How come people say “Would of”? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InMeaning and origin of “Get someone's shirt out”Origin of “Black & blue Friday”?What is the origin of idiom “Keep your hair on”?What's the verdict on “sooner than later”?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?Suck it up and be a manWhat is the meaning and origin of “cup of joy”?Usage of `it` or `this` to refer to previous clauseWhen did “awkwarde” mean “backhanded”?

How are circuits which use complex ICs normally simulated?

Springs with some finite mass

Does duplicating a spell with Wish count as casting that spell?

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

Output the Arecibo Message

How to create dashed lines/arrows in Illustrator

Unbreakable Formation vs. Cry of the Carnarium

Is it possible for the two major parties in the UK to form a coalition with each other instead of a much smaller party?

What is the use of option -o in the useradd command?

What is the best strategy for white in this position?

Should I write numbers in words or as numerals when there are multiple next to each other?

Deadlock Graph and Interpretation, solution to avoid

Carnot-Caratheodory metric

Time travel alters history but people keep saying nothing's changed

Limit the amount of RAM Mathematica may access?

On the insanity of kings as an argument against monarchy

Why can Shazam do this?

Why don't Unix/Linux systems traverse through directories until they find the required version of a linked library?

How come people say “Would of”?

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

What can other administrators access on my machine?

Is this food a bread or a loaf?

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

Can't find the latex code for the ⍎ (down tack jot) symbol



How come people say “Would of”?



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InMeaning and origin of “Get someone's shirt out”Origin of “Black & blue Friday”?What is the origin of idiom “Keep your hair on”?What's the verdict on “sooner than later”?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?Suck it up and be a manWhat is the meaning and origin of “cup of joy”?Usage of `it` or `this` to refer to previous clauseWhen did “awkwarde” mean “backhanded”?



.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
    6 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
    5 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
    3 hours ago







  • 1





    @Marybnq - Actually, "would've" and "would of" are virtually indistinguishable.

    – Hot Licks
    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
    6 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
    5 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
    3 hours ago







  • 1





    @Marybnq - Actually, "would've" and "would of" are virtually indistinguishable.

    – Hot Licks
    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 2 hours ago







Marybnq

















asked 6 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
    6 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
    5 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
    3 hours ago







  • 1





    @Marybnq - Actually, "would've" and "would of" are virtually indistinguishable.

    – Hot Licks
    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
    6 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
    5 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
    3 hours ago







  • 1





    @Marybnq - Actually, "would've" and "would of" are virtually indistinguishable.

    – Hot Licks
    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
6 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
6 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
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
5 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
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
3 hours ago





1




1





@Marybnq - Actually, "would've" and "would of" are virtually indistinguishable.

– Hot Licks
1 hour ago





@Marybnq - Actually, "would've" and "would of" are virtually indistinguishable.

– Hot Licks
1 hour ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















10














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
    4 hours ago











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

    – Azor Ahai
    3 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
    6 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









    10














    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
      4 hours ago











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

      – Azor Ahai
      3 hours ago






    • 1





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

      – Hot Licks
      1 hour ago















    10














    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
      4 hours ago











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

      – Azor Ahai
      3 hours ago






    • 1





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

      – Hot Licks
      1 hour ago













    10












    10








    10







    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 5 hours ago









    KarlGKarlG

    23.3k63363




    23.3k63363







    • 2





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

      – Rusty Core
      4 hours ago











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

      – Azor Ahai
      3 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
      4 hours ago











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

      – Azor Ahai
      3 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
    4 hours ago





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

    – Rusty Core
    4 hours ago













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

    – Azor Ahai
    3 hours ago





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

    – Azor Ahai
    3 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
      6 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
      6 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 6 hours ago

























    answered 6 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
      6 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
      6 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
    6 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
    6 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 6 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

            Möglingen Índice Localización Historia Demografía Referencias Enlaces externos Menú de navegación48°53′18″N 9°07′45″E / 48.888333333333, 9.129166666666748°53′18″N 9°07′45″E / 48.888333333333, 9.1291666666667Sitio web oficial Mapa de Möglingen«Gemeinden in Deutschland nach Fläche, Bevölkerung und Postleitzahl am 30.09.2016»Möglingen

            Image
            Localidades de Baden-Wurtemberg municipioalemándistrito de LuisburgoBaden-WurtembergLuisburgoCasa de WurtembergGuerra de los Treinta AñosGuerra de los Nueve Años Möglingen Municipio Iglesia gótica de San Pancracio. Escudo Möglingen Localización de Möglingen en Alemania Ubicación de Möglingen Coordenadas 48°53′18″N 9°07′45″E  /  48.888333333333, 9.1291666666667 Coordenadas: 48°53′18″N 9°07′45″E  /  48.888333333333, 9.1291666666667 Entidad Municipio  • País   Alemania  • Estado Baden-Wurtemberg  • Distrito Luisburgo Superficie    • Total 9,93 km², 9,95 km² y 9,93 km² Altitud    • Media 297 m s. n. m. Población (2014)    • Total 10 983 hab.  • Densidad Expresión errónea: car...
            Read more

            Virtualbox - Configuration error: Querying “UUID” failed (VERR_CFGM_VALUE_NOT_FOUND)“VERR_SUPLIB_WORLD_WRITABLE” error when trying to installing OS in virtualboxVirtual Box Kernel errorFailed to open a seesion for the virtual machineFailed to open a session for the virtual machineUbuntu 14.04 LTS Virtualbox errorcan't use VM VirtualBoxusing virtualboxI can't run Linux-64 Bit on VirtualBoxUnable to insert the virtual optical disk (VBoxguestaddition) in virtual machine for ubuntu server in win 10VirtuaBox in Ubuntu 18.04 Issues with Win10.ISO Installation

            Image
            Fear of getting stuck on one programming language / technology that is not used in my country Do the primes contain an infinite almost arithmetic progression? Biological Blimps: Propulsion Are Captain Marvel's powers affected by Thanos' actions in Infinity War Why does AES have exactly 10 rounds for a 128-bit key, 12 for 192 bits and 14 for a 256-bit key size? Can a College of Swords bard use a Blade Flourish option on an opportunity attack provoked by their own Dissonant Whispers spell? Can disgust be a key component of horror? Can I say "fingers" when referring to toes? What is Cash Advance APR? Why Shazam when there is already Superman? What does "Scientists rise up against statistical significance" mean? (Comment in Nature) What does chmod -u do? What should you do when eye contact makes your subordinate uncomfortable? Issue while creating Apex class using API How much character growth crosses the line into breaking the charac...
            Read more

            Torre de la Isleta Índice Véase también Referencias Bibliografía Enlaces externos Menú de navegación38°25′58″N 0°23′02″O / 38.43277778, -0.3838888938°25′58″N 0°23′02″O / 38.43277778, -0.38388889Torre de la Illeta de l’Horta o Torre Saleta. Base de datos de bienes inmuebles. Patrimonio Cultural. Secretaría de Estado de CulturaFicha BIC Torre de la Illeta de l’Horta. Dirección General de Patrimonio Cultural. Generalitat ValencianaLugares de interés. Ayuntamiento del CampelloTorre de la Isleta en CastillosNet.org

            Image
            Bienes de interés cultural de la provincia de AlicanteTorres defensivas de la provincia de AlicanteCampo de AlicanteTorres defensivas de la Comunidad Valenciana en el siglo XVICampello siglo XVICampelloprovincia de AlicanteEspañayacimiento arqueológico de La IsletabóvedamamposteríasillarejosilleríaménsulasVirrey de ValenciaBernardino de Cárdenas y Pachecoduque de Maquedapiratas berberiscosCastillo de Santa BárbaraAlicanteTorre de AguasCampelloBien de Interés Cultural Torre de la Isleta Torre de la Illeta Bien de Interés Cultural Patrimonio histórico de España Vista de la Torre Declaración 12 de febrero de 1996 Figura de protección Monumento Código RI-51 - 0009165 - 00000 [ 1 ] ​ Coordenadas 38°25′58″N 0°23′02″O  /  38.43277778, -0.38388889 Coordenadas: 38°25′58″N 0°23′02″O  /  38.43277778, -0.38388889 ...
            Read more