SHOULD'VE, COULD OF, WOULDA

DW has opined that it is in fact the smart people in the world that are to blame for the decline of the English language. His theory is that the common folk hear the intelligent people (mis)using certain words, and are following suit. At first I thought this was ridiculous...

Now I'm not so sure. In my distaste for the overactive evolution of this language, I do find myself using these neologisms on purpose.* In the right company, I will force myself to say "prolly" instead of "probably", or "should of" instead of "should have" -- both with obvious emphasis -- to mock the direction of today's vernacular.

It must be said that these two are among my greatest peeves. The latter, "should of", with its cousins "could of" and "would of", are, a little surprisingly, the ones that I can more easily excuse. For the children that use it, I can only assume that they read so little that they've never seen contractions in use. They hear others use them in speech, translate it to the words they do know how to spell, and voila, new English.

Does this excuse it, though, from appearing in a television commercial (if memory serves, for Bud Light)? Or does it excuse the 95,700 webpages that Google finds with "should of"? Even if we allow for the few pages that are discussing the incorrectness of the «word», that's a whole lot of web pages being designed by illiterates. Ouch.

And "prolly". What is that? I can understand "probly" and "probally", as the spoken word has that predominant B sound in there. If it wasn't formed from a simple misspelling, then, is it meant to be a time-saver in writing (or, let's be honest, when typing)? Maybe. But is that the reason Judge Reinhold's character in Fast Times at Ridgemont High says it -- because the scriptwriter was trying to save some time? 1982 sure predates all Instant Messaging systems, and most bulletin boards as well.

So who's to blame? The computing industry for making people lazy? The intelligensia who are unknowingly mis-educating the masses by example? Or do we point the finger once again at the media, with the doctrine that if it's on T.V. it must be true?

But if it's about people learning things incorrectly, and not being taught the correct words and language, is it not the education system at fault? When degree-holders confuse simple homonyms and cannot recognize that a word is obviously misspelled, should we not question the efficacy of the institution and the value of the degree?

Or is it the workplace that's to blame, allowing unqualified people to write publicly -- whether it's a corporate webpage or a cafe's sandwich board?

I work at an educational institution, so am I one of those to blame for allowing graduates with just basic English skills? No. What about when I don't speak up when there are publicly-posted webpages here replete with errors, here at work? Maybe. Or, is it truly my personal, purposeful misuse of the language, spreading to all who care to listen?

Prolly.

* Have I just assumed to place myself amongst the "smart people" to which I refer? Yup. Take it or leave it.