Being irritated at "would of, could of....."

[DuchessOfDisaster]

I cringe when I see this written down. Along with "defiantly" for definitely and other examples. I don't see there is ever any excuse. And the excuse that "language evolves" doesn't wash, because "to of" is not a verb and never will be no matter how language evolves. It's not the same as adopting words from other cultures, new words like selfies, or a different meaning for "sick", for example.

OK, when we say "would've", "could've" etc, it may SOUND similar, but that's no excuse either. It implies the writer has never seen "would have" etc written down, therefore doesn't read much. What did they do at school? Was this style of writing used then and never corrected?

Another cringeworthy example is the inability to differentiate between there/they're/their and your/you're.

Just why do people do it and worse, why is it excused?

I believe the average reading age in the UK is 8 which is shocking and appalling.

The "Of/have" issue really irritates me. I read a primary school teachers' written comments that said "he could of..."

The other thing that really marks people out as less educated is "I borrowed him" & "I learned him"

@pointythings

pumper I am 53. I still read children's books as part of my reading choices. At car boots and the like, books cost pennies. Libraries sell books for peanuts. We do however need investment in essential education for adults who have missed out, but we aren't going to get that from our current government. Access to literacy for all needs radical improvement.

But not trying isn't an option.

Not trying absolutely is an option for people who don’t know where to start. What if you can’t afford the bus fare to the library?

@Spanielstail

I believe the average reading age in the UK is 8 which is shocking and appalling.

The "Of/have" issue really irritates me. I read a primary school teachers' written comments that said "he could of..."

The other thing that really marks people out as less educated is "I borrowed him" & "I learned him"

Just one primary school teacher?

@rosebud5678

The one that gets me is less/fewer, e.g. FEWER people not less people....even the BBC sometimes get this wrong!

quirkycase.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/lessfewer-problems-with-%E2%80%98incorrectness%E2%80%99/

languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2819

Seven days or...? Less or fewer?

languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=552

languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=465

" ...that the now-standard pedantry about less/fewer is in fact one of the many false "rules" that have recently precipitated out of the over-saturated solution of linguistic ignorance where most usage advice is brewed..."

Here's another quote (Merriam Webster)

"Here is the rule as it is usually encountered: fewer refers to number among things that are counted, and less refers to quantity or amount among things that are measured. This rule is simple enough and easy enough to follow. It has only one fault -- it is not accurate for all usage. If we were to write the rule from the observation of actual usage, it would be the same for fewer: fewer does refer to number among things that are counted. However, it would be different for less: less refers to quantity or amount among things that are measured and to number among things that are counted."

I literally can't hear the difference between could of and could've. I pronounce then the same way therefore it was a huge shock as a late teen (child of the 80s with no grammar education as most state schools at the time had) to discover they were different words. I've taught the difference to my kids but they had to have it pointed out as well.

@Pinchoftums

I literally can't hear the difference between could of and could've. I pronounce then the same way therefore it was a huge shock as a late teen (child of the 80s with no grammar education as most state schools at the time had) to discover they were different words. I've taught the difference to my kids but they had to have it pointed out as well.

In most British English accents using connected speech there is no difference, don't worry.

I've never watched that, maybe it would enhance my vocabulary, DolphinFC, or enhance my general knowledge .

Another phrase which has crept in to everyday language here is 'rented out', rather than 'let'. Even estate agents are using it now.

'Borrowing' and 'lending' are sometimes confused.

This has always really annoyed me. As my 'punishment' (ha ha!) for being so judgemental in the past I now have a severely dyslexic daughter! She has made me see sense and whilst I do teach my children 'would've/etc', I am now more forgiving of others when they get it wrong!

@Spanielstail

I believe the average reading age in the UK is 8 which is shocking and appalling.

The "Of/have" issue really irritates me. I read a primary school teachers' written comments that said "he could of..."

The other thing that really marks people out as less educated is "I borrowed him" & "I learned him"

I don't know where to start with this post Unless it's meant to be a joke and I didn't get it

There are all sorts of reasons why people don't always use grammatically good English. Many of those reasons are not their fault. Expecting other adults to overhaul the whole way they write or speak in order not to irritate you is unreasonable and impractical, so YABU. People have enough going on in their lives. Consider yourself privileged a) to have been brought up to write properly and b) to have the luxury of correct English apparently being high on your list of priorities in life.

Does anyone else judge grammar when using internet dating apps?

• Aaaaargh I can't stand when people write could of/ should of. There's really no excuse as it grammatically makes no sense. I'm with you OP.*

I've seen it so much lately I even began to question myself!!

@CecilyP

It can contribute to the communication failing, though, can't it? Say someone did write a love letter like this to the OP and OP could then no longer focus on or embrace the loving sentiment, but just ended up put off.

In that case it would serve it’s purpose as OP would know she could never be with such a dim uneducated person regardless of their superficial attractiveness!

Its?

Oooh. I do love a good grammar bunfight thread.

Agree OP.

I work in a field where clear, accurate writing is important. Therefore people who make clear grammatical mistakes in their application are likely to be weeded out at an early stage, even if they are simply applying for clerical jobs. We did once take someone with iffy grammar because his other qualifications and experience seemed to be good, but he never improved and the fact that he lacked the will to improve also began to show through in other aspects of his work. He left when he didn't get a promotion he wanted, to everyone's great relief.

@reprehensibleme

Agree OP.

Shouldn't that be "I agree, OP." ?

As has been explained a million times...nobody is saying "could of". They are saying "could've"

You've never heard my DH or his side of the family speak. They distinctly say 'could of' (the 'of' is slightly emphasised and there is a very clear 'o' sound).

I am a pedant and 'could/would/should of'/ 'defiantly' etc make me wince every time I see them - I genuinely can't help it, it's an involuntary reaction - but I have learned to try to chill out about it and I would never correct someone unless they specifically asked for help. Writing is a skill and it just so happens it's a very visible skill. I can write a decent paragraph but I can't work out anything beyond very simple percentages in my head, or style my hair so that I look well-groomed, or rewire a kitchen; I'm just fortunate that my poor skills aren't out there for me to be judged the way someone who has never grasped correct syntax or spelling for whatever reason is judged.

I think sometimes people who lack confidence in their SPAG make errors through trying to make themselves sound more formal than they need to (see the inexorable rise of 'myself' where it should be 'me', for example). Also, often people know there is a word they want but confuse it with a similar one (e.g. averse / adverse; I see many people saying "I wouldn't be adverse to doing X"). Then others read it and think it's the correct word in that context, and so it goes on.

If something is genuinely unreadable, for example a dense wall of text with no punctuation and multiple spelling errors in the first few sentences that mean the context isn't clear, I'll usually just quietly close it and move on to something more readable. There's no need for the bitchy "this would be better with paragraphs" or "learn to spell OP" comments that you see so often on here, especially when the poster is clearly in distress. I reserve the right not to read something if the author hasn't attempted to make it readable, but I don't make a song and dance about it.

Gotten is a word.

@Terhou

I work in a field where clear, accurate writing is important. Therefore people who make clear grammatical mistakes in their application are likely to be weeded out at an early stage, even if they are simply applying for clerical jobs. We did once take someone with iffy grammar because his other qualifications and experience seemed to be good, but he never improved and the fact that he lacked the will to improve also began to show through in other aspects of his work. He left when he didn't get a promotion he wanted, to everyone's great relief.

‘Therefore’ should have a comma after it. Maybe you should apply for one of the simple clerical jobs, your writing is iffy.

@thickandfast

* Aaaaargh I can't stand when people write could of/ should of. There's really no excuse as it grammatically makes no sense. I'm with you OP.*

I've seen it so much lately I even began to question myself!!

Incorrect use of exclamation marks.

@gobackanddoitproperly

Gotten is a word.

In Scotland there’s lots of examples of this - ‘Amur’ for ‘I am’ and ‘amn’t’ for ‘I’m not’. I once heard ‘amur-ny’ for ‘I am not’ - because dialects are an important part of language too. And if this is the language you’ve heard your entire life, why would you question its accuracy? Who says it’s less understandable than ‘I am/I am not’?

As has been explained a million times...nobody is saying "could of". They are saying "could've"

Nope. Lots of them are saying 'could of'. That's why they also type 'could of'.

@lazylinguist

As has been explained a million times...nobody is saying "could of". They are saying "could've"

Nope. Lots of them are saying 'could of'. That's why they also type 'could of'.

I wonder where it started, though? I have only noticed it since the rise of social media. Nobody, as far as I recall, wrote it at school, or said it, nor in university. I never saw it until I began teaching which coincided with the rise of discussion boards and then Facebook

I teach in a university, and it is noticeably absent, but when I taught in a further education college it was prevalent along with witch instead of which, are instead of our, and the omission of the definite article for example "I went in library to research on industrial revolution and best book I found was by X."

It used to be only children who said it, I remember saying it before I learned what the actual phrase was and what it meant from my parents and at school.

To me, ‘could of’ is simply childish.