Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

The great 'HAVE' or 'OF' debate

  • #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 61 ✭✭✭ Curious Scot


    Which is correct:

    Could OF; Should OF; Would OF

    or
    Could HAVE; Should HAVE; Would HAVE?

    As far as I'm concerned, it's 'HAVE' all the way!!:D


Comments



  • It isn't even remotely a debate, 'of' is simply wrong. It is a result of people saying could've and other people hearing it as could of.




  • Not a debate. Should of etc is incorrect.




  • Could have should have ect




  • This could of being so interesting....




  • Pissartist wrote: »
    Could have should have ect

    You’ve gone and done it now!

    Let the great ‘is punctuation actually necessary’ debate begin!


  • Advertisement


  • thejaguar wrote: »
    This could of being so interesting....

    Have course it could of.




  • What about shoulda / coulda / woulda? :p




  • When somebody says 'Sh'we go shopping tomorrow? / Sh'we invite your parents for dinner?' are they saying 'Should we' or 'Shall we'?




  • Grammar: The difference between knowing your sh*t, and knowing you're sh*t.


    The motto on my personal coaster.




  • davedanon wrote: »
    Grammar: The difference between knowing your sh*t, and knowing you're sh*t.


    The motto on my personal coaster.

    I know my sh*t, now you can too:


  • Advertisement


  • Which is correct:

    Could OF; Should OF; Would OF

    or
    Could HAVE; Should HAVE; Would HAVE?

    As far as I'm concerned, it's 'HAVE' all the way!!:D


    Come off of it.




  • Language evolves all the time.




  • Language evolves all the time.

    Yes, but in this instance "have" is grammatically correct and "of" plain wrong. The contraction "could've" can throw people for a loop based on the phonetic.




  • It's just people transcribing the weak form pronunciation of have, /ǝv/ in this case, which is also a weak form of of




  • Stick 'could of' or 'would of' in your cv and see how far you get.




  • Which is correct:

    Could OF; Should OF; Would OF

    or
    Could HAVE; Should HAVE; Would HAVE?

    As far as I'm concerned, it's 'HAVE' all the way!!:D

    debate?

    There's just the uneducated way and the educated way.




  • I used to assume people saying 'could of' were making a deliberate mistake like spelling the 'teh' but seemingly not




  • Stick 'could of' or 'would of' in your cv and see how far you get.

    I agree with you there. However, I know some people in jobs where a lot of writing or typing of letters is involved who always use ‘of’ instead of ‘have’! (This drives me mad!:mad:)
    One woman in particular even uses ‘of’ (quite clearly) when she’s speaking at meetings etc! (This makes me even madder! :mad::mad:)
    So, in response to your comment, it seems that the use of ‘of’ instead of ‘have’ is acceptable in a CV.




  • Pissartist wrote: »
    Could have should have ect

    Do you mean "...etc"? It's a contraction of "et cetera" NOT "ec tetera".
    I tried to ignore it, I really really tried but I just can't.




  • He's saying someone needs electro-convulsive therapy. Bit harsh if you ask me, but each to their own.


  • Advertisement


  • davedanon wrote: »
    He's saying someone needs electro-convulsive therapy. Bit harsh if you ask me, but each to their own.

    If it fixes the your/you're, they're/there/their, could have/could of, saw/seen and other plethora of errors that abound, I'd hear him out... :D




  • "I seen" is peculiarly Irish, and one of my pet hates. Everyone here says it.




  • davedanon wrote: »
    "I seen" is peculiarly Irish, and one of my pet hates. Everyone here says it.

    I don't say it. I would say I know many more people who do not say than do say it.

    I don't agree that it is peculiarly Irish either, along with 'I done' it is very common in England, it is just bad/lazy English.




  • Hmm. I'll take your word for it. But I still think it's very commonly used. And its brother "I done it", as you say.




  • I am not disputing that it is irritatingly commonly used, but it is simply not true to say that 'everyone' says it. Yes, I am being a bit pedantic, but this is the English forum and we are in pursuit of clarity in English.




  • Language evolves all the time.

    Certain aspects of it but not something as basic as this.

    Take the following two sentences:

    "I eat fish"

    "I could eat fish"

    The first sentence doesn't need an explanation but look at the second one - it's the conditional version of the first. Typically it would be followed by " if some condition(s) hold(s)" or " under some circumstances". It would look something like:

    "I could eat fish if I had some".

    More examples include:

    "I could buy fish if I had money"
    "I could catch fish if I had a fishing rod"
    "I could sell fish if I had a retail licence"

    As you can see, the word "could" is how we make verbs conditional. We can ignore the actual conditions to keep this simple but the important part is the first part as the actual condition can be implicit.


    We can also do this with the past participle. The past participle typically takes the form of "I have [past_participle]". For example, "I have been", "I have seen", "I have arrived".

    In our scenario, you would say "I have eaten".

    We can also make this conditional and when we do, it looks like:

    "I could have eaten".

    As always, it's a verb being made conditional ("have"). This is how past participles are made conditional and it's also done like this in other languages such as in French.


    Let's go back to where this thread started and take the following abomination and deconstruct it:

    "I could of eaten"

    What does it even mean? Well, we can see that it's at least an attempt to make a verb conditional so let's make the sentence non-conditional and see if we can make sense of it.

    "I of eaten"

    As you can see, these three words, while actually words themselves, make no sense. It's word salad.

    For a simpler example and using the same idea, what about this sentence?

    "I could have" which is the conditional version of "I have". If you replace "have" with "of", you get:

    "I could of" and the non-conditional form "I of".

    As you can see it becomes more and more absurd the more you think about it.

    This is why it's not one of those aspects of a language that change over time such as spelling. Ultimately, languages need to be able to say something and "I of" does not.




  • Depends on the circles in which one moves. I live in south Dublin, and the overwhelming majority of 'ordinary' people in and around Tallaght and Firhouse favour 'I seen' and 'I done'.

    I don't say it, despite being from De Northside. Irony.


Advertisement