How come people say “Would of”?





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







2















I often read the expression “would of” used instead of “would have”. Each time I read it I get annoyed so I googled it and found out -as I expected- that it is an incorrect way to say “would have”. Now, there are a lot of brilliant slang words/expressions, so my question is, why do people use this one? It’s so annoying to read, stupid and clearly wrong, it is pointless , why did they came up with this expression?






word-choice etymology expressions







share|improve this question




















  • 6





    Your ears are deceiving you. In most (maybe all) varieties of English, in rapid speech "would have" and "would of" are 100% indistinguishable. Nobody is "saying" something incorrect. But spelling, being part of the invented and learnt technology called "writing" (and thus almost entirely different from the natural faculty called "language") is often imperfectly learnt - especially when the rules of spelling make a distinction which is not there in the real (spoken) language.

    – Colin Fine
    5 hours ago






  • 3





    Slabs words? What are those supposed to be? (Note that while would of is, as Colin says, not an error in speech because it’s indistinguishable from would have, the same is not true of why did they came, which is ungrammatical in both speech and writing. Also, it has no clue does not make any sense in the context you’re using it in here – either they [= the people who write would of] have no clue, or it [= would of] makes no sense, but not a mixture of the two.)

    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    5 hours ago













  • Consider that it's "would 'ave". Some people know this and realize that "would have" is the unabbreviated form, while others, probably as a child, heard "would 'ave" and took it to be "would of", and thus say and write "would of".

    – Hot Licks
    4 hours ago






  • 1





    @ColinFine: I disagree. You're right that they're nearly indistinguishable, but as a result, there's a lot of people who learned it wrong, and now say and type "would of".

    – Mooing Duck
    2 hours ago













  • @JanusBahsJacquet my bad I had no clue (😅) I couldn’t use the expression “to have no clue” in this context, I misused it, I was strongly believed it had more meanings. I meant to say that it is pointless, since even a non native speaker can recognize it is wrong. I don’t understand how someone would write something like that, it’s the worst thing I ever read... even because it’s nor shorter (since you can say would’ve) nor correct nor anything else, just disturbing and wrong...

    – Marybnq
    1 hour ago


















2















I often read the expression “would of” used instead of “would have”. Each time I read it I get annoyed so I googled it and found out -as I expected- that it is an incorrect way to say “would have”. Now, there are a lot of brilliant slang words/expressions, so my question is, why do people use this one? It’s so annoying to read, stupid and clearly wrong, it is pointless , why did they came up with this expression?






word-choice etymology expressions







share|improve this question




















  • 6





    Your ears are deceiving you. In most (maybe all) varieties of English, in rapid speech "would have" and "would of" are 100% indistinguishable. Nobody is "saying" something incorrect. But spelling, being part of the invented and learnt technology called "writing" (and thus almost entirely different from the natural faculty called "language") is often imperfectly learnt - especially when the rules of spelling make a distinction which is not there in the real (spoken) language.

    – Colin Fine
    5 hours ago






  • 3





    Slabs words? What are those supposed to be? (Note that while would of is, as Colin says, not an error in speech because it’s indistinguishable from would have, the same is not true of why did they came, which is ungrammatical in both speech and writing. Also, it has no clue does not make any sense in the context you’re using it in here – either they [= the people who write would of] have no clue, or it [= would of] makes no sense, but not a mixture of the two.)

    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    5 hours ago













  • Consider that it's "would 'ave". Some people know this and realize that "would have" is the unabbreviated form, while others, probably as a child, heard "would 'ave" and took it to be "would of", and thus say and write "would of".

    – Hot Licks
    4 hours ago






  • 1





    @ColinFine: I disagree. You're right that they're nearly indistinguishable, but as a result, there's a lot of people who learned it wrong, and now say and type "would of".

    – Mooing Duck
    2 hours ago













  • @JanusBahsJacquet my bad I had no clue (😅) I couldn’t use the expression “to have no clue” in this context, I misused it, I was strongly believed it had more meanings. I meant to say that it is pointless, since even a non native speaker can recognize it is wrong. I don’t understand how someone would write something like that, it’s the worst thing I ever read... even because it’s nor shorter (since you can say would’ve) nor correct nor anything else, just disturbing and wrong...

    – Marybnq
    1 hour ago














2












2








2








I often read the expression “would of” used instead of “would have”. Each time I read it I get annoyed so I googled it and found out -as I expected- that it is an incorrect way to say “would have”. Now, there are a lot of brilliant slang words/expressions, so my question is, why do people use this one? It’s so annoying to read, stupid and clearly wrong, it is pointless , why did they came up with this expression?






word-choice etymology expressions







share|improve this question
















I often read the expression “would of” used instead of “would have”. Each time I read it I get annoyed so I googled it and found out -as I expected- that it is an incorrect way to say “would have”. Now, there are a lot of brilliant slang words/expressions, so my question is, why do people use this one? It’s so annoying to read, stupid and clearly wrong, it is pointless , why did they came up with this expression?






word-choice etymology expressions




word-choice etymology expressions






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago







Marybnq

















asked 5 hours ago









MarybnqMarybnq

1689




1689








  • 6





    Your ears are deceiving you. In most (maybe all) varieties of English, in rapid speech "would have" and "would of" are 100% indistinguishable. Nobody is "saying" something incorrect. But spelling, being part of the invented and learnt technology called "writing" (and thus almost entirely different from the natural faculty called "language") is often imperfectly learnt - especially when the rules of spelling make a distinction which is not there in the real (spoken) language.

    – Colin Fine
    5 hours ago






  • 3





    Slabs words? What are those supposed to be? (Note that while would of is, as Colin says, not an error in speech because it’s indistinguishable from would have, the same is not true of why did they came, which is ungrammatical in both speech and writing. Also, it has no clue does not make any sense in the context you’re using it in here – either they [= the people who write would of] have no clue, or it [= would of] makes no sense, but not a mixture of the two.)

    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    5 hours ago













  • Consider that it's "would 'ave". Some people know this and realize that "would have" is the unabbreviated form, while others, probably as a child, heard "would 'ave" and took it to be "would of", and thus say and write "would of".

    – Hot Licks
    4 hours ago






  • 1





    @ColinFine: I disagree. You're right that they're nearly indistinguishable, but as a result, there's a lot of people who learned it wrong, and now say and type "would of".

    – Mooing Duck
    2 hours ago













  • @JanusBahsJacquet my bad I had no clue (😅) I couldn’t use the expression “to have no clue” in this context, I misused it, I was strongly believed it had more meanings. I meant to say that it is pointless, since even a non native speaker can recognize it is wrong. I don’t understand how someone would write something like that, it’s the worst thing I ever read... even because it’s nor shorter (since you can say would’ve) nor correct nor anything else, just disturbing and wrong...

    – Marybnq
    1 hour ago














  • 6





    Your ears are deceiving you. In most (maybe all) varieties of English, in rapid speech "would have" and "would of" are 100% indistinguishable. Nobody is "saying" something incorrect. But spelling, being part of the invented and learnt technology called "writing" (and thus almost entirely different from the natural faculty called "language") is often imperfectly learnt - especially when the rules of spelling make a distinction which is not there in the real (spoken) language.

    – Colin Fine
    5 hours ago






  • 3





    Slabs words? What are those supposed to be? (Note that while would of is, as Colin says, not an error in speech because it’s indistinguishable from would have, the same is not true of why did they came, which is ungrammatical in both speech and writing. Also, it has no clue does not make any sense in the context you’re using it in here – either they [= the people who write would of] have no clue, or it [= would of] makes no sense, but not a mixture of the two.)

    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    5 hours ago













  • Consider that it's "would 'ave". Some people know this and realize that "would have" is the unabbreviated form, while others, probably as a child, heard "would 'ave" and took it to be "would of", and thus say and write "would of".

    – Hot Licks
    4 hours ago






  • 1





    @ColinFine: I disagree. You're right that they're nearly indistinguishable, but as a result, there's a lot of people who learned it wrong, and now say and type "would of".

    – Mooing Duck
    2 hours ago













  • @JanusBahsJacquet my bad I had no clue (😅) I couldn’t use the expression “to have no clue” in this context, I misused it, I was strongly believed it had more meanings. I meant to say that it is pointless, since even a non native speaker can recognize it is wrong. I don’t understand how someone would write something like that, it’s the worst thing I ever read... even because it’s nor shorter (since you can say would’ve) nor correct nor anything else, just disturbing and wrong...

    – Marybnq
    1 hour ago








6




6





Your ears are deceiving you. In most (maybe all) varieties of English, in rapid speech "would have" and "would of" are 100% indistinguishable. Nobody is "saying" something incorrect. But spelling, being part of the invented and learnt technology called "writing" (and thus almost entirely different from the natural faculty called "language") is often imperfectly learnt - especially when the rules of spelling make a distinction which is not there in the real (spoken) language.

– Colin Fine
5 hours ago





Your ears are deceiving you. In most (maybe all) varieties of English, in rapid speech "would have" and "would of" are 100% indistinguishable. Nobody is "saying" something incorrect. But spelling, being part of the invented and learnt technology called "writing" (and thus almost entirely different from the natural faculty called "language") is often imperfectly learnt - especially when the rules of spelling make a distinction which is not there in the real (spoken) language.

– Colin Fine
5 hours ago




3




3





Slabs words? What are those supposed to be? (Note that while would of is, as Colin says, not an error in speech because it’s indistinguishable from would have, the same is not true of why did they came, which is ungrammatical in both speech and writing. Also, it has no clue does not make any sense in the context you’re using it in here – either they [= the people who write would of] have no clue, or it [= would of] makes no sense, but not a mixture of the two.)

– Janus Bahs Jacquet
5 hours ago







Slabs words? What are those supposed to be? (Note that while would of is, as Colin says, not an error in speech because it’s indistinguishable from would have, the same is not true of why did they came, which is ungrammatical in both speech and writing. Also, it has no clue does not make any sense in the context you’re using it in here – either they [= the people who write would of] have no clue, or it [= would of] makes no sense, but not a mixture of the two.)

– Janus Bahs Jacquet
5 hours ago















Consider that it's "would 'ave". Some people know this and realize that "would have" is the unabbreviated form, while others, probably as a child, heard "would 'ave" and took it to be "would of", and thus say and write "would of".

– Hot Licks
4 hours ago





Consider that it's "would 'ave". Some people know this and realize that "would have" is the unabbreviated form, while others, probably as a child, heard "would 'ave" and took it to be "would of", and thus say and write "would of".

– Hot Licks
4 hours ago




1




1





@ColinFine: I disagree. You're right that they're nearly indistinguishable, but as a result, there's a lot of people who learned it wrong, and now say and type "would of".

– Mooing Duck
2 hours ago







@ColinFine: I disagree. You're right that they're nearly indistinguishable, but as a result, there's a lot of people who learned it wrong, and now say and type "would of".

– Mooing Duck
2 hours ago















@JanusBahsJacquet my bad I had no clue (😅) I couldn’t use the expression “to have no clue” in this context, I misused it, I was strongly believed it had more meanings. I meant to say that it is pointless, since even a non native speaker can recognize it is wrong. I don’t understand how someone would write something like that, it’s the worst thing I ever read... even because it’s nor shorter (since you can say would’ve) nor correct nor anything else, just disturbing and wrong...

– Marybnq
1 hour ago





@JanusBahsJacquet my bad I had no clue (😅) I couldn’t use the expression “to have no clue” in this context, I misused it, I was strongly believed it had more meanings. I meant to say that it is pointless, since even a non native speaker can recognize it is wrong. I don’t understand how someone would write something like that, it’s the worst thing I ever read... even because it’s nor shorter (since you can say would’ve) nor correct nor anything else, just disturbing and wrong...

– Marybnq
1 hour ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















9














Correction: what annoys you is people writing “would of” when they are saying /ˈwʊdəv/, which is the standard pronunciation of the contraction would’ve.



The vowel of the preposition “of” is almost always reduced in actual speech, yielding /əv/. Thus “would’ve” and “would of” are homophones. So no surprise that some people spell it that way, even though it makes no grammatical sense.



Would’ve can be even further reduced to /ˈwʊdə/, which some people spell woulda. The same goes for the modals, shoulda, coulda, musta.



Spelling as it sounds can yield amusing results:




Along the way the details of his past are sordid out and he realizes that what he once thought about his parents isn't the truth at all. — Amazon.com Review.




A speaker of British English, of course, would never write sorted in this manner, but with an American flapped t, it’s a perfect fit.






share|improve this answer



















  • 2





    In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.

    – Rusty Core
    3 hours ago











  • It's up to you, but I think IPA looks better in code blocks.

    – Azor Ahai
    2 hours ago






  • 1





    @AzorAhai - I think IPA looks better in a glass.

    – Hot Licks
    1 hour ago



















4














"Would of" is a garden variety malapropism (Wikipedia - Malapropism).



Some more interesting malapropisms are "tantrum bicycle" instead of tandem bicycle, "Alcoholics Unanimous" instead of Alcoholics Anonymous, "a vast suppository of information" instead of repository of information, "Miss-Marple-ism" instead of malapropism1 and Mike Tyson's "I might fade into Bolivian" instead of oblivion (these are all borrowed from that same Wikipedia article).



The basic idea is that no one has perfect knowledge of any language, not even the ones they speak natively. We hear things incorrectly and then repeat the mistake.



We know that English speakers often contract "would have" into "would've." This is pronounced identically (in some dialects) to "would of," so the mistake is easy to make.




1: This one seems too perfect to be a complete mistake. The "miss" sound is totally absent from "malapropism" and the term, for those who didn't follow the Wikipedia link, comes from a character named Miss Malaprop. It seems unlikely that the supposed speaker of "Miss-Marple-ism" wasn't aware, at least subconsciously, of the correct word, or at least its origins. In which case, this neologism may really be an eggcorn.






share|improve this answer





















  • 3





    A popular example of this is the "it's a dog-eat-dog world" being written "it's a doggy dog world."

    – barbecue
    5 hours ago











  • I would not call it a malapropism, because those are errors of (real, spoken) language. These are utterly different from errors in using the learnt technology called writing.

    – Colin Fine
    5 hours ago






  • 1





    @ColinFine not sure I follow. Are you saying that the term "malapropism" can't be used for written language? That seems pretty far-fetched to me. Got a citation?

    – barbecue
    4 hours ago



















2














This is probably a case of hearing a phrase and assuming/guessing how it should be spelled. Would have can be abbreviated as would've, and in rapid conversation, the pronunciation of "would've" is basically the same as "would of."






share|improve this answer
























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "97"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f493269%2fhow-come-people-say-would-of%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    9














    Correction: what annoys you is people writing “would of” when they are saying /ˈwʊdəv/, which is the standard pronunciation of the contraction would’ve.



    The vowel of the preposition “of” is almost always reduced in actual speech, yielding /əv/. Thus “would’ve” and “would of” are homophones. So no surprise that some people spell it that way, even though it makes no grammatical sense.



    Would’ve can be even further reduced to /ˈwʊdə/, which some people spell woulda. The same goes for the modals, shoulda, coulda, musta.



    Spelling as it sounds can yield amusing results:




    Along the way the details of his past are sordid out and he realizes that what he once thought about his parents isn't the truth at all. — Amazon.com Review.




    A speaker of British English, of course, would never write sorted in this manner, but with an American flapped t, it’s a perfect fit.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 2





      In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.

      – Rusty Core
      3 hours ago











    • It's up to you, but I think IPA looks better in code blocks.

      – Azor Ahai
      2 hours ago






    • 1





      @AzorAhai - I think IPA looks better in a glass.

      – Hot Licks
      1 hour ago
















    9














    Correction: what annoys you is people writing “would of” when they are saying /ˈwʊdəv/, which is the standard pronunciation of the contraction would’ve.



    The vowel of the preposition “of” is almost always reduced in actual speech, yielding /əv/. Thus “would’ve” and “would of” are homophones. So no surprise that some people spell it that way, even though it makes no grammatical sense.



    Would’ve can be even further reduced to /ˈwʊdə/, which some people spell woulda. The same goes for the modals, shoulda, coulda, musta.



    Spelling as it sounds can yield amusing results:




    Along the way the details of his past are sordid out and he realizes that what he once thought about his parents isn't the truth at all. — Amazon.com Review.




    A speaker of British English, of course, would never write sorted in this manner, but with an American flapped t, it’s a perfect fit.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 2





      In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.

      – Rusty Core
      3 hours ago











    • It's up to you, but I think IPA looks better in code blocks.

      – Azor Ahai
      2 hours ago






    • 1





      @AzorAhai - I think IPA looks better in a glass.

      – Hot Licks
      1 hour ago














    9












    9








    9







    Correction: what annoys you is people writing “would of” when they are saying /ˈwʊdəv/, which is the standard pronunciation of the contraction would’ve.



    The vowel of the preposition “of” is almost always reduced in actual speech, yielding /əv/. Thus “would’ve” and “would of” are homophones. So no surprise that some people spell it that way, even though it makes no grammatical sense.



    Would’ve can be even further reduced to /ˈwʊdə/, which some people spell woulda. The same goes for the modals, shoulda, coulda, musta.



    Spelling as it sounds can yield amusing results:




    Along the way the details of his past are sordid out and he realizes that what he once thought about his parents isn't the truth at all. — Amazon.com Review.




    A speaker of British English, of course, would never write sorted in this manner, but with an American flapped t, it’s a perfect fit.






    share|improve this answer













    Correction: what annoys you is people writing “would of” when they are saying /ˈwʊdəv/, which is the standard pronunciation of the contraction would’ve.



    The vowel of the preposition “of” is almost always reduced in actual speech, yielding /əv/. Thus “would’ve” and “would of” are homophones. So no surprise that some people spell it that way, even though it makes no grammatical sense.



    Would’ve can be even further reduced to /ˈwʊdə/, which some people spell woulda. The same goes for the modals, shoulda, coulda, musta.



    Spelling as it sounds can yield amusing results:




    Along the way the details of his past are sordid out and he realizes that what he once thought about his parents isn't the truth at all. — Amazon.com Review.




    A speaker of British English, of course, would never write sorted in this manner, but with an American flapped t, it’s a perfect fit.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 4 hours ago









    KarlGKarlG

    23.3k63362




    23.3k63362








    • 2





      In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.

      – Rusty Core
      3 hours ago











    • It's up to you, but I think IPA looks better in code blocks.

      – Azor Ahai
      2 hours ago






    • 1





      @AzorAhai - I think IPA looks better in a glass.

      – Hot Licks
      1 hour ago














    • 2





      In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.

      – Rusty Core
      3 hours ago











    • It's up to you, but I think IPA looks better in code blocks.

      – Azor Ahai
      2 hours ago






    • 1





      @AzorAhai - I think IPA looks better in a glass.

      – Hot Licks
      1 hour ago








    2




    2





    In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.

    – Rusty Core
    3 hours ago





    In writing, I accept "woulda" as a dialect. I do not accept "would of", because it is clearly an error.

    – Rusty Core
    3 hours ago













    It's up to you, but I think IPA looks better in code blocks.

    – Azor Ahai
    2 hours ago





    It's up to you, but I think IPA looks better in code blocks.

    – Azor Ahai
    2 hours ago




    1




    1





    @AzorAhai - I think IPA looks better in a glass.

    – Hot Licks
    1 hour ago





    @AzorAhai - I think IPA looks better in a glass.

    – Hot Licks
    1 hour ago













    4














    "Would of" is a garden variety malapropism (Wikipedia - Malapropism).



    Some more interesting malapropisms are "tantrum bicycle" instead of tandem bicycle, "Alcoholics Unanimous" instead of Alcoholics Anonymous, "a vast suppository of information" instead of repository of information, "Miss-Marple-ism" instead of malapropism1 and Mike Tyson's "I might fade into Bolivian" instead of oblivion (these are all borrowed from that same Wikipedia article).



    The basic idea is that no one has perfect knowledge of any language, not even the ones they speak natively. We hear things incorrectly and then repeat the mistake.



    We know that English speakers often contract "would have" into "would've." This is pronounced identically (in some dialects) to "would of," so the mistake is easy to make.




    1: This one seems too perfect to be a complete mistake. The "miss" sound is totally absent from "malapropism" and the term, for those who didn't follow the Wikipedia link, comes from a character named Miss Malaprop. It seems unlikely that the supposed speaker of "Miss-Marple-ism" wasn't aware, at least subconsciously, of the correct word, or at least its origins. In which case, this neologism may really be an eggcorn.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 3





      A popular example of this is the "it's a dog-eat-dog world" being written "it's a doggy dog world."

      – barbecue
      5 hours ago











    • I would not call it a malapropism, because those are errors of (real, spoken) language. These are utterly different from errors in using the learnt technology called writing.

      – Colin Fine
      5 hours ago






    • 1





      @ColinFine not sure I follow. Are you saying that the term "malapropism" can't be used for written language? That seems pretty far-fetched to me. Got a citation?

      – barbecue
      4 hours ago
















    4














    "Would of" is a garden variety malapropism (Wikipedia - Malapropism).



    Some more interesting malapropisms are "tantrum bicycle" instead of tandem bicycle, "Alcoholics Unanimous" instead of Alcoholics Anonymous, "a vast suppository of information" instead of repository of information, "Miss-Marple-ism" instead of malapropism1 and Mike Tyson's "I might fade into Bolivian" instead of oblivion (these are all borrowed from that same Wikipedia article).



    The basic idea is that no one has perfect knowledge of any language, not even the ones they speak natively. We hear things incorrectly and then repeat the mistake.



    We know that English speakers often contract "would have" into "would've." This is pronounced identically (in some dialects) to "would of," so the mistake is easy to make.




    1: This one seems too perfect to be a complete mistake. The "miss" sound is totally absent from "malapropism" and the term, for those who didn't follow the Wikipedia link, comes from a character named Miss Malaprop. It seems unlikely that the supposed speaker of "Miss-Marple-ism" wasn't aware, at least subconsciously, of the correct word, or at least its origins. In which case, this neologism may really be an eggcorn.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 3





      A popular example of this is the "it's a dog-eat-dog world" being written "it's a doggy dog world."

      – barbecue
      5 hours ago











    • I would not call it a malapropism, because those are errors of (real, spoken) language. These are utterly different from errors in using the learnt technology called writing.

      – Colin Fine
      5 hours ago






    • 1





      @ColinFine not sure I follow. Are you saying that the term "malapropism" can't be used for written language? That seems pretty far-fetched to me. Got a citation?

      – barbecue
      4 hours ago














    4












    4








    4







    "Would of" is a garden variety malapropism (Wikipedia - Malapropism).



    Some more interesting malapropisms are "tantrum bicycle" instead of tandem bicycle, "Alcoholics Unanimous" instead of Alcoholics Anonymous, "a vast suppository of information" instead of repository of information, "Miss-Marple-ism" instead of malapropism1 and Mike Tyson's "I might fade into Bolivian" instead of oblivion (these are all borrowed from that same Wikipedia article).



    The basic idea is that no one has perfect knowledge of any language, not even the ones they speak natively. We hear things incorrectly and then repeat the mistake.



    We know that English speakers often contract "would have" into "would've." This is pronounced identically (in some dialects) to "would of," so the mistake is easy to make.




    1: This one seems too perfect to be a complete mistake. The "miss" sound is totally absent from "malapropism" and the term, for those who didn't follow the Wikipedia link, comes from a character named Miss Malaprop. It seems unlikely that the supposed speaker of "Miss-Marple-ism" wasn't aware, at least subconsciously, of the correct word, or at least its origins. In which case, this neologism may really be an eggcorn.






    share|improve this answer















    "Would of" is a garden variety malapropism (Wikipedia - Malapropism).



    Some more interesting malapropisms are "tantrum bicycle" instead of tandem bicycle, "Alcoholics Unanimous" instead of Alcoholics Anonymous, "a vast suppository of information" instead of repository of information, "Miss-Marple-ism" instead of malapropism1 and Mike Tyson's "I might fade into Bolivian" instead of oblivion (these are all borrowed from that same Wikipedia article).



    The basic idea is that no one has perfect knowledge of any language, not even the ones they speak natively. We hear things incorrectly and then repeat the mistake.



    We know that English speakers often contract "would have" into "would've." This is pronounced identically (in some dialects) to "would of," so the mistake is easy to make.




    1: This one seems too perfect to be a complete mistake. The "miss" sound is totally absent from "malapropism" and the term, for those who didn't follow the Wikipedia link, comes from a character named Miss Malaprop. It seems unlikely that the supposed speaker of "Miss-Marple-ism" wasn't aware, at least subconsciously, of the correct word, or at least its origins. In which case, this neologism may really be an eggcorn.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 5 hours ago

























    answered 5 hours ago









    JuhaszJuhasz

    3,3761814




    3,3761814








    • 3





      A popular example of this is the "it's a dog-eat-dog world" being written "it's a doggy dog world."

      – barbecue
      5 hours ago











    • I would not call it a malapropism, because those are errors of (real, spoken) language. These are utterly different from errors in using the learnt technology called writing.

      – Colin Fine
      5 hours ago






    • 1





      @ColinFine not sure I follow. Are you saying that the term "malapropism" can't be used for written language? That seems pretty far-fetched to me. Got a citation?

      – barbecue
      4 hours ago














    • 3





      A popular example of this is the "it's a dog-eat-dog world" being written "it's a doggy dog world."

      – barbecue
      5 hours ago











    • I would not call it a malapropism, because those are errors of (real, spoken) language. These are utterly different from errors in using the learnt technology called writing.

      – Colin Fine
      5 hours ago






    • 1





      @ColinFine not sure I follow. Are you saying that the term "malapropism" can't be used for written language? That seems pretty far-fetched to me. Got a citation?

      – barbecue
      4 hours ago








    3




    3





    A popular example of this is the "it's a dog-eat-dog world" being written "it's a doggy dog world."

    – barbecue
    5 hours ago





    A popular example of this is the "it's a dog-eat-dog world" being written "it's a doggy dog world."

    – barbecue
    5 hours ago













    I would not call it a malapropism, because those are errors of (real, spoken) language. These are utterly different from errors in using the learnt technology called writing.

    – Colin Fine
    5 hours ago





    I would not call it a malapropism, because those are errors of (real, spoken) language. These are utterly different from errors in using the learnt technology called writing.

    – Colin Fine
    5 hours ago




    1




    1





    @ColinFine not sure I follow. Are you saying that the term "malapropism" can't be used for written language? That seems pretty far-fetched to me. Got a citation?

    – barbecue
    4 hours ago





    @ColinFine not sure I follow. Are you saying that the term "malapropism" can't be used for written language? That seems pretty far-fetched to me. Got a citation?

    – barbecue
    4 hours ago











    2














    This is probably a case of hearing a phrase and assuming/guessing how it should be spelled. Would have can be abbreviated as would've, and in rapid conversation, the pronunciation of "would've" is basically the same as "would of."






    share|improve this answer




























      2














      This is probably a case of hearing a phrase and assuming/guessing how it should be spelled. Would have can be abbreviated as would've, and in rapid conversation, the pronunciation of "would've" is basically the same as "would of."






      share|improve this answer


























        2












        2








        2







        This is probably a case of hearing a phrase and assuming/guessing how it should be spelled. Would have can be abbreviated as would've, and in rapid conversation, the pronunciation of "would've" is basically the same as "would of."






        share|improve this answer













        This is probably a case of hearing a phrase and assuming/guessing how it should be spelled. Would have can be abbreviated as would've, and in rapid conversation, the pronunciation of "would've" is basically the same as "would of."







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 5 hours ago









        barbecuebarbecue

        4,5461128




        4,5461128






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f493269%2fhow-come-people-say-would-of%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Сан-Квентин

            Image
            Сан-Квентин Местоположение Сан-Квентин, Калифорния Координаты 37°56′13″ с. ш. 122°29′20″ з. д. H G Я O L Текущий статус Действует Режим безопасности минимальный и максимальный Количество мест 3 302 Открытие Июнь 1852 Находится в ведомстве California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Начальник Mike Martel, начальник  Сан-Квентин на Викискладе Сан-Квентин (англ.  San Quentin ) — тюрьма, располагающаяся на 432 акрах (около 1,7 км²), на мысе Сан-Квентин, в округе Марин, штат Калифорния, США. Тюрьма штата Калифорния Сан-Квентин была открыта в июле 1852 года и является старейшей в штате. Она была построена заключёнными, которые проживали в течение строительства на тюремном судне Вабан. В Сан-Квентине отбывали наказание и мужчины, и женщины до 1934 года, когда построили женскую тюрьму в Техачапи и туда перевели всех заключённых женщин. В Сан-Квентине приводятся в исполнение смертные казни, для этого имеется газовая камера, но...
            Read more

            8-я гвардейская общевойсковая армия

            Image
            8-я гвардейская общевойсковая ордена Ленина армия Награды: Войска: РККА → Советская армия → СВ России Род войск: Формирование: 1943 Расформирование (преобразование): 1992 Предшественник: 62-я армия (1942—43) → 8-я гвардейская общевойсковая армия (1943—92) → 8-й гвардейский армейский корпус (1992—98) Боевой путь Изюм-Барвенковская операция Донбасская операция Запорожская операция Битва за Днепр Днепропетровская операция Березнеговато-Снигирёвская операция Одесская операция Люблин-Брестская операция Варшавско-Познанская операция Восточно-Померанская операция Берлинская наступательная операция У этого термина существуют и другие значения, см. 8-я армия. Фотография Гвардейского Красного Знамени (лицевая сторона) 8-й гвардейской армии , образца 1943 года. Фотография Гвардейского Красного Знамени (оборотная сторона) 8-й гвардейской армии , образца 1943 года. 8-я гвардейская общевойсковая ордена Ленина армия  — гвардейское фор...
            Read more

            Алькесар

            Image
            Муниципалитет Алькесар Alquézar Герб 42°10′16″ с. ш. 0°01′27″ в. д. H G Я O L Страна Испания   Испания Автономное сообщество Арагон Провинция Уэска Комарка Сомонтано-де-Барбастро Алькальд Хосе Марияно Альтемир Ласкорс (ИСРП) История и география Площадь 32,36 км² Высота НУМ 660 м Часовой пояс UTC+1, летом UTC+2 Население Население 313 человек ( 2010 ) Плотность 9,92 чел./км² Этнохороним alquezarano/-a Цифровые идентификаторы Телефонный код +34 974 Почтовые индексы 22112 Автомобильный код HU alquezar.org   (исп.) Показать/скрыть карты Алькесар Алькесар Алькесар  Аудио, фото и видео на Викискладе Алькесар (исп.  Alquézar ) — муниципалитет в Испании, входит в провинцию Уэска, в составе автономного сообщества Арагон. Муниципалитет находится в составе района (комарки) Сомонтано-де-Барбастро. Занимает площадь 32,36 км². Население — 321 челове...
            Read more