What makes could've, should've and would've so special?

[ShhItsMySecret]

At risk of being piled upon for pedantry can anyone explain why the could of, would of, should of phenomenon doesn't extend to other contractions involving have? I don't ever see people writing "I of been feeling unwell today," or "I hear you of a new car." It's always explained as a phonetic thing but doesn't that affect any 've contraction?

Anyway, just wondering about this. Full disclosure - it drives me fucking insane and I really struggle to get past it when people write it. I realise this exposes me to having my own grammar analysed for perfection. I'm also completely sympathetic where eg dyslexia is a factor but it's so common now there's no way that's the reason in most cases. I also accept it's probably my own problem to get over. Hard hat on!

It's not could of though, it's could have. Not would of, it's would have. Or do you mean when people say could of but they actually mean could have? In which case I presume it's just a lifetime of mishearing "could've as could of" etc and not having had opportunities to read it written correctly. Or perhaps barriers to learning like you've mentioned.

The examples you gave are not contractions.

It's because the use of "of" in place of "ve" is much more obviously incorrect in those sentences.

For example, "I could've died" and "I could of died". The incorrect use of "of" is not so immediately obviously wrong, when compared to "I've been unwell" and "I of been unwell".

I've heard that it can depend on much you read.
So if something is heard wrongly, it will sound fine when spoken (should've/should of) but not when written.
If something is read, it's more likely to be written/spelled correctly when written but may well be mispronounced. For example, I knew the word "awry" from reading but, when reading out loud at school, I pronounced it "ah-rye" instead of "or-ree".

I've been feeling unwell - isn't the I've a contraction? Apologies if I've got the terminology wrong. I'm totally aware could of etc are wrong. That's what drives me (probably irrationally) nuts to read. What I don't understand is why, if it's phonetic, I've and you've don't get the same treatment. I'm definitely not suggesting my grammar is perfect but this particular thing seems so common, yet I don't understand why.

Because you pronounce the 'v' first in your later examples (I've, you've) and that doesn't sound like the 'ov' in could've, would've, should've.

Because "'ve" is a homophone to "of" in many accents, unlike most other contractions, and many people write what they hear.

You pronounce them differently. Could've ends in a d which means you create a vowel noise to transition to the v. When it's after a vowel you start with the v.
And where people hear the vowel between the d and the v, they assume it's 'ov'.

It is a phonetic thing, which doesn't apply to "you've". Try saying "could've" and "you've" outloud to yourself - you can surely hear that the "ve" is pronounced differently in each one.

I'll try and whip out my undergrad linguistics memories from long ago and I hope this makes sense.

When people say "could have" / "could've", the vowel in "have" is unstressed and is often pronounced pronounced as a schwa. Using IPA (a way of representing phonics), "could've" could be written /kʊdəv/. When the word "of" isn't stressed, it's also often said like /əv/

Whereas "you've" is said more like /juːv/. The /v/ sound at the end of "of" is still there, but the vowel sound (schwa) isn't. At least in my accent, "you've" is only one syllable - "you of" would be two.

Because of and ‘ve sound so similar?

If you say could’ve quickly it sounds almost identical to could of.

Not sure if I explained that very well reading back, but maybe "should've" etc are some of the few contractions that can sound like two actual words "should" and "of".
Whereas in "she's", say, the apostrophe s part would just be like sounding out the letter Z, a bit like "she zuh".

@LaMarschallin

I've heard that it can depend on much you read. So if something is heard wrongly, it will sound fine when spoken (should've/should of) but not when written. If something is read, it's more likely to be written/spelled correctly when written but may well be mispronounced. For example, I knew the word "awry" from reading but, when reading out loud at school, I pronounced it "ah-rye" instead of "or-ree".

Sorry, I know this isn’t the point of the thread. But awry is pronounced “ah-rye” isn’t it?

Or what SenecaFallsRedux said, far better than I could (of)...

I think that the hard d at the end must be the explanation. I suppose it does change the sound of the ve slightly. It still doesn't make sense does it? Why the hell would it be of? Anyway...going to work on not letting it bother me. Suppose I should head to the corner of pedants!

@SenecaFallsRedux has explained it perfectly.

People make the error because , they don't know it's wrong.

That it drives you "fucking insane" that some people don't have perfect English is rather unpleasant, and most definitely not a characteristic of a true pedant. Who would, as can be seen above, muse on the pronunciation quirks that have made the weak form of "have" and "of" homophones.

Language can be wonderful if you don't let it "drive you fucking insane".

Sorry, I know this isn’t the point of the thread. But awry is pronounced “ah-rye” isn’t it?

Gah!
Yes, I didn't preview and told it completely the wrong way round. I actually said "or-ree"...

I agree! I've owned it as my problem from the first post.

That was to PAFMO

@ShhItsMySecret

I think that the hard d at the end must be the explanation. I suppose it does change the sound of the ve slightly. It still doesn't make sense does it? Why the hell would it be of? Anyway...going to work on not letting it bother me. Suppose I should head to the corner of pedants!

It's not the /d/ It's the weak vowel (schwa) in connected speech as @Siepie has explained

Apologies again if I haven't been clear in my posting. I am aware it driving me mad is likely irrational and my own problem. I totally don't expect perfect grammar from anyone and do not have prefect grammar myself. I was confused as to why ould've gets incorrectly written as ould of where I've etc do not. Many thanks for the explanations to all. I promise I'm not a total cow and will get to work on letting this stop irritating me!

I've seen complete aberrations along the lines of "must of wanted to of" and suchlike.

God knows where these people were educated, because nowhere teaches that as standard English.

I feel you OP. I'm autistic, and I find it so discordant that it triggers the same reactions I have to thoroughly unpleasant sensations like nails down a blackboard and so on. I get all the accusations about being a 'Grammar Nazi' and so on, but I believe that if you are going to attempt to communicate you should at least have the courtesy to do so in a format that is commonly agreed and understood. It's a shining example of inexcusable ignorance, laziness, and contempt.

Could/would/should precede a verb.

" I would have eaten it."
If you remove 'would' the sentence still makes sense, ie, " I have eaten it."

If you say "I would of eaten it."
Then you remove 'would,' it would not make sense.
" I of eaten it."

Doesn't this get taught in school?

@Shitzngiggles

Doesn't this get taught in school?

Yes it does.