Why YSK?

The first person who typed “should of” probably heard of it in real life that was meant to be “should’ve”, they typed “should of” online and readers thought that it’s grammatically correct to say “should of” which is in fact wrong and it became widespread throughout the years on Reddit.

I hope something could start to change.

  • @addie@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    40
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Not wanting to be purposefully controversial, but language is a tool for communication and as long as it’s understood by the target audience, then I’d say it was used effectively.

    The English language doesn’t have a governing body (unlike say French and Spanish) and so whatever we agree on is correct usage. “Grammatically incorrect” has long been a dog-whistle signifier for elitism (you don’t have the expensive education to know what’s correct) and racism (the local dialect that you speak isn’t our ‘prestige’ version, therefore you are inferior) and I don’t really like to see it. Even when those aren’t your intentions when correcting people, it still rankles with me.

    Not that I’d write ‘should of’ on my CV or anything, but it doesn’t offend me any on an internet forum.

    • @a_rational_llama@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      381 year ago

      and as long as it’s understood by the target audience

      Duy’ou-ndarstend Diz?

      Understanding written text is more difficult when the existing established conventions that impart meaning are ignored.

      Sure, those conventions evolve over time, some errors are worse than others, and no one’s going to write perfectly all the time. But that doesn’t mean anything goes and the writer has no responsibility to write clearly and correctly.

      • @ronaldtemp1@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        221 year ago

        Agree with you wholeheartedly

        I perfectly understand “Duy’ou-ndarstend Diz?” but I really would not want to read this over and over again.

        Of course, I don’t aim to change everyone, you do you. I just want to use the opportunity to say there is a difference between “should have” and “should of”.

        • @RedundantObsession@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          61 year ago

          I see your point, and in some way I agree myself. Language is always evolving, and the way English is spoken today is far off from what it was back in the day. And the way we use language tells a lot about a persons background and history. This is not something negative, this is personality and differences between people.

          And it’s not someone’s job to change someone or everyone, but it should be accepted to correct when others are wrong. I for one like when people do this to me; I actually encourage my friends to do that to me. This is how I learn and develop my language, and should not be viewed as a negative. If I use language “wrong”, I at least want to be aware of it so I can correct it if I feel the need. I think this should of been how more peoples think it about 😋

            • @RedundantObsession@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 year ago

              Oh yes, 100%. Type of conversation and relationship between partisipants are important to consider. I just believe that the attitude that correcting someone is a negative thing is wrong. Sometimes it might be, like you say, depending on context, but not in general

      • @xx3rawr@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        True. Just because “language is descriptive” (descriptivist will always let you know) doesn’t mean everyone can go freestyle with language, carelessly introducing ambiguity and miscommunication. They always say “as long as it gets the point across” but as a non-native but still pretty fluent, most of the time they don’t actually get the point across.

      • @minimar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        I use this same argument against people censoring swears. Not only is it pointless, but man is it annoying to read, too.

      • @Confuzzeled@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        101 year ago

        What I’m hearing is we need to set up some kind of formal governing body to properly enforce the grammar rules of English. Maybe Hugo boss could make some uniforms.

        • @Exitlude@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 year ago

          It doesn’t necessarily have to invoke that kind of imagery. Spanish has the Royal Spanish Academy and within my lifetime they have removed a couple of letters from the alphabet (ch, ll).

          • @Confuzzeled@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            31 year ago

            Ah I was just being glib to try and be humorous. Alas my “sense of humour” rarely gets the response looked for. I will keep working on it.

            • @RedundantObsession@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              41 year ago

              I slightly changed my breathing pattern after reading your comment, if that helps. Not full nose-blow-funny, but you caused a small, positive reaction. Keep it up!

              • @Confuzzeled@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                Thanks, the feedback is appreciated. I’ll try and work my way up from heavier breathing pattern to semi snort, and from there? the sky’s the limit.

      • Anarch157a
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        Portuguese has it too. Our language is governed by an international treaty between Portuguese speaking countries.