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.

There is no such thing as the verb to of.

It is incorrect usage and makes me teef wince.

'could of' isn't even a phrase; it's what everyone else has said, a misspelling of 'could've',which itself is a contraction of 'could have'.

'Could have' is a grammatically acceptable phrase; 'could of' is completely meaningless. You are asking us to accept 'of' as a synonym for 'have'. Try it in other contexts and see if they are synonymous.

"I'll of a coffee and two teas, please" (Yes I know that everyone under 40 says "Can I get?" but I stick to the language I grew up with).

"Of you got the time?"
"I'll of to go to bed early; I'm very tired"

What the fuck? No fucking way!!! Gets my goat every bloody time

Language seems to me to be contracting very rapidly, pepperpot99, but maybe that's just because I've lived with it for a long time, so notice more.

We've already lost the nice distinctions between many words such as 'uninterested/disinterested/', 'convince/persuade', 'alternate/alternative', (and many more) all in the name of "You know what I mean"

Nice to see mumsnetters fighting a spirited rearguard action, though

It makes no sense.
Why not use the actual proper words and spelling?

Wouldn't it be better, OP, for you to aspire to learn to use the language correctly?

It's totally unasseptable (is that in the dictionary yet?)

It's not a race to the bottom. 'Could of' is just incorrect usage, it's usage making the English language!even more difficult for non-native speakers to learn. No place in the OED for it imo.

Over my dead body.

This has to be a joke. I think op is pretending to be Mrs Malaprop from The Rivals!

If it isn't a joke then YABU.

Dunno if could of will go in, innit.

This thread is giving me serious fucking rage (no offense OP)

Chanel - That's "offence" unless you are American :)

wasonthelist Y'know, I can't even justify/explain that rationally. THE RAGE MADE ME DO IT

YIBTR

You Is Being Totes Reasonable

Soz i couldn't of put it better

Never in a million years should it be included. YAB Massively U and its a terrible suggestion. Might I suggest you learn to speak English correctly, before trying to drag the rest of us down into the grammatical gutter?

Absolutely not!

Not for this, however I do think that we should gradually be changing over to more predictably phonetic spellings for as many words as possible.

Chanel

I do think that we should gradually be changing over to more predictably phonetic spellings for as many words as possible.

Why?

maizieD That reminds me of the reduction in vocabulary caused by Newspeak in Orwell's 1984.

OP, as someone said earlier, you are wrong about adverse/ averse. Here is a quick review of the two words:

"Adverse means unfavorable, contrary or hostile, and can never be applied to humans. You often hear it used in the term ‘adverse weather conditions’, a phrase which is best avoided in favor of ‘bad weather’.

Averse means unwilling or disinclined or loath and is always followed by the preposition ‘to’. It applies to a person and is used like this: ‘He was averse to discussing the conference’. Of course, it would be just as easy to say. ‘He didn’t want to discuss the conference’.

Overuse of both averse and adverse is likely to sound pompous. It’s always better to keep it simple."

Over my dead Oxford comma should that be in any dictionary. Ever.

It's possible in the online version but unlikely to make the print version.

Literally doesn't have a literal meaning anymore in the online dictionary.

Two reasons. Firstly, to make it easier for dyslexic people (estimated to be roughly 10% of the population) to read and write, and secondly because English is widely used internationally, so the easier it is to learn and use the better in my opinion.