Feeling Stupid

[NecessaryCatharsis]

So I just found out that "should've" isn't a real thing. All this time I thought people were saying it instead of "should have", as a contraction. I just found out that people are really saying "should of" (which also isn't a real thing!)

I found this out because I wrote it onto a legal document for our company. The lawyer sent a group email, to me, the boss, and two other employees involved asking me to make a few changes, including fixing that specific error, that I made three times.

I just feel really dumb.

[TheSHAD0W]

Well, no...

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/d...lish/should-ve

It may not be general or recommended use, but it's a "real thing".

[Javarod]

You shouldn't've done that.

Yes, i write like that a lot, but only when its not official.

[NecessaryCatharsis]

TheSHADOW
So even though it's not recommended, at least I'm not alone in this. I feel a little better.

Javarod
That made perfect sense to me, although I like to think that I would have caught that one!

[MoonCat]

Should've is a commonly used contraction. The problem is that idiots think the full expression is "should of" instead of "should have" (note the letters 've' which come from the last two letters of the word "have").

[Kal]

That affected a bunch of people when I worked in pensions; coworkers and management. You'd see it in emails every so often, even whole-office ones.

[Iris Kojiro]

Ad corrections from corporate when I first worked at The Night Place would often say "It should of stated (blah blah blah)". It's correct now, but back then it induced many facepalms from me.

[EricKei]

It's certainly "real" and usable -- as this is a legal document we're talking about, yeah, contractions should generally be avoided in that case. Any ambiguity in those should be 100% intentional

[Soulstealer]

It's certainly "real" and usable -- as this is a legal document we're talking about, yeah, contractions should generally be avoided in that case. Any ambiguity in those should be 100% intentional

That's true. In general writing legal documents has a different set of standards than general writing. They need to be very specific so contractions are generally discouraged and there might be a preference for legal terminology.

[Seshat]

For standard writing, 'should've' is fine. For writing where ambiguity is to be avoided, it's like all contractions: limit them, and remove the ambiguous ones.