Is it just me?

Thank you Alex - don't 'do' Twitter or Facebook...does it indicate a subject heading or something? And, by the way, welcome to the #Gransnet Bike Shed! I hide out here from time to time - there are a lot of bright women (and a few brave men) inside. (Please don't take offence at the word "bike" girls!)

Dear speckie4eyes according to DH #prefacing a phrase is a twitter concept. I suppose they're being trendy- Lol

And when people write "I agree, @specki4eyes" for example. What the ..? I guess the @ thing must be what they do on Twitter, or something?

i quite agree Alex - it is so annoying. and what is more annoying is that they don't even know that it is wrong!

Could someone enlighten me as to why some people preface a saying with "hashtag" ? I don't get it.

Teachers tend to use 'so' as a short version of 'therefore', surely? Not at all the same as using it in speech in the way described by brocky.

No * Rosequartz* I'm still here. I have seen it used in an F Scott Fitzgerald short story from the twenties. It just leaves me cold, and I withdraw my attention from reading or listening. Continual use of "wordwhiskers" like "y'know" or "y'ken" (I'm Scottish) when speaking causes me to tune out. I stop listening and start counting how many times they use the word. Even politicians' on radio are guilty - Lol

I'm glad I didn't see that particular interview. I think I would have exploded!

Yes, I have noticed it and it is very irritating.

About two months ago a spokesperson for Roche Pharmaceuticals was being interviewed on the TV about the company's unwillingness to reduce the price of a particularly expensive drug. She started every single sentence with "So" and simply kept repeating the same mantra, even when the interviewer tried to pin her down on the profit margin relating to this drug.

Representatives of powerful organisations are given training on every aspect of persuasive speech, which includes the use "key words" in a way that gets a message across more effectively. I wonder if starting a sentence with "So" suggests that the speaker has already provided the explanatory background to a question. Teachers often do this:

We know that ................ is ................ So, the answer is ......

I know a lot of you will think I'm being over-analytic and a bit daft.

Has anyone else noticed how, all of a sudden, people respond to a question with a sentence beginning with 'so'. The aforementioned 'so' seems completely out of place and has no logical purpose as far as I can tell but it's everywhere these days! Probably not as obvious or quite as prevalent as 'of' instead of 'have', but it irritates the life out of me. Is it just me?

Yes - and it's catching. DBH is a grammar pedant, but yesterday - oh the shock of it - we went to Wisley and got stuck on the M25 for over three hours. He said 'Bored of it now'.

I was horrified, and reminded him of how he always has a go at me for saying less instead of fewer. He was embarrassed, but said 'In my defence, it's what I hear all the time from the kids at school. It's catching.'

The difficulties in trying to get genies back into bottles comes to mind though.

A major irritant of mine is when adults as well as children sprinkle every sentence with the word " like" I do not know if I should have like gone to the cinema with friends tonight or not, like. That is possibly extreme but I hear it a lot.

When my grandson reads "could've" or "should've" in speech, he automatically says "could have" or should have". I do not want the alternative to become commonplace in the written word.

I agree with you, rosequartz. Just because it's becoming commonplace doesn't mean we should just shrug our shoulders and accept such a 'variation' into the English language!

Isn't grammar taught in schools any more? More to the point, has it not been taught for so long that young people really don't know that 'should of' and 'would of' are actually nonsensical phrases?

Or do they just copy each other?

No, no, no she screams!

Just because I may understand what someone means does not mean that I think it is fine to say that!

I would say that 'should've', 'would've' 'may've' is sloppy but that 'should of', 'would of' and 'may of' is just plain wrong. It is not a pronunciation issue as I have heard (mainly young) people say 'should of' quite distinctly and I have seen it written like that.

Where are you alex57currie? Have we frightened you away?

But the use of "of" for "have"
As in "bored of" or "bored with" does not detract from the meaning.

It is really irritating and sloppy but you cannot really say you don't know what it means.

It's more of a pronunciation issue really.

I am afraid with a lot of these "words" they are going to change whether we like it or not. Init.

cross-posted with rosequartz - quite agree.

but it is still WRONG and makes absolutely no sense - the use of 'of' instead of 'have'. One is a verb and the other is a preposition regardless of whether they sound vaguely similar.
personally I never say or write should've as I feel it is slovenly speak and it does not require much effort to say 'should have' instead
would you really say 'may've' instead of 'may have'
pedant in me coming out - apologies

If it does not change the understanding then it doesn't matter, but in this case it does change it - in fact it is nonsensical!

I would of preferred that - what on earth does that mean?

Whereas: I would have preferred that - makes sense
In English, the conditional perfect is formed using would have together with the past participle of the main verb

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_perfect

Just because this form of extremely sloppy speech has taken over then it does not make it right and we should have our bottles of tippex at the ready.

I cannot help thinking, if this incorrect newly evolving use of a word, does not affect the understanding of the actual original meaning of the text or spoken sentences does it really matter?

Perhaps we should go back to basics - teach grammar and parts of speech in primary school.

I agree that it's irritating, roseq, but I'm not sure we have a choice about "letting it pass as a natural evolution of our language". I think the mutation has been reproduced too many times now to stop the rot except among pedants.

I suppose it might of... (!) Of you read any good books lately?

I find the use of 'should of' instead of 'should have' extremely irritating! and no, I do not think that we should let it pass as a natural evolution of our language. The more colloquial version is should've.

One of my DC was using it quite regularly and I used to mutter 'have' under my breath until in the end I had to tell him and now when he is speaking to me he always remembers and corrects himself!

I have seen it written down, particularly in some novels written by American authors, so I am wondering if it came from the States?

Reading these though reminded me of a story a teacher told whilst I was at school (and that is a long time ago!). She told of a pupil she had who would always say "I gone to the pictures" instead of "I went to the pictures", and so she made this young lady sit down and write one hundred times "I went to the pictures". The task duly done, the pupil in question left the list on the teachers desk with the comment -" I have done this and I have went."!