![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
lady-ganesh.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
fandom_grammarWoulda, coulda, shoulda: Why is "Should of" not correct?
Why is "Should of" not correct?
Because the word you're looking for is "have." It's a verb that's almost in the past tense, indicating something that didn't actually happen-- "I should have looked for the cat under the dresser," or "He should've at least asked me first."*
People run into trouble with 'should have' because almost no one uses the expression "should have." Native speakers of English are used to battering the language around, and we contract "should have" to "should've" as a matter of course. It's perfectly correct, and everyone does it.
The problem occurs when we move the phrase from our ears to our fingers, hearing "should've" and writing the near-homonym "should of." Some people even say something that sounds more like "should of" than "should've."
But the basic point stands: "should of" is incorrect, and it's such a common mistake that if you use it, you will probably come off as someone who doesn't do their homework, or at least doesn't do it well. Even if you're writing an uneducated character, you're probably better off using a different abbreviation to indicate the rough and tumble nature of their speech, which brings me to the humble "shoulda."
I Coulda Been A Contender!
The above video-- Marlon Brando, in a classic scene from the movie On the Waterfront-- is known as the "I coulda been a contender" speech. Here, Brando's language is rough and dialect-heavy. It's a great speech, and the accent makes it greater.
So this is the Great Exception to "It's Should Have or Should've, Dammit!" rule:
Dialect and Dialogue
If you've written anything in English, you should know that people don't talk the way they write. Holden Caulfield uses "shoulda," even though the book is a novel written by a very literate man, because the tight first-person perspective J.D. Salinger uses gives the book his 'voice.'
Spoken dialogue gives you even more freedom. The only time, in fact, you should ever use "should have" in dialect is when your character speaks very formally, uses English as his or her second language, or is a robot. (And not always then!)
So-- as with all good writing-- remember who's speaking and that formal English is very much not the same as spoken English, and respect and use both languages well.
...but please, don't use "Should of!"
* The Fan Grammarians, for all their talents, have not been able to find a definitive phrase to describe this tense. Anyone who does find a definitive answer will win a free drabble from me if they post it in comments.
Why is "Should of" not correct?
Because the word you're looking for is "have." It's a verb that's almost in the past tense, indicating something that didn't actually happen-- "I should have looked for the cat under the dresser," or "He should've at least asked me first."*
People run into trouble with 'should have' because almost no one uses the expression "should have." Native speakers of English are used to battering the language around, and we contract "should have" to "should've" as a matter of course. It's perfectly correct, and everyone does it.
The problem occurs when we move the phrase from our ears to our fingers, hearing "should've" and writing the near-homonym "should of." Some people even say something that sounds more like "should of" than "should've."
But the basic point stands: "should of" is incorrect, and it's such a common mistake that if you use it, you will probably come off as someone who doesn't do their homework, or at least doesn't do it well. Even if you're writing an uneducated character, you're probably better off using a different abbreviation to indicate the rough and tumble nature of their speech, which brings me to the humble "shoulda."
I Coulda Been A Contender!
The above video-- Marlon Brando, in a classic scene from the movie On the Waterfront-- is known as the "I coulda been a contender" speech. Here, Brando's language is rough and dialect-heavy. It's a great speech, and the accent makes it greater.
So this is the Great Exception to "It's Should Have or Should've, Dammit!" rule:
Dialect and Dialogue
If you've written anything in English, you should know that people don't talk the way they write. Holden Caulfield uses "shoulda," even though the book is a novel written by a very literate man, because the tight first-person perspective J.D. Salinger uses gives the book his 'voice.'
Spoken dialogue gives you even more freedom. The only time, in fact, you should ever use "should have" in dialect is when your character speaks very formally, uses English as his or her second language, or is a robot. (And not always then!)
So-- as with all good writing-- remember who's speaking and that formal English is very much not the same as spoken English, and respect and use both languages well.
...but please, don't use "Should of!"
* The Fan Grammarians, for all their talents, have not been able to find a definitive phrase to describe this tense. Anyone who does find a definitive answer will win a free drabble from me if they post it in comments.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
18/12/07 02:22 (UTC)http://www.englishpage.com/modals/modalforms.html
And thanks. "Should of" always annoys me to distraction.
no subject
18/12/07 02:52 (UTC)On their own, modals are tenseless, and the perfect aspect has to be added in order to refer to the past.
::shrugs:: I'd dig out my class notes, but they all have been tossed together in a box, and I'm far too lazy.
no subject
18/12/07 02:59 (UTC)Sheesh. I'm such a geek. :-)
no subject
18/12/07 03:22 (UTC)At the top of my page, I wrote the words "modal = tenseless." Further down the page, I circled "perfect aspect = prior to; gives the idea that it happened before now."
Unfortunately, I don't have an exact term to describe the example should have + -en. However, I believe that I have to amend my previous comment, and take out the "past." Calling it a Modal + Perfect Aspect would probably be okay.
(And if anyone out there has a MA or PhD in grammar, feel free to jump in here!)
no subject
18/12/07 03:26 (UTC)no subject
18/12/07 12:56 (UTC)Of course, it doesn't help that even the grammar books can't decide on definitive terms for such things..*g*
no subject
18/12/07 13:15 (UTC)should + perfect infinitive - to show that we expected smth to happen in the past, but we don't know if it happened or not. ex: Tom should have passed his exams.(We often use it to express negatives, to say that smth didn't happen)
(as a by the by, my students tend to learn it as 'should have + verb 3'- see above note.*g*, they say it makes more sense to them like that:))
So, where does this fit? When we teach it, we explain that it's "past", ( the present is should + infinitve ( without 'to') ex: Tom should pass his exams. Which is used to show that smth is probable now or in the future.
Okay, I'm wandering off to ponder some more before I muddy the waters completely...*g*
no subject
19/12/07 02:38 (UTC)*dons mod hat*
18/12/07 13:42 (UTC)Re: *dons mod hat*
18/12/07 14:40 (UTC)Re: *dons mod hat*
18/12/07 14:41 (UTC)Re: *dons mod hat*
19/12/07 02:37 (UTC)Re: *dons mod hat*
18/12/07 16:21 (UTC)Re: *dons mod hat*
18/12/07 16:22 (UTC)no subject
18/12/07 14:39 (UTC)no subject
18/12/07 14:42 (UTC)no subject
18/12/07 15:06 (UTC)no subject
19/12/07 00:05 (UTC)