How come people say “Would of”? [duplicate] The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)How did the use of “could of” and “should of” originate, and is it considered correct?“Based on” instead of “based off of”Is “of” instead of “have” correct?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

Is every episode of "Where are my Pants?" identical?

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

Is this wall load bearing? Blueprints and photos attached

Example of compact Riemannian manifold with only one geodesic.

Can I visit the Trinity College (Cambridge) library and see some of their rare books

How did the audience guess the pentatonic scale in Bobby McFerrin's presentation?

Do ℕ, mathbbN, BbbN, symbbN effectively differ, and is there a "canonical" specification of the naturals?

Circular reasoning in L'Hopital's rule

US Healthcare consultation for visitors

What happens to a Warlock's expended Spell Slots when they gain a Level?

Can a flute soloist sit?

What other Star Trek series did the main TNG cast show up in?

Identify 80s or 90s comics with ripped creatures (not dwarves)

How many cones with angle theta can I pack into the unit sphere?

Was credit for the black hole image misappropriated?

Why doesn't a hydraulic lever violate conservation of energy?

How do I design a circuit to convert a 100 mV and 50 Hz sine wave to a square wave?

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

Why are PDP-7-style microprogrammed instructions out of vogue?

The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG 1397BC53640DB551

Do I have Disadvantage attacking with an off-hand weapon?

How to handle characters who are more educated than the author?

What force causes entropy to increase?

Make it rain characters



How come people say “Would of”? [duplicate]



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)How did the use of “could of” and “should of” originate, and is it considered correct?“Based on” instead of “based off of”Is “of” instead of “have” correct?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;








35
















This question already has an answer here:



  • How did the use of “could of” and “should of” originate, and is it considered correct? [duplicate]

    2 answers



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















marked as duplicate by Hot Licks, TrevorD, JJJ, Matt E. Эллен 16 hours ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.













  • 33





    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
    Apr 9 at 21:57






  • 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
    Apr 9 at 22:22






  • 35





    @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
    Apr 10 at 0:48







  • 20





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

    – Hot Licks
    2 days ago






  • 9





    @tchrist Then Colin is clearly and completely wrong. I hear it a lot. It's clearly perceptible. People think the phrase is "would of", and they say "would of" entirely meaning to say "would of", because those who have gone before in the past have mispronounced or misinterpreted "would've" and it's spread. A similar example that has wound me up in the past: "seems" instead of "seeing as". That wasn't me mishearing the bloke's pronunciation, and it wasn't the result of some academic or esoteric abstraction on what constitutes a "word" when spoken; it's literally what he thought the words were.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    yesterday


















35
















This question already has an answer here:



  • How did the use of “could of” and “should of” originate, and is it considered correct? [duplicate]

    2 answers



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















marked as duplicate by Hot Licks, TrevorD, JJJ, Matt E. Эллен 16 hours ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.













  • 33





    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
    Apr 9 at 21:57






  • 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
    Apr 9 at 22:22






  • 35





    @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
    Apr 10 at 0:48







  • 20





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

    – Hot Licks
    2 days ago






  • 9





    @tchrist Then Colin is clearly and completely wrong. I hear it a lot. It's clearly perceptible. People think the phrase is "would of", and they say "would of" entirely meaning to say "would of", because those who have gone before in the past have mispronounced or misinterpreted "would've" and it's spread. A similar example that has wound me up in the past: "seems" instead of "seeing as". That wasn't me mishearing the bloke's pronunciation, and it wasn't the result of some academic or esoteric abstraction on what constitutes a "word" when spoken; it's literally what he thought the words were.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    yesterday














35












35








35


10







This question already has an answer here:



  • How did the use of “could of” and “should of” originate, and is it considered correct? [duplicate]

    2 answers



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

















This question already has an answer here:



  • How did the use of “could of” and “should of” originate, and is it considered correct? [duplicate]

    2 answers



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.





This question already has an answer here:



  • How did the use of “could of” and “should of” originate, and is it considered correct? [duplicate]

    2 answers







word-choice etymology expressions






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday







Marybnq

















asked Apr 9 at 21:35









MarybnqMarybnq

476213




476213




marked as duplicate by Hot Licks, TrevorD, JJJ, Matt E. Эллен 16 hours ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.









marked as duplicate by Hot Licks, TrevorD, JJJ, Matt E. Эллен 16 hours ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.









  • 33





    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
    Apr 9 at 21:57






  • 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
    Apr 9 at 22:22






  • 35





    @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
    Apr 10 at 0:48







  • 20





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

    – Hot Licks
    2 days ago






  • 9





    @tchrist Then Colin is clearly and completely wrong. I hear it a lot. It's clearly perceptible. People think the phrase is "would of", and they say "would of" entirely meaning to say "would of", because those who have gone before in the past have mispronounced or misinterpreted "would've" and it's spread. A similar example that has wound me up in the past: "seems" instead of "seeing as". That wasn't me mishearing the bloke's pronunciation, and it wasn't the result of some academic or esoteric abstraction on what constitutes a "word" when spoken; it's literally what he thought the words were.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    yesterday













  • 33





    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
    Apr 9 at 21:57






  • 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
    Apr 9 at 22:22






  • 35





    @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
    Apr 10 at 0:48







  • 20





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

    – Hot Licks
    2 days ago






  • 9





    @tchrist Then Colin is clearly and completely wrong. I hear it a lot. It's clearly perceptible. People think the phrase is "would of", and they say "would of" entirely meaning to say "would of", because those who have gone before in the past have mispronounced or misinterpreted "would've" and it's spread. A similar example that has wound me up in the past: "seems" instead of "seeing as". That wasn't me mishearing the bloke's pronunciation, and it wasn't the result of some academic or esoteric abstraction on what constitutes a "word" when spoken; it's literally what he thought the words were.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    yesterday








33




33





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
Apr 9 at 21:57





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
Apr 9 at 21:57




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
Apr 9 at 22:22





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
Apr 9 at 22:22




35




35





@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
Apr 10 at 0:48






@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
Apr 10 at 0:48





20




20





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

– Hot Licks
2 days ago





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

– Hot Licks
2 days ago




9




9





@tchrist Then Colin is clearly and completely wrong. I hear it a lot. It's clearly perceptible. People think the phrase is "would of", and they say "would of" entirely meaning to say "would of", because those who have gone before in the past have mispronounced or misinterpreted "would've" and it's spread. A similar example that has wound me up in the past: "seems" instead of "seeing as". That wasn't me mishearing the bloke's pronunciation, and it wasn't the result of some academic or esoteric abstraction on what constitutes a "word" when spoken; it's literally what he thought the words were.

– Lightness Races in Orbit
yesterday






@tchrist Then Colin is clearly and completely wrong. I hear it a lot. It's clearly perceptible. People think the phrase is "would of", and they say "would of" entirely meaning to say "would of", because those who have gone before in the past have mispronounced or misinterpreted "would've" and it's spread. A similar example that has wound me up in the past: "seems" instead of "seeing as". That wasn't me mishearing the bloke's pronunciation, and it wasn't the result of some academic or esoteric abstraction on what constitutes a "word" when spoken; it's literally what he thought the words were.

– Lightness Races in Orbit
yesterday











7 Answers
7






active

oldest

votes


















104














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




















  • 51





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

    – Rusty Core
    Apr 9 at 23:26






  • 11





    +1 for sordid out

    – Orangesandlemons
    2 days ago






  • 9





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

    – chepner
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago







  • 5





    @IMil There is more than one usage of "have". Although it doesn't fit with the possession definition, there are others. Most common dictionaries have entries for it as an auxiliary verb, which is how it is used in the case of "would have".

    – JMac
    yesterday


















26














"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




















  • 10





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

    – barbecue
    Apr 9 at 21:56






  • 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
    Apr 9 at 22:14






  • 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
    Apr 9 at 23:11






  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 13





    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
    2 days ago


















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














    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.



























      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
        yesterday






      • 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
        yesterday











      • @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
        yesterday


















      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





























          7 Answers
          7






          active

          oldest

          votes








          7 Answers
          7






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          104














          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




















          • 51





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

            – Rusty Core
            Apr 9 at 23:26






          • 11





            +1 for sordid out

            – Orangesandlemons
            2 days ago






          • 9





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

            – chepner
            2 days ago






          • 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
            2 days ago







          • 5





            @IMil There is more than one usage of "have". Although it doesn't fit with the possession definition, there are others. Most common dictionaries have entries for it as an auxiliary verb, which is how it is used in the case of "would have".

            – JMac
            yesterday















          104














          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




















          • 51





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

            – Rusty Core
            Apr 9 at 23:26






          • 11





            +1 for sordid out

            – Orangesandlemons
            2 days ago






          • 9





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

            – chepner
            2 days ago






          • 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
            2 days ago







          • 5





            @IMil There is more than one usage of "have". Although it doesn't fit with the possession definition, there are others. Most common dictionaries have entries for it as an auxiliary verb, which is how it is used in the case of "would have".

            – JMac
            yesterday













          104












          104








          104







          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 yesterday

























          answered Apr 9 at 22:24









          KarlGKarlG

          23.8k73566




          23.8k73566







          • 51





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

            – Rusty Core
            Apr 9 at 23:26






          • 11





            +1 for sordid out

            – Orangesandlemons
            2 days ago






          • 9





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

            – chepner
            2 days ago






          • 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
            2 days ago







          • 5





            @IMil There is more than one usage of "have". Although it doesn't fit with the possession definition, there are others. Most common dictionaries have entries for it as an auxiliary verb, which is how it is used in the case of "would have".

            – JMac
            yesterday












          • 51





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

            – Rusty Core
            Apr 9 at 23:26






          • 11





            +1 for sordid out

            – Orangesandlemons
            2 days ago






          • 9





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

            – chepner
            2 days ago






          • 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
            2 days ago







          • 5





            @IMil There is more than one usage of "have". Although it doesn't fit with the possession definition, there are others. Most common dictionaries have entries for it as an auxiliary verb, which is how it is used in the case of "would have".

            – JMac
            yesterday







          51




          51





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

          – Rusty Core
          Apr 9 at 23:26





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

          – Rusty Core
          Apr 9 at 23:26




          11




          11





          +1 for sordid out

          – Orangesandlemons
          2 days ago





          +1 for sordid out

          – Orangesandlemons
          2 days ago




          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
          2 days ago





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

          – chepner
          2 days ago




          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
          2 days ago






          @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
          2 days ago





          5




          5





          @IMil There is more than one usage of "have". Although it doesn't fit with the possession definition, there are others. Most common dictionaries have entries for it as an auxiliary verb, which is how it is used in the case of "would have".

          – JMac
          yesterday





          @IMil There is more than one usage of "have". Although it doesn't fit with the possession definition, there are others. Most common dictionaries have entries for it as an auxiliary verb, which is how it is used in the case of "would have".

          – JMac
          yesterday













          26














          "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




















          • 10





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

            – barbecue
            Apr 9 at 21:56






          • 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
            Apr 9 at 22:14






          • 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
            Apr 9 at 23:11






          • 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
            2 days ago






          • 13





            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
            2 days ago















          26














          "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




















          • 10





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

            – barbecue
            Apr 9 at 21:56






          • 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
            Apr 9 at 22:14






          • 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
            Apr 9 at 23:11






          • 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
            2 days ago






          • 13





            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
            2 days ago













          26












          26








          26







          "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 2 days ago









          Toby Speight

          1,078715




          1,078715










          answered Apr 9 at 21:52









          JuhaszJuhasz

          3,6171915




          3,6171915







          • 10





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

            – barbecue
            Apr 9 at 21:56






          • 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
            Apr 9 at 22:14






          • 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
            Apr 9 at 23:11






          • 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
            2 days ago






          • 13





            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
            2 days ago












          • 10





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

            – barbecue
            Apr 9 at 21:56






          • 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
            Apr 9 at 22:14






          • 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
            Apr 9 at 23:11






          • 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
            2 days ago






          • 13





            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
            2 days ago







          10




          10





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

          – barbecue
          Apr 9 at 21:56





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

          – barbecue
          Apr 9 at 21:56




          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
          Apr 9 at 22:14





          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
          Apr 9 at 22:14




          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
          Apr 9 at 23:11





          @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
          Apr 9 at 23:11




          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
          2 days ago





          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
          2 days ago




          13




          13





          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
          2 days ago





          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
          2 days ago











          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 Apr 9 at 21:48









              barbecuebarbecue

              4,5861128




              4,5861128





















                  2














                  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.
























                    2














                    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.






















                      2












                      2








                      2







                      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 2 days ago









                      JohnJohn

                      371




                      371




                      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.





















                          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
                            yesterday






                          • 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
                            yesterday











                          • @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
                            yesterday















                          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
                            yesterday






                          • 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
                            yesterday











                          • @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
                            yesterday













                          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 2 days ago









                          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
                            yesterday






                          • 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
                            yesterday











                          • @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
                            yesterday












                          • 2





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

                            – Orangesandlemons
                            yesterday






                          • 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
                            yesterday











                          • @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
                            yesterday







                          2




                          2





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

                          – Orangesandlemons
                          yesterday





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

                          – Orangesandlemons
                          yesterday




                          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
                          yesterday





                          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
                          yesterday













                          @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
                          yesterday





                          @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
                          yesterday











                          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 yesterday









                              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 yesterday









                                      Ryan PolleyRyan Polley

                                      1213




                                      1213













                                          -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