Written by Spirit Molecule on 02.07.2012 at 15:48


Hmmm people confuse should've with should of?? How is that even possible? Should of wouldn't even make sense.

No idea why. But read Kesh's last couple of posts since they are rife with that totally incorrect construction

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 02.07.2012 at 15:52


No idea why. But read Kesh's last couple of posts since they are rife with that totally incorrect construction

Ahh, that doesn't happen alot I suppose.

Written by Spirit Molecule on 02.07.2012 at 16:03

Ahh, that doesn't happen alot I suppose.

It does happen a lot actually. Not with non-native speakers of English though, but with native speakers. And the way they use it it is clear they think it is correct.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 02.07.2012 at 16:05
but with native speakers.

That is nuts... education ftw!

Bastards Your coming across as people who still collect football stickers an have to have everything lined up perfectly. My english teachers hated me, always got picked to read out loud, but could never write (forever been told to leave spaces or it endeduplikethis, typing off a phone mostly so cba putting an ' between "its"). Prefered my maths.

English is evolving anyways, if an anglo or a saxon saw or heard your english they'd be appalled, you would come across as been very lazy, an just to piss you guys off more, in the future it will be Panglish. So instead of "yellow" it'll be "lellow", an "english" will be "inrish". Bad english is the future!

"I punya manglish iz wely chekai wan lah, singlish lagi terok, i tok chinglish beter".

It's "you're" as in "you are" and NOT "your" as in the possessive

"Should of" instead of "should've/should have", and incorrect usage of their/there and you're/your and it's/its is not evolution of a language

Well i'll have a go, but "it's" going to be like not swearing in front of kid's when the footballs on.

Written by Guest on 02.07.2012 at 17:50

kid's, footballs

Kids* Football's*

Written by Guest on 02.07.2012 at 17:52

Written by Guest on 02.07.2012 at 17:50

kid's, footballs

Kids* Football's*

damn you for editing your post. Just posted the football part because initially you had missed it. So, had to delete my post now

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 02.07.2012 at 17:54

damn you for editing your post. Just posted the football part because initially you had missed it. So, had to delete my post now

Haha, sorry but I couldn't let that one go after I'd seen it.

You're getting trolled, I suspect.

"Should of" has irked me for years, but English people have assured me it's in perfectly common use these days. As much as the language police disapproves, changes in language often seem pretty pointless. Language is not something that evolves or devolves, it's just a tool to convey meaning by arbitrary signs. So yeah, at some point "should of" will become correct usage. It could already be considered correct in verbal contexts in areas where it's in common use. Because use is what determines the meaning of language, not rules. Rules are derived from use when it's established and old enough.

Of course, resisting change is perfectly valid, and sticking to the old use of the two phrases may cause this anomaly to disappear before it grows rooted in written language. Staying conservative is probably somewhat useful in slowing down the change of language and thus making communication easier (especially with written sources from previous decades or centuries - I can still read 15th century English documents with some difficulty, but in a hundred years laymen might not be able to, if avenues like the internet speed up the change in language). It's not "incorrect" to use a phrase in a context where it's widely understood and accepted, though.

Written by IronAngel on 02.07.2012 at 18:05

You're getting trolled, I suspect.

"Should of" has irked me for years, but English people have assured me it's in perfectly common use these days.

It is not in perfectly common use these days. Only a very slight minority uses it and mostly on forums.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 02.07.2012 at 18:11

Written by IronAngel on 02.07.2012 at 18:05

You're getting trolled, I suspect.

"Should of" has irked me for years, but English people have assured me it's in perfectly common use these days.

It is not in perfectly common use these days. Only a very slight minority uses it and mostly on forums.

Are you certain? I've had British teenagers tell me it's in common use in their social context. I don't know where exactly they were from, but it comes up often enough not to seem like a "very slight minority." Unless you're comparing to the world's entire English-speaking population, but that would be silly. Dialects and slang are usually localized, limited to a certain region and cultural/socioeconomic group.

Help, i'm been followed by angry English teachers.

"Should of" is never right... I suspect it has only come about by people mis-hearing "have" as "of" when spoken quickly.

The use of should of doesn't even make any sense whatsoever because have is a verb and of is not. should've is normally accepted but then again that is short ofr should have.

I am talking about the usage of it in England and America and there it is a small minority that uses should of.

Written by Baz Anderson on 02.07.2012 at 18:18

"Should of" is never right... I suspect it has only come about by people mis-hearing "have" as "of" when spoken quickly.

which is weird unless the speaker has a speech impediment

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 02.07.2012 at 18:20

which is weird unless the speaker has a speech impediment

Haha, well when words are spoken quickly, focus on correct pronunciation is usually lost... "should've" can sound like "of"... but maybe it's a northern accent thing because it is a pretty common mistake where I am from.

Written by Baz Anderson on 02.07.2012 at 18:18

"Should of" is never right

That's the only thing I'm arguing against. In language, anything goes as long as it conforms to the practices of your speech community. No scholar of sociolinguistics or sociology of language would ever waste time arguing about the "correct" use of language, because it has no normative authority. We can only describe the various ways language is de facto used. Teachers instruct students in certain commonly accepted conventions of language, but don't mistake them for authorities.

The two sound pretty similar to me when you say "shoulda done" or "should o'done", like I imagine most people would quickly say. It's not like the v in should've or f in of is actually audible a lot of the time.

Not saying it's a good use, though. I just said it irks me, too. If we want, we can be conservative and try to stall change by keeping to the old use. But suggesting there is a "correct" way to use language somehow independent of how it's actually used in a speech community is just fallacious.

Written by IronAngel on 02.07.2012 at 18:35


No scholar of sociolinguistics or sociology of language would ever waste time arguing about the "correct" use of language, because it has no normative authority.

Yet a scholar of linguistics or language would because it does have normative authority.

Is that "should be of'' ? or they mis speak it...

This conversation is a bit hilarious if you ask me, c'mon... There ARE rules, just because many people do the same error does not make their way of talking correct.

And yes... we should use the word "correct" here because those are the rules Simple as that.

Written by FOOCK Nam on 02.07.2012 at 19:15

Is that "should be of'' ? or they mis speak it...

"should of" instead of the correct "should have"

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 02.07.2012 at 18:43

Written by IronAngel on 02.07.2012 at 18:35


No scholar of sociolinguistics or sociology of language would ever waste time arguing about the "correct" use of language, because it has no normative authority.

Yet a scholar of linguistics or language would because it does have normative authority.

There may be people who hold that stance (though they're probably a dying breed in today's post-modern academic climate). However, I would propose an analogy: it's like the difference between a priest trying to define the doctrinal parametres of real Christian faith to differentiate from incorrect interpretations (which thus do not lead to salvation) and an academic theologian studying the real, historical extent of beliefs and practices connected to Christianity. The former certainly has a role and purpose in religious education and practice - much like a normative view on language can be useful in teaching a foreign language or a new way to use your own. But he probably wouldn't be the go-to man for a fair, objective analysis of some new religious phenomenon.

Rules are always made by someone, and they're enforced on someone's authority. Needless to say, there is no central authority on correct use of language, though some parties like to pose as such. The real, in-the-world, actual, non-imaginary way the rules of language work is through the mutual consent and acceptable practices of various speech communities. Language is much like a game, and it's pretty ludicrous to think I can't play a game on my backyard if I choose not to adopt all the rules you enforce in your friday night tournaments.

Language rules are printed down and thus are normative and wgy would the sociolinguist be the go-to man and not the theoretical linguist. This once again shows that sociologists somehow see themselves as the definitive authority whereas I would say the theoretical linguist is the definitive authority.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 02.07.2012 at 19:26

Language rules are printed down and thus are normative

So if I print something down it becomes a normative rule that applies to everyone, everywhere, at every time?'

And are you saying nobody used language correctly until someone decided to print down its rules? That for the majority of human history, everyone was in error?

Or could it be that they were right because that's how language was de facto used and their speech community took no issue with it?

Written by IronAngel on 02.07.2012 at 19:27

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 02.07.2012 at 19:26

Language rules are printed down and thus are normative

So if I print something down it becomes a normative rule that applies to everyone, everywhere, at every time?

not you, but a larger community. If language weren't normative you would be able to pass school, university, get stuff printed in newspapers etc. by writng grammatically incorrect texts rife with spelling mistakes.

BUt we're getting too far off topic here because it is on extreme doom and not extreme incorrect usage of language.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 02.07.2012 at 19:29
it is on extreme doom and not extreme incorrect usage of language.

Heh, nice one.

So ehmmmm... Shit, extreme doom man! It's great.

Sorry about the edits while you were responding, Marcel. I agree with you on the community thing, except there isn't just one community and one set of rules, but various language-games in different contexts. Of course "should of" is not correct in a school paper, but it might already be correct when spoken in some British suburb in the speech community of teenagers to 20-somethings. I don't know for sure, but only future use will determine its fate.

Anyhow, Coffins is the shit!

Written by IronAngel on 02.07.2012 at 19:55
not correct in a school paper, but it might already be correct when spoken in some British suburb in the speech community of teenagers to 20-somethings.

I fail to see how being wrong in a school paper is on a different degree of "wrongness" as being wrong in speech. Where you are wrong, how many make the mistake and for how long doesn't change anything.

I don't grade people when I talk to them... but they or I can still be wrong.



Also... So excited for latest Evoken. It's going to be at least top 3 extreme doom of the year.