You're viewing a single thread.
Should of
As a non native English speaker, that is the grammar mistake that most baffles me in natives. Like, how does anybody think that “of” is the right word there, how does it make sense in their heads.
True 🦴🍎☕️ material, if it weren’t that absurdly common.
I think the mistake might come from a lack of reading. The contraction "should've" is often used in speech, which might be mistakenly written as "should of" if you don't read a lot and see it written properly all the time. We've mostly lost the voiced quality of "v" at the ends of words like that, so it's basically pronounced "should-uf" in American English.
I mean, it's rather obvious it's just written down as it's spoken - like "bone apple tea". But while it's relatable that someone who doesn't know any French cannot write "bon appétit", I don't get how a native speaker could write "should of" and thinking yeah that makes complete sense.
It's also not an auto-correct problem like "there, they're, their" may have originated (I hope it did).
I understand to some extent, thanks!
No excuses. People who type should of/could of have brain dysfunction.
i just learned yesterday that apparently america teaches kids to read not by, you know, having them read things, but by memorizing made-up rules to.. guess at how words are pronounced and what they mean..
this uh, explains a lot about why america is why it is, i feel.
When spoken should've can sound a lot like should of or shoulda depending on the dialect. Most native speakers don't really think about gammer rules when writing informally, they just write how they speak.
shoulda makes vastly more sense, and is precisely the kind of thing that tends to become slang and eventually just the standard spelling, like "dunno" or "gotcha".
"should of" just feels like people know it should be two words, but don't know how it's spelled, and instead of just spelling it phonetically they make something half-phonetic up.
I say shoulda, gonna, etc. I'm never going to mix up should've with should of. It doesn't make ANY fucking sense typed out. I discount everything else a person has said if they type either.
It's like when they mess up they're, their and there. It doesn't make any sense until you read it out loud
Should of is so much worse though. There/they're/their I can excuse as being dyslexic or English as a second language. But should of/could of speaks to a deep problem. The person who types it does not consider what they say.
Why? What's the difference? In both cases a word is replaced by a similarly sounding word. Both mistakes are the same.
I think it comes from people shortening it to should've which then got warped into should of
Automatically screams "uneducated" to me. Such an easy thing to not get wrong.