“would of” instead of “would have” or “would’ve”

The "ov" form has been around for quite a while. It's actually a fairly natural phonetic evolution of the truncated "uhv" sound you get in (for example) "would've".

I wouldn't worry about it myself.

However, when written as "of" (eg, "would of"), it's a spelling mistake. Unless, as you point out, the writer has done it quite deliberately to depict direct speech.

Though even there, I'm not sure why "would've" couldn't achieve the same result.

3 votes Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

"Would of, should of, could of" ... Outside of the slangy idiomatic saying, you're right ... even then it could still be written "would've, should've, could've" or I'd take "would'av(e), should'av(e), could'av(e)".

While I don't mind a little free-spelling ... I do it often enuff. I'm not sure that putting the preposition 'of' in place of the verb 'have' shows a lack of knowledge, a lack of caring, a lack of editing, or what.

What's the name of the novel?

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

@AnWulf
"The Coffin Dancer" by Jeffery Deaver.
(Whose father, like Roald Dahl's, couldn't spell.) ;)

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

Never seen the "ov" form, but "would ov" is no more correct than "would of".

1 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

"Never seen the 'ov' form, but 'would ov' is no more correct than 'would of'."

I should've (ha!) pointed out that "ov" is not meant to be used as a substitute word for either "'ve" or "of" in written English but merely as a descriptive term for this particular usage.

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

While I certainly enjoy the comment referring to the 'damning testimony of the malaise that afflicts our language', this is an artefact of natural language change, even if it is heading towards what could be seen pernicious homophony. The fact remains that these are used in separate contexts, and as such these forms would never actually be confused. Equally "would of" mimics the process of adding a vowel between the sounds /d/ and /v/, a vowel whose height and quality borrows from the /ʊ/ in the preceding word. Further, to my great dismay, it allows people to not use apostrophes (perhaps heading towards a place where the the apostrophe means possession, such as in the great confusion between "it's" and "its" ) It is actually quite justifiable, from a literacy point of view. (point've view?)
Confusing language and literacy (or orthographic convention) is easy to do but very problematic. If we are to judge English based on its orthography, we are long since damned.
Still, I agree, and it drives me crazy when I see it.

1 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

@Jor
Please don't get me started on the misuse of apostrophes.
My brain might explode.

2 votes Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

As others have stated, in spoken form, this is just a minor variation on "would've" etc. Unfortunately, it seems that too many people fail to recognize that that is not "would of" so they write it that way.

In informal use, or when reflecting the conversational form, I tend to write it "woulda" which is closer to what I hear spoken.

2 votes Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

Perfect Pedant: I believe that JJMBallantyne was using 'ov' to describe a verbal pronunciation rather than a written word.

Jor: The words would've could've and should've are contractions of would have could have and should have. There is no usage in which would of would ever be correct (at least none that I can think of, and even if there were, I assure you that it would not be the meaning intended by these visually offensive occurrences we come across). the ending 've represents have, not of, and can't be used for point've view. That's just nonsense. I have never seen a separate context which you mention for would of - I have only encountered it where it should be would have.

1 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

I think this goes right along with improper uses of "your" and "there." It boils down to laziness of children in school. Just look at the terrible grammar used in some graffiti.
Also, words like thee and thou are no longer common in English usage. I believe that English will continue to morph along with societal demographics. If you don't like it, welcome to Earth.

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

"I think this goes right along with improper uses of 'your' and 'there.' It boils down to laziness of children in school."

Nonsense. When someone writes "your" for "you're", it's simply a spelling mistake based on their uncertainty with homophonous words. Being a poor speller is hardly an indication of laziness.

Given the eccentricities of our English spelling system, mistakes like this are not surprising.

Our written language almost invites such misspellings.

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

@mrcaleb @JJMBallantyne

To a degree you are both right and wrong.
Although laziness, the eccentricities of the language, and societal demographics are all factors, my feeling is that it's more a case of "don't give a toss".
"I spiks how I spiks, an I will ware my cap front to back if I chooses. So chill bro. You feel me?"
As for morphingRather than laziness and p I wouldcorrect and yet

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse

Ignore last line of previous comment.
Forgot to clear before posting.
:)

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment  •  Report Abuse