Posted on 07/19/2025 7:17:54 AM PDT by Swirl
Could of.
Should be *could have*.
The headline is enough to discourage any more reading.
Writers need to be better at grammar, and an editor should have caught a gaffe like that.
bttt
Is this a direct quote ? Maybe a homophone of “Could’ve.”
Di they interview David Hogg?
“Should be *could have*”
my typo, maybe editor can fix
In my past life I used to review/proof a lot of military police reports and later, private investigator reports. It's a common error and I think people are thinking in contractions (I.e. "could've"; "should've," etc.) and then transcribing what they hear in their heads.
The original headline was correct, “could have”. Looks like this was a FReeper error.
“”Should be *could have””
I only got as far as your reply to see if anyone caught it. It’s a common mistake and it sure makes one wonder where those who make it received their education or didn’t bother!!!
Could HAVE not OF. drives me nuts
Could of?
For the lack of an editor, this missed a read.
Good one.
Frankly this is a typo that shouldn’t be made.
I understand their they’re there.
I see could of written all the time. I think there are people who actually think could of is correct.
I have been suggesting for years that FR software should include an indicator visible next to the headline that the poster has mashed the preview button before posting. That way the reader can begin to separate ignorance from a lack of consideration for the reader (a comment should be easy to read and understand - not a puzzle to be solved).
I’d bet the latter is most often the case (but the appalling lack of 6th Grade grammar skills on FR - including in many articles - accounts for another pretty good chunk).
I’d rather see coulda than could of. That always irritated me too, and it’s becoming more and more common
Like my brethren here who are disturbed by it, it’s always stuck like an ice pick in my ear whenever I’ve heard it. Never thought of potential origin, but I think you’re probably right
This is an excellent time and place to also mention the absolute worst rotting fish of a modern grammatical construction: the use of “couple” without the necessary “of” following it.
“I went out for a couple minutes.” NOOOOO, you went out for a couple OF minutes.
Couple. Of. Absolutely required.
Anyone committing that egregious error is unwittingly exposing a serious lack of education.
I feel the same way when I see errors like this. Whether it’s from a news site, or an individual, I’m caused to think that the article or comment is probably not worth reading.
The one that gets me is substituting then for than.
That one is my ice pick.
Some time back, there was a Harvard-educated black female lawyer on the TODAY Show that used the bastardized contraction “s’posta,” for “supposed to.” My tenth grade drop-out neighbor does that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.