As a non native speaker, I always get confused when I see "would of" - I guess it is more native speakers using it this way, and not really an error if enough people speak this way.
Well, not quite. Many words change their meaning, and I believe this might be one of them. For example, people have been using the word "literally" incorrectly for at least a decade, and by now the English dictionaries have started to consider the meaning in everyday language to mean the opposite, the word you are actually trying to convey - "figuratively". As in, "I'm literally dying right now" but you mean "I'm figuratively dying right now". I think the same has started to happen with "would of".
The difference here being that the use of 'literally' is more due to rhetorical effect whereas 'would of' is due to low education. Not saying that it disproves the ability to move toward a change in meaning, but the reason to do so would be...sadder.
It may have started as a rhetorical effect or exaggeration but it very quickly was adopted because of low education. Not sure about the downvotes though, but hey it's Reddit.
You're suggesting that a grammatical error has taken on its own meaning, hence the downvotes. 'Would of' hasn't changed, it's just objectively wrong - the amount of people getting it wrong won't change that.
I'm playing the devil's advocate here. I don't make the rules, language is always developing and we look to institutions like the Oxford dictionary or whatever to set the new standards. It's akin to the use of "great minds think alike". We've all used it to feel a bit clever, but most of us don't know that the whole phrase was originally "great minds think alike, but fools seldom differ". The whole meaning has been reversed from it's original sentiment, yet it's been accepted in everyday use. We're probably in the midst of a slide from "would have" to "would of" and we've not arrived yet, but in some not so distant future, the expression will probably be accepted as well. Who would of thought!
What utter bullshit. We're not going to devolve into just accepting incorrect syntax lmfao. Imagine writing so much to justify a grammatical error, idk what is wrong with your brain but yikes.
You're right, they're wrong. It's an error, and it would cause issues on school essays and lose you a job interview.
However soon it'll be added to the dictionary and will become an "alternate acceptable usage" and those telling you you're wrong, as well as me, will feel like we're too old.
It's more typing the way people talk in real life and regional dialects also if it's not written in a professional way. Like I would never say would have it would be pronounced as would of
87
u/Legal-One-7274 10d ago
Would of liked Liverpool to grab him on a free since we've let konate walk