Could HAVE not Could OF...

[FoxesAreBlue]

It's not an accent thing though (as most people are actually saying "could of" rather then mis-pronouncing could've), rather a colloquial word in which the two words are interchangable in that context, which probably originated from misunderstanding could've but has evolved since then.

The word "of" has become slang for "have" in this instance, where it's gained a new meaning rather then being used in its normal context.

Worded bit better than me!

[ajthefox]

shudda,cudda,wudda

....?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bug-hnPxFaY&ob=av3e

[Zingari]

....?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bug-hnPxFaY&ob=av3e

yes that's the one and also this ;

1; shudda,cudda,wudda

a person who gives constant advice.

A know it all.

"He shudda,cudda,wudda if he did my way."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shudda%2Ccudda%2Cwudda

[Vacamion]

I'm in my final year of an English degree, and I only realised about a year ago that it was "could have" rather then "could of". I think it's a local dialect thing, rather then an incorrect grammar one; where I was brought up, most people said "could of" and I never realised it wasn't grammatically correct.

Perhaps it will soon become obsolete. Like "than" and "then" - you don't seen a lot of "than" around anymore.

Wowsers. Is this a wind-up?

If you had said you were doing a Physics degree or a Music course, I could just about understand that you have managed to get by without the ability to break down the grammar of our language, but you are a student of English, in the final year of an undergraduate degree course, and you only just found out about "could have"? Accent might make you not hear what people are saying, but shouldn't a student of English be reading enough to distinguish correctly?

As for "than" becoming obsolete, that's more than I can tolerate...

What do they teach kids in school nowadays?

[Zingari]

Another question about “of “.

How about if you want a quantity of something ?

Is it correct to say , “ 40 watt light bulbs , 6 off ” or should it be “40 watt light bulbs ,6 of ” ?

I was told it was 6 off, and at engineering stores etc for any quantity they always use “off” but it looks wrong if you say “I want 6 off those”

[Rincewind]

'I want six 40 watt light bulbs and 12 of the 100 watt light bulbs. Do I get anything off the price for buying in bulk or should I have ordered more?

Without punctuation.

[Charl91]

Wowsers. Is this a wind-up?

If you had said you were doing a Physics degree or a Music course, I could just about understand that you have managed to get by without the ability to break down the grammar of our language, but you are a student of English, in the final year of an undergraduate degree course, and you only just found out about "could have"? Accent might make you not hear what people are saying, but shouldn't a student of English be reading enough to distinguish correctly?

As for "than" becoming obsolete, that's more than I can tolerate...

What do they teach kids in school nowadays?

Well contrary to popular belief, an English degree isn't simply learning how to spell and/or using grammar, it's barely a part of it, seeing as most Essays are spell-checked before submission. Yes, I do a lot of reading, but considering most of it is either pre-20th century or "African" literature, which is often written phonetically, you'd be suprised how rarely you see "could have" in either of them. And even if you do, it's not really something that sticks in your mind, and I'd always assumed the two words were interchangable.

I'v always actually written "could have" (I learned from the spell checker), but when speaking I always said "of" untill recently, as it took me a while to kick the habit. It might seem strange and stupid to make such a basic grammar mistake to you, but when you've been brought up using certain words/phrases, and everyone around you speaks the same, then it's a little more difficult. Like I said, it's more of a colloquialism than a mis-use of grammar. That's how language changes and evolves.

But thanks for the patronising comments. I'm sure everyone was much more intelligent back in the day, etc.

Edit: What Nightguard wrote is probably what I would have said.

[AoWW]

Well contrary to popular belief, an English degree isn't simply learning how to spell and/or using grammar, it's barely a part of it, seeing as most Essays are spell-checked before submission. Yes, I do a lot of reading, but considering most of it is either pre-20th century or "African" literature, which is often written phonetically, you'd be suprised how rarely you see "could have" in either of them. And even if you do, it's not really something that sticks in your mind, and I'd always assumed the two words were interchangable.

I'v always actually written "could have" (I learned from the spell checker), but when speaking I always said "of" untill recently, as it took me a while to kick the habit. It might seem strange and stupid to make such a basic grammar mistake to you, but when you've been brought up using certain words/phrases, and everyone around you speaks the same, then it's a little more difficult. Like I said, it's more of a colloquialism than a mis-use of grammar. That's how language changes and evolves.

But thanks for the patronising comments. I'm sure everyone was much more intelligent back in the day, etc.

Edit: What Nightguard wrote is probably what I would have said.

I'm sorry but it IS a misuse of grammar. Dress it up however you like but claiming it's a 'colloquialism' simply won't wash.

[Webbo]

Could've sounds a lot like could of. It's an easy mistake to make.

[Rincewind]

They may sound alike but they are different types of words. Correct me if I am wrong but 'of' belongs in the group 'and' 'but' and others Not sure if 'have' is in the same group. Is this not checked by teachers when marking essays? You may have to read olde style writing but I would 'have' thought when doing reviews it would be in modern English.

[Smudge]

I'm in my final year of an English degree, and I only realised about a year ago that it was "could have" rather then "could of". I think it's a local dialect thing, rather then an incorrect grammar one; where I was brought up, most people said "could of" and I never realised it wasn't grammatically correct.

Perhaps it will soon become obsolete. Like "than" and "then" - you don't seen a lot of "than" around anymore.

Fifteen or so years of education and no-one had put you right, **** me what's going on over there?

[AoWW]

Fifteen or so years of education and no-one had put you right, **** me what's going on over there?

From a teacher's perspective I'd just like to say that, yes, oddly enough we do put pupils right over this sort of error on a daily basis (or I do, at least, but then I am Queen of Pedantry!) but it does also rely on the pupil/s listening and remembering, or even being prepared to take on board the advice rather than adopting an attitude of, "pfft, well it don't matter... whatever".

[Zingari]

From a teacher's perspective I'd just like to say that, yes, oddly enough we do put pupils right over this sort of error on a daily basis (or I do, at least, but then I am Queen of Pedantry!) but it does also rely on the pupil/s listening and remembering, or even being prepared to take on board the advice rather than adopting an attitude of, "pfft, well it don't matter... whatever".

Do you teach a classroom full of Vicky Pollards ?

[AoWW]

Do you teach a classroom full of Vicky Pollards ?

Pretty much.

[Smudge]

From a teacher's perspective I'd just like to say that, yes, oddly enough we do put pupils right over this sort of error on a daily basis (or I do, at least, but then I am Queen of Pedantry!) but it does also rely on the pupil/s listening and remembering, or even being prepared to take on board the advice rather than adopting an attitude of, "pfft, well it don't matter... whatever".

I wasn't knocking the educators per se but pupils and parents also. Jeez the verb 'to have' isn't exactly a rare one is it? Having been corrected by the spell checker a few thousand times, you'd think it would sink in.

[AoWW]

I wasn't knocking the educators per se but pupils and parents also. Jeez the verb 'to have' isn't exactly a rare one is it? Having been corrected by the spell checker a few thousand times, you'd think it would sink in.

Yes, I know, and sorry if I sounded defensive. No, it's far from rare! And, yes, you'd think it'd sink in but, sadly, there does seem to be an ever-increasing attitude amongst the young (and I realise I'm generalising) that such 'niceties' as correct spelling and grammar are just a waste of of their oh-so-precious time and energy. Well, until they come to apply for a job, that is, then they complain that they never even get past the application stage. Hmm, I wonder why that could be.....?!

[Rincewind]

When they come to apply there are a lot of places that help with CV's etc. I've done it myself and I'm an oldie. But my reason was not my lack of education but not having applied in writing for a job for most of my life. Do they teach interview skills and letter writing in school? I am thinking more in the final years for the ones not lucky enough to go uni.

[FoxesAreBlue]

Not just in the later years of school but all the way through --In the lower years I used to pretend the be a grown up when we had to write professional letter with the address' in the right place and the correct use of yours sincerely/faithfully.

In the older years me made CVs and covering letters for those of us not going into 6th form.

[StanSP]

I'm sorry but it IS a misuse of grammar. Dress it up however you like but claiming it's a 'colloquialism' simply won't wash.

Exactly what I thought. It can be sugar-coated to any amount but at the end of the day, 'could of' makes no grammatical sense.

Also, on regards of CV/letter-writing, it shouldn't just be left to schools to teach how to write one. I remember applying for jobs at 16 and just simply asking my parents guidelines on how to write a letter. And even if parents weren't there to help, there's the internet! The internet, these days, has ALL the answers. There are so many tutorials out there where you can learn simple writing etiquette.

If anything though, it's more laziness of the individual I think. If they get told by teachers more than once that what they are writing (regardless of how it sounds) is wrong, then the teacher can't do much else surely? It's just the individuals lack of effort in trying to make a change to better themselves.

[Charl91]

Noone seems to understand the point I'm making, just jumping on the "youths are uneducated/lazy" bandwagon. If you'd like to think that makes you educated, and everyone else illiterate morons, then ok, whatever....

People like to think language is static, it's not. Have you ever read a book from 100 years ago? 200 years ago? They sound nothing like they do now. Undoubtably language will sound a lot different in 100 years from now. If enough people use a word/phrase, it becomes common place and eventually becomes the standard language and gets written into the dictionary. That's how language evolves. From the sound of this thread, it seems like something that's already used a lot, and no doubt will become more common, as it's the younger generation who tend to use it, who will pass it on to their children, while the older folk who don't will die out. That's the way language changes. I'm not saying it's correct, just that some time in the future it might be.

Here's another example; the phrase "aren't I?" is also not, strictly speaking, grammatically correct either. Yet I know most people use that; hell, I bet most of you do too, even if you don't admit it.

Yes, I was wrong, and yes, it is incorrect grammar. I never denied that. I only explained the reason why I used it and everyone else used it locally and how it was different to an accent. I was trying to have an intelligent discussion, and the best you can come up with is some cliched attack on the education system and how it was better in "your day" or "**** me you're stupid"? Rather then trying to crucify me or the education system, why not try and write something constructive rather then trying to fuel your own egos by trying to prove how much cleverer you are then everyone else.

Edit: Also, I never wrote "could of", I only ever used it verbally. I've already pointed that out. It's a bit rich for people to criticise my ability to read, but then keep questioning points which I have already answered.

[Charl91]

I wasn't knocking the educators per se but pupils and parents also. Jeez the verb 'to have' isn't exactly a rare one is it? Having been corrected by the spell checker a few thousand times, you'd think it would sink in.

You missed a comma.

[StanSP]

Noone seems to understand the point I'm making, just jumping on the "youths are uneducated/lazy" bandwagon. If you'd like to think that makes you educated, and everyone else illiterate morons, then ok, whatever....

People like to think language is static, it's not. Have you ever read a book from 100 years ago? 200 years ago? They sound nothing like they do now. Undoubtably language will sound a lot different in 100 years from now. If enough people use a word/phrase, it becomes common place and eventually becomes the standard language and gets written into the dictionary. That's how language evolves. From the sound of this thread, it seems like something that's already used a lot, and no doubt will become more common, as it's the younger generation who tend to use it, who will pass it on to their children, while the older folk who don't will die out. That's the way language changes.

Here's another example; the phrase "aren't I?" is also not, strictly speaking, grammatically correct either. Yet I know most people use that; hell, I bet most of you do too, even if you don't admit it.

Yes, I was wrong, and yes, it is incorrect grammar. I never denied that; I only explained the reason why I used it and everyone else used it locally and how it was different to an accent. I was trying to have an intelligent discussion, and the best you can come up with is some cliched attack on the education system and how it was better in "your day" or "**** me you're stupid"? Rather then trying to crucify me or the education system, why not try and write something constructive rather then trying to fuel your own egos by trying to prove how much cleverer you are then everyone else.

Edit: Also, I never wrote "could of", only used it verbally. I'v already pointed that out. It's a bit rich for people to criticise my ability to read, but then keep questioning points which I have already mentioned.

And there's some irony for you. That was quite a patronising and stereotypical post you made there, you know.

You think that everyone who's replied to your post is ancient or an OAP? I'm 20 and odds are that we have probably read books from 100/200 years ago.

What's wrong with people saying 'back in my day' or 'when I was younger...' ? They're just saying what it was like for them and there's no harm in comparing their views on education back then as to how they are now.

[Charl91]

And there's some irony for you. That was quite a patronising and stereotypical post you made there, you know.

You think that everyone who's replied to your post is ancient or an OAP? I'm 20 and odds are that we have probably read books from 100/200 years ago.

What's wrong with people saying 'back in my day' or 'when I was younger...' ? They're just saying what it was like for them and there's no harm in comparing their views on education back then as to how they are now.

Sorry; you're right, it probably was quite patronising. I apologise for that. I just get fed up with people assuming that kids these days are all lazy/stupid, etc. I hear it alot, and it grates on you after a while. I don't take kindly to people implying that I'm lazy or poorly educated, because neither are true, even if I'm not flawless.

Edit: Though just noticed the bit you highlighted. It was a rhetorical question - I wasn't assuming in the slightest that people hadn't read older books, though I can see why you would have thought that, since you don't really get intonation online.

Should probably leave this thread alone, it's not doing my high blood pressure much good

[Rincewind]

There was an interesting series on language the other week presented by Stephen Fry. He touched on how language had changed over the centuries.

I agree to some extent that language is evolving. I am sure there were phrases in Dickens days, even Shakespeares that seem wrong now.

I have an edition of Moby Dick and although it's a classic I cannot get by the first couple of chapters because of the way it is written. I expect in his day there was no problem for readers.

Until 'could 'of' starts to appear regually in the Daily Newspapers I will hang on to 'could have' and I will defend its right to be allowed to appear in print in its rightful place.

[Charl91]

There was an interesting series on language the other week presented by Stephen Fry. He touched on how language had changed over the centuries.

I agree to some extent that language is evolving. I am sure there were phrases in Dickens days, even Shakespeares that seem wrong now.

I have an edition of Moby Dick and although it's a classic I cannot get by the first couple of chapters because of the way it is written. I expect in his day there was no problem for readers.

Until 'could 'of' starts to appear regually in the Daily Newspapers I will hang on to 'could have' and I will defend its right to be allowed to appear in print in its rightful place.

I do agree with you, and I'm not saying that it shouldn't be corrected! All i'm saying is that while it might seem like an outrageous mistake to many, especially the older generation, who probably would never have heard anyone say "could of" when they were a kid, as it becomes more and more common place, it becomes less obvious that it's "bad" grammar, especially to those who have been brought up hearing that. So I think it's logical that it's a mistake that's only going to get more common untill it eventually becomes integrated into our language.

And I agree with the Dickens thing too, I find him difficult to read. Doesn't help that he likes to have pages and pages of descriptions though <_<