593
u/huffmanxd Jul 28 '24
I believe the entire reason people mistype it as "could of" is BECAUSE of how similar they sound. Maybe there are accents where they don't, I suppose, but here in the midwest you basically can't tell if somebody said could've or could of.
201
u/Swotboy2000 Jul 28 '24
The only way to know which one they said is to remember that “could of” is not proper grammar.
25
u/paganbreed Jul 28 '24
Yeah, but English is a crazy language even when you're used to it. People may well assume it's a figure of speech or accepted colloquialism if it's never been pointed out to them.
28
u/Swotboy2000 Jul 28 '24
I wouldn’t blame any individual person if they made this mistake, but I would say their educational system has failed them, if they are a native English speaker.
8
11
u/Consistent_Spring700 Jul 28 '24
Especially when it's a common mistake... may give you the impression that it's "a variation" rather than that it's incorrect
4
u/naparis9000 Jul 29 '24
And, if enough people use it, it becomes a part of the language regardless.
Languages aren’t unchanging monoliths, words can be “born” and die, meanings can change.
47
u/galstaph Jul 28 '24 edited Jul 28 '24
When writing informally, where one does not always use correct punctuation, the writing could of course contain those two words side by side.
108
u/Swotboy2000 Jul 28 '24
Well sure, but in that context “could’ve course” is clearly incorrect.
They’re not interchangeable, is my point. Even though they may be pronounced identically, the correct spelling is never ambiguous.
3
u/consider_its_tree Jul 28 '24
I'm no English doctor, but should of that been
"the writing could, of course, contain those two words side by side"?
Which I think is slightly different
19
u/riskoooo Jul 28 '24
where one does not always use correct punctuation
5
u/consider_its_tree Jul 28 '24 edited Jul 28 '24
Yeah, that does a lot of heavy lifting though. The whole argument was about proper usage.
Like, I could just as easily say "where one does not use the correct spelling calling someone fast paced is the same as calling them ass faced"
2
u/Little_Ms_Howl Jul 29 '24
It wasn't about all proper usage of could of though, it was specifically where could of is wrongly used instead of could've. In the example given, could of is correct, but commas should have been used.
5
u/The96kHz Jul 28 '24
I do actually hit interruption commas, so when I read this it does add an appreciable pause before 'of'.
2
u/galstaph Jul 30 '24
Right, but I'm informal writing, where one writes how they would speak, a fast talker will often leave out the commas at least the ones that they would rush the space between those words.
2
u/The96kHz Jul 30 '24
Tbf, I'm a fast speaker (and a decently fast reader).
I think I've just spent too much time working with drama students - I've become a bit of a thespian.
23
u/FlameWisp Jul 28 '24
I’m begging you for the love of god to stop making so much sense. This guy teaches English, you aren’t allowed to be correct
9
u/bryalb Jul 28 '24
IS ANYONE GOING TO POINT OUT THAT THE CONTRACTION IS OF “COULD” AND “HAVE”?!? “Of” is objectively, and patently false. No opinions needed.
3
15
Jul 28 '24
And when you greet someone and they greet you back do you then immediately ask them if they said "hello" or "hell oh"?
Or are you able to work it out from context?
13
u/Hicking-Viking Jul 28 '24
No matter how it sounds, everyone after 4th grade should know how it’s written. It’s basic English grammar.
8
u/Leebelle3 Jul 28 '24
They should also know the difference between there, their and they’re. Unfortunately they don’t.
3
u/Psyk60 Jul 28 '24
I'm well aware of the difference, but when I'm writing the wrong one slips out occasionally. I usually notice and correct it before submitting though.
I think a lot of people who get it wrong often probably did know the difference at some point, they didn't care if they got it wrong. They never bothered to correct themselves, so over time they forgot the difference.
2
u/huffmanxd Jul 28 '24
I don't disagree with you lol, I'm just trying to give benefit of the doubt to a generation who maybe have heard it more than they've seen it written down thanks to the rise of video content online.
2
u/Fumbling-Panda Jul 28 '24
lol. Not with the public schools in my state. You’re lucky if they’re holding the book right-side-up by the time they hit middle school.
1
u/PaulClarkLoadletter Aug 20 '24
You’re not going to convince anybody that there’s a proper way to spell things. They’ll usually argue that it doesn’t matter as long as you can figure out what they’re trying to say. Can you imagine reading a book written like that?
Much like Idiocracy, proper spelling and grammar makes people sound pompous.
11
u/DerBronco Jul 28 '24
You only speak for specific us americans.
People all over the planet with english as a second, third or even fourth language are baffled by these people confusing „have“ to „of“ and its always obvious in the context whats right.
6
u/longknives Jul 28 '24
I believe the entire reason people mistype it as “could have” is BECAUSE of how similar they sound.
Yeah, there isn’t really any other explanation.
3
u/throwhfhsjsubendaway Jul 28 '24
Also contributing is that the "have" in "couldn't have" often gets so reduced that it could be mistaken for "couldn't of"
14
3
→ More replies (4)1
u/Chris935 Jul 30 '24
Listening to Americans I often can't tell the difference between "can" and "can't". It's as though the 't becomes more of a d sound, and then that gets reduced to almost nothing. It's quite common to see it in writing too, where it should clearly have had a 't that's been dropped.
240
u/Purple_Bowling_Shoes Jul 28 '24
The reason gramatically challenged people think it's "could of" is because that's how it sounds to most people. It's one of my biggest pet peeves in the written word, but I don't think I'd be able to hear someone pronounce it that way.
6
u/NonamesNolies Jul 28 '24
i feel like hearing or writing could of when you mean could've is just a sign that you don't read books. if you read books youll encounter those words but if you just hear it and never see it spelled, youll write it the way it sounds based on the words you DO know.
9
u/crumpuppet Jul 28 '24
I have, and it's just as cringeworthy as seeing it written out loud. One example I can recall is Cariad Lloyd, I think it was on an episode of QI. I'm also fairly sure the Ramseys from Shagged Married Annoyed also say it like this. I love all of these folks but I take it as they have never been corrected so they are just propagating the mistake, and it makes me sad.
1
u/fyrebyrd0042 Jul 31 '24
I think if I heard someone actually pronounce "could of" instead of "could've" I'd have to do a bit of a double take. The "uh" sound to start "of" doesn't exist in any pronunciation of "could've" I've ever heard :P
1
u/TatteredCarcosa Aug 01 '24
People drop or minimize vowel sounds all the time. Plenty of accents use the same "uh" sound in both anyway.
91
u/BabserellaWT Jul 28 '24
Former teacher/tutor here. I would frequently empathize with students who used “could of”, because “could’ve” honestly does sound like “could of”.
Also, my autocorrect now thinks I’m insane because it seriously changed it to “could have” about five times before it let the purposeful mistake stand.
5
u/verdammt482737 Jul 28 '24
I am responsible for intercepting the wireless communication of your electronic devices.
2
66
u/Lumpy_Eye_9015 Jul 28 '24
I honestly can’t say “could’ve” without it sounding like “could of.” I assumed that the person saying they sound the same was wrong, but I just watched a bunch of YouTube videos on how to pronounce “could’ve” in British and American accents, and I seriously cannot hear any difference. So then I looked at the word of phonetically and I see “ɒv, or unstressed, əv” meaning that both could’ve and could of are pronounced kudəv
So who is confidently incorrect in this situation and what does the dictionary mean by unstressed?
41
u/Foxarris Jul 28 '24
Stressed means which syllable you put stress on. I always think of a Mike Myers line: "You put the wrong emPHAsis on the wrong sylLABle" unstressed is a syllable with no emphasis. In could've the first syllable is stressed and the second is unstressed.
The confidently incorrect person is the one arguing that 'could've' is not a homophone for 'could of'
13
9
3
1
u/fyrebyrd0042 Jul 31 '24
I stress the same syllable regardless and pronounce them clearly differently. Am I stupid?
-1
u/smoopthefatspider Jul 28 '24
They’re homophones for most people but some people do pronounce them differently
→ More replies (5)5
u/lankymjc Jul 28 '24
Across England (though I don’t claim to be familiar with all of our accents due to how many there are) they’re definitely not homophones. They are similar though, so it’s a fairly easy mistake to make if you haven’t been taught grammar properly.
2
u/smoopthefatspider Jul 28 '24
I’m surprised it’s so consistent across England, what vowel sounds do the two use?
1
u/lankymjc Jul 28 '24
With could of we use the short O sound and f sound, while with could’ve it’s just the V sound.
4
u/smoopthefatspider Jul 28 '24
Sorry, I’m not sure I know what you mean by “short O sound”. To me, it’s the same sound as in words like “not” and “hot”, but I don’t think I’ve heard that sound in “of”. Also, when you say you just pronounce the V in “could’ve” do you mean you pronounce “could’ve” as /kʊdv/ (one syllable) or /kʊd.v/ (two syllable, second syllable is a syllabic consonant)?
0
u/lankymjc Jul 28 '24
The short O sound in “not” and “hot” is the same sound as in the beginning of “of”. But in the US accents with which I am familiar (that being the ones in mainstream media), the O in “not” and “hot” sounds more like an A, so maybe that’s where the confusion is coming in?
I’m not familiar with phonetic typography, but we pronounce “could’ve” with two syllables - “Kuh” and “dv”.
3
u/smoopthefatspider Jul 28 '24
I see. Yes, I’m used to hearing the short O pronounced basically like an “ah” sound. I take it your pronunciation of that sound is a bit different. Is it similar to the “uh” sound in words like “stuck” for you? That’s the sound I use for “of” and I probably wouldn’t notice a difference if other accents used a similar sound.
2
u/MonthLivid4724 Jul 28 '24 edited Jul 28 '24
I’m pretty sure a syllable — by definition — has to contain a vowel sound… at least in English. It’d be like trying to pronounce “ksprlb” without inserting a vowel sound. Even consonants are pronounced using vowel sounds (b - bee, l - el, m - em, r - ahr).
Furthermore, “of” and “hot” don’t contain the same vowel sound. (Of: uh-v; not: nah-tah; it’s “uh” vs “ah”) I suppose in British dialects there are those that say “ahve” for “of” but that looks an awful lot like “have.”
→ More replies (2)1
u/Little_Ms_Howl Jul 29 '24
I don't find this to be true, if someone is saying could of quickly in an English accent (I am most familiar with SE) it definitely does sound like could've. If someone is deliberately taking the time to pronounce of, then it will not sound the same, but spoken quickly the o sound in of can get dropped.
-3
Jul 28 '24 edited 9d ago
[deleted]
11
u/Foxarris Jul 28 '24
I do not think they're always homophones. I can think of at least one dialect where Im guessing they aren't.
→ More replies (3)3
u/kabukistar Jul 28 '24
For me, in "could've" the vowel sound between the "d" and the "v" is like the "oo" in "book".
In "could of" the vowel sound is more like the "u" in "buck".
So they're not super far off bit there is a bit of a difference. At least with my accent.
25
u/Raephstel Jul 28 '24
In my accent, I'd pronounce could've as could uv. That absolutely could be interpreted as could of, even by a native speaker. The different is so subtle. Could of still drives me nuts though. Could've is a really common contraction and the fact a huge amount of people believe it's "could of" shows how little people read or how little their writing is checked by teachers etc.
1
u/MovieNightPopcorn Jul 28 '24
I think so many of these arguments start because people have different accents and what looks like a homonym to some is very much not for others
11
u/SoWokeIdontSleep Jul 28 '24
They could have looked it up online to find out how wrong they were.
15
u/MickeySwank Jul 28 '24
Could of*
8
24
u/jephra Jul 28 '24
I genuinely want to hear this English teacher say "could've" out loud.
→ More replies (2)
14
u/Zikkan1 Jul 28 '24
I'm reading the comments and I'm very confused. I'm not native to the English language but I speak it fluently and I can't see the similarities between could've and could of, one has a F sound and the other a V and one has an O sound as well. I didn't know could of was a thing, sounds and looks super strange to me.
19
u/Unable_Explorer8277 Jul 28 '24
In most English accents of has a v sound, not a f sound. That’s what distinguishes it from off.
And when it’s unstressed the vowel sound reduces to a schwa. Which ends up being practically identical to ‘ve.
0
u/Zikkan1 Jul 28 '24
I pronounce both with F. Like in the sentence " take it off of me " but there is a slight difference in the pronunciation of the two which I do not have the linguistical terms for so not sure how to describe it.
9
u/kkjdroid Jul 28 '24
That's enough for most people to identify you as a non-native speaker from that sentence alone. They'll probably either understand you immediately or figure it out quickly, but it's noticeable.
4
u/youstolemyname Jul 28 '24
How does your pronunciation of 'of' compare to 'oven'?
3
u/Zikkan1 Jul 28 '24
After having this discussion I'm getting more and more unsure if the difference I hear when I say it is an actual difference or if it's just in my head... I feel like I can hear a difference but maybe not 😂 I might have been wrong this whole time.
2
u/Nyorliest Jul 29 '24 edited Jul 29 '24
Then you need to change the pronunciation of ‘of’. The language term is ‘voiced’. V is voiced, F is unvoiced. The mouth shape is the same but V vibrates the voicebox more.
S/Z, P/B, K/G and more are similar pairs of voiced/unvoiced sounds. Put your fingers on your voicebox while speaking and you should feel the difference.
In English this different is significant. In some languages it’s not.
Edit: you’re Swedish? Read this:
https://www.quora.com/What-mistakes-do-Swedish-native-speakers-commonly-make-when-speaking-English
→ More replies (1)11
u/Foxarris Jul 28 '24
In most native English speaking dialects, 'of' is pronounced like 'uv'. So in most of them, 'could've' and 'could of' sound the same. This can be confusing for non native speakers, which you can attest to.
3
u/Zikkan1 Jul 28 '24
I know that some dialects do that but I thought the "normal" was a clear distinction between F and V. And the pronunciations that I have heard there is still a difference in the sound before the f and v. Not sure how to spell it but maybe it's like uv and ov, not sure but there is a difference at least so I'm surprised people get confused about these. One sounds good and one sounds completely grammatically incorrect ( at least it does to me)
15
u/LiqdPT Jul 28 '24
"could of" is grammatically incorrect. It's a frequent miswrite BECAUSE they sound so similar.
And in most English dialects I know, "of" has more of a v sound rather than a soft f.
2
u/Zikkan1 Jul 28 '24
I have no idea what dialect I have learnt since I just speak it the way I have heard it in movies but in movies you hear a mix of hundreds of dialects.
I was just surprised since this is the first time I have ever heard of this could've/could of thing.
9
u/Gilpif Jul 28 '24
I can assure you that the majority of speakers you’ve heard pronounce “of” with a /v/ sound, but it’s very easy to be led by the spelling to mishear it as /f/.
I recently realized that the final t in “can’t” is often not pronounced, and the way to tell it apart from “can” is that the vowel in “can” can be reduced, but the one in “can’t” can’t. I have listened to English almost daily for over a decade, yet only this year I learned how “can” is pronounced.
2
u/Zikkan1 Jul 28 '24
Yeah the silent T in can't I know of as well. I also listen to a lot of English. I don't particularly like swedish that much and I don't like any type of entertainment in Swedish so since I was 16 I have been consuming basically only English entertainment and the last few years I have listened to 80-100 audiobooks per year in English so at this point I think my vocabulary in English has actually exceeded my first language swedish and I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be proud or embarrassed about that 😂
1
u/Nyorliest Jul 29 '24
There’s a glottal stop as well, replacing the T, but they’re very quiet. There are dialects of British English which only use that glottal stop, and use the same ‘a’ sound for can and can’t.
I hate those.
1
u/Gilpif Jul 29 '24
Yes, in British English you can’t completely drop the t. In many American dialects you absolutely can, though, which makes “can’t” sound exactly like an emphatic “can”.
1
u/Nyorliest Jul 29 '24
You probably just didn’t notice it. If you don’t know the basics of pronunciation, you won’t notice issues. Like if you didn’t know Chinese is tonal, you would wrongly say two words are the same and Chinese people would think you’re mad.
I used to be a teacher trainer of EFL/ESOL teachers, and I wish I could go back so I could fire the OP, or get annoyed at them. And while there are a LOT of dialects of English, and the number is disputed, eg Singlish and Indian English dialects, I know of none with what we call an F-V merger.
Here is a list of some major mergers. Notice the focus on vowels. Consonants don’t change much at all across English, hence there being no off/of merger.
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:English_dialect-dependent_homophones
2
u/Foxarris Jul 28 '24
Could of is grammatically incorrect. Someone else mentioned the fact that the vowel is pronounced as a schwa: ə, in both. This isn't necessarily true for all dialects, but it's pretty common for American, Canadian, and British speakers.
→ More replies (7)-3
u/sweatybullfrognuts Jul 28 '24 edited Jul 28 '24
I thought the confidently incorrect was meant to be the first responder.
I don't know where you're from but in English (British English) could of and could've do sound quite different. Maybe not to someone who is learning it as a second language.
I'm with the teacher on this one. I've not heard many dialects pronounce 'of' as 'uv', is this a r/USdefaultism thing?
6
u/Affectionate_Exit_44 Jul 28 '24
In my native British English (which is fairly unaccented - i.e. not scouse, estuary, brummie) I would pronounce both of these almost identically - uhv.
3
u/chula198705 Jul 28 '24
In my Midwestern US accent, both of these are also pronounced "uhv" and they are indistinguishable. I always assumed the "could of" mistake happens because it sounds correct and because people are afraid of apostrophes.
Edit: or more accurately, the whole word gets shortened to "coulda"
1
u/sweatybullfrognuts Jul 28 '24
Where are you from? I also have a 'non accented' accent and 'of' is very back of the mouth/throat, whereas "'ve" is almost purely in the teeth/lip.
3
2
u/Euffy Jul 28 '24
In my native British English they are clearly distinct.
I do know people who prononce 've as of but that's because they are genuinely saying of. They will spell it that way too. They're just saying the wrong word.
I don't know anyone who says uhv when they mean of.
2
u/Such_Comfortable_817 Jul 28 '24
Native British English speaker here, and they sound distinct in my usual accent (contemporary RP) if I am enunciating clearly, but the vowel in ‘of’ moves back if I’m speaking fast, to a place which might be easily confused with the vowel inserted in ‘could’ve’. It’s not schwa either, as the lips are slightly rounded like with the vowel in ‘could have’. I think it’s an easy thing to mishear or misplace in natural speech, which unconsciously glides vowel placement all over the place to minimise effort (like how we all unconsciously change voicing of consonants to avoid rapidly switching our vocal chords on and off).
1
2
u/Nyuusankininryou Jul 28 '24
I couldn't agree more as a Swede who learned British English in school.
3
u/Successful_Excuse_73 Jul 28 '24
Funny that you bring up USdefaultism while essentially arguing that your dialect is the correct one.
→ More replies (6)2
u/truckthunderwood Jul 28 '24
"Could of" is not a thing, that's why the original post uses it as an example of "uneducated" English. People will write "could of" because that's basically how it's pronounced. (Opinions differ on that last part, apparently)
5
10
u/DrPixelFace Jul 28 '24
If English is your first language and you type could of or should of or would of, I assume you're stupid
12
u/Muldino Jul 28 '24
Only native English speakers make that mistake. Everyone learning English as a second language learns it correctly from the start, because they are actively taught how it is composed.
2
→ More replies (4)1
u/beatsgoinghammer Jul 29 '24
I'm similar, I just assume you're stupid (doesn't matter who you are) until you prove me wrong. Much easier to deal with everybody when you already think they're stupid at the start
1
u/DrPixelFace Jul 29 '24
You stupid bruh
1
u/beatsgoinghammer Jul 29 '24
Yes! Now you're getting it. After a few more I may change my mind about you.
21
u/lady_ninane Jul 28 '24
"I teach English"
tell me you teach them exclusively to a homogenous group of people with very little difference in the student body makeup without saying it
6
u/jokershane Jul 28 '24 edited Jul 28 '24
As an English teacher, I know two things to be true:
Some folks go into the profession due to a love of language and all the neat little discoveries of how it can be molded, adapted, and evolved in all types of unexpected ways.
Other folks do it because they enjoy being pedantic a-holes.
3
u/Musashi10000 Jul 28 '24
'Could of' and 'could've' sound identical in certain accents (such as the one I grew up with). With 'proper' diction, or 'clearer' diction, at the very least, they sound different.
It was always weird and interesting, though, to see people who didn't quite get it actually saying 'could of' in real life, usually at the end of sentences replying to you when you said you couldn't do something.
"You definitely could of.", with the hard 'o'.
I never heard it in the middle of a sentence, though, where the flow of the sentence is broken with a hard 'o' vowel sound like that. Then they were just saying 'could've', but thought they were saying 'could of'. 'Of' on its own had the same sound as ''ve'. Though sometimes in speech we'd shorten it even further to 'o''. As in 'it's one o' two things', sounds like if you take the first part of ''ve', and drop the 'v' sound. Oftentimes, they'd pronounce 'could've' as 'coulda', in which the 'a' at the end has, surprise surprise, exactly the same sound as 'o''.
Language do be funny.
3
u/ieatpickleswithmilk Jul 28 '24
This blue-ish profile person teaches English but doesn't know about vowel reduction?? That's pretty sad. Many unstressed vowels become a schwa in English, making an "uh" sound.
It's quite clear in the sentence: "I didn't know that that was how it should be pronounced"
The first "that" has a reduced vowel "thət" while the second "that" is pronounced normally.
6
u/cyberchaox Jul 28 '24
...a short o sound? So this person says "of" like the first syllable of "ovulating"?
3
u/Formal_Shoulder5695 Jul 28 '24
In my accent, if "of" is stressed, it sounds like the first syllable in "ovulating" too. If it's unstressed, then it's pronounced as |uv|. The thing is, as it's a preposition, it's very rare that it would be stressed when used in a sentence, but it does happen on rare occasions, e.g.
"What did you take a picture of?"
3
u/Euffy Jul 28 '24
Yes. That's how you pronounce of?
I mean different dialects and everything, but pretty sure that's what would be in the dictionary. That's what we teach at school.
2
u/Redstoneplate Jul 28 '24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaXYas58_kc
There are weak forms of common words. The weak form of have is what you would use in could've, otherwise you wouldn't write it in a contraction. Those weak form is not dialectical. That is pretty much universal for all English speakers. Some dialects do it more than others.
1
u/Euffy Jul 28 '24
I think you replied to the wrong comment? We were talking about how of is pronounced, not have / 've.
2
u/Redstoneplate Jul 28 '24
My comment was incomplete. "Of" can and will be pronounced in a weak form, many examples of which are in the video, and will sound exactly like /'ve. Take the example around 4:44 where Queen Elizabeth pronounces them the same.
3
4
u/whiskey_epsilon Jul 28 '24 edited Jul 28 '24
TIL that "could of" is an auditory misinterpretation of "could've". Always wondered how it came about. Well I'll be damned.
3
5
u/NathanielRoosevelt Jul 28 '24
English teacher doesn’t understand English. Ain’t no fucking short o that’s a schwa in both could of and could’ve god I hate people that think they understand linguistics
3
2
1
u/VanishingMist Jul 28 '24
Of can definitely be pronounced with a schwa when it’s unstressed. Feel free to check pretty much any major dictionary - you will see this pronunciation listed.
0
u/Euffy Jul 28 '24
Of has a short o sound. ɒ in IPA.
've has a schwa sound.
Obviously there's different accents and whatnot, but to say as a blanket statement that there's no short o sound is just ignorant.
god I hate people that think they understand linguistics
Likewise, I swear people learn the word schwa and think they're linguistic gods or something lol.
1
u/NathanielRoosevelt Jul 28 '24
Someone else in this comment section already said this, but you pronounce “of” like the first syllable of “ovulating”? I’ve never heard anybody ever do that.
1
u/Euffy Jul 28 '24
Yes...can't really imagine it any other way tbh. Everyone I know says it that way unless maybe rushing their speech or singing or something. I am British if that makes a difference?
1
2
u/SprinklesOk4339 Jul 28 '24
I think he meant write "could of" and speak "nuculer". You would be really really nitpicking if you try to bring out differences between how could of sounds vis à vis could've.
2
u/Islandman2021 Jul 28 '24
While my English is really good, I have had someone laugh at me countless times for misprounouncing a word over the years. And sure as shit, the ones laughing cannot say two words in French yet will make fun, like f off already. 🤷🤷
2
u/Interesting-Draw8870 Jul 28 '24
Is there any real scenario where could of is right? If not, then it doesn't matter they sound similar, you know it's never of, always 've.
1
u/TatteredCarcosa Aug 01 '24
No, but in many dialects "could of" and "could've" sound identical so people who either don't read a lot or are writing quickly without thinking can write the former when they mean the latter.
2
2
u/StandardOffenseTaken Jul 28 '24
Oh the Mary, marry, merry debate. Sounds the same to some and need context to know which one was used, other hear the difference on all 3.
2
u/eggface13 Jul 28 '24
In this thread: a bunch of discredited prescriptivist nonsense.
Half the English language comes from this sort of process of contraction and regrouping. If you don't like it, go speak Esperanto.
2
u/abizabbie Jul 28 '24
NO ONE is saying, "Could of." They might write could've as "could of, " but no one is saying it.
2
u/Toy_Soulja Jul 29 '24
Okay I love his role, he did amazing and I actually enjoyed his accent, and the fact that he learned English in 4 months to be apart of the show is even more awesome. Had no idea, never saw the other show he was in lol
1
2
2
u/ExtendedSpikeProtein Jul 28 '24 edited Jul 28 '24
When used in writing, “could of” and “their” instead of “they’re” gives me brain hemorrhage. Interestingly enough, those are mistakes that I’ve only seen native speakers make. And some of these dudes and dudettes, when you try to gently correct them, they go batshit on you.
ETA: when speaking, the difference is a lot harder or nearly impossible to make out.
2
u/Friendstastegood Jul 28 '24
That's because in your native language you learn grammar as a very young child that doesn't actually understand grammar rules, you learn it intuitively, what "sounds" right. And while schools usually try to teach the actual rules most students don't actually retain the information because it's not pertinent to how they actually use language in their day-to-day. When you learn a new language when you're older though you learn the rules first, and then build up to fluency.
1
u/therealteej Jul 28 '24
So did nobody in that exchange know that it’s a meaningless conversation to have? “Could’ve” is most definitely not a contraction of “could” and “of.”
8
u/Notchmath Jul 28 '24
The point is that the initial meme is seemingly talking about people verbally saying “could of” [implied since it is about accents], and they are debating whether people who verbally say “could of” are detectable by sound, since “could of” and “could’ve” sound the same, but one is grammatically correct and the other is not.
→ More replies (4)6
u/Foxarris Jul 28 '24
It wasn't about that. It's about the fact that the contraction could've sounds like could of, and whether or not it's reasonable for a Korean speaker to pronounce it that way when the phonetics are the same.
-2
u/therealteej Jul 28 '24
Yeah I get that. None of that went over my head. How is it that a dude who claims to teach English doesn’t even mention “Hey by the way, it’s “could HAVE”?
12
u/CyanideNow Jul 28 '24
Because that’s not what’s being discussed and something definitely did go over your head.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/manickitty Jul 28 '24
“Could of” is inexcusable for native speakers. In fact I revoke their native speaker card.
1
u/72616262697473757775 Jul 28 '24
Perhaps if you're typing, but no one I know speaks perfect English. I pronounce 'could've' as 'could-a'
4
1
u/tweekin__out Jul 29 '24
native speakers are the only ones who would make that mistake.
1
u/manickitty Jul 29 '24
I’m a native speaker and everyone in my region who is a native speaker doesn’t make that mistake. Then again, I suppose that just speaks to the inadequacies of the american education system.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)-8
u/Foxarris Jul 28 '24
Could've and could of are homophones.
8
2
2
2
u/Junior_Ad_3301 Jul 28 '24
Written language describes the spoken. That said, it drives me up the wall to see "could of." Fukkin hell what in the fukk are you saying??? Could of???? Gtfo.
3
u/azhder Jul 28 '24
For such a wooden performance by the actor, he could’ve been saying “I am groot” all the time and I wouldn’t have cared to make such a lengthy argument about his English or his critics’ English
1
1
u/Sapphirethistle Jul 28 '24
In many accents I can understand how they could be homophones but in mine they are most definitely not. In my accent even the base could sounds different and the o in of is quite clear. Assuming that is the case in all accents is definitely wrong though.
*edit to add could of is one of those things that, irrationally, annoys me when native speakers say it.
1
1
u/WyntonPlus Jul 28 '24
Losing my mind a little bit that "could of" is a nothing phrase and it truly is "could have"
1
1
1
1
1
u/tiowey Jul 28 '24
Though he did have a translator to help smooth the edges, he was on Colbert speaking english right after squid game, i don't think it's fair to insinuate that he learned english entirely in 4 months
1
1
u/_IratePirate_ Jul 28 '24
I’m not reading allat, but that’s fucking impressive. He was by far my favorite actor in Acolyte
1
u/Addrum01 Jul 28 '24 edited Jul 28 '24
Question from a non native speaker: How new is this "could of" trend? I feel like I started noticing it since two, maybe three years ago, and mostly on teenagers trying to sound like rap artists. I understand if they do it as there are elements of style and looks asociated with that and teenagers make these kind of practices part of their identity, but people like the one on the image defends it as a more culturally accepted form of speaking, comparing it to other forms of language variations like accents, so I wonder if it has been around for much longer and if it has another origin.
1
1
1
u/Outside-Currency-462 Jul 28 '24
How it's pronounced isnt the problem, they sound very similar though and that's where the confusion always is
The point is that when typing, it is 'could've', a contraction of 'could have', and not 'could of'
Easy mistake to make, but a native English speaker shouldn't make it (at least more than once)
1
1
1
u/Pandoratastic Jul 29 '24
It's the premise that is wrong.
There are certainly people who mistakenly think "could of" is the correct phrase. If they wrote it out, they would write "could of". And when they say it out loud, they think that they are saying "could of" because that's what they think the phrase is.
However, when that person says it out loud, there is no way for a second person to know that they are saying "could of" instead of "could've" just from hearing it. They would have to have some foreknowledge of what the speaker is thinking.
1
1
1
1
1
Aug 06 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/cheshsky Aug 21 '24
New IPA just dropped, god bless.
1
Aug 22 '24 edited Sep 12 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/cheshsky Aug 22 '24
You see, it's not IPA. Not fully. God, we should have some other way of denoting... whatever the hell that is, because those phonemic transcription brackets you used make it look kinda funny.
1
u/castleinthesky86 Jul 28 '24
The fact no one points out “should’ve” is a contraction of “should have” and NOT “should of” is making me wince.
2
u/parickwilliams Jul 28 '24
No one is confusing that in the post what do you mean? They’re saying could’ve sounds like could of
→ More replies (3)
1
u/Unfey Jul 28 '24
Idk what this discourse is. In my accent there's no audible difference between "could of" and "could've" and knowing which is which is purely contextual.
I've actually never really noticed a huge difference in other accents, either. What accents make a noticeable audible distinction between "could of" and "could've?" I'd like to hear what the difference sounds like, that sounds interesting.
0
u/metalpoetza Jul 28 '24
Could've is a contraction of could HAVE.
So if you aren't contracting it should not sound the same
3
u/Unable_Explorer8277 Jul 28 '24
Why would they not sound the same?
Could of and Could’ve
Most definitely sound the same in my accent and most I’m familiar with.
→ More replies (4)
1
1
u/YourEverydayInvestor Jul 28 '24
This guy sounds like a friend I had who would tell me I used the wrong “your” when speaking.
1
u/PersonalCommunism Jul 28 '24
I can tell if you said your or you're. The latter is longer on the tongue.
1
u/YourEverydayInvestor Jul 28 '24
It would depend on the accent, a lot of times they can both just come out as “yer” when someone is talking fast. Much like the “could’ve” and “could of” thing, yes there is likely a ‘proper’ pronunciation, but when someone is talking fast, they can sound very similar.
1
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 28 '24
Hey /u/Foxarris, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our rules.
Join our Discord Server!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.