They are not even remotely the same. "should of" is a phonetic issue. of is spoken with the schwa vowel uh, so the o sounds like uh, and the f takes the v sound, so "should of" sounds like "should uhv", and "should have/should 've" sounds exactly the same, "should uhv". The issue is that folks that don't read much hear "should uhv" and think it's should of, so when they write "should of" because they expect should 've to sound like "should have" even tho they completely use the contraction when they speak!

It's like saying that people with accents come across as uneducated when it come just be that the person has a deafness to American th and hears t does a substitute so they will say ting instead of thing or tin in place of thin. With that said, I grew up speaking/hearing the form of British english and "Try and" sounds perfectly fine to me.

> sounds to me as bad as "should of"

Interesting that you've used the spelling mistake which is perhaps why you hate it?

If you heard "should've" or "should have" then perhaps it wouldn't annoy you so much??? Also listen for would've / could've

But listening to https://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/should_of_would_of_c... made me wonder if people do clearly pronounce the "of" in "should of"... Now I'm worried that I'm going to hear the mistake and be annoyed.

There is nothing more annoying than being told something annoying, and then learning to be annoyed by it.

Try not to internalise that dictum or it will recursively annoy you.

Next time you hear a really annoying vague repetitive sound at work, mention it to a coworker if you wish to ruin their worklife.

Do you mean "should've"? That's a common contraction of "should" and "have." In many American accents, the difference between "should've" and "should have" is negligible, and will sound like "should of" even though it isn't.

It also depends on the audience and medium, with "should've" being more appropriate for conversational/informal usage. It would be perfectly normal to say something like "he shouldn't've done that," but if I were writing a message, I'd at least expand the last contraction to "have."

I think there's a general perception that many of the common dialects of American English, especially in the South and West, are associated with being less educated. I am not sure where that comes from.

I'm a native English speaker, and my perception is that when someone speaks in a way where they don't use contractions, it seems verbose and stilted; I associate it with being scolded or disciplined, or when someone is speaking sternly to make a point (or out of anger). E.g.: "You don't know where you're going, you should've taken a left" - informative/neutral "You do not know where you are going, you should have taken a left" - critical/scolding

Omitting contractions can result in speech that sounds strange and unnatural in general: "Shouldn't we go?" -> "Should not we go?" "Aren't you coming?" -> "Are not you coming?" "We didn't, but we should've." -> "We did not, but we should have."

> Do you mean "should've"? That's a common contraction of "should" and "have." In many American accents, the difference between "should've" and "should have" is negligible, and will sound like "should of" even though it isn't.

I think they specifically meant "should of" which is a colloquial form of "should've" in a number of places in the UK.

I went to school with a large number of people who would write "I should of done X instead of Y". In fact I'm pretty sure I made that "mistake" a number of times growing up.

We are not talking about writing; we’re talking about language.

Is there really a difference in how “should have” and “should’ve” are pronounced? There isn’t in any accent I’m familiar with.

> Is there really a difference in how “should have” and “should’ve” are pronounced?

I sure hope so, one's a contraction and the other is not...

Likely gp meant "should of" and "should've."

Indeed

What I'm saying is that people in certain regions actually say "should of" instead of "should've".

And yes, there can be and often is a difference between saying "should've" and "should of".

I meant "should of", especially in writing. I am not sure if "should've" is supposed to sound the same as "should of", but seeing the latter in writing annoys me a lot for some reason.

They sound the same in most American English accents, at least.

(This response contains another funny modern colloquialism: 'a lot' gets used by both native and non-native English speakers where 'many' or 'greatly' is prescribed. Not that we need to be prescriptivists, of course.)

How can “should of” sound bad to you, when it sounds identical to (a not super carefully enunciated pronunciation of) “should have”, at least in every dialect I’m aware of

Except in rapid speech, and particularly at the end of sentences, I can definitely hear “should of” being used by some people in local Australian English.

Guess it depends on the country? As a native speaker of British English “try and” sounds fine to me, and in some cases would flow more naturally than “try to”

In written British English it would be correct grammar to say “try and” or “go and”. In speech it would be said “go’n” with very little emphasis on the ‘n’ and some dialects drop the ‘n’ completely but would still write ‘and’. I suspect that this would also be true for other dialects of English from NZ, Australia, South Africa, Ireland, India etc but I stand to be corrected.

Native speakers don't think so, but I suppose that's why you're nonnative—"and try" is completely conventional, idiomatic, and correct (even if it breaks a pattern, but that's English for you). Should "of" is generally a spelling error. Not remotely in the same category.