You're not the only one. The person who made the mistake isn't the only one who learns, either. We all do.

valid point, not sure about the example though.

Palin's speeches won't make much sense, even if they are grammatically correct and presented elegantly.

Which is why I said "command of the language". Good grammar is merely the starting point.

Linguistics study states that grammar is always evolving and there is no such "thing" as grammar. How do you know "should of" is my minor dialectical difference of English compared to yours. It's like argentinian spanish people correcting other spanish people to use vos instead of tu. Or nothing ending with a preposition. And being a good orator doesn't mean strict adherence to a one persons capture of grammar. If that was true, then shakesphere wouldn't be a good playwright!

He guessed

I don't know if it's fair or not, but I always feel like the conversation at HN is somewhat... academic, for lack of a better word. The nature of the community seems to encourage one's best behavior, or at least better behavior than I would exhibit in some other places perhaps.

Grammar correction is somewhat a conundrum. On the one hand, it IS sort of rude to point out the faults of another, especially as it can often be attributed to expedient typing. On the other hand, if I made a mistake and didn't realize, I'd REALLY REALLY want someone to point it out to me, so that I could learn from it.

Completely aside though, it's interesting to me how poor grammar seems to spread. Until about two years ago, I had honestly NEVER seen anyone use "should of" in print, and now it seems to be a prevalent mistake.

> Until about two years ago, I had honestly NEVER seen anyone use "should of" in print, and now it seems to be a prevalent mistake.

There is no way that is true:

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_q=&as_epq=&...

While I don't understand how that relates to the truthiness of what I've said, it looks like almost all of the results of the linked page are from 2006 forward.

Regardless, while I may be fuzzy on the timetable, it is a recent phenomena for me.

Google is ranking by date because they have the same relevance. You can play with the date ranges in the search box. I picked Jan 1 2007 as the end date because you said you "NEVER" saw this construction in text until a "about two years ago".