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.

Oh God, it’s so depressing - and comments like that become self-fulfilling prophecies.

@Waitingfordoggo did you read the whole post? I'm saying that the badly worded post will be harder for someone with dyslexia or other learning difficulties to read. I'm not saying it is them who are making the mistakes.

I don’t think I’m disagreeing with you @PendantScorner- apologies if it came across that way.

So what I was thinking! 😂

💯 this.
@Thepeopleversuswork It is lovely to see a highly educated person on here, who has an appreciation and understanding of all walks from life.
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.
This.
Making people think they're stupid or lazy, never helped anyone.
At times I'd love to have the big words to get my point across clearly.
Before anyone suggests that I should learn.
I have learnt a lot on here since I left school.
I didn't learn anything from school.
The early days on here were brutal. 😅

@EmeraldShamrock000

Making people think they're stupid or lazy, never helped anyone.

So true. And these threads aren't about "helping" anyone, they're about giving the posters a little micro-boost of superiority.

At times I'd love to have the big words to get my point across clearly.

You don't need big words to get a point across. You have made your point perfectly well without them! Big words are very often misused.

Emerald - I’m sorry you had a bad experience on MN. I don’t agree with criticism of pp’s SPAG and have never commented on it.

Thepeople: I think that’s a very reductive view of this thread. Some of us are interested in language use and evolution and are commenting on trends and usages. I would not condone attempts to make people feel inferior because of their SPAG.

What I’m focusing on are the societal changes which affect literacy. As a former teacher and lecturer I see a change, and have been tracking it for a few decades now. I see it in my own highly-educated children. Reading anything of length or for pleasure is becoming a minority activity. And this trend, plus the reduction in exposure to print media - even The Sun - is affecting literacy standards.

It may not matter - I don’t know. It matters to me, though, and that’s why I comment; not to put people down but because I’m saddened that a source of huge enjoyment in life, which used to be available to pretty much everyone, is disappearing.

But I know I’m a 20th century person!

@CoffeeCantata

Thepeople: I think that’s a very reductive view of this thread. Some of us are interested in language use and evolution and are commenting on trends and usages. I would not condone attempts to make people feel inferior because of their SPAG.

I am also fascinated by the evolution of language and find poor grammar reflexively frustrating.

But I stand by the fact that in most cases people aren’t posting about this out of genuine concern for the quality of language, they are doing it to make themselves feel superior.

@Thepeopleversuswork

You may be right in some cases but I honestly would never think I’m better than someone on the basis of their use of English. I do care about it for myself, though, and I appreciate well-written English. Actually, I think I mind more that most people don’t care about good writing in general than that they make SPAG errors themselves! (I haven’t put that very well though.)

@Thepeopleversuswork , grammar and spelling isn't about using 'big words'.
You can get your point across by writing simply and clearly.

One that really gets to me is ‘worse’ when they very clearly mean ‘worst’.

Not to mention lately the number of people who write Kier Starmer!

FFS it’s KEIR!

I always presumed he was named after Keir Hardie, but I might be wrong on that.
Haven't rtft, but I'd have thought the easiest way for those who are unsure to remember would be to remove the "would", "should" or "could" and see whether "have" or "of" still makes sense.

E,g. "I would have bought the dress" with the word "would " removed becomes
either

"I have bought the dress"

or

"I of bought the dress".

It's straightforward enough when put like that, I'd have thought. 🤷‍♀️

@UnctuousUnicorns , it's an unspoken rule on MN that if you start a thread about someone well-known, you must misspell their name.

I understand that: I was using that phrase in direct response to a poster who had used it.

I'm just questioning the motives of people who start grammar threads on Mumsnet.

It strikes me as being a classic example of people preaching to the choir and talking to themselves, but pretending to be doing it in the interests of "teaching" others.

I'm just questioning the motives of people who start grammar threads on Mumsnet. preaching to the choir and talking to themselves
I agree with you.
Threads in Pedants' corner are OK.

It is never could of, so there is nothing to remember

Do teachers not correct pupils if they use 'of' incorrectly? Are exam papers marked down if there are grammatical errors?

I have seen threads if Mumsnet when someone corrects spelling/grammar and posters rush to the defence of the person making the mistakes. One such thread and the OP wanted to go to university to study councilling. Yes it should be counselling.

Poor standards are accepted now and it even seems to be a badge of honour. Just look at TV announcers and adverts and compare the spoken language to a few decades ago. No I am not referring to regional accents but poor grammar and pronunciation.

It’s a common mistake, caused by the very commonly used verbal contraction “would’ve”…

My husband is one of those who was not given basic literacy skills as part of his education for various reasons. 'Could of' etc. are perfectly normal for him, along with many other hideous, faintmaking bastardisations of the English language - however we regularly joke about the fact that it's his skills bringing the big money into this house. I'm well educated and an academic snob but I appreciate him as he is. He's a tradesman - a very successful one. He's far from stupid but his intelligence is not the academic kind. He's not ashamed of this and neither am I which is why we can joke about the gap between us educationally. However he is very aware of how other people judge him, and they definitely do. He knows there's a significant proportion of society that looks down upon him for his lack of language skills and doesn't see past that, so while he knows he has nothing to be ashamed of, he also is very clear that he doesn't want our daughters to grow up speaking, writing and communicating as he does. Whether we like it or not and whether it's justifiable or not, we are all judged on how we present ourselves and our oral and written communications are part of that.

Dyslexia is one problem, no arguments there. Poor education is part of it too but that can be corrected later on and I'm not judging these people poorly. Unfortunately wilful ignorance and a kind of inverse snobbery are a large part of the problem. There's some kind of strange subset of society that has grown to take pride in being 'thick'. I do judge those people and don't feel bad about it.

I think Winston Churchill said that in terms of good style, English words were better than foreign words and short words better than long ones.

Before anyone jumps in, in this context ‘foreign’ words refers to words of Latin or French origin (things like drink instead of imbibe, or try instead of endeavour etc).

I think he was right. For pps saying they don’t use long words, no problem. They don’t necessarily make for a good English style.

@Trendyname when you say:
"Could have done.✔️
could of done. Incorrect"

Do you mean in written or spoken English?

In written English, you're 100% correct, but In spoken English, "could of" and "could've" sound identical, and "could've" is perfectly correct.

I think Winston Churchill said that in terms of good style, English words were better than foreign words and short words better than long ones.
I don't know if he actually said it, but that was his style in both writing and speech.
With style, you pitch it to your audience, so you use words and language that the reader or listener can understand clearly.

@dcsp , "could of" and "could've" sound identical,
Debatable. It does if you say of as 'uv'.

Those who say 'could of' clearly say 'ov'.

If you look at his speeches, they’re powerful because of their simplicity (which might and taken more effort to achieve than a convoluted style!).

Another example of superb English style is the narration of the old documentary series The World at War. Simple, powerful, spare and moving - written by the historian Neal Ascherson.

I don't think that's true at all. I am sure that when I say "could've" it sounds pretty much the same as if I were saying "could of", which I never would do in a million years.