Five lights don't work

[Old Salt]

I ordered a tomato salad in Portugal and that’s what I got a plate of sliced tomato's.

 

[morqthana]

A plate of what which belonged to the tomato?

 

[EFLImpudence]

I managed to refrain. I didn't want to upset Blup.

 

[blup]

"Should've/could've/would've" may be how "should of" etc could often be pronounced, but that doesn't help your argument because there is no correct use of the phrases "should of", "could of" etc - they are never right, it's always "should have", "could have".

I am consistent.

I said that it isn't necessarily the case that someone would pronounce "could have" "could've". But even when they do, as the writing shows that it's a contraction of "could have", when the sense is clearly "could have", and when "could of" is not something which is ever correct then there can never be a valid reason to ever write "could of".

But as you seem to think that someone who believes that words should be used according to watt they mien is nasty, I don't think you will ever understand.

Nobody says ”could I of a pint have beer.” Correct grammar is not a political movement, or a set of morals, if someone gets it wrong so what. Better imperfect, but unambiguous, language than the grammatically correct ****** some come out with.
How is accidentally misusing language nasty, capitulating, or appeasement?

 

[blup]

tomato's

 

[blup]

A plate of what which belonged to the tomato?

No problem with that, we know what he meant

 

[EFLImpudence]

Nobody says ”could I of a pint have beer.”

Don't they? Why not?

Correct grammar is not a political movement, or a set of morals, if someone gets it wrong so what.

It's not grammar. It is people using the wrong word.

What is wrong with correcting them so they learn something and don't do it again?

Better imperfect, but unambiguous, language than the grammatically correct ****** some come out with.

Better not imperfect. How can a mistake be unambiguous?

Did he mean it was tomatoes in the salad or did he spell oranges incorrectly?

Which is the unambiguous mistake in this sentence.
"Cardiff is the capital of Scotland."

How is accidentally misusing language nasty, capitulating, or appeasement?

What? Who said it was?


Stop digging.

 

[blup]

Don't they? Why not?

because this is about grammar not random language

It's not grammar. It is people using the wrong word.

Grammar covers this

What is wrong with correcting them so they learn something and don't do it again?

Nothing if you are a teacher, the sub editor of the Daily Fail, or the author of a book on grammar. Everything if you are pedantically and semantically making a point which is irrelevant to the context. Would reject the lowest quote because of a spelling error?

Better not imperfect. How can a mistake be unambiguous?

Did he mean it was tomatoes in the salad or did he spell oranges incorrectly?

Which is the unambiguous mistake in this sentence.
"Cardiff is the capital of Scotland."


What? Who said it was?


Stop digging.

 

[morqthana]

Nobody says ”could I of a pint have beer.”

As soon as you take the position that it is OK to say "could of been the lamp failing" on the grounds that "could've" sounds like a contraction of "could of" then that is an example of exactly what you are prepared to accept, and allow to be used.

You're saying that "could of" is a valid construction in English. As it isn't, there's no possible 'could have been correct but maybe not in this instance' meaning or use for "could of". All there is is you saying we should allow "have" and "of" to come to mean exactly the same thing and to be interchangeable.

All there is is you saying that ”could I of a pint have beer” is as valid as ”could I have a pint of beer”, a position which is totally consistent with saying that "could of" is as valid as "could have".

 

[blup]

Better not imperfect. How can a mistake be unambiguous?

When it's irrelevant to the meaning being conveyed.

Did he mean it was tomatoes in the salad or did he spell oranges incorrectly?

Fruit salad
Tomato salad
Word salad.

Salad has different meanings in context

Which is the unambiguous mistake in this sentence.
"Cardiff is the capital of Scotland."

A good example of grammatical correctness having nothing to do with factual correctness.

Cardiff is the capitol of Wales, is grammatically incorrect but factually correct, no one is misled.

What? Who said it was?

Previous posts on this thread

Stop digging.

There's no hole

 

[Jurassicspark]

If you're in a job interview and you use words like "could of" I don't think it'll give a good impression.

 

[blup]

As soon as you take the position that it is OK to say "could of been the lamp failing" on the grounds that "could've" sounds like a contraction of "could of" then that is an example of exactly what you are prepared to accept, and allow to be used.

Which is how language changes. Google was a noun and became a verb.

You're saying that "could of" is a valid construction in English. As it isn't, there's no possible 'could have been correct but maybe not in this instance' meaning or use for "could of". All there is is you saying we should allow "have" and "of" to come to mean exactly the same thing and to be interchangeable.

No, but they are forgivable errors in most contexts, especially a diy forum.

All there is is you saying that ”could I of a pint have beer” is as valid as ”could I have a pint of beer”, a position which is totally consistent with saying that "could of" is as valid as "could have".

I'm saying nobody says "Could I of a pint have beer?"

 

[blup]

If you're in a job interview and you use words like "could of" I don't think it'll give a good impression.

Surely that depends entirely on the job in question. The worst BS often comes from those who are most articulate or well spoken.

 

[morqthana]

because this is about grammar not random language

Why is "could I of" random, but "could of" isn't?

Can you provide a grammatically correct example of the use of "could of"? And if meaning is all that matters, how about a semantically correct one?

 

[morqthana]

Cardiff is the capitol of Wales, is grammatically incorrect but factually correct, no one is misled.

You were asked for the unambiguous mistake.

And if "Cardiff is the capitol of Wales" is grammatically incorrect it is also factually incorrect, as Wales does not have a Capitol.