How come people say “Would of”? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are...
What is the motivation for a law requiring 2 parties to consent for recording a conversation
Pristine Bit Checking
Dual Citizen. Exited the US on Italian passport recently
Why could you hear an Amstrad CPC working?
What tool would a Roman-age civilization have to grind silver and other metals into dust?
A poker game description that does not feel gimmicky
Is domain driven design an anti-SQL pattern?
Why don't Unix/Linux systems traverse through directories until they find the required version of a linked library?
It's possible to achieve negative score?
Deadlock Graph and Interpretation, solution to avoid
Can I write a for loop that iterates over both collections and arrays?
Landlord wants to switch my lease to a "Land contract" to "get back at the city"
Confusion about non-derivable continuous functions
JSON.serialize: is it possible to suppress null values of a map?
"What time...?" or "At what time...?" - what is more grammatically correct?
What do the Banks children have against barley water?
Does it makes sense to buy a new cycle to learn riding?
Is bread bad for ducks?
How to answer pointed "are you quitting" questioning when I don't want them to suspect
If a poisoned arrow's piercing damage is reduced to 0, do you still get poisoned?
What does "rabbited" mean/imply in this sentence?
"Riffle" two strings
Could JWST stay at L2 "forever"?
"To split hairs" vs "To be pedantic"
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 slabs words/expressions, so my question is, why do people use this one? It’s so annoying to read, stupid and clearly wrong, it has no clue, why did they came up with this expression?
word-choice etymology expressions
asked 3 hours ago
MarybnqMarybnq
1618
add a comment |
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 slabs words/expressions, so my question is, why do people use this one? It’s so annoying to read, stupid and clearly wrong, it has no clue, why did they came up with this expression?
word-choice etymology expressions
asked 3 hours ago
MarybnqMarybnq
1618
4
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
2 hours ago
2
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
2 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
2 hours ago
add a comment |
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 slabs words/expressions, so my question is, why do people use this one? It’s so annoying to read, stupid and clearly wrong, it has no clue, why did they came up with this expression?
word-choice etymology expressions
asked 3 hours ago
MarybnqMarybnq
1618
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 slabs words/expressions, so my question is, why do people use this one? It’s so annoying to read, stupid and clearly wrong, it has no clue, why did they came up with this expression?
word-choice etymology expressions
word-choice etymology expressions
asked 3 hours ago
MarybnqMarybnq
1618
asked 3 hours ago
MarybnqMarybnq
1618
asked 3 hours ago
MarybnqMarybnq
1618
asked 3 hours ago
MarybnqMarybnq
1618
asked 3 hours ago
MarybnqMarybnq
1618
1618
4
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
2 hours ago
2
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
2 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
2 hours ago
add a comment |
4
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
2 hours ago
2
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
2 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
2 hours ago
4
4
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
2 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
2 hours ago
2
2
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
2 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
2 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
2 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
2 hours ago
add a comment |
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 2 hours ago
KarlGKarlG
23.2k63362
In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.
– Rusty Core
1 hour ago
It's up to you, but I think IPA looks better in code blocks.
– Azor Ahai
3 mins 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 2 hours ago
barbecuebarbecue
4,5361128
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 2 hours ago
JuhaszJuhasz
3,3461814
2
A popular example of this is the "it's a dog-eat-dog world" being written "it's a doggy dog world."
– barbecue
2 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
2 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
1 hour ago
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 2 hours ago
KarlGKarlG
23.2k63362
In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.
– Rusty Core
1 hour ago
It's up to you, but I think IPA looks better in code blocks.
– Azor Ahai
3 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 2 hours ago
KarlGKarlG
23.2k63362
In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.
– Rusty Core
1 hour ago
It's up to you, but I think IPA looks better in code blocks.
– Azor Ahai
3 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 2 hours ago
KarlGKarlG
23.2k63362
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 2 hours ago
KarlGKarlG
23.2k63362
answered 2 hours ago
KarlGKarlG
23.2k63362
answered 2 hours ago
KarlGKarlG
23.2k63362
answered 2 hours ago
KarlGKarlG
23.2k63362
23.2k63362
In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.
– Rusty Core
1 hour ago
It's up to you, but I think IPA looks better in code blocks.
– Azor Ahai
3 mins ago
add a comment |
In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.
– Rusty Core
1 hour ago
It's up to you, but I think IPA looks better in code blocks.
– Azor Ahai
3 mins ago
In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.
– Rusty Core
1 hour ago
In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.
– Rusty Core
1 hour ago
It's up to you, but I think IPA looks better in code blocks.
– Azor Ahai
3 mins ago
It's up to you, but I think IPA looks better in code blocks.
– Azor Ahai
3 mins 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 2 hours ago
barbecuebarbecue
4,5361128
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 2 hours ago
barbecuebarbecue
4,5361128
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 2 hours ago
barbecuebarbecue
4,5361128
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 2 hours ago
barbecuebarbecue
4,5361128
answered 2 hours ago
barbecuebarbecue
4,5361128
answered 2 hours ago
barbecuebarbecue
4,5361128
answered 2 hours ago
barbecuebarbecue
4,5361128
4,5361128
add a comment |
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 2 hours ago
JuhaszJuhasz
3,3461814
2
A popular example of this is the "it's a dog-eat-dog world" being written "it's a doggy dog world."
– barbecue
2 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
2 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
1 hour 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 2 hours ago
JuhaszJuhasz
3,3461814
2
A popular example of this is the "it's a dog-eat-dog world" being written "it's a doggy dog world."
– barbecue
2 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
2 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
1 hour 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 2 hours ago
JuhaszJuhasz
3,3461814
"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 2 hours ago
JuhaszJuhasz
3,3461814
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
JuhaszJuhasz
3,3461814
answered 2 hours ago
JuhaszJuhasz
3,3461814
answered 2 hours ago
JuhaszJuhasz
3,3461814
3,3461814
2
A popular example of this is the "it's a dog-eat-dog world" being written "it's a doggy dog world."
– barbecue
2 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
2 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
1 hour ago
add a comment |
2
A popular example of this is the "it's a dog-eat-dog world" being written "it's a doggy dog world."
– barbecue
2 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
2 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
1 hour ago
2
2
A popular example of this is the "it's a dog-eat-dog world" being written "it's a doggy dog world."
– barbecue
2 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
2 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
2 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
2 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
1 hour 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
1 hour ago
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
4
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
2 hours ago
2
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
2 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
2 hours ago