Today, we're talking about a grammar mistake that both kids and adults make. Native speakers
of American English. Actually, native speakers of American English are more likely to make this
mistake than a non-native speaker, because native speakers learn English by listening for years
before they start learning English with letters, and it's the pronunciation of these phrases,
how they sound to the ears that messes people up. Today, we're going to go over
why this happens and we're going to make sure you never mix them up again.
Don't forget, if you like this video or you learn something new, give it a thumbs up and subscribe
with notifications. Should've. I got curious about this so I went to Google to type in this phrase
and see what it suggested. The reason why I got curious is because it's wrong. It's not
grammatically correct. Here's what I found. Google suggests things as you type based on
what other people have searched in the past. So I was curious to see if many people have searched
phrases starting with ‘should of’ and I found they were searching this: should of been a cowboy,
should of seen it in color, should of known better, should of had a V8. So that's what we're
searching, the text below, however, shows the top results, and there, we see the correct spelling.
Should, apostrophe VE. Here's what's crazy. The word ‘have’ and the word ‘of’ sound the same when
they're reduced. That's why they get switched in writing because they sound the same. Have can be
reduced to the schwa, and the V, or just the schwa. I should have been there. Should have.
Should have. Uv uv uv uv. Have reducing to uv-- or, I can reduce that to the schwa without the V.
That's another common reduction. Shoulda. I should have been there. Shoulda. Uh uh uh uh uh.
Of has the same exact reduction. Let's take a look at the example phrase: Lots of money.
That can be pronounced: lots of, of, of, of, of, the schwa, and the V, just like have. Uv uv uv.
Lots of money. Or it can be just the schwa. Lots of money. Lots uh uh uh,
just like have. So if you've spent your whole life hearing should've, would've, could've, or
shoulda, woulda, coulda, it makes sense that you're going to write it: should of,
would of, could of, because these two word phrases sound the same as: should have,
could have, would have. But these phrases with ‘of’ are never grammatically correct
in any situation. They should always be: should have, would have, could have.
So the same thing happens with would, and could. Look at this. I typed ‘could of’ to see what other
popular searches use this phrase. Could of been different. Now there, that's the actual name of
the song. This grammatical error is in the title of the song. That's how common this error is,
and these two suggestions, even though i’ve typed ‘could of’ are making the correction for me,
changing it to could've, the contraction with have.
For kids, especially, this is a common error, as they're learning how to write before they've
learned all the grammar. To conclude ‘of’ and ‘have’ can and usually do sound the same in
spoken English. But with these three words, what you're hearing is never ‘of’ it's always
‘have’ so be careful in writing with these phrases. Now, if you're wondering why on Earth
we would pronounce have without the H? You're not alone. This is a common reduction that most of my
students did not know about. Did you know that this word is often pronounced without the H?
It becomes UD. He had already been waiting for ten minutes. He had. Ud ud ud ud ud. Schwa D.
And this word, it becomes ER. What's her name? What's her-- er er er-- what's her--
This word becomes EE. I thought he said that. Thought he— Thought he— Thought he-- ee ee ee--
This word becomes IS. What's his problem? What's his— what’s his— This word becomes
ihm— ihm— I got him a present. Got him—ihm— ihm— What? Yes. Dropping the H in unstressed words
like this is a common reduction. This is everyday English. It's not slang,
and it's not sloppy, it's not unprofessional. It's what native speakers do all the time at home,
with friends, and family, but also at work, in important meetings, and so on.
Let's look at real world examples of a couple of these words. First, HER.
Instead of more chemotherapy coursing to her veins, she's done that.
Through her. Through her. It's like one word with an unstressed ER ending.
Through her. Instead of more chemotherapy coursing to her veins, she's done that.
Let's look at another example. Her in-laws should be arrested
for what they did to her. To her. To her. No H in her.
Her in-laws should be arrested for what they did to her.
Let's look at another example. I'm not worried about her not breathing.
About her. About her. I'm not worried about her not breathing.
And now, let's look at HIS. With all the risks to his safety and his health.
And his-- and his-- no D in and, that's another common reduction, and no H in his.
With all the risks to his safety and his health. Let's look at another example.
Where so many of his colleagues had childhood horror stories.
Of his— of his—. No H. Where so many of his colleagues
had childhood horror stories. Let's do one more. How about HE?
And then he found this middle way which did seem to work.
Then he— then he— Just a quick EE vowel at the end of the word,
then no H. Then he-- And then he found this middle way which did seem to work.
Let's look at another example. And what he meant by institutions
were really just formal rules. What he-- What he meant. What he-- No H.
And what he meant by institutions were really just formal rules.
Now, if this idea of dropping sounds, this idea of reductions is new to you,
I have put together a playlist that will help you learn more about them. They really are
an interesting part of spoken English and you can keep learning right now with this video.
Don't forget to subscribe with notifications, and come back, and see what i’ve got new for you next
week. I love being your English teacher. That's it and thanks so much for using Rachel’s English.