# Couldn't of/couldn't have **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 15, 2020, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couldnt-of-couldnt-have/918156 "2020-08-15T05:34:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2020, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couldnt-of-couldnt-have/918156/141 "2020-08-18T14:21:49Z")
me and @kaylasdad99 don’t like suzy. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2020, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couldnt-of-couldnt-have/918156/143 "2020-08-18T14:50:22Z")
To me that sounds like two houses, not one. But, yes, that is the way the style guides want you to write it. Typically, indicating joint vs discrete possession in a compound possessive depends on where the possessive markers are. So “Jack’s and Jill’s cats” refers to two sets of cats: one group belonging to Jack; one group belonging to Jill, while “Jack and Jill’s cats” are a group of cats jointly belonging to Jack and Jill. So the lack of parallelism in structure when dealing with pronouns irks me, and “My wife’s and my house” just sounds so horribly weird to my ears when discussing a jointly owned subject. My brain always wants to parse it as “my wife’s house” and “my house” as two separate entities just like it would in all other compound possessive situations where the possessive marker is used on both entities. So I totally understand why a construction like “[My wife and I]'s house” would be used, because in situations not involving pronouns, that’s exactly how it would be written when referring to joint possession of one house. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2020, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couldnt-of-couldnt-have/918156/144 "2020-08-18T14:56:59Z")
Missed the edit window: And, to reiterate, the “my wife and I’s” and “me and my wife’s” construction are both considered non-standard and should not be used in formal English (or use it at your own risk.) ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2020, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couldnt-of-couldnt-have/918156/145 "2020-08-18T16:29:29Z")
“My wife and my house” is perfectly acceptable. Why don’t people want to use it? Is it because it’s too similar to “My wife, and my house.” Delivery in addition to context should make it clear. “My and my wife’s house” isn’t the most preferred use, but I’d sure rather see that than “My wife and I’s,” or “Me and my wife’s.” ---
**Author:** ![Powers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Powers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Powers)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2020, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couldnt-of-couldnt-have/918156/146 "2020-08-18T18:20:34Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > “My wife and my house” is perfectly acceptable. Why don’t people want to use it? Because there’s no indication of possession for “my wife”. With “Jill and John’s house”, you can assign the possession to “Jill and John” together. With “my wife and my”, you have to assume “my wife and I” to be the possessors. It also wrecks the parallelism that “and” normally requires. “My wife and my” joins a noun phrase with a possessive adjective. Powers &8^] ---
**Author:** ![erysichthon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d07c76/32.png) [@erysichthon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erysichthon)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2020, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couldnt-of-couldnt-have/918156/147 "2020-08-18T18:27:44Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > I had a sergeant who thought “penultimate” meant “better than ultimate.” Many years ago, I dated a woman who thought “ultimatum” meant “better than ultimate.” A fancy hotel wasn’t merely the _ultimate_ in luxury, it was the _ultimatum!_ She thought this was a very cool word and used it frequently. I put up with it for a few weeks before correcting her. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2020, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couldnt-of-couldnt-have/918156/148 "2020-08-18T19:47:27Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > “My wife and my house” is perfectly acceptable. Why don’t people want to use it? Is it because it’s too similar to “My wife, and my house.” Delivery in addition to context should make it clear. > > “My and my wife’s house” isn’t the most preferred use, but I’d sure rather see that than “My wife and I’s,” or “Me and my wife’s.” Not to nitpick too much, but to my ear “My wife and my house” and “My wife, and my house” are identical, and neither is desirable. Both sound like a list of possessions, and are just begging for a concluding phrase like “My wife, my house, my right” or something. Your second version merely adds what is effectively an Oxford comma. And quite honestly, if someone showed me a picture of a house, saying “this is me and my wife’s house just after we got married”, my inner grammar Nazi wouldn’t give it a second thought. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2020, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couldnt-of-couldnt-have/918156/149 "2020-08-18T20:13:05Z")
Speaking of possessives, and possessions, allow me to observe that in English grammar, we have to distinguish between _de juro_ rules – the prescriptive rules that we are supposed to follow in an ideal world – and _de facto_ rules, the ones that we use in real life. Context will usually dictate the appropriate usage, to which we tend to naturally conform and which tells us a lot about ourselves. Thus: “My wife and I love our house.” (_de juro_; how things are supposed to be. Note the plural possessive, and even the joyful agreement of the pronoun with the case of the conjunction.) “It’s my house, but the fucking money-grubbing bitch is trying to claim it in the settlement.” (_de facto_; how we often speak in reality. Note the emphasis on the singular possessive.) 😉 ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2020, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couldnt-of-couldnt-have/918156/150 "2020-08-18T20:18:21Z")
It’s not like people are missing something elementary here— this is a genuinely confusing case in English grammar. For one thing, as any grammar book reminds us, there _is_ a “group genitive” in English: - the University of Minnesota’s President - my son-in-law’s prospects where “the _-s_ ending is not a case ending… It can be more appropriately described as a ‘postponed enclitic’…” ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2020, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couldnt-of-couldnt-have/918156/151 "2020-08-18T20:59:57Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > … > allow me to observe that in English grammar, we have to distinguish between _de juro_ rules > … Allow me to observe that in English _spelling_\* we have to deal with [_de jure_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_jure) rules. [Issues quick prayer to St.Gaudere.] 😉 * * * \* at least of of Latin imports. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2020, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couldnt-of-couldnt-have/918156/152 "2020-08-18T21:12:06Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Allow me to observe that in English _spelling_ \* we have to deal with [_de jure_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_jure) rules. Goddam it, how could I have been so stupidly careless? I blame the fact that I’ve been out for much of the day driving long distances, and was tired and hungry! And then had a double Caesar. 😖 ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2020, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couldnt-of-couldnt-have/918156/153 "2020-08-18T21:16:49Z")
> [@DPRK](#): > > ‘postponed enclitic’ ‘Postposed enclitic’, that is. Sorry for the typo. I.e. like a preposition, except it comes _after_ the noun phrase. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2020, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couldnt-of-couldnt-have/918156/154 "2020-08-18T21:20:31Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > > [@LSLGuy](#): > > > > Allow me to observe that in English _spelling_ \* we have to deal with [_de jure_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_jure) rules. > > … > And then had a double Caesar. 😖 Should’ve been a double Scotch; youda been fine then. Unless Caesar is some brand of hootch I don’t recognize. Knowing f\*\*\*-all about Latin I have to say I prefer the parallelism of _de juro_ and de facto on simply aesthetic grounds. It’s just past 5pm here. Quittin’ time. Cheers my friend! ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2020, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couldnt-of-couldnt-have/918156/155 "2020-08-18T21:28:00Z")
> [@DPRK](#): > > It’s not like people are missing something elementary here— this is a genuinely confusing case in English grammar. > > For one thing, as any grammar book reminds us, there _is_ a “group genitive” in English: > > - the University of Minnesota’s President > - my son-in-law’s prospects > > where “the _-s_ ending is not a case ending… It can be more appropriately described as a ‘postponed enclitic’…” postponed, postposed, It’s all magic to me. But … If UM is actually a system of distinct campuses then ought we write: the Universities Minnesota’s President like the Attorneys General’s coordinating council for a singular council serving the collective Attorneys General? Enquiring minds are simultaneously curious and baffled about these technicalities. Plus mildly repulsed at how goopy this quickly gets. Dammit, I thought I knew how to use this gol durn language. Turns out I was wrong. ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2020, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couldnt-of-couldnt-have/918156/156 "2020-08-18T21:46:53Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > If UM is actually a system of distinct campuses then ought we write: > the Universities Minnesota’s President The University of Minnesota → the University of Minnesota’s President The Universities of Minnesota → the Universities of Minnesota’s President > [@LSLGuy](#): > > Knowing f\*\*\*-all about Latin I have to say I prefer the parallelism of _de juro_ and de facto on simply aesthetic grounds. Parallelism? Surely you jest. _Jus_ is third declension, while _factum_ is second declension. ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2020, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couldnt-of-couldnt-have/918156/157 "2020-08-18T21:56:55Z")
> [@DPRK](#): > > Parallelism? Surely you jest. _Jus_ is third declension, while _factum_ is second declension. I love you and want to have your baby. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2020, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couldnt-of-couldnt-have/918156/158 "2020-08-18T22:36:26Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > I’m going to take very small issue here on this. Is it necessarily an issue with the education system or perhaps a lack of interest in those being taught? I think your issue is spot on. By a system of education, I mean the total package – including our social culture surrounding formal education in general. Here in the US, a sizeable segment of our population prides itself on ignorance. Certainly some who identify as rednecks and champion the hard-work-is-all-that-matters perspective, but also some who identify as hipnecks. The too-cool-for-school types emulating Jeff Spicoli starting in the early 80s. We’ve devolved into a society that thinks what passes for truth is what we choose to believe, not what can be supported by facts. Part and parcel of this attitude is a notion that language no longer really matters. Speaking in an ignorant way offers the same force and effect as speaking in an educated way. I think this is wrong. An important distinction must be drawn between using language for effect, such as in the Br’er Rabbit stories as adapted by Joel Chandler Harris, versus making the same linguistic mistakes over and over again in speech and the written word that lead to potentially significant misunderstandings – or worse, a full lack of understanding. That Canada has not widely adopted this view is evident throughout their society, most notably in how well they generally speak and write. They’re not fighting a cultural attitude of ignorance as something to admire. In short, you’re right. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2020, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couldnt-of-couldnt-have/918156/159 "2020-08-18T22:42:31Z")
They’re both the same, for all intensive purposes. ---
**Author:** ![BippityBoppityBoo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bippityboppityboo/32/5745_2.png) [@BippityBoppityBoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BippityBoppityBoo)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2020, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couldnt-of-couldnt-have/918156/160 "2020-08-18T23:19:40Z")
Not only are they the same, their just alike. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2020, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couldnt-of-couldnt-have/918156/161 "2020-08-19T04:07:11Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Should’ve been a double Scotch; youda been fine then. Unless Caesar is some brand of hootch I don’t recognize. I think we had a thread that trod upon the Caesar. Very popular in Canada. Think bloody mary, but with clamato. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couldnt-of-couldnt-have/918156.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couldnt-of-couldnt-have/918156.md?page=9)