Where did "should of" come from? How can anybody confuse "have" and "of"? They don't even have any letters in common.

Comments

• No, it doesn't. It still doesn't have the "o" sound as in "of". Even if that was the reason, it doesn't explain the logic behind it. If you write it in its abbreviated form it is still "should've". Why does nobody abbreviate it to "should'f"? If they think "should of" is correct that is how they would write the abbreviation, isn't it? Nobody has been able to explain how "'ve" can be short for "of".

  • Report
  

  by Bootsiebaby on December 29th, 2011

• A lot of people pronounce "of" as "uv." I do it, for instance.
  The point is that people think that the way to write it is "should of" because that's what they here. They just don't think about the fact that it doesn't make any sense. It's not a big deal, people just overlook things.

  • Report
  

  by Tamilze on December 29th, 2011

• This answer is spot on!
  
  A lot of people pronounce "of" as "uv" in every day speech, like "I'm sick of this" in a lot of dialects, including mine this will sound like "I'm sick 'uv' this", this sounds the same as the "uv" used in, for example: "I should've said something".
  
  Talimze, you would've had an Answer's Pick from me for giving a completely accurate answer.

  • Report
  

  by Unicorn Man on February 15th, 2012

Comments

Comments

• I was referring to people posting "should of" on here. I have seen it before on here and I saw it again today. Logically, if they think "should of" is correct they should abbreviate it to "should'f". How can "'ve" be short for "of"? Where on earth is the logic in that?

  • Report
  

  by Bootsiebaby on December 29th, 2011

• Ask the ones who use it -- not us.

  • Report
  

  by Thriftymaid on December 29th, 2011

• I was hoping the ones who use it on here would come forward and answer my question.

  • Report
  

  by Bootsiebaby on December 29th, 2011

Comments

• Yes

  • Report
  

  by evandad on December 29th, 2011

• Correct, Shelly, but I do not believe it is a proper contraction.

  • Report
  

  by Thriftymaid on December 29th, 2011

• I know it is, but I saw today, and not for the first time on here, somebody had posted "should of" in a sentence. I fail to understand how anybody can make a mistake like that.

  • Report
  

  by Bootsiebaby on December 29th, 2011

• You don't spend much time here then.

  • Report
  

  by Thriftymaid on December 29th, 2011

• I spend an average of three or four hours a day on here.

  • Report
  

  by Bootsiebaby on December 29th, 2011

Comments

• Yes, I know that is a song title by Beverley Knight, I have it in my personal collection. Even so, that is not "should of, could of, would of", is it? My niece tends to type "shoulda" because she thinks it looks cool, but she has NEVER typed "should of".

  • Report
  

  by Bootsiebaby on February 15th, 2012

Comments

• A few people have told me that, but it doesn't work that way in my brain. I can't understand why they hear "would of". It doesn't sound like "of" to me.

  • Report
  

  by Bootsiebaby on December 29th, 2011

Comments

• It hasn't "evolved" into "should of" because it is still incorrect and it will never be correct. What you really mean is that it has been CORRUPTED into "should of".

  • Report
  

  by Bootsiebaby on December 29th, 2011

Comments

• It doesn't say much for the logic of the people who type "should of", does it?

  • Report
  

  by Bootsiebaby on December 29th, 2011

• No, but it says even less about the systems in place, both at home and at school, that are supposed to ensure that this kind of sloppy, lazy mistake isn't made.

  • Report
  

  by MrWitch on December 30th, 2011

• So what happened? It was never like that when I was in school, and I left school in 1994. I never used to hear of such sloppy, lazy mistakes being made then.

  • Report
  

  by Bootsiebaby on December 30th, 2011

• Oh, it's been happening for a while. Increased personal media, the rise of text-speak, the increase in and imitation of 'celeb' idols and a falling in required standards in state schools (in the UK at least - I can't speak for anywhere else).
  
  The last is the most important. In 1993 the (then) Conservative government introduced the 'National Curriculum', which was advertised (as all new political ideas are) as heraldiing a vast improvement in education by taking away control of a subject from teachers in a classroom and giving it to a group of civil servants at Whitehall.
  
  And it's worked - if you believe the hype. Each year since it's introduction, pass rates for pretty much all exams at all ages have increased. Oddly enough though, complaints about student ability from universities and employers have also increased and now, almost 20 years later, many universities find they need to put students with excellent grades through a foundation year to try to patch the gaps left by the National Curriculum.
  
  It's now been realised that the National Curriculum was a typical politician's promise, ie, empty. It has taught students how to pass exams (and has done so very successfully) rather than providing them with an education that's usable in the real world.
  
  Very sad, but a warning (if one were needed) that if a person with a political interest promises you something you should skip the 5, 10 or 20 years it will take to prove that promise worthless and simply punch them in the face now. Why wait?

  • Report
  

  by MrWitch on December 31st, 2011

Comments

Comments

Comments

• I have seen it before on here and I saw it again today. I can't see the logic in it.

  • Report
  

  by Bootsiebaby on December 29th, 2011

• I'm with you on that.

  • Report
  

  by Gratefully Me on December 29th, 2011