Question for English Teachers

[saintdomingo]

Just curiosity but if you have taught in an English speaking country are you required to correct people saying "could of, should of, would of" etc.

How many have any understanding that this does not make sense.?

[bendejo]

In New York City it's "shoulda woulda coulda."

 

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, saintdomingo said:

Just curiosity but if you have taught in an English speaking country are you required to correct people saying "could of, should of, would of" etc.

How many have any understanding that this does not make sense.?

 

Is this question directed solely at English Teachers?

 

 

I'm not an English teacher, however, I'd hazard a guess and suggest that any English teacher not prepared to correct 'could of, should of, would of' to 'Could have, should have, would have' are in the same bracket as those who would place a full stop before a question mark!   

[Polar Bear]

If they were saying it, there wouldn't usually be anything to correct. In regular connected speech, 'could have' and 'could of' both contract to  /ˈkʊdəv/ [could've], so phonetically, they are identical. That's why people make the error when they have to write it. 

[saintdomingo]

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Is this question directed solely at English Teachers?

 

 

I'm not an English teacher, however, I'd hazard a guess and suggest that any English teacher not prepared to correct 'could of, should of, would of' to 'Could have, should have, would have' are in the same bracket as those who would place a full stop before a question mark!   

The full point before the question mark comes from my earlier life as a compositor when we were trained in visual letter spacing. To my pedantic eye the question mark looks too close to the previous character so I insert the full point.

 

Why would you think this is directed solely at English Teachers.?

 

Edited April 2 by saintdomingo

[saintdomingo]

4 hours ago, Polar Bear said:

If they were saying it, there wouldn't usually be anything to correct. In regular connected speech, 'could have' and 'could of' both contract to  /ˈkʊdəv/ [could've], so phonetically, they are identical. That's why people make the error when they have to write 

In my experience could of does not contract to anything, it is invariably fully and clearly pronounced. And could of when written is clearly meaningless to anyone with a basic understanding of English.

It does not always indicate low literacy as the late ubonjoe, who was a prolific could of etc. man proved.

[KhunLA]

Y'all grammar PoPo b up in that sh!t.  Ain't no ting, if b understood, b nuff.

 

Chill dog ... word ... peace out

[brewsterbudgen]

Maybe the students just want to use English like native speakers, so probably not worth confusing them.

[brianthainess]

Should have not clicked on this post. Could have not read it, wouldn't have had I known. 

 

[JayClay]

4 hours ago, saintdomingo said:

Why would you think this is directed solely at English Teachers.?

 

Because you named the thread "Question for English teachers".

[saintdomingo]

Just now, JayClay said:

 

Because you named the thread "Question for English teachers".

I was being ironic, sorry about that.

[JayClay]

1 minute ago, saintdomingo said:

I was being ironic

 

in what way?

[Liverpool Lou]

8 hours ago, Polar Bear said:

In regular connected speech, 'could have' and 'could of' both contract to  /ˈkʊdəv/ [could've], so phonetically, they are identical.

Phonetics aside, what you're ignoring is that the phrase "could of" has no meaning in English, whilst "could have" does.  They are not identical.

[richard_smith237]

24 minutes ago, JayClay said:

25 minutes ago, saintdomingo said:

I was being ironic

 

in what way?

Might actually need an English teacher himself! 

[Liverpool Lou]

4 hours ago, saintdomingo said:

It does not always indicate low literacy as the late ubonjoe, who was a prolific could of etc. man proved.

Huh?  Regardless of his ability to answer visa queries, his chronic use of that phrase certainly did indicate his low literacy competence.

[Liverpool Lou]

1 hour ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Maybe the students just want to use English like native speakers, so probably not worth confusing them.

 Gawd

[richard_smith237]

4 hours ago, saintdomingo said:

The full point before the question mark comes from my earlier life as a compositor when we were trained in visual letter spacing. To my pedantic eye the question mark looks too close to the previous character so I insert the full point.

 

Why would you think this is directed solely at English Teachers.?

 

 

Valid point, on an informal forum such as this, I space out phrase, & use symbols, over-space paragraphs etc…

 

… all with the aim of achieving improved optics from the perspective of readability….

 

 

Dealing with your specific point in hand ‘should of’… 

… that’s nothing more than ‘socio-phonetics’….  while still getting a clear message across the language/ quality of writing used by many outlines their level of education or that they may not be a native English speaker. 
 

If the author of a comment gets the message across it matters little, until they go grammar nazi & make their own mistakes which is always amusing. 

[saintdomingo]

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Huh?  Regardless of his ability to answer visa queries, his chronic use of that phrase certainly did indicate his low literacy competence.

Other than that example I never noticed anything.

[saintdomingo]

2 hours ago, JayClay said:

 

in what way?

Well this is a teaching forum.

 

The thread is A Question for English Teachers. 

 

The first post asks a question beginning if you have taught in an English speaking country.................

[herfiehandbag]

6 hours ago, saintdomingo said:

Why would you think this is directed solely at English Teachers.?

Well going on the Title of the thread, and indeed the wording of the original (your) post it is not an unreasonable assumption!

 

I am no longer an English teacher (retired) but "could have", "would have" and "should have" convey three different meanings.

[saintdomingo]

Well thank you all for your responses,all I was actually looking for was to hear experiences of teaching English to classes of under sixteen years old.

As I said, it was just curiosity which I will now have to learn to live with.

Thanks again.

[saintdomingo]

2 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Well going on the Title of the thread, and indeed the wording of the original (your) post it is not an unreasonable assumption!

 

I am no longer an English teacher (retired) but "could have", "would have" and "should have" convey three different meanings.

Again my statement was an ironic response to a daft question.

 

Yes of course they have three different meanings they are three different phrases.

 

Goodbye again all.