Not, “could of.” Similarly, you will find that the proper phrasing is, “should have,” not, “should of.”
Now, I am well aware of the fact that many of us, in conversation, will pronounce such phrases as, “could’ve,” and, “should’ve,” but these are contractions, Og damn it; contractions which incorporate the word, “HAVE,” not, “of.”
Pretty lame for my first pitting, I know, but I just came across yet another, “could of,” on another board and I snapped. Of course, it could be the wine talking.
Agree. Completely.
Otherwise intelligent people who suddenly become functionally illiterate on certain phrases seriously peeve me.
Another pet peeve:
“For all intensive purposes”
Above post triple-checked and warded against Gaudere’s Law with the sacrifice of a black rooster (offered to the loa with a lovingly applied lemon-pepper rub).
I’ll raise my glass (vodka and cranberry juice) and add:
It’s “I **couldn’t ** care less,” you morons, not “I could care less.”
“I could care less,” implies you care somewhat.
“I couldn’t care less,” means you care not at all.
Grrrrrrr.
Also, “irregardless”. That makes me want to shriek.
AND, it’s real-tor. Real-tor. REAL-TOR.
Not “real-a-ter”.
I won’t mention “nukular”, not at all.
I’ve given up on this one. It’s been around that way so long it’s idiomatic now, and the actual literal meaning of the words has nothing to do with the meaning of the phrase.
I’m still never going to use the positive version, but I don’t bother to rail against it anymore.
I’d agree with jayjay. You have to let those go. Sometimes a region will have a way of saying a word and it’s just how they say it. It still means the same.
Otherwise I’m not sure what you’re talking aboot. (see?)
Or in my case, the Heineken.
But I couldn’t agree more. It may seem like a lame pitting, but you’ll find that a majority of this community is behind you. Add me to the list.
It’s especially maddening because it’s one of those things where, if you thought about it for ONE SECOND, you’d realize that “should of” makes no sense.
What are your feelings on “shoulda”?
I’ve never heard someone use “should of”, with the “of”.
I’ve only heard it said “should’ve”, which is in agreement with the OPs position.
Maybe this should of been posted in another thread.
Nope, correct thread. Forget what you’ve heard. You don’t hear what people write. Saying “should of” will sound very much like “should have” or “should’ve” which would both be correct. Reading “should of” however shows the writer’s lack of understanding in basic English comprehension.
Yes, I know this isn’t correct either, grammatically, but it’s becoming so common that it will be incorporated somehow. The English language is alive (as opposed to dead languages like Latin), and by definition is always changing. 
I think it’s how it’s written that the OP is objecting to. You’re not gonna get the distinction by merely hearing it, I don’t think.
(Oh, excuse me, you’re not going to get the distinction, etc., etc.)
People who obsess about these kinds of things are just pre-Madonnas. They should lighten up before they get bonified.
Yeah! That’s the way it’s suppose to be used!
:ducks & runs:
I found a strange thing in Michaela’s homework folder last week. Her list of spelling words included, as a single entry, “a lot.” I think they’re trying to emphasize that these are two words, but it strikes me that this is the wrong way to go about it. If “a” and “lot” are supposed to be two separate words, they shouldn’t be placed in the same line item.
It’s like they’re saying, “You’re going to encounter ‘alot’ a lot; just remember not to use it that way. Remember, ‘alot’ is wrong, and ‘a lot’ is right.” Sometimes a red X on the paper is the way to keep things simple and understandable.
I just needed a fake reason to use “should of” in a sentence.
I remember having “all right” on my spelling list.
When I’m typing in a chat-type area, “alot” tends to happen just because I have trouble hitting the space bar in time. I’m also not one to go back and retype slight misspells and typos (I’m annoyed when other people do), so a lot of people may think I’m stupid.
As for “could of” and such, I remember seeing it in “The Great Gatsby”.
I wonder if this isn’t simply a step in the language’s evolution.
For instance, for a long time the phrase “toe the line” meant inching your toes right up against a line you weren’t to cross. Then it became “toe the line” as in, taking up slack and doing what you’re told.
Just a thought.
Then call me a “pre-Madonna,” because so far, I agree with them wholeheartedly.
And then please tell my why you felt you needed TWO etc.'s? One just wouldn’t do the trick? You needed the extra etc. for emphasis? What??