Tinder match just corrected my grammar

[FanGirlX]

I wrote "could have", he informed me it should be "could of".

Think he was trying to be clever 🤣.

Un-match and fast. Complete idiot...

When we read the headline 'Blouson Bloke Bludgeoned By Bluestocking' we will know the date came to an abrupt halt.

'All I said was 'need toilet' and she went crazy', said Simon (46) from Stevenage.

@MissHavishamsMouldyOldCake

What if it's not a joke, but he realises his mistake, so in order to save face he back pedals, 'ha ha, yeah it was a joke'...and then you're on a date with him. Because I'll warn you now if he's the kind of man to confidently correct your (correct) grammar, you'll be in for an evening of:

-who do you think would win in a fight: a horse or a crocodile?
-hilarious anecdote about the time he mooned at a nun
-'do you like threesomes?'
-weeping about how much he loves Lionel Messi

Tread carefully!

I'm sick with Covid and this has made me howl! 😂

@MissHavishamsMouldyOldCake

When we read the headline 'Blouson Bloke Bludgeoned By Bluestocking' we will know the date came to an abrupt halt.

'All I said was 'need toilet' and she went crazy', said Simon (46) from Stevenage.

Is it wrong that I now slightly want to go on this date? In my head, I am dressed with irreproachable correctness, like Harriet Vane attending a gaudy, and poor doomed, be-blousoned Simon is polishing up his best conversational gambits.

Now I need to decide which one of these is my favourite 🤣

Tenderhooks?

@thisplaceisweird

This is actually great.

His response to your correct will tell you EVERYTHING you need to know about this man.

Agreed 😁

@pinkyredrose

Tenderhooks?

And pacific and defiantly…

He's going to loose you, isn't he?

@QueenPeony

I'm famed for my pedantry, but I can kind of understand why people think it's "could of". It sounds like that when most people say it, and while "could have" is right, it doesn't really make any more sense when you break it down.

It's one of those things where I wonder if it will actually become that over time.

Wouldn't stand for this from a date though. Correcting AND being wrong. Next!

@QueenPeony except it does makes sense when you break it down.

"I have done that"
"I could have done that"

Both these sentences make sense.

"I could of done that" - looks awful but perhaps sounds right (and feels awful to type it shudder).

But when you remove the 'could' it makes no sense...."I of done that" - WTAF?!

So sorry, but when you break it down, "have" does makes sense and "of" doesn't.

Yes, but you only think “have” makes sense because you’re used to it. We could have used of instead of have in both examples. “have” means to own. Using it with “done” to make a modified tense feels fairly arbitrary.

Even if it’s not, language change won’t respect that. “Could of” could take over for that particular usage and we might still keep “have” in other contexts. As the main meaning of “have” and “of” are both unimportant in that construction, iyswim.

@QueenPeony
As we are on pedants corner, it really does matter.

Could is a modal auxiliary verb almost always used with a main verb. Ergo could must be followed by have in this example, have being the main verb.

Of is a preposition and cannot take the place of a verb. Prepositions are used in addition to a verb or verb phrase to create a phrasal verb.

For example: we could have talked (modal auxiliary + verb + past participle = verb phrase) op out of (added preposition = phrasal verb) but it would be a lot less fun.

QueenPeony but that’s precisely what language is - a collection of sounds (or symbols) used in a structured way that by convention (ie “because we’re used to it”) we assign a certain meaning. Yes, language changes, but you can’t say that any collection of sounds would do just as well as any other or it loses all meaning.

Of is not a verb, “could” requires a verb to follow it to have meaning. Have is a verb.

Anyway even if Tinder guy had been right and OP had been wrong, only a complete twat would correct someone in a situation where they should be actively trying to make a good impression. And I say that as a complete grammar snob.

The ONLY reasons people say ‘could of’ is because they mishear ‘could’ve’, and they’re not readers.

Those are literally the only reasons. ‘Could of’ does not do just as well.

Îd send something like this.

Choose the correct reason:

a) could of because it's correct
b) could of because I was joking
c) could of because I'm 5
d) could of because I like to mansplain regardless of the superior knowledge of the other party
e) could of for some other reason that I don't need to know.

Here for the update. I love this thread! Surely if he was joking he would have put a emoji or something? If he doesn't realise that deadpan humour doesn't come across in text then he's a plonker on that count also.

I wouldn't mind him at all. It's an opportunity to start up some banter. I think it's maybe an invite - a few men I know do this sort of thing to see what the reaction is. If they get a really hostile response, you're not for them. But he would spark my interest.

My personal grammar bugbear is 'off of' especially in that stupid Oasis song - argh!!!

“Off of” is US usage isn’t it? They often add random prepositions (eg visit with), or sometimes leave them out (eg to write someone).

I don’t see how this can possibly be a joke unless in the context of a previous conversation about grammar (or he’s on MN and knows she is too!).

As in my first post, I’m absolutely not defending him and would bin him off for this - the criticising is a red flag and I agree it does show he doesn’t read.

What I’m saying is I get why people think it and can’t see what’s wrong with it - from an everyday reasoning POV rather than an etymology or grammar knowledge POV.

Similarly, napkin and apron are both from the same root, but we say apron because people wrongly thought “a napron” was “an apron”. Now apron is correct but we still have napkin.

My point is language change often doesn’t respect why words or phrases are as they are, and does often arise from how they sound.

Totally concede that “when you break it down” was the wrong way to put it - I don’t mean in grammarian terms, but as in if you separate could have and could of into individual words, both “have” and “of” are not doing any heavy lifting or being used in their normal everyday sense, so it isn’t obvious (to many people) why “could of” is wrong.

But I do appreciate this v. pedantic discussion!

I really don't understand how people come out of 11 years of education thinking "could of" is correct, particularly given the current emphasis on grammar in the national curriculum. You only have to think about whether you would use "of" as a verb in any other context, e.g. "I of been out", "we of had breakfast".

Similarly, napkin and apron are both from the same root, but we say apron because people wrongly thought “a napron” was “an apron”. Now apron is correct but we still have napkin.

Say what?

QueenPeony I'd just stop if i were you!

Because they don't pay attention.
Because 'what's the point in learning English? We all speak it.'
Because they don't think about what they're writing.

For the majority of people, 'correct' matters less than conveying meaning.

It really wouldn't confuse anyone if they heard/read 'Could of...'. That's fine, IMO. It's an acceptable approach to have as long as you aren't in education or some printed word job.

However, he's saying correctness matters while being incorrect, which makes him a pillock.

@BashStreetKid

I really don't understand how people come out of 11 years of education thinking "could of" is correct, particularly given the current emphasis on grammar in the national curriculum. You only have to think about whether you would use "of" as a verb in any other context, e.g. "I of been out", "we of had breakfast".

This