The evolution of the English language over time

[johncrossley]

It is now commonplace for people to write "of" when they mean "have". "Should of" instead of "should have" and "could of" instead of "could have". Should the two versions be considered equivalent in professional writing, for example in newspapers and major websites such as bbc.co.uk and gov.uk? The use of "of" is considered to be bad English by many people, but could it be considered to be simply a dialect or a matter of style which can evolve over time? For example, it is now more common in British English to spell acronyms and abbreviations without full stops whereas in the past full stops would have been the norm. For example, BBC instead of B. B. C. If you wrote BBC without full stops then that is considered fine by nearly everybody.

 

[birchesgreen]

The answer to these is generally yes as living languages are always evolving.

 

[SteveM70]

Absolutely not. It’s a mishearing/mispronunciation of should’ve and nothing more.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I am totally in support of the correct usage of "have" in such instances and at the age of 78, have seen such falling of grammatical standards as the years have passed.

The answer to these is generally yes as living languages are always evolving.

That arch-typical response was sure to appear in this particular thread.

 

[Purple Train]

Absolutely not. It’s a mishearing/mispronunciation of should’ve and nothing more.

Completely agreed.

 

[birchesgreen]

That arch-typical response was sure to appear in this particular thread.

Well its true! I've stopped worrying about such things even if i do not employ such things myself. Though of course this seems to be the forum for people who get incredibly angry about the most minor little things so i am probably in a minority here.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Well its true! I've stopped worrying about such things even if i do not employ such things myself. Though of course this seems to be the forum for people who get incredibly angry about the most minor little things so i am probably in a minority here.

Do I win the prize for noticing the use of the lower-case letter "i" that was used twice in the posting above...

 

[Bantamzen]

The answer to these is generally yes as living languages are always evolving.

Is the correct answer. Can you imagine how people from say the 16th century would react to what was described as "The Queen's English"? Language evolves, it moves on, that is how it is and how it has been for millennia .

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is the correct answer. Can you imagine how people from say the 16th century would react to what was described as "The Queen's English"? Language evolves, it moves on, that is how it is and how it has been for millennia .

Would that also be a reason why changes can now be made now "The King's English" will be an accepted manner of speech? Is that also why the Americans developed the pronunciation of the letter "T" as as a "D" when used as part of a word when it is not the first letter of the word?

 

[DarloRich]

No. There is no need to encourage lazy brainless witterings of people who are barely sentient. We will end up with a world where we are simply grunting at and pointing at things. We are half way there now. Look at the state of people who post inane and often unintelligible things on facebook. Honestly, there are some postings on that platform that I see that I cant understand what they is saying they are writ so porly.

We are suffering a collective brain melting and mental enfeeblement as a society. It is worrying.

Next question.

PS - get a proper education like what I have.

 

[jfollows]

No.
However, don’t get hung up about people posting here who get it wrong. It’s not important.

 

[Basil Jet]

The answer to these is generally yes as living languages are always evolving.

You have to distinguish between growth and cancer. Language should evolve to meet changing needs, but "should of" is just lack of skill and adds nothing to the language's power.

"You should have eaten your dinner" "But I have eaten my dinner"
vs.
"You should of eaten your dinner" "But I of eaten my dinner"

 

[swt_passenger]

It is now commonplace for people to write "of" when they mean "have". "Should have" instead of "should have" and "could have" instead of "could have". Should the two versions be considered equivalent in professional writing, for example in newspapers and major websites such as bbc.co.uk and gov.uk?

I say definitely not.

What people write as ‘of’ is because they don’t realise they are hearing is people joining the base word to ‘have’. Something written in full as “should have“ can be abbreviated as “should’ve” presumably to indicate that people do run the words together when talking.

Does anyone ever shorten “I have“ to “I of”? Or is it normally shortened to I’ve?

 

[DelW]

I say definitely not.

Does anyone ever shorten “I have“ to “I of”? Or is it normally shortened to I’ve?

Agreed - for me, the test is to take away the should / could and check for it still making sense.

So:
"I should have done it" - makes sense
"I could have done it" - makes sense
"I have done it" - makes sense
"I of done it" - is meaningless

"Should of" or "could of" might pass muster in casual writing, though it's still wrong, but definitely shouldn't appear in any professional context.

 

[westv]

It's interesting to read that, as far as some are concerned, if enough people get it wrong then it's right.

 

[Lost property]

Fear not..m'learned friends will continue to use versions of English (plus Latin )from several centuries ago...

 

[class68fan]

Railway station not Train Station.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Language in this country has changed, rather than evolved, as a direct result of the waves of invaders who have come over the last two millennia, with the Romans, the Angles, Jutes and Saxons, the "Vikings" and the Normans being prime examples.

Fear not..m'learned friends will continue to use versions of English (plus Latin )from several centuries ago...

Arcane language usage still so prevails in the legal and medical professions.

One thought came into my mind was the gradual building of grammatical rules that occurred as part of the civilisation process that grew century by century. These rules allowed for preciseness to develop.

 

[eastwestdivide]

Language in this country has changed, rather than evolved, as a direct result of the waves of invaders who have come over the last two millennia, with the Romans, the Angles, Jutes and Saxons, the "Vikings" and the Normans being prime examples.

But when was the last wave of invaders? A millennium ago? I’d submit that language has evolved since then.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But when was the last wave of invaders? A millennium ago? I’d submit that language has evolved since then.

The influx of those so-described gave their own input into what is commonly thought of as English but influx of other communities that have established here in the more recent times all have added their input into this language.

 

[yorksrob]

In answer to the OP's question, no, there's no logic to "should of". If you think about it, the two words together don't actually mean anything. If people want to use it in every day language, that's fine, but not in official settings.

 

[AlterEgo]

Spelling and punctuation pedantry is boring and the lowest form of intellectual browbeating.

The English language is only ever formed and evolved by consensus and use norms. Mishearing words and writing them a different way has given us many terms.

Adder (a naedre, not an adder!), nickname (eke-name), newt (an efeta, or an ewt), auger (a nauger), apron (a napron) are some examples. Even an orange was corrupted from naranja.

Even today the term phase is often misused in place of faze when talking about being disconcerted.

Who cares, really?

 

[yorksrob]

Spelling and punctuation pedantry is boring and the lowest form of intellectual browbeating.

The English language is only ever formed and evolved by consensus and use norms. Mishearing words and writing them a different way has given us many terms.

Adder (a naedre, not an adder!), nickname (eke-name), newt (an efeta, or an ewt), auger (a nauger), apron (a napron) are some examples. Even an orange was corrupted from naranja.

Even today the term phase is often misused in place of faze when talking about being disconcerted.

Who cares, really?

Maybe there will come a time for "should of" but it's not now.

I'll never countenance it in work

 

[satisnek]

I call it 'comprehensive school English'.

"You should of taken my advise and accepted there offer, your going to get alot of hassle and possibly loose everything."

It's so widespread and consistent, particularly amongst 'Gen X' (the comprehensive school generation), that it must have been taught?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Absolutely not. It’s a mishearing/mispronunciation of should’ve and nothing more.

I am totally in support of the correct usage of "have" in such instances and at the age of 78, have seen such falling of grammatical standards as the years have passed.

I agree. The use of “of” as a verb, really grates on me.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I call it 'comprehensive school English'.

"You should of taken my advise and accepted there offer, your going to get alot of hassle and possibly loose everything."

It's so widespread and consistent, particularly amongst 'Gen X' (the comprehensive school generation), that it must have been taught?

Not so much taught as deliberately not taught. How many people could actually describe the different components of English grammar? As for spelling...

 

[The North Briton]

.

Adder (a naedre, not an adder!), nickname (eke-name), newt (an efeta, or an ewt), auger (a nauger), apron (a napron) are some examples. Even an orange was corrupted from naranja.


Who cares, really?

I do. These are all nouns and their articles. If you can point to an example of a verb morphing into a preposition, I may concede the point!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You have to distinguish between growth and cancer. Language should evolve to meet changing needs, but "should of" is just lack of skill and adds nothing to the language's power.

I agree with this. You need a balance between allowing languages to evolve and setting rules that ensure the language remains at least somewhat consistent, and that any evolution is slow enough that you don't destroy understanding and intelligibility between generations.

'Should of' completely fails the first test. It's illogical, confusing, and doesn't match any other grammar rules - all the while adding no expressiveness to the English language. It's arguably 100% bad and should be viewed as wrong. Contrast that with the other example cited by the OP - the removal of full stops from most acronyms and abbreviations: That is a change that arguably adds clarity now that acronyms are vastly more common than they used to be, so I'd argue makes sense as an evolution of English.

 

[duncanp]

What annoys me is the increasing tendency to change the word order when using the word "below", as in:-

"..the below items are on special offer.." , whereas it should be "...the items below are on special offer...".

I belive this is an example of an "indianism", where a sentence is translated from an Indian language, and they keep the word order for the Indian language rather that change it to the English word order.

When you translate the French phrase la voiture rouge into English you say the red car rather than the car red because in French the adjective is placed after the noun whereas in English it is the other way round.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Harking back to the use of the word "of", a reference to the wives of King Henry VIII show his marriage to the following:-

Katherine of Aragon

Anne of Cleves