannot further reduce from [əv] to [ə] while of can always reduce from [əv] to [ə]. However in the construct under discussion, the supposed reduced version of have can in fact reduce from [əv] to [ə]. Therefore, according to the paper's argument, the [əv] in [aɪ wʊd əv dən ɪt] is not actually have, but of.







                                      share|improve this answer












                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer










                                      answered 6 hours ago









                                      Ryan PolleyRyan Polley

                                      1213




                                      1213



























                                          draft saved

                                          draft discarded
















































                                          Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!


                                          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                          But avoid


                                          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                                          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          StackExchange.ready(
                                          function ()
                                          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f493269%2fhow-come-people-say-would-of%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                          );

                                          Post as a guest















                                          Required, but never shown





















































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown

































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown







                                          -etymology, expressions, word-choice

                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          Frič See also Navigation menuinternal link

                                          Identify plant with long narrow paired leaves and reddish stems Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?What is this plant with long sharp leaves? Is it a weed?What is this 3ft high, stalky plant, with mid sized narrow leaves?What is this young shrub with opposite ovate, crenate leaves and reddish stems?What is this plant with large broad serrated leaves?Identify this upright branching weed with long leaves and reddish stemsPlease help me identify this bulbous plant with long, broad leaves and white flowersWhat is this small annual with narrow gray/green leaves and rust colored daisy-type flowers?What is this chilli plant?Does anyone know what type of chilli plant this is?Help identify this plant

                                          fontconfig warning: “/etc/fonts/fonts.conf”, line 100: unknown “element blank” The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In“tar: unrecognized option --warning” during 'apt-get install'How to fix Fontconfig errorHow do I figure out which font file is chosen for a system generic font alias?Why are some apt-get-installed fonts being ignored by fc-list, xfontsel, etc?Reload settings in /etc/fonts/conf.dTaking 30 seconds longer to boot after upgrade from jessie to stretchHow to match multiple font names with a single <match> element?Adding a custom font to fontconfigRemoving fonts from fontconfig <match> resultsBroken fonts after upgrading Firefox ESR to latest Firefox