The Haves and The Have Nots

[Southwind17]

OK - another grammar whinge - apologies:

Increasingly I'm hearing intelligent people's misuse of the word 'of' in lieu of 'have' in the context of "I could of run faster", for example. I even heard a radio station news reader's misuse of the word this morning.

My question is: Is this just an example of language evolution, or is it plain ignorance, and should, ideally, be checked?

The problem I have is that until such an 'error' becomes the norm I can't help feeling that abusers should be seen as miscreants.

Maybe I'm just too intolerant and harsh, but this one really niggles me, especially when my miscreant kids fall foul of it!

[MoeFaux]

I still cringe whenever I hear people use the word "forte" with an "ay" at the end. But my Oxford usage dictionary says that it's a lost cause; this is now the accepted use.

Speak well, and hope for the best.

[saraban]

I write it could have and pronounce it could ov.

[Cavemonster]

My question is: Is this just an example of language evolution, or is it plain ignorance, and should, ideally, be checked?


Why can't it be both?
Just like biology, the evolution of language is driven by mutations. Oodles of words and usages that have become standard have their roots in mistakes, laziness and worse.

Personally, things like this only bother me when they make things more difficult to understand or sacrifice specificity.

This error just makes people look stupid, more a cultural marker than anything. It shows one to be less literate. If someone I cared about was using it, I'd make sure to tell them never to speak that way in a job interview.

[Howie Felterbush]

Clever title for this thread.


But I could of come up with a way better one. :D

Ha! See what I did there?

But I digest...I just read a book (One Second After) which was a huge piece of crap, and one of the reasons it was so craptacular was the fact that the author constantly repaced "have" with "of" in the situations Southwind describes. And not just when it was a character speaking, either. All the time. It would completely jar me out of the book and back into reality. I hate that.

[gerdbonk]

People are spelling it that way because that's the way they hear it. Of course, there is a proper spelling for the pronunciation "could ov": could've.

[Southwind17]

People are spelling it that way because that's the way they hear it. Of course, there is a proper spelling for the pronunciation "could ov": could've.
Actually, the phonetic pronunciation of 'could've' is invariably 'cud-ev', not 'cud-ov'. The utterance 'cud-ov', in my opinion, most certainly is an ignorant error derived from a misuderstanding that 'could of' is the proper form. No excuses now. ;)

[rjh01]

What difference does it make one way or the other? Is it ambiguous?

Confession. I am one of the ones who make that 'mistake.'

[PhantomWolf]

I still cringe when I hear people talking about how they bet someone else in the race, and that's been about for years.

It's BEAT people, rhymes with EAT and FEAT, bet is what you do down the local bookie.

[3point14]

It drives me bonkers.

I would like to add into the mix use of the word 'pacifically' when the speaker means 'specifically'

And anyone pronouncing a 'k' at the end of any words ending 'ing' should be shot.

Lqanguage is mutable and evolves. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

[commandlinegamer]

Lqanguage is mutable and evolves.

Wow, just wow!. You provided proof in the very statement you made.

[3point14]

Wow, just wow!. You provided proof in the very statement you made.

Nonono! that's just my utterly incompotont typing! I can spell perfictlay!

[Rairun]

Actually, the phonetic pronunciation of 'could've' is invariably 'cud-ev', not 'cud-ov'. The utterance 'cud-ov', in my opinion, most certainly is an ignorant error derived from a misuderstanding that 'could of' is the proper form. No excuses now. ;)

I'm pretty sure that's a schwa there (it's an unstressed vowel), so you're probably mishearing it. There's no difference in pronunciation between "could've" and "could of", and that's why people misspell it so often in the first place.

[PhantomWolf]

While ranting....

Does this sort of thing in the media really annoy anyone else?

The Australia rugby team, on Tuesday, were watched by a crowd of spectators training for their game against South Africa.

"They are extremely confident going into this game even after the lost to New Zealand last week," he said.

mutter, mutter.

[Elaedith]

OK - another grammar whinge - apologies:

Increasingly I'm hearing intelligent people's misuse of the word 'of' in lieu of 'have' in the context of "I could of run faster", for example. I even heard a radio station news reader's misuse of the word this morning.

My question is: Is this just an example of language evolution, or is it plain ignorance, and should, ideally, be checked?

The problem I have is that until such an 'error' becomes the norm I can't help feeling that abusers should be seen as miscreants.

Maybe I'm just too intolerant and harsh, but this one really niggles me, especially when my miscreant kids fall foul of it!

Language partly evolves through ignorance. The difficulty is deciding when to give in. I can understand 'could of' in speech where it sounds very similar to 'could've'. I have a bit more annoyance when it's in writing.

'Comprises of' always annoys me, but it is so common now I think it's time to accept defeat.

[timhau]

While ranting....

Does this sort of thing in the media really annoy anyone else?

The Australia rugby team, on Tuesday, were watched by a crowd of spectators training for their game against South Africa.

"They are extremely confident going into this game even after the lost to New Zealand last week," he said.

mutter, mutter.

Annoying, why? You're just mad that your spectators lost to New Zealand.

[PhantomWolf]

Annoying, why? You're just mad that your spectators lost to New Zealand.

1) Count the grammatical errors in those two sentences
2) Check the flag closer

[SezMe]

While ranting....

Does this sort of thing in the media really annoy anyone else?

mutter, mutter.
Yeah, not placing that modifying phrase at the beginning of the sentence is irritating as hell. :)

[timhau]

2) Check the flag closer

Oops, sorry. Nice going by the New Zealand spectators.

[iknownothing]

Drives me crazy when I see it, but not when I hear it. When I hear it, I assume they're saying "could've."

Actually, the phonetic pronunciation of 'could've' is invariably 'cud-ev', not 'cud-ov'.

I would bet that is a regional accent thing. I probably sound like I'm saying 'cud-ov' but in my head I'm saying "could've."

Clever title for this thread.

I agree. :)

[Elaedith]

Annoying, why? You're just mad that your spectators lost to New Zealand.

I am impressed that they even train their spectators.

[sgtbaker]

Misprounouncing words like "could of/could've" could very well be speech issues. Some people have a sense of awkwardness, prounouncing certain letters, together, that goes beyond locality accents and/or laziness.

[cwalner]

While ranting....

Does this sort of thing in the media really annoy anyone else?


mutter, mutter.

Hehe, for me the more annoying error was the grammar error in the first paragraph:
The Australia rugby team, on Tuesday, were watched by a crowd of spectators training for their game against South Africa.

The way that is phrased it makes it appear that the spectators, not the rugby team, are training for a game against South Africa.

[Fitter]

So this thread is not about Canadian transfer payments to the provinces then?

[PhantomWolf]

Hehe, for me the more annoying error was the grammar error in the first paragraph:


The way that is phrased it makes it appear that the spectators, not the rugby team, are training for a game against South Africa.

There was far more than that one in there. Using the nation rather than the nationality is a big one for me too.

The Australia rugby team, on Tuesday, were watched by a crowd of spectators training for their game against South Africa.

"They are extremely confident going into this game even after the lost to New Zealand last week," he said.

It should read something closer to this....

On Tuesday, a crowd of spectators watched the Australian rugby team training for their game against South Africa.

"They are extremely confident going into this game even after the lost to New Zealand last week," their captain said.

It happens so often in our media it drives me nuts, and I see it in overseas media too, so it's like there has been a worldwide shift to change the structure of the English language.

Others include things like:

The missing hunter was lost after not returning as expected yesterday evening. Police have called off the search due to lack of light and will resume again tomorrow morning.

[Elaedith]

You missed one error.

[PhantomWolf]

You missed one error.

The comma between "game" and "even" in the second line?

[Elaedith]

'....after the lost to New Zealand'?

[DallasDad]

"They are extremely confident going into this game, even after the loss to New Zealand last week," their captain said.*Would "their captain" have said "They are extremely confident" instead of "We are extremely confident"?






* Not an exact quote, because I corrected the typo and inserted a comma.

[Ladewig]

Would "their captain" have said "They are extremely confident" instead of "We are extremely confident"?

I would'f balked at "their captain." Is there really a plural antecedent?


.................
As for the apostophization of would of, I just want to be ahead of the curve.

[tyr_13]

OK - another grammar whinge - apologies:

Increasingly I'm hearing intelligent people's misuse of the word 'of' in lieu of 'have' in the context of "I could of run faster", for example. I even heard a radio station news reader's misuse of the word this morning.

My question is: Is this just an example of language evolution, or is it plain ignorance, and should, ideally, be checked?

The problem I have is that until such an 'error' becomes the norm I can't help feeling that abusers should be seen as miscreants.

Maybe I'm just too intolerant and harsh, but this one really niggles me, especially when my miscreant kids fall foul of it!

I'm fine with evolutions in the English language that don't confuse things more and lead to less precision in communication. I'm even fine with silly mashing of words as long as they don't harm intent.

Your example I would find unacceptable. By no stretch can 'of' constitute the desired communication, even in a creative use. 'Of run' does not mean anything like 'have run'. 'Of run' would have uses specifically different from 'have run'. "I have thirty yards of run," for example, has a meaning completely different from, 'have run'.

'Of' is a preposition and 'have' is a verb or a noun. One can verb nouns, or even noun verbs, but to either verb or noun a preposition is pretty stupid, especially if done unintentionally.

Oh, but that doesn't make it new. It's been an improper replacement of 've for a LONG time. I remember examples from the mid 1800's back in one of my college classes. Not that I had college classes in the 1800's mind you...

[Southwind17]

Misprounouncing words like "could of/could've" could very well be speech issues. Some people have a sense of awkwardness, prounouncing certain letters, together, that goes beyond locality accents and/or laziness.
Personally, I think the best example of this is 'nukiller' ('nuclear'), George Bush being arguably the most prominent example of late. I'd like to bet that most people falling foul of this can pronounce perfectly, but separately, 'nu' ('new') and 'clear'. Only when they have to string the two together does some sort of mental block kick in that convinces them it's a tongue twister! Seems its a convidence issue to me.

[Roger Ramjets]

Personally, I think the best example of this is 'nukiller' ('nuclear'), George Bush being arguably the most prominent example of late. I'd like to bet that most people falling foul of this can pronounce perfectly, but separately, 'nu' ('new') and 'clear'. But 'new' and 'clear' doesn't have a nuke in it! Bush's pronunciation is more accurate :)

And whose too say watts rite anyways? Lot's off words change there usage and pronouncement over time, so just cause you think their wrong and it should of bean different, snot prove that your write!

[Southwind17]

But 'new' and 'clear' doesn't have a nuke in it! Bush's pronunciation is more accurate :)

And whose too say watts rite anyways? Lot's off words change there usage and pronouncement over time, so just cause you think their wrong and it should of bean different, snot prove that your write!
It's all about communication. What you wrote immediately above is not as easy a read as it would be if you wrote it 'correctly' (as you, interestingly(!), chose to do with your first sentence ;)). If you were to 'de-standardise' it further it would probably then leave doubt as to its meaning.

Just as language is open to change so are the governing rules and conventions, but there will always be rules and conventions!

[fuelair]

I write it could have and pronounce it could ov.which is , unfortunately for the OP, how you would pronounce the contraction of the two - and which is likely the the source of the could of problem. Could've being (mis)pronounced as could of.

[Southwind17]

which is , unfortunately for the OP, how you would pronounce the contraction of the two - and which is likely the the source of the could of problem. Could've being (mis)pronounced as could of.
I can assure you that the OP most definitely has its basis in the increasing utterance of 'could of', particularly with reference to my son's recent adoption of it. I know, because we've discussed it, and his attitude is pretty much 'WTF - you know what I mean'!

My hearing might not necessarily be as acute as others', but I can still clearly distinguish between the pronunciation of 'could've' and 'could of' (at least in the part of the World where I hang out), particularly when it comes to news readers! The latter has an unmistakable 'o' sound.

[DallasDad]

'Round about these here parts, kids say (and often spell it), "coulda." In the more genteel north where I was raised, the /ve/ at the end of "could've" was more of an /iv/ than a /uv/ sound.

[fuelair]

I can assure you that the OP most definitely has its basis in the increasing utterance of 'could of', particularly with reference to my son's recent adoption of it. I know, because we've discussed it, and his attitude is pretty much 'WTF - you know what I mean'!

My hearing might not necessarily be as acute as others', but I can still clearly distinguish between the pronunciation of 'could've' and 'could of' (at least in the part of the World where I hang out), particularly when it comes to news readers! The latter has an unmistakable 'o' sound.

That is why you may have noted I wrote "(mis) pronounced".:)

[kowalskil]

Personally, I think the best example of this is 'nukiller' ('nuclear'), George Bush being arguably the most prominent example of late. I'd like to bet that most people falling foul of this can pronounce perfectly, but separately, 'nu' ('new') and 'clear'. Only when they have to string the two together does some sort of mental block kick in that convinces them it's a tongue twister! Seems its a convidence issue to me.

I thought he knew how to pronounce the word correctly but preferred to pronounce it in his own way. But my wife, who is a linguist, said that other people also mispronounce this word.

=====================================

Breach of rule 6 removed.

[Southwind17]

I thought he knew how to pronounce the word correctly but preferred to pronounce it in his own way. But my wife, who is a linguist, said that other people also mispronounce this word
With respect to your wife, one doesn't need to be a linguist to deduce this. One simply needs to listen to other people speak. I'd hazard that half the western population can't seem to pronounce 'nuclear' properly!

[Mark6]

I thought he knew how to pronounce the word correctly but preferred to pronounce it in his own way. But my wife, who is a linguist, said that other people also mispronounce this word.
Jimmy Carter, who is an actual nuclear engineer, also pronounced "nukular". It's a regional thing.

[Halfcentaur]

This makes me paranoid I've made this error, but come to think of it I constantly type out the the word would've and could've and my spell checker alerts me to the distinction between the two words. I think I'm in the clear,... but I'm going to be looking for this now.

[Foolmewunz]

I'm pretty sure that's a schwa there (it's an unstressed vowel), so you're probably mishearing it. There's no difference in pronunciation between "could've" and "could of", and that's why people misspell it so often in the first place.

Where I'm from (and that's a whole lot of places) there's a distinct difference in the pronunciation. Or, to be more accurate, there would be if anyone had any need to EVER say, "could of". I'm sure smoeone could, of course, think of a use for the expression, but the word (a contraction) is could've and is pronounnced kud-v with a teeny tiny bit of an "uh" in front of the v. Definitely not an "of" or "ov" sound.

[mutile]

I still cringe whenever I hear people use the word "forte" with an "ay" at the end. But my Oxford usage dictionary says that it's a lost cause; this is now the accepted use.

Speak well, and hope for the best.

Maybe they are referring to the Italian word.

[DallasDad]

"Forte" is a new one to me. I always assumed it was French and had somehow lost the acute accent. The Italian derivation idea makes sense, but doesn't seem to have etymological support.

I don't believe I've ever heard it said in America without the -ay ending.

The various dictionaries I consulted just now basically conclude there is no such thing as a received pronunciation for the word; it will be misunderstood (or frowned upon) by a signficant percentage of listeners no matter which pronunciation is used by the speaker.

ETA: I have to take this back. When talking about blades, I've heard the "fort" pronunciation, and never considered that it wasn't the same word (which, of course, it is). On the other hand, does anyone say "piano fort" instead of "piano fortay"? The "forte" in the instrument name is Italian, and connotes a meaning similar to "strong," so perhaps the confusion is simply not know which Romance language to credit for the loan.

[Jeff Corey]

"Forte" is a new one to me. I always assumed it was French and had somehow lost the acute accent...

...On the other hand, does anyone say "piano fort" instead of "piano fortay"? The "forte" in the instrument name is Italian, and connotes a meaning similar to "strong," so perhaps the confusion is simply not know which Romance language to credit for the loan.

The word "forte" in French never had an acute accent to lose. That word came to English through French and was pronounced "fort". The "piano forte" came from Italian, hence that specific pronounciation when used in music.

[atavisms]

I read once on word-a-day http://wordsmith.org/awad/
that the next time you hear someone say ax instead of ask that may just be the language evolving. That words Bird and Dirt were originally Brid and Drit!

[atavisms]

OK - another grammar whinge - apologies:

Increasingly I'm hearing intelligent people's misuse of the word 'of' in lieu of 'have' in the context of "I could of run faster", for example. I even heard a radio station news reader's misuse of the word this morning.

My question is: Is this just an example of language evolution, or is it plain ignorance, and should, ideally, be checked?

The problem I have is that until such an 'error' becomes the norm I can't help feeling that abusers should be seen as miscreants.

Maybe I'm just too intolerant and harsh, but this one really niggles me, especially when my miscreant kids fall foul of it!

maybe it just sounded that way because he was saying the conjunction could've? not could of.
people just aren't enunciating clearly enough and speaking with conjunctions instead of whole words,, that's all :)