Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Should of, Could of, Would of.

AddicksAddictAddicksAddict
in Not Sports Related
Now, as every Lifer knows, this is wrong. It's ...have, not ...of.


HOWEVER, I was reading The High Window by Raymond Chandler last week and there were two examples of ...of. This wasn't in reported speech, this was in the narrative, and the narrative made reference to "Jew" and "Negro" so it would appear to be the original text, not one brought up to date. So, either it was accepted use in 1942, or Chandler and his editor, or perhaps just his editor, were Katrien-class numpties.


Discuss.
«1

Comments

  • thai malaysia addickthai malaysia addick
    The only case where I can think of is something like the following sentence: Should of or have follow would in a sentence?
  • 1StevieG1StevieG
    edited March 2017
    Have a day off..... :wink:
  • AddicksAddictAddicksAddict
    Huskaris said:

    This is the kind of thing that leads to petitions to bring down statues of people. 1942 and 2017 are different times.

    It was the generally accepted term for black people until the 1960s... According to Wikipedia at least.

    Like most of these words I think they tend to start off as descriptive words, then have an element of prejudice attached to them, and then a new word comes up for a bracket of people, and then we repeat again.

    "Spastic" is another example of this now, as are a lot of words I won't use as examples on here but are effectively the equivalent of calling someone a "Brit" at first, but if people started calling you a "f*cking Brit" it starts to become derogatory.

    Basically what I am saying is that even well meaning people will use these terms, it's what they become that can be the issue. Banning words does not remove people's prejudices though... In fact in a lot of cases it does the opposite.

    By the by, I'm not saying you are necessarily, but I am completely sick of twatty university students falling over themselves with self rightousness to retrospectively ruin people's reputations from different generations. It's pathetic. You should judge individuals by the standards of their day, you can disagree with the views a generation had, but it's not fair to dig out an individual who wasn't a radical in their day, just because their ideologies or actions would be considered bad today.

    I think you're somewhat missing the point. I mentioned the two terms used to highlight that the book was almost certainly the original text, not a modern update where someone had replaced ...have with ...of.
  • AlgarveaddickAlgarveaddick
    Obviously his early years as a septic had a bad influence on him... :wink:
  • guinnessaddickguinnessaddick
    1StevieG said:

    Have a day off..... :wink:

    Is that:
    Should you have a day off?
    Could you have a day off?
    Would you have a day off?
  • JamesSeedJamesSeed
    edited March 2017
    Should of, could of etc is a misinterpretation of should've or could've, which themselves are abreviations of should have and could have.

    These things annoy some people more than others (see also incorrect use of its, & it's, their, there & they're, literally etc etc.

    People who take an exagerrated exception to these things are often called pedants.

    PS have I misspelled any of the above? Probably!

  • i_b_b_o_r_gi_b_b_o_r_g
    JamesSeed said:

    Should of, could of etc is a misinterpretation of should've or could've, which themselves are abreviations of should have and could have.

    These things annoy some people more than others (see also incorrect use of its, & it's, their, there & they're, literally etc etc.

    People who take an exagerrated exception to these things are often called pedants.

    PS have I misspelled any of the above? Probably!

    i_b_b_o_r_g said:

    Should have, could have, would have

    not

    Should of, Could of, Would of

    Keep up Jamo
  • JamesSeedJamesSeed
    edited March 2017
    i_b_b_o_r_g said:

    JamesSeed said:

    Should of, could of etc is a misinterpretation of should've or could've, which themselves are abreviations of should have and could have.

    These things annoy some people more than others (see also incorrect use of its, & it's, their, there & they're, literally etc etc.

    People who take an exagerrated exception to these things are often called pedants.

    PS have I misspelled any of the above? Probably!

    i_b_b_o_r_g said:

    Should have, could have, would have

    not

    Should of, Could of, Would of

    Keep up Jamo
    Blimey.
    OK, same applies to would, or even Would. Although would is acceptable in place of Would.

    I thank you.

  • i_b_b_o_r_gi_b_b_o_r_g
    JamesSeed said:

    i_b_b_o_r_g said:

    JamesSeed said:

    Should of, could of etc is a misinterpretation of should've or could've, which themselves are abreviations of should have and could have.

    These things annoy some people more than others (see also incorrect use of its, & it's, their, there & they're, literally etc etc.

    People who take an exagerrated exception to these things are often called pedants.

    PS have I misspelled any of the above? Probably!

    i_b_b_o_r_g said:

    Should have, could have, would have

    not

    Should of, Could of, Would of

    Keep up Jamo
    Blimey.

    Early bird gets the worm and you gotta be up pretty fuckin early to catch me out.
  • Sponsored links:


  • FiiishFiiish
    Abbreviations exist largely thanks to the spoken word, not the written word. As a rule I generally avoid abbreviations in writing as there is little point in doing so. The main exceptions are when it flows better as a sentence such as it's and I'm.
  • Covered EndCovered End
    OMG, what have I started :wink:
  • i_b_b_o_r_gi_b_b_o_r_g
    Fiiish said:

    Abbreviations exist largely thanks to the spoken word, not the written word. As a rule I generally avoid abbreviations in writing as there is little point in doing so. The main exceptions are when it flows better as a sentence such as it's and I'm.

    I'm'a'massive'fan as'ya'know
  • guinnessaddickguinnessaddick
    i_b_b_o_r_g said:

    JamesSeed said:

    i_b_b_o_r_g said:

    JamesSeed said:

    Should of, could of etc is a misinterpretation of should've or could've, which themselves are abreviations of should have and could have.

    These things annoy some people more than others (see also incorrect use of its, & it's, their, there & they're, literally etc etc.

    People who take an exagerrated exception to these things are often called pedants.

    PS have I misspelled any of the above? Probably!

    i_b_b_o_r_g said:

    Should have, could have, would have

    not

    Should of, Could of, Would of

    Keep up Jamo
    Blimey.

    Early bird gets the worm and you gotta be up pretty fuckin early to catch me out.
    All those years of running a shop?
  • AddicksAddictAddicksAddict
    Covered End said:

    OMG, what have I started :wink:

    You didn't, I did.
  • i_b_b_o_r_gi_b_b_o_r_g
    guinnessaddick said:

    i_b_b_o_r_g said:

    JamesSeed said:

    i_b_b_o_r_g said:

    JamesSeed said:

    Should of, could of etc is a misinterpretation of should've or could've, which themselves are abreviations of should have and could have.

    These things annoy some people more than others (see also incorrect use of its, & it's, their, there & they're, literally etc etc.

    People who take an exagerrated exception to these things are often called pedants.

    PS have I misspelled any of the above? Probably!

    i_b_b_o_r_g said:

    Should have, could have, would have

    not

    Should of, Could of, Would of

    Keep up Jamo
    Blimey.

    Early bird gets the worm and you gotta be up pretty fuckin early to catch me out.
    All those years of running a shop?
    Shitting the bed
  • Raith_C_ChattonellRaith_C_Chattonell
    That little word (it’s) has always confused me. I know the apostrophe is to indicate a missing letter e,g. it is. I am also given to believe that the lack of an apostrophe in its indicates possession, as in the cat licked its tail.

    However, is it not also true that an apostrophe generally indicates possession? In which case whose bloody tail was the cat licking if it wasn’t it’s its.
  • FiiishFiiish
    Raith_C_Chattonell said:

    That little word (it’s) has always confused me. I know the apostrophe is to indicate a missing letter e,g. it is. I am also given to believe that the lack of an apostrophe in its indicates possession, as in the cat licked its tail.

    However, is it not also true that an apostrophe generally indicates possession? In which case whose bloody tail was the cat licking if it wasn’t it’s its.

    "It's" is the exception. That's just how it is.

    More or less every 'rule' in the English language has exceptions.
  • JamesSeedJamesSeed
    Every cliché was made to be broken.
  • cabblescabbles
    Fiiish said:

    Raith_C_Chattonell said:

    That little word (it’s) has always confused me. I know the apostrophe is to indicate a missing letter e,g. it is. I am also given to believe that the lack of an apostrophe in its indicates possession, as in the cat licked its tail.

    However, is it not also true that an apostrophe generally indicates possession? In which case whose bloody tail was the cat licking if it wasn’t it’s its.

    "It's" is the exception. That's just how it is.

    More or less every 'rule' in the English language has exceptions.
    i think this is also why people whose first langauage isn't English say ours is so complicated, because of these exceptions

    I'm pitiful when it comes to other langauages, and I'm sure many have their own exceptions, but I do think English has quite a few comparatively speaking
  • Sponsored links:


  • bellz2002bellz2002
    Especially when teaching phonics in primary school and there are hundreds of exception words.
  • IdleHansIdleHans
    I find these grammar rules very helpful when it comes to recruitment.
    Should of, interpretate, liase, etc = cv in bin. Massive timesaver.
  • LincsaddickLincsaddick
    I know several 'Hebrews; who describe themselves as 'Jews' .. what IS the problem ?
  • mcgrandallmcgrandall
    Lincsaddick said:

    I know several 'Hebrews; who describe themselves as 'Jews' .. what IS the problem ?

    Someone's world of grammar has been shaken and they are not sure where to lay their pedantry.
  • sillav nitramsillav nitram
    AddicksAddict said:

    Now, as every Lifer knows, this is wrong. It's ...have, not ...of.


    HOWEVER, I was reading The High Window by Raymond Chandler last week and there were two examples of ...of. This wasn't in reported speech, this was in the narrative, and the narrative made reference to "Jew" and "Negro" so it would appear to be the original text, not one brought up to date. So, either it was accepted use in 1942, or Chandler and his editor, or perhaps just his editor, were Katrien-class numpties.


    Discuss.

    Not everyone knows that, some of us are illiterate, you know.
  • JamesSeedJamesSeed
    edited March 2017
    They, or they'd?
  • HuskarisHuskaris
    AddicksAddict said:

    Huskaris said:

    This is the kind of thing that leads to petitions to bring down statues of people. 1942 and 2017 are different times.

    It was the generally accepted term for black people until the 1960s... According to Wikipedia at least.

    Like most of these words I think they tend to start off as descriptive words, then have an element of prejudice attached to them, and then a new word comes up for a bracket of people, and then we repeat again.

    "Spastic" is another example of this now, as are a lot of words I won't use as examples on here but are effectively the equivalent of calling someone a "Brit" at first, but if people started calling you a "f*cking Brit" it starts to become derogatory.

    Basically what I am saying is that even well meaning people will use these terms, it's what they become that can be the issue. Banning words does not remove people's prejudices though... In fact in a lot of cases it does the opposite.

    By the by, I'm not saying you are necessarily, but I am completely sick of twatty university students falling over themselves with self rightousness to retrospectively ruin people's reputations from different generations. It's pathetic. You should judge individuals by the standards of their day, you can disagree with the views a generation had, but it's not fair to dig out an individual who wasn't a radical in their day, just because their ideologies or actions would be considered bad today.

    I think you're somewhat missing the point. I mentioned the two terms used to highlight that the book was almost certainly the original text, not a modern update where someone had replaced ...have with ...of.
    Oh apologies, I didn't realise that was your point, I apologise for misunderstanding, I wouldn't have commented if I knew this was just pedantry.
  • FiiishFiiish
    bellz2002 said:

    Especially when teaching phonics in primary school and there are hundreds of exception words.

    Phonics is possibly the single worst thing introduced to school children. I have nine nieces and nephews and have had to put up listening to shit like:

    "How do you spell monkey?"
    MER ORH NER KER EHH YER

    Schools nowadays teach kids how to be thick. Nothing more or less. Even my 10 year old nephew has said school bores him because everything he is being taught has no real world relevance. Good luck having a high skilled workforce to pay for expensive retirement care when children do not learn anything remotely useful for the real world until they are 17.
  • ChizzChizz
    JamesSeed said:

    They, or they'd?

    "they'd" - but there are also plenty of other issues with that headline.
  • hawksmoorhawksmoor
    That's nothing, I read a book about Philadelphia soul recently, Gamble and Huff, Thom Belll, and all that, and the author thought Mick Hucknall's name was Simply Red!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!