Ziryab wrote:
The_Josh wrote:
forkypinner wrote:
I could of been studying openings
That is the most annoying grammatical error ever. Although you pronounce it like "could of" it is actually a contraction: "could've" = "could have." Do people not understand what they are saying these days?
No, they don't. I see alot of errors in gramar and syntax and spelling. Can you spot the intentional error that I put in the preceding sentence? It is among the most frequent.
On chess sites, loose for lose is also pandemic.
Yes, I see that error a lot these days.
However, as is evidenced here, it won't always be spelt like that!
...language evolves - 'alright' was incorrect when I was a schoolchild but now it is listed in the Oxford English Dictionary... words drift away from their origins, to forget this fact os called 'the etymological fallacy.'
That said, 'could of' is not standard yet :) But, yet is the operative term! If no one tried nonstandard usage we would still be talking in anglo-saxon! Like this:
(beginning of Beauwolf:)
A few points here, since I can't let this one slide past. First, of course, is that I would have (and indeed have) previously said that "loose" for "lose" was one of the most annoying errors ever; but upon further reflection, I think "could of" wins that head-to-head battle.
The second is that "could of" is not a grammatical error, but a spelling error. The kind of thing that happens when one is typing quickly and non-reflectively. This is what happens all too frequently in forums (I really want to say "fora"), emails, and the like.
Third, a discussion of etymology is really not relevant here, as we are not talking about a word that has drifted away from its original meaning. We are talking about someone making a clear error and whether that usage, if repeated, could become standard. The answer is, sadly, yes; but again, that's not the issue for NOW. There are contemporary rules for usage and spelling; and while "could of" may (shudder) become appropriate at some time in the future doesn't mean it's correct today. Norma seems to be making an argument along the lines of 1) murder is illegal now, but 2) a lot of people nevertheless commit murder, so 3) we should just accept murder as a non-standard practice that's on its way to becoming legalized.
Fourth, if we were to talk about etymology, it might be interesting to note how many words quoted in the poem fragment (adjusted for today's alphabet) are still in daily use. "That was [a] good king!"
Finally, and this is by far the most important point of my whole rant, it's BEOWULF, not "Beauwolf."
Okay, Okay - I was only playing Devil's Advocate! ;)