# Grammar Nazi rant du jour - "should HAVE", not "should of" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 11, 2003, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-nazi-rant-du-jour-should-have-not-should-of/194442 "2003-08-11T18:18:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![pizzabrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e9c0ed/32.png) [@pizzabrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pizzabrat)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-nazi-rant-du-jour-should-have-not-should-of/194442/41 "2003-08-12T23:19:32Z")
> [@](#): > > _Max Torque_ > My current peeve: “different than”. There is no “different than” in English. One object cannot contain more “different than” another. However, one object can be “different from” another. Huh? But what if you want to say that someone IS different than someone else? Like “He’s different than her”. But really, the worst is “walla” instead have “viola!”. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-nazi-rant-du-jour-should-have-not-should-of/194442/42 "2003-08-12T23:20:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by amore ac studio \* > \*\*but the grammar in that sentence is correct. \*\* not when they mean “specifically”. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-nazi-rant-du-jour-should-have-not-should-of/194442/43 "2003-08-12T23:20:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by amore ac studio \* > \*\*You know, [pacific](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pacific) originally meant “of a peaceful nature, tranquil.” The ocean was named later. Whether one can peacefully hate something is debatable, but the grammar in that sentence is correct. \*\* My nature isn’t quite that forgiving. The point being that 99.99% of people who use that construction don’t _mean_ it that way. They _mean_ specifically and say pacifically. Saying, “Oh, well…it’s a real word anyway” doesn’t help anybody in this case. They mean “that particular thing,” not “that peaceful thing.” You get into Humpty-Dumpty territory when you go out of your way to make excuses for people’s ignorance or laziness in language. Words _don’t_ mean what one wants them to mean. They mean what they mean. That meaning may shift over time, but individual ignorant usage doesn’t instantly make the shifting meanings standard or acceptable. Otherwise I could write “The watch is fulvous tonight” and mean “My head hurts this morning” and expect people not to look at me like I’ve taken a hit to my Broca’s Area… ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-nazi-rant-du-jour-should-have-not-should-of/194442/44 "2003-08-12T23:25:31Z")
**jayjay** - you rat bastid\* - you took the exact same amount of time to make the same point but far more eloquantly. I must hate you now. 😃 (\*intentional spelling to connote friendly use of the term) ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-nazi-rant-du-jour-should-have-not-should-of/194442/45 "2003-08-12T23:27:49Z")
Wow. I wrote all that in less than a minute? Color me as surprised as you, **wring**. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-nazi-rant-du-jour-should-have-not-should-of/194442/46 "2003-08-12T23:30:01Z")
On a slightly related note-- it bugs me when people say, “Have your cake and eat it too.” When the correct saying is, “Eat your cake and have it to.” ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-nazi-rant-du-jour-should-have-not-should-of/194442/47 "2003-08-12T23:32:31Z")
“…have it TOO.” I mean. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-nazi-rant-du-jour-should-have-not-should-of/194442/48 "2003-08-12T23:33:55Z")
**I Love Me, Vol. 1** , it still makes sense, as long as you don’t assume that first in sequence equals first in time. The “corrected” version is, indeed, plainer in meaning. But the original isn’t incorrect. Now, the old joke about “have your cake and Edith, too”…that, we’ll leave alone. ---
**Author:** ![J\_String](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ce73a5/32.png) [@J\_String](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/J_String)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2003, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-nazi-rant-du-jour-should-have-not-should-of/194442/49 "2003-08-13T00:43:33Z")
Another one… It’s “lose” not “loose” **Loose** a ballgame… is incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![biqu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7feea3/32.png) [@biqu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/biqu)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2003, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-nazi-rant-du-jour-should-have-not-should-of/194442/50 "2003-08-13T00:47:10Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by jayjay_ > **I Love Me, Vol. 1** , it still makes sense, as long as you don’t assume that first in sequence equals first in time. Wasn’t there an episode of Seinfeld where two of the characters, training to be auto mechanics, failed to make that assumption when given the instruction “twist and pull” in the context of changing spark plugs? They tried twisting and pulling simultaneously. Eventually the instructor realized their misunderstanding and clarified: “Twist, then pull.” > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by jayjay_ > You get into Humpty-Dumpty territory when you go out of your way to make excuses for people’s ignorance or laziness in language. Words _don’t_ mean what one wants them to mean. They mean what they mean. Fair enough. The point of my post was to illustrate that a sentence can be syntactically correct without conveying the intended meaning. After all, this thread is about grammar Nazis rather than definition Nazis. If you want to start a pit thread about people corrupting the meanings of words, go right ahead. I might join you there and submit my own pet peeves. ---
**Author:** ![SparrowHawk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ac8455/32.png) [@SparrowHawk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SparrowHawk)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2003, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-nazi-rant-du-jour-should-have-not-should-of/194442/51 "2003-08-13T01:10:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pizzabrat \* > \*\*But really, the worst is “walla” instead have “viola!”. \*\* I always assumed the intention of that one was humorous. At least, I always hear it in Bugs Bunny’s voice. Do people really think “walla” is a word? Or the correct way to spell voilà? ---
**Author:** ![Slainte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a698b9/32.png) [@Slainte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slainte)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2003, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-nazi-rant-du-jour-should-have-not-should-of/194442/52 "2003-08-13T01:14:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by amore ac studio \* > \*\*The disputed usage is sarcastic. See [this recent thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=204052) in GQ. > > You know, [pacific](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pacific) originally meant “of a peaceful nature, tranquil.” The ocean was named later. Whether one can peacefully hate something is debatable, but the grammar in that sentence is correct. \*\* While I appreciate your link, I’m quite certain that my co-workers aren’t savvy enough to understand sarcasm, much less use it. I work with them 40 hours a week. 😉 Everyone else, YMMV I suppose. I still think it sounds ridiculous, as does “irregardless”. PS - I had a Senior Manager who would use “pacifically” when he indeed meant “specifically” - it was difficult not to convulse with laughter when he was trying to be authoritative in meetings and then threw in a “pacifically”. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2003, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-nazi-rant-du-jour-should-have-not-should-of/194442/53 "2003-08-13T02:20:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jayjay \* > \*\*Now, the old joke about “have your cake and Edith, too”…that, we’ll leave alone. \*\* Actually it’s, “You can’t have your Kate and Edith, too.” Sorry, I couldn’t help it. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2003, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-nazi-rant-du-jour-should-have-not-should-of/194442/54 "2003-08-13T02:52:21Z")
It depends, **bnorton**. The one I know casts darling Edith as a health nut who won’t let her boyfriend, the object of the joke, have sweets. But I think I’ve heard your version, too. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2003, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-nazi-rant-du-jour-should-have-not-should-of/194442/55 "2003-08-13T06:47:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jayjay \* > **I Love Me, Vol. 1** , it still makes sense, as long as you don’t assume that first in sequence equals first in time. The “corrected” version is, indeed, plainer in meaning. But the original isn’t incorrect. I agree. Were the expression: “You can’t have your cake and _then_ eat it”, then the order would make a difference. But it’s: "You can’t have your cake and eat it _too_. In this context, “too” means “also”, implying that both states exist together, which is a physical impossibility. “Simultaneously” would be a better word from\* “too”, but then it wouldn’t sound very folksy. Of course, that’s ignoring the fact that if you eat the cake, you _do_ still have it; it’s just in your stomach all chewed up.😉 - it’s a joke ---
**Author:** ![Gotterfunken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/58956e/32.png) [@Gotterfunken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gotterfunken)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2003, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-nazi-rant-du-jour-should-have-not-should-of/194442/56 "2003-08-13T19:44:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pizzabrat \* > \*\*But really, the worst is “walla” instead have “viola!”. \*\* You mean “voila,” right? Unless “walla” is meant to sound like purple. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![biqu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7feea3/32.png) [@biqu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/biqu)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2003, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-nazi-rant-du-jour-should-have-not-should-of/194442/57 "2003-08-13T20:03:50Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by jayjay_ > **I Love Me, Vol. 1** , it still makes sense, as long as you don’t assume that first in sequence equals first in time. Wasn’t there an episode of Seinfeld where two of the characters, training to be auto mechanics, failed to make that assumption when given the instruction “twist and pull” in the context of changing spark plugs? They tried twisting and pulling simultaneously. Eventually the instructor realized their misunderstanding and clarified: “Twist, then pull.” > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by jayjay_ > You get into Humpty-Dumpty territory when you go out of your way to make excuses for people’s ignorance or laziness in language. Words don’t mean what one wants them to mean. They mean what they mean. Fair enough. The point of my post was to illustrate that a sentence can be syntactically correct without conveying the intended meaning. After all, this thread is about grammar Nazis rather than definition Nazis. If you want to start a pit thread about people corrupting the meanings of words, go right ahead. I might join you there and submit my own pet peeves. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2003, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-nazi-rant-du-jour-should-have-not-should-of/194442/58 "2003-08-13T20:54:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by amore ac studio \* > \*\*Fair enough. The point of my post was to illustrate that a sentence can be syntactically correct without conveying the intended meaning. After all, this thread is about grammar Nazis rather than definition Nazis. If you want to start a pit thread about people corrupting the meanings of words, go right ahead. I might join you there and submit my own pet peeves. \*\* But grammar is essentially useless without meaning. Even with meaning, grammar is nonsensical if it doesn’t conform to the thought that it’s supposed to be expressing. My example above: “My watch is fulvous tonight”. This actually has a meaning, assuming that my portable time-keeping device is a rusty-reddish color at this post-sunset time of the day. But if, as above, I say that and _mean_, “My head is hurting this morning,” then it’s nonsense. As far as that goes, something like “My floogle is gorchik this krashtet” is grammatically correct. But it doesn’t mean anything. And language that doesn’t mean anything is either not language or promulgated by the government… 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-nazi-rant-du-jour-should-have-not-should-of/194442.md?page=2)