Could have versus could of

[Trendyname]

Could have done.✔️
could of done. Incorrect

Explanation:

Could = ability in past. Being able to in a time which is past now.

Could have = something that was possible in past.

have is followed by past participle

Past participle is what we write after have in sentences. Eg done, eaten, bought.

could have + finished
could have + gone
could have + written
could have + done

Easier way to remember is:

The ‘have done’ after could is similar to when we use ‘have done’ in a sentence like
‘I have done all my tasks for today’
or ‘ I have finished all my tasks for today’

You ‘could have picked’ some vegetables on your way home.

We never say ‘ I of done my tasks for today’ or ‘ I of finished my work’

‘Would have’ has a similar structure in the sentence, the meaning is different. I think we all know the meaning but some of us use structure wrongly.

Would have ✔️

Would of incorrect

Maybe I am AIBU to post here, but I see so many people use it incorrectly here. English is my second language, so if you find any mistakes, please go ahead and correct.

Maybe. Some people clearly don't learn it, for a variety of reasons. Some people don't get along with the education system, some people's parents don't care enough to instill it. Many don't read, some have neurodiversities and other challenges. Some just can't be bothered.

Look I hate it as much as the rest of you. I just think there's something quite smug and politely unkind about these SPAG threads. They have no real objective other than to create a little bit of microaggression towards those with substandard linguistic skills. And no-one who mistakes "could have" for "could of" would read them anyway so most of you are shouting into the void.

"Could of" - and its cousins 'would of', 'should of' and 'might of' - fills me with irrational anger. To the point that I'll stop reading as soon as I see it.

I'm aware of the spellings and the grammatical rules.. if I was writing it I would spell correctly but that still doesn't stop me pronouncing as "could of" 50% of the time due to local accent much to my mother's annoyance! "You sound very Kidderminster dear"

Some don't know what a verb is then you have another set of problems...

I'm not.
@PendantScorner don't be so narrow minded. There's many reasons why people don't have good grammar.
DC may get 13 Years of education, not every child has the same opportunities.
Most learn how to speak before starting school, using their surroundings, if the parents have poor grammar, it's embedded, the children with poor attendance, cold homes, parents with addiction or learning disorders, young siblings to take care of, they're not focused on the have/of etc.
I attended an inner city school where addiction and teenage pregnancy was rife.

My daughter’s teacher (who was Literacy Coordinator at the time) wrote a list of words on the board to help the children in their project on books and publishing: auther and copywrite were among them. This teacher was notoriously prickly and unapproachable so I’m afraid I took the coward’s way out and just told my daughter the correct spellings. It wasn’t a good look though.

Speaking for myself, I’m not criticising ‘ordinary’ people who, for a variety of reasons, have poor Standard English. That’s probably always been the case - many people will not achieve a high level of skill in literacy.

What I think is alarming is the increasing tendency for elite or professional writers to make basic errors - and the BBC are among the guilty ones.

I think you're saying people speak without thinking about the consequences?

I mean how do you write 'would of' and what do you think it means as you write it? Why do you then write 'I have' and not 'I of'?

They can't think 'of' means anything other than... well, of. So, what do they think 'would of' means when they write it?

I don’t think they think about it at all.

I love language. I studied it at university and I taught English for several years. I find it hard to grasp that other people don’t care, though! My very well-educated friends don’t - language is just a basic tool to them and they have no interest or pleasure in it. I’m in choirs and I’ll sometimes remark on how brilliant or how awful the lyrics we’re singing are and get blank looks back. They’ll often look baffled and say they hadn’t even thought about the words!

It’s hard for me to understand this attitude, but it is what it is….🫩

I differentiate between spoken English and written English. I often get sent book manuscripts to read over and damn right I would correct it if someone had written 'I was sat' or even worse 'I was laid on the bed' (unless, of course, someone had physically seated or laid them there). But if someone says it, I just shrug, I know what they mean.

If it's spoken, it's out and nobody is going to stop and say 'oops, sorry, I mean I was sitting' or 'I actually meant to say I was lying...' But if it's written, you get to go back and think 'that doesn't look quite right, better check.'

On the other hand if someone corrects them on an anonymous forum it could actually help them. It isn't about feeling smug.

@EmeraldShamrock000 , the 'don't exaggerate' was regarding the 'millions'. You are making excuses. The use of of as a verb is not limited to people from dysfunctional backgrounds.

@Onthebusses , I think you're saying people speak without thinking about the consequences?
I'm not. Someone hears someone say 'Could of' and they think that's OK.

I mean how do you write 'would of' and what do you think it means as you write it? Why do you then write 'I have' and not 'I of'?
They don't care.

They can't think 'of' means anything other than... well, of. So, what do they think 'would of' means when they write it? They think 'would of ' is OK.

@Thepeopleversuswork , you haven't explained what you meant by 'superior spelling and grammar'.

@CoffeeCantata

Speaking for myself, I’m not criticising ‘ordinary’ people who, for a variety of reasons, have poor Standard English. That’s probably always been the case - many people will not achieve a high level of skill in literacy.
What I think is alarming is the increasing tendency for elite or professional writers to make basic errors - and the BBC are among the guilty ones.

I agree that there's no excuse for it from an outlet such as the BBC (or in any official communication).

But I think you have to remember that the majority of people "ordinary people" as you put it, don't really care all that much about the purity of language. It's a way to get from A to B.

While I don't identify with that, I can see why if you're not interested in something, fairly arcane rules about its usage seem petty trivial.

@PendantScorner

you haven't explained what you meant by 'superior spelling and grammar'.

This thread is a great example. People who write well and have a good understanding of grammar making mildly pejorative remarks about those who don't, with plentiful examples of breaches of grammar rules.

@CaptainMyCaptain

On the other hand if someone corrects them on an anonymous forum it could actually help them. It isn't about feeling smug.

I don't think life works like that.

If I clicked onto a thread with a bunch of women looking down their nose at women who wear high street fashion as opposed to designer I wouldn't think "This is useful information, what can I learn from these people about good style?"

I'd think "What a load of small-minded, judgmental nonsense... life's too short," and log off.

I don't think fashion choices are the same as English Grammar. There is no right or wrong in what you wear although someone wishing to change their style might well be influenced. I have learnt interesting facts while on Mumsnet.

@Thepeopleversuswork , it's not superior then is it.

I agree with you @CaptainMyCaptain .
If I am corrected then. if they have a point, I accept that I made a mistake and learn from it.
I do occasionally correct posters, but it will be because their post is incomprehensible or they've annoyed me.

And general literacy within the UK population is a relatively recent thing. 200 years ago many working people would not have been literate so wouldn’t have had a concept of anything but their own spoken vernacular, and local dialects would have been much more varied than they are today.

But we’re living in the 21st century and people have fought hard for universal free education. I’d say that, until 20 years ago, a huge value was placed on education and literacy in particular, both as an individual right and as a means to achieving social mobility. I think the internet has vastly changed that idea but not always for the better.

I do think that language is being impoverished in a number of ways due to educational, broadcasting and social changes. To most people language is just a bad I tool with no aesthetic value and maybe it’s always been like that for the majority. Few people (especially young people) read for pleasure and it strikes me as sad because reading is a free or very inexpensive way to access to whole imaginative worlds.

It’s OK - I know I’m a dinosaur!

…just a basic tool…not a bad I tool, whatever that might be. Bloody autocorrect.

There is a new library being built in a small town near me and people on the Council Facebook are complaining at the waste of money 'because nobody reads books any more'. 😩

@CoffeeCantata

I do think that language is being impoverished in a number of ways due to educational, broadcasting and social changes. To most people language is just a bad I tool with no aesthetic value and maybe it’s always been like that for the majority. Few people (especially young people) read for pleasure and it strikes me as sad because reading is a free or very inexpensive way to access to whole imaginative worlds.

I completely agree with this. As someone who works with language (and loves it) I find it very depressing that good writing has been downgraded in status and social media and AI are hugely accelerating this.

But I do think that the slightly supercilious "bad grammar fishing" threads by people who have usually had the benefit of a very good education are a bit smug and ultimately pretty pointless.

A lot of people have not grown up in an environment where words are cherished and important. They weren't encouraged to read at home, didn't get taught well at school, didn't go to university. It's never been part of their life. It doesn't automatically make them stupid and baiting them with low level snark about sentence structure won't encourage them to love reading or writing, it will just make them feel patronised and feel less likely to learn good grammar.

some people lack the literacy skills for the job they’re doing.

I'm going to take a wild guess that you're a teacher, lots of whom, in my experience, cling to the belief that good SPAG is essential to do well in life. Out in the big wide world, there are lots of people who wouldn't know (or care) that it's "could have" not "of" who hold down demanding, responsible jobs and are perfectly able to communicate what they mean.

My husband's SPAG isn't the best and he says and writes "could of" and other appallingly ungrammatical things. However, he's incredibly intelligent, is educated to post-graduate level and has had a high-flying professional career. He reads widely (fiction and non-fiction) and has fantastic general knowledge. He was the first person in his family to stay at school after the age of 15 and I imagine he's never absorbed the correct versions of the grammar he grew up hearing. It hasn't held him back though.

I'm a bit of a pedant myself, but I don't try and kid myself that it in any way reflects a superior level of intelligence.

Like it or not, we are all constantly making judgements about other people. Face to face this might include accent, dress, hygiene etc. In written communication SPAG will inevitably guide how we perceive the writer. I agree that it's rude to correct someone in a thread but it's impossible for it not to affect how the poster comes across.

Well yes- exactly. I’m saying it’s completely understandable when someone with dyslexia or other learning difficulties makes this error- partly because spelling is difficult anyway for them, and partly because they are less likely to do much reading because reading is more difficult for them.

@MotherofPufflings

I do get it! And I know a few scientists who must surely wince at people like me who are so mathematically ignorant. We all care passionately about some things and are content to remain pig-ignorant about others. It’s just that high-level mathematical skill isn’t normally on show in most people’s daily lives in the way their competence at literacy is.