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.

Oh yes, agreed. I just don't think encouraging the correction of other people's errors on AIBU is conducive to welcoming people to contribute.

Correct people's maths and they're likely to shrug and admit that they've always struggled with it. Correct their English and you're casting aspersions on their moral character. 🤷‍♀️

Now that this has been moved to Pedants’ Corner, I am returning to say how much I HATE ‘could of’🤣 It makes me physically wince. But I still won’t be joining any sort of campaign of correction. That’s just rude and patronising.

Well, people don't chat in equations... and a mathematical error can be catastrophic (e.g. my wishful thinking when it comes to things like pension calculations 🫢😬). Whereas people's meaning is usually perfectly clear, even with minimal punctuation and poor spelling, and I'd rather they wrote in their own voice, without self-consciousness.

This broadcaster said "He ... should ... of ... condemned it" deliberately emphasising each word separately to reinforce their point. There was absolutely no doubt they said 'of' not 'have'. This was on prime time national TV. I was genuinely shocked to hear it.

Moving it to Pedants' corner has missed the point of the thread and I am disappointed in Mumsnet for doing so. I am quite capable of posting in PC, and have done so before. I explained this upthread too.

I've heard a woman say could of took. But that was in a supermarket, not on TV.

I think that is the wrong decision and you have missed the point of the thread. This was discussed briefly upthread too.

I agree with you.

@HebeMumsnet this thread was posted in AIBU for a reason.

............and I'd rather they wrote in their own voice, without self-consciousness

Not to mention - usually also without paragraphs or punctuation.

@HebeMumsnet

@HebeMumsnet

Agreed. Wanting to write correctly isn't pedantry.

Your first sentence is fine 🤩 but you could use commas to split it up.

The trick is to find the bit in the sentence that is of secondary importance. Imagine popping a few words in a bag, by putting commas either side of them. For example:
It’s heartening for me to see so many people, such as editors, who really know spelling and grammar also recognising that not all of us on MN do.

Reading the sentence without the comma-bagged words "such as editors" gives you
It’s heartening for me to see so many people who really know spelling and grammar also recognising that not all of us on MN do.
It's a kind of logical sense-check for your comma placement.

But insisting that other people do might be, sometimes...?

@Mypoorbody Hemingway sentences.

It heartens me to see so many who really know spelling and grammar. Some are editors. I recognise that not all of us on MN do. Thank you to the ones who refrain from correcting. Unless a poster has asked for help, that is.
I know the first sentence of this post is a bit long. I am not sure how to split it up. Can anyone suggest something better? Thanks.

I'm going to be really pedantic here (since we're now safely tucked away in the PC forum) and suggest that:

"It heartens me to see so many who really know spelling and grammar" is not what PP was saying.

"Some of them are editors" sounds like an irrelevant afterthought when it's a separate sentence.

"I recognise that not all of us on MN do" doesn't follow on from "Some of them are editors" - forcing the reader to do a double-take to work out what "do" refers to (a similar problem with "the ones" in the next sentence).

Making sentences short and clipped doesn't always make them better, and the graceful charm of PP's original wording is completely lost!

🤓

I agree with your points. I wonder if there is a way of doing what the PP wants?

Ha!

"Making sentences short and clipped doesn't always make them better, and the graceful charm of PP's original wording is completely lost!"

This is where the semicolon comes into its own.

Oh, the late, lamented semicolon - not to mention its even later (and even more-lamented) sister, the colon.

Nobody seems to use these nowadays. A lot of people use commas where semicolons are needed.

This distresses me. I was brought up on the semicolon.
🤣

It’s because of people like you that when I see an OP write ‘could of’ in her OP, that I think the poor woman is about to be hounded off MN by people who feel so superior about their SPAG.

I don’t understand how your cohort don’t understand how deeply off-putting your behaviour is to others.

MN even deletes posts that correct a poster’s SPAG, that should tell you something.

MN even deletes posts that correct a poster’s SPAG, that should tell you something

That sentence definitely needs a semicolon where the comma has been poorly-placed.
I rest my case, m'Lud.

You didn’t need a hyphen between ‘poorly placed’.

How do you people not realise that you make errors and are the last people who should be correcting anyone.

*You didn’t need a hyphen between poorly and placed.

Agreed though. A comma that has been poorly placed is a poorly-placed comma.

She didn’t say ‘a poorly-placed comma’.

She said ‘the comma has been poorly-placed.’

That’s poor SPAG.

I know. I was demonstrating the difference between poorly placed as a verb (which the PP used and hyphenated although it does not take a hyphen) and poorly-placed as an adjective (which the PP did not use but which does take a hyphen).