For fuck's sake, it's, "could HAVE!"

[Excalibre]

@carlb

Not, “could of.” Similarly, you will find that the proper phrasing is, “should have,” not, “should of.”

Clearly. Everyone should have course scrutinize their writing for such errors.

[Athena]

“could of” and “should of” are two of my biggest pet peeves. Not so much when spoken - spoken language changes I find interesting - but written. Are people really so obtuse that they type out “could of” and don’t look at it and see something is wrong? If this makes me a pre-Madonna ( ) then I take the label gladly.

[Licentious_Ectomorph]

One that I’m seeing more and more frequently that really makes my bile rise is the use of “everyday” to mean “every day.”

“Everyday” is an adjective meaning “commonplace” or “regular.” You’ve got your everyday clothes and your Sunday-go-to-meetin’ clothes.

“Every day” means, well…every day. I get up at 6:30 AM every day, not everyday.

Several months ago there was a billboard on the side of buses around here for Dasai bottled water. It read, “Treat yourself right. Everyday.” I vowed never to buy Dasai water.

[Barbarian]

Way back in grade 11 I had to read some dumbass book (among many that I had to read that year) where the narrator continually used could of, would of, and should of. I bitched about it to my teacher, and he said it was supposed to indicate a particular dialect. I told him the only thing it indicated was a copy editor who should’ve been fired for not using 've more.

As for “I could care less,” I always mentally add the tag-line with “but it’s damn unlikely.”

[Finagle]

@Savannah

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.

I’ve always assumed that there was an implied part of the statement that was left off, e.g. “I could care less, but only if I were dead.” or “I could care less, but I’d have to get a running start.”

[Cat_Whisperer]

How about “anymore” used in the wrong tense? I can’t think of an example anymore; can someone help me?

[flood]

@jayjay

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.

So does that mean you could care less, or you couldn’t care less?

[Katriona]

I can’t even look at the yearbook from my freshman year of college - it shows a sorority interviewing ‘perspective’ members. Gaaaaahhhh!

[Knowed_Out]

I had never spelled “could have” as “could of” until I saw the ubiquitous list of English Language no-nos that demonstrated the error. Now I have trouble remembering which one to use and occasionally slip in the “could of.” THANKS PUBLIC EDUCATION!!!

[Khadaji]

@FinnAgain

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.

Not according to the Word Detective

The proper phrase is “to toe the line,” meaning to conform to stated standards, especially rules of conduct. In a perfect world, for instance, any journalist who implied that Air Force One had suddenly acquired the gift of speech would be given exactly one chance to shape up and “toe the line” before being exiled to the New York Post.

“Toe the line” first appeared in the early 18th century, and there are two possible “lines” to which the phrase might originally have referred. One would be the starting line of a foot race, the mark upon which each runner places his or her foot in preparation for the starting gun. The other possibility, which I find more likely, is a line drawn on a ship’s deck or a parade ground which new recruits must “toe” as they assemble in formation. I find this source more persuasive because it echoes the connotations of “order” and “obedience” that “toe the line” retains today. It is to a runner’s advantage, after all, to “toe” the starting line, but a recruit being ordered to “toe the line” is very quickly learning who is in charge.

[vivalostwages]

@jinwicked

I hate “use to.” It’s USED to. I have a friend that used the phrase in some dialogue on his comic, then when people wrote and corrected him, defended himself and said that’s how he says it, rather than just fixing the bloody thing. ARGH. I’m not going to harass him about it because he’s my friend and it’s really not that big of a deal, but damn if it doesn’t make me cringe everytime I look there and see it.

No doubt it’s related to “suppose to.” :rolleyes:

Do people have something against the “d” at the end of these words?

[biddee]

My pet peeve (apart from could of, would of, arrrrgh, it pains me to type it) is people who don’t know the difference between borrow and lend. For example, someone asked me to borrow him a pen the other day. It’s lend, dumbass!

My other grammar hate is someone who uses *a scissors * or a trousers. It’s a pair of scissor/trousers!

[kaylasdad99]

@biddee

My other grammar hate is someone who uses *a scissors * or a trousers. It’s a pair of scissor/trousers!

Just so it’s understood that half a pair of scissors is a single scis.

A virtual Dewey button to whomever gets that reference first.

[John_Mace]

Yeah, you gotta just let this stuff go in an informal setting. On a paper written for schoolwork, it should be corrected (should of been corrected? ).

But I draw the line at “very unique”. That destroys a word we need to say “one of a kind”. Besides, I just have a real “adversion” to hearing that phrase.

[Large_Marge]

@Nocturne

It’s from Latin:

Latin absorpti, absorptin-, from absorptus, past participle of absorbre, to absorb.

So in other words, the Latin infinitive is absorbre (to absorb), and then in the past participle it changes to absorptus (have absorbed), and then the noun form is derived from the past participle. I think. English just picked up from Latin.

And there you have it.

Thanks!!

[Large_Marge]

@Little Nemo

Gaudere’s Law is once again invoked.

You shouldn’t include a comma between the verb and its subject. Your post should read:
And now, in accordance with the Law, I have surely broken several rules of grammar in turn. So somebody correct my post and taunt the wrath of Gaudere.

I concur, but you missed one thing:
… contractions that incorporate …

[Large_Marge]

@Aesiron

I assume he used the extra etc. for emphasis, much like you used two question marks when only one was warranted.

Curses! I used double punctuation! I hate it when I do that!

[Large_Marge]

@aldiboronti

And “I could care less?” implies you couldn’t possibly care less than you do. Not often spoken thus but this may account for the original alteration.

How about, “A near miss was reported over Dallas today. Apparently two aircraft avoided a mid-air collision at the last moment …”

A “near miss” means they HIT EACH OTHER.

AAAAARRRRRGGGHHHH!

[Large_Marge]

@jinwicked

I hate “use to.” It’s USED to. I have a friend that used the phrase in some dialogue on his comic, then when people wrote and corrected him, defended himself and said that’s how he says it, rather than just fixing the bloody thing. ARGH. I’m not going to harass him about it because he’s my friend and it’s really not that big of a deal, but damn if it doesn’t make me cringe everytime I look there and see it.

I have a friend who used to …

Sorry, I can’t help myself. I’m in heaven here.

A thousand good wishes upon the starter of this thread.

[matt_mcl]

@Large Marge

How about, “A near miss was reported over Dallas today. Apparently two aircraft avoided a mid-air collision at the last moment …”

A “near miss” means they HIT EACH OTHER.

AAAAARRRRRGGGHHHH!

“BAM! Look, they nearly missed.” - George Carlin