4 ms·
> Until about two years ago, I had honestly NEVER seen anyone use "should of" in print, and now it seems to be a prevalent mistake. There is no way that is tru
by basugasubaku 17y ago
> Until about two years ago, I had honestly NEVER seen anyone use "should of" in print, and now it seems to be a prevalent mistake.
There is no way that is true:
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_q=&as_epq=&as_oq=%22should+of%22+%22could+of%22+%22would+of%22&as_eq=&num=100&scoring=&lr=&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=&as_drrb=b&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=1&as_maxy=2007&as_ugroup=&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=&safe=off http://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_q=&as_epq=&...
- bmelton 17y agoWhile I don't understand how that relates to the truthiness of what I've said, it looks like almost all of the results of the linked page are from 2006 forward. Regardless, while I may be fuzzy on the timetable, it is a recent phenomena for me.
- basugasubaku 17y agoGoogle is ranking by date because they have the same relevance. You can play with the date ranges in the search box. I picked Jan 1 2007 as the end date because you said you "NEVER" saw this construction in text until a "about two years ago".