Grammar Nazi rant du jour - "should HAVE", not "should of"

The BBQ Pit
1

–Attention all rapists of the English language–

Should of is an improper construct.

“I should of used preview before I posted.” - WRONG!

“I should have used preview before I posted.” - Correct.

You are confusing the spoken contraction “should’ve”, with the totally wrong “should of”. Yes, it kind of sounds the same, but it’s wrong nonetheless. Most people’s day-to-day pronunciation of it is lazy, but you still have to spell it correctly when you write it.

Don’t make me have to get the belt.:mad:

P.S. - Be sure to point out all the errors I made, such as sentence fragments. That would really put me in my place.:wink:

2

I hate grammar Nazis, but should of is just so stupid. It isn’t like a grammar mistake where the sentance still sense makes. Should of, could of, would of, all just suck.

3

Interestingly, “shoulda” is perfectly acceptable netspeak.

Daniel

4

At least “shoulda” contains one of the correct vowels from the real construction, “should have”.

5

Everything is perfectly acceptable netspeak. :wink:

6

Using contractions is lazy? Whatever you say, freako.

7

Finally, my kindred spirit.

[Homer]I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.[/Homer]

8

Should of is not a contraction…

~J

9

Read the OP, dipshit.

10

Uh, he said people’s pronunciation is lazy, in that we say “should of” for “should’ve.” Which doesn’t change the fact that in written form it’s “should’ve.”

Read the OP, freako. :wink:

11

Exactly.

That bugs me, too. “Should OF” makes absolutely no sense! If we would use contractions and think about what they mean, we’d be fine.

::takes relaxing bath to recover from grammar stress::

12

Calling someone a Grammar Nazi for ranting about “should of” is like calling someone a regular Nazi for ranting about something regular.

13

“Should of” is wrong, is and it?*
*Scary thing is I’ve actually seen “is and it” written.

14

Explain to me exactly what the difference is, phonetically, between saying “should’ve” and “should of.”

15

There isn’t a phonetic difference, which is why thoughtless people spell it wrong. I thought he was saying people’s pronunciation is lazy in that we say “should’ve” instead of “should have.” There’s nothing really wrong with the contraction, especially when spoken, but it should be spelled properly when written. “Should of” is nonsense.

16

Tut tut.

17

Think about what you are uttering-- that is all. ‘Should have’ is contracted 'should’ve; NOT ‘should of’. No argument— the should of’s are WRONG.

18

I have nothing to add, as I have taken more than my lumps as a grammar Nazi in the past. I’m not even here. :wink:

19

Make up your mind, guys… should be think about what we are uttering or what we are writing?

20

While we’re Nazi-bingeing, may I add a pet peeve?

It’s a MOOT point, not MUTE! Gah!

I almost never see this used properly. Sorry to hijack but this wasn’t worth a thread on its own.