Would of; could of; should of - why? Just WHY? Makes my teeth itch, AIBU?

[LadyStoic]

I'm convinced I never saw any of the abominations above on MN a decade ago, even a fecking year ago. Now popping up like a persistent bloody virus

Just me or should I get my coat?

Oh, and another thing, if folks must use it, why the fuck do they I swear we are being infiltrated spell 'hon' as 'hun'?

What a disgraceful and cuntish thread. I hope you enjoy your feeling of superiority over those that may have spelling or grammar issues. You must lead a very sad life, Op if the writing of other people affect you enough to make your "teeth itch".

I heard 'could of' on Radio 4 this morning. I shouted.

I mean radio 4!

But how can you be sure it wasn't "could've" - they sound the same in my accent I think.

GreenGoddess I may have something in my eye.... I appreciate your post and I think one of the joys of MN is finding common ground

Navy I can't help but agree with you. An obvious EG is the thread where the LP purchaser was buying a house and then discovered there would be a hostel for 'challenging young adults' (note: NOT for disabled young adults or those with learning difficulties etc.) next door and was concerned about whether or not to proceed.

Numerous posters wrote that they would avoid living next door to 'simply' a student house, and were concerned both about the impact the household next door may have on LP's family and also ability to then sell on. For reasons I still don't understand, a minority - but a very vocal minority - of folks decided to take umbrage with this and called her (and said posters) all manner of things. They re-shaped her OP into something it was not and took immense offence at the non existent possibility that she was concerned about living next door to anyone with SN or learning difficulties. It was bloody grim and I think MNHQ were bombarded with 'reports' even though the OP had said nothing remotely offensive.

It saddens me as I suspect said OP will probably be bloody terrified of starting a thread again in case someone grabs wrong end of stick and is determined to run with it irrespective of the veracity of the 'cause' for said offence. It's a bit like someone posting that they are fed up to back teeth of their Council failing to repair pavements and their running (no pun intended) the risk of tripping whilst out for a jog. Physically I couldn't/can't remotely go running, yet it would never occur to me to post along the lines of 'You're fucking lucky to be able to run; have you no clue how those of us who can't feel?'

I'm faintly in love with GreenGoddess right now TBH and that's because the common ground - as opposed to the 'We're on polar opposite sides of a debate here' - being found is something that, for me, has been a defining characteristic of MN. And I'm with Navy in that if we lose that, irrespective of our views on matters, then we lose something that is worth having (IMHO).

I heard 'could of' on Radio 4 this morning.

I doubt that you did. Likely you heard either the pronunciation of the contraction "could've" or an elision of the words "could have." It's from these pronunciations, common in many accents of English, that have given rise to the mistake of writing "could of."

To those who judge oh sorry, I mean "get irritated" it's all very well sidling in and saying "oh but I didn't mean that type of person". However, when you make sweeping statements about SPAG errors, you have no idea why that person is making those errors. It might be useful to consider how someone who does, for example, have a learning disability, might feel when they see that. I doubt your little caveats make them feel much better. They probably feel self conscious enough without yet another post on MN about how irritating you find certain SPAG mistakes.

This topic has been done to death anyway. You're not sharing anything new or original or witty. Attitudes that have been shown on this thread are reasons why some MNers think it's acceptable to respond to a post from someone in distress and in need of advice with "it's could HAVE".

No idea why that first part came as crossed out, I didn't mean for that to happen.