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

"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?

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

"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.

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.

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.

@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

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

Here is an instance where "would of" is used correctly! Of course, it can only occur where correct punctuation has been used. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-30/romney-says-he-would-of-course-have-ordered-bin-laden-killing.html

all the people i know that are grammar heads, still need a calculator to multiply 6 x 16. If G'day and C'mon are accepted in the English language why not "would of" especially with the vast range of English speaking accents, it is getting harder to set English spelling or grammar as written in the Queens English. you only have to look at the USA and it raping of the English language. And with that now being the dominant culture you are more likely to see the Americanized version instead of the Americanised version.

I would certainly like to see the conjugation of the verb "to of".

I thought this was solely a usage in the UK, where all teaching of grammar ceased about 30/40 years ago. However, I recently found an American using "would of", "could of".

I wonder, regarding the use of 'would of', if it is more used in certain countries or if it is equally spread over the English speaking countries? My first thought was that this must be an Australian English dialect... Does it occurr also in England and in the USA?

@Carl - as this excellent post by linguist Stan Carey at Sentence First shows, it is fairly ubiquitous.

http://stancarey.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/would-of-could-of-might-of-must-of/

But comments about it seem to come mainly from the States, and it has even appeared in an advertisement in the New York Times Magazine - "Our Store Hours Were Stated Incorrectly And Should Of Read ...". (quoted in Merriam Webster Dictionary of English Usage)

Let me give you all a perspective from an EFL teacher in Rio, Brazil, where PORTUGUESE (NOT Spanish) is spoken.
Students of English in Brazil, students who learn English as a second language, who most of the time learn oral and written English (grammar) separately (because they make more sense this way), would never make such a mistake. Foreign students of English are not naturally familiar with the English Phonetic system, therefore, the FULL form "WOULD HAVE" is always seen before the contracted form "WOULD'VE", leaving no room for misunderstanding of its spelling or, for that matter, oral pronunciation.

Apparently it's not only American. I'm Australian and I use it. Until a few days ago, when someone at work pointed it out to me, I had no idea it should be "have" and not "of". I still find it weird to use "have" in some contexts, such as "would have had"; it sounds a bit redundant. In my mind it should be "would of had". I guess old habits die hard; 30+ years of using "would of/could of/should of" took it's toll on me. The weird part is, I tend to say "You shouldn't of have" when I mean "You shouldn't have", because the "have" part is new, and the "of" part is always there for me... LOL. Leaving it out would feel like something is missing.

Travesty!? Abomination!? are you lot taking the piss? have you any idea of the actual travesties that are going on in the world and your complaining about grammer in the inglish language?? you all need to grow up a little bit... language is an evolving thing just let it happen... as if ye woold still want to be speeking in olde english.

Actually I rather like old english. You sir are an scoundrel who enjoys nonsense and twif twaf.

Byyy the way, yes I was putting spelling and grammatical errors in to annoy u.

@Brus - for various reasons, it's possible that some native speakers don't get that much teaching in verb tenses and their construction - this comes so naturally in spoken language that it might have been thought unnecessary to concentrate on (I'm only surmising, not defending). Which has led some native speakers to write modal perfect constructions exactly as they hear them.

But I have never seen a foreign learner make this mistake, because they have to learn the way these verb forms are constructed to be able to use them. It's the same with the confusion in the spelling of 'your' and 'you're' and 'their', 'they're' and 'there' - these kinds of mistakes are almost exclusively made by native speakers. I'd suggest that most foreign learners who are following coursed of Upper-intermediate level and above, know rather more about the theory of English grammar than native speakers. And for many native speakers of English, their own understanding of grammar structures comes when learning a foreign language.

I hope that last 'spot the error' bit was just your little joke, as of course the 've in I've (/v/) is pronounced completely differently from the 've in would've, could've etc (/əv/), the latter being pronounced exactly the same way as unstressed 'of', hence the confusion.

People use it a lot it hurts!
a sarcastic example would be by singing:
" Would OF " the red nosed reindeer

As someone who learnt english as a second language, I find it very ironic how I know it doesn't make any sense, but native speakers just don't. I read it and was like "wait, that doesn't make any sense", and had to look it up to confirm it, because the person was a native speaker so no way that i immidiatelly notice it, but they type it like nothing's wrong. The difference is that native speakers learn the language from hearing it, while people like me learn it from books, designed for correct grammar. The word "would've" sounds like "would of", and native speakers confuse it at a young age, and probably grow up with it nobody telling them that they are wrong. This is not the first case when ignorant people change the meaning of a word, and expect me to just change it in my head too, and I am the one who gets talked down for pointing it out. All it would take for them is to take one look and realise that that's not what "of" means, but some people are just too stubborn or lazy. Every time I read it i hear "Oh, you spent 10 years learning our language? Well, too bad! See this word right here? You know what it means, don't you? You've studied it for 10 years after all! You might as well throw that knowledge out of the window (or should I say "out HAVE the window"?), because it has a completely different meaning now! You see, we can just change the language and you can't do anything about it. We are the majority, and we are the native speakers. Grammar doesn't exist anymore. We are the grammar!". All the effort I put into learning grammar and it doesn't mean anything, because people can just get away without studying grammar at all. It's easy to use the excuse that the language is naturally changing, but it isn't. It isn't changing untill it is changing in grammar books. In my experience, if your english is "native speaker" level, it would mean that you can speak fluently, but your grammar is horrible. This also makes every native speaker look bad in general.

So what is the mark before the v called

So what is the mark ' called?

“would of “ does nothing but illustrate stupidity of the writer.

but your use of the double preposition OUTSIDE OF is grammatically incorrect too