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?

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 have certainly noticed in recent years, some people (not necessarily lots) actually saying, ‘could of’ rather than ‘could’ve’ It’s almost like they think ‘could’ve’ isn’t formal enough and are trying to correct it.

I work with a medical secretary who says ‘we was’ rather than we were and it infuriates me! Just sounds so thick!

CecilyP I did not learn my English in the classroom. I learned it by immersion when I was 10. I was clueless about English grammar until I started doing my mum's marking for her. (She taught English in a Dutch secondary school). I was older, but I learned English in the same way British people learn it, by hearing and speaking it.

I work with a medical secretary who says ‘we was’ rather than we were and it infuriates me! Just sounds so thick!

That’s more a dialect thing. If you’re brought up by and with people who say, ‘we was’, you are much more likely to continue to use it yourself.

Fair enough, Pointythings, but are you saying you just learned to speak English without doing any writing?

@Eilatan2018

I work with a medical secretary who says ‘we was’ rather than we were and it infuriates me! Just sounds so thick!

That’s pretty racist.

CecilyP obviously not. I came into a British school in year 6 with very little written or spoken English. I picked it up as I went along, doing as much of the work as I could alongside work sent by my Dutch school. I struggled until around Christmas and then it just fell into place. Spoken English definitely came first, the written stuff followed. To be fair this was in the late 70s when 'would of' was just not a thing.

To be fair this was in the late 70s when 'would of' was just not a thing.

Thanks for your explanation, Pointythings. However ‘would of’ really was a thing. I remember an English teacher in 2nd or 3rd year secondary telling class it was ‘would have’ not ‘would of’. I don’t think I was one one of the culprits but there must have been enough people doing it for her to say it to the whole class. This was a selective school in the 1960s.

It was always a thing, simply because it’s the way ‘would have’ is pronounced. English is a language that uses contractions, like ‘isn’t’ for ‘is not’.

The proper contraction of ‘would have’ is ‘would’ve’, not ‘would of’, which is meaningless.

People don't read enough. Even on the internet, most of what you see written has come from someone who understands the rudiments of grammar. However if people get most of their information aurally, they miss the distinction between 'of' and 'have'.

For people who are saying this is new, when John Steinbeck wrote Cannery Row (published in 1945), he represented one of the main characters, Mack, as saying 'would of' not 'would have'.

It's not new.

@Eilatan2018

I work with a medical secretary who says ‘we was’ rather than we were and it infuriates me! Just sounds so thick!

You seem like a pleasant person.

@BobVance

“Been” instead of “being” is one I see everywhere now and I really just don’t understand how people can’t realise it’s wrong. A good friend of mine uses it repeatedly so it isn’t one-off laziness, she thinks that’s the right word.

Yes! I'm suddenly seen seeing this a lot. "Would of" has been around for ever, but where on earth has this one come from?

It’s purely because in many accents people use should’ve and would’ve which is fine except many people take the abbreviation to actually be of rather than ‘ve.

Language naturally changes over time so I have a bad feeling that eventually ‘should of’ will take over because it will become so commonplace.

@pointythings

CecilyP I did not learn my English in the classroom. I learned it by immersion when I was 10. I was clueless about English grammar until I started doing my mum's marking for her. (She taught English in a Dutch secondary school). I was older, but I learned English in the same way British people learn it, by hearing and speaking it.

Your mum taught English and let you - someone who was clueless about English grammar - mark her students’ work? Are you sure?

Pumper yes, because despite nog knowing the rules explicitly, I was perfectly capable of recognising incorrect grammar when I saw it. We are talking English as a foreign language for Years 7 through 9, so basic stuff. Besides, as someone who was already bilingual, it didn't take me long to pick up the rules. The essentials of 'rewrite this sentence using the passive voice' are not rocket science - I knew what passive voice was, just not the term. Stop trying to pick holes. I speak 4 languages fluently, one by birth, one by immersion, two through a combination of great teaching and immersion later on.

8You said you were clueless about grammar, why on earth would she - an actual teacher of English! - allow you to mark her students’ work? Clueless about grammar, yet perfectly capable of recognising incorrect grammar when you saw it? Nonsense*

It isn't - basic language exercises are very formulaic. If you speak the language you will know when something is wrong, even if you don't know why it's wrong.

@igelkott2021

8You said you were clueless about grammar, why on earth would she - an actual teacher of English! - allow you to mark her students’ work? Clueless about grammar, yet perfectly capable of recognising incorrect grammar when you saw it? Nonsense*

It isn't - basic language exercises are very formulaic. If you speak the language you will know when something is wrong, even if you don't know why it's wrong.

It absolutely is nonsense, there’s no way a teacher would allow a novice learner to mark a student’s work.

I sent this thread to a friend, because she pulls me up (with permission) on my spelling and grammar and it took her a good 18 months before I got it. My facebook was full of her just going *could have

but OK, when we say "would've", "could've" etc

She says its okay @DuchessOfDisaster

pumper, how au fait are you with the secondary school English curriculum in the Netherlands? Not very, I would guess. In Year 8, a student would be constructing simple sentences using a past, present or future tense, with perhaps a few adjectives and prepositions. Easy enough for someone of native speaker standard to correct. And when I say 'clueless about grammar, I do not mean 'unable to use or recognise it'. I mean that I was unaware of many of the technical terms used in grammar. I learned them soon enough, as I was learning French and German at the time; my ignorance did not last for long. Asking me to mark an exercise on the correct use of irregular verbs was really no big deal.

This did not mean that I could explain English grammar to my peers. I could show them correct and incorrect examples, but was unable to explain why one was wrong and one was right. That is what I mean by 'clueless '. Because these days, I can provide that explanation. Happy now?

In Year 8, a student would be constructing simple sentences using a past, present or future tense, with perhaps a few adjectives and prepositions.

That’s depressing! I’d expect far more from a child Y2 standard and above. They would be able to add in conjunctions at least.

@youshallnotpass9

I sent this thread to a friend, because she pulls me up (with permission) on my spelling and grammar and it took her a good 18 months before I got it. My facebook was full of her just going *could have

but OK, when we say "would've", "could've" etc

She says its okay @DuchessOfDisaster

Well it is, "would've", "could've" are perfectly correct contractions of would have or could have. It's correct to either say it or write it. It makes sense, whereas would of, could of don't make sense, because you cannot "of" anything. Of is not a verb.

We don't say (or write) that we are going to of a pizza tonight but some might write that they would of had a pizza if they'd thought about it.

@BeingATwatItsABingThing

In Year 8, a student would be constructing simple sentences using a past, present or future tense, with perhaps a few adjectives and prepositions.

That’s depressing! I’d expect far more from a child Y2 standard and above. They would be able to add in conjunctions at least.

It's about building the fundamentals first. By Year 11, a Dutch student will be able to write a decent essay or story in English, read original English language YA novels and have a simple spontaneous conversation in English, so not the memorised regurgitation that passes for GCSE speaking in MFL. By Year 13 they're reading original major literary works and discussing them in English. The standard of MFL teaching in the Netherlands is still light years ahead of what happens in most UK schools. (I cannot speak for what happens in private schools.)