Support NeoGAF

[daviyoung]

whoa, i dont think i have ever seen this word before:

use've

...did you make that up just now?

it's literally the same mistake as "should of"

 

[Mexican Sting]

Coulda' shoulda' Eastwooda'

I just now realized that that is probably only a Bay Area commercial thing.

 

[Anarion07]

I'm with you OP.
Especially as a non-native speaker it's just really ... confusing?... I mean I don't want to tell a native speaker he's wrong.

 

[ElyrionX]

I am right with you OP.

 

[Porcile]

because language never changes

 

[Monocle]

I admit to judging people who write "should of" often enough that it can't be waved off as a typo. It's the sort of error no one should make if they're an informed and attentive person.

because language never changes

Oh please. Lame thoughtless errors aren't linguistic evolution. "Should of" is ungrammatical, and that's a fact.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Making those kinds of mistakes on any college paper is pretty much a safe bet to knock your grade down an entire letter.

 

[Tesseract]

I admit to judging people who write "should of" often enough that it can't be waved off as a typo. It's the sort of error no one should make if they're an informed and attentive person.


Oh please. Lame thoughtless errors aren't linguistic evolution. "Should of" is ungrammatical, and that's a fact.

not a typo, a caveman fart

 

[LeadenStride]

The actual goddamn dictionary definition of 'literally' is 'not literally' so I wouldn't be surprised if could of is an okay thing to say in a few years.

The meaning of words change often but "should of" breaks syntactic rules, so it's hardly going to happen.

 

[Soodanim]

I'd happily let should of live if you people stopped staying "Welp". It's getting worse on GAF.

 

[Monocle]

The OP sounds very informed and educated. We should all defer to his judgement.

I here you. It really grips me when people rite a bout irreverent "mistakes" four no other raisin then two make theirselves seam moor edified then there piers.

 

[Business]

It's just people boasting their english is native.

 

[daviyoung]

It's just people boasting their english is native.

Natives are more er, liberal with the language than non-natives

 

[Monocle]

It's just people boasting their english is native.

If that's the case it's weird that posters with otherwise excellent grammar make that mistake.

 

[Peru]

This is one of the most annoying mistakes I see, I have to admit. Because it's so common and if you think about it for a second, makes no sense.

 

[MMaRsu]

I do not want to single out specific people, but I have been seeing many cases of people here using 'Should of' in place of 'Should have/ Should've'. Eg. I should of bought Witcher 3

To be honest, I was unaware of the widespread use of 'Should of' until I started visiting this forum. I guess people get confused as this sounds like 'Should have' when it is said outloud?

I should have not come into this thread

 

[hydrophilic attack]

A lot of people don't write the way they should; of this I'm certain.

 

[Wreck-It Ralph]

People are stupid, and most native English speakers are terrible at their own language. Nothing new.

 

[Ninja Dom]

Is this thread a JOKE??

Am I missing something here??

OP is "The use've 'Should of' needs to stop"

use've

use've

use've

The use have Should of needs to stop?

've is short for 'have'.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Is this thread a JOKE??

Am I missing something here??

OP is "The use've 'Should of' needs to stop"

use've

use've

use've

Th use have Should of needs to stop?

:lol

 

[beyond_death]

It is very annoying. It's not just this board though, I see it here and there in other places too but its definitely very common here.

People who justify it as 'language change' are probably worse. It just makes no sense.

 

[Paracelsus]

I approve of you are thread.

 

[Falcs]

use've??

WTF OP??
Are you for real?

Use have??

That's even worse than should of!

 

[jesu]

Its getting rediculous,

 

[SkeptiMism]

Language evolves, quit holding on to the past.

This.

I sincerely hope you're trolling. Because 'should of' doesn't sound remotely evolved. If anything, it makes the person sound illiterate. Unless in your opinion butchering the English language is a form of evolving...

It's butchering only to people who aren't educated on the field of linguistics. People often don't want to accept that language changes in ways that they don't like, and thus they view it as butchering.

What exactly do you think language evolving is? Do you think language evolving always sounds like language evolving, whatever that means?

Oh please. Lame thoughtless errors aren't linguistic evolution. "Should of" is ungrammatical, and that's a fact.

From an academical linguist perspective, that's a very naive (though common) view, no offense. "Lame thoughtless" errors are precisely what linguistic evolution is a lot of the time.

Grammatical rules don't apply to spoken language in the same way they do to formal written language. If you write in a school exam "should of", then yes that's absolutely wrong. If you say "should of" in a conversation and the other person understands it, then it's fine. Some day in the future, "should of" might be so common that it actually becomes ok to use it in formal written language too.

Where do you think the countless irregularities in English have come from?

The meaning of words change often but "should of" breaks syntactic rules, so it's hardly going to happen.

Syntactic rules are also subject to change. Language doesn't evolve only by the meaning of words changing.

It is very annoying. It's not just this board though, I see it here and there in other places too but its definitely very common here.

People who justify it as 'language change' are probably worse. It just makes no sense.

It doesn't make sense if you haven't really given it thought. Go study some language in a university level and then see if you think it anymore.

 

[mclem]

I propose we rename this thread The use've 'Should of' needs to stop.

Wasn't that what Cat Stevens changed his name to?

 

[Coreda]

use've??

WTF OP??
Are you for real?

Is this thread a JOKE??

 

[Mexen]

I think people just troll. This has been discussed before. People know it's 'should have'.

 

[SkeptiMism]

I think people just troll. This has been discussed before. People know it's 'should have'.

This can be very true too. Sometimes people decide to say something intentionally wrong. Then other people start using it too and it becomes common.

Then, while it sounds stupid for a lot of people for a long time, eventually it can become so common nobody thinks about it anymore.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

This.

It's butchering only to people who aren't educated on the field of linguistics. People often don't want to accept that language changes in ways that they don't like, and thus they view it as butchering.

What exactly do you think language evolving is? Do you think language evolving always sounds like language evolving, whatever that means?

From an academical linguist perspective, that's a very naive (though common) view, no offense. "Lame thoughtless" errors are precisely what linguistic evolution is a lot of the time.

Grammatical rules don't apply to spoken language in the same way they do to formal written language. If you write in a school exam "should of", then yes that's absolutely wrong. If you say "should of" in a conversation and the other person understands it, then it's fine. Some day in the future, "should of" might be so common that it actually becomes ok to use it in formal written language too.

Where do you think the countless irregularities in English have come from?

Syntactic rules are also subject to change. Language doesn't evolve only by the meaning of words changing.

It doesn't make sense if you haven't really given it thought. Go study some language in a university level and then see if you think it anymore.

lol, I'll be sure to litter my next "university level" paper with should of, would of, and could of. We'll see how that goes.

 

[GoodMorningPluto]

use've??

WTF OP??
Are you for real?

Use have??

That's even worse than should of!

There are mentions of thread title change on first page.

I could care less. For all intensive purposes, it means the same thing.

Oh you.

 

[Shin Kojima]

I'm with you OP.
Especially as a non-native speaker it's just really ... confusing?... I mean I don't want to tell a native speaker he's wrong.

Why not? It's hilarious to correct a native speaker. I mean if you only know one language the least you can do is try to be good at it.

 

[Brazil]

This doesn't bother me half as much as people who spell "rogue" as "rouge".

Fucking ugh.

 

[LeadenStride]

Syntactic rules are also subject to change. Language doesn't evolve only by the meaning of words changing.

That's true and I'm not saying it's impossible, but it still seems far less likely than a word getting new or different meanings. I'm not an expert in english linguistics though, but in german, for example, a part of the predicate wouldn't get replaced by a preposition that easily. Even in spoken language.

 

[Benzychenz]

The OP seems like his really uptight.

 

[FunkyDealer]

OP should've expected that posters would of made fun of it.

 

[Peru]

This is a severe mistake to make, not just a spelling error. If you write "should of" it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what you're saying. It means you have no clue what the point of the words you're using is. What purpose would "of" serve in this context? Think a little!

 

[numble]

lol, I'll be sure to litter my next "university level" paper with should of, would of, and could of. We'll see how that goes.

Nothing wrong with his wording for you to miscomprehend his discussion of university level linguistics with the requirements in a university paper.

 

[lazygecko]

Funny how it's mostly native speakers who make these mistakes. Guess it's because you mainly learn the language vocally.

 

[EvilKatarn]

Ah yes, 'the evolution of the language' at the hands of illiterate twats.

 

[helloresolven]

Ah yes, 'the evolution of the language' at the hands of illiterate twats.

How are they illiterate if they are able to write down their sentences, even if one word is wrong?

 

[Hypron]

Funny how it's mostly native speakers who make these mistakes. Guess it's because you mainly learn the language vocally.

Yup. Non-native speakers might use weird grammatical structures (I know I do despite my best efforts), but they tend to think more about the meaning of the words they are writing down.

"should of" reminds me of a similar infuriating mistake that some French people tend to make: writing "Je c'est" ("I it is") instead of "Je sais" ("I know").

 

[lawnchair]

are some people really calling this a linguistic evolution?

 

[teruterubozu]

There, their, they're, calm down OP. No need to fret.

 

[Zombine]

Irregardless of what I should of do. I could care less about this. I'm won't go too a liberry just two make you happy OP,

Honestly, the two that irritate me the most are when native English writers totally drop the ball on "their/there" and "then/than." It's not that difficult.

 

[phalestine]

So why didn't you buy Witcher 3?

 

[Chichikov]

This.

It's butchering only to people who aren't educated on the field of linguistics. People often don't want to accept that language changes in ways that they don't like, and thus they view it as butchering.

What exactly do you think language evolving is? Do you think language evolving always sounds like language evolving, whatever that means?

From an academical linguist perspective, that's a very naive (though common) view, no offense. "Lame thoughtless" errors are precisely what linguistic evolution is a lot of the time.

Grammatical rules don't apply to spoken language in the same way they do to formal written language. If you write in a school exam "should of", then yes that's absolutely wrong. If you say "should of" in a conversation and the other person understands it, then it's fine. Some day in the future, "should of" might be so common that it actually becomes ok to use it in formal written language too.

Where do you think the countless irregularities in English have come from?

Syntactic rules are also subject to change. Language doesn't evolve only by the meaning of words changing.

It doesn't make sense if you haven't really given it thought. Go study some language in a university level and then see if you think it anymore.

I agree with all of this though I want to note that using "should of" dates back to middle ages.
Makes sense too, it sounds very similar to "should have" (how much depends on the accent but they can be pretty much homophones) and it will most likely continue to happen, I have no idea why people choose to get worked out over such things.
I mean it literally causes no problems, there isn't a chance of misunderstanding or anything there.

 

[Gibbo]

Is this thread a JOKE??

Am I missing something here??

OP is "The use've 'Should of' needs to stop"

use've

use've

use've

The use have Should of needs to stop?

've is short for 'have'.

One of the mods here changed the title ..

 

[alr1ght]

The worst part is that it's mostly native speakers fucking it up.

 

[hidys]

One of the mods here changed the title ..

You should have known better.