How come people say “Would of”? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InOrigin of “Black & blue Friday”?What is the origin of idiom “Keep your hair on”?What is the meaning of “What a box to sweat in!”？Why are you saying something “for” yourself when your parent asks you what you have to say for yourself?How old is the expression “to travel by [means of transportation]”?What is the meaning and origin of “cup of joy”?At the urging/urgent ofUsage of `it` or `this` to refer to previous clauseBest practice regarding the words until, till, til, 'till, 'til and toWhen did “awkwarde” mean “backhanded”?

Is bread bad for ducks?

Can distinct morphisms between curves induce the same morphism on singular cohomology?

Inversion Puzzle

Is this food a bread or a loaf?

In microwave frequencies, do you use a circulator when you need a (near) perfect diode?

Output the Arecibo Message

Why isn't airport relocation done gradually?

Landlord wants to switch my lease to a "Land contract" to "get back at the city"

Which Sci-Fi work first showed weapon of galactic-scale mass destruction?

Should I use my personal or workplace e-mail when registering to external websites for work purpose?

Are USB sockets on wall outlets live all the time, even when the switch is off?

How to make payment on the internet without leaving a money trail?

Monty Hall variation

Deadlock Graph and Interpretation, solution to avoid

What does Linus Torvalds means when he says that git "never ever" tracks a file?

What tool would a Roman-age civilization have to grind silver and other metals into dust?

Why is it "Tumoren" and not "Tumore"?

If the Wish spell is used to duplicate the effect of Simulacrum, are existing duplicates destroyed?

Manuscript was "unsubmitted" because the manuscript was deposited in Arxiv Preprints

What is this 4-propeller plane?

"To split hairs" vs "To be pedantic"

Does light intensity oscillate really fast since it is a wave?

Inflated grade on resume at previous job, might former employer tell new employer?

Lethal sonic weapons



How come people say “Would of”?



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InOrigin of “Black & blue Friday”?What is the origin of idiom “Keep your hair on”?What is the meaning of “What a box to sweat in!”？Why are you saying something “for” yourself when your parent asks you what you have to say for yourself?How old is the expression “to travel by [means of transportation]”?What is the meaning and origin of “cup of joy”?At the urging/urgent ofUsage of `it` or `this` to refer to previous clauseBest practice regarding the words until, till, til, 'till, 'til and toWhen did “awkwarde” mean “backhanded”?



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








1















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 slabs words/expressions, so my question is, why do people use this one? It’s so annoying to read, stupid and clearly wrong, it has no clue, why did they came up with this expression?






word-choice etymology expressions







share|improve this question

















  • 5





    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
    3 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
    3 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
    3 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
    48 mins ago


















1















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 slabs words/expressions, so my question is, why do people use this one? It’s so annoying to read, stupid and clearly wrong, it has no clue, why did they came up with this expression?






word-choice etymology expressions







share|improve this question

















  • 5





    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
    3 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
    3 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
    3 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
    48 mins ago














1












1








1








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 slabs words/expressions, so my question is, why do people use this one? It’s so annoying to read, stupid and clearly wrong, it has no clue, 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 slabs words/expressions, so my question is, why do people use this one? It’s so annoying to read, stupid and clearly wrong, it has no clue, 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










asked 4 hours ago









MarybnqMarybnq

1618




1618







  • 5





    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
    3 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
    3 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
    3 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
    48 mins ago













  • 5





    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
    3 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
    3 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
    3 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
    48 mins ago








5




5





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
3 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
3 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
3 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
3 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
3 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
3 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
48 mins 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
48 mins ago











3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















6














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


















  • 1





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

    – Rusty Core
    2 hours ago











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

    – Azor Ahai
    53 mins ago


















3














"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
    3 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
    3 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
    2 hours ago


















1














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









    6














    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


















    • 1





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

      – Rusty Core
      2 hours ago











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

      – Azor Ahai
      53 mins ago















    6














    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


















    • 1





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

      – Rusty Core
      2 hours ago











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

      – Azor Ahai
      53 mins ago













    6












    6








    6







    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 3 hours ago









    KarlGKarlG

    23.3k63362




    23.3k63362







    • 1





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

      – Rusty Core
      2 hours ago











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

      – Azor Ahai
      53 mins ago












    • 1





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

      – Rusty Core
      2 hours ago











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

      – Azor Ahai
      53 mins ago







    1




    1





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

    – Rusty Core
    2 hours ago





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

    – Rusty Core
    2 hours ago













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

    – Azor Ahai
    53 mins ago





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

    – Azor Ahai
    53 mins ago













    3














    "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
      3 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
      3 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
      2 hours ago















    3














    "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
      3 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
      3 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
      2 hours ago













    3












    3








    3







    "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 3 hours ago

























    answered 3 hours ago









    JuhaszJuhasz

    3,3661814




    3,3661814







    • 3





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

      – barbecue
      3 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
      3 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
      2 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
      3 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
      3 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
      2 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
    3 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
    3 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
    3 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
    3 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
    2 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
    2 hours ago











    1














    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



























      1














      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

























        1












        1








        1







        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 3 hours ago









        barbecuebarbecue

        4,5361128




        4,5361128



























            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

            Oświęcim Innehåll Historia | Källor | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmeny50°2′18″N 19°13′17″Ö / 50.03833°N 19.22139°Ö / 50.03833; 19.2213950°2′18″N 19°13′17″Ö / 50.03833°N 19.22139°Ö / 50.03833; 19.221393089658Nordisk familjebok, AuschwitzInsidan tro och existensJewish Community i OświęcimAuschwitz Jewish Center: MuseumAuschwitz Jewish Center

            Image
            Städer i Lillpolens vojvodskapStadskommuner i Lillpolens vojvodskap stadPolenKatowiceKraków2006kronlandetGalizienSołasWeichselösterrikarepreussareAuschwitzZatorpiastiska kungahusettyska förbundetkoncentrationslägretAuschwitzandra världskrigetförintelselägerFörintelsenmuseumOświęcims synagoga Koordinater: 50°2′18″N 19°13′17″Ö  /  50.03833°N 19.22139°Ö  / 50.03833; 19.22139 Oświęcim Från Wikipedia Hoppa till navigering Hoppa till sök .mw-parser-output .infoboxborder:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox thvertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em.mw-parser-output .infobox captionfont-size:larger.mw-parser-output .inf...
            Read more

            Valle di Casies Indice Geografia fisica | Origini del nome | Storia | Società | Amministrazione | Sport | Note | Bibliografia | Voci correlate | Altri progetti | Collegamenti esterni | Menu di navigazione46°46′N 12°11′E / 46.766667°N 12.183333°E46.766667; 12.183333 (Valle di Casies)46°46′N 12°11′E / 46.766667°N 12.183333°E46.766667; 12.183333 (Valle di Casies)Sito istituzionaleAstat Censimento della popolazione 2011 - Determinazione della consistenza dei tre gruppi linguistici della Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano-Alto Adige - giugno 2012Numeri e fattiValle di CasiesDato IstatTabella dei gradi/giorno dei Comuni italiani raggruppati per Regione e Provincia26 agosto 1993, n. 412Heraldry of the World: GsiesStatistiche I.StatValCasies.comWikimedia CommonsWikimedia CommonsValle di CasiesSito ufficialeValle di CasiesMM14870458910042978-6

            Image
            Valle di Casies tedescocomune italianoprovincia autonoma di BolzanoTrentino-Alto AdigeValVal Pusteriario CasiesMonguelfoAustriatoponimo117811891299tedescoXII secolo1929municipio1985ted.cappuccinoJoachim HaspingerAndreas HoferbavaresifrancesinapoleonicibronzoOthmar Winklerbunkersbarramento Planca di SopraVallo Alpino in Alto Adigesci di fondoGran fondo della Val Casiesskiliftpiste da slittino naturale Valle di Casies Da Wikipedia, l'enciclopedia libera. Jump to navigation Jump to search Valle di Casies comune ( IT ) Valle di Casies ( DE ) Gsies Una veduta della vallata Localizzazione Stato   Italia Regione Trentino-Alto Adige Provincia Bolzano Amministrazione Sindaco Kurti Taschler (SVP) dal 10-5-2015 (1º mandato) Lingue ufficiali Tedesco, Italiano Territorio Coordinate 46°46′N 12°11′E  /  46.766667°N 12.183333°E 46.766667; 12.183333  ( Valle di Casies ) Coordinate: 46°46...
            Read more

            Typsetting diagram chases (with TikZ?) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)How to define the default vertical distance between nodes?Draw edge on arcNumerical conditional within tikz keys?TikZ: Drawing an arc from an intersection to an intersectionDrawing rectilinear curves in Tikz, aka an Etch-a-Sketch drawingLine up nested tikz enviroments or how to get rid of themHow to place nodes in an absolute coordinate system in tikzCommutative diagram with curve connecting between nodesTikz with standalone: pinning tikz coordinates to page cmDrawing a Decision Diagram with Tikz and layout manager

            Image
            What LEGO pieces have "real-world" functionality? Why does tar appear to skip file contents when output file is /dev/null? Passing functions in C++ What computer would be fastest for Mathematica Home Edition? Active filter with series inductor and resistor - do these exist? How do you clear the ApexPages.getMessages() collection in a test? Strange behaviour of Check Is it possible to ask for a hotel room without minibar/extra services? Is 1 ppb equal to 1 μg/kg? The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG 1397BC53640DB551 Stopping real property loss from eroding embankment If I can make up priors, why can't I make up posteriors? What are the performance impacts of 'functional' Rust? Is above average number of years spent on PhD considered a red flag in future academia or industry positions? When is phishing education going too far? Need a suitable toxic chemical for a murder plot in my novel How do I automatically answer y in b...
            Read more