COULD’VE, SHOULD’VE, WOULD’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, should of and would 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, should of and would of, however, are incorrect attempts at forming the contractions of could have, should have and would 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, shoulda and woulda. But these words are used for emphasis, 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, shoulda and woulda can be used in place of could’ve, should’ve and would’ve. But writing could of, should of and would of is never acceptable.