The Oxford English dictionary should add "could of"

[DyslexicScientist]

Everyone knows what it means, and quite a lot of people use it. Just seems very stuffy to not add it. English is an adaptive language.

They've already added omg and a smiliey face was the word of the year. So they are not adverse to change.

It's a usage of a word.

Basically most of you don't understand what the OED actually is.

"People say "could've", "would've" and "should've" and that's ok.

Writing it down as "could of" is incorrect."

This ^^

"Could of" is not a new word combination, it's a mis-spelling of an existing word combination.

And no, the dictionary should definitely not include mis-spellings!

I think the dictionary adds on grounds of common usage - not incorrect usage! Otherwise we would have 'chester draws' and 'alot' amongst other travesties.

YABU. No, just no.

When my daughter says 'Could Have' it sounds like 'could of'
I correct her but it makes no difference.
I have never smacked my children, but I could happily slap her over this. If she ever writes 'Could of' I may well have to

But, for example, using 'like' as a comparison caused all manner of controversy in the 1950s (in the slogan "tastes good like a cigarette should.") The 'correct' word was 'as'. Now using like is totally unremarkable, and of course that usage is in the dictionary.

The dictionary contains probably thousands of words that started as misspellings...

*People say "could've", "would've" and "should've" and that's ok.

Writing it down as "could of" is incorrect.

It won't be in the dictionary. Ever.*

That's were people with learning difficulties like me really struggle, I'm just trying to write the same as how I speak.

Could've looks wrong and confusing to me.

Op I assume you also want them to add the incorrect use of "adverse" for "averse" as in your post, because it's another common error?

blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2013/02/when-does-wrong-become-right/

The dictionary contains probably thousands of words that started as misspellings...

Finally someone who understands!

Language revolves.

From the blog:

"A very similar process can be seen at work with individual words. The adjective ‘minuscule’ is one of the clearest examples of this in action. The word comes from the Latin minuscula, meaning ‘somewhat smaller’. But because minuscule means ‘very small’, many people associate it with the word ‘mini’, and so spell it miniscule instead. The evidence of this spelling goes back to the late 19th century, and has been gaining in popularity ever since.

From the Corpus, we saw that the spelling miniscule was now just as common as minuscule. Examples of this ‘mistake’ came from printed sources, such as newspapers and periodicals, as well as from chat rooms and unedited blogs. In the pages of a British newspaper, for example, we find “the dogs are trained to find miniscule traces of blood and body fluid”, while another case was discovered in a respected medical journal: “the cost of the micronutrient supplements is miniscule compared with the cost of the delivery system”.

In light of the increasing evidence, we came to the conclusion that miniscule should be allowed as an acceptable variant of minuscule, though the entry does come with a warning that this spelling should be avoided in formal contexts."

Fair enough OP but I would not normally write down "could've".

The point I'm trying to make is that, in speech, we abbreviate the word "have" to a "ve" sound that sounds like "of".

Hence the confusion.

It's a modal perfect written as a contraction. It's a common mistake due to the fact that, in the written form, people write the whole phrase, not the shortened version. It's only normally heard in speech and sounds very much like could of, which is incorrect.

And of course for many words this process took place hundreds of years ago.

No. It's a written mistake based on an aural (hearing) pronunciation. "ve" sounds like "of" to (lazy) ears.

This. It's not an 'ungrammatical usage' that's now becoming normal, it's not registering the 'mildly ungrammatical goes mainstream' it indicates a complete misunderstanding on the part of the writer of what they are actually writing. It's on a par with the OED including 'draw' or 'chester draws' as legitimate alternatives to drawer and chest of drawers, just because some people mangle things into some 'hear 'n write' mishmash.

Anyway, the OED is a dictionary, not a grammar usage guide.

Op I assume you also want them to add the incorrect use of "adverse" for "averse" as in your post, because it's another common error?

No. They mean different things, but easily confusable.

It won't be in the dictionary. Ever.

Many dictionaries contain "ain't", with an explanatory note that it is widely considered unacceptable / uneducated.

The same goes for chronic meant as bad but there is a note that it isn't actually what it means.

But 'could of' isn't a word, OP - therefore it won't find its way into the OED, even if it becomes generally acceptable.

You want them to do this on that basis that because you have dyslexia, it looks wrong to you? How many other words and phrases need changing on that basis?

Phrases are in dictionaries.

Language does not "Revolve" either.

Language "evolves"