Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: 'would have' or 'would of'?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Country Victoria
    Posts
    1,991

    Question 'would have' or 'would of'?

    Please help me.

    Is it:

    'would have' or 'would of'

    'should have' or 'should of'

    As in 'it would ..... been great' or 'it should ..... been in Winter'



    Does it depend on the sentence?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Blue Mountains
    Posts
    266

    Default

    I think 'should/would have' is correct... seems to make more sense

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    in the eye of a toddler tornado
    Posts
    2,450

    Default

    I'm pretty sure that it's always "would have" or "should have" and that 'would of'/ 'should of' aren't grammatically correct....

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    SE Queensland
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Yep 'would have or would've' or ' should have or should' ve'.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In my own private paradise
    Posts
    15,272

    Default

    i'm pretty sure it's "have". the "of" just comes from our laziness in forming words when speaking. i can't think of any context off the top of my head where should of/would of makes sense

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by briggsy's girl View Post
    i'm pretty sure it's "have". the "of" just comes from our laziness in forming words when speaking. i can't think of any context off the top of my head where should of/would of makes sense
    :yeahthat: Of is just the lazy version

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    8,986

    Default

    It's have! Never of! Or you can write should've or would've.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    457

    Default

    I think its one of those strange language things, not necessarily laziness. If you say would've or should've outloud they really sound like would of and should of, and since language is taught verbally much more than written, its just been "adapted" over time.
    In saying that, "of" isn't correct, The word should is an auxillary verb indictaing obligation to carry out the verb that follows. Of is not a verb and therefore "should of" just doesn't work gramatically
    "Of" is a preposition not a verb.

    On a completely different note, the words should and would are not very helpful in many ways. I spoke to counsellor the other day who works with young people dying of terminal illness, usually cancer. His colleague has a poster he gives to his clients which reads "I will not should myself today". Sometimes the "shoulds" expressed on the forum get me down too. Especially in terms of parenting which has a million different answers and rarely any definites with a couple of exceptions like "You should not put coke in a baby's bottle" Anyway very philosophical thism morning.

    You should use have lol!
    Last edited by PollyA; December 28th, 2010 at 08:53 AM. Reason: added detail and philosophical tangent

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,794

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PollyA View Post
    I think its one of those strange language things, not necessarily laziness. If you say would've or should've outloud they really sound like would of and should of, and since language is taught verbally much more than written, its just been "adapted" over time.
    I am sorry, but I disagree with this. Yes, it is how it sounds when said verbally, but we should still be teaching the correct written grammer to our children (or peers who are learning English, or how to read/write etc). I don't think it has been adapted as a correct form of grammer.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Country Victoria
    Posts
    1,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lissy View Post
    Yep 'would have or would've' or ' should have or should' ve'.
    Ohh that makes so much sense, for some reason this always gets me! Now that I have burnt the 've in my memory I should remember.

    Quote Originally Posted by briggsy's girl View Post
    i'm pretty sure it's "have". the "of" just comes from our laziness in forming words when speaking. i can't think of any context off the top of my head where should of/would of makes sense
    I had a feeling that the 'of' was from being lazy but as I said above, it always gets me so I refuse to type it at all

    Thankyou!

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    457

    Default

    Hey Doing my best,
    I totally agree, was editing my post as you posted to add that I thought the same, just trying to think about why it was such a commonly used incorrect phrase

  12. #12

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic
    Posts
    8,631

    Default

    There are a whole lot of incorrect things that are becoming common place and routinely accepted - agreeance is another. Totally incorrect but more people are using it and apparently that's all it takes to be accepted, eventually, as correct.

    Makes me want to

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Gold Coast, QLD
    Posts
    1,563

    Default

    One of my many many pet peeves. When in doubt when it comes to language, try breaking it down logically.

    Eg you can say:
    I have been drinking all day...

    So you would say:
    I would have been drinking all day...

    Not:
    I of been drinking / I would of been drinking



    Sent from my Desire HD

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Taking a ride on my grdonkey :D
    Posts
    2,716

    Default

    One of my biggest bugbears! It's HAVE! Always have! Never OF! The others have explained it beautifully, and I will not tolerate this 'colloquial acceptance' of 'would/should of'. Never! I believe it comes from the sound of 'would've/should've' being pronounced, but there is NO reason we should not teach people the correct usage of the terms - this laziness in 'accepting' or adapting lazy speech, grammar and spelling is ridiculous. The English language is complex, but beautiful - surely we're smart enough to learn a few simple 'rules' to maintain our language, rather than resorting to incoherent speech and unintelligible writing for the sake of 'simplicity'.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Perth, WA
    Posts
    2,315

    Default

    So glad to see there are people out there who do actually know the correct grammar! My other bugbear is the use of then for than when referring to quantity (as in, 'I ate more then you' or 'Mine is bigger then yours'). Grrrrrrrrrr.

    I believe part of it is because there was such a push for the 'whole language' approach to literacy in the 80's (where children learned to read and write through immersion and would just 'pick it up' without the need to be constantly corrected or learn spelling and grammar rules) and we're seeing the results of it now. Gen X doesn't know the rules, and therefore we can't pass them onto to Gen Y. I had to learn basic grammar, spelling and punctuation rules when I went to uni (I learned about nouns and verbs from my year 11 French teacher!) as before then my knowledge of correct grammar was limited to whether it 'sounded right'. One of the biggest eye openers for me was with a student teacher I had a few years ago. She was assisting year 4 students with a grammar task when one asked her what a contraction was. Her answer? 'You tell me and we'll both know'.

    On a positive note, we are seeing a renewed emphasis on 'functional grammar' in literacy teaching, so here's hoping we see an improvement in grammar in years to come.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    In the darkroom
    Posts
    2,208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doing my best View Post
    I am sorry, but I disagree with this. Yes, it is how it sounds when said verbally, but we should still be teaching the correct written grammer to our children (or peers who are learning English, or how to read/write etc). I don't think it has been adapted as a correct form of grammer.
    ^ yeah, that!

    Would've and should've just sounds like 'of' when spoken, but grammatically 'of' is incorrect.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    South Eastern Suburbs, Vic
    Posts
    6,054

    Default

    You're all wrong.

    It's woulda or shoulda.

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nelle View Post
    You're all wrong.

    It's woulda or shoulda.
    yeah that!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •