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.

In the nicest way possible, OP, a language should not evolve due to the problems of the persons that use it. Once "could of" is accepted, what else will be? Are we going to get rid of all the letters that have no sound? those that you can substitute for another?

You have a difficulty. This is annoying and frustrating but it cannot set the standard for all other people.

No, it's two words

Obviously revolve / evolve was an autocorrect.

Probably over time the letters that have no sound will disappear from words, I would imagine. Spelling changes, language changes. You might not like it but it changes anyway.

Obviously.

Thanks for that Brian. That's really interesting about minuscule. As much as some might want a language to stay still, it will constantly change. If these changes make it easier for people to use the language i don't see the harm.

this thread is a wind up surely?

'language revolves' ?

'they are not adverse to change'?

There are spelling mistakes.....and then there are real howling malapropisms, OP. Yu cannot simply invent new purposes for existing words and expect all of us to blindly accept them

'You'.

'Confusable'? really?

Well since some dictionaries now state that 'literally' can also mean 'to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling' it seems all crimes against the English language will be sanctioned given time.

Pepper, OP has dyslexia so I think can be forgiven for using the wrong words. However to blame it on autocorrect and maintain the dictionary should be changed to accommodate errors is unforgivable!

Largely unrelated but my nephew has taken to "axing" people. As in "I need to axe my Mum if I can have a sleepover." If "axe" gets into the OED for "ask" I'm going to boil my head.

pepper did you mean "u"

Pepper one was an auto correct and the other is a very common mistake. I don't know what the issue with confusable is however. You have made typos in your posts.

I think the definition of random has been changed quite recently.

Mumsnet should pull together and work to get YABU into the OED.

Averse and adverse are different words and the one you meant to use was averse.

Could of will never be correct usage because it makes no sense. I could have eaten all the crisps makes sense. I could of eaten all the crisps is meaningless.
I did eat all the crisps

"innit" and "ain't" went into the OED because society as a whole understood and accepted their meaning, as the words started to be widely used.

Could "of" is a misunderstanding of words that are already in use, and there is no general agreement within English speaking society that the phrase is correct.

The OED identifies phrases and words that the majority of society agree upon. There is no majority agreement with this one.

I loathe misuse of language (although I'm sure I make my own share of howlers) and would take the the streets were 'would of' to appear in the OED.

Language does change though.

I give you 'nice', a word that completely changed in meaning. It used to mean 'proper': so a woman who was 'nice' was a woman who behaved appropriately, well-mannered, had good taste. Now, a 'nice' woman is someone one might like.

Also, innit and ain't are considered dialect, which has rules of its own so not comparable, imo.

If these changes make it easier for people to use the language i don't see the harm.

But they're wrong! I understand that some people struggle with reading and writing but why on earth should something that is incorrect be accepted as normal just for those who find the language difficult?

No way.
If they did that it would be discusting (sic).

Perhaps the entire language should be reduced to its barest essentials: for the sake of ease and 'non-confusability' we could model it on Orwell's Newspeak. Good, doubleplusgood and so on. None of these pointless arty farty adjectives or superlatives. We could all speak phonetically and abandon all rules of grammar, spelling and so on. Live and let live, so to speak.

wot?

Bucking; 'nice' actually used to mean 'precise'.

Defiantly disgree with this.