If it’s *SO ubiquitous now * then they are “writing it properly.” Unlike France, there is no National Board of Right Use English. What’s “proper”= what is common usage and can be understood.
I think that will be resistant to change for quite awhile yet, as it’s just a misspelling of “would’ve,” “could’ve,” and “should’ve.” I don’t see popular written usage changing that anytime soon, any more than I see “its” being accepted for “it’s” (or vice versa) in written form anytime soon.
It’s more than a misspelling, it’s a misinterpretation of the language. “I would “of” course help my neighbor, if I was able to in any way", is saying something different than, "I of course “would’ve” helped my neighbor if I was able to in any way”.
Well, this thread is about “mispronunciations,” not misspellings, which assume is your point, because the contraction 've and the word of are pronounced the same. Off the top of my head, I think very few misspelling have become standard in the last couple hundred years. Words like donut (for doughnut) come to mind, (and that one, I think, came about by way of brand names).
Just because you personally notice from time to time people making a particular misspelling like this in email (or informal business writing) doesn’t mean that in the grand scheme of things anything’s changing. That number of misspellings is infinitesimal compared to all the printed occurrences that are spelled correctly, in texts that are published professionally.
People have been misspelling words ever since they started to write. It’s nothing new.
I agree. The only texts I can find in COCA that misspell would’ve as would of are all dialog from screenplays or books, which interestingly–and amusingly–seems to illustrate what Spectre of Pithecanthropus mentions in post #174 above regarding going to and want to. Apparently the characters in these instances are supposed to be less educated–so they “spell wrong” when they talk!
That’s assuming that everyone always “interprets” their language when they write, but often many people are simply transcribing what they would be saying if they were speaking–and that’s clearly what’s happening in this case.
I think you’ve said something Truly Huge there.
Historically, writing was done by professionals. And edited by professionals. Sure, folks wrote letters to one another. But the vast majority of reading was consuming professionals’ products.
And those folks knew that written and spoken were two different albeit related forms of language.
Now we have lots more non-professional writing being broadcast. And many of those non-professional writers are simply, as you put it, “transcribing what they would be saying if they were speaking”. Which in sum amounts to converging the written language towards the spoken one. And at a much faster rate than was historically the case.
As well, the average education level of these broadcasters is going down, not up. By and large, we know how the educated elite wrote in the Olden Dayes. Anthropologists from 2300 AD will know how the rank and file citizenry wrote in 2015.
Finally, there is a large cultural rebellion against Formality in all its forms, at least in the US.
All these things mean the impact on written English is larger than it was historically, is growing, and is growing at an accelerating rate. The pedants manning the barricades are rightly horrified at the size & fury of the assault. And by “rightly” I mean that their perception is factually accurate, not that their motivations or goals are objectively correct.
Isn’t that pretty much the origin of the rule against ending sentences with prepositions?
This is the sort of English up with which I will not put.
I personally disagree, but it’s somewhat a matter of viewpoint. If you asked someone what “would of” stands for, I think most would know it stands for “would have.” They just don’t think about it when they spell it out, because it sounds like “would of.” While it is technically an error in grammar as well when spelled, I think of it more as an error in orthography or transcription. It’s not an error in spoken English. The only reason it becomes an error is because it’s written down incorrectly, much like “it’s” vs “its.” I personally think of that more as a spelling error than a grammatical one. Speakers are grammatically using the correct word–it just comes out wrong in the written form. But, like I said, that’s a matter of viewpoint.
It was disconcerting to see “must of” in the comments one of my high-school teachers wrote on a paper of mine he returned to me. FWIW, he was also the varsity basketball coach. ( That season Varsity won 19 consecutive games. )
I think you’re wrong in the bolded; many people think “would of” is the phrase they’re saying.
Well at least he was good at something. 
But there is. To cost, as in to add up the prices of the parts that make up a product.
“I’ve just costed the new product.”
I disagree, but that’s my impression. I think most would know.
On the couple occasions when I’ve directly addressed the point, the people using the phrase had no conception of it being short for anything.
Right, but it’s not as though they parse out in their mind, “I believe from my recollection of high school English that of is the auxiliary for the present perfect aspect, so that’s the word I should write here.” Native speakers don’t normally analyze even formal writing in this way when it comes to such basic grammar.
In this case we’re talking about a morpheme (the sound /əv/ affixed to the modal) that is never written as a lexical item by itself, as opposed to an independent lexical item we see all the time which is pronounced in exactly the same way. I think it’s closer to a homophone error within a chunk of unanalyzed language (e.g., bear naked, etc.).
OK. I find the misspelling in my emails, and it’s from people who clearly know that it’s a contraction, just slipped up in the typing. I can’t find any reference to me making the mistake, but I wouldn’t bet on not having made it myself at some point in writing. I know I can find countless examples here at the Dope, and I’d wager the majority of folks making the error have similarly made a transcription error.
Or, I’ve just costed out the new project.
I’ve noticed also that NPR on-air staff, as well as native speaker guests, seem increasingly unable to wrap their minds around irregular verbs, like come/came/come and eat/ate/eaten. The general pattern seems to be that between the past preterite and present perfect forms, the one that is least like the present is edging out the other. So quite often now, I hear “have ate”, “have came”, and “have ran”. The last two examples, in particular, seem to demonstrate a linguistic mechanism by which English speakers are increasingly unable to “accept” that a present perfect can be exactly the same as the simple present, as “run” or “come”. Of course I"m not suggesting that people think about this consciously; it comes from their internalized model of what sounds the most natural to them.
I’m sure that, in the near future, people will come to the notion that “worse” needs an “-er” ending, especially before its noun, so we’ll soon see and hear “worser” in public discourse.
I shouldn’t be bothered by this, yet I am. Do they no longer teach this stuff in the primary grades, and mark students’ work down until they get it right?
Do they still teach diagramming sentences? That would help with preventing all these non-parallel series.
/old fogey