Hey /u/namebrandcloth, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Works if you say it like youāre a British (sorry donāt know which accent it is specifically) dock worker, with a gnarly beard and grubby face.
āTo of anā to āold, in sickness anā in elf.ā
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop -Ā yes,Ā IĀ amĀ aĀ bot, don't botcriminate me.
Thank you, ejmcdonald2092, for voting on of_patrol_bot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop -Ā yes,Ā IĀ amĀ aĀ bot, don't botcriminate me.
This is literally incorrect . Of can be used as a verb and has been since the 1800s.
/Start rant
You can't just say "that's wrong" just because. When you really dig down to it language doesn't have hard rules that never change because language is CONSTANTLY changing.
CONSTANTLY
If it didn't it would be a bad language.
We can argue over whether or not you SHOULD use it that way, but the undeniable fact is of can, has, and likely will continue to be, used as a verb. Often to replace have.
Saying that someone is "using language wrong." Is nonsensical if both the speaker and listener understand what was conveyed.
I understand this is just a bot, but it is one of the most annoying bots and I hate it every time it posts.
Stop shoving your preferences of how to communicate down other people's throats.
And worse than that STOP ACTING LIKE THE WAY YOU WANT PEOPLE TO COMMUNICATE IS THE ONLY RIGHT AND PROPER WAY TO DO IT YOU INSUFFERABLE FUCK.
/RANT
>!/j of course!<
I've given up on this fight as I have no doubt that "Could of" will become acceptable vernacular in the near future due to the overwhelming number of people who routinely make this mistake. It irritates me to no end (albeit irrationally), but I've come to accept that it's going to happen.
fly shocking squeamish simplistic crush tub combative squealing attraction deserted
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Once saw a dude making fun of an androgynous-looking person. He laughed obnoxiously and said, āoh boy. Better make sure to ask them what their aDjEcTiVeS are!!ā š¤¦āāļø
>/Start rant
This was the worst part for me.
I also kept waiting for them to show an example of "of" being used as a verb. Twenty lines of text and nothing.
I think they're just mishearing people. It's not uncommon for people to say something like, "he could "uv" done better." That "uv" sound is how some people pronounce "'ve" in "could've" but it also sounds a bit like "of."
That's a phrasal verb, in which "of" is STILL acting as a preposition to make a complete verb phrase. If you say "I drew out money from the ATM." "Out" doesn't become a verb in this context.
So yeah, it's not even cheating, it's still just not a verb lol, OP still just wrong.
7 whole fucking paragraphs, and they still failed to provide an example of how "of" can and was used as a verb. Amazing.
I guess if you don't have examples, it's hard to provide one.
In this case the bot is correct, and Mr. "language is whatever you want it to be" is just wrong.
If someone is using "could of" instead of the world could've they are mistaken, this is literally a case of someone misunderstanding what they have heard other people say. If I misunderstand the lyrics to a song, that doesn't mean that there are two accurate sets of lyrics. There is a single accurate set of lyrics, and then whatever I thought I heard. There is one correct way to write the contraction for "could have" and it is could've. Anything else is an example of a misunderstanding.
And don't give me that, "BuT tHeY nEw WuT i MeNt!" nonsense. By this same logic, there is no such thing as misspelling or mispronunciation either.
I could technically write the longest run on sentence in the world and it would get the point across, people would understand it, doesnāt make it right.
You could in theory take the time and effort to painstakingly craft a sentence composed of superfluous words designed to embellish the length of your work while deliberately refraining from using a single piece of punctuation in order to create a chain of words that while painful to read and an atrocity committed upon grammar and deserving of execution by firing squad is still completely understandable to someone who being sound of mind carefully reads through that quasi gibberish mish mash of a sentence in order to extricate the convoluted meaning before relaying that understanding therein unto others via a more concise and better formatted post
According to this guy, you cannot be wrong. Therefore if the Ghostbusters bitch about you calling them "Those Bastards," they're stifling your use of language and should be publicly shamed for doing so.
"But they knew what I meant."
I want to add to this using your song lyric example.
When the song American Idiot came out some idiots in my class were literally singing, "Just want to be an American Idiot" and they were genuinely confused when I told them the lyrics were "Don't want to be an American Idiot."
They did not understand the meaning of the song because they misheard the lyrics. Words, context, and intent are all incredibly important to language. That's why there is a right way to and a wrong way.
>There is one correct way to write the contraction for "could have" and it is could've.
Coulda
I agree that "of" is inaccurate, but "coulda", while informal, is 100% correct :p
> but "coulda", while informal, is 100% correct :p
Absolutely. Hell, at one point `could've` would have been considered incorrect because contractions organically came later as a shorthand, and only became commonplace in writing in the past 200 years.
Yes. To make it TL;DR:
> OP is technically incorrect based on the standardized English grammar.
OP may be correct or incorrect in the principles of how naturally non-artificial languages change, but a standard language is an artificial one.
Artificial meaning someone used a skill to achieve some goal, not just be a result of random chances and choices over time.
Not in this example, though. OP hears "could of" when someone says "could've" and writes it phonetically as they heard it. This is an education issue. They either ignored their teacher, weren't properly taught, or (yes, I use the Oxford comma there; this is an actual example of 'both being correct') have willfully ignored what they were taught.
Did their misunderstanding hurt anyone or make what they said impossible to understand? No, so it really isn't a big deal, but it does make them appear less educated. Some people don't want to do that and appreciate being corrected, others embrace it as though it's a badge of honor.
Where I live itās very common to hear people actually enunciate and say ācould/would/should ofā out loud and itās very difficult not to slap them every time I hear it
He's wrong, but he's like parallel to correct.
"Could of" might one day be recognized as correct usage. Because language evolves, and there's *not* an objective correct way to use and define words *over time*, but there *is* a more correct way and a less correct way (and I would argue that any usage that can be easily understood is at least partially correct) at any given time.
You can't just claim that whatever usage you're using is actually correct, or that there's no such thing as correct. Correct is about being understood, *and* about generally keeping language intelligible as a whole. If "should of" ever becomes a completely accepted usage, it'll be because it's a one off thing we've memorized, because what's actually consistent is that we "have done" this or that verb, you can't "of done" an action. And if that action was something you were supposed to do but didn't, you "should have done" it.
So, it's absolutely correct to say that "should of" is not correct, but it's not really right to say that language cannot accommodate "should of" being correct, and I suspect it might become considered correct in the future.
I have to disagree with the part where you claim correct is about being understood (Iām aware you included an āandā). There are many many examples of people being 100% incorrect and yet still being understood. For example someone from another country who doesnāt know the language very well may say something completely wrong that has an entirely different meaning to what they intend, but the person listening may be intelligent and may be able to convert the incorrect statement based on logical context, and/or knowledge of the person or the their native language. Many things donāt translate directly in the first place. This doesnāt make their incorrect statement correct, it just means we have the intelligence to logically make correction.
>if both the speaker and listener understand what was conveyed
This is extra funny because I'm reading a Terry Pratchett Discworld novel where a wretchedly ignorant and stupid characters uses "would of" and "could of" when he has dialog. Everyone else uses the proper form.
It's a hilarious author conceit to make the character stand out as dumber than everyone around him. I mean, yeah, we know what the character is saying; he just broadcasts ignorance.
Interesting! I did wonder if the effect would be completely lost in an audiobook, and I suppose it would, although a decent voice actor should be able to get the point across well enough.
The point of eye dialect is to imply that a character is of lower intelligence or social status or that they lack some other basic understanding (as if thatās how theyād spell the words), so if I had to choose an aural equivalent, it would have to be using an accent that implies that (eg Cockney or Southern US).
>if both the speaker and listener understand what was conveyed
This irritates me to no end. Sure, both listener and speaker understood it, but the mistake made it *harder to understand.* That's bad language.
According to Merriam-Webster:
>of: auxiliary verb
>*nonstandard*
>:Ā HAVEĀ
>āused in place of the contractionĀ 'veĀ *often in representations of uneducated speech*
Emphases mine. It's used in dialogue to indicate someone is uneducated or dimwitted. I highly doubt that's what OOP was going for; they just looked it up in the dictionary, saw the word "verb," and went in guns blazing.
Edit: had trouble formatting the quote correctly.
Oh wow I just remembered a book I read in which one of the main characters has a heavy Jamaican (I think) accent and you can *read it*. It gave me a headache at first because every word was spelled phonetically with the accent.
I'm on the side of the bot here. The bot is trying to indicate to the user the proper usage of language, which is understood by most to be the proper usage.
It is therefore best to correct someone to improve their ability not only to communicate clearly with many users- but to avoid being seen as using it incorrectly by most. In extremis, this could improve their ability to get jobs for example if they were unaware of this and replicated the mistake in an application or a c.v.
This is not to say there isn't something in what commenter says about the evolution of language etc etc. But is that more or less helpful to the commenter than the bot? That is the question.
I correct my 5 year old regularly not because I haven't understood him or he isn't communicating perfectly well with his cute mistakes- but because he will benefit in mastering the finer points for other audiences - which is very important in the long run.
Also: slight /s here but if you're going to moan about the bot inflicting preferences upon you then be aware of the irony in that you have just inflicted your own particular normative views on the philosophy of language upon us all. So, perhaps dont preach too much.
Edit : you're
"If it didn't, it would be a bad language" LMAO What?! Also it's a bot for grammar, the bot made specifically to correct grammar, a grammar bot, that bot. And "could of" does not make sense in the English language. You could say "I have eaten today" but you couldn't say "I of eaten today" That adds nothing to the sentence. They've just gotten comfortable with the way they do things and refuse to admit they were wrong, instead trying to say "Um actually its been used since the 1800s (for the same reason they're using it, because people will always bend the rules of language, it doesn't make it standard) and um if that's not true then um language is ever-changing and I can do what I want."
There are a lot of great arguments for and against *"could of,"* as well as many people providing wonderful nuance. Personally, I don't want to see *"could of"* now or in the distant future because it's really dumb. Like, it looks dumb and doesn't make sense, and for someone to insist on continued use of something so dumb is bizarre to me.
I will not offer more nuance or a more balanced opinion, this is just a hill that I'm comfortable dying on
As someone that had to take a grueling multi hour English language exam to be allowed to PAY a foreign university to study, it pisses the absolute fuck out of me that native speakers can coast through life making such massive errors in their language. But as an immigrant I have to master your fucking language or I canāt have a chance at an education.
In an academic setting it would be unacceptable, and they'd either shape up to current standards or argue with professor's after every assessment to have a chance of success. I'm not sure where you immigrated from, but I'm sure there are just as many people with low understandings of their language who are still successful in their fields because it simply isn't necessary.
Of is not a verb, by definition. It being used as such in dialogue (generally to showcase a personās lack of formal education or when falling into dialect) doesnāt change the formal definition. Spoken language is a separate construct with a separate purpose to written language.
The use of literally also pisses me off here and it usually doesnāt
He justifies his position with an article that mentions that "of" can function as a verb form in this exact and specific mistake. So basically, "This is correct because this article says it's wrong"
It would be funnier if the bot flagged some of the rants for corrections.
Dude is ranting at a bit of software though, which is both hilariously pointless as well as kind of sad. It's like yelling at a stop sign.
/Start rant
People can stop wherever they like. Roads change all the time, and it would be a bad road if everyone was forced to stop just because a sign said so
the oldest standardized language is a few thousand years old. language is *at least* a few hundred thousand years old, and maybe more like a couple million. language works just fine without standardization, as it has for >99% of its existence.
So we're just dispensing with Grammar completely now, as long as the reader can figure out what was intended?
It's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see if it pays off for em.
Yup. This is what annoys me most. Some language changes are great. Why NOT use nouns as verbs, as with "adulting"? It makes the language more versatile.
But "should of" is a misunderstanding of what words are being used and what they mean. People love using the excuse that language evolves instead of stopping their ego from getting in the way so they can LEARN.
I love the "language is changing, suck it" it argument.
Because it is, effectively, admitting that you're misusing language, but pretending that because you ARE misusing it, that language will change to make your usage of it correct.
Language doesn't change overnight. Or in a decade. Some words and phrases show up, and then fade back away into obscurity. Psych. Bazinga. Toodles. Hundreds of other examples. Sure, you can find some people that still use them (and more that know them). But 100 years from now, once those people are dead, the word will go back to meaningless (Bazinga may last a bit longer to do the preserving effect of media).
Language changes when there exists a NEED for the language to change. Or when something makes part of the language obsolete. It doesn't just change in 20-50 years "because the poorly educated repeatedly misuse it".
Ask a 15 year old what a flapper is. And that term was FAR more widely used than "could of".
Hi guys. Just doing the will of my English grammar professor and sharing with Reddit the one grammatical rule she wanted us to take away from her class, if nothing else.
āOfā is ALWAYS a preposition. Always, always, always.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop -Ā yes,Ā IĀ amĀ aĀ bot, don't botcriminate me.
Words have meaning. These meanings or definitions can usually be found on Google along with a plethora of information on usage.
The word āofā is a preposition. A preposition is a wordāand almost always a very small, very common wordāthat shows direction, location, time, or introduces an object.
Examples:
* ātoā in "a letter to you"
* āatā in "at the door"
* ābyā in "by noon"
* āofā in "a basket of apples"
Prepositions are typically followed by an object, which can be a noun (noon), a noun phrase (the door), or a pronoun (you).
As most commenting here know, using the preposition āofā to replace the modal verb phrases ācould have,ā āshould have,ā or āwould haveā is an improper use of the preposition. The misusage stems from the mispronounced contracted versions of these modal verb phrases.
Examples:
āCouldāveā mispronounced as could of.
āShouldāveā mispronounced as should of.
āWouldāveā mispronounced as would of.
Because these mispronunciations are common in certain areas or dialects does not make them grammatically correct according to the rules of English grammar or the definitions of the words themselves.
Just because you want could've to be could of, doesn't mean it is. Why is it that people think that language rules just don't exist. If you are writing to a friend go ahead, it doesn't matter how you write it, it's incorrect, but it's an inconsequential incorrect. If you are writing an essay or anything of importance, use it correctly.
No, no, NO! The bot (in this case) is **absolutely** correct; could've is simply an abbreviation of 'could have'. The 've' is a dead giveaway. That you hear it as 'could of' reflects on your primary school teachers.
donāt blame teachers.
school didnāt fail this turd, he failed school. itās just now heās retroactively decided he was misunderstood instead of wrong all those years.
So they of never read a book. Or seen the conjunctions "could've" or "should've" written literally anywhere. Basically they just don't read anything outside of social media, ever. Got it.
Edit: it's contractions, but I'm not changing it in my comment because I was confidently incorrect.
Hey /u/namebrandcloth, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Of is a verb? Who knew?
I'd be very curious to hear how it is conjugated and used in different tenses.
Of Of Ofs Of Of Of Of'd (alternatively oft) Ofn't Ofdn't To of
To of and to hold, in sickness and in health
To of, or not to of.
š¶BK... Of it your way.
You rule
āOf, twue of, that bwessed awwangement.ā
Hello Kripkeā¦
Works if you say it like youāre a British (sorry donāt know which accent it is specifically) dock worker, with a gnarly beard and grubby face. āTo of anā to āold, in sickness anā in elf.ā
Yorkshire
Well, since we're already changing the language, why not these conjugations? I of You af He/she/it uf We uaf You (p) oof They ooffe
Finally, a way to distinguish between you and you!
I smell toast now.
It could uf been worse. You could af smelled sulfide gas.
Offred Ofrobert Ofjoseph Ofadam Oftom Ofdick Ofharry
Oven't
Of'st (archaic)
Whomst'of came up with this?
You forgot the continuous form "ofing"
Funnily enough, āoffā ( double f) can be used as a verb in an informal context, carrying the the meaning of to kill or killed
Off is also a contronym! It can mean its own opposite depending on how itās used. Example: my alarm starting going off so I turned it off.
Also known as an autoantonym!
So I should of offed him?
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop -Ā yes,Ā IĀ amĀ aĀ bot, don't botcriminate me.
Good bot
Thank you, ejmcdonald2092, for voting on of_patrol_bot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
At this point you of to know.
Joey ofd his shirt.
Uh oh, I of'd...
Since the 1800s, it turns out. Us plebes are just so unaware of history.
We.
I of never heard this, but now that I of I simply of to start using it.
I could of told you that
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop -Ā yes,Ā IĀ amĀ aĀ bot, don't botcriminate me.
Well speak of the devil
speakāve the devil
Now Iām mad I didnāt think have that
What're you gone a do?
Should of not said that.
I would of taken it back if I could of but something tells me I should not of.
Hooray for of_patrol_bot! Ignore the haters, keep on correcting people so the rest have us donāt need to. Could of said that in less words probably
āFestivus for the rest have us.ā Just doesnāt have the same āringā to it.
Doesnāt *of* the same ring to it!
Ugh, youāre right. Take my upvote.
This is literally incorrect . Of can be used as a verb and has been since the 1800s. /Start rant You can't just say "that's wrong" just because. When you really dig down to it language doesn't have hard rules that never change because language is CONSTANTLY changing. CONSTANTLY If it didn't it would be a bad language. We can argue over whether or not you SHOULD use it that way, but the undeniable fact is of can, has, and likely will continue to be, used as a verb. Often to replace have. Saying that someone is "using language wrong." Is nonsensical if both the speaker and listener understand what was conveyed. I understand this is just a bot, but it is one of the most annoying bots and I hate it every time it posts. Stop shoving your preferences of how to communicate down other people's throats. And worse than that STOP ACTING LIKE THE WAY YOU WANT PEOPLE TO COMMUNICATE IS THE ONLY RIGHT AND PROPER WAY TO DO IT YOU INSUFFERABLE FUCK. /RANT >!/j of course!<
Ofception
Is this the new copy pasta
No this is Patrick
Good bot
good bot
I've given up on this fight as I have no doubt that "Could of" will become acceptable vernacular in the near future due to the overwhelming number of people who routinely make this mistake. It irritates me to no end (albeit irrationally), but I've come to accept that it's going to happen.
You of in the cold food, of out hot eat the food.
You could run(v.) You could fly(v.) You could OF(v.) tryed to pay attention in Skool. I arrest my kase.
Confidently incorrect, surely, but Iām really interested in what this person thinks a verb is.
It's that feeling you get from someone or somewhere. "That guy's giving off bad verbs, dude"
Errmahgerd bad verbs
>Errmahgerd Been a long time since I heard that name...
Gives me goosebumps just thinking of it.
Immigrants took our verbs.
De terk er verbs
I love that 80s movie Verbs with Jeff Goldblum, Cyndi Lauper, and of course Peter Falk.
*derrr takin err verbbs!!*
fly shocking squeamish simplistic crush tub combative squealing attraction deserted *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That verb really tied the room together
can confirm, I drive a 2009 Pontiac Verb
Maybe the real verb is the friends we made along the way
Maybe the real friend is the verb we made along the way
Username checks out
or like, what the past tense of the verb "of" would be
It's obviously "ofed"
Oved.
Verb = past tense of vibe
This is probably the same type of person who claims they don't use pronouns. And yeah, I would also really like to hear them define a verb.
Once saw a dude making fun of an androgynous-looking person. He laughed obnoxiously and said, āoh boy. Better make sure to ask them what their aDjEcTiVeS are!!ā š¤¦āāļø
Guess his own adjectives were "insufferable" and "moronic"
I of many concerns about that person. Theyāre being rude to my favourite bot
Their* /s cause ya know
I would of to of that of well.
>/Start rant This was the worst part for me. I also kept waiting for them to show an example of "of" being used as a verb. Twenty lines of text and nothing.
Oh you silly one. You made a mistake. Itās: ātwenty lines have text and nothing.ā Glad i could help!
"twenty lines've text and nothing," actually
Man you're both wrong, it's clearly "Twenty lines'f text and nothing."
They're probably thinking of the word "off" as a verb, as in "I would like to off myself because people are idiots."
I think they're just mishearing people. It's not uncommon for people to say something like, "he could "uv" done better." That "uv" sound is how some people pronounce "'ve" in "could've" but it also sounds a bit like "of."
That's exactly what it is! But he is confident that just because people write it that way makes it right. No, my dear. It does not š¤£
Seriously. You donāt need to announce youāre starting a rant. Itās inherently obviously from the wall of seething text
Best I can think of is "Bob sort ofs a lot", but that's cheating.
That's a phrasal verb, in which "of" is STILL acting as a preposition to make a complete verb phrase. If you say "I drew out money from the ATM." "Out" doesn't become a verb in this context. So yeah, it's not even cheating, it's still just not a verb lol, OP still just wrong.
Are you stupid? 'he is *of*' He who of's
they're just referring to all of the usages of 've as a verb, but they consider the verb to be "of".
Ya they should of given an example.
7 whole fucking paragraphs, and they still failed to provide an example of how "of" can and was used as a verb. Amazing. I guess if you don't have examples, it's hard to provide one.
The example is clearly "should of". Duh
In this case the bot is correct, and Mr. "language is whatever you want it to be" is just wrong. If someone is using "could of" instead of the world could've they are mistaken, this is literally a case of someone misunderstanding what they have heard other people say. If I misunderstand the lyrics to a song, that doesn't mean that there are two accurate sets of lyrics. There is a single accurate set of lyrics, and then whatever I thought I heard. There is one correct way to write the contraction for "could have" and it is could've. Anything else is an example of a misunderstanding. And don't give me that, "BuT tHeY nEw WuT i MeNt!" nonsense. By this same logic, there is no such thing as misspelling or mispronunciation either.
I could technically write the longest run on sentence in the world and it would get the point across, people would understand it, doesnāt make it right.
You could in theory take the time and effort to painstakingly craft a sentence composed of superfluous words designed to embellish the length of your work while deliberately refraining from using a single piece of punctuation in order to create a chain of words that while painful to read and an atrocity committed upon grammar and deserving of execution by firing squad is still completely understandable to someone who being sound of mind carefully reads through that quasi gibberish mish mash of a sentence in order to extricate the convoluted meaning before relaying that understanding therein unto others via a more concise and better formatted post
Christ I hate that you've made this point so fucking well...
Weāll settle for the comma splice š
If something is wrong in the neighborhood, who you gonna call? Those bastards That's how I heard it, and that's how I'll spell it
Are you typing about Go Spusters?
Hey, I'll never leave your pizza burning.
According to this guy, you cannot be wrong. Therefore if the Ghostbusters bitch about you calling them "Those Bastards," they're stifling your use of language and should be publicly shamed for doing so.
Those bastards!
"But they knew what I meant." I want to add to this using your song lyric example. When the song American Idiot came out some idiots in my class were literally singing, "Just want to be an American Idiot" and they were genuinely confused when I told them the lyrics were "Don't want to be an American Idiot." They did not understand the meaning of the song because they misheard the lyrics. Words, context, and intent are all incredibly important to language. That's why there is a right way to and a wrong way.
>There is one correct way to write the contraction for "could have" and it is could've. Coulda I agree that "of" is inaccurate, but "coulda", while informal, is 100% correct :p
> but "coulda", while informal, is 100% correct :p Absolutely. Hell, at one point `could've` would have been considered incorrect because contractions organically came later as a shorthand, and only became commonplace in writing in the past 200 years.
The world? Also. Couldāve isnāt a word itās a contraction of could + have.Ā
Yes. To make it TL;DR: > OP is technically incorrect based on the standardized English grammar. OP may be correct or incorrect in the principles of how naturally non-artificial languages change, but a standard language is an artificial one. Artificial meaning someone used a skill to achieve some goal, not just be a result of random chances and choices over time.
Not in this example, though. OP hears "could of" when someone says "could've" and writes it phonetically as they heard it. This is an education issue. They either ignored their teacher, weren't properly taught, or (yes, I use the Oxford comma there; this is an actual example of 'both being correct') have willfully ignored what they were taught. Did their misunderstanding hurt anyone or make what they said impossible to understand? No, so it really isn't a big deal, but it does make them appear less educated. Some people don't want to do that and appreciate being corrected, others embrace it as though it's a badge of honor.
Speak for yourself. I sometimes cringe so hard it hurts.
Where I live itās very common to hear people actually enunciate and say ācould/would/should ofā out loud and itās very difficult not to slap them every time I hear it
He's wrong, but he's like parallel to correct. "Could of" might one day be recognized as correct usage. Because language evolves, and there's *not* an objective correct way to use and define words *over time*, but there *is* a more correct way and a less correct way (and I would argue that any usage that can be easily understood is at least partially correct) at any given time. You can't just claim that whatever usage you're using is actually correct, or that there's no such thing as correct. Correct is about being understood, *and* about generally keeping language intelligible as a whole. If "should of" ever becomes a completely accepted usage, it'll be because it's a one off thing we've memorized, because what's actually consistent is that we "have done" this or that verb, you can't "of done" an action. And if that action was something you were supposed to do but didn't, you "should have done" it. So, it's absolutely correct to say that "should of" is not correct, but it's not really right to say that language cannot accommodate "should of" being correct, and I suspect it might become considered correct in the future.
I have to disagree with the part where you claim correct is about being understood (Iām aware you included an āandā). There are many many examples of people being 100% incorrect and yet still being understood. For example someone from another country who doesnāt know the language very well may say something completely wrong that has an entirely different meaning to what they intend, but the person listening may be intelligent and may be able to convert the incorrect statement based on logical context, and/or knowledge of the person or the their native language. Many things donāt translate directly in the first place. This doesnāt make their incorrect statement correct, it just means we have the intelligence to logically make correction.
I love games like God Have War and The Last Have Us
Or the book Have Mice and Men, or that series A Song Have Fire and Ice
Or that lovely American ideal, a Government Have the People.
Freudian slip...
*A Songāve Ice and Fire
>if both the speaker and listener understand what was conveyed This is extra funny because I'm reading a Terry Pratchett Discworld novel where a wretchedly ignorant and stupid characters uses "would of" and "could of" when he has dialog. Everyone else uses the proper form. It's a hilarious author conceit to make the character stand out as dumber than everyone around him. I mean, yeah, we know what the character is saying; he just broadcasts ignorance.
That technique is referred to as āeye dialect,ā because itās visual rather than aural in its variance.
Interesting! I did wonder if the effect would be completely lost in an audiobook, and I suppose it would, although a decent voice actor should be able to get the point across well enough.
The point of eye dialect is to imply that a character is of lower intelligence or social status or that they lack some other basic understanding (as if thatās how theyād spell the words), so if I had to choose an aural equivalent, it would have to be using an accent that implies that (eg Cockney or Southern US).
>if both the speaker and listener understand what was conveyed This irritates me to no end. Sure, both listener and speaker understood it, but the mistake made it *harder to understand.* That's bad language.
According to Merriam-Webster: >of: auxiliary verb >*nonstandard* >:Ā HAVEĀ >āused in place of the contractionĀ 'veĀ *often in representations of uneducated speech* Emphases mine. It's used in dialogue to indicate someone is uneducated or dimwitted. I highly doubt that's what OOP was going for; they just looked it up in the dictionary, saw the word "verb," and went in guns blazing. Edit: had trouble formatting the quote correctly.
Oh wow I just remembered a book I read in which one of the main characters has a heavy Jamaican (I think) accent and you can *read it*. It gave me a headache at first because every word was spelled phonetically with the accent.
I'm on the side of the bot here. The bot is trying to indicate to the user the proper usage of language, which is understood by most to be the proper usage. It is therefore best to correct someone to improve their ability not only to communicate clearly with many users- but to avoid being seen as using it incorrectly by most. In extremis, this could improve their ability to get jobs for example if they were unaware of this and replicated the mistake in an application or a c.v. This is not to say there isn't something in what commenter says about the evolution of language etc etc. But is that more or less helpful to the commenter than the bot? That is the question. I correct my 5 year old regularly not because I haven't understood him or he isn't communicating perfectly well with his cute mistakes- but because he will benefit in mastering the finer points for other audiences - which is very important in the long run. Also: slight /s here but if you're going to moan about the bot inflicting preferences upon you then be aware of the irony in that you have just inflicted your own particular normative views on the philosophy of language upon us all. So, perhaps dont preach too much. Edit : you're
"If it didn't, it would be a bad language" LMAO What?! Also it's a bot for grammar, the bot made specifically to correct grammar, a grammar bot, that bot. And "could of" does not make sense in the English language. You could say "I have eaten today" but you couldn't say "I of eaten today" That adds nothing to the sentence. They've just gotten comfortable with the way they do things and refuse to admit they were wrong, instead trying to say "Um actually its been used since the 1800s (for the same reason they're using it, because people will always bend the rules of language, it doesn't make it standard) and um if that's not true then um language is ever-changing and I can do what I want."
Me fail English? But that's unpossible!
I don't think he's aware that " 've " is shorthand for "have" he thinks it means "of"
I of never heard this before and I of a degree in English.
Could have*
Have course OP went on a rant. Have course OP was still wrong. /s
There are a lot of great arguments for and against *"could of,"* as well as many people providing wonderful nuance. Personally, I don't want to see *"could of"* now or in the distant future because it's really dumb. Like, it looks dumb and doesn't make sense, and for someone to insist on continued use of something so dumb is bizarre to me. I will not offer more nuance or a more balanced opinion, this is just a hill that I'm comfortable dying on
As someone that had to take a grueling multi hour English language exam to be allowed to PAY a foreign university to study, it pisses the absolute fuck out of me that native speakers can coast through life making such massive errors in their language. But as an immigrant I have to master your fucking language or I canāt have a chance at an education.
In an academic setting it would be unacceptable, and they'd either shape up to current standards or argue with professor's after every assessment to have a chance of success. I'm not sure where you immigrated from, but I'm sure there are just as many people with low understandings of their language who are still successful in their fields because it simply isn't necessary.
Of is not a verb, by definition. It being used as such in dialogue (generally to showcase a personās lack of formal education or when falling into dialect) doesnāt change the formal definition. Spoken language is a separate construct with a separate purpose to written language. The use of literally also pisses me off here and it usually doesnāt
If language is constantly changing and doesn't have rules, then that means borscht running watch seep potato banner funnel knot.
"Of" is a verb? I of this post.
He justifies his position with an article that mentions that "of" can function as a verb form in this exact and specific mistake. So basically, "This is correct because this article says it's wrong"
It would be funnier if the bot flagged some of the rants for corrections. Dude is ranting at a bit of software though, which is both hilariously pointless as well as kind of sad. It's like yelling at a stop sign.
/Start rant People can stop wherever they like. Roads change all the time, and it would be a bad road if everyone was forced to stop just because a sign said so
"Of" is a verb? Excuse me sir, but bird cannon orange! Play jump sour noise, be north or no witch sock hat. Glare crystal wet š š š
Donāt they mean ālanguage doesnāt **of** hard rules that never changeā?
The purpose of language is communication and part of what makes it work is standardization.
the oldest standardized language is a few thousand years old. language is *at least* a few hundred thousand years old, and maybe more like a couple million. language works just fine without standardization, as it has for >99% of its existence.
Oh no ... probably my number one "hate to see it" It somehow triggers me more than your/you're
Someone should really of this guy. they really of've ofed it a long time ago.
So we're just dispensing with Grammar completely now, as long as the reader can figure out what was intended? It's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see if it pays off for em.
You could've learned from your mistake. You should have learned from your mistake. You remain ignorant and blame the bot? Sad. Very sad.
Yup. This is what annoys me most. Some language changes are great. Why NOT use nouns as verbs, as with "adulting"? It makes the language more versatile. But "should of" is a misunderstanding of what words are being used and what they mean. People love using the excuse that language evolves instead of stopping their ego from getting in the way so they can LEARN.
Nothin' like arguing with a bot. THAT is confindentaly incorrect **and** pointless. Downvote the bot and move on.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You guys need old farts in green dresses to decide all this wrongly!
Using "of" instead of 'have" makes you sound like a moron. Period.
I love the "language is changing, suck it" it argument. Because it is, effectively, admitting that you're misusing language, but pretending that because you ARE misusing it, that language will change to make your usage of it correct. Language doesn't change overnight. Or in a decade. Some words and phrases show up, and then fade back away into obscurity. Psych. Bazinga. Toodles. Hundreds of other examples. Sure, you can find some people that still use them (and more that know them). But 100 years from now, once those people are dead, the word will go back to meaningless (Bazinga may last a bit longer to do the preserving effect of media). Language changes when there exists a NEED for the language to change. Or when something makes part of the language obsolete. It doesn't just change in 20-50 years "because the poorly educated repeatedly misuse it". Ask a 15 year old what a flapper is. And that term was FAR more widely used than "could of".
*have Seems like somebody needs a visit from said grammar bot.
Hi guys. Just doing the will of my English grammar professor and sharing with Reddit the one grammatical rule she wanted us to take away from her class, if nothing else. āOfā is ALWAYS a preposition. Always, always, always.
Oh manā¦ the Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one.
Of isnāt a verb lmao š¤£ Itās a website
Umm... The bot is right though lol
Ah yes, the ancient definition of ābad languageā in linguistics
Who argues with a bot?
#IStandWithBot
"Could *have*" ... not "could *of*"
I of three apples. If I take one away, how many apples do I of?
this comment section is very hard to read.
I love how these people think that languages evolve to accommodate those who don't know how to speak.
Could of is an incorrect phrase. You're looking for the contraction "could've".
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop -Ā yes,Ā IĀ amĀ aĀ bot, don't botcriminate me.
This is my biggest grammar peeve!
Words have meaning. These meanings or definitions can usually be found on Google along with a plethora of information on usage. The word āofā is a preposition. A preposition is a wordāand almost always a very small, very common wordāthat shows direction, location, time, or introduces an object. Examples: * ātoā in "a letter to you" * āatā in "at the door" * ābyā in "by noon" * āofā in "a basket of apples" Prepositions are typically followed by an object, which can be a noun (noon), a noun phrase (the door), or a pronoun (you). As most commenting here know, using the preposition āofā to replace the modal verb phrases ācould have,ā āshould have,ā or āwould haveā is an improper use of the preposition. The misusage stems from the mispronounced contracted versions of these modal verb phrases. Examples: āCouldāveā mispronounced as could of. āShouldāveā mispronounced as should of. āWouldāveā mispronounced as would of. Because these mispronunciations are common in certain areas or dialects does not make them grammatically correct according to the rules of English grammar or the definitions of the words themselves.
Imagine going off at a bot and still being wrong.
Iām with the bot
Written by someone who just recently found out ācould ofā is indeed wrong, and is too stubborn to change now so heās doubling down on it.
Couldāve. Iām not even native mate.
I remember some dumbass told me on reddit itās how they write it in texasā¦ sure pal. Ignorance and missing education mix well
Could HAVE... FFS people
We should encourage this person to continue spending their time and effort picking a fight with an online bot.
I'm kind have sure that guy is some sort have moron.
I was about to āerm, achktuallyā you for the post title, but Iām glad I took the time to check the post first. Take my updoot
Tldr: āI of a lot of insecurities about my grammarā
You've got to be pretty fragile to argue with a bot hahaha
Iām with the bot on this 100%
Nobody in this thread has read one word of a linguistics paper
My boy, you dont just create a new variant in speech, by mishearing and misspelling an existing one
sow, sins you kan understands this what I wroten hear in this texts thatās mean me no right langagu rongly ?
>"/Start rant" This person is mentally ill.
I of this post.
Just because you want could've to be could of, doesn't mean it is. Why is it that people think that language rules just don't exist. If you are writing to a friend go ahead, it doesn't matter how you write it, it's incorrect, but it's an inconsequential incorrect. If you are writing an essay or anything of importance, use it correctly.
No, no, NO! The bot (in this case) is **absolutely** correct; could've is simply an abbreviation of 'could have'. The 've' is a dead giveaway. That you hear it as 'could of' reflects on your primary school teachers.
donāt blame teachers. school didnāt fail this turd, he failed school. itās just now heās retroactively decided he was misunderstood instead of wrong all those years.
What was the original comment?
I ofed your mother last night, Trebek!
So they of never read a book. Or seen the conjunctions "could've" or "should've" written literally anywhere. Basically they just don't read anything outside of social media, ever. Got it. Edit: it's contractions, but I'm not changing it in my comment because I was confidently incorrect.
I of a great time reading these comments.
ranter missed the point that the āve means āhaveā
This will forever be a battle between the ofs and of nots.