COULD’VE, WOULD’VE, SHOULD’VE

By

Ray Villareal

Grammar is to a writer what anatomy is to a sculptor or the scales to a musician. You may loathe it, it may bore you, but nothing will replace it, and once mastered, it will support you like a rock. —B. J. Chute

When we use could have, would have, and should have in speech, we tend to run the words together, and they come out sounding like could of, would of, and should of. It’s not unusual, then, for people to write the words the way they say them.

I could of helped you with your homework.

I would of called you sooner, but I was busy.

I should of bought that sweater when it was on sale.

Most people understand that when they use contractions, they’re combining two words to form one, and they generally don’t have a problem spelling them.

is not = isn’t

did not = didn’t

I will = I’ll

we are = we’re

Could of, would of, and should of, however, are incorrect attempts at forming the contractions of could have, would have, and should have.

could have = could’ve, not could of

would have = would’ve, not would of

should have = should’ve, not should of

Sometimes, could’ve, would’ve, and should’ve are substituted with coulda, woulda, and shoulda. But these words are written for style, or to give characters a certain dialect, as in the movie On the Waterfront, when Marlon Brando’s Terry Malloy utters the famous lines: “You don’t understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am.”

When it’s understood that the writer knows the difference, coulda, woulda, and shoulda can be used in place of could’ve, would’ve, and should’ve. But writing could of, would of, and should of is never acceptable.