I'm not a grammar nazi, but "should of" is driving me up the wall.
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
You Should Know
32556 readers
5 users here now
YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities:
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Credits
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Don't crash to the floor. That'd hurt.
Giving my best!
Nice one. Who’d’ve guessed.
Typing "should of" is a sign of failing to understand the basics of English grammar.
Eh, it's just shifting of how written work is relfective our spoken word. It's pretty rare for me to use a stronger "ah" sound when saying "would have" most of the time defaulting to a softer schwa sound, which sounds almost exactly how how "of" sounds. English has been changing and evolving for centuries. There's even major epochs like the great vowel shift. Hell if Shakespeare were around today and making the drastic changes to the english language like he did back then he'd be crucified by internet prescriptivists for using English improperly.
If you'd like something a bit more modern, Mark Twain broke english rules all the time in his writings and he's considered one of, if not, the greatest American writers.
I'm sorry but it doesn't fully work here. 'of' phonetically should not be spelled with a 'f', so they are already using a word that is not pronounced as it is written, might as well use "would've", which removes the part that isn't pronounced as it was traditionally "ha-", but at least it's still correct.
They use 'of' because they don't understand (or pay attention to) the grammar of what they're saying.
They use 'of' because they don't understand (or pay attention to) the grammar of what they're saying.
Sure. Because it sounds identical. " 've" and "of" are both pronounced /əv/, hence the confusion. Native speakers write what they hear. If you ever want to stop errors like this, the only solution is spelling reform.
I never thought that these two could be pronounced the same. I pronounce of as in office whereas 've is either pronounced as in have or as in effective (or more like a mix between that and e sound and an "ö" from german) depending on how quick I want to say it.
Even as a non native speaker "should of" feels really weird to me, it just doesn't make sense. Is this a mistake English speakers do as well?
Pretty sure it's actually one of those mistakes that is made more often by native speakers than non-native speakers
It's like theyre/theire/they're - in my experience it's mostly native speakers confusing them.
Yeah, I’ve seen have in textbooks way more than ’ve and it’s baked into my brain... This mistake only happens if you hear the word before seeing it written.
While it is true that "should of" etc. can easily originate from a confusion between "'ve'" and unstressed "of", which sound identical, the statement
"Should of" is incorrect
itself is at least a bit misleading and prescriptivist in its generality.
Interestingly, there seem to be at least some native English speakers who genuinely do say "should of" (with a stressed "of") sometimes. This paper for example argues that people who say "should of" really do use a grammatical construction of the form modal verb + of + past participle. One argument the author mentions is that this would also explain the words "woulda", "coulda" and "shoulda", since "of"->"a" is quite common in general (e.g. "kind of" -> "kinda"), but "'ve"->"a" basically doesn't occur elsewhere (e.g. no one says "I'a" or "you'a" instead of "I've" or "you've"). Another is that the reverse mistake, i.e. using "'ve'" in place of "of" (e.g. "kind've"), is much rarer, which is a clear difference to e.g. the situation with "they're"/"their"/"there", where people use these words in place of the others in all combinations frequently. I recommend this blog article for a much longer discussion.
Also, whether genuine mistake (which it almost certainly is in many cases, although probably not all) or different grammatical construction, YSK that "should of" etc. didn't just become popular recently, but have been used for centuries. E.g. John Keats wrote in a letter in 1814: "Had I known of your illness I should not of written in such fiery phrase in my first Letter.". Many more examples (some older as well) can be found e.g. here or here.
TL;DR: While in many cases "should of" etc. can well be a mistake, originating from the fact that it sounds identical to "should've" when unstressed, there is some interesting linguistic evidence that at least in some dialects of English native speakers really do say "should of" etc. (i.e. in those cases it is not a mistake, merely non-standard/dialectal).
Isn't "have" either an auxiliary verb or verb and "of" a preposition?
Are these acceptable? If yes, why? If not, why not?
-
I of heard that story before.
-
Diane of already gone.
-
John ofn't phoned, of he?
-
I ofn't visited London before.
-
Of you seen Roz?
-
Of she been invited?
-
They still ofn't of any news when I spoke to them yesterday.
I don't know man, Oxford Dictionary (click Grammar Point to expand) says that https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/have_2
A common mistake is to write ‘could of’ instead of could have or could've
~~I could of told you that.~~
I could've told you that.
The reason for the mistake is that the pronunciation of ’ve is the same as that of of when it is not stressed. This is a common error but it is definitely considered wrong in standard English.
Isn't "have" either an auxiliary verb or verb and "of" a preposition?
Yes.
Are these acceptable? If yes, why? If not, why not?
No, because you constructed them by merely replacing the verb "have" by the preposition "of" in situations which have nothing to do with "of" after "should"/"would"/"could". I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, since neither I nor the people I cited ever claimed that this should work in the first place. The claim of in particular the author of the first paper I cited is that for some speakers there seems to be a novel construction modal verb + "of" + past participle, not that the preposition "of" has the same function as "have" in this case or in any other (in this case, the novel construction as a whole would have more or less, but not entirely the same function as modal verb + "have" + past participle, but "of" would still be just a preposition).
I don't know man, Oxford Dictionary (click Grammar Point to expand) says that [...] it is definitely considered wrong in standard English.
Yes, it certainly is considered wrong in standard English, but the interesting thing is that in some non-standard dialects there might be genuinely a novel grammatical construction which actually uses the preposition "of". I mean, you don't need to find that interesting, but I do. And if that is indeed the case, it would mean that the speakers of those dialects are not making a purely orthographic mistake like when people confuse "they're" and "their", for example, but are rather speaking or typing in their dialect.
"Should of" is grammatically incorrect, regardless of whether the user/speaker is aware of its incorrectness. It's a fact, and a fact per se cannot be misleading. It's as simple as that. Linguistic conventions, as you've illustrated, can be formed over time, but that again doesn't take away from the fact that such usage is grammatically incorrect to begin with.
Just read the second (or the first, but that is more technical) link I shared. Some native speakers do in fact seem to say "should of" even when the "of" is stressed, so in their dialect it would be grammatical.
...the reason "in some dialects of English native speakers really do say 'should of' etc" is phonetics. Kids hear "should've" and repeat it phonetically, before learning the actual words or their meaning. Combine that with the awful state of education and literacy in the USA (and other countries etc) and voila, you've got some armchair internet expert justifying it with some big words trying a weeeee bit too hard to make it work.
Then you've got teachers who still gaf and know their shit who will correct this before middle/high school, and no, last I checked it was never added to the dictionary or considered correct. Language of course is living and ever changing, but the line must be drawn somewhere lest we devolve into shouting and grunts like neanderthals
the reason “in some dialects of English native speakers really do say ‘should of’ etc” is phonetics.
What the author of the first link claims (and the second link explains in a more accessible way), is that it's not just that for everyone. Like some native speakers really do say "of" sometimes, even when it's stressed and doesn't sound like "'ve" at all. So for them it wouldn't just be a spelling mistake, but a different grammatical construction.
last I checked it was never added to the dictionary
Some dictionaries (e.g. Merriam-Webster) actually do list "of" as an alternate spelling of "have" (not in the sense of a genuinely different grammatical construction though).
Obviously it's not considered standard by anyone, which is also why teachers call it incorrect, who (should) teach the standard dialects.
Language of course is living and ever changing, but the line must be drawn somewhere lest we devolve into shouting and grunts like neanderthals
Language changes whether you and I like it or not, and efforts to stop that from happening are generally unsuccessful. You can also rest assured that a simple change in what is considered correct grammar or spelling (which, as far as I know, nobody has been suggesting in this case so far, but it seems like that would be the "worst-case" scenario from your perspective) would not lead to us or language "devolving". Also, while we don't know anything precise about how Neanderthals spoke, most likely they sounded more or less like us and did not communicate by "shouting and grunts".
Also I saw or I've seen. Never I seen.
As far as I know this is pretty normal in (some?) Southern American dialects, i.e. it's not wrong, just dialectal.
It may seem normal, because so many people do this. It is still incorrect, however.
That's not how linguistics works though. If people (native speakers) speak like that, it's "correct" or normal for their dialect. This doesn't mean it's "correct" in whatever is considered the "standard" dialect of the language (for English, there isn't one single standard, but de facto there are standard dialects in the English speaking countries which are taught in school and typically used in the news, newspapers etc.). But from a linguistic perspective, both "I have seen it." and "I seen it." are equally "correct" (linguists typically don't use that term in this context, rather something like "grammatical"), they just represent different dialects of English.
I had a professor who would use “should of” in speech, probably because he read it so much and internalized it as being correct.
Was he 12?
Golly, I should of known that
- Golly, eye should of noun that