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.

I think there is a perception that this is becoming more common primarily because of social media. Previously we didn't rely on written communication nearly so much so were pretty unaware of who did or didn't use this, and also it slips in because it's an informal medium.

But I suspect that in fact the balance may start going back the other way with the emphasis on grammar in schools - correct usage will become more the norm, and I would hope that parents will make a bit of an effort to write things like this properly so as not to confuse their children.

TheElemen - it is often the foreign speakers who have particularly good accurate English at times.

My son and I were just debating the awful use of nouns as verbs. I would never I will shower, just I will have a shower. He thinks shower is so commonly used as a verb it is fine to use it now, which is probably right with that one but I would still never say that.

The other one I mentioend first was transitioned. I say it is only a noun. I make the transition. He rightly said it is widely used eg in female to male transitioning. We checked on line and it does say as a verb North American. That was our compromise - my suggestion in good English it is a noun not a verb. I would say I have made a transition from etc.

Anyway all good fun as long as you understand the rules and speak and write in a way that works depending on your situation and aims.

No, I meant the 2nd conditional. As any fool knows, have is a (bare) infinitive.

Example of the the second conditional:
If I went out naked tomorrow, the police would arrest me.

Example of the third conditional:
If I had known you were coming, I would have bought a cake.

Haha. Good point bad lad. And note to self: don't argue about grammar when trying to rock a sick baby to sleep at 4am (different timezone). At least have is a bare inf in the example given.

Oh ignore my last line. I'm going potty here with baby snot smeared over my face. Need to stick to light entertainment threads at times like these.

But I stand by my initial point that 'of' should not replace 'have' in writing.

I am not adverse to the idea that language revolves, but your suggestion is ridiculous OP.
I could have eaten all the pies.
I have eaten all the pies.
I could of eaten all the pies.
I of eaten all the pies.

Eh, I don't care.

It's a perfectly valid interpretation of the way some people speak. If it sounds like 'could of' and you write it down as 'could of', I really don't see the issue.

Well, the issue is that is it wrong, incorrect, etc, etc. I think the English language has the most nuances of every language, with specific words and specific sentence structures to mean absolutely specific things. We shouldn't lose that.

Language evolves. If something does not evolve/grow then it's dead.
I'm assuming people on this thread hate regional dialects too.
Hate that 'could've' is perfectly acceptable, while 'ain't' is uneducated
(Every language has exceptions to the rules of grammar, before anyone tells me one is clearly two words out together and the other isn't)

It's already IN the dictionary, under the correct spelling "could have." As several people have pointed out "could of" is a spelling mistake, based on the aural similarity of "of" and the shortened modal verb "have." You can see the verbal structure if you compare "I could have...", which refers to past time, to "I shall have," referring to something already completed in the future but which hasn't yet occurred. Guess it might be an idea to have a separate list somewhere of these kinds of confusions -- historians of the English language could learn from them in the future.

No one is prohibiting certain speech (except some local authorities ban immigrants speaking to each other in their native tongue as it's exclusionary). We are just saying how you speak and write has an impact. As long as our children and teenagers know that then that's fine.

Loads of employers now interview first on the telephone to check how people speak as well as wanting photos to rule out the obese. Just be aware some employers have these fat and posh and grammar tests and avoid them like the plague if you think that's terrible or go for it if you want the filthy lucre that tends to go with good grammar never mind the richer husbands.

Oddly, I had this argument with someone a while ago, who accepted 'coulda' was fine, but 'could of' was not.

'Coulda', of course, has been around for about 600 years.

I love the innocence of assuming historians of English language aren't well aware of 'these kinds of confusions', or couldn't pick them up by, you know, reading how people write.

Surely language evolves through general agreement amongst its users, whether you're talking about regional variants or the formal version, otherwise it would be Babel. It's fairly clear, even from this one thread, that there is not agreement that "could of" is acceptable. Language can't be made to evolve simply by grumbling "You're all a bunch of elitist old pedants" at people.

Some people say, and even write, "are" for "our", as in the Oasis song "Round Are Way". This doesn't mean that "are" is an acceptable variant of "our". As another poster points out, we are a long way off having agreement on the acceptability of what is essentially someone's mistake.

And don't get me started on "gawjuss", "chester draws" and similar thicko illiterate Facebook hunning.

It's wrong, so the dictionary should not add it. I've never understood why Webster's in the States added ain't.

Perhaps the dictionary should endorse the EDL's favourite banner sign - "Sport Are Troop's"

Erica : I've never understood why Webster's in the States added ain't.

Because it's a word that people use as a consistent well-documented variation in some forms of English. Dictionaries aren't there (solely) to pass judgement.

When Gershwin writes the beautiful song "It ain't necessarily so", I want to be able to understand the meaning and tone conveyed by that choice of word, and may be interested to learn of its origin. A good dictionary will inform me of those things. I don't want to hear: "George, you idiot, you should have written 'it isn't necessarily so'".

I really hate myself for this - I know language evolves, the OED records language usage, it's not the word police, etc, etc - but I really, really hate could/should/would of and therefore YABVU.

As pp have commented, I think it stems from mishearing the "..'ve " as "of" and then not entirely illogically extrapolating that mistake into writing. Easily corrected though, especially as "could/should/would of" makes no sense at all when written down.

I think the real problem is how do you correct another adult's English? It would quickly turn into a RP v regional dialect v snobbery v inverse snobbery bun fight.

It's a battle I don't pick. I just sigh inwardly and make a catty remark in my head about their lack of literacy. I know lots of lovely, bright and interesting people who do this so in the scheme of things, it's not a big deal.

Besides, I'm not the English police and I'd be cross if someone publicly corrected me (except in some work situations, but then I'd probably be embarrassed).

So the illiterates will win and could/should/would of will get in the OED

I'd be interested in knowing just how many of our words or phrases are actually 'accepted errors'.
It's got to be a fair few, hasn't it?

It's not accepted, though. If you were a journalist, it would be picked up by the editor

I'm far from being a pedant, and think as long as your able to make yourself understood it's fine.
I think though that should of would be picked up by an editor, but then I come across the misuse of 'and I' eg, 'He drove X and I home' a fair bit.
It doesn't bother me really but sometimes you find it in newspapers that you just wouldn't expect to find it IYSWIM