Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Could of, would of and should of...

302 replies

pictish · 10/07/2017 13:22

NO!

could have
would have
should have

It's past tense...it's stating what you could have done, would have done or should havedone. Could've, should've, would've are actual contractions of those terms...they're in the dictionary and everything!

It's not could'f, would'f or should'f is it?
'Of' makes no fucking sense! Stop using it!

I'm not generally one for the grammar pedantry but this one makes people look thick in a way that other common grammar mistakes don't imo.

Sorry...but I felt the need to express. Boot me about if you want.

OP posts:
SenecaFalls · 10/07/2017 15:19

I say 'of' instead of 'have'.

Maybe you were using the contraction "should've", which in many accents sounds exactly like "should of." If they were correcting you for the way you speak it, as opposed to writing it, then they are likely just plain wrong.

And, by the way, draws for drawers is a mistake that only people with non-rhotic accents make. Those of us who pronounce our "r's" can hear a difference.

Yoksha · 10/07/2017 15:21

One of my pet hates. It's been suggested that it's just the evolution of our language.

I was reading "Down and Out In Paris & London" by George Orwell a few weeks ago. The error was there in black & white. " Could of ". I've also seen it down in print in one of the F Scott Fitzgerald books I read last year. Both examples were made in the early 1930's.

MikeUniformMike · 10/07/2017 15:22

of does not sound like 've.

TheChippendenSpook · 10/07/2017 15:23

I completely agree!

SenecaFalls · 10/07/2017 15:24

of does not sound like 've.

You are wrong to make such a universal statement. In many accents, the sounds are virtually identical. That's the reason for the written error.

mikeyssister · 10/07/2017 15:27

I hate, loath, and detest when seemingly well educated people say ter instead of to, and fer instead of for.AngryAngry

EG If a guest is speaking of going ter the library fer a book I shout abuse at the radio or television.

Is it really so hard to say to and for

SenecaFalls · 10/07/2017 15:28

For example, when I say Katherine of Aragon, I pronounce "of" the same way I do when I say should've.

To say that they sound differently in all accents of spoken English is to completely ignore the reason that the written error exists.

SeamstressfromTreacleMineRoad · 10/07/2017 15:33

Another pedant here... Smile Your/you're is one of my irritants - how can anyone not grasp that one of these means 'you are' and one describes something belonging to you...!?!?
'Of' instead of 'have' does make me judge - and I have a dyslexic DH & DC so do know about the difficulties that can be faced...
Mnemonics are your friend - DC can remember these and uses them to help with writing/spelling (e.g. 'e is for envelope' when writing 'stationery')
Oh, and I'd just like to point out that there is no such word as 'alright' - it's 'all right'

MikeUniformMike · 10/07/2017 15:34

Seneca. You are not correct. People say should of because they think that is what they hear. the sound that you hear in 've is a schwa and is in English the same as the a in about. Google schwa if you don't believe me.

EdmundCleverClogs · 10/07/2017 15:36

I saw this the other day, think it's perfect for the pendants of this thread (I do agree with you, for what it's worth).

Could of, would of and should of...
PattyPenguin · 10/07/2017 15:43

To quote the BBC's learning English site
"Schwa is the name for the most common sound in English. It is a weak, unstressed sound and it occurs in many words."

The IPA symbol for it is É™.

That's the sound in of and 've.

Not everyone pronounces them like this, it's true. I pronounce the o in Katherine of Aragon as a short o. But enough people pronounce the vowel in of and 've as É™ to cause this problem in writing.

Onhold · 10/07/2017 15:45

The weekly could of thread. Yawn

MikeUniformMike · 10/07/2017 15:48

Why comment, Onhold?

Onhold · 10/07/2017 15:48

Makes me want to post could of all over MN for the lolz.

Onhold · 10/07/2017 15:49

I can comment where i like. So stick that up your pedantic arse.

Original poster
pictish · 10/07/2017 15:52

Tetchy. Who's pissed on your chips today?

OP posts:
Original poster
pictish · 10/07/2017 15:53

Or should that be a simple 'who'? Wink

OP posts:
ConstanceCraving · 10/07/2017 15:54

I guess OnHold is guilty of "could of" then Wink

EdmundCleverClogs · 10/07/2017 15:55

Onhold - aren't you the poster who started a thread telling posters not to put -Zilla on the end of words? If so, it's a bit hypocritical calling others pedantic....

Onhold · 10/07/2017 15:55

Why say that? I know it's could have. I just don't give a fuck if someone writes could of.

Onhold · 10/07/2017 15:56

Couldofzilla.

Original poster
pictish · 10/07/2017 15:57

Threadzilla!

OP posts:
loobylou10 · 10/07/2017 15:58

I agree OP. I actually struggle to read posts where the OP uses could of - I know it would be pedantic of me to point it out so I'd rather not say anything. It's the one mistake that totally drives me bonkers.

GinAndGooseberry · 10/07/2017 16:02

I don't think location is a factor as could of / would of is a mistake made in Ireland too. I think it's because it's a neutral vowel and it sounds like uv. I have a friend on fb and I've seen her write he's for his as well! I've never seen anybody else make that mistake. I get frustrated, I'm unemployed and cannot find a job and I know it's very old-fashioned but I just don't think spelling is valued anymore, so if young people can't spell it's linked to their not needing to spell to get a good salary.

ConstanceCraving · 10/07/2017 16:03

You don't give a fuck OnHold but the OP does.