en English es español fr française it italiano de deutsche ja 日本語 pl polski cs česky sv svenska tr Türkçe nl Nederlands

Why "should of" shouldn’t be: the grammar mistake explained

Reviewed and edited by Anwar Kareem 05/10/2024, 00:45
English.me team member

What kind of error is it?

Should of or should have. What's correct?

grammatical error

Why do people make this mistake?

The error is a result of the incorrect transcription of the spoken contraction "should've", which sounds very similar to "should of". People often misunderstand the contraction "should've" (short for "should have") and write it as "should of" due to the similar pronunciation.

What is correct?

The correct form is "should have", where "have" is the auxiliary verb used to form the perfect aspect.

Examples of correct usage

  • I should have known the answer.
  • You should have seen that movie.
  • They should have arrived by now.

Recommended posts in Grammar

Keeping it together: why "in tact" falls apart

Keeping it together: why "in tact" falls apart

The phrase "in tact" is a common misspelling due to ... Learn more →

Why "heared" is incorrect: a detailed explanation

Why "heared" is incorrect: a detailed explanation

People often make this error because in English, many verbs ... Learn more →

Brought to light: why "has brung" misses the mark

Brought to light: why "has brung" misses the mark

People often incorrectly apply regular verb conjugation rules or misunderstand ... Learn more →

Why "be apart of" keeps you aside: understanding this common grammatical error

Why "be apart of" keeps you aside: understanding this common grammatical error

People often confuse "apart" with "a part" because they sound ... Learn more →