|
To the native english-speaking (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| kadomony |
let's conjugate  |
|
|
| iammesol |
| What is you frownin' aboutz |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Redd
Hi c0r,
Is it generally accepted to use the word "of" instead of "have" in certain situations? As in "would of" "could of" "should of" etc. I see this used more an more by aussies, brits etc. so I'm starting to wonder. It looks retarded, but that might just be me. |
It's not "would of" "could of". It's "would've" "could've". These are shortened forms of "would have" "could have". They're contractions just like the first word of this sentence "they're" (they are). I'm sure a common trait among the world's languages is desire to simplify casual speech. Who wants to say two words when you can just say one? |
|
|
| kadomony |
| your late, to the party! |
|
|
| Krypton |
| I 'm always fasionably late...:o |
|
|
| saluyamo |
| Not sure about other Australian high schools but mine didnt teach any grammer. Mostly we learned how to interpt movie scenes and thing we would hardly ever use (although that happened in every class). |
|
|
| Trance Nutter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Redd
Hi c0r,
Is it generally accepted to use the word "of" instead of "have" in certain situations? As in "would of" "could of" "should of" etc. I see this used more an more by aussies, brits etc. so I'm starting to wonder. It looks retarded, but that might just be me. |
its not correct. It should be "should have" or "could have". Its probably because people generally say "should've", so when they write it they write it as "should of" which is close phoenetically.
The whole "could care less" s me to tears. Thats just a lack of brains. |
|
|
| Ania_xox |
| aisle iked erdles |
|
|
|
|
