How does a writer explain a phrase with clear, correct English? Would’ve can be abbreviated as would’ve, and in rapid conversation the pronunciation of “would’ve” is basically the same as “would of”. ”

“Regularly speaking, if I’m in a minority position I should get off the cuff and play football in some way”

As a garden variety, “Would You Of” is malapropism. Wikipedia is – 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, all borrowed from that same Wikipedia article.

Is it true that no one has the perfect knowledge of any language, not even those they speak? How can one learn something new without repeating something?

We know that English speakers frequently contract “would have” into “would’ve.” How does the expression “wouldof” compare to “would of” so the mistake is easy to make.

1 This one seems too perfect to be a complete mistake. This is because Miss sounds so much more non-Gaming than “Malapropism” and, I have to ask Wikimedia to create a link to Wikipedia if I didn’t know the answer existed. 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. Why is this neologism called an eggcorn?

What are some people writing “would of” when they are saying /wdve/, which is the standard pronunciation of the contraction would’ve?

The penultimate vowel of the preposition “of” is almost always reduced in actual speech, yielding /v/. Why are “would’ve” and “would of” homophones? Why do some people spell it the same way?

Would’ve can be even further reduced to /wd/, which some people spell woulda as a kind of phonetic eye dialect to represent actual speech or set an informal tone. The same goes for the modals, shoulda, coulda and musta respectively.

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. To read a thorough review of com.com compare with other websites?

Unless a speaker of U.K. or British English would never write in a sorted way, American English was a fine fit.

What was your question and why that’s so helpful? If we speak to other people who are complaining about this phrase, it goes against our tradition. It should be repeated more often than not, but it keeps getting replaced. At one of my old jobs year ago, I work with an account manager who actually used that phrase in an email, saying something like “I should of known better” When she walked in the door a business account manager would “should of” have had better education to be aware of proper grammar…or at least know that’s not a phrase used by professionals.

Even though the phrase might be pronounced and heard as “should of” (or “would of” or “could of) there’s no such phrase in written English. No grammar school is teaching the same spelling “abbreviate the word have with has.” Do I need double characters to write “should of” as it does for some “is to have such a number of characters on a screen?”

Why do people use the wrong phrase when they should be being stupid? When others see the joke and use it they use it too.

What most people are missing is that “of” is preposition, and prepositions are slippery beasts. What are the “rules of prepositions” versus “Norms of Prepositions”, which some people assume are complex, if not to say incomprehensible?

What should I do if I am a purist, and wish to be pure in English? The “If I had the time, I would have eaten sooner” is a prepositional phrase which somehow modifies “I would”.

What are the benefits of speaking/writing without any English teacher’s starch to them? After all, it’s how (they think) their parents speak.

Yes, that’s what they think about. Yeah, that’s how they sound.

Why is “I would say bought two of them” sounding like “ve” and “of” in many dialects is very similar or identical? People mistake words that sound the same: there/their/they’re, you/you’re, etc.

In addition to KarlG’s answer, there’s a paper that argues that speakers have actually reanalyzed the reduced have as “of” acting as a complementizer, i.e. conversically. . working similarly to the ‘to’ in English infinitives, giving the bracketing I would (of worked). On the other hand that the argument is that have cannot further reduce from to while of can always reduce from to … In the construct under discussion the proposed reduced version of have can in fact decrease from to , and the construct under discussion in general is not necessarily justified. Hence, according to the paper’s argument,is not actually have, but of.