Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Pedants' corner
Original poster

Have! Have! It's have not of!

49 replies

RhondaJean · 14/07/2013 19:37

You HAVE done something. You have not OF something.

It makes me want to scream. Aaaaargh. AAAAAARGH!

Thank you!

OP posts:
tribpot · 14/07/2013 19:41

In fairness no-one says 'I of been to the shops'. It's used specifically with would, should and could where 'could've' sounds very similar to 'could of'.

Bloody annoying nevertheless!

Hassled · 14/07/2013 19:41

You're not wrong :o

But I don't understand where/why this has come about - it's a newish, last few years thing, isn't it? My fairly bright, has a degree etc, DS1 was baffled when I corrected him - he genuinely believed it to be "I should of quit while I was ahead". Where does it come from?

tribpot · 14/07/2013 20:11

No, not new - I remember my mum correcting me on this when I was about 9 or so.

GertrudeMorel · 14/07/2013 20:14

Drives me nuts too.

Original poster
RhondaJean · 14/07/2013 20:15

Trib there's a thread elsewhere today which has the title "to of cancelled..."

It set me over the edge!

But obviously would be rude to mention it on the thread so here I am to moan instead.

Glad I am not alone...

OP posts:
SconeRhymesWithGone · 15/07/2013 15:42

But isn't it only in written English that it is a problem? It comes from eliding/contracting "should have, would have," etc. in speech, which is common and not incorrect. It then gets incorrectly written as it sounds.

ArgyMargy · 15/07/2013 22:41

Well is it rude Rhonda? I've snuck in a pedantry or two on non-pedant threads (see the one about dog "toileting"). People need to be told!!

VBisme · 15/07/2013 22:45

Pet hate of mine, it does make people look a bit uneducated.

Original poster
RhondaJean · 15/07/2013 22:47

The contraction is should've not should of.

Enunciate!

OP posts:
Dillydollydaydream · 15/07/2013 22:52

I also hate when people say should of, could of etc.

TallulahBetty · 16/07/2013 21:47

It's just because people say "could've" which sounds like "could of". That's why it's only written incorrectly.

SconeRhymesWithGone · 17/07/2013 13:28

Exactly, Tallulah. In many accents of spoken English, contracting words with "have" creates a homophone with "of." I think it is overly pedantic to insist that people change their accents to create a discernible aural distinction betweeen the two.

Ohhelpohnoitsa · 17/07/2013 21:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

dollybird · 17/07/2013 21:13

yeah, but in Rhondajean's example who says to've??

SconeRhymesWithGone · 17/07/2013 22:40

No one says "to've," but many people elide "to have" in a way that sounds like "to of."

I amend my previous post by adding "eliding," and by spelling "between" correctly. Wink

AKissIsNotAContract · 17/07/2013 22:43

People who say that are the same people who refer to themselves as 'myself' instead of 'me'. Wankers

fflonkl · 18/08/2013 08:15

Should HAVE, should HAVE, should HAVE!!!!!

Can't stand seeing should of, it really irritates me!

Sorry for reviving this but I just had to vent!

Tubemole1 · 30/09/2013 23:20

Totally agree.

meditrina · 19/04/2014 21:05

Must this thread - and the various other very similar ones (this being a hardy perennial thread subject) - be deleted, following today's deletion?

Nennypops · 21/04/2014 10:33

What's been deleted?

DrankSangriaInThePark · 22/04/2014 09:18

Of course not Meditrina.

This thread unlike the deleted one, wasn't started specifically to take the piss out of another OP.

I think you can guess which thread was deleted Nenny. Surely you, as the OP, received the same deletion message from HQ that the rest of us did?

Nennypops · 23/04/2014 14:51

Goodness, not that I'm aware of! Which one was it - the one about "To of done something"? That wasn't to take the piss out of any OP, I've seen a number of threads with that sort of title over quite a long period, and finally got around to having a whinge about it. If MN are deleting threads about common mistakes because one specific OP who makes the same mistake might just think it was about them, I'm amazed they allow Pedants' Corner at all.

EdithWeston · 23/04/2014 15:02

I agree with nennypops.

The thread in "chat" was identifiable (and right that it was deleted). The one here, by a different OP, wasn't - exactly as this one hasn't been to date, perhaps because it was pre-PB?

Or perhaps this needs to be zapped too, to fit the new 'mood' of post-PB MN? For this is as much an identifiable TAAT as the deleted one.

DrankSangriaInThePark · 23/04/2014 15:02

Yes it was that one.

I reported it, don't know if anyone else did.

It was clearly about the OP of the painting thread. (I think you even mentioned the thread)

I hope she didn't see it.

As I said on the thread before it was zapped, I can, and will, out-pedant anyone as far as use of English is concerned, but I would never stoop to starting a thread about another poster. This thread is different because it is talking generically about what has, yes, become an ubiquitous mistake by many many people.

DrankSangriaInThePark · 23/04/2014 15:04

This one is a zombie thread that Meditrina resurrected to be humphy about the deleted one.

The deleted one wasn't in chat, it was here, started by Nennypops about the painting thread OP.