[TETENAL]

Why do Americans make the mistake of writing "should of", "could of", "must of" instead of "should have" etc.? With "of" it makes absolutely no sense, so I really don't understand how this mistake is possible.

[mattyb]

You remind me of Sister Patricia.

Teaching English.

To a classroom full of English kids.

In 1983.

[Dork.]

Yeah, we should of known better.

should have = should've = should of

[BadKosh]

Or, "Where I'm At" instead of "where I am" ? (probably thanks to an old Jackson 5 tune)

[Wiskedjak]

Why? Because people started saying "Should have", which slanged into "Should 'av", with "'av" sounding a lot like "of".

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

so I really don't understand how this mistake is possible.

They sounds the same in casual english.

You familiar with the term "gonna"?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Why? Because people started saying "Should have", which slanged into "Should 'av", with "'av" sounding a lot like "of".

Close.

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Yeah, we should of known better.

should have = should've = should of

Yes.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Why do Americans make the mistake of writing "should of", "could of", "must of" instead of "should have" etc.? With "of" it makes absolutely no sense, so I really don't understand how this mistake is possible.

The exact same reason "your" is used instead of "you are" - the contraction ("you're"), which is generally used, is phonetically identical to the incorrect term.

[sek929]

Not really Spheric, that's just ignorance of the language right there.

When I say 'should've' it sounds just like 'should of' but I know the distinction when typing. I'm not defending those who screw it up when typing, but English is incredibly tricky especially when you learn a lot of it through hearing people talk.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The exact same reason "your" is used instead of "you are" - the contraction ("you're"), which is generally used, is phonetically identical to the incorrect term.

Go wash your ears out with a mastering engineer's sweat!

Your = Yor.
You're = You-err.

Well, if yer talkin proper English like, innit?

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

They sounds the same in casual english.

I know they sound similarly, but they mean totally different things. In fact "should of" means absolutely nothing. So even if someone thinks they heard "should of", shouldn't they wonder about it? At the latest when you write it down it becomes so obvious that it's nonsense.

[turtle777]

Well, the point is obviously that people don't *think* about what they write. They just write, and the only "spell check" is if it sounds like what they would *say* (= speak out loud).

Their all idiots

Btw, I find it interesting that this happens far less to people with English as a second language. They are much more used to "think along" as they type, and less inclined to "spell as they speak".
(That is not to say they don't make mistakes though.)

-t

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

I know they sound similarly, but they mean totally different things. In fact "should of" means absolutely nothing. So even if someone thinks they heard "should of", shouldn't they wonder about it? At the latest when you write it down it becomes so obvious that it's nonsense.

As with you're/your, most people just write down what they hear (even if it's in their head) with out analyzing it. I think a function of having english as a second (or higher) language is that you pay closer attention to what you're hearing/writing, instead of natives who take their understanding of the language for granted, even if that understanding is incorrect.

Also, all the youth of today are scumasses who write "2" instead of "to" and who (or is it whom?) won't stay off my lawn.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Not really Spheric, that's just ignorance of the language right there.

Well, uh, it's all ignorance of the language - obviously.

Originally Posted by sek929 

When I say 'should've' it sounds just like 'should of' but I know the distinction when typing. I'm not defending those who screw it up when typing, but English is incredibly tricky especially when you learn a lot of it through hearing people talk.

Except that's how EVERY native speaker learns his native language, initially. (Which is why it seems so incomprehensible to the German posing the original question - he learned it correctly, and *then* derived the contraction. That's not how it works when your a child. )

That's why edumacation is important.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

That's why edumacation is important.

I blame the democrats.

Let the fun begin

[Eug]

What really irritates me is the pretentious types using "I" everywhere, thinking it makes them sound smarter.

"He gave the book to Louise and I."

Drives me up the wall.

[The Final Dakar]

It drives I up the wall, as well.

[Eug]

You got I that time.

[The Final Dakar]

Alright, it's been fun. Gonna go watch Despicable I.

[Laminar]

It's a mute point, anyway.

[sek929]

Lifao

[turtle777]

Me agrees with Eug.

-t

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

It's a mute point, anyway.

I agree, for all intensive purposes.

[Oisín]

Ambiguous homophony strikes again!

Now go put on your naprons and go hunt some nadders! Terrible example, but I can’t think of any better ones.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Go wash your ears out with a mastering engineer's sweat!

Your = Yor.
You're = You-err.

Well, if yer talkin proper English like, innit?

Only if stressed, which both words tend not to be. In unstressed positions, both will be just [jə] in Proper English (and [jɚ] in Improper English).

[The Final Dakar]

Dear Oisin,

Yelling things doesn't make them funny.
See: Tucker, Chris.

Thanks,
Dakar

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Only if stressed, which both words tend not to be. In unstressed positions, both will be just [jə] in Proper English (and [jɚ] in Improper English).

They're always stressed in Proper English™ - you must have been hanging out with the peasantry.

(I self-checked - it's always "you-err" when I do it - very pronounced "you". Very definitely not "yor")

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Dear Oisin,

Yelling things doesn't make them funny.
See: Tucker, Chris.

Thanks,
Dakar

Originally Posted by Doofy 

They're always stressed in Proper English™ - you must have been hanging out with the peasantry.

(I self-checked - it's always "you-err" when I do it - very pronounced "you". Very definitely not "yor")

Here in the midwest, everything is "yerr."

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

This is what I had in mind.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

They're always stressed in Proper English™ - you must have been hanging out with the peasantry.

(I self-checked - it's always "you-err" when I do it - very pronounced "you". Very definitely not "yor")

Well, I guess if you count your Queen as peasantry, then sure.

Though admittedly, there’s a slight resistance to completely unstressing ‘you’re’—a resistance which doesn’t apply to ‘your’.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Dear Oisin,

Yelling things doesn't make them funny.
See: Tucker, Chris.

Thanks,
Dakar

I’ve no idea what I yelled, but I’ll do whatever it takes not to have to see Chris Tucker.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Well, I guess if you count your Queen as peasantry, then sure.

Elton or Liz?

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Though admittedly, there’s a slight resistance to completely unstressing ‘you’re’—a resistance which doesn’t apply to ‘your’.

Yup. There's only a couple of dialects (AFAIKT) in which the two sound similar. Both of which are of the peasantry, of course.

[Oisín]

Heh. Liz. Though I’m sure Elton does it too.

I’d say there are only really a few dialects where ‘you’, ‘your’, and ‘you’re’ aren’t reduced to sound identical in unstressed positions. By far most English (meaning of England proper here—not counting Welsh and Scottish) dialects do it. I can only think of some really northern ones where they differ when reduced.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

I’d say there are only really a few dialects where ‘you’, ‘your’, and ‘you’re’ aren’t reduced to sound identical in unstressed positions. By far most English (meaning of England proper here—not counting Welsh and Scottish) dialects do it. I can only think of some really northern ones where they differ when reduced.

I was thinking that the dialects where it happens are the southern commoner ones. South of Watford Gap, basically.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I agree, for all intensive purposes.

Intense porpoises git no respect.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Also, all the youth of today are scumasses who write "2" instead of "to" and who (or is it whom?) won't stay off my lawn.

Prince was doing it back in '82.

YOU get the **** off HIS lawn!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Go wash your ears out with a mastering engineer's sweat!

Your = Yor.
You're = You-err.

Well, if yer talkin proper English like, innit?

Yo' wrong. It's all identical, and it's pronounced "yo'".

Also, I don't do my own mastering.

[The Final Dakar]

Not until he serves me pancakes.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Also, I don't do my own mastering.

You're fluffer does that, right ?

Oh, wait, you said *mastering*

-t

[Spheric Harlot]

Cue Sixteenth Chapel thread reference in 3 … 2 …

Hang on, it just came.

[The Final Dakar]

Oh yuck

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Hang on, I just came.

Fixed that for yer.

-t

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You're fluffer does that, right ?

Oh, wait, you said *mastering*

-t

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Fixed that for yer.

-t

lulz

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Fixed that for yer.

-t

Considering that's what I originally rote, I can deal.

Damn porpoises.

[olePigeon]

After explaining to my friend that he'd spell fewer words wrong if he simply didn't use apostrophes, he tells me, "No one cares except you."

That's the attitude I get from pretty much everyone. Apparently I'm the only person in the United States that cares about spelling and grammar.

I get it wrong a lot, but at least I care enough to try.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

After explaining to my friend that he'd spell fewer words wrong if he simply didn't use apostrophes, he tells me, "No one cares except you."

Yeah, Fu'ck that's.

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

After explaining to my friend that he'd spell fewer words wrong if he simply didn't use apostrophes, he tells me, "No one cares except you."

That's the attitude I get from pretty much everyone. Apparently I'm the only person in the United States that cares about spelling and grammar.

This is why we will win and become their all-powerful overlords. And then oppress their sorry asses.

[andi*pandi]

help help, I'm being oppressed!

[Eug]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

help help, I'm being repressed!

T,FTFY

[Big Mac]

I really don't see "should of" that often in written form. I expect that even though it's a common lazy form of speech, most will correct themselves if they're writing a sentence like that out. But it is a slight concern of mine over whether or not more formal rules of grammar will disappear in time because people generally don't seem to care or know about the distinctions. Things like the subjective "who" being used when "whom" should be used instead. In fact, a lot of the errors that really annoy me are erroneous uses of subjective versus objective cases. "Please take Johnny and I to the store" instead of "Please take Johnny and me to the store." Or how about, "Between you and I, it doesn't really bother me." (For Howard 100 fans, Bababooey very frequently makes that mistake on the "Wrap Up Show.") I notice a lot of those errors on a daily basis in normal conversations, and I think too few have any concept that they're using improper grammar.

[Oisín]

But it is a slight concern of mine over whether or not more formal rules of grammar will disappear in time because people generally don't seem to care or know about the distinctions.

They will, you can bet your left thigh on that. Well, not the concept of ‘more formal rules of grammar’ as a whole, but many of the rules we consider ‘proper grammar’ now will disappear. That’s the nature of language development.

The subjective/objective distinction in pronouns, for example, could very well be gone completely from the English language in 100 or 200 years. Statistically, the objective form tends to win out when this happens (just like baby talk tends to use the objective form exclusively), but in English, it might go the other way, since the lack of distinction mostly seems to be based on hypercorrections where the subjective form is incorrectly used.

To me personally, the imminent complete loss of the subjunctive mood is just as painful as the loss of the subjective/objective distinction. I cringe and die a little every time I hear someone say, “If I was …” or something along those lines. But it’s going, there’s no doubt about that. Just as surely as the old personal inflections are gone, leaving only a measly little -s in the third singular (an odd intruder, at that). We can fight against it, but we’ll lose. Languages can’t be controlled, they evolve the way they want to.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

In fact, a lot of the errors that really annoy me are erroneous uses of subjective versus objective cases. "Please Take Johnny and I to the store" instead of "Please take Johnny and me to the store." Or how about, "Between you and I, it doesn't really bother me." (For Howard 100 fans, Bababooey very frequently makes that mistake on the "Wrap Up Show.") I notice a lot of those errors on a daily basis in normal conversations, and I think too few have any concept that they're using improper grammar.

Blame that particular one on the fact that someone decided prescriptively to make "It is I" the grammatically correct form, despite this NEVER having been actual common usage. The rule was imported from Latin to distinguish the ruling classes with "proper" grammar from the hoi polloi, and it's been confusing the latter for centuries, ever since.