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.

No no no no no no no no no.

But words change their grammatical status quite often - nouns regularly become verbs (to Google, to hoover etc) and verbs become nouns (an invite).

That is different. Googling and hoovering are evolving concepts. Should of is not. Neither is your for you're or there for their or you was. Even if we understand it it doesn't make the rule any more incorrect

Yes words evolve and changes meaning but always through a fuction of agreement. There in no agreement with this one.

Noooooooooooooooooooo nooooooo

Also, it's not as if the majority of people are using these words in the wrong way. Enough people use the correct form for it not to change

Or "I seen" in place of "I saw"...

Nobody's saying of will replace have. But if enough people use it, that form will be listed in the dictionary (and indeed, already is, according to Callmecordelia). It is a change of use because people use it!

Wiktionary isn't the Dictionary.
Not enough people use it for it to have any agreed liguistical influence.

No no no. 'Could of' is not a word. As pps have said, it's a transcribed misshearing of could've.

Nothing to do with it being a newly coined word. The 've contraction of have is not just a random word, it's part of the present perfect tense: I could have gone home earlier. Should we apply this to all instances of the present perfect? I of spent far too long on MN today...

I'm with Brian Butterfield, theycallmemellojello and others on this. I hate the usage but if it's becoming widespread in due course it will be in the OED. The OED is descriptive, not prescriptive. It records what is happening in the English language. It doesn't tell us what we should be saying.

It is unfortunately unarguable that 'should of', 'could of' and 'would of' are being seen more and more, along with innumerable misspellings like 'chester draws', 'defiantly' and 'discusting'. My hunch is this is because two decades ago people who struggled with writing grammatically correct English could avoid writing, and most texts were fairly carefully proofread before publication. Now people are texting and using Facebook whether they feel comfortable with spelling or not. Proofreading seems to be a thing of the past now that the priority with news is getting it onto the web asap. The more often a person sees a wrong spelling or usage, the more credible and familiar it seems, so it spreads.

The FT and Times are good about proof reading and often have debates about correct use - recently baulk v balk (either is right in UK but baulk probably better). So stick with the better newspapers and you tend to do better. The others are not called gutter press for nothing....

I'm with Brian Butterfield, theycallmemellojello and others on this. I hate the usage but if it's becoming widespread in due course it will be in the OED. The OED is descriptive, not prescriptive. It records what is happening in the English language. It doesn't tell us what we should be saying. It is unfortunately unarguable that 'should of', 'could of' and 'would of' are being seen more and more, along with innumerable misspellings like 'chester draws', 'defiantly' and 'discusting'. My hunch is this is because two decades ago people who struggled with writing grammatically correct English could avoid writing, and most texts were fairly carefully proofread before publication. Now people are texting and using Facebook whether they feel comfortable with spelling or not. Proofreading seems to be a thing of the past now that the priority with news is getting it onto the web asap. The more often a person sees a wrong spelling or usage, the more credible and familiar it seems, so it spreads.

But, on the other hand, the English regarded as correct English is much more codified and written down than it used to be, as there are more and more textbooks recording and teaching English. A huge number of English speakers are those who have studied it as a second language, and they will be exposed to the correct patterns in their textbooks. They will see forms like "could of" as a mistake that poorly educated native speakers might make, rather than something they should use. The form into which English will evolve is no longer confined to English-speaking countries.

The OED does (or, at least, used to) tell us what we should be saying. I don't have one to hand, so I had to look online, but of "ain't" it says

"Usage

The use of ain’t was widespread in the 18th century, typically as a contraction for am not. It is still perfectly normal in many dialects and informal speech in both Britain and North America. Today, however, it does not form part of standard English and should never be used in formal or written contexts."

If you have a physical copy to hand, then I would be interested to know what it says, but the last time I looked it one, to show my wife, it said that ain't was considered to be unacceptable and uneducated English.

"Could have gone" isn't Present Perfect.

Where do you draw the line Mangosteensoda? Your bile towards "of" doesn't seem to apply to spelling mistakes? Are they OK then?

Preposterous.

theycallmemellojello - the informed voice of descriptivism in a baying crowd of prescriptivists - I've enjoyed reading your informative posts on this thread.

And to answer your question from yesterday (posted 21:03), you wrote it's where it should be its. Sorry, I should expunge prescriptivist thinking: I mean you wrote it's where standard usage indicates that its would be expected.

No, no, no
Could of does not exist. Neither do should of, will of, or would of as verbs.

If you want to emphasize the pronunciation, write it as a verb contraction: could've, should've, will've, or would've.

Says it all really.

If not contracting the verb - write could have, should have, will have, or would have.

Have + past participle is present perfect. Having a modal verb in the sentence doesn't necessarily change that. In other constructions modal + have + past participle forms a 2nd conditional clause. You still need to use 'have', not 'of'.

I have no issue with spelling mistakes. We all make them, particularly when typing on phones. I haven't met anyone who would push to have spelling mistakes included in the OED though.

Seriously; some people not being able to use the English language correctly is a reason to dumb it down for them?? Don't worry about getting it wrong, because your wrong is now right...
Where in Christ's name would it end?

Where in Christ's name would it end?

We all just grunt like Chewbacca.

"could of" is such an annoying way to put it, imo :P Just write it properly.

Can I just make a gentle request, as someone for whom English is a second language? Please don't cite "people who want to learn English" as beneficiaries of this grammatical and linguistic anarchy. When you're learning a new skill, whether a language or brain surgery, you want to learn the rules and get it right.

"Do what-evah u like, hun, how u FEEL is the most important thing (and all that spelling n shizzle dunt matter)" may be a kind sentiment, but is not, in my opinion, a helpful one.

I think you meant third conditional Mangosteen.

(Secondo Conditional, as any fule kno', is would/couldnt/should +infinitive)

Here is the insert from Oxford English Dictionary

Although common it is considered unacceptable