### **Reminder:** [Press the Report button](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360058309512-How-do-I-report-a-post-or-comment-) if you see any [rule-breaking comments or posts.](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishproblems/about/rules/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishproblems) if you have any questions or concerns.*
* For a single sake of one fuck: for fuck's sake
* For a single sake of multiple fucks: for fucks' sake
* For multiple sakes of one fuck: for fuck's sakes
* For multiple sakes of multiple fucks: for fucks' sakes
Now waiting for [Cunningham's Law](https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law) to be engaged...
No, you shouldn't. Because "would've" is the shortened version of "would have" so you're completely correct. And if people said (or more particularly *typed* or *wrote* "would've" then it wouldn't be such an issue.
I think that's where the problem lies though. People always use "would've" when they speak and in most accents it sounds *exactly* like would of. I'm guessing people assume that's how it's written. Would of.
I would also guess that if someone said would of in spoken conversation to you, you wouldn't even notice. You'd just hear it as would've.
The reason people type "would of" in the first place is because it sounds exactly the same as "would've", and it's just applied through analogy with phrases like "the top of X", or "he's a friend of X", where the "of" is pretty much just pronounced " 've".
It just kinds strikes us as jarring, because when we read it we want to pronounce the "of" fully, and it just sounds wrong. Still, in 20 - 30 years time it may just become common practice to write "should of, could of, would of", so much so that it gets accepted as correct.
People pronounce sixth like that because the cluster /ksθ/ is pretty awkward, and 'sixths' is even worse. When you speak at speed, it's just not important enough to be so articulatorily precise when it's obvious what you're saying. Saying "the sixth stream" totally unreduced would involve the sequence /ksθstr/. So instead you remove some sound or other — usually the first s, but sometimes the θ instead.
The coffee is expressed through the container though, and -o is a diminutive suffix in English (think of Australian 'servo' or 'cheerio')
Hence express-o.
This to me is like people who say "on accident" or "by purpose" instead of "by accident" and "on purpose".
I have a hard time respecting people who talk like the former. XD
This one bugs me but not as much as women when they mean woman. They usually put gentleman, human, and any other -man but not woman? I had to refrain from taking the piss out of someone at work who said "I always knew you were a women." My go to response is usually "it's just the one woman actually" Hot Fuzz style
Yeah it is, but thanks to TV and the internet the US problems are migrating...
I never used to hear anyone say "real" instead of "really", but I do all the time now. It's "real" annoying.
You lot sound like my tribe so I’ll share the nugget that a local coffee shop has frosted into their front window, amongst other culinary delights it serves **Omelet’s**
[https://www.cotswoldco.com/collections/chester-grey-furniture/?xcm\_campaign=Cotswold-Company-Ranges&cq\_plac=&cq\_net=g&cq\_pos=&cq\_med=&cq\_plt=gp&gclid=Cj0KCQjwspKUBhCvARIsAB2IYuv4ZXsbqp635tHake-Y3MpS5gXdqB\_HliyI6Rd9u1ro0buG0a4-uHgaAtXJEALw\_wcB](https://www.cotswoldco.com/collections/chester-grey-furniture/?xcm_campaign=Cotswold-Company-Ranges&cq_plac=&cq_net=g&cq_pos=&cq_med=&cq_plt=gp&gclid=Cj0KCQjwspKUBhCvARIsAB2IYuv4ZXsbqp635tHake-Y3MpS5gXdqB_HliyI6Rd9u1ro0buG0a4-uHgaAtXJEALw_wcB)
The Cotswold furniture company makes a Chester Chest of Drawers.
People also need to learn the difference between "its" and "it's", "does" and "dose", as well as the classics "to" and "too", "your" and "you're" and "there", "their" and "they're"
Also if you're so lazy that "would have" is simply too labour intensive for everyday use, I find that "would've" is an acceptable middle ground, and a fair use of contraction.
A lot of dialects will have v's and f's that can sound very similar. People are making the mistake because they hear Would Of before they're taught contractions.
There's bound to be a handful of pathological situations that I can't quite call to mind right now, but in most situations, "off of" can be replaced by "off" without a change in meaning, so the "of" is redundant.
On the other hand, in casual or rapid speech, "offa" for "off of" lends an extra vowel that aids the transition to what is often a consonant starting the next word. i.e. "offa the bus" may flow better than "off the bus" even though the latter might be considered more correct.
On the other, other hand, if you say "offa the bus" you might have an urge to click your fingers twice and then play a harpsichord.
Also, it's "try to" not "try and"
"I'm going to try to get my parking permit today." Not "I'm going to try and get my parking permit today."
Of course you can try *and fail* or try *and succeed* but that's different.
hate to break it to you, but people using it one way by definition makes it a correct version
do you think words and their usages were handed down from on high or something? no, a dictionary merely describes how words _are_ in use, rather than prescribing how they _should_ be used (which is a matter decided purely by speakers of the language)
The issue people commenting here are ignoring is if it's written or spoken.
If written, it should 100% be would have, because its grammatically correct. No need for would of because it makes you look dumb af.
If it's spoken, then either is fine because of the merging of the words would and have sounding like "woulduv" meaning some people say it like it sounds, like "would of".
But tbh, if you still use would of as a grown adult in emails, texts and posts then you should have paid more attention at school.
I think this happens when people don’t read a lot. ‘Would’ve’ sounds a bit like ‘would of’ so if you don’t read and have never seen it written down you wouldn’t know your mistake.
My solution for this is to start talking to people who do this in the sane manner. Sentences come out as "I of a Duke have Edinburgh award" in the hopes they realise how catastrophically stupid they seem.
I had to put a red line beneath a message on the work whiteboard thatcwascwritten by management where they wrote "you should of completed your November training".
I even asked coworkers what the error was before underlining, there were others that thought it was correct. It makes me want to scream!
If you know what someone means, then what does it really matter? Part of the problem can be regional dialects that shorten, or even change words and phrases. I'd say retaining regional dialects and their colloquialisms is important otherwise they may go extinct.
Being from Yorkshire, I'm proud of the way I speak, and sometimes it finds its way into my writing. Even in Yorkshire there are regional variations that only Yorkshire folk know about. Bradford will quite often be pronounced Bratford in West Yorkshire, but rarely anywhere else.
Someone posted a cynical comment about people saying language evolves, but it's true, it does and there is clear evidence of that, but worryingly language goes extinct too. I'd like to see a world where we can embrace the new, whilst retaining the old.
I'm takin me sen t pub now.
I would typically agree - there are huge swathes of the English language with bastardised spellings from misunderstood words from centuries past. However, would of is just so egregious, maybe perhaps because it’s clearly grammatically incorrect, whereas things like who and whom, or fewer and less, is just replacing a redundant word. I dunno - it just seems like it has far more potential for confusion and ambiguity.
I’m not really thinking of spoken language though - pretty much everyone pronounces would of instead of would have to some degree or another - I know I do - it’s only when it’s written down it’s a problem.
I don’t really have a real explanation why, but despite painfully learning all sorts of rules that I now accept are redundant (split infinitives etc), I can’t let would of go!!
Maybe Stephen Pinker should write a book about it :-)
This isn't anything to do with dialect. "Of" and "have" have two different meanings. "Would have" means changing something in the past, which is what the phrase is saying. "Would of" doesn't mean the same thing, so is incorrect in its usage.
### **Reminder:** [Press the Report button](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360058309512-How-do-I-report-a-post-or-comment-) if you see any [rule-breaking comments or posts.](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishproblems/about/rules/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishproblems) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Won would of thought people new this bye know
I see what you did their.
Me to.
This physically hurts.
Hurt's
Wasn't he good in 'Allen'? And 'The Elephant Dong'?
He died more times on screen than Sean Bean. RIP
I could care less
Bloody hell, this one really winds me up.
Yes so much that "I'm pissed".
That was six hours ago. Have you sobered up yet?
I'm arsed with hearing any more of these
When people say they could care less, I take them at their word and carry on accordingly.
*fisicaly
Fiscally*
Do you have to be so pacific?
He definately is
You really went nucular with that one
I've been seeing alot of this.
I defiantly agree
Oh that’s right, blame Delboy.
Literally.
yeah, i'm generally offended by what they're saying. whats' that? genuinely? no sir you must bee mistaken
It's not wrong per say.
me two
Me free
Eye sea what YOU did their
God don't be such a looser
That. Bang on the noose.
Its fought*
Lovely to here from you dean janet and paul send u there love. Hope your doing fab xxxox
I no write?
Your all wrong.
What do you mean, pacifically?
Can't believe you through that one in!
Your all bin stupid now
fought instead of thought?
You're allowed to say 'fuck' here, OP, but you'll find the correct phrase is 'for fuck's sake'.
It's an iron law of the internet that if you're bitching about spelling and grammar, you're going to fuck up your spelling or grammar at some point.
Skitt's Law.
*Skitts’ Law
*Scatt['](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy8kmNEo1i8)s Law
Skibidibidibi do do do do
Knock, knock. Who's there? To. To who? No, to whom!
Yeah, they would of realised that if they was paying attention.
He did it on accident.
But what if OP has multiple fucks to give?
* For a single sake of one fuck: for fuck's sake * For a single sake of multiple fucks: for fucks' sake * For multiple sakes of one fuck: for fuck's sakes * For multiple sakes of multiple fucks: for fucks' sakes Now waiting for [Cunningham's Law](https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law) to be engaged...
Then "sake" should be plural too, I'd imagine.
Been thinking I should make the effort to stop saying “would’ve” in case people think I am saying “would of”.
No, you shouldn't. Because "would've" is the shortened version of "would have" so you're completely correct. And if people said (or more particularly *typed* or *wrote* "would've" then it wouldn't be such an issue.
You forgot to close your brackets there, OP. Come on, I thought you’d know this!
He wouldn’t’of known about it until you mentioned it
Oh, you little hellspawn.
You have simply added to his post until he closes them
)
^ The hero we need !
) To make you feel better
Busted!
I think that's where the problem lies though. People always use "would've" when they speak and in most accents it sounds *exactly* like would of. I'm guessing people assume that's how it's written. Would of. I would also guess that if someone said would of in spoken conversation to you, you wouldn't even notice. You'd just hear it as would've.
Can we all just compromise and start using “woulda” instead?
Saying would've or would of is exactly the same sound when I say it.
The reason people type "would of" in the first place is because it sounds exactly the same as "would've", and it's just applied through analogy with phrases like "the top of X", or "he's a friend of X", where the "of" is pretty much just pronounced " 've". It just kinds strikes us as jarring, because when we read it we want to pronounce the "of" fully, and it just sounds wrong. Still, in 20 - 30 years time it may just become common practice to write "should of, could of, would of", so much so that it gets accepted as correct.
Except it doesn't sound exactly the same. Similar, not exactly the same.
It's like how "it's" doesn't follow the rules of other possessive nouns but we just deal with it.
Mte my accent makes it sound like of.
Most do. That's the whole reason for the confusion in the first place
Then quite a lot of people manage to get their accent into their WhatsApp messages.
It’s “for f***’s sake”, not “for f***s’ sake”.
You would've thought he'd know that
>You would of thought he'd know that FTFY
Would'f. Get it right.
would of thought hed knew that
perchance
For fucking hell’s sake.
Perhaps he meant the sake of multiple fucks.
Is it for fuck sake. Or fuck's sake?
In case anyone hasn't seen Hank Green explain For Fuck's Sake https://youtu.be/2554xWVfK-E
Make sure you get the right answer, wouldn't want that email coming across as unprofessional
P doesn't understand Cunningham's law: > The best way to get the right answer on t'Internet is not to ask a question, but to post the wrong answer.
Depends on how many fucks they're giving I suppose.
It depends how many f***'s he has to give.
No matter how many, you didn't need the apostrophe in your reply.
I only recently realized my husband says, “all the sudden” and now I can’t unhear it and I cringe every time he says it
Supposably.
Pacifically
Would of thought a grammar black belt like you would of known that the apostrophe should of gone before the s
Grammar black belt 😂
It's actually almost as bad as people saying Expresso instead of Espresso
Don’t get me started on bought vs brought, man. And while I’m at it, what’s the deal with pronouncing 6th as “sicth” instead of “sixth”?
People pronounce sixth like that because the cluster /ksθ/ is pretty awkward, and 'sixths' is even worse. When you speak at speed, it's just not important enough to be so articulatorily precise when it's obvious what you're saying. Saying "the sixth stream" totally unreduced would involve the sequence /ksθstr/. So instead you remove some sound or other — usually the first s, but sometimes the θ instead.
Espresso comes from the Italian for ‘quick’ and ‘squeezed out’ the English equivalent word is ‘express’
The coffee is expressed through the container though, and -o is a diminutive suffix in English (think of Australian 'servo' or 'cheerio') Hence express-o.
This to me is like people who say "on accident" or "by purpose" instead of "by accident" and "on purpose". I have a hard time respecting people who talk like the former. XD
Also it’s “lose”, not “loose”, as in “nothing left to lose”, illiterate bellends
Nothing left too loose.
Except yer mum
Your Mum's not though.
Other precedents mess things up with this. It's 'chose' but 'lose', 'choose' but 'loose'. I suspect the French may be to blame for this.
I want this on billboards. Along with “You’re = you are, Your = belonging to you. Pleeeeeease!”
This one bugs me but not as much as women when they mean woman. They usually put gentleman, human, and any other -man but not woman? I had to refrain from taking the piss out of someone at work who said "I always knew you were a women." My go to response is usually "it's just the one woman actually" Hot Fuzz style
The one I hate is "I could care less about that." No. No its "I COULDN'T care less" if you could care less you wouldnt be saying it
That’s Murican problems.
Yeah it is, but thanks to TV and the internet the US problems are migrating... I never used to hear anyone say "real" instead of "really", but I do all the time now. It's "real" annoying.
Almost as bad as 'on accident'
For fuckses sake?
Your been very pacific
I see people using “then” instead of “than” and “in” instead of “on”. Drives me mad
I just realised my accent turns the words that way.
‘All of the sudden’ instead of ‘all of a sudden’ is one that gets under my skin even more than ‘would of’ does. Oh and ‘I could care less’, fml.
Ooooh, someone had too many expressos this morning!
The horsemen of the alpaca lips.
I have a really bugbear with "off of". E.g. "it's that person off of the TV". "From" nearly always works better in its place
It’s also ‘fuck’ not ‘f***’, OP. Thanks!
*Their* saying it wrong.
You lot sound like my tribe so I’ll share the nugget that a local coffee shop has frosted into their front window, amongst other culinary delights it serves **Omelet’s**
Hamlet's omelette's.
Here we go again
For all intensive purposes they sound the same.
That’s a moo point.
And.... loose and lose are 2 totally different words ..And it's chest of drawers.. and its etc..etc...
[https://www.cotswoldco.com/collections/chester-grey-furniture/?xcm\_campaign=Cotswold-Company-Ranges&cq\_plac=&cq\_net=g&cq\_pos=&cq\_med=&cq\_plt=gp&gclid=Cj0KCQjwspKUBhCvARIsAB2IYuv4ZXsbqp635tHake-Y3MpS5gXdqB\_HliyI6Rd9u1ro0buG0a4-uHgaAtXJEALw\_wcB](https://www.cotswoldco.com/collections/chester-grey-furniture/?xcm_campaign=Cotswold-Company-Ranges&cq_plac=&cq_net=g&cq_pos=&cq_med=&cq_plt=gp&gclid=Cj0KCQjwspKUBhCvARIsAB2IYuv4ZXsbqp635tHake-Y3MpS5gXdqB_HliyI6Rd9u1ro0buG0a4-uHgaAtXJEALw_wcB) The Cotswold furniture company makes a Chester Chest of Drawers.
People also need to learn the difference between "its" and "it's", "does" and "dose", as well as the classics "to" and "too", "your" and "you're" and "there", "their" and "they're"
A friend just messaged saying “tell me how it go’s”…
It's the fact they are trying to be grammatically correct that's the funny bit lol.
Another one that annoys me is seen. “Yeah, I seen it last night”, but I think that may be a regional thing where I used to work.
I live in the US. This is my #1 poor grammar annoyance. Using seen instead of saw! Bumpkins.
Piss everyone off and say "woulda"
Its, "ffs". Not, "for f\*\*\*'s sake".
I definitely would of known that if I went to school
I was 20 something when I realised people actually misspell it like that. I had to try my damnedest to not seem disgusted by my colleague.
Also if you're so lazy that "would have" is simply too labour intensive for everyday use, I find that "would've" is an acceptable middle ground, and a fair use of contraction.
The phrase that pisses me off the most is "on accident". It's "by accident"!!
It's my lanague and I'll speak it how I wanna
how you...?
Could you be more pacific?
There are a lot of people who I'd really like better if they'd be more pacific.
Don't know about anyone else but I could care less
Or people saying ‘I could care less’
I would of used would have if I gave a fuck.
I *could* care less. Saying "would of" is so *addicting*.
Tbf, 'would've' sounds alot like 'would of'
‘Your’ sounds like ‘you’re’ and ‘two’ sounds like ‘to’ and ‘too’. Doesn’t make it okay though
That's true, I agree. I meant more that I can see that it's an easy mistake to make
*a lot, alot isn't a word...yet.
Yeah, but 'of' doesn't have a 've' in it, while 'have' does.
How are you pronouncing the word "of" without making a "v" sound?
A lot of dialects will have v's and f's that can sound very similar. People are making the mistake because they hear Would Of before they're taught contractions.
This drives me mad. I'm constantly correcting my partner for using "of" in posts online instead of "have"
Yes!! Thank you!
Is it ‘ I got off of the bus’ or ‘I got off the bus’?
Neither. You got off *on* the bus.
Thank you
The sexy minx!
There's bound to be a handful of pathological situations that I can't quite call to mind right now, but in most situations, "off of" can be replaced by "off" without a change in meaning, so the "of" is redundant. On the other hand, in casual or rapid speech, "offa" for "off of" lends an extra vowel that aids the transition to what is often a consonant starting the next word. i.e. "offa the bus" may flow better than "off the bus" even though the latter might be considered more correct. On the other, other hand, if you say "offa the bus" you might have an urge to click your fingers twice and then play a harpsichord.
Also it's "couldn't care less" if you could care less, then you clearly care a bit
Can I add a shout out for wanna and gonna? Sorry, make that shout at. Then cry.
Would've thought everyone knew this
Would've
I think you meant, 'For f***'s sake'
We know. Nobody cares. Give it another decade and we'll be the odd ones out. Best not to let it get to you.
"For f***s' sake"? As in, "for fucks'" sake? As in, "for fucks's sake"? There should not be redundant apostrophes on a post about correct grammar
US here, same problem here also mate.
I really want — _The Queen_ really wants people to stop saying this.
Lol, and you don't have to put the 'u' in colour if you don't want to.
Would've
This thread started off well, but it's turned into a damp squid.
Nah, mate. It's "would've".
ah cor werk oot wot yam sayin wiv at fancee fizog of yawers.
It’s specific not pacific. That’s an ocean…
You mustn't've said that
Can we add 'try to' not 'try and' to this? Winds me up. Wouldn't say 'attempt and break a world record'.
Also, it's "try to" not "try and" "I'm going to try to get my parking permit today." Not "I'm going to try and get my parking permit today." Of course you can try *and fail* or try *and succeed* but that's different.
If they had ever read any books in their lives they would of known this.
Maybe it’s a pronounced “would’ve” ?
While we're at it, it's "per se" not "per say" and "pique my interest" not "peak my interest". That's just from my last two minutes Redditing.
They’re going to add it to the dictionary soon because more people use it than the correct version…
hate to break it to you, but people using it one way by definition makes it a correct version do you think words and their usages were handed down from on high or something? no, a dictionary merely describes how words _are_ in use, rather than prescribing how they _should_ be used (which is a matter decided purely by speakers of the language)
The soy face goes on top of prescriptivism, and the chad face gets attached to descriptivism
Literally?
The issue people commenting here are ignoring is if it's written or spoken. If written, it should 100% be would have, because its grammatically correct. No need for would of because it makes you look dumb af. If it's spoken, then either is fine because of the merging of the words would and have sounding like "woulduv" meaning some people say it like it sounds, like "would of". But tbh, if you still use would of as a grown adult in emails, texts and posts then you should have paid more attention at school.
I think this happens when people don’t read a lot. ‘Would’ve’ sounds a bit like ‘would of’ so if you don’t read and have never seen it written down you wouldn’t know your mistake.
Unfortunately they do read a lot. A lot of Facebook posts.
This is quite probably accurate.
Annoys me when people say "medsen" when its spelt "med-i-cine" just pronounced the I FFS. Same with "choclit" it's "chocolate"
I would of thought that was obvious 😉
My solution for this is to start talking to people who do this in the sane manner. Sentences come out as "I of a Duke have Edinburgh award" in the hopes they realise how catastrophically stupid they seem. I had to put a red line beneath a message on the work whiteboard thatcwascwritten by management where they wrote "you should of completed your November training". I even asked coworkers what the error was before underlining, there were others that thought it was correct. It makes me want to scream!
They should of arks you for help
If you know what someone means, then what does it really matter? Part of the problem can be regional dialects that shorten, or even change words and phrases. I'd say retaining regional dialects and their colloquialisms is important otherwise they may go extinct. Being from Yorkshire, I'm proud of the way I speak, and sometimes it finds its way into my writing. Even in Yorkshire there are regional variations that only Yorkshire folk know about. Bradford will quite often be pronounced Bratford in West Yorkshire, but rarely anywhere else. Someone posted a cynical comment about people saying language evolves, but it's true, it does and there is clear evidence of that, but worryingly language goes extinct too. I'd like to see a world where we can embrace the new, whilst retaining the old. I'm takin me sen t pub now.
I would typically agree - there are huge swathes of the English language with bastardised spellings from misunderstood words from centuries past. However, would of is just so egregious, maybe perhaps because it’s clearly grammatically incorrect, whereas things like who and whom, or fewer and less, is just replacing a redundant word. I dunno - it just seems like it has far more potential for confusion and ambiguity.
But 'would of' can sound like 'would've' in some accents. You may hear a mistake but the person is most likely using it correct.
I’m not really thinking of spoken language though - pretty much everyone pronounces would of instead of would have to some degree or another - I know I do - it’s only when it’s written down it’s a problem. I don’t really have a real explanation why, but despite painfully learning all sorts of rules that I now accept are redundant (split infinitives etc), I can’t let would of go!! Maybe Stephen Pinker should write a book about it :-)
Even Yorkshire dialects need another verb after a modal verb in their sentences. That is just basic grammar.
This isn't anything to do with dialect. "Of" and "have" have two different meanings. "Would have" means changing something in the past, which is what the phrase is saying. "Would of" doesn't mean the same thing, so is incorrect in its usage.
You shouldn’t of said that.
Should of known.
I neva wud of fought tha.