Of of of of of of of of of of

[BrickBiscuit]

That's the approximate number of rogue 'of's I have seen on Mumsnet posts today alone. 'Should of', 'would of', even an 'I of' somewhere. It is spread by repetition. Should we counter by correcting every instance we can, and enforce the correct use of 'have' by repetition?

Incidentally, my title is an old crossword clue. Do solve it if you like.

YABU: no, we should leave the 'of' people unchallenged;
YANBU: yes, let's have a campaign to correct each and every instance of the error.

Would’ve and should’ve are correct though! Not a problem. “Of” is never correct.

Oh God, I really hate this one.😬

They don't care.

Oh agreed

But the meaning of the phrase you have used hasn't changed, whereas ABBA, Westlife and Martin Luther King didn't of a dream. Neither did the Stereophonics exhort us all to of a nice day.

Agree and it's then your problem for actually spotting thee problem. It really is normalising the increasing dumbing down of standards.

Clever!

My hubby and I were talking about it earlier, if we are going to be picky. But I think that poster did that on purpose.

I agree. I'm an editor by trade and have been guilty of correcting grammar in a pedantic way when I see an error, but I'm trying hard not to do so unless it's work related.

I have no maths skills whatsoever, and it's my worst subject. I used to hate it when my mum would look exasperated at my lack of ability to understand percentages (I mean, how on earth could I not get that it was out of 100?!), so i try to see it from the same point of view with regards to (in regards to 😆) SPAG.

I brought this at the shop today - does my head in. You BOUGHT you did not BROUGHT

I’m not English & find it ironic that English people are indeed, the worst when it comes to their own language

That was my dad's too 😂

Kind of makes sense. I don't play violin so wouldn't know what a bad player sounds like. Your an editor so it is noticeable to you but not others. My partner is a carpenter he notices bad workmanship, I wouldn't. When I see people running with a bad gait I don't stop and tell them they have a bad technique. They are trying their best. It can annoy you but mentioning it could seem spiteful, especially if that person has reasons why they can't spell, dyslexia, learning issues for example.

It is obvious why people make the mistake. It doesn't obscure the meaning and allows other people to feel superior. It seems pretty harmless to me.

I always wonder where the maths snobs are. There is plenty of fodder for them but they don't seem to be so judgemental.

That's because maths is scientific. Mistakes made there are automatically corrected - they have to be.

Agreed, bad grammar is part of life but the people who have been on a cancer journey and are speaking truth to power need to resonate and reach out to each other and just leave the rest of us alone.

Exactly. Should've is the correct informal contraction of should have. Should of is someone hearing should've and writing it wrongly. As said above it's due to people not reading.

Language and culture is evolving to be less formal eg not using Sir and Mr or Mrs Surname in business context so often. But that's no excuse for using language wrongly.

I don't think Ernest Hemingway wrote To Of And Of Not, either. Of and have don't get muddled up the other way around.

Your an editor ... Sorry!

People don't understand interest rates, can't calculate percentages, struggle with probability, believe the figures that politicians spout when what they are saying doesn't add up, think data proves things that it doesn't prove, think VAT is 20p instead of 20%, don't understand when insurance costs more than replacing the product, miscalculate risk. I could go on. These things cause far more problems than the using of instead of have.

Yes, I'm an editor too. Maybe that makes us more relaxed about the world in general, as we can satisfy our "red pen" cravings in our work! 😊 It also means we are less anxious about standards slipping, because we know that in our world the rules remain the same.

Digital publishing has sped things up, and it is irritating to see QC errors in some online/Kindle content, but I wouldn't wish to go back to the days where the written word was closely guarded by privileged gatekeepers.

I don't expect everyone to share my obsession over this sort of thing. Outside work, I wouldn't dream of correcting someone's grammar or spelling, any more than I would welcome the plumber chastising and belitting me for not paying more attention to the water pressure in the bathroom.

I agree but those are examples which have direct and practical consequences, which grammar does not. That's why grammatical errors will be pointed out by pedants - for the hell of it, if you like. That's what I was saying about the difference in applying snobbery to maths, compared to English.

There's no doubt there is lots of snobbery & mockery in this thread, but the OP didn't say (I'm assuming) she does pull people up on mistakes such as of for 've, but rather was starting a debate as to whether it should be corrected or not.

Surely, as an editor, with a love of (for?) the language, it makes you cringe a bit to see glaring errors like that so widely used.

For what it's worth, I don't correct it.
I didn't correct my American friend 20 years ago when she typed could of. It was the first time I'd seen it, and thought it was an American thing not America-bashing btw!

At least that is grammatically correct. It's an abbreviation unlike 'could of' etc.

I think there is a tendency for business communications to be less formal than they once were.

Having lived abroad in countries where business letters follow a style more suited to an 18th-century legal document, I don't see the relaxation of language as a particularly bad thing.

herein lies the problem!