3 ms·
I don't know pixie_ but non-native English speakers hear "could of" and "would of" when we use the contractions "could've" and "would've".
by smoyer 12y ago
I don't know pixie_ but non-native English speakers hear "could of" and "would of" when we use the contractions "could've" and "would've".
- saraid216 12y agoI'm too lazy to go turn on showdead for GP, but... > I don't know pixie_ but non-native English speakers hear "could of" and "would of" when we use the contractions "could've" and "would've". You actually hear "could ov" and "would ov", but since the latter aren't actually words, there's an automatic shunt to the nearest known word. Sometimes this occurs in the speaker; sometimes this occurs in the listener. It occurs in the speaker because of loopback: you say "could ov"; you hear "could of"; you say "could of".
- hollerith 12y ago>You actually hear "could ov" and "would ov" All occurences of the English word spelled "of" are pronounced "ov": pronouncing it with an F sound instead of a V sound would sound strange to an English speaker even where spelling it "of" is correct usage. Your explanation still applies, though, provided that we assume that the listener actually hears "could v" and "would v", but since there is no word pronounced "v", there's an automatic shunt to the word that is pronounced "ov".
- nacs 12y agoI actually see this ("could of" and "would of") more in native speakers than non-native speakers actually. I have also seen it used many times in writing so it's not just a "heard it wrong" issue. Here in the South (US), it's disturbingly common.