6 ms·
I think you probably mean "shouldn't have". There is no "shouldn't of".
by larrymcp 1y ago
I think you probably mean "shouldn't have". There is no "shouldn't of".
- DecentShoes 1y agoWho cares?
- knicholes 1y agoI care.
- rimunroe 1y agoWhich gives you an opening for the excellent double contraction “shouldn’t’ve”
- b112 1y agoThe letter H deserves better.
- worthless-trash 1y agoI think we gave it too much leeway in the word sugar.
- mananaysiempre 1y agoThe funniest part is that in that contraction the first apostrophe does denote the elision of a vowel, but the second one doesn’t, the vowel is still there! So you end up with something like [nʔəv], much like as if you had—hold the rotten vegetables, please—“shouldn’t of” followed by a vowel. Really, it’s funny watching from the outside and waiting for English to finally stop holding it in and get itself some sort of spelling reform to meaningfully move in a phonetic direction. My amateur impression, though, is that mandatory secondary education has made “correct” spelling such a strong social marker that everybody (not just English-speaking countries) is essentially stuck with whatever they have at the moment. In which case, my condolences to English speakers, your history really did work out in an unfortunate way.
- roywiggins 1y agoWe had a spelling reform or two already, they were unfortunately stupid, eg doubt has never had the b pronounced in English. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/doubt https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/doubt That said, phonetic spelling reform would of course privilege the phonemes as spoken by whoever happens to be most powerful or prestigious at the time (after all, the only way it could possibly stick is if it's pushed by the sufficiently powerful), and would itself fall out of date eventually anyway.
- jdbernard 1y ago> but the second one doesn’t, the vowel is still there! Isn't the "a" in "have" elided along with the "h?" Shouldn't've Should not have What am I missing?
- jack09268 1y agoEven though the vowel "a" is dropped from the spelling, if you actually say it out loud, you do pronounce a vowel sound when you get to that spot in the word, something like "shouldn'tuv", whereas the "o" in "not" is dropped from both the spelling and the pronounciation.
- SAI_Peregrinus 1y agoThe pronounced vowel is different than the 'a' in 'have'. And the "h" is definitely elided.
- int_19h 1y agoMany English dialects elide "h" at the beginning even when nothing is contracted. The pronounced vowel is different mostly because it's unstressed, and unstressed vowels in English generally centralize to schwa or nearly so.
- dan353hehe 1y agoDon’t worry about us. English is truly a horrible language to learn, and I feel bad for anyone who has to learn it. Also I have always liked this humorous plan for spelling reform: https://guidetogrammar.org/grammar/twain.htm https://guidetogrammar.org/grammar/twain.htm
- theoreticalmal 1y agoMy favorite variation of this is “oughtn’t to’ve”
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoThat used to be the case, but "shouldn't of" is definitely becoming more popular, even if it seems wrong. Languages change before our eyes :)