Should have not

HUBLOTIs "should have not" correct?

Not really, but it can be overlooked as a less used variant when you come across it.

It should be "should not have".

CJ

CalifJimIt should be "should not have".

I agree. But there are 1,380,000,000 Google hits for should have not. What’s the deal with that?

Thanks a lot, CJ and AG.

Aspara GusI agree. But there are 1,380,000,000 Google hits for should have not. What’s the deal with that?

It's not surprising that both are commonly used, but I also agree that "not" should come right after "should".

canadian45It's not surprising …

I find it very surprising. Should have not sounds glaringly unnatural to me.

Aspara Gus find it very surprising. Should have not sounds glaringly unnatural to me.

The reason I'm not surprised is that both word orders are understandable and have the same meaning. (at least to me)

Aspara GusBut there are 1,380,000,000 Google hits for should have not.

The rather more reliable (for our purposes) Corpus of Contemporary American has 1,600 citations for 'should not have' and just sixteen for 'should have not'. The latter is therefore far less commonly used.

fivejedjonThe rather more reliable (for our purposes) Corpus of Contemporary American has 1,600 citations for 'should not have' and just sixteen for 'should have not'.

I was waiting for you.

fivejedjonThe latter is therefore far less commonly used.

Now maybe I can catch some Zs.

Aspara GusI was waiting for you.

I try not to let people down.

Aspara Gusthere are 1,380,000,000 Google hits for should have not. What’s the deal with that?

I can only offer a little hypothesis, fanciful though it may be.

People are beginning to use that pattern more and more in a sort of unconscious imitation of the model they hear in "could have not". Putting 'not' last emphasizes it and negates what fo