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

Why "managable" stands outside the dictionary

Why "managable" stands outside the dictionary

People might drop the "e" mistakenly, as it sounds correct ... Learn more →

Why "contains of" is an linguistic slip: the art of precise language use

Why "contains of" is an linguistic slip: the art of precise language use

People often make this error because they try to construct ... Learn more →

Why "had shook" shakes up grammar

Why "had shook" shakes up grammar

People may confuse "shook" (the simple past tense) with "shaken" ... Learn more →

Brimming over: debunking the "chalk full" error

Brimming over: debunking the "chalk full" error

People make the error because "chalk" and "chock" are homophones ... Learn more →