Have! Have! It's have not of!

(34 Posts)
RhondaJean Sun 14-Jul-13 19:37:22

You HAVE done something. You have not OF something.

It makes me want to scream. Aaaaargh. AAAAAARGH!

Thank you!

Sesamebagelwith Thu 24-Apr-14 07:47:32

Yes, writing 'could of' is uneducated. Seriously, how don't people learn this in school?

LineRunner Thu 24-Apr-14 07:22:07

My DD has excellent diction and says 'should of' because she is getting it horribly wrong, not because of some homophonic linguistic quirk.

CheesyBadger Thu 24-Apr-14 07:22:04

God this gets to me. My sister texts it too. Assume it comes from how some of us now speak as we don't say have eg should have, we say should uv, quite close to of.

Icimoi Thu 24-Apr-14 07:08:05

Agreed, I didn't see any personal attack.

I simply don't understand MN's policy on personal attacks, nor do I understand the selective attitude of people who report posts or threads for that reason. If you look at AIBU, some threads are little more than a string of personal attacks. Often you get TAATs which are blatantly attacks on the posters who started the original thread. Yet those threads stay, even when they get very active and sometimes quite vitriolic. On here, anyone who has ever written, say, recipy instead of recipe could choose to think one of the threads is about them.

Nennypops Wed 23-Apr-14 20:57:16

Really weird, I don't have any message from MN at all, I've just double checked.

I'm perfectly sure the thread didn't mention any particular poster: the chances of my remembering a name are zero. Equally I don't recall mentioning any specific thread, and I'm heartened to see that Edith backs that. The post may well have been prompted by a particular thread - as I said, that particular frustration has been building up for some time - but isn't that what happens regularly in Pedants' Corner? It's pretty obvious that a number of threads have been prompted by something specific which has caused someone to boil over, and which could be identifiable if someone seriously wanted to go looking.

I do recall a thread with that or a similar error in the title getting quite a lot of picky responses which I certainly did not join in with, and I'm seriously wondering whether for that reason it was high profile in some readers' minds and two and two were put together to make five.

TinyTear Wed 23-Apr-14 15:08:37

Arse! I usually check dates before posting on Zombies...

TinyTear Wed 23-Apr-14 15:07:42

Just because it sounds like OF, written English is different to spoken English... I would probably tolerate it in a book such as Trainspotting or trying to read verbally with a specific accent...

But I do hate to see it written down...

DrankSangriaInThePark Wed 23-Apr-14 15:04:54

Pedants' corner

To of done this
Thread deleted

Message from MNHQ: Due to being a personal attack on the OP of another thread

DrankSangriaInThePark Wed 23-Apr-14 15:04:05

This one is a zombie thread that Meditrina resurrected to be humphy about the deleted one.

The deleted one wasn't in chat, it was here, started by Nennypops about the painting thread OP.

DrankSangriaInThePark Wed 23-Apr-14 15:02:47

Yes it was that one.

I reported it, don't know if anyone else did.

It was clearly about the OP of the painting thread. (I think you even mentioned the thread)

I hope she didn't see it.

As I said on the thread before it was zapped, I can, and will, out-pedant anyone as far as use of English is concerned, but I would never stoop to starting a thread about another poster. This thread is different because it is talking generically about what has, yes, become an ubiquitous mistake by many many people.

EdithWeston Wed 23-Apr-14 15:02:11

I agree with nennypops.

The thread in "chat" was identifiable (and right that it was deleted). The one here, by a different OP, wasn't - exactly as this one hasn't been to date, perhaps because it was pre-PB?

Or perhaps this needs to be zapped too, to fit the new 'mood' of post-PB MN? For this is as much an identifiable TAAT as the deleted one.

Nennypops Wed 23-Apr-14 14:51:04

Goodness, not that I'm aware of! Which one was it - the one about "To of done something"? That wasn't to take the piss out of any OP, I've seen a number of threads with that sort of title over quite a long period, and finally got around to having a whinge about it. If MN are deleting threads about common mistakes because one specific OP who makes the same mistake might just think it was about them, I'm amazed they allow Pedants' Corner at all.

<<goes to interrogate MN about what the hell they think they're doing>>

DrankSangriaInThePark Tue 22-Apr-14 09:18:54

Of course not Meditrina.

This thread unlike the deleted one, wasn't started specifically to take the piss out of another OP.

I think you can guess which thread was deleted Nenny. Surely you, as the OP, received the same deletion message from HQ that the rest of us did?

Nennypops Mon 21-Apr-14 10:33:23

What's been deleted?

meditrina Sat 19-Apr-14 21:05:49

Must this thread - and the various other very similar ones (this being a hardy perennial thread subject) - be deleted, following today's deletion?

Tubemole1 Mon 30-Sep-13 23:20:30

Totally agree.

fflonkl Sun 18-Aug-13 08:15:08

Should HAVE, should HAVE, should HAVE!!!!!

Can't stand seeing should of, it really irritates me!

Sorry for reviving this but I just had to vent!

People who say that are the same people who refer to themselves as 'myself' instead of 'me'. Wankers

SconeRhymesWithGone Wed 17-Jul-13 22:40:34

No one says "to've," but many people elide "to have" in a way that sounds like "to of."

I amend my previous post by adding "eliding," and by spelling "between" correctly. wink

dollybird Wed 17-Jul-13 21:13:53

yeah, but in Rhondajean's example who says to've??

Ohhelpohnoitsa Wed 17-Jul-13 21:11:36

Agree - I hate this. I haven't seen it used that badly (as detailed upthread) but ALL THE TIME when marking A Level exam papers.... xxxx could of.... but they should of...... Dreadful.

SconeRhymesWithGone Wed 17-Jul-13 13:28:12

Exactly, Tallulah. In many accents of spoken English, contracting words with "have" creates a homophone with "of." I think it is overly pedantic to insist that people change their accents to create a discernible aural distinction betweeen the two.

TallulahBetty Tue 16-Jul-13 21:47:35

It's just because people say "could've" which sounds like "could of". That's why it's only written incorrectly.

Dillydollydaydream Mon 15-Jul-13 22:52:13

I also hate when people say should of, could of etc.

RhondaJean Mon 15-Jul-13 22:47:25

The contraction is should've not should of.


Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now