• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

The use've 'Should of' needs to stop.

Status
Not open for further replies.
pharmx said:
What should my opinion of your opinion be since you used "Gotta" instead of "got to" or even better "You've got to/You have got to" in your reply?
Click to expand...
"Gotta" is an acceptable deviation from "you have got to," but "should of" is crossing the line and makes your opinion go in the shitter.
 
CornBurrito said:
"Axe" you a question would actually be more correct than "ask" considering that is how the word was pronounced back in Old English.

I don't even get why "aks" is wrong. Because it is spelled with the s before the k? How do you pronounce "iron?" eye-ron? or eye orn?
Click to expand...
I posted it many times on GAF before, but 'aks' has the same linguistic pedigree as 'ask'.
It became common in African American communities, probably because of the prevalence of the s cluster metathesis in that dialect (though aks is not actually a metathesis).
And I don't think I need to explain the reasons beyond the vilification of the AAVE and its branding as vulgar and ignorant.
 
Chichikov said:
I posted it many times on GAF before, but 'aks' has the same linguistic pedigree as 'ask'.
It became common in African American community, probably because of the prevalence of the s cluster metathesis in that dialect (though aks is not actually a metathesis).
And I don't think I need to explain the reasons beyond the vilification of the AAVE and its branding as vulgar and ignorant.
Click to expand...

see, now that's pretty interest
 
At least in my dialect (Standard British English) they are perfect homophones so it is is funny for me to see all the posts saying that the two sound different, or using the word 'sound' at all. It is a spelling issue, which some people might well be retroactively applying to their grammar. In conversation, you won't know if anyone is making this mistake unless they have some dialect I'm unaware of or a non-standard way of speaking.
 
Cheesecakebobby said:
At least in my dialect (Standard British English) they are perfect homophones so it is is funny for me to see all the posts saying that the two sound different, or using the word 'sound' at all. It is a spelling issue, which some people might well be retroactively applying to their grammar. In conversation, you won't know if anyone is making this mistake unless they have some dialect I'm unaware of or a non-standard way of speaking.
Click to expand...
Yep.
And spelling a word to more closely resemble the way it's pronounced is a super common thing.
On this very page we have such example, "gotta", which is exactly the same thing.
Do people think using gotta is this terrible crime against the English language?

And again, it's fine to decide you don't want to use it, I don't think I've ever used "should of", but there's really no need to get so upset about it, especially not in informal situations.
 
Bam Bam Baklava said:
Just because something happened before doesn't mean it's going to happen for everything. This particular bastardization of the language may not be recognized.



Believe me, the feeling is mutual.
Click to expand...

Please. You care little about the views of others. Dissent for you boils down to a "I am right, you are wrong" veiled within a few off the cuff remarks better heard from a Grammar Nazi.
 
CornBurrito said:
Difference is that in speech "we've" sounds nothing like "we of". But "should of" sounds like a rushed should've. Hence why it happens.
Click to expand...

How about this?

CornBurrito said:
Weave seen this happen with language before.
Click to expand...

Is that something you'd defend? I mean it sounds the same, right?

Or how about this?

CornBurrito said:
Weave scene this happin with langwidge befour.
Click to expand...

Is that okay? It sounds the same, right? So its should be perfectly acceptable according to your logic.

Or if you think either of those are wrong, then where do you draw the line? Why is "should of" okay but not these examples?

OneEightZero said:
Please. You care little about the views of others. Dissent for you boils down to a "I am right, you are wrong"
Click to expand...

And you're not acting exactly the same?
 
You should just excuse pathetic spelling/grammar so long as you can make out what's being said, really. Can't win them all.
 
Wreck-It Ralph said:
How about this?



Is that something you'd defend? I mean it sounds the same, right?

Or how about this?



Is that okay? It sounds the same, right? So its should be perfectly acceptable according to your logic.

Or if you think either of those are wrong, then where do you draw the line? Why is "should of" okay but not these examples?



And you're not acting exactly the same?
Click to expand...
You act as though CornBurrito is the emperor of the English language that gets to decide how you should speak and write.
His all point is predicated on the fact that no one is, languages evolve by their users, if enough people start using "langwidge" then yeah, it will be part of the English language.
I may not like it, in fact I almost certainly wouldn't, but that would be an aesthetic choice mostly.

And again, it's perfectly fine to make such stylistic choices, I'm not making a postmodernist case that all writing styles are equal (you can make both objective and subjective observations about them by the way), what I am saying is that language conservatism is silly.
First of all it picks a completely random point in time and elevate that snapshot of the language to this holy status that it does not deserve.
But maybe more importantly, it never worked in the past and short of an Orwellian ministry of truth type of control, it will never work in the future.
Shit, there are countries that try to do it, France has centralized body (founded by the bad guy from the 3 musketeers, I shit you not) which is supposed to be the final authority about how the language should be used. And yet still, French is still a living and changing language.
When you decide to get upset by non-standard usage and language evolution, you are dooming yourself to perpetual outrage.
Why would you do that?
 
Wreck-It Ralph said:
How about this?

Is that something you'd defend? I mean it sounds the same, right?

Or how about this?

Is that okay? It sounds the same, right? So its should be perfectly acceptable according to your logic.

Or if you think either of those are wrong, then where do you draw the line? Why is "should of" okay but not these examples?


And you're not acting exactly the same?
Click to expand...

If you want to use the "correct" spelling:

Hu => How

abutan => abouts => about

se => this

sum þinge => something

soun => sound (The terminal -d was established c. 1350-1550 as part of a tendency to add -d- after -n-.)

You realize that "okay" is just a spelled out version of the abbreviation "OK," which stands for "oll korrect"? So writing "okay" for "OK" is similar to writing "ohemgee" for "OMG."

parfit => perfect

essample, asaumple => example

If you are OK with using the changes in English that others have added, why do you draw the line on new changes?
 
TheMink said:
If there is one thing i know for an absolute fact, people loooove the grammar police.
Click to expand...

Lol it's like 'OK let's just add a bunch of distracting tangents to a conversation that will go over well.'

Forum posts don't need their grammar graded unless it changes the meaning IMO.
 
Chichikov said:
On accident is not even considered a mistake by most prescriptivists.
It's a generational thing, old people use "by accident", young people use "on accident".

Stop yelling at the proverbial kids to get off your metaphoric linguistic lawn.
:p


I think you're romanticizing "correct grammar".
"Correct grammar" is merely taking a random point in time, picking up a dialect (which happened to be the dialect of rich white people, but that's surely just a coincidence) adding some random rules pulled out people asses and deciding that's "proper English".
There's nothing magical or special about "correct grammar", it's not superior in any measurable way (and there are linguistic ways to measure those things) to any of the many other English dialects.

Also, you're wrong in thinking it's gotten worse, English now is waaaaay more standardized than it has ever been.
Go read some old texts, if "should of" make you angry, that shit is going to give you an aneurysm.
Click to expand...

Far better said than I could have.

sir_kevith said:
You have horrible reading comprehension considering the first thing I say is that it bothers me in professional use.

I'm talking casual use like this forum where we use shit like 'lmao' and gifs to communicate. There's no sense in getting bent out of shape of some poor grammer here and their.
Click to expand...

Excellent point.

CornBurrito said:
Which is why I would teach my child the standard. However, non-standard does not mean inherently incorrect. And I think it is awful how people are belittled and degraded for speaking differently. Especially speakers of African American Vernacular English, who are told that their language is wrong just because speakers of Standard English are too stupid to research the difference between "I been flown it" "I done flown it" "I did fly it" and "I do fly it." (AAVE has 4 distinct past tenses). Or too stupid to figure out that in AAVE "be" means a habitual action, such that "he be workin" means that he works regularly, not that he is working at this exact moment.

People just use it as a way of feeling superior to other humans. It's gross.



What makes should of "wrong" and what makes should've "proper"? There's standard and non-standard. "Should of" is not inherently incorrect. Why are you ignoring that "should of" has existed as far back as the 14th century? You know damn well what a person means when they write "should of" because that's how "should've" sounds when spoken aloud in most US dialects. It doesn't hinder communication. The only reason to hate on it is because you've internalized the standard as the only correct way to do things because reasons.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I disagree with your opinion in threads but in here I like you. Reading what you're saying and the points you make and I don't get why people are so adamantly against it.

Bam Bam Baklava said:
It's not an argument at all. Seems like you think you're right and everyone else is wrong so I'm pretty much just making jokes in order to keep myself entertained in light of your stonewalling.
Click to expand...

What? Where are you getting this from? If anything it's the other way around, you guys are vehemently opposing any argument other than "this is the current model and if you don't stick to it you're wrong" while he's saying "why not both?".

Wreck-It Ralph said:
He's not trolling. He makes the exact same arguments in every thread about linguistics. He genuinely believes that there should be no rules in the English language and you should just be able to say and write whatever the fuck you want and expect people to just accept it.
Click to expand...

You're literally putting words in his mouth now. No rules? More like the rules slowly change over time and sometimes old habits stick around long after they're considered incorrect. Yet they're still used as things don't just stop happening immediately when it comes to written and spoken language. His argument is more about there being shades of grey while you guys are saying it's black and white.
 
DonMigs85 said:
I still can't believe there's a passionate "could of" defense force.
Click to expand...

I think its just people that think it's actually not something to get worked up over. The people that want to be grammar nazis seem more passionate.

Would you like someone to correct you on this video game forum every time you use the terms "gotta", "dunno", or "gonna" (you do appear to use these "incorrect" words a lot)?
 
numble said:
I think its just people that think it's actually not something to get worked up over. The people that want to be grammar nazis seem more passionate.

Would you like someone to correct you on this video game forum every time you use the terms "gotta", "dunno", or "gonna" (you do appear to use these "incorrect" words a lot)?
Click to expand...
Those are all proper slang words, whereas "could of" is a misheard contraction.
 
DonMigs85 said:
Those are all proper slang words, whereas "could of" is a misheard contraction.
Click to expand...
It's not misheard, at most it is misspelled, in many English dialects that's how "could've" sounds like.

And that's exactly the same case as "gotta" - informal spelling meant to match pronunciation.
 
I thought I had seen it all. I've… seen things you people wouldn't believe… Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those… moments… will be lost in time, like [chokes up] tears… in… rain. Time… to die… but never in my wildest dreams nor in my moments of clarity would I have thought it possible for there to exist a "should of" defense force.
 
DonMigs85 said:
Sure, if you can't tell the diff between V and F. I know what they mean, it's just their ignorance is irritating
Click to expand...

The IPA list the same pronunciation for the postconsonantal "ve" and the unstressed "of". Ignorance when presented with the evidence is pretty irritating, I agree.
 
Funny thing is the "should of" defense force know better. The dumb shmuck who actually uses should of doesn't realize it's actually "should've".

With language being fluid and evolving and yada yada yada. I think we should adopt "intensive purposes" along with "should of" after all we realize what people are trying to say. Right? Your thoughts cornito, chekof? Numl?
 
Days like these... said:
Funny thing is the "should of" defense force know better. The dumb shmuck who actually uses should of doesn't realize it's actually "should've".

With language being fluid and evolving and yada yada yada. I think we should adopt "intensive purposes" along with "should of" after all we realize what people are trying to say. Right? Your thoughts cornito, chekof? Numl?
Click to expand...

Agree. It's already covered by Garner:
https://books.google.com/books?id=S...n American Usage "intensive purposes"&f=false
 
Days like these... said:
Well I'm glad you agree at least you're consistent. Honest question should there be any rules when it comes to grammar in your opinion?
Click to expand...

Yes, but grammar and language changes.

Do you think we should still speak like this:

http://www.bartleby.com/40/0101.html

WHAN that Aprille with his shoures soote
The droghte of Marche hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his swete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours y-ronne,
And smale fowles maken melodye,
That slepen al the night with open ye,
(So priketh hem nature in hir corages:
Than longen folk to goon on pilgrimages,
And palmers for to seken straunge strondes
Click to expand...


Or this:

http://www.waterbury.k12.ct.us/userfiles/-4/my files/grade11fictionselectedcon.pdf?id=534063

"Nay, if your worship can accomplish that," answered Master Brackett,"I shall own you for a
man of skill indeed! Verily, the woman hath been like a possessed one; and there lacks little, that
I should take in hand to drive Satan out of her with stripes."
The stranger had entered the room with the characteristic quietude of the profession to which he
announced himself as belonging. Nor did his demeanor change when the withdrawal of the
prison-keeper left him face to face with the woman, whose absorbed notice of him in the crowd
had intimated so close a relation between himself and her. His first care was given to the child,
whose cries, indeed, as she lay writhing on the trundle bed, made it of peremptory necessity to
postpone all other business to the task of soothing her. He examined the infant carefully, and the
proceeded to unclasp a leathern case, which he took from beneath his dress. It appeared to
contain certain medical preparations, one of which he mingled with a cup of water.
Click to expand...

Or this:

http://genius.com/Louisa-may-alcott-little-women-chap-12-annotated
Beth was postmistress, for, being most at home, she could attend to it regularly, and dearly liked the daily task of unlocking the little door and distributing the mail. One July day she came in with her hands full, and went about the house leaving letters and parcels like the penny post.

"Here's your posy, Mother! Laurie never forgets that," she said, putting the fresh nosegay in the vase that stood in 'Marmee's corner', and was kept supplied by the affectionate boy.

"Miss Meg March, one letter and a glove," continued Beth, delivering the articles to her sister, who sat near her mother, stitching wristbands.
Click to expand...

They are all in English. If you are a stickler for language, you would stick with the past.
 
numble said:
The IPA list the same pronunciation for the postconsonantal "ve" and the unstressed "of". Ignorance when presented with the evidence is pretty irritating, I agree.
Click to expand...

I for one certainly don't pronounce could of and could've the same.
A pox on you, good sir
 
Wow, this thread has some of the most baffling and infuriating posts I've read since the Witcher 3 downgrade one. How on earth could anyone defend the 'could of, should of' movement? HOW do some people choose to interpret the clear V in could've and should've as an F....? Is this something like that dress meme a while ago? Where people saw different colors?

I am confused!!! :(
 
Spikematic said:
Wow, this thread has some of the most baffling and infuriating posts I've read since the Witcher 3 downgrade one. How on earth could anyone defend the 'could of, should of' movement? HOW do some people choose to interpret the clear V in could've and should've as an F....? Is this something like that dress meme a while ago? Where people saw different colors?

I am confused!!! :(
Click to expand...
Nobody interprets the V in could've as an F, it's about the F in "of", which most English speakers pronounce as V.
 
Spikematic said:
Wow, this thread has some of the most baffling and infuriating posts I've read since the Witcher 3 downgrade one. How on earth could anyone defend the 'could of, should of' movement? HOW do some people choose to interpret the clear V in could've and should've as an F....? Is this something like that dress meme a while ago? Where people saw different colors?
Click to expand...

What's really baffling to me is that If you actually read the posts, I don't understand how you can't see why people are defending the" could of should of" movement.
It's not like it's a nonsensical argument
 
The person who writes gotta or shoulda understands degrees of formality. The person who writes should of and loose v lose doesn't know any better, and probably never even thinks about right or wrong spelling/grammar.
 
Spikematic said:
Wow, this thread has some of the most baffling and infuriating posts I've read since the Witcher 3 downgrade one. How on earth could anyone defend the 'could of, should of' movement? HOW do some people choose to interpret the clear V in could've and should've as an F....? Is this something like that dress meme a while ago? Where people saw different colors?

I am confused!!! :(
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone's defending it they're just saying that they both sound the same. There's really no misunderstanding when it's used. Therefore the urgency in the OP is a bit ridiculous.
 
numble said:
Yes, but grammar and language changes.

Do you think we should still speak like this:

http://www.bartleby.com/40/0101.html




Or this:

http://www.waterbury.k12.ct.us/userfiles/-4/my files/grade11fictionselectedcon.pdf?id=534063



Or this:

http://genius.com/Louisa-may-alcott-little-women-chap-12-annotated


They are all in English. If you are a stickler for language, you would stick with the past.
Click to expand...
None of these are as bad as "should of", because "of" is such a distinctive preposition in place of a verb. In the examples you gave, some of the words are written in a different way but maintain their grammatical category.
 
I of no idea what's going on in this thread.

If that tendency to replace have with of existed, the should of evolution would be acceptable. There is no such tendency. Should of is wrong.
 
Gibbo said:
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?
Click to expand...

It is absolutely infuriating. I've long since given up trying to bring attention to this crisis, so thanks for raising awareness.
 
LeadenStride said:
None of these are as bad as "should of", because "of" is such a distinctive preposition in place of a verb. In the examples you gave, some of the words are written in a different way but maintain their grammatical category.
Click to expand...

No, the Middle English grammar used by Chaucer is distinctively different from today's grammar.

But you need to follow the thread of conversation and understand that the discussion was about the term "all intensive purposes".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

sony stop blu ray recorder production
1
185
Three replied
Arnold Schwarzenegger should have played every role in Lord of the Rings
4
423
HAYA8U5A replied
Can we stop with all the copycat actor threads?
9
521
Baemono replied
There really needs to be something done about this.
6
495
Beretta replied
GAF should really implement an AI assistant
23
510
Malak replied
Top Bottom