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”?

Where does the "burst of radiance" from Holy Weapon originate?

Spanish for "widget"

"Riffle" two strings

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

Springs with some finite mass

I looked up a future colleague on LinkedIn before I started a job. I told my colleague about it and he seemed surprised. Should I apologize?

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

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

A poker game description that does not feel gimmicky

Confusion about non-derivable continuous functions

Understanding the implication of what "well-defined" means for the operation in quotient group

It's possible to achieve negative score?

Monty Hall variation

Why is Grand Jury testimony secret?

Why can Shazam do this?

Is domain driven design an anti-SQL pattern?

How to manage monthly salary

What is the steepest angle that a canal can be traversable without locks?

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

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

"To split hairs" vs "To be pedantic"

What is the best strategy for white in this position?

How can I fix this gap between bookcases I made?

If a poisoned arrow's piercing damage is reduced to 0, do you still get poisoned?



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
    47 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
    47 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
    47 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
    47 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
47 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
47 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
    52 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
      52 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
      52 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
      52 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
      52 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
    52 mins ago





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

    – Azor Ahai
    52 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

            Log på Navigationsmenu

            Image
            DeutschEnglishEsperantofrançaisespañolitalianoNederlands (function()var node=document.getElementById("mw-dismissablenotice-anonplace");if(node)node.outerHTML="u003Cdiv class="mw-dismissable-notice"u003Eu003Cdiv class="mw-dismissable-notice-close"u003E[u003Ca tabindex="0" role="button"u003ELuku003C/au003E]u003C/divu003Eu003Cdiv class="mw-dismissable-notice-body"u003Eu003Cdiv id="localNotice" lang="da" dir="ltr"u003Eu003Cpu003EI u003Ca href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Fokusm%C3%A5ned/maj_2019" title="Wikipedia:Fokusmåned/maj 2019"u003Emaj 2019u003C/au003E fokuserer vi på u003Cbu003Elokaliteter i Danmark som ikke er beskrevet på dansk Wikipediau003C/bu003E.u003Cbr /u003EDu kan desuden deltage i årets u003Ciu003Eu003Ca href="/wiki/Bruger:Ramloser/for%C3%A5rskonkurrence_2019" title="Bruger:Ramloser/forårskonkurrence 2019"u003Eforårskonkurrenceu003C/au003Eu003C/iu...
            Read more

            Creating second map without labels using QGIS?How to lock map labels for inset map in Print Composer?How to Force the Showing of Labels of a Vector File in QGISQGIS Valmiera, Labels only show for part of polygonsRemoving duplicate point labels in QGISLabeling every feature using QGIS?Show labels for point features outside map canvasAbbreviate Road Labels in QGIS only when requiredExporting map from composer in QGIS - text labels have moved in output?How to make sure labels in qgis turn up in layout map?Writing label expression with ArcMap and If then Statement?

            Image
            Why is the Eisenstein ideal paper so great? What would prevent living skin from being a good conductor for magic? Using too much dialogue? Fixie: how to learn to ride: step by step Who knighted this character? The Maltese Falcon Expected maximum number of unpaired socks If I arrive in the UK, and then head to mainland Europe, does my Schengen visa 90 day limit start when I arrived in the UK, or mainland Europe? Why does Bran want to find Drogon? Why isn't Tyrion mentioned in 'A song of Ice and Fire'? Did this character show any indication of wanting to rule before S8E6? Should I split timestamp parts into separate columns? What were the Ethiopians doing in Xerxes' army? “For nothing” = “pour rien”? Can you still travel to America on the ESTA waiver program if you have been to Iran in transit? Can a UK national work as a paid shop assistant in the USA? Why does the Starter Set wizard have six spells in their spellbook? Why does sp...
            Read more

            Nuuk Indholdsfortegnelse Etyomologi | Historie | Geografi | Transport og infrastruktur | Politik og administration | Uddannelsesinstitutioner | Kultur | Venskabsbyer | Noter | Eksterne henvisninger | Se også | Navigationsmenuwww.sermersooq.gl64°10′N 51°45′V / 64.167°N 51.750°V / 64.167; -51.75064°10′N 51°45′V / 64.167°N 51.750°V / 64.167; -51.750DMI - KlimanormalerSalmonsen, s. 850Grønlands Naturinstitut undersøger rensdyr i Akia og Maniitsoq foråret 2008Grønlands NaturinstitutNy vej til Qinngorput indviet i dagAntallet af biler i Nuuk må begrænsesNy taxacentral mødt med demonstrationKøreplan. Rute 1, 2 og 3SnescootersporNuukNord er for storSkoler i Kommuneqarfik SermersooqAtuarfik Samuel KleinschmidtKangillinguit AtuarfiatNuussuup AtuarfiaNuuk Internationale FriskoleIlinniarfissuaq, Grønlands SeminariumLedelseÅrsberetning for 2008Kunst og arkitekturÅrsberetning for 2008Julie om naturenNuuk KunstmuseumSilamiutGrønlands Nationalmuseum og ArkivStatistisk ÅrbogGrønlands LandsbibliotekStore koncerter på stribeVandhund nummer 1.000.000Kommuneqarfik Sermersooq – MalikForsidenVenskabsbyerLyngby-Taarbæk i GrønlandArctic Business NetworkWinter Cities 2008 i NuukDagligt opdaterede satellitbilleder fra NuukområdetKommuneqarfik Sermersooqs hjemmesideTurist i NuukGrønlands Statistiks databankGrønlands Hjemmestyres valgresultaterrrWorldCat124325457671310-5

            Image
            CentrumNuussuaqKolonihavnenQernertunnguitQinngorputQuassussuup TungaaMyggedalenRadiofjeldetKatuaqNuuk CenterGrønlands Nationalmuseum og ArkivHotel Hans EgedeBrættetHerrnhuthusetNuuk KunstmuseumVor Frelser KirkeHans Egede KirkeNuuk TuristkontorSømandshjemmetHans Egedes statueArctic Umiaq LineNuuk LufthavnNuuk HavnNuup BussiiTaxagutNuuk TaxiRoyal Arctic LineRoyal GreenlandIlulissat (Jakobshavn)Qaanaaq (Thule)UpernavikUummannaqAappilattoqIkerasak (Sundet)Ilimanaq (Claushavn)IllorsuitInnaarsuitKangersuatsiaq (Prøven)Kullorsuaq (Djævelens Tommelfinger)MoriusaqNaajaatNiaqornatNutaarmiutNuugaatsiaqNuussuaq (Kraulshavn)Oqaatsut (Rodebay)QaarsutQeqertaqQeqertatSaattutSaqqaqSavissivikSiorapalukTasiusaqTussaaqUkkusissatUpernavik Kujalleq (Søndre Upernavik)Maniitsoq (Sukkertoppen)Sisimiut (Holsteinsborg)AtammikItilleqKangaamiut (Gammel Sukkertoppen)Kangerlussuaq (Søndre Strømfjord)NapasoqSarfannguitNanortalikNarsaqQaqortoq (Julianehåb)AappilattoqAlluitsu...
            Read more