Could of would of

French Toast

I've noticed swap is misspelled as swop quite frequently.

Misuse of loose/lose.

Your / you're.

Absolute cluelessness about apostrophes in general.

km991148

Government buildings wrote: »

Not knowing the difference between your and you're is worse, I think.

Someone wrote recently as a form of insult,

"Your very stupid"!

Your wrong

Tig98

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Has to be never learning, not forgetting. Grammar is something you do every day.

A lot of people didn't learn, thats the thing. My father's generation of men > 50, particularly in the countryside, were never exposed to that kind of education. Many more of them have very poor literary on top of it all. The children reared in these houses will likely borrow phrases from their parents, even when they're educated and know better.

I get its a grievance, especially when written incorrectly, but languages shouldn't be put under such conformity. As long as people convey their point I don't really mind.

km991148

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I'm dyslexic, I 'll make a note, annoying folks on the internets can be fun

I generally don't care about spelling/typos etc on the internet. I'm not writing a novel etc and a lot of people are typing on devices that make it harder. That's before you get to the point you don't actually know the authors situation either.

Christ, I make that many mistakes myself my autocorrect corrects into the wrong thing half the time. I need to go and delete works from it every so often as the mistakes just get compounded.

Bad grammar/punctuation.. that's a little bit different as it can lead to confusion.

Tig98

Tig98 wrote: »

A lot of people didn't learn, thats the thing. My father's generation of men > 50, particularly in the countryside, were never exposed to that kind of education. Many more of them have very poor literary on top of it all. The children reared in these houses will likely borrow phrases from their parents, even when they're educated and know better.

I get its a grievance, especially when written incorrectly, but languages shouldn't be put under such conformity. As long as people convey their point I don't really mind.

I have seen an increase in this usage in recent years. Plenty of the posters are obviously young enough.

I am not into total conformity either, as I said I don't care if definite articles are dropped, it's clear we don't really need them. And I don't care about could of, that's more or less a homophone. But their, there, they're is easily taught.

Alfred123

Its not just the 'could/ would of .." .. "i loosed my purse yesterday" etc

- its also the fact that folk can be bothered proofing texts / posts before sending .. - theyre too bone lazy to read back what they've just written - and i don't mean checking just for spelling

- they don't consider the reader .. or even their own mssge being misinterpreted

Thats summat the really flummoxes me .. i mean, dont you care that the person youre sending to understands you ?

km991148

Alfred123 wrote: »

Its not just the 'could/ would of .." .. "i loosed my purse yesterday" etc

- its also the fact that folk can be bothered proofing texts / posts before sending .. - theyre too bone lazy to read back what they've just written - and i don't mean checking just for spelling

- they don't consider the reader .. or even their own mssge being misinterpreted

Thats summat the really flummoxes me .. i mean, dont you care that the person youre sending to understands you ?

I seen what you done their. i almost taken it srlsy! Could of had egg on my face!!

is_that_so

It's just people using the sounds of the phrase to misspell the words so would've becomes /'wʊdəv/ which sounds the same as sort of /'sɔːtəv/. People assume the /əv/ sound is the same as of and spell 've that way. It's fossilisation of language where uncorrected errors become a standard form for people. "I seen" and "I done" are other examples of this. If there's anything to blame it was the the start of the abandonment of grammar teaching for not being fun, somewhere in the 70s.

Alun

is_that_so wrote: »

It's just people using the sounds of the phrase to misspell the words so would've becomes /'wʊdəv/ which sounds the same as sort of /'sɔːtəv/.

I don't know about anybody else but there's no way I'd ever pronounce a standalone "of" the same as the end of "would've". Two totally different sounds for me.

is_that_so

Alun wrote: »

I don't know about anybody else but there's no way I'd ever pronounce a standalone "of" the same as the end of "would've". Two totally different sounds for me.

It's not unusual for it to be the much same sound if spoken quickly and it depends where it is. My point is more that it's an example of uncorrected mistakes and people not knowing it.

P.C.

Me and me maa went to de shops.

Why can’t people speak correctly?

My mother and I went to the shop.

trixi001

Boarder when they mean border. This seems to be a very common error now.

Brendan Bendar

trixi001 wrote: »

Boarder when they mean border. This seems to be a very common error now.

Think it’s more like ‘ Bawder’ is it not?

kowloon

I had a seizure a while back and since then my spelling and grammar have gone to ****. Sometimes I will mix up words, other times I'll spell phonetically. I'm more tolerant of mistakes by other people now.

gozunda

Some say spelling isn't as important as good punctuation and that it deosn't rellay mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

notsoyoungwan

P.C. wrote: »

Me and me maa went to de shops.

Why can’t people speak correctly?

My mother and I went to the shop.

People also use ‘...and I’ when it should be ‘...and me’

‘That belongs to David and I’ instead of ‘that belongs to David and me’.

‘Is there room for both David and I?’ instead of ‘is there room for both David and me?’

An easy way to figure out is to remove the other person from the sentence and see- if you would say ‘me’ as in ‘that belongs to me’ then you don’t change it to ‘I’ just because you added David to the sentence.

An additional thing I’ve seen/heard people writing/saying is trying to indicate possession eg ‘David and I’s house’ or the absolute worst, which I see here a lot is a long convoluted description eg ‘a person I went to school with’s brother died tragically’. I mean, come on! Does that sound correct to them?? Why can’t they say ‘the brother of someone I went to school with died tragically’??? Surely a second’s thought would indicate to them which is correct.

Rant over!!

Zaph

French Toast wrote: »

I've noticed swap is misspelled as swop quite frequently.

That's not a misspelling, swop is an acceptable alternative spelling of swap, although it's not one you see very often these days.

Tig98 wrote: »

A lot of people didn't learn, thats the thing. My father's generation of men > 50, particularly in the countryside, were never exposed to that kind of education.

What??? I'm 53, admittedly from Dublin rather than somewhere rural, and we were most definitely exposed to that kind of education. To suggest otherwise is complete nonsense.

Government buildings

I think the teaching of grammar ceased in schools, along with rote learning of mathematical tables.

It was seen as too much of a discipline, and the emphasis was put on creative expression, rather than grammatical precision.

I have nieces and nephews with university degrees who cannot write a simple letter without it containing some grammatical error(s).

Even letters sent home from school are not exempt.

There is no hope!

Tig98

Zaph wrote: »

That's not a misspelling, swop is an acceptable alternative spelling of swap, although it's not one you see very often these days.




What??? I'm 53, admittedly from Dublin rather than somewhere rural, and we were most definitely exposed to that kind of education. To suggest otherwise is complete nonsense.

It's not nonsense, its reality. My father and the majority of his friends have very poor literacy skills. Whatever about rural underfunding (the primary school had one teacher for all 30 odd kids), most boys were pulled out at a young age to work on the family farms. He didnt do an intercert, he didn't get any chance to use or maintain the little primary education he did get.

The farm and money making were seen as more important than formal education. It was a one or the other situation, which is why daughters were given an education since they would not inherit the farm.

Raffo69

Gammyeye wrote: »

This boils my p**s completely. Please, to those who write 'of' instead of 'have'
What is wrong with you? Serious question, do you honestly think it is 'of', or is it just laziness?
I'm not usually bothered by something like this but I just see it so regularly now.

Are you talking about people online? Then surely they would be typing it as opposed to writing?

Deemed as Normal

Gammyeye wrote: »

This boils my p**s completely. Please, to those who write 'of' instead of 'have'
What is wrong with you? Serious question, do you honestly think it is 'of', or is it just laziness?
I'm not usually bothered by something like this but I just see it so regularly now.

Does it boil your piss when it is pronounced the way it is spelled? Because we nearly all do! Hence the reason why so many might make the mistake.

A certain amount of it might be down to peer pressure! That is after all why so many working class people stubbornly insist in saying "I seen" and "I done".

Esel

Deemed as Normal wrote: »

Does it boil your piss when it is pronounced the way it is spelled? Because we nearly all do! Hence the reason why so many might make the mistake.

A certain amount of it might be down to peer pressure! That is after all why so many working class people stubbornly insist in saying "I seen" and "I done".

I seen what you done there.

dxhound2005

The great American linguist Leonard Bloomfield observed many years ago that the child who learns to say I seen it has learned just as much as the one who says I saw it. Both of these forms are irregular. The least common American past-tense form of see is the regularized form I seed it. These so-called mistakes shed more light on language than “standard” forms, because what’s going on is clearly not ignorance, laziness or poor schooling. The pattern of present, past and perfect of see, seen and seen in place of see, saw and seen reveals that speakers don’t put irregular verbs together just by combining a stem and a suffix, the way they form many thousands of English regular verbs. Among the roughly 180 ‘approved’ irregular verbs now listed in grammars of American English, there is no verb with an -en suffix in the past as well as the perfect form.

So where does I seen it come from? It follows a more general pattern implicit in all the regular verbs and in many irregular ones as well. All of the regular verbs, such as need, needed, and about 75 of the irregular ones, such as lead, led, led, have the same form in the past and present perfect, but a different form in the present. The see, seen, seen formation fits this more inclusive pattern, which can be stated as present differs from past and perfect; the past is like the perfect minus 'have.'

dxhound2005

dxhound2005 wrote: »

The great American linguist Leonard Bloomfield observed many years ago that the child who learns to say I seen it has learned just as much as the one who says I saw it. Both of these forms are irregular. The least common American past-tense form of see is the regularized form I seed it. These so-called mistakes shed more light on language than “standard” forms, because what’s going on is clearly not ignorance, laziness or poor schooling. The pattern of present, past and perfect of see, seen and seen in place of see, saw and seen reveals that speakers don’t put irregular verbs together just by combining a stem and a suffix, the way they form many thousands of English regular verbs. Among the roughly 180 ‘approved’ irregular verbs now listed in grammars of American English, there is no verb with an -en suffix in the past as well as the perfect form.

So where does I seen it come from? It follows a more general pattern implicit in all the regular verbs and in many irregular ones as well. All of the regular verbs, such as need, needed, and about 75 of the irregular ones, such as lead, led, led, have the same form in the past and present perfect, but a different form in the present. The see, seen, seen formation fits this more inclusive pattern, which can be stated as present differs from past and perfect; the past is like the perfect minus 'have.'

Thats all very well. Of course a child is using logic when she or he says I go'ed rather than I went for the first time. However then the child is taught the correct version.

It would be great if language was totally logical but it isn't.

runawaybishop

Zaph wrote: »

What??? I'm 53, admittedly from Dublin rather than somewhere rural, and we were most definitely exposed to that kind of education. To suggest otherwise is complete nonsense.

Can confirm its not nonsense. My dad left school at 12/13 to work full time on the family farm. That would not have been unusual in the slightest in the area. You do not have to go back far at all to a time and place that rural kids main priority would have been working on the farm with school being considered important only up until a certain point.

ShatterAlan

biko wrote: »

It started because people don't read enough and write it as they hear it in their head.
Then it spread because other people also don't read much and thought "would of" is correct.
This is why it's good to help people correct their grammar. Not every single thing but at least the usual mistakes like space before question mark, "alot", "there", etc

You forgot the fullstop at the end of the sentence, thicko! :pac:

ShatterAlan

Captain Havoc wrote: »

I don't see why something as trivial as this would annoy anyone. In my opinion, it's fine to make such mistakes on boards or facebook as you're writing off the cuff. It could be considered careless in a formal letter though.

Isn't it just as easy to get it right as to get it wrong?

One that annoys me is "I could care less".

So you somewhat care about the subject, there is a possibility of you caring less. In fact, saying you could care less could mean you love the subject.

ShatterAlan

runawaybishop wrote: »

Can confirm its not nonsense. My dad left school at 12/13 to work full time on the family farm. That would not have been unusual in the slightest in the area. You do not have to go back far at all to a time and place that rural kids main priority would have been working on the farm with school being considered important only up until a certain point.

Since generally in Ireland the farm is left to one son it's pretty fucking stupid to pull all younger sons out of school at the age of 12 when they don't stand much hope of inheriting much when the father croaks.

ShatterAlan

Deleted User wrote: »

One that annoys me is "I could care less".

So you somewhat care about the subject, there is a possibility of you caring less. In fact, saying you could care less could mean you love the subject.

I got into a discussion about this with an American I worked with. He got more and more heated insisting that "I could care less" was correct.


The cnut was in university too.