Should've =/= Should of

[sweboy99]

Why is it, that many translates "should've", "could've" or "would've" with "should of", "could of" and "would of"... instead of "should have", "could have" or would have"? Is it the pronunciation? The 've' sound of it sound too much "of"?
And why is it that most people who has English as their native languange, make these errors?
"I would of gone shopping, but it was too cold to go outside." -INCORRECT

Most people who are not English speaking seems to get this right. Maybe they get a great education in English. But what about the people who speaks English all the time? Are their schools not doing an ok job?

The same goes for "their", "there" and "they're"....

[Independent voter]

I agree with you a little however "could have" means the same thing as "could of" so nothing is lost in the translation.

[Raiju]

Because natives speak it before they are taught it, non-natives learn it before they speak it.

Saying "should've" like "should of" (you don't say should'ave) years before you learn the correct spelling becomes a bad habit.

[Wildtree]

Most people who are not English speaking seems to get this right. Maybe they get a great education in English. But what about the people who speaks English all the time? Are their schools not doing an ok job?

The same goes for "their", "there" and "they're"....

As non-English speaking person..... Well I do, else I couldn't answer.... Non-native English speaker.. We have the advantage of not being used to the language and didn't get too comfy with it. We (likely) didn't grow up with it, and didn't get lazy due to phonetics and custom slangs.
That's why many of us do better with such examples. Homophones don't trick us that easy.

[TheGravemind]

People who learn english as a second language usually end up speaking it better than those who learn it as a first language. Just basing this off of anecdotal experience.

[sweboy99]

But that is not grammatically correct. "Could have" means "I could have gotten that bastard, who robbed my mom", while "I could of.. " what?

- - - Updated - - -

People who learn english as a second language usually end up speaking it better than those who learn it as a first language. Just basing this off of anecdotal experience.

I guess you are right

[Blueobelisk]

I agree with you a little however "could have" means the same thing as "could of" so nothing is lost in the translation.

Wrong. There's no verb in a sentence if you use "of" instead of "have."

"I could of won a million dollars." Where is the action in that sentence?

[Dys]

A lot of people write/type/spell based on how things sound when they say them. Could've and could of are pronounced the same, just like they're, there and their.

The only people who care about grammar are English teachers and internet nerds. The vast majority of any population couldn't care any less about something as trivial as grammar. That doesn't take away the fun of picking on them for their terrible grammar though.

[sweboy99]

Wrong. There's no verb in a sentence if you use "of" instead of "have."

"I could of won a million dollars." Where is the action in that sentence?

That's what I meant.

[Deleted]

One of the most annoying grammar mistakes people can make. It is probably because they spell the terms phonetically, which nevertheless should come off as, for instance, "should've" instead of "should of."

[gutnbrg]

I agree with you a little however "could have" means the same thing as "could of" so nothing is lost in the translation.

no it doesnt, "could of" makes absolutely no sense at all.

[Zulandia]

no it doesnt, "could of" makes absolutely no sense at all.

Well it makes perfect sense since we all know what he meant (if you can't infer the meaning that's on you not him)...that said it's still completely improper English which is the point of this thread.

[Noradin]

Spelling words like they are pronounced is a common problem of the English language with all those homophones that are not also homographs.

[Twoddle]

Well it makes perfect sense since we all know what he meant (if you can't infer the meaning that's on you not him)...that said it's still completely improper English which is the point of this thread.

In what way is it your fault if you don't know what he means? What if you have a perfectly logical mind like someone with Aspergers and take everything literally?

[Deadmedic]

Spelling words like they are pronounced is a common problem of the English language with all those homophones that are not also homographs.

eye hafe no idyea wat yoor tallking abowt...

[Deleted]

It's purely because of the pronunciation. It sounds like it should be spelled 'should of'. At least it's an excusable mistake, as is the their/there mistake. What's absolutely NEVER forgivable, however, is the your/you're mistake. Getting that wrong isn't a simple pronunciation issue, it's a mistake that displays such a fundamental lack of understanding of language that you shouldn't be allowed to speak the language in the first place.

[Varabently]

Probably because phonetically they are the same?

Also, most people don't have any metalinguistic knowledge, so they don't get why the things they say are stupid. Look no further than "I could care less."

[Herecius]

People who learn english as a second language usually end up speaking it better than those who learn it as a first language. Just basing this off of anecdotal experience.

While a terribly popular anecdote, it's not really the case.

Those who learn English as a second language tend to enunciate the words better, is all. But shorthand slang and usage of odd contractions is a regular thing throughout English, especially when you factor in regional quirks. It's not wrong and doing it differently is not necessarily better, either. English is an amalgamation of other languages (yes I know ALL languages are, thank you, my linguistics teacher was a hardass, English is just especially so) and in general has many different ways to say the exact same thing. As long as the point is successfully conveyed, what's the issue?

[sweboy99]

Probably because phonetically they are the same?

Also, most people don't have any metalinguistic knowledge, so they don't get why the things they say are stupid. Look no further than "I could care less."

And that one is another thing...
Saying "I could care less", when they actually mean "I couldn't care less".

[Cthulhu 2020]

I agree with you a little however "could have" means the same thing as "could of" so nothing is lost in the translation.

There is never an instance where "of" can replace "have" grammatically.