Since the sound is so similar and no one has ever corrected them, they just go on saying or writing it. It really torques my jaws when I see it written in a newspaper!.
-MM
2006-12-24 03:46:54
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
most people can't stay with the programs, they get a 1500 word vocabulary going and by the time real life decides what is really applicable to the world they are stuck working in, most don't understand clueless, let alone correctness, they just get powerless and want to go back home and ponder your question from the safety of who really had the time to do it right in the first place, and we want a ton of money if we have to be self correcting, we did it once for free and it didn't pay the bills, so education is not the solution, grammar is going to suffer if i got the teachers by the throat for promising all the wonderful world full of poor uneducated Christan's going to hell in a hand basket
2006-12-24 11:09:40
·
answer #2
·
answered by bev 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think most people are aware that the expression is "should have", "would have", "could have", but in spoken english, the contracted form ('ve) sounds like "of".
2006-12-24 11:10:22
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Lack of education, I rekkon. But it could be that we just hear them that way too. Coulda, woulda, shoulda...
2006-12-24 11:11:22
·
answer #4
·
answered by Biker Babe 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Around here it comes out more like shoulda, coulda, woulda...
2006-12-24 21:17:16
·
answer #5
·
answered by LeAnn C 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's the sound slur which causes that problem
2006-12-24 11:09:17
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Its the same when you say it.There is no difference at all.Your just spelling it differently
2006-12-24 11:08:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by Billy T 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
its been said that way throught the years
2006-12-24 11:59:35
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋