How come people say “Would of”? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are...
I looked up a future colleague on LinkedIn before I started a job. I told my colleague about it and he seemed surprised. Should I apologize?
What does "rabbited" mean/imply in this sentence?
What is the steepest angle that a canal can be traversable without locks?
Is three citations per paragraph excessive for undergraduate research paper?
How come people say “Would of”?
"What time...?" or "At what time...?" - what is more grammatically correct?
How was Skylab's orbit inclination chosen?
Manuscript was "unsubmitted" because the manuscript was deposited in Arxiv Preprints
In microwave frequencies, do you use a circulator when you need a (near) perfect diode?
How to create dashed lines/arrows in Illustrator
Why Did Howard Stark Use All The Vibranium They Had On A Prototype Shield?
Inversion Puzzle
What does "sndry explns" mean in one of the Hitchhiker's guide books?
Which Sci-Fi work first showed weapon of galactic-scale mass destruction?
Where to refill my bottle in India?
Why is it "Tumoren" and not "Tumore"?
What could be the right powersource for 15 seconds lifespan disposable giant chainsaw?
How can I fix this gap between bookcases I made?
Understanding the implication of what "well-defined" means for the operation in quotient group
Inflated grade on resume at previous job, might former employer tell new employer?
Is there a name of the flying bionic bird?
What is the use of option -o in the useradd command?
Can't find the latex code for the ⍎ (down tack jot) symbol
"Riffle" two strings
How come people say “Would of”?
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InOrigin of “Black & blue Friday”?What is the origin of idiom “Keep your hair on”?What is the meaning of “What a box to sweat in!”？Why are you saying something “for” yourself when your parent asks you what you have to say for yourself?How old is the expression “to travel by [means of transportation]”?What is the meaning and origin of “cup of joy”?At the urging/urgent ofUsage of `it` or `this` to refer to previous clauseBest practice regarding the words until, till, til, 'till, 'til and toWhen did “awkwarde” mean “backhanded”?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
I often read the expression “would of” used instead of “would have”. Each time I read it I get annoyed so I googled it and found out -as I expected- that it is an incorrect way to say “would have”. Now, there are a lot of brilliant slang words/expressions, so my question is, why do people use this one? It’s so annoying to read, stupid and clearly wrong, it is pointless , why did they came up with this expression?
word-choice etymology expressions
asked 5 hours ago
MarybnqMarybnq
1689
|
show 6 more comments
I often read the expression “would of” used instead of “would have”. Each time I read it I get annoyed so I googled it and found out -as I expected- that it is an incorrect way to say “would have”. Now, there are a lot of brilliant slang words/expressions, so my question is, why do people use this one? It’s so annoying to read, stupid and clearly wrong, it is pointless , why did they came up with this expression?
word-choice etymology expressions
asked 5 hours ago
MarybnqMarybnq
1689
5
Your ears are deceiving you. In most (maybe all) varieties of English, in rapid speech "would have" and "would of" are 100% indistinguishable. Nobody is "saying" something incorrect. But spelling, being part of the invented and learnt technology called "writing" (and thus almost entirely different from the natural faculty called "language") is often imperfectly learnt - especially when the rules of spelling make a distinction which is not there in the real (spoken) language.
– Colin Fine
4 hours ago
3
Slabs words? What are those supposed to be? (Note that while would of is, as Colin says, not an error in speech because it’s indistinguishable from would have, the same is not true of why did they came, which is ungrammatical in both speech and writing. Also, it has no clue does not make any sense in the context you’re using it in here – either they [= the people who write would of] have no clue, or it [= would of] makes no sense, but not a mixture of the two.)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
4 hours ago
Consider that it's "would 'ave". Some people know this and realize that "would have" is the unabbreviated form, while others, probably as a child, heard "would 'ave" and took it to be "would of", and thus say and write "would of".
– Hot Licks
4 hours ago
1
@ColinFine: I disagree. You're right that they're nearly indistinguishable, but as a result, there's a lot of people who learned it wrong, and now say and type "would of".
– Mooing Duck
1 hour ago
@JanusBahsJacquet my bad I had no clue (😅) I couldn’t use the expression “to have no clue” in this context, I misused it, I was strongly believed it had more meanings. I meant to say that it is pointless, since even a non native speaker can recognize it is wrong. I don’t understand how someone would write something like that, it’s the worst thing I ever read... even because it’s nor shorter (since you can say would’ve) nor correct nor anything else, just disturbing and wrong...
– Marybnq
42 mins ago
|
show 6 more comments
I often read the expression “would of” used instead of “would have”. Each time I read it I get annoyed so I googled it and found out -as I expected- that it is an incorrect way to say “would have”. Now, there are a lot of brilliant slang words/expressions, so my question is, why do people use this one? It’s so annoying to read, stupid and clearly wrong, it is pointless , why did they came up with this expression?
word-choice etymology expressions
asked 5 hours ago
MarybnqMarybnq
1689
I often read the expression “would of” used instead of “would have”. Each time I read it I get annoyed so I googled it and found out -as I expected- that it is an incorrect way to say “would have”. Now, there are a lot of brilliant slang words/expressions, so my question is, why do people use this one? It’s so annoying to read, stupid and clearly wrong, it is pointless , why did they came up with this expression?
word-choice etymology expressions
word-choice etymology expressions
asked 5 hours ago
MarybnqMarybnq
1689
asked 5 hours ago
MarybnqMarybnq
1689
edited 39 mins ago
Marybnq
asked 5 hours ago
MarybnqMarybnq
1689
asked 5 hours ago
MarybnqMarybnq
1689
asked 5 hours ago
MarybnqMarybnq
1689
1689
5
Your ears are deceiving you. In most (maybe all) varieties of English, in rapid speech "would have" and "would of" are 100% indistinguishable. Nobody is "saying" something incorrect. But spelling, being part of the invented and learnt technology called "writing" (and thus almost entirely different from the natural faculty called "language") is often imperfectly learnt - especially when the rules of spelling make a distinction which is not there in the real (spoken) language.
– Colin Fine
4 hours ago
3
Slabs words? What are those supposed to be? (Note that while would of is, as Colin says, not an error in speech because it’s indistinguishable from would have, the same is not true of why did they came, which is ungrammatical in both speech and writing. Also, it has no clue does not make any sense in the context you’re using it in here – either they [= the people who write would of] have no clue, or it [= would of] makes no sense, but not a mixture of the two.)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
4 hours ago
Consider that it's "would 'ave". Some people know this and realize that "would have" is the unabbreviated form, while others, probably as a child, heard "would 'ave" and took it to be "would of", and thus say and write "would of".
– Hot Licks
4 hours ago
1
@ColinFine: I disagree. You're right that they're nearly indistinguishable, but as a result, there's a lot of people who learned it wrong, and now say and type "would of".
– Mooing Duck
1 hour ago
@JanusBahsJacquet my bad I had no clue (😅) I couldn’t use the expression “to have no clue” in this context, I misused it, I was strongly believed it had more meanings. I meant to say that it is pointless, since even a non native speaker can recognize it is wrong. I don’t understand how someone would write something like that, it’s the worst thing I ever read... even because it’s nor shorter (since you can say would’ve) nor correct nor anything else, just disturbing and wrong...
– Marybnq
42 mins ago
|
show 6 more comments
5
Your ears are deceiving you. In most (maybe all) varieties of English, in rapid speech "would have" and "would of" are 100% indistinguishable. Nobody is "saying" something incorrect. But spelling, being part of the invented and learnt technology called "writing" (and thus almost entirely different from the natural faculty called "language") is often imperfectly learnt - especially when the rules of spelling make a distinction which is not there in the real (spoken) language.
– Colin Fine
4 hours ago
3
Slabs words? What are those supposed to be? (Note that while would of is, as Colin says, not an error in speech because it’s indistinguishable from would have, the same is not true of why did they came, which is ungrammatical in both speech and writing. Also, it has no clue does not make any sense in the context you’re using it in here – either they [= the people who write would of] have no clue, or it [= would of] makes no sense, but not a mixture of the two.)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
4 hours ago
Consider that it's "would 'ave". Some people know this and realize that "would have" is the unabbreviated form, while others, probably as a child, heard "would 'ave" and took it to be "would of", and thus say and write "would of".
– Hot Licks
4 hours ago
1
@ColinFine: I disagree. You're right that they're nearly indistinguishable, but as a result, there's a lot of people who learned it wrong, and now say and type "would of".
– Mooing Duck
1 hour ago
@JanusBahsJacquet my bad I had no clue (😅) I couldn’t use the expression “to have no clue” in this context, I misused it, I was strongly believed it had more meanings. I meant to say that it is pointless, since even a non native speaker can recognize it is wrong. I don’t understand how someone would write something like that, it’s the worst thing I ever read... even because it’s nor shorter (since you can say would’ve) nor correct nor anything else, just disturbing and wrong...
– Marybnq
42 mins ago
5
5
Your ears are deceiving you. In most (maybe all) varieties of English, in rapid speech "would have" and "would of" are 100% indistinguishable. Nobody is "saying" something incorrect. But spelling, being part of the invented and learnt technology called "writing" (and thus almost entirely different from the natural faculty called "language") is often imperfectly learnt - especially when the rules of spelling make a distinction which is not there in the real (spoken) language.
– Colin Fine
4 hours ago
Your ears are deceiving you. In most (maybe all) varieties of English, in rapid speech "would have" and "would of" are 100% indistinguishable. Nobody is "saying" something incorrect. But spelling, being part of the invented and learnt technology called "writing" (and thus almost entirely different from the natural faculty called "language") is often imperfectly learnt - especially when the rules of spelling make a distinction which is not there in the real (spoken) language.
– Colin Fine
4 hours ago
3
3
Slabs words? What are those supposed to be? (Note that while would of is, as Colin says, not an error in speech because it’s indistinguishable from would have, the same is not true of why did they came, which is ungrammatical in both speech and writing. Also, it has no clue does not make any sense in the context you’re using it in here – either they [= the people who write would of] have no clue, or it [= would of] makes no sense, but not a mixture of the two.)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
4 hours ago
Slabs words? What are those supposed to be? (Note that while would of is, as Colin says, not an error in speech because it’s indistinguishable from would have, the same is not true of why did they came, which is ungrammatical in both speech and writing. Also, it has no clue does not make any sense in the context you’re using it in here – either they [= the people who write would of] have no clue, or it [= would of] makes no sense, but not a mixture of the two.)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
4 hours ago
Consider that it's "would 'ave". Some people know this and realize that "would have" is the unabbreviated form, while others, probably as a child, heard "would 'ave" and took it to be "would of", and thus say and write "would of".
– Hot Licks
4 hours ago
Consider that it's "would 'ave". Some people know this and realize that "would have" is the unabbreviated form, while others, probably as a child, heard "would 'ave" and took it to be "would of", and thus say and write "would of".
– Hot Licks
4 hours ago
1
1
@ColinFine: I disagree. You're right that they're nearly indistinguishable, but as a result, there's a lot of people who learned it wrong, and now say and type "would of".
– Mooing Duck
1 hour ago
@ColinFine: I disagree. You're right that they're nearly indistinguishable, but as a result, there's a lot of people who learned it wrong, and now say and type "would of".
– Mooing Duck
1 hour ago
@JanusBahsJacquet my bad I had no clue (😅) I couldn’t use the expression “to have no clue” in this context, I misused it, I was strongly believed it had more meanings. I meant to say that it is pointless, since even a non native speaker can recognize it is wrong. I don’t understand how someone would write something like that, it’s the worst thing I ever read... even because it’s nor shorter (since you can say would’ve) nor correct nor anything else, just disturbing and wrong...
– Marybnq
42 mins ago
@JanusBahsJacquet my bad I had no clue (😅) I couldn’t use the expression “to have no clue” in this context, I misused it, I was strongly believed it had more meanings. I meant to say that it is pointless, since even a non native speaker can recognize it is wrong. I don’t understand how someone would write something like that, it’s the worst thing I ever read... even because it’s nor shorter (since you can say would’ve) nor correct nor anything else, just disturbing and wrong...
– Marybnq
42 mins ago
|
show 6 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Correction: what annoys you is people writing “would of” when they are saying /ˈwʊdəv/, which is the standard pronunciation of the contraction would’ve.
The vowel of the preposition “of” is almost always reduced in actual speech, yielding /əv/. Thus “would’ve” and “would of” are homophones. So no surprise that some people spell it that way, even though it makes no grammatical sense.
Would’ve can be even further reduced to /ˈwʊdə/, which some people spell woulda. The same goes for the modals, shoulda, coulda, musta.
Spelling as it sounds can yield amusing results:
Along the way the details of his past are sordid out and he realizes that what he once thought about his parents isn't the truth at all. — Amazon.com Review.
A speaker of British English, of course, would never write sorted in this manner, but with an American flapped t, it’s a perfect fit.
answered 4 hours ago
KarlGKarlG
23.3k63362
2
In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.
– Rusty Core
3 hours ago
It's up to you, but I think IPA looks better in code blocks.
– Azor Ahai
1 hour ago
@AzorAhai - I think IPA looks better in a glass.
– Hot Licks
29 mins ago
add a comment |
"Would of" is a garden variety malapropism (Wikipedia - Malapropism).
Some more interesting malapropisms are "tantrum bicycle" instead of tandem bicycle, "Alcoholics Unanimous" instead of Alcoholics Anonymous, "a vast suppository of information" instead of repository of information, "Miss-Marple-ism" instead of malapropism1 and Mike Tyson's "I might fade into Bolivian" instead of oblivion (these are all borrowed from that same Wikipedia article).
The basic idea is that no one has perfect knowledge of any language, not even the ones they speak natively. We hear things incorrectly and then repeat the mistake.
We know that English speakers often contract "would have" into "would've." This is pronounced identically (in some dialects) to "would of," so the mistake is easy to make.
1: This one seems too perfect to be a complete mistake. The "miss" sound is totally absent from "malapropism" and the term, for those who didn't follow the Wikipedia link, comes from a character named Miss Malaprop. It seems unlikely that the supposed speaker of "Miss-Marple-ism" wasn't aware, at least subconsciously, of the correct word, or at least its origins. In which case, this neologism may really be an eggcorn.
answered 4 hours ago
JuhaszJuhasz
3,3761814
3
A popular example of this is the "it's a dog-eat-dog world" being written "it's a doggy dog world."
– barbecue
4 hours ago
I would not call it a malapropism, because those are errors of (real, spoken) language. These are utterly different from errors in using the learnt technology called writing.
– Colin Fine
4 hours ago
1
@ColinFine not sure I follow. Are you saying that the term "malapropism" can't be used for written language? That seems pretty far-fetched to me. Got a citation?
– barbecue
3 hours ago
add a comment |
This is probably a case of hearing a phrase and assuming/guessing how it should be spelled. Would have can be abbreviated as would've, and in rapid conversation, the pronunciation of "would've" is basically the same as "would of."
answered 4 hours ago
barbecuebarbecue
4,5461128
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f493269%2fhow-come-people-say-would-of%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Correction: what annoys you is people writing “would of” when they are saying /ˈwʊdəv/, which is the standard pronunciation of the contraction would’ve.
The vowel of the preposition “of” is almost always reduced in actual speech, yielding /əv/. Thus “would’ve” and “would of” are homophones. So no surprise that some people spell it that way, even though it makes no grammatical sense.
Would’ve can be even further reduced to /ˈwʊdə/, which some people spell woulda. The same goes for the modals, shoulda, coulda, musta.
Spelling as it sounds can yield amusing results:
Along the way the details of his past are sordid out and he realizes that what he once thought about his parents isn't the truth at all. — Amazon.com Review.
A speaker of British English, of course, would never write sorted in this manner, but with an American flapped t, it’s a perfect fit.
answered 4 hours ago
KarlGKarlG
23.3k63362
2
In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.
– Rusty Core
3 hours ago
It's up to you, but I think IPA looks better in code blocks.
– Azor Ahai
1 hour ago
@AzorAhai - I think IPA looks better in a glass.
– Hot Licks
29 mins ago
add a comment |
Correction: what annoys you is people writing “would of” when they are saying /ˈwʊdəv/, which is the standard pronunciation of the contraction would’ve.
The vowel of the preposition “of” is almost always reduced in actual speech, yielding /əv/. Thus “would’ve” and “would of” are homophones. So no surprise that some people spell it that way, even though it makes no grammatical sense.
Would’ve can be even further reduced to /ˈwʊdə/, which some people spell woulda. The same goes for the modals, shoulda, coulda, musta.
Spelling as it sounds can yield amusing results:
Along the way the details of his past are sordid out and he realizes that what he once thought about his parents isn't the truth at all. — Amazon.com Review.
A speaker of British English, of course, would never write sorted in this manner, but with an American flapped t, it’s a perfect fit.
answered 4 hours ago
KarlGKarlG
23.3k63362
2
In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.
– Rusty Core
3 hours ago
It's up to you, but I think IPA looks better in code blocks.
– Azor Ahai
1 hour ago
@AzorAhai - I think IPA looks better in a glass.
– Hot Licks
29 mins ago
add a comment |
Correction: what annoys you is people writing “would of” when they are saying /ˈwʊdəv/, which is the standard pronunciation of the contraction would’ve.
The vowel of the preposition “of” is almost always reduced in actual speech, yielding /əv/. Thus “would’ve” and “would of” are homophones. So no surprise that some people spell it that way, even though it makes no grammatical sense.
Would’ve can be even further reduced to /ˈwʊdə/, which some people spell woulda. The same goes for the modals, shoulda, coulda, musta.
Spelling as it sounds can yield amusing results:
Along the way the details of his past are sordid out and he realizes that what he once thought about his parents isn't the truth at all. — Amazon.com Review.
A speaker of British English, of course, would never write sorted in this manner, but with an American flapped t, it’s a perfect fit.
answered 4 hours ago
KarlGKarlG
23.3k63362
Correction: what annoys you is people writing “would of” when they are saying /ˈwʊdəv/, which is the standard pronunciation of the contraction would’ve.
The vowel of the preposition “of” is almost always reduced in actual speech, yielding /əv/. Thus “would’ve” and “would of” are homophones. So no surprise that some people spell it that way, even though it makes no grammatical sense.
Would’ve can be even further reduced to /ˈwʊdə/, which some people spell woulda. The same goes for the modals, shoulda, coulda, musta.
Spelling as it sounds can yield amusing results:
Along the way the details of his past are sordid out and he realizes that what he once thought about his parents isn't the truth at all. — Amazon.com Review.
A speaker of British English, of course, would never write sorted in this manner, but with an American flapped t, it’s a perfect fit.
answered 4 hours ago
KarlGKarlG
23.3k63362
answered 4 hours ago
KarlGKarlG
23.3k63362
answered 4 hours ago
KarlGKarlG
23.3k63362
answered 4 hours ago
KarlGKarlG
23.3k63362
23.3k63362
2
In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.
– Rusty Core
3 hours ago
It's up to you, but I think IPA looks better in code blocks.
– Azor Ahai
1 hour ago
@AzorAhai - I think IPA looks better in a glass.
– Hot Licks
29 mins ago
add a comment |
2
In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.
– Rusty Core
3 hours ago
It's up to you, but I think IPA looks better in code blocks.
– Azor Ahai
1 hour ago
@AzorAhai - I think IPA looks better in a glass.
– Hot Licks
29 mins ago
2
2
In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.
– Rusty Core
3 hours ago
In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.
– Rusty Core
3 hours ago
It's up to you, but I think IPA looks better in code blocks.
– Azor Ahai
1 hour ago
It's up to you, but I think IPA looks better in code blocks.
– Azor Ahai
1 hour ago
@AzorAhai - I think IPA looks better in a glass.
– Hot Licks
29 mins ago
@AzorAhai - I think IPA looks better in a glass.
– Hot Licks
29 mins ago
add a comment |
"Would of" is a garden variety malapropism (Wikipedia - Malapropism).
Some more interesting malapropisms are "tantrum bicycle" instead of tandem bicycle, "Alcoholics Unanimous" instead of Alcoholics Anonymous, "a vast suppository of information" instead of repository of information, "Miss-Marple-ism" instead of malapropism1 and Mike Tyson's "I might fade into Bolivian" instead of oblivion (these are all borrowed from that same Wikipedia article).
The basic idea is that no one has perfect knowledge of any language, not even the ones they speak natively. We hear things incorrectly and then repeat the mistake.
We know that English speakers often contract "would have" into "would've." This is pronounced identically (in some dialects) to "would of," so the mistake is easy to make.
1: This one seems too perfect to be a complete mistake. The "miss" sound is totally absent from "malapropism" and the term, for those who didn't follow the Wikipedia link, comes from a character named Miss Malaprop. It seems unlikely that the supposed speaker of "Miss-Marple-ism" wasn't aware, at least subconsciously, of the correct word, or at least its origins. In which case, this neologism may really be an eggcorn.
answered 4 hours ago
JuhaszJuhasz
3,3761814
3
A popular example of this is the "it's a dog-eat-dog world" being written "it's a doggy dog world."
– barbecue
4 hours ago
I would not call it a malapropism, because those are errors of (real, spoken) language. These are utterly different from errors in using the learnt technology called writing.
– Colin Fine
4 hours ago
1
@ColinFine not sure I follow. Are you saying that the term "malapropism" can't be used for written language? That seems pretty far-fetched to me. Got a citation?
– barbecue
3 hours ago
add a comment |
"Would of" is a garden variety malapropism (Wikipedia - Malapropism).
Some more interesting malapropisms are "tantrum bicycle" instead of tandem bicycle, "Alcoholics Unanimous" instead of Alcoholics Anonymous, "a vast suppository of information" instead of repository of information, "Miss-Marple-ism" instead of malapropism1 and Mike Tyson's "I might fade into Bolivian" instead of oblivion (these are all borrowed from that same Wikipedia article).
The basic idea is that no one has perfect knowledge of any language, not even the ones they speak natively. We hear things incorrectly and then repeat the mistake.
We know that English speakers often contract "would have" into "would've." This is pronounced identically (in some dialects) to "would of," so the mistake is easy to make.
1: This one seems too perfect to be a complete mistake. The "miss" sound is totally absent from "malapropism" and the term, for those who didn't follow the Wikipedia link, comes from a character named Miss Malaprop. It seems unlikely that the supposed speaker of "Miss-Marple-ism" wasn't aware, at least subconsciously, of the correct word, or at least its origins. In which case, this neologism may really be an eggcorn.
answered 4 hours ago
JuhaszJuhasz
3,3761814
3
A popular example of this is the "it's a dog-eat-dog world" being written "it's a doggy dog world."
– barbecue
4 hours ago
I would not call it a malapropism, because those are errors of (real, spoken) language. These are utterly different from errors in using the learnt technology called writing.
– Colin Fine
4 hours ago
1
@ColinFine not sure I follow. Are you saying that the term "malapropism" can't be used for written language? That seems pretty far-fetched to me. Got a citation?
– barbecue
3 hours ago
add a comment |
"Would of" is a garden variety malapropism (Wikipedia - Malapropism).
Some more interesting malapropisms are "tantrum bicycle" instead of tandem bicycle, "Alcoholics Unanimous" instead of Alcoholics Anonymous, "a vast suppository of information" instead of repository of information, "Miss-Marple-ism" instead of malapropism1 and Mike Tyson's "I might fade into Bolivian" instead of oblivion (these are all borrowed from that same Wikipedia article).
The basic idea is that no one has perfect knowledge of any language, not even the ones they speak natively. We hear things incorrectly and then repeat the mistake.
We know that English speakers often contract "would have" into "would've." This is pronounced identically (in some dialects) to "would of," so the mistake is easy to make.
1: This one seems too perfect to be a complete mistake. The "miss" sound is totally absent from "malapropism" and the term, for those who didn't follow the Wikipedia link, comes from a character named Miss Malaprop. It seems unlikely that the supposed speaker of "Miss-Marple-ism" wasn't aware, at least subconsciously, of the correct word, or at least its origins. In which case, this neologism may really be an eggcorn.
answered 4 hours ago
JuhaszJuhasz
3,3761814
"Would of" is a garden variety malapropism (Wikipedia - Malapropism).
Some more interesting malapropisms are "tantrum bicycle" instead of tandem bicycle, "Alcoholics Unanimous" instead of Alcoholics Anonymous, "a vast suppository of information" instead of repository of information, "Miss-Marple-ism" instead of malapropism1 and Mike Tyson's "I might fade into Bolivian" instead of oblivion (these are all borrowed from that same Wikipedia article).
The basic idea is that no one has perfect knowledge of any language, not even the ones they speak natively. We hear things incorrectly and then repeat the mistake.
We know that English speakers often contract "would have" into "would've." This is pronounced identically (in some dialects) to "would of," so the mistake is easy to make.
1: This one seems too perfect to be a complete mistake. The "miss" sound is totally absent from "malapropism" and the term, for those who didn't follow the Wikipedia link, comes from a character named Miss Malaprop. It seems unlikely that the supposed speaker of "Miss-Marple-ism" wasn't aware, at least subconsciously, of the correct word, or at least its origins. In which case, this neologism may really be an eggcorn.
answered 4 hours ago
JuhaszJuhasz
3,3761814
edited 4 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
JuhaszJuhasz
3,3761814
answered 4 hours ago
JuhaszJuhasz
3,3761814
answered 4 hours ago
JuhaszJuhasz
3,3761814
3,3761814
3
A popular example of this is the "it's a dog-eat-dog world" being written "it's a doggy dog world."
– barbecue
4 hours ago
I would not call it a malapropism, because those are errors of (real, spoken) language. These are utterly different from errors in using the learnt technology called writing.
– Colin Fine
4 hours ago
1
@ColinFine not sure I follow. Are you saying that the term "malapropism" can't be used for written language? That seems pretty far-fetched to me. Got a citation?
– barbecue
3 hours ago
add a comment |
3
A popular example of this is the "it's a dog-eat-dog world" being written "it's a doggy dog world."
– barbecue
4 hours ago
I would not call it a malapropism, because those are errors of (real, spoken) language. These are utterly different from errors in using the learnt technology called writing.
– Colin Fine
4 hours ago
1
@ColinFine not sure I follow. Are you saying that the term "malapropism" can't be used for written language? That seems pretty far-fetched to me. Got a citation?
– barbecue
3 hours ago
3
3
A popular example of this is the "it's a dog-eat-dog world" being written "it's a doggy dog world."
– barbecue
4 hours ago
A popular example of this is the "it's a dog-eat-dog world" being written "it's a doggy dog world."
– barbecue
4 hours ago
I would not call it a malapropism, because those are errors of (real, spoken) language. These are utterly different from errors in using the learnt technology called writing.
– Colin Fine
4 hours ago
I would not call it a malapropism, because those are errors of (real, spoken) language. These are utterly different from errors in using the learnt technology called writing.
– Colin Fine
4 hours ago
1
1
@ColinFine not sure I follow. Are you saying that the term "malapropism" can't be used for written language? That seems pretty far-fetched to me. Got a citation?
– barbecue
3 hours ago
@ColinFine not sure I follow. Are you saying that the term "malapropism" can't be used for written language? That seems pretty far-fetched to me. Got a citation?
– barbecue
3 hours ago
add a comment |
This is probably a case of hearing a phrase and assuming/guessing how it should be spelled. Would have can be abbreviated as would've, and in rapid conversation, the pronunciation of "would've" is basically the same as "would of."
answered 4 hours ago
barbecuebarbecue
4,5461128
add a comment |
This is probably a case of hearing a phrase and assuming/guessing how it should be spelled. Would have can be abbreviated as would've, and in rapid conversation, the pronunciation of "would've" is basically the same as "would of."
answered 4 hours ago
barbecuebarbecue
4,5461128
add a comment |
This is probably a case of hearing a phrase and assuming/guessing how it should be spelled. Would have can be abbreviated as would've, and in rapid conversation, the pronunciation of "would've" is basically the same as "would of."
answered 4 hours ago
barbecuebarbecue
4,5461128
This is probably a case of hearing a phrase and assuming/guessing how it should be spelled. Would have can be abbreviated as would've, and in rapid conversation, the pronunciation of "would've" is basically the same as "would of."
answered 4 hours ago
barbecuebarbecue
4,5461128
answered 4 hours ago
barbecuebarbecue
4,5461128
answered 4 hours ago
barbecuebarbecue
4,5461128
answered 4 hours ago
barbecuebarbecue
4,5461128
4,5461128
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f493269%2fhow-come-people-say-would-of%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
5
Your ears are deceiving you. In most (maybe all) varieties of English, in rapid speech "would have" and "would of" are 100% indistinguishable. Nobody is "saying" something incorrect. But spelling, being part of the invented and learnt technology called "writing" (and thus almost entirely different from the natural faculty called "language") is often imperfectly learnt - especially when the rules of spelling make a distinction which is not there in the real (spoken) language.
– Colin Fine
4 hours ago
3
Slabs words? What are those supposed to be? (Note that while would of is, as Colin says, not an error in speech because it’s indistinguishable from would have, the same is not true of why did they came, which is ungrammatical in both speech and writing. Also, it has no clue does not make any sense in the context you’re using it in here – either they [= the people who write would of] have no clue, or it [= would of] makes no sense, but not a mixture of the two.)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
4 hours ago
Consider that it's "would 'ave". Some people know this and realize that "would have" is the unabbreviated form, while others, probably as a child, heard "would 'ave" and took it to be "would of", and thus say and write "would of".
– Hot Licks
4 hours ago
1
@ColinFine: I disagree. You're right that they're nearly indistinguishable, but as a result, there's a lot of people who learned it wrong, and now say and type "would of".
– Mooing Duck
1 hour ago
@JanusBahsJacquet my bad I had no clue (😅) I couldn’t use the expression “to have no clue” in this context, I misused it, I was strongly believed it had more meanings. I meant to say that it is pointless, since even a non native speaker can recognize it is wrong. I don’t understand how someone would write something like that, it’s the worst thing I ever read... even because it’s nor shorter (since you can say would’ve) nor correct nor anything else, just disturbing and wrong...
– Marybnq
42 mins ago