Nice. Nice, but very misleading. Since I’m feeling argumentative let me raise again an old issue over which we have frequently battled.
First of all it is not the role of dictionaries to mindlessly record every instance of illiteracy that has ever occurred. Dictionaries have to tread a delicate path between non-judgmental descriptivism and their vital role as authoritative reference books on the language. Or is it your contention that all the novel usage we find in the second quote here – from the post titled “Could biden of beaten trump in the ’ 16 election?” – should immediately be recorded in the OED as a fine example of standard English? I fully agree with @LSLGuy that the whole thing is fingernails-on-a-chalkboard cringeworthy.
I am by no means a hardcore prescriptivist; at most, I may skew slightly more in that direction than is currently fashionable, but I usually agree with luminaries like Steven Pinker when they point out that many pedantic criticisms of common English usage are so misguided and unfounded as to be just plain stupid.
Usually, but not always. I think his fanciful justification of “I could care less” is a rather silly over-elaborate attempt to “explain” a simple solecism that, much like “could of”, is the result of careless corruption of the phonetically similar original.
Similarly, he tries to justify the use of double negatives (as in, “you don’t know nuthin”) by stating that standard French and many other languages routinely use them (“Je ne sais pas”) and that the extra negative can simply be regarded as “agreeing with” (or perhaps even intensifying) the negation. Really? So if I say “I disagree with you” that means I don’t agree, and if I say “I don’t disagree with you”, does that mean I really, really intensely disagree? As for the alleged double negative in French, no; it appears to be a double negative only in a literal word-for-word translation into English, which is not how translation works. My cite for this is that English is not French.
“Could of”, “would of” and all its ilk are even more egregious, in my view, according to the all-important annoyance factor metric.
Do you really still insist on trotting out this facile straw man for the hundredth time? You know this is wrong, and you’re better than this.
Descriptivist linguistics* does not mean that there are no rules. It means that rules derive from usage by spontaneous consensus-forming among communities of speakers; as opposed to the type of rules that are imposed by external authority.
*In the same way that “descriptivist dictionary” just means dictionary, “descriptivist linguistics” just means linguistics. There are no non-descriptivist linguists. Linguistics is a science, and all of science is descriptivist; it is synonymous with empirical. We discover the rules of language by observation.
I too totally agree that “could of” is unambiguously an error, at least in my dialect of English, albeit a widespread one.
But of course it’s worth noting that since grammatical rules evolve over time, it’s necessarily true that any novel grammatical form that will later be accepted as standard and correct must initially arise as a “mutation” that is initially deemed an error.
That’s funny because writing “could of” is a case of someone writing what he hears (I don’t think I could tell the difference between someone saying “could’ve” and someone saying “could of” unless they were unnaturally exaggerating - and then I’d be focusing on the exaggeration not the pronunciation), while saying “He gave the book to myself” is a hypercorrection - someone who has been smacked down for using “me” incorrectly and deciding that “me” is always wrong.
A few years back I decided the best way to think about “proper English” is as a second language that one learns in elementary school. For some people, it’s quite close to the language they learn at home or in the playground, but for others it’s rather different.
So in the end, I don’t think we’re saying anything all that much different. I’m merely saying that regarding dictionaries as entirely descriptive can be misinterpreted as overly facile and therefore misleading. Dictionaries really do serve as important, authoritative references, without which we would be lost, and the language in even more chaos than it already is. But I agree that their authority comes, not from any specially authorized arbiters of correctness, but from the consensus of the contemporary community of speakers, as you say. Where we differ is that I tend to be more conservative and more resistant to these literary “mutations”, and less tolerant of the ones that seem to be very clearly mistakes due to laziness or ignorance. There is absolutely no excuse – zero – for ever writing “could of” or “should of”, at least not in the present millennium.
I say this while also agreeing with Pinker and other linguists that many constructs, like “Me and Alice went to the movies”, are not only well established usage, but have as much claim to technical “correctness” as “Alice and I …”. Even more so for constructs like “He is just as much to blame as me”. Insisting that it must be “… as I” because of the implied “am” at the end is a grammatically specious rationalization that is exacerbated by making one sound like a dork. If I were a teacher I would give Mr. “As I” extra detention time after school.
And don’t even get me started on hypercorrections like “You have been very kind to Alice and I”.
I don’t know whom you think has stopped using it, but I don’t think it’s vanished from use in anyway.
I think that while “whom” remains in common use, “who” is increasingly accepted as both the subjective and objective case. This is one of those “evolutions” that I’m not going to argue with, because I really don’t see any deleterious effect on either comprehension or expressiveness. Spending time worrying about whether “who” or “whom” is correct in a particular sentence is usually time better spent on something more useful.
You are mistakenly in the grammar. You obviously meant to say “… I could of cared less about …”. You have revealed a lack of insecticidal sense of the English language of which (or possibly “of whom”) all us here native English speakers are blessed with. Notice that as a native English speaker, I have no shame in anyway about ending a sentence with a proposition.
I see it used wrong at least half of the time. Hardly seems worth keeping around any longer. I’d rather spend my time more productively by getting upset about the lack of Oxford commas nowadays.
I’d (reluctantly) accept “would of” and “could of” if in return people stopped writing “loose” instead of “lose.” No, you don’t loose an election or loose weight.
I still wouldn’t accept it, but I hear you.
Another big one is: you don’t “breath”, you “breathe”. And: you weren’t “lead” astray, you were “led” astray.
A new usage has arisen recently, which I fully endorse, and see that it fills a need, but I may be too old to ever use it comfortably myself. It is the splitting of “close to” into “close to,” and “close with,” each with a distinct meaning. “Close to” means “literally juxtaposed.” “Close with” means “sharing emotional closeness.” They are not used interchangeably, and in my youth, “close to” served for both, context being everything. Now, you don’t need context, and with a lot of the communication we do over email and text, proper context is not always available.
That’s evolution of language.
A preposition becoming an auxiliary very just doesn’t happen. How would you diagram that? “He could of gone there if he’d had a car.” If “of” part of the verb, or introducing a prepositional phrase. Can “of gone there” be a prepositional phrase?
If there is any “caving” here, it will probably be in the direction of allowing “could’ve,” and “couldn’t’ve” in more formal writing, and teaching these in school, thus eliminating the of/have confusion.
You might get past it if you realize that it’s not a settled matter. The AP Style guide prefers Chris’. Chicago Manual likes Chris’s. Personally I always do it AP way, but go ahead and Argh. https://www.thepunctuationguide.com/style.html
One of the most irritating misusages for me is “flaunt”. When someone uses “flout” correctly instead of “flaunt” incorrectly, I have to pause and verify that they did in fact use the right word.
I agree - that is annoying. Also “hone in” instead of “home in.” These are actually language errors (or changes) (things that people are saying wrong) as opposed to spelling errors/changes (“loose”/“lose”, “could’ve”/“could of”)
More than anything else, as soon as I see this, nothing the writer has to write matters. It is the one malapropism I cannot forgive. Well, technically 3, but I consider them all the same. There are a couple of posters whom I assume keep doing this on purpose. They could tell me my hair is on fire and I would not listen.
