a is for…..

There are a few things that bother me about the blogosphere. Most of them, just like minor irritants in real life, I am able to laugh at, brush aside and move on with my day.

But there’s one thing that I just absolutely can’t stand. It offends me every time I see it, and I just have to express myself about this issue or I may very well explode.

It’s COULD HAVE, people. Not COULD OF. If you have to write it like you pronounce it, then for god’s sake use COULD’VE. (Or should’ve or might’ve or would’ve…)

Are you listening Fred? All you anonymi at The Herald? Could have. Learn to love it. Learn to use it. Any questions???

vay,
kristabel
xoxoxox

Advertisements

23 responses to “a is for…..

  1. It could of been the cold medicine.Get some rest Goddess. How can you command your minion when you are under the weather.-boy

  2. “Could of” could of been used in the same context, and it could of meant the same thing. Could of been that you are only confusing yourself. (I meant that in the kindest way. )One of my fondness’s is the dynamics of our language. New words and phases are coming in to common usage everyday. It’s hard to be colorful and expressive when you have the Language Nun hovering over your shoulder. You should of known better than most, that following the rules is no fun, and doesn’t allow us to express our true selves. But, if we are going to go back, let’s go all the way back to Shakespeare. Now, there was a man that knew how to express himself! We few we happy few….Sweet Anonymous.

  3. Dear Sweet Anonymous,I have to disagree with you, kind sir. There is nothing new, colorful or expressive about the grammatically incorrect “could of” instead of “could’ve.” Now get over here so that I can e-slap your hand with my ruler.Sincerely,The Language Nun

  4. Whew….I’m flying under the radar. I hope Kristbel doesn’t beat me for using “…..” as a thought spacer. I do realize it is as troubling as those creepy kids using txt msgs as a language.Kristabel……u r 2 yy’s 4 me.

  5. “Could of” is ALMOST (but not quite) as bad as “I seen”. It pops off the brain kind of like fingernails on a blackboard!

  6. The one that is also in common usage is “Me and her”. It’s meaning is perfectly understandable. It’s just that it could be phased much more eloquently. Once you get past the distraction of poor word usage, and start concentrating on what the person is saying, you can learn a lot.I’m probably blowing my cover with this, but what the hell. I was raised with functionally illiterate people. Just because they were illiterate doesn’t mean they weren’t extremely intelligent, nor does it mean that they weren’t learned in the local lore and crafts.When talking to these old timers, I would slip into their way of talking. I was raised talking like that, and it was easy for me, and I did not offend any of them by talking that way. I’ve heard some of the best tales that were ever told about the local area, and the people that live here. I’ve learned many of their tricks for doing things that made their lives easier. An old timer always had a lead-in to what they wanted to say, and how you followed that lead would determine what you would learn. For instance what would your answer be to; “I never seen a piece wood I can’t split”. Nine out of ten people would be distracted by the grammar and start correcting it. A sure way to clam a person up. The correct answer would be; “Bullshit, I’ll bet you can’t split that piece right over there”. Then he would proudly go about demonstrating his technique.“You could learn a lot from country folk.” But, you have to learn their language first, and their language isn’t all spoken out loud. You have to learn to read their hearts, and to “correct” them in any way is to disrespect them. Fortunately for them, they are mostly all gone. My loss.I hope this is not to deep.

  7. Eko….hmmm…you might’ve noticed that I use the dots myself….often.I hate to admit it, but I’m so old that I have no idea what that last part means.

  8. omigod. you’re my new best friend! someone else who thinks maybe the blogosphere ought to have some sort of Super Nun o’ Grammar to force the lazy ones to at least pretend they care about getting it right. oh, sure, oh, sure–language is fluid, always changing, blah, blah, blah. but when people who don’t read make silly mistakes (“could of,” “one in the same,” the mis-use of the reflexive)–oh! i could go on. but why? it makes me cry and gnash my teeth in frustration and confusion. “what do they mean?” i ask myself. “whatever do they mean?”ooooh. that was fun!

  9. Hey babe, you can’t really expect Fred Mangels to grasp a difficult concept like grammar. You see, Fred Mangels is a moron. Ever read his idiotic blog? If you haven’t, don’t bother. I’ll never be able to get that 10 minutes of my life back and I’m still pissed about it.

  10. Oh great, anon., now I’m also going to have to get out the Be Nice stick and give you a little e-smack. Hold out your hand. Or would you prefer to bend over?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s