"..should of" instead of "should have"

[NearThere]

I noticed Canadians seem to use it more. Is that grammatically correct?

Has it been accepted by majority as correct English?

 

[2006]

I noticed Canadians seem to use it more. Is that grammatically correct?

Has it been accepted by majority as correct English?

"should of" makes no grammatical sense and is not correct English. It is a misspelling of "should've", as the two have the same pronunciation.
Even "should've" seems to be used more in casual writing, while "should have" is more formal.

 

[riverkid]

I noticed Canadians seem to use it more. Is that grammatically correct?

Has it been accepted by the majority as correct English?

2006 described the reason for this well, but I wonder why, 2006, you felt the need to make mention that should've is used "more" in casual writing. Could it be because it's a casual collocation?

How did you determine that Canadians seem to use it more, NearThere?

 

[NearThere]

I visited a message board of a reality TV show in US called "the bachlor" a couple of years ago, where the luckiest man in the world (undeserving may I say) got to pick one out of 25 gorgeous women, idealy at the end of the show, to be his wife/fiance/girlfriend (but statically the relationship never lasted a seaon--just pick any season of the year). Anyway, the bachlor was Canadian, therefore a lot of the patrons of the message board were Canadians. I noticed thier constant usage of the phrase as if it's common or acceptable in their language.

 

[riverkid]

I visited a message board of a reality TV show in US called "the bachlor" a couple of years ago, where the luckiest man in the world (undeserving may I say) got to pick one out of 25 gorgeous women, idealy at the end of the show, to be his wife/fiance/girlfriend (but statically the relationship never lasted a seaon--just pick any season of the year). Anyway, the bachlor was Canadian, therefore a lot of the patrons of the message board were Canadians. I noticed thier constant usage of the phrase as if it's common or acceptable in their language.

Thanks, Near There.

I did a little comparison using google, not at all scientific mind you, but it offers some measure of support for your conjecture.

+++++++++++++++++++++
Canada region:
Results 1 - 10 of about 129,000 English pages for "should of"

Population: 33,390,141 --> 0.00386%

USA region:
Results 1 - 10 of about 4,640,000 English pages for "should of".

Population: 301,139,947 --> 0.00154%

United Kingdom region:

Results 1 - 10 of about 219,000 English pages for "should of".

Population: 60,776,238 --> 0.00360%

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I've always thought that it was a mistake based on the fact that the two sounds are homophonic but maybe it's used by some speakers as a text shortcut.

 

[2006]

but I wonder why, 2006, you felt the need to make mention that should've is used "more" in casual writing.
It's a good question, and I even wondered if I should address that point. However, I'm quite sure "should've" wouldn't be used in a very formal document such as a government law or a legal presentation. Even in a newspaper or magazine article, one usually sees "should have", "would have", etc.
On the other hand, I would not be surprised at all to see "should've" in an email.
Do you agree?
Could it be because it's a casual collocation?

How did you determine that Canadians seem to use it more, NearThere?

2006

 

[NearThere]

Oops, I just realized you're Canadian (the information was well within my peripheral vison--a little to the upper right corner to be exact). I hope I didn't offend anyone, that's not my intention. And thanks for the information.

 

[riverkid]

Originally Posted by riverkid View Post
but I wonder why, 2006, you felt the need to make mention that should've is used "more" in casual writing.

2006: It's a good question, and I even wondered if I should address that point. However, I'm quite sure "should've" wouldn't be used in a very formal document such as a government law or a legal presentation. Even in a newspaper or magazine article, one usually sees "should have", "would have", etc.
On the other hand, I would not be surprised at all to see "should've" in an email.
Do you agree?

I do indeed. I checked one newspaper, picked at random, [though I purposefully avoided Faux News because it ain't a news gathering forum, it's a propaganda machine] the Chicago Sun-Times.

There were no hits for the contracted should've and 103 hits for should have.