Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

The Oxford English dictionary should add "could of"

223 replies

DyslexicScientist · 16/12/2015 14:09

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.

OP posts:
Alconleigh · 16/12/2015 20:47

It's not going to become an accepted usage in general print though is it, surely? That's just a hideous prospect.

Movingonmymind · 16/12/2015 20:49

and i do see, obviously, that the error comes from the ' 've'being wrongly seen as an 'of' in written speech when they sound so similar in the spoken form, but anyone with any basic understanding of our grammar would know that 'of' makes no sense.

Movingonmymind · 16/12/2015 20:52

yep, hear, hear to burning at the stake! Heinous crime has been committed by OP at mere suggestion of this!

TaurielTest · 16/12/2015 20:52

Xmas Grin Brian

ThenLaterWhenItGotDark · 16/12/2015 20:59

Where do you stand on the 'bastardisation' of punctuation, Moving?

theycallmemellojello · 16/12/2015 21:02

I'm afraid I agree about grammar pomposity! What good does it do anyway? I've heard it suggested that French is well on it's way to splitting into two separate languages, in the same way that Latin and Italian did - the written language, prescribed by the Academy, and the actual spoken language. Also, I'm bemused as to why people think that using the word "have" to mark an unreal condition somehow makes more sense than using the word "of". Grammatically, both "of" and "have" in the phrase "would of/have" are just particles marking the case of the verb. The sense that "have" has when it's a free-standing verb (ie to own/hold etc) is not being invoked (and it wouldn't make sense if it were).

Headmelt · 16/12/2015 21:02

Yabu. It is bad grammar. It would be very irresponsible to put an incorrect term in the official Oxford dictionary

theycallmemellojello · 16/12/2015 21:03

Oh dear, spot the, ahem, deliberate grammatical mistake in my last post.

Movingonmymind · 16/12/2015 21:04

do as i say not as i go Smile. And i place the blame firmly at my cat's paws for distracting me. Ditto ds shrieking in the background.

Occasional slippage of punctuation on MN and the like is acceptable, imho. Stream of consciousness in many ways. Different obviously in the workplace where it's obviosuly a hanging offence...

maizieD · 16/12/2015 21:10

Well, personally, BrianB,( and quite objectively, of courseWink) I blame the past few decades of teachers who have allowed any old usage to go uncorrected as long as intended 'meaning' can be dimly discerned.

Movingonmymind · 16/12/2015 21:11

They, you're mistaken - "have" as in "should have" is an auxiliary verb. The preposition 'of' makes NO grammatical sense as a substitute. it is plain wrong. Really think we should all be taught this stuff at school! Miseducation of the 60s/70s/80s has much to answer for!

BrianButterfield · 16/12/2015 21:12

"It would be very irresponsible to put an incorrect term in the official Oxford dictionary"

You do not understand what the Oxford English Dictionary is.

maizieD · 16/12/2015 21:16

Grammatically, both "of" and "have" in the phrase "would of/have" are just particles marking the case of the verb.

Sorry, please explain what a 'particle' is in this context. Has that word suddenly changed its meaning while I wasn't looking?

theycallmemellojello · 16/12/2015 21:20

Thanks, I'm aware what an auxiliary verb is. My point is, in the phrase "would have done" the verb "have" does not have any meaning in itself - you can't define it except by saying that it marks the tense and mood of the verb. This makes it different from other auxiliary verbs, such as the modal verbs, which carry a meaning as well as contributing to tense/aspect/mood. IMHO grammatically, "have" is functioning as a particle here - a claim which is backed up by the fact that native speakers feel comfortable replacing it with "of," which is unarguably a particle.

theycallmemellojello · 16/12/2015 21:24

A particle is a term in linguistics to describe an uninflected (ie never changing) word which has no independent meaning but can modify the meaning of other phrases. "To" in "I want to go there" is a particle.

TaurielTest · 16/12/2015 21:31

Woefully missing opportunities to use the word "clitic" here, people.

public.oed.com/about/free-oed/

CremeBrulee · 16/12/2015 21:32

No, no, no. Because the next thing to be added will be the dreadful 'off of' and then civilisation will collapse.

gandalf456 · 16/12/2015 22:29

Isn't it inarguably? Sorry. I've never heard of a preposition marking the mood of a verb. Every auxiliary has verb status even if it has no proper function

gandalf456 · 16/12/2015 22:30

And it's not a variation of the norm. It's a spelling mistake

theycallmemellojello · 16/12/2015 22:37

A google search will tell you that inarguable and unarguable are synonyms. And "of" is not a preposition in the phrase "I could of done that."

theycallmemellojello · 16/12/2015 22:42

Sorry, puddock, you're quite right - there is a way to make this debate [sound] sexy.

Movingonmymind · 16/12/2015 22:45

'Of" is always a preposition. Which is why phrases such as "should of done that" are so wrong.

gandalf456 · 16/12/2015 22:51

It should be a preposition but its use is wrong in this case so is acting as an auxiliary as this is the intention of the speaker. But the fact that it's grammatically incorrect still stands unless of has suddenly become a verb

lovemyway · 16/12/2015 22:55

No no no! OMG is an abbreviation so has no relation to your suggestion which
is not and does not make sense.

Swipe left for the next trending thread