Should of, Could of, Would of.

AddicksAddict

Now, as every Lifer knows, this is wrong. It's ...have, not ...of.


HOWEVER, I was reading The High Window by Raymond Chandler last week and there were two examples of ...of. This wasn't in reported speech, this was in the narrative, and the narrative made reference to "Jew" and "Negro" so it would appear to be the original text, not one brought up to date. So, either it was accepted use in 1942, or Chandler and his editor, or perhaps just his editor, were Katrien-class numpties.


Discuss.

thai malaysia addick

The only case where I can think of is something like the following sentence: Should of or have follow would in a sentence?

1StevieG

Have a day off.....

Huskaris

This is the kind of thing that leads to petitions to bring down statues of people. 1942 and 2017 are different times.

It was the generally accepted term for black people until the 1960s... According to Wikipedia at least.

Like most of these words I think they tend to start off as descriptive words, then have an element of prejudice attached to them, and then a new word comes up for a bracket of people, and then we repeat again.

"Spastic" is another example of this now, as are a lot of words I won't use as examples on here but are effectively the equivalent of calling someone a "Brit" at first, but if people started calling you a "f*cking Brit" it starts to become derogatory.

Basically what I am saying is that even well meaning people will use these terms, it's what they become that can be the issue. Banning words does not remove people's prejudices though... In fact in a lot of cases it does the opposite.

By the by, I'm not saying you are necessarily, but I am completely sick of twatty university students falling over themselves with self rightousness to retrospectively ruin people's reputations from different generations. It's pathetic. You should judge individuals by the standards of their day, you can disagree with the views a generation had, but it's not fair to dig out an individual who wasn't a radical in their day, just because their ideologies or actions would be considered bad today.

AddicksAddict

Huskaris said:

This is the kind of thing that leads to petitions to bring down statues of people. 1942 and 2017 are different times.

It was the generally accepted term for black people until the 1960s... According to Wikipedia at least.

Like most of these words I think they tend to start off as descriptive words, then have an element of prejudice attached to them, and then a new word comes up for a bracket of people, and then we repeat again.

"Spastic" is another example of this now, as are a lot of words I won't use as examples on here but are effectively the equivalent of calling someone a "Brit" at first, but if people started calling you a "f*cking Brit" it starts to become derogatory.

Basically what I am saying is that even well meaning people will use these terms, it's what they become that can be the issue. Banning words does not remove people's prejudices though... In fact in a lot of cases it does the opposite.

By the by, I'm not saying you are necessarily, but I am completely sick of twatty university students falling over themselves with self rightousness to retrospectively ruin people's reputations from different generations. It's pathetic. You should judge individuals by the standards of their day, you can disagree with the views a generation had, but it's not fair to dig out an individual who wasn't a radical in their day, just because their ideologies or actions would be considered bad today.

I think you're somewhat missing the point. I mentioned the two terms used to highlight that the book was almost certainly the original text, not a modern update where someone had replaced ...have with ...of.

Algarveaddick

Obviously his early years as a septic had a bad influence on him...

guinnessaddick

1StevieG said:

Have a day off.....

Is that:
Should you have a day off?
Could you have a day off?
Would you have a day off?

JamesSeed

Should of, could of etc is a misinterpretation of should've or could've, which themselves are abreviations of should have and could have.

These things annoy some people more than others (see also incorrect use of its, & it's, their, there & they're, literally etc etc.

People who take an exagerrated exception to these things are often called pedants.

PS have I misspelled any of the above? Probably!

i_b_b_o_r_g

JamesSeed said:

Should of, could of etc is a misinterpretation of should've or could've, which themselves are abreviations of should have and could have.

These things annoy some people more than others (see also incorrect use of its, & it's, their, there & they're, literally etc etc.

People who take an exagerrated exception to these things are often called pedants.

PS have I misspelled any of the above? Probably!

i_b_b_o_r_g said:

Should have, could have, would have

not

Should of, Could of, Would of

Keep up Jamo

JamesSeed

i_b_b_o_r_g said:

JamesSeed said:

Should of, could of etc is a misinterpretation of should've or could've, which themselves are abreviations of should have and could have.

These things annoy some people more than others (see also incorrect use of its, & it's, their, there & they're, literally etc etc.

People who take an exagerrated exception to these things are often called pedants.

PS have I misspelled any of the above? Probably!

i_b_b_o_r_g said:

Should have, could have, would have

not

Should of, Could of, Would of

Keep up Jamo

Blimey.
OK, same applies to would, or even Would. Although would is acceptable in place of Would.

I thank you.

i_b_b_o_r_g

JamesSeed said:

i_b_b_o_r_g said:

JamesSeed said:

Should of, could of etc is a misinterpretation of should've or could've, which themselves are abreviations of should have and could have.

These things annoy some people more than others (see also incorrect use of its, & it's, their, there & they're, literally etc etc.

People who take an exagerrated exception to these things are often called pedants.

PS have I misspelled any of the above? Probably!

i_b_b_o_r_g said:

Should have, could have, would have

not

Should of, Could of, Would of

Keep up Jamo

Blimey.

Early bird gets the worm and you gotta be up pretty fuckin early to catch me out.

Fiiish

Abbreviations exist largely thanks to the spoken word, not the written word. As a rule I generally avoid abbreviations in writing as there is little point in doing so. The main exceptions are when it flows better as a sentence such as it's and I'm.

Covered End

OMG, what have I started

i_b_b_o_r_g

Fiiish said:

Abbreviations exist largely thanks to the spoken word, not the written word. As a rule I generally avoid abbreviations in writing as there is little point in doing so. The main exceptions are when it flows better as a sentence such as it's and I'm.

I'm'a'massive'fan as'ya'know

guinnessaddick

i_b_b_o_r_g said:

JamesSeed said:

i_b_b_o_r_g said:

JamesSeed said:

Should of, could of etc is a misinterpretation of should've or could've, which themselves are abreviations of should have and could have.

These things annoy some people more than others (see also incorrect use of its, & it's, their, there & they're, literally etc etc.

People who take an exagerrated exception to these things are often called pedants.

PS have I misspelled any of the above? Probably!

i_b_b_o_r_g said:

Should have, could have, would have

not

Should of, Could of, Would of

Keep up Jamo

Blimey.

Early bird gets the worm and you gotta be up pretty fuckin early to catch me out.

All those years of running a shop?

AddicksAddict

Covered End said:

OMG, what have I started

You didn't, I did.

i_b_b_o_r_g

guinnessaddick said:

i_b_b_o_r_g said:

JamesSeed said:

i_b_b_o_r_g said:

JamesSeed said:

Should of, could of etc is a misinterpretation of should've or could've, which themselves are abreviations of should have and could have.

These things annoy some people more than others (see also incorrect use of its, & it's, their, there & they're, literally etc etc.

People who take an exagerrated exception to these things are often called pedants.

PS have I misspelled any of the above? Probably!

i_b_b_o_r_g said:

Should have, could have, would have

not

Should of, Could of, Would of

Keep up Jamo

Blimey.

Early bird gets the worm and you gotta be up pretty fuckin early to catch me out.

All those years of running a shop?

Shitting the bed

Raith_C_Chattonell

That little word (it’s) has always confused me. I know the apostrophe is to indicate a missing letter e,g. it is. I am also given to believe that the lack of an apostrophe in its indicates possession, as in the cat licked its tail.

However, is it not also true that an apostrophe generally indicates possession? In which case whose bloody tail was the cat licking if it wasn’t it’s its.

Fiiish

Raith_C_Chattonell said:

That little word (it’s) has always confused me. I know the apostrophe is to indicate a missing letter e,g. it is. I am also given to believe that the lack of an apostrophe in its indicates possession, as in the cat licked its tail.

However, is it not also true that an apostrophe generally indicates possession? In which case whose bloody tail was the cat licking if it wasn’t it’s its.

"It's" is the exception. That's just how it is.

More or less every 'rule' in the English language has exceptions.

JamesSeed

Every cliché was made to be broken.

cabbles

Fiiish said:

Raith_C_Chattonell said:

That little word (it’s) has always confused me. I know the apostrophe is to indicate a missing letter e,g. it is. I am also given to believe that the lack of an apostrophe in its indicates possession, as in the cat licked its tail.

However, is it not also true that an apostrophe generally indicates possession? In which case whose bloody tail was the cat licking if it wasn’t it’s its.

"It's" is the exception. That's just how it is.

More or less every 'rule' in the English language has exceptions.

i think this is also why people whose first langauage isn't English say ours is so complicated, because of these exceptions

I'm pitiful when it comes to other langauages, and I'm sure many have their own exceptions, but I do think English has quite a few comparatively speaking

bellz2002

Especially when teaching phonics in primary school and there are hundreds of exception words.

IdleHans

I find these grammar rules very helpful when it comes to recruitment.
Should of, interpretate, liase, etc = cv in bin. Massive timesaver.

Lincsaddick

I know several 'Hebrews; who describe themselves as 'Jews' .. what IS the problem ?

mcgrandall

Lincsaddick said:

I know several 'Hebrews; who describe themselves as 'Jews' .. what IS the problem ?

Someone's world of grammar has been shaken and they are not sure where to lay their pedantry.

sillav nitram

AddicksAddict said:

Now, as every Lifer knows, this is wrong. It's ...have, not ...of.


HOWEVER, I was reading The High Window by Raymond Chandler last week and there were two examples of ...of. This wasn't in reported speech, this was in the narrative, and the narrative made reference to "Jew" and "Negro" so it would appear to be the original text, not one brought up to date. So, either it was accepted use in 1942, or Chandler and his editor, or perhaps just his editor, were Katrien-class numpties.


Discuss.

Not everyone knows that, some of us are illiterate, you know.

JamesSeed

They, or they'd?

Huskaris

AddicksAddict said:

Huskaris said:

This is the kind of thing that leads to petitions to bring down statues of people. 1942 and 2017 are different times.

It was the generally accepted term for black people until the 1960s... According to Wikipedia at least.

Like most of these words I think they tend to start off as descriptive words, then have an element of prejudice attached to them, and then a new word comes up for a bracket of people, and then we repeat again.

"Spastic" is another example of this now, as are a lot of words I won't use as examples on here but are effectively the equivalent of calling someone a "Brit" at first, but if people started calling you a "f*cking Brit" it starts to become derogatory.

Basically what I am saying is that even well meaning people will use these terms, it's what they become that can be the issue. Banning words does not remove people's prejudices though... In fact in a lot of cases it does the opposite.

By the by, I'm not saying you are necessarily, but I am completely sick of twatty university students falling over themselves with self rightousness to retrospectively ruin people's reputations from different generations. It's pathetic. You should judge individuals by the standards of their day, you can disagree with the views a generation had, but it's not fair to dig out an individual who wasn't a radical in their day, just because their ideologies or actions would be considered bad today.

I think you're somewhat missing the point. I mentioned the two terms used to highlight that the book was almost certainly the original text, not a modern update where someone had replaced ...have with ...of.

Oh apologies, I didn't realise that was your point, I apologise for misunderstanding, I wouldn't have commented if I knew this was just pedantry.

Fiiish

bellz2002 said:

Especially when teaching phonics in primary school and there are hundreds of exception words.

Phonics is possibly the single worst thing introduced to school children. I have nine nieces and nephews and have had to put up listening to shit like:

"How do you spell monkey?"
MER ORH NER KER EHH YER

Schools nowadays teach kids how to be thick. Nothing more or less. Even my 10 year old nephew has said school bores him because everything he is being taught has no real world relevance. Good luck having a high skilled workforce to pay for expensive retirement care when children do not learn anything remotely useful for the real world until they are 17.

Chizz

JamesSeed said:

They, or they'd?

"they'd" - but there are also plenty of other issues with that headline.

hawksmoor

That's nothing, I read a book about Philadelphia soul recently, Gamble and Huff, Thom Belll, and all that, and the author thought Mick Hucknall's name was Simply Red!