0
Usenet Posted 21 years ago
Usage
Could of vs could've
I often see writers make the mistake of writing could of* when they should've written *could've.
I also noticed that students who make this mistake are typically those who read very little. This has led me to believe that they write what they hear and not what they see (since they don't see the correct form written very often). I assumed that they have not picked up on the voiced v* sound versus the voiceless *f sound.
As I was re-reading Lorraine Hansberry's 'Raisin in the Sun' I noticed that she too uses 'could of' and I began to doubt myself. Could I of been wrong? Scout
I also noticed that students who make this mistake are typically those who read very little. This has led me to believe that they write what they hear and not what they see (since they don't see the correct form written very often). I assumed that they have not picked up on the voiced v* sound versus the voiceless *f sound.
As I was re-reading Lorraine Hansberry's 'Raisin in the Sun' I noticed that she too uses 'could of' and I began to doubt myself. Could I of been wrong? Scout
Top answer
[nq:1]I often see writers make the mistake of writing could of* when they should've written *could've*. I also noticed that ... very often).
- [nq:1]I often see writers make the mistake of writing could of* when they should've written *could've*.
- I also noticed that ...
- very often).
- [/nq] Why did you assume that?
- [nq:1]As I was re-reading Lorraine Hansberry's 'Raisin in the Sun' I noticedthat she too uses 'could of' and I began to doubt myself.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
33 Answers
0
[nq:1]I often see writers make the mistake of writing could of* when they should've written *could've*. I also noticed that ... very often). I assumed that they have not picked up on the voiced *v* sound versus the voiceless *f sound.[/nq]
Why did you assume that?
[nq:1]As I was re-reading Lorraine Hansberry's 'Raisin in the Sun' I noticedthat she too uses 'could of' and I began to
Why did you assume that?
[nq:1]As I was re-reading Lorraine Hansberry's 'Raisin in the Sun' I noticedthat she too uses 'could of' and I began to
00
Because they should have written could've* and instead wrote *could of They wrote what they thought they heard. They did not pick up on the vibrating vocal chords.
How would you explain this behavior?
Sorry, don't have my book with me at the moment, and I certainly don't want to misquote. Perhaps later.
Scout
How would you explain this behavior?
Sorry, don't have my book with me at the moment, and I certainly don't want to misquote. Perhaps later.
Scout
00
[nq:2]hear Why did you assume that?[/nq]
[nq:1]Because they should have written could've* and instead wrote *could of They wrote what they thought they heard. They did not pick up on the vibrating vocal chords.[/nq]
But they did. "of" is pronounced "ov" or "'v".
Adrian
[nq:1]Because they should have written could've* and instead wrote *could of They wrote what they thought they heard. They did not pick up on the vibrating vocal chords.[/nq]
But they did. "of" is pronounced "ov" or "'v".
Adrian
00
[nq:1]very[/nq]
[nq:2]Because they should have written could've and instead wrote *could ... They did not pick up on the vibrating vocal chords.[/nq]
[nq:1]But they did. "of" is pronounced "ov" or "'v".[/nq]
hmm, I guess you're right there.
So the question still remains, why do so many writers make the mistake of writing could of?
[nq:2]Because they should have written could've and instead wrote *could ... They did not pick up on the vibrating vocal chords.[/nq]
[nq:1]But they did. "of" is pronounced "ov" or "'v".[/nq]
hmm, I guess you're right there.
So the question still remains, why do so many writers make the mistake of writing could of?
00
[nq:1]I often see writers make the mistake of writing could of* when they should've written *could've.[/nq]
Why not tell them to write "should have" in full rather than the (oral transcript) "should've" ? After all, we know some Americans say another word as labra-tory when the British say labor-atry, but both agree it should appear in writing as laboratory.
Don Phillipson
Why not tell them to write "should have" in full rather than the (oral transcript) "should've" ? After all, we know some Americans say another word as labra-tory when the British say labor-atry, but both agree it should appear in writing as laboratory.
Don Phillipson
00
[nq:1]I often see writers make the mistake of writing could of* when they should've written *could've. I also noticed that ... I noticed that she too uses 'could of' and I began to doubt myself. Could I of been wrong? Scout[/nq]
It's a contraction of 'could have', not 'could of'. But then you knew that didn't you?
I guess she was using it in the context of someone's speech. i ethe c
It's a contraction of 'could have', not 'could of'. But then you knew that didn't you?
I guess she was using it in the context of someone's speech. i ethe c
00
[nq:2]very But they did. "of" is pronounced "ov" or "'v".[/nq]
[nq:1]hmm, I guess you're right there. So the question still remains, why do so many writers make the mistake of writing could of?[/nq]
People who don't read very much have a much wider spoken* than *written vocabulary. When they write, they regularly substitute "easy", common words, for words that one needs to be
[nq:1]hmm, I guess you're right there. So the question still remains, why do so many writers make the mistake of writing could of?[/nq]
People who don't read very much have a much wider spoken* than *written vocabulary. When they write, they regularly substitute "easy", common words, for words that one needs to be
00
[nq:2]I often see writers make the mistake of writing *could ... began to doubt myself. Could I of been wrong? Scout[/nq]
[nq:1]It's a contraction of 'could have', not 'could of'. But then you knew that didn't you?[/nq]
yes thanks : ) - pardon my sledge hammer wit: "could I of been wrong?"
[nq:1]It's a contraction of 'could have', not 'could of'. But then you knew that didn't you?[/nq]
yes thanks : ) - pardon my sledge hammer wit: "could I of been wrong?"
00
[nq:2]I often see writers make the mistake of writing could of* when they should've written *could've.[/nq]
[nq:1]Why not tell them to write "should have" in full rather than the (oral transcript) "should've" ? After all, we know some Americans say another word as labra-tory when the British say labor-atry, but both agree it should appear in writing as laboratory.[/nq]
Yes that woul
[nq:1]Why not tell them to write "should have" in full rather than the (oral transcript) "should've" ? After all, we know some Americans say another word as labra-tory when the British say labor-atry, but both agree it should appear in writing as laboratory.[/nq]
Yes that woul
00
[nq:2]. . .[/nq]
[nq:1]Of course, one of the issues is the fact that these students didn't think they were using a contraction at all![/nq]
So why do these students write an apostrophe,
if not to indicate an oral contraction ?
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
[nq:1]Of course, one of the issues is the fact that these students didn't think they were using a contraction at all![/nq]
So why do these students write an apostrophe,
if not to indicate an oral contraction ?
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
0
Related Questions