To say, should HAVE / could HAVE / would HAVE?

[Basta]

I know some people have learning difficulties, dyslexia, etc., but this is so common (surely more so than the incidence of dyslexia and so on) and it drives me bananas.

Also "your" being used to mean "you are".

I probably ABU to let it bother me (and to start a thread on it) but really, it's Year 2 stuff. Doesn't anybody read any more??

Time for the cup

I totally agree op.

I’m sick of hearing people defending the incorrect usage of ‘of’ instead of ‘have,’ by saying that when one says ‘should have,’ it sounds like ‘should of.’

It irritates me so much, that when I speak, I make a real effort to enunciate ‘have,’ in a bid to try and inform others that ‘of’ is incorrect.

I used to be a Secondary School Teacher (not of English), and I am appalled by the amount of poor grammar I witnessed my colleagues using. Even more worrying, is the grammar used by a Year 1 and 2 Primary School Teacher who I know very well. In speech and writing, she is an ‘of’ instead of ‘have’ person, and also uses ‘was’ instead of ‘were’ (e.g. how old was you?). I have tried to help her as subtly as possible, unfortunately to no avail.

I speak another language, and the grammar of that particular language is more difficult than that of English, but native speakers of that language seem to speak and write with far greater accuracy than many British people do in English. I do not know what the problem is here.

And dont get me started on yourself and myself instead of ME and YOU!!!

Ugh, yes. "A friend has invited DH and myself to dinner..." Or, "A friend has invited DH and I to dinner." Not sure which is worse.

Love the mug!

Its not so much that it grates on me, it just devalues the (often valid) point that the person is making which is often a shame.

Poor standards of literacy so often go hand in hand with being poorly educated and poorly informed so it becomes very difficult to attach much weight to the point that is being made.

The unfortunate fact is that anyone who uses 'Should of' etc doesn't read very much, which tends to make a person poorly informed and therefore their opinions not really worth very much.

I’m sick of hearing people defending the incorrect usage of ‘of’ instead of ‘have,’ by saying that when one says ‘should have,’ it sounds like ‘should of.’

In some accents it does. Or are you suggesting people stop talking with contractions in their speech?

However colloquially saying “could’ve” - which may be heard as “could of” is also correct.

It's not necessarily even colloquial. It's a standard contraction. Also, in some accents, it is common to elide could and have so that it sounds very much like could of.

So you can only be sure that it's an error in written English.

Should've and Should of do sound the same though, it is only in written English that the difference is apparent.

I have a friend who, on FB, writes that she's going to "after" do something, e.g. "It's eight o'clock, I'm going to after get up".

She does this all the time, and it really really grates. I'm going to "after" go NC, aren't I ?

Also, in some accents, it is common to elide could and have so that it sounds very much like could of

Yes this. Particularly when I’m speaking fast or louder, “could’ve” and “could of” sound identical

While it’s probably the case that could of comes from a mishearing o f could’ve, Ive noticed that there has been a change in that, too, which suggests people are thinking ‘of’ not ‘’ve’. It used to sound like could uv, now there’s a much clearer o sound.

What really grates on me as well as all the grammatical errors is how, when asking for something in a shop, so many people say 'Can I get x y or z'. What's wrong with 'Can I have . . ' ? Another creeping Americanism I fear.

At least you appear to recognize that it is not grammatically incorrect. The only thing that one can quibble with grammatically in "can I get" is the use of "can" rather than "may." The definition of "get" is "to come to have or hold (something); receive". So "can I get" is as correct as "can I have." "Get" does not have some sort of built-in reflexive as so many posters on MN seem to think.

Um, it's actually "hanged... "

Thank you Thank you alot

Does my bloody nut when people write 'of' instead of 'have'. And does my nut even more when people justify it. What grinds my gears the most is the larger scale phenomenon that people want to seem ill educated? I don't get this 'post-truth', 'anti-expert', 'dumb down everything' concept at all.

One day in the not too distant future, the OED or some qualified linguistic expert is going to announce that this abomination (writing could of) is now acceptable as proper English since it has entered common 'parlance' (don;t know what the equivalent is for writing!) and is understood widely enough. How depressing.

Anybody else missing the use of the plural rooves? I'm pretty sure it's 'roofs' everywhere now:-(

The one that enrages me is "three times greater", as in 45 is "three times greater" than 15. No it's not. 45 is three times 15. Three times greater than 15 is three times 15 on top of 15, ie 60. But that battle is lost. We now have a new definition of "times greater than".

As for "three times less than" ...

Anybody else missing the use of the plural rooves? I'm pretty sure it's 'roofs' everywhere now:-(

The plual of roof is roofs, I'm afraid.

It drives me completely mad and I feel violent towards my laptop when I read it on here but you're wasting your breath - no matter how many times it's pointed out, people continue to use could of etc. I automatically assume they are thick and skip their posts.

It's the same with the incorrect use of myself, themselves etc and other strangulations of the English language - totally bloody irritating.

I automatically assume they are thick and skip their posts.

Speaking as a parent of a now adult child with serious learning difficulties who has struggled all his life with achieving basic literacy, I might assume that your post is disableist.

SenecaFalls - there's always someone who is going to be offended! Take the thread in the spirit it is meant - yawn.

Anybody else missing the use of the plural rooves?

Has it ever been rooves? Or are you joking?

Take the thread in the spirit it is meant - yawn.

You mean calling people thick because they might have disabilities or they might lack educational advantages others have had? Not a very nice spirit at all. Furthermore, I was responding to one poster not commenting on the entire thread.

Someone started a thread earlier and used ‘ain’t’....god give me strength.

Yes it’s infuriating. As is people omitting the word ‘to’ e.g. “I’m going toilet” - no, you’re going TO THE toilet!

And those saying it feels mean to pull others up - I’m an editor, it’s literally my job to tell people when they’ve made a mistake in the hope they won’t do it again. It wouldn’t be very professional if I let mistakes slide so as not to be ‘mean’