It is not "WOULD OF" it is "WOULD HAVE"

[frumpygrumpy]

"she would of complained" NO

"she would have complained"

AAaaaaargh!

That "should of" thing drives me spare too - but we are fighting a losing battle. DS1 is 21, bright, literate, at University. Did A Level English. He was incredulous when I corrected him recently - genuinely had no idea.

I always trot this one out but the use of mortified to mean cross drives me bananas It bloody means humiliated (unless one is mortifying the flesh of course...)

My DH sometimes says "mute point" instead of "moot point".

I raise an eyebrow a la Roger Moore and wait.....

What I'm trying to say is not that I'm an intellectual snob (despite possible appearances to the contrary ) but that it's a generational thing - it's so ingrained in the yoof that I think it's here to stay. Natural evolution of language, etc.

I've never heard anyone say it before, apart from mners moaning about it! I just stared at him in shock!

"Would of" does annoy me too. Far more than it should

Decimated is also a horribly abused word.
Doesn't it actually mean to reduce by a tenth?

PMSL at 'mute point.'

My DH says Draw-ring, adding and extra 'r'. He refuses to correct himself and now the children are copying him.

I can put up with fighting a losing battle in the wider community, but in my own home ...

I hate the way people now say they'll go do something when it's go AND do the thing (hands trembling in case of mistakes).

A 'teacher' at our nursery says "free" for "three" and many other "th" words become "f" [major seething]

ShegonabehearinsumomyFwords.

Oh me too nontoxic. I'm also unreasonably infuriated that so many otherwise normal, bright people seem to think it's ok to say 'Good, thanks' when asked how they are.

Oh, I feel so at home here

Hmm - I think decimated has rather had its meaning expanded over time - there are 17th C records of it being used in the broader, less specific sense. It's a useful word in that sense - not so much in the Roman sense, these days.

I posted this exact same gripe a few months ago. I will let many grammatical horrors go but this one....grrrr.

A marvellous haven from the ever advancing ignorance.

My DH, despite evidence to the contrary, persists in believeing that the past tense of the verb "jump" is jamp! And now the kids have started saying it too!

People write as they talk & 'would have' sounds like 'would of' when pronounced.

Ooh ooh ooh, I don't like it when people say "obsessed by something" instead of "obsessed with something". Is that actually wrong or just me being weird?

It seems that "jump" has only been around since circa 1500. I wonder what they used before?

It also irritates me when people say they are on tenderhooks, not tenterhooks.

I've noticed loads of people mixing up their singulars and plurals, particularly 'There is/are...' even newreaders fgs

One of my colleagues at work keeps saying she's "ravishing" as it approaches lunchtime

lol

I think originally obsessed would have been obsessed by, as it meant something like haunted or beset by an evil spirit. OED allows both with or by: Freq. in pass. with by, with, etc.

Also when people ask for 'advise', grr..