Jul 24

It’s ‘Have,’ Not ‘Of’

Tag: Aside, GrammarPatrick @ 11:36 pm

Everyone repeat after me:  should have, would have, could have.  It’s have, not of.  If you type “should of,” “would of” or “could of” instead of “should have,” “would have” or “could have,” you deserve to lose a finger.  At the very least.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

3 Responses to “It’s ‘Have,’ Not ‘Of’”

  1. Cat. says:

    Yes. Thank you.

    …standing by with a hatchet

  2. Rick says:

    I’d like to request a pass for shoulda/woulda/coulda, but only in proper dialect/context. Otherwise, completely ron the spot, sir.

  3. Paul says:

    Yep. You’ve hit upon one of my biggest pet peeves. Anyone who uses the phrase “could of” or “should of” has simply never thought about what the words they say actually mean. All too common in our society today, I am afraid.

Leave a Reply



Bad Behavior has blocked 1264 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Internet News