to get annoyed at people who use *of* instead of *have*...

[Saddlesore]

... as in "I would of bought you a present if I knew it was your birthday".

Grrr!

lurking My history teacher used to pronounce gaol as goal. He used to to read passages out such as 'they threw the man in gaol' which when pronounced as goal gave it a whole other meaning.

I can't get worked up about spelling and grammar mistakes but 'of' for have etc. disproportionately gets on my tits. Don't know why. Seeing 'on route' on Facebook has the same effect.

We weren't taught punctuation and grammar at school (the Thatcher years) so I'm often amazed at the stuff my kids are learning at school with SPAG as they now call it. As someone up thread said, it will be interesting to see whether it makes a difference down the line.

You're being reasonable have course. I wonder what the cause have it is? Maybe it's because have the schools and their teaching have English?

It doesn't bother me spoken but it does written. My manager at work does it

Accents and colloquialisms etc are fine for speaking, but everyone should be able to write basic English.

YANBU. It's nothing to do with education either - everybody goes to primary school and most go to secondary school where you learn the basics.

"Could of" makes NO sense though - it doesn't actually even mean anything! I really think it should be pointed out, it's helpful to point it out. "Of" is not a substitute for "have".

Would've and would of are not pronounced the same.

The vowel sound indicated by the apostrophe in would've is a schwa.

The of of would of has the full value of the o vowel.

If I see 'should of', for example, it just makes me think that the author is a bit thick.

Sorry.

Coconut, of course it has to do with education, what the heck else would it be, some schools are crap, I know I went to one, some people don't go, others have extra educational needs, some schools do not teach the basics.

Written down it makes me twitch, but I only ever point it out when proofing stuff.

I have a colleague who says 'idealistically' instead of 'ideally' or 'realistically' and that drives me slightly insane as I don't actually know what she means! I suspect not does she...

You're right they should of known better....

You do realise grammar (and language) changes with usage and evolves over time.

It's got nothing to do with education. Some people have specific language difficulties which can cause the misuse of words and grammar. I'd like to ask those of you who correct others (in a somewhat sneering fashion it seems) whether you take that into consideration?

I also agree with Derek, some of it can be accent related too.

Language usage does evolve over time, but right now should of is incorrect and I would never disadvantage a child or pupil of mine by pretending otherwise. The job market will be full of others whose parents and teachers have taken the trouble ot point this out to them.

In speech, especially, it makes the speaker sound thick.

Would've and would of are not pronounced the same.

The vowel sound indicated by the apostrophe in would've is a schwa.

The of of would of has the full value of the o vowel.

If that was the case we would all be able to hear the difference between the people who know that it's written 'could've' and the people who think the actual phrase is 'could of'.

And we can't. So in effect they are pronounced the same.

If someone can explain what my iPad autocorrects to into ot, I'd be grateful.

Not at all, I teach plenty of students who say could of and write could've, also those who do the reverse.

The error did not exist, in London at least, when I started teaching 35+ years ago. I first noticed it about 11 years ago.

I have definitely heard young people say, "I could of", particularly when being emphatic. They have now seen it written like that sufficiently often to think it is what other people are actually saying.

I teach students who say could of had write could've, and vice versa.

Also, this thread would not have a point if posters could not hear the difference, so yes, they sounded differently.

Silly semi- double posting, interweb in Japan playing up.

Not at all, I teach plenty of students who say could of and write could've, also those who do the reverse.

Then it's down to the way they're pronouncing the word, not that they're actually saying 'of'. Why would someone say 'of' but know that it's correctly write 've'. The way people pronounce words may differ; it doesn't mean that there is a distinction in the way the words are pronounced. If anything, I think this proves my point.

Arg, all the typos there. Fair point to you, Mrs Joyless about it being clear when emphatic. I wasn't saying it's always the same, just taking issue with the notion that the two terms are fundamentally pronounced differently, when in my experience the majority of time they're not.

Possibly I'm not being clear.
Some people are saying should've as should of. At the moment they are wrong. Why they are doing it, I don't know. I correct my child and pupils every time they do it.
Some people are writing should've as should of. Definitely wrong.

I mostly get annoyed at people who are mean to children and animals. I am too worried about my own posting error's to get judgmental about someone else's.

No it doesn't echt. "Of" is a form, not content word, and therefore, unless emphatic stress is being applied, it would also be pronounced with a weak vowel- schwa.

And that ^ the mis-application of sound rules to spelling rules, is precisely why so many people use "could of" etc. It's phonological interference.

YANBU I hate that so much. It's just plain lazy.

I type have, but say of.

I'm Norfolk so should have comes out shud orf.