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

[pippinleaf]

That's all.

YY, I find text speak much harder.

I do see that there is an issue with non-standard grammar (or spelling mistakes) that it can make it difficult if you use reading aloud software. But I think text speak is much worse for that?

I didn't say I would judge anyone.

I also didn't say I would take kindly to correction if it were irrelevant to the discussion. I agree, there's a time and place.

I don't agree that there is never a time to improve one's knowledge. Of anything, not just grammar.

There's a thread running about awful errors in a school text book, the internet is up in arms.

We clearly don't want our children learning incorrect spelling and grammar.

I don't even mind some text speak. It's just like a modern day shorthand.

I learnt shorthand back in the day ,got a certificate [proud]

I agree there may be a suitable time, but I rarely see any tact deployed when it is done on here.

It's very very rare it means the post is totally unintelligible.

I wasn't taught any grammar in school, I had to learn the hard way in my first job with a horrible boss who was shit hot at it and sent every letter back covered in red ink.

Harold that's horrible and incredibly vulgar of him. I can understand him wanting letters to be professional and correct from a corporate reputation viewpoint, but that's shocking. He should have trained you or given the letters to someone with skills in that area. How awful for you.

I pick up all sorts here. But then maybe I'm a sad geek who sees the internet as an incredible opportunity to learn all the stuff I missed on the way.

Anyway, I'll buy you a pint in the pretend pub some night as long as we don't discuss grammar

Maybe it's the trauma coming back when I see these threads!

Mont - yeah, but plenty of people see it on the net, see it again and again, and still don't manage. It is what it is.

harold - ouch, what a tosser!

YANBU

I hate it when people use inappropriately use speech marks for emphasis.

I don't like text speak and I cringe a bit when I see would have, loose instead of lose, your instead of you're.

But to judge someone because of it is all wrong. It says so much more about you than anything else.

I'm sure those judging are not perfect by any stretch. They just think they are.

Would of instead of would have even.

I'm the genetation that didn't learn formal grammar at school. I do know most of it though. It has been revamped for the new curriculum and there was an interesting discussion on r4 about how most of it is made up.

I read written submissions from the public for my job and this has turned me from a grammar police officer to not caring as long as I know what they're on about Also all my brothers are dyslexic and this talk is designed to make them feel inferior- which they already do.

Here's some facts for you from my pedant days

Innit is welsh.

The original use of 'literally' was for emphasis. So the way it is thought to be misused now, is actually correct. Eg I literally laughed my head off

Enjoy

Oh I sound grumpy! Didn't mean to! I actually enjoy talking about words

I'm from outside the UK and I think I'm pretty good, writing wise. The mistakes I make tend not to be the 'would of' type thing, but something grammatical. I wouldn't judge anyone though. What's the problem? Using 'of' won't destroy or devalue the language, no one will be confused about what it means. I just don't care about it.

The thing is, this isn't a matter of unfortunate people having had a poor education, is it? For people in the UK, they have had 11 years of compulsory education, and I refuse to believe that throughout that period every teacher they've encountered has told them that "would of" is acceptable.

"Would of" didn't exist in writing when I first started teaching more than 35 years ago. I'd date it around early 2000s, though even then people didn't say it, they wrote it. The saying of it came later, and is now very pronounced.

It makes me cringe and I correct DD every time. I would never correct anyone else, but would inwardly judge.

Not every teacher, no. But I've seen some howlers from teachers - including words in a spelling test! Mind you, I do realise they've a lot on and mistakes happen when you're rushed.

How on earth do you use speech marks for emphasis?!

I thought the same thing, but I get grievances at work saying things like this....

Dear Bebe

X did this and Y said this, which in my opinion is "not acceptable".

From employee.

They use it instead of underlining or shortening sentences. It seems to generally be older generations who do it in my experience.

I get how they can be used to imply sarcasm but the writer seldom intends this!!

Well, that's a little peculiar, but it's not incorrect, is it?

I would see it as old fashioned - like people who refer to something as 'not cricket'. They know it's a quotation, and it also carries the emphasis, but I don't think they're unaware of that.

I think it is more of a recent thing to italicize when you're quoting and stressing: 'I said it's just not cricket'. But this thread is making me realize it's easy to make assumptions about what's recent and what's not, and all of it is probably older than we think.

Or am I totally missing the point and it's the '' rather than ' that you mind?

Sorry have to disagree. Speech marks are for indicating speech, making a quotation or perhaps implying sarcasm. Not as an alternative to underlining or italics.

Looking for a better source...

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark

YY, I know that, and I'm not disagreeing.

But if you are quoting something (eg., 'not acceptable' from the rule book), it's not wrong to use them and it looks a little clunky to use both, sometimes.

I don't understand why you think they're for implying sarcasm. They're not. They're just for quoting. It often looks sarcastic because you're pointing out the distance between yourself and the originator of the phrase, but that's interpretation, not the primary meaning.

Oh, lord. I have become a punctuation pedant. There is no hope.

I'm saying, you could use either italics or quotation marks for a phrase like 'not cricket' or 'not acceptable,' if it's a phrase that is both a quotation and the bit you want to emphasise. If it were direct speech you'd be forced to use quotation marks, but in a situation like this, I think it is a judgement call whether or not you want to draw attention to the fact you're quoting, or the fact you're emphasizing it.