I could of made it ??

Juergen wrote on 19 Apr 2004:
[nq:1]Sometimes I read this, not in books, but in newsgroups, mails and other rather informal sources, and from native speakers ... read "I could have made it", but what is it actually? Is it slang, hip language or just a typo?[/nq]
It's incorrect English, but many native speakers who ought to know better use it. It's far from hip, is not slang, and most of th

[nq:1]Sometimes I read this, not in books, but in newsgroups, mails and other rather informal sources, and from native speakers ... read "I could have made it", but what is it actually? Is it slang, hip language or just a typo?[/nq]
It's vernacular usage.
Wrong, but quite common,
and in casual speech, unremarked apon.
"I could of made it."
"I shoulda done it."
"He would of

[nq:1]Sometimes I read this, not in books, but in newsgroups, mails and other rather informal sources, and from native speakers ... read "I could have made it", but what is it actually? Is it slang, hip language or just a typo?[/nq]
It's the falling together of unaccented connecting words by native speakers who don't think consciously about grammar. In this case, "could have" could drop the 'h

[nq:2]Sometimes I read this, not in books, but in newsgroups, ... actually? Is it slang, hip language or just a typo?[/nq]
[nq:1]It's vernacular usage. Wrong, but quite common, and in casual speech, unremarked apon. "I could of made it." "I shoulda done it." "He would of if he could."[/nq]
Hm, I wouldn't group those three together like that. "Shoulda" is a contraction of "should have", jus

[nq:1]Sometimes I read this, not in books, but in newsgroups, mails and other rather informal sources, and from native speakers ... read "I could have made it", but what is it actually? Is it slang, hip language or just a typo?[/nq]
It's a phonetic transcription. Many people use this expression without realizing that they are saying "I could HAVE made it." Both "of" and "have" are pronounced t

Adrian Bailey > misc.education.language.english
in
[nq:1]A positive feedback loop has been set in motion, and now many people even say "should of".[/nq]
How can you tell they say "should of" rather than "should've"? Do they pronounce that in a different way?

Enrico C

Enrico C wrote on 20 Apr 2004:
[nq:1]Adrian Bailey > misc.education.language.english in[/nq]
[nq:2]A positive feedback loop has been set in motion, and now many people even say "should of".[/nq]
[nq:1]How can you tell they say "should of" rather than "should've"? Do they pronounce that in a different way?[/nq]
Yes. The contraction is spoken with a very reduced vowel.

[nq:1]How can you tell they say "should of" rather than "should've"? Do they pronounce that in a different way?[/nq]
No, and that's why it is often incorrectly written in print.

Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[nq:1]Yes. The contraction is spoken with a very reduced vowel.[/nq]
They are pronounced the same way in American English.

Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote on 20 Apr 2004:
[nq:2]Yes. The contraction is spoken with a very reduced vowel.[/nq]
[nq:1]They are pronounced the same way in American English.[/nq]
I speak American English, maniac, and I don't agree with your judgment here. "should of" like "should have" is two words, and the second word takes secondary stress. "should've" is one word, and the second syllable takes te