Why do so many people say "could of"?

"Could've" in nearly all accents sounds identical to "could of". That explains the common spelling error.  There's another argument that some people actually think they *are* saying "could of". They have reinterpreted the sound 've as a new use of the word "of" and do not associate it with the word "have" at all. The most obvious evidence of this would be that using a strong, fully-pronounced "have" in this position sounds very odd if not flat wrong. But generally speaking that is a theoretical linguistics argument that does not concern English learners.

This is one of the common mistakes you'll see made by native speakers when it comes to writing words with homophones. Like mixing up there, their, and they're; or mixing up hear and here.

They don't, they say "could've".

Because we pronounce "of" like "uhv" and "could've" sounds like "could uhv". And because native speech is mostly based around what "feels right" and not a set of grammar rules, people will gravitate towards what seems right enough.

I guarantee you native speakers make mistakes in your native language too.

It's just because they're homophones.

Could've, would've, and should've, when spoken out loud sound like "could of", "would of", and "should of". So people sometimes write it that way without thinking. I blame "sort of" and "kind of", which are real phrases.

A lot of people are stupid

Native speakers learn to speak years before learning to write. Therefore, unless they are well-educated (and motivated to learn), when they write, they use speaking as a reference point when unsure. The correct way to say the sentence "I could have left" is not to pronounce the h and vowel. If you're speaking "proper" English, this sentence sounds precisely like the written "I could of left". There are many examples of this, but this one is particularly easy to spot, because it's so blatantly wrong grammatically. Native language speakers learn language roughly in this order: Intonation/stress > vocabulary > spoken grammar > writing/reading > written grammar Most ESL students, on the other hand, learn: Writing/reading > written grammar > vocabulary > spoken grammar > intonation stress I my English college's curriculum, students learn to write the alphabet on their first day in the lowest level, literally. They don't actually work on spoken language, based on English stress and intonation patterns, until they're at C1 level, at least a year later, even though that's where most of the actual communication content is found. Anyway, there are lots of other examples of this problem, like native speakers mixing up there, their, and they're. A Chinese ESL student who learned grammar first couldn't imagine making that mistake, because their foundational structure is often writing-based, for example. However, ESL students often have the opposite problem, where they default to written language when speaking. This leads to all sorts of problems with comprehension, because spoken English is often totally disconnected from the written version. *Wahja do uh'bowdit?* In my opinion, there is a revolution in ESL coming some day, when we accept that our 19th century Prussian approach to learning second languages is wrong, and we should pay attention to how three year olds do it, because it's worked for tens of thousands of years.

are you asking why people SAY it or write it? When speaking quickly or using the contraction "could've," it will sound like "could of." Since it sounds that way, SOME people end up incorrectly thinking that's what it is and writing it that way.

They're hearing people say "could've", a contraction of "could have" and don't know enough about grammar to understand the difference. A disturbing number of native English speakers know very, very little about the one language they speak and cannot be bothered to learn.

language is fluid. It changes over time. As u/MossyPiano said, "could of" sounds similar to the contraction "could've" so when people started writing down what they heard, they started writing "could of". Over time, it has become grammatically correct for informal discourse communities.

"Could of" sounds very similar to "could've". It's a mistake made by native English speakers who go by sound, and hardly ever read anything in their lives so they've almost never seen it spelled properly.

The 'have' of 'could have' is often pronounced in the weak form /əv/ which is pretty much identical to unstressed 'of' in many dialects.

could’ve is short for could have

It’s a mistake that is mostly made by native English speakers, like “their/there/they’re”. Learners usually get it right. It seems that many languages have something like this. In Spanish, native speakers mix up “haber” and “a ver” because they sound identical, but Spanish learners rarely make this mistake.

Common mistake which will probably be deemed acceptable usage within 5 years because LOL NOTHING MATTERS Edit: I am referring to the people who actually spell out "could of" "should of" etc. SAYING "could've," an acceptable contraction, does SOUND like "could of"

We’re saying *Could’ve* , which are the words “Could“ and “Have“ combined. It’s a contraction word

"Could have" can be contracted as "could've", which sounds like "could of". This makes a lot of people think that's how "could've" is spelled.

Could've (could of) is faster. And we are lazy. 🫡

I don't know that anyone says "could of" aloud. You'd need a dialect of English where of and 've wouldn't be pronounced the same there. In writing, could of is a notational error of could've . Typically these happen because or homophones. When people write quickly they think of the sounds and notate them down with the first spelling they recall. It's the same type of spelling mistake as mixing up you're and your, or they're, their, and there.

It’s not what people say that’s wrong—could have and could’ve sound the same—it’s what people write.

In addition to the similar sounds, another factor might be education related.

People **write** "could of", which sounds like the spoken contraction "**could've**. It is similar to how some Spanish speakers sometimes write "vamos haber."

americans do not often read. there is a literacy problem. so they mishear something and never fix it because they never see it written down.

Because they sound very similar. But to be honest it baffles me. In my language I'm used to misspellings caused by similar sounds, of course. But I'm unaware of misspellings that completely break down the grammar so drastically? How can you write a modal verb followed by a preposition just like that and not have your head explode in confusion? EDIT oops I was just made aware of "a ver" / "haber". But even in that case, I've never seen it in the middle of the phrase, only as a misspelled expression "a ver". No one writes "voy haber el partido" or "debería a ver hecho esto"

"could of" and "could've" sound functionally identical. If people are typing this out it's because they're thinking in terms of what the words sound like instead of their meaning which is very common in native speakers typing casually

"I could of done it, but I ofn't"

The same was as they use firstable and secondable - they write them as they hear them

It's what's known in the trade as … illiteracy. Nothing more, nothing less. People who don't know any better because they never learned it at school. If they were taught it, they weren't listening.

That's the actual pronunciation in colloquial English. It's not a mistake. Only becomes a grammar issue in the written language.

If you are northern English then the H is dropped in a lot of words so could ‘ave is pretty much could of.

It’s an eggcorn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn

I'm surprised you can hear a difference?

If they are saying it, they are saying "could've" -- the contraction of "could have". If it's written, then they are stupid.

The correct phrase is "coulda"

In most of the US, “could of” and “could’ve” are pronounced literally exactly the same.

Common mistake due to illiteracy or ignorance. People most likely only *hear* the phrase, more often than seeing it in writing and I suppose someone could argue that “Could’ve” sounds very similar to “Could of”, thus creating the misconception.

Prescriptivists are insufferable

Common mistake because that's how a lot of people hear it. It bothers me though lol

It's an eggcorn.

Because they’re swine that shun literature.

wow

Interesting

Wow

Wow

It's just a spelling mistake. English spelling is fairly unintuitive so memorizing how things are spelled is an exercise in itself. I don't think anyone has addressed the fact the the "f" in "of" literally makes a "v" sound (except in certain fixed phrases when devoiced by following a voiceless consonant, eg. "of course"). So, \[of\] and \['ve\] are homonyms. As for the grammar part, no one is thinking through the grammar when writing their native language (unless of course it's a formal style and you're consciously avoiding colloquial speech that may not conform the what's expected in the context). Our brains are just constructing the sequence of sounds that it knows conveys the meaning and the part of our brain that learned how to spell words is putting them into text. And sometimes it bonks up homonyms. Like several times, I've texted "here" instead of "hear" even though I definitively know the difference. It's just I was slightly distracted and it got past my mental spell check. In other cases, people genuinely might have never commited the difference to memory (their/they're/there, it's/its)

This is my NUMBER ONE pet peeve!!!! I cannot stand it when people do that!