It's should have and would have not should of and would of

[pippinleaf]

That's all.

Oh, sorry, I think you missed my post upthread.

You thought that people only make this error out of actual ignorance of the grammar, if I understood you rightly. That's a common misconception.

That is a shame usual, it is a rare thread in which grammar is the most salient point

Jeanne

Is your latest post directed at me?

usual - I would hope you know me better, actually. I have never and would never correct people on a thread, no matter how much (internally) I judge them. That would, indeed, be deeply unpleasant, intimidating and offputting.

But the reality is, that I still do judge them for poor grammar, which is the question asked in this post, (and spelling, as it often goes hand in hand.)

Jeanne - I still don't understand where you're coming from. The posts we're talking about do reflect ignorance of grammar. I'm sorry if I haven't understood a point you've been making that is different - but what is the common misconception?

Good grammar, where I come from, is seen as something to aspire to (hm, to which to aspire), not as something to stubbly refuse to accept.

I see threads about could of and could have almost monthly and still (the same?) people come on and howl that it's elitist to point out it's wrong.

When I lived in countries where I was struggling to learn the language, I was always grateful to people who took the trouble to point out mistakes. I listened and learned, and made sure my children were aware of the rules too.

Nobody is born with perfect grammar, but I think if you are literate enough to be on a forum like this, why not just silently absorb the grammatical rule and improve your written language? I come here to learn as well as debate and I pick up something new almost every time I log on - financial, political, property law, style, new recipes, books etc.

So what's wrong with learning that 'could of' is an abomination?

And dare I even mention rein vs reign??

alis - no, it was at BIWI, sorry! I am making a mess of responding here, and I apologize. I have just written something to try to explain where I'm coming from - I'll post it if anyone wants, but it is a bit personal and daft, so just PM me if you like, and I'll leave it if not.

Some people ,like me, just use MN to piss about on the internet,

I'd be interested to read it,Jeanne.

Montegomongoose "not as something to stubbly refuse to accept."

"Stubbly"?

So if we choose to spell properly/write grammatically we can't piss about on the internet, usual?

No worries Jeanne, pm'd you.

Thanks both.

Perhaps, Jeanne, if it's directed at me you'd care to PM me too?

I am actually a professional pedant. I write and edit for a living. But the experience of having raised a child with dyslexia and other learning difficulties and of having worked with an adult literacy organization has really opened my eyes about the challenges many people face with English.

I think it is also important to understand that it is relative. There are always going to be people who are better at some aspects of written and spoken English than others. They may have a higher baseline of acceptable literacy that puts many of us, even skilled writers, in the "needs improvement" category.

For example, many grammarians still object to the use of the plural pronoun "they" to refer to a singular antecedent as BIWI has done, but I think that this usage is defensible mainly because it gets rid of the sexist "he" as the default or the clunky "he or she."

Sure! I feel like a bit of a dick now, but I do have good reason.

As you were.

And, Scone, I have used 'they' and 'them' very deliberately and for that very reason. I have a degree in Linguistics which does inform the way that I write and post.

Gruntfuttock, fantastic, that is very funny.

Shame on me.

Stubbornly. Natch.

Although 'I stubbly refuse' sounds alarmingly plausible.

Don't feel bad Jeanne x

I wasn't, thanks.

Just, I didn't post a blog link cos HQ doesn't like them on the threads, I didn't mean to do a secret squirrel because I figured you'd all go on debating. Please do go on!

Great blog post, Jeanne.

People come on here to chat for the most part.

I wouldn't dream of going into a pub, chatting to a few people at the bar and pointing out their mistakes.

Correcting someone without being asked on a chatty thread is the equivalent of that in my opinion.

I do a lot of report writing in work. I check it carefully. This is not work I want to relax.

Harold I see it more as the equivalent of going to the pub for a chat. Sometimes the chat is about bad grammar and someone says 'this is correct, this is not.'

I wouldn't then turn up at the pub for years on end decrying the fact that someone knew the correct usage; I'd just take it on board and be grateful, in the same way I'd be grateful to learn that matte satin needs drying time between coats or that microwaving pecan pie can burn off your entire mouth when you eat it.

I don't get cross when people tell me things conversationally.

If I run into the pub crying that I'm being cheated on or I'm locked out, I wouldn't take too kindly to anyone popping a nugget of information under my nose, but I really don't think that's what's happening here.

I would. I would get cross.

Like you would judge the person using poor grammar, I would judge the corrector.

There is a time and a place, and I would feel that a person I did not know very well, pulling me up on something I have said, was a knobber.

I don't have a degree.I left school at 16.

Maybe that's why I'm not offended by grammatical errors on the internet. If I had studied English maybe they would bother me more.I dunno.

The way I see it is,if I you can get your point across I ain't gonna judge you for the way it's written.

Txt spk bothers me I hate it. I can't understand it, it hurts my eyes and I hate it.