Some players ... like me .... don't spend a ton of money on this game (if at all) ...
27k Honor is a way that I can unlock those great crew other people already own
Those who invest (more) have more. The most normal thing in a game like this. You also made it clear many times that you cannot justify certain offers, your spending priorities are on other things. Perfectly fine. But this contant undertone of envy about the crew of others is uncool keeping in mind your chosen spending path for STT.
If you want to enjoy your gaming experience even more you should gracefully accept that you cannot have everything you desire, be content with what you have and make the most out of it.
In reality I collect watches. Certain brands like Rolex are out of my reach or, to use your term, I could not justify spending 30000 bucks or more for a watch. But I don´t care, don´t think about the fact that others have them. I am very content with the ones I have and enjoy them massively. Focus on what one does NOT have instead of a focus on what one HAS doesn´t make happy...
To be honest, I didn't read any such undertone in RaraRacing's post. This game can be frustrating to low spenders (and they do also contribute to its existence with their purchases, so it probably shouldn't be too frustrating) but that's not his main argument. He just pointed out that low spenders have different strategies and that a honor sale does make sense for some of them. There are lots of players who were hoping for this kind of sale, because for one reason or another it fits into their game play.
Assuming there was no limit on purchases, I could have bought 50 packs with it and with the honor from those packs I could have bought an average of 9 more. That means I would probably have gotten about 6 begolds (maybe 4, maybe 8) and a bunch of useful ship schematics. Possibly a 5* that I want, some additional stars for those that I have and maybe a copy of one the very few 4* that I still want or need.
I'm not sure if I would have actually bought 50 packs with my honor instead of immortalizing Cheesecake Seven, but I can see why it could make sense to do that.
To be honest, I didn't read any such undertone in RaraRacing's post. This game can be frustrating to low spenders (and they do also contribute to its existence with their purchases, so it probably shouldn't be too frustrating) but that's not his main argument. He just pointed out that low spenders have different strategies and that a honor sale does make sense for some of them. There are lots of players who were hoping for this kind of sale, because for one reason or another it fits into their game play.
Assuming there was not limit on purchases, I could have bought 50 packs with it and with the honor from those packs I could have bought an average of 9 more. That means I would probably have gotten about 6 begolds (maybe 4, maybe 8) and a bunch of useful ship schematics. Possibly a 5* that I want, some additional stars for those that I have and maybe a copy of one the very few 4* that I still want or need.
I'm not sure if I would have actually bought 50 packs with my honor instead of immortalizing Cheesecake Seven, but I can see why it could make sense to do that.
In the last month or so I've gone on two big runs of pack-opening. In early November I opened 80 that I'd saved up, and a few days ago I opened 40 from two of the first 12-day packs. In 120 packs, I got 6 begolds. In fact, at one point I went on a run of 30 without one. The second of those two aforementioned 12-day packs had zero.
I'm not kvetching - RNG is RNG! Just pointing out how much of a gamble it really is, and why spending honor on packs doesn't make much sense at that price. At least for me!
Just canary the system first to see if you've got a good chance of getting a legendary. I've been doing that all year, and my legendary drops from portal pulls have been great. (Or maybe it's just superstition and confirmation bias!)
I still think we may get terrific honorifics this year. Last week we had the 490 packs in the store, next week we have the 390 packs in the store, but this week we have neither. And this week is "Christmas week" (I guess). I wouldn't be at all surprised to see similar honor discounts to last year for Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday this week. Hey! That's Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and Boxing Day! What a coeekypeek!
I'd also like to see a 5% discount on citations this year. Not enough for anybody to be mad at missing out, but enough to make people happy from their little saving. (And while we're wishlisting, let's drop the begolds a bit further! 24K, DB? Ah go on!)
Some players ... like me .... don't spend a ton of money on this game (if at all) ... and if you have poor luck ... like me ... 5* beholds are few and far between (just read my posts for each event's threshold/community reward) from the very limited amount pulls I already get to do.
I am one of these people... I have some honour saved up. If there is an honour sale, guaranteed that I will use it to the full. I might be able to finish/add stars to some of my Super Rares, or I might get lucky to add a star to a Legendary... or I might get a brand new crew (which I now have space for!). Or I get bupkis.
If there is no honour sale, I will buy a legendary citation. To take Dr. Ann Mulhall up to 3/5*.
I dunno about others, but part of playing the game is the excitement. And, although the latter option is useful (albeit somewhat mediocre), I still don't exactly get very enthused by it!
I would rather spend my 50K honour on a bunch of possibly awful 10-packs, in the hope that I might get something good.
It's also the reason why I put in the time and effort to get that purple portal pull at the end of each event!
Yes, I complain when it doesn't end well. But that's part of the fun, right?
I didn’t read any envy from his tone. Just Rara explaining the strategy that works for people that don’t spend a lot and why a legendary begold sale would be good for low lvl spenders. It wasn’t envy that others had crew Rara didn’t but goals to get those crew and a path to succeed.
I didn’t read any envy from his tone. Just Rara explaining the strategy that works for people that don’t spend a lot and why a legendary begold sale would be good for low lvl spenders. It wasn’t envy that others had crew Rara didn’t but goals to get those crew and a path to succeed.
I was agreeing with them... Sorry if that was ambiguous!
Fleet Admiral of NCC UK Midlands."Leave any bigotry in your quarters. There's no room for it on the bridge." - J.T. Kirk, 2266
Assuming there was not limit on purchases, I could have bought 50 packs with it
Nothing really to add to the discussion here. Just wanted to say thank you for correctly using "could have" rather than the more popular (and incorrect) "could of". Carry on.
Assuming there was not limit on purchases, I could have bought 50 packs with it
Nothing really to add to the discussion here. Just wanted to say thank you for correctly using "could have" rather than the more popular (and incorrect) "could of". Carry on.
You could of let it go..........
"The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself."
Assuming there was not limit on purchases, I could have bought 50 packs with it
Nothing really to add to the discussion here. Just wanted to say thank you for correctly using "could have" rather than the more popular (and incorrect) "could of". Carry on.
Assuming there was not limit on purchases, I could have bought 50 packs with it
Nothing really to add to the discussion here. Just wanted to say thank you for correctly using "could have" rather than the more popular (and incorrect) "could of". Carry on.
You could of let it go..........
I'm not a native speaker so I don't really know what this is about
Assuming there was not limit on purchases, I could have bought 50 packs with it
Nothing really to add to the discussion here. Just wanted to say thank you for correctly using "could have" rather than the more popular (and incorrect) "could of". Carry on.
As an aside, I could not get into The Great Gatsby. You'd think that was because the characters are universally loathsome, but nope. It's because Fitzgerald used "of" instead of "have" throughout the entire novel.
Assuming there was not limit on purchases, I could have bought 50 packs with it
Nothing really to add to the discussion here. Just wanted to say thank you for correctly using "could have" rather than the more popular (and incorrect) "could of". Carry on.
Assuming there was not limit on purchases, I could have bought 50 packs with it
Nothing really to add to the discussion here. Just wanted to say thank you for correctly using "could have" rather than the more popular (and incorrect) "could of". Carry on.
You could of let it go..........
I'm not a native speaker so I don't really know what this is about
The contraction for “could have” is could’ve. However, when spoken, could’ve sounds exactly like “could of”. As a result, people who aren’t well-versed in their grammar will often write “could of” when they really mean “could’ve” or “could have”.
Basically, the construction “could of” is (almost?) always wrong. I legitimately can’t think of any instance in which it would be correct. 99.99% of the time, people mean could’ve. The other .01% of the time, find a way to rephrase the sentence, because you’re probably wrong anyway. 😆
Hope that helps. It might be a bit obscure to foreign speakers because there’s sort of a feeling (at least in America) that anyone who corrects someone else’s grammar is an annoying pedant.
It isn't just non-native speakers. I taught English for three years. The majority of kids don't even try to care.
That’s funny because I was just thinking about my kid’s English/grammar teacher this week. They were having a test on prepositional phrases (among other things). The kid brings home a study guide and it’s very...conceptual. I say, “Didn’t you have to memorize your list of prepositions?” (I did, and I can still remember them XX years later.)
He tells me, “Nope,” and while I wonder how he’s going to identify a prepositional phrase without having memorized the list, I go by the study guide and shrug my shoulders. Kid bring home his test, and every question he got wrong was because he didn’t pick the correct preposition out of the sentence. (!!!)
I know rote memorization isn’t “the fad” in education these days, but some things just need to be memorized. And if you’re giving a test in such a way that a good grade is only achievable through rote memorization, but refuse to tell the kids to memorize, you’re kind of setting kids up for failure.
Now sure, you could say that the kid should know independently to memorize them without it being told to them, but that’s not really an expectation in U.S. elementary schools.
Learning grammar stinks, and it’s as boring as watching paint dry. But instead of accepting that, schools seem to want to make it less rote, but still expect the kids to know the same things. If I learned grammar the same way my kid was “learning” it, I’d be pretty checked out and uncaring as well, because it would make absolutely no sense.
(This isn’t personal. I’m sure many teachers are frustrated as well, and hamstrung by how they have to teach according to the curriculum.)
(And...I’m probably getting busted because this is off topic.)
Language is not a static thing. It is in many ways a living thing that changes. Just look at Shakespeare and compare it to living day English. For something in a language to change there simply has to be enough people who speak the language that use a different spelling, different pronunciation, or different word for it to be adopted into the language. If enough people say, write, pronounce a word “wrong” it simply becomes an acceptable alternate use and if it continues to grow in popularity it becomes the “right” way.
Assuming there was not limit on purchases, I could have bought 50 packs with it
Nothing really to add to the discussion here. Just wanted to say thank you for correctly using "could have" rather than the more popular (and incorrect) "could of". Carry on.
Assuming there was not limit on purchases, I could have bought 50 packs with it
Nothing really to add to the discussion here. Just wanted to say thank you for correctly using "could have" rather than the more popular (and incorrect) "could of". Carry on.
You could of let it go..........
I'm not a native speaker so I don't really know what this is about
The contraction for “could have” is could’ve. However, when spoken, could’ve sounds exactly like “could of”. As a result, people who aren’t well-versed in their grammar will often write “could of” when they really mean “could’ve” or “could have”.
Basically, the construction “could of” is (almost?) always wrong. I legitimately can’t think of any instance in which it would be correct. 99.99% of the time, people mean could’ve. The other .01% of the time, find a way to rephrase the sentence, because you’re probably wrong anyway. 😆
Hope that helps. It might be a bit obscure to foreign speakers because there’s sort of a feeling (at least in America) that anyone who corrects someone else’s grammar is an annoying pedant.
Thank you for explaining this! I had already seen "could of" here and there and it just looked weird to me. I didn't think of the pronunciation, but knowing it, it makes a lot more sense.
Personally, not caring about grammar/spelling in informal contexts doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me. I don't know if it's still that way (I mostly steer clear of social media now) but about 10 years ago there was this trend here, mostly among people of my generation targeting younger or older people, to bully others into oblivion over their spelling, grammar or perceived ignorance on the internet. I never really understood the point of it.
Austria's youth word 2019 could be translated with "to brexit" (in German "brexiten") meaning "to announce to leave but then to stay anyway". In 2018 this was not even a word. Language is ever changing... everywhere.
Wir, die Mirror Tribbles [MiT] haben freie Plätze zu vergeben. Kein Zwang und kein Stress, dafür aber Spaß, Discord und eine nette, hilfsbereite Gemeinschaft, incl. voll ausgebauter Starbase und täglich 700 ISM.
Language is not a static thing. It is in many ways a living thing that changes. Just look at Shakespeare and compare it to living day English. For something in a language to change there simply has to be enough people who speak the language that use a different spelling, different pronunciation, or different word for it to be adopted into the language. If enough people say, write, pronounce a word “wrong” it simply becomes an acceptable alternate use and if it continues to grow in popularity it becomes the “right” way.
People used to say "dove" instead of the (then) proper "dived". Now, "dove" is the accepted "standard" for having dived into something at a previous time............
"The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself."
Assuming there was not limit on purchases, I could have bought 50 packs with it
Nothing really to add to the discussion here. Just wanted to say thank you for correctly using "could have" rather than the more popular (and incorrect) "could of". Carry on.
Assuming there was not limit on purchases, I could have bought 50 packs with it
Nothing really to add to the discussion here. Just wanted to say thank you for correctly using "could have" rather than the more popular (and incorrect) "could of". Carry on.
You could of let it go..........
I'm not a native speaker so I don't really know what this is about
The contraction for “could have” is could’ve. However, when spoken, could’ve sounds exactly like “could of”. As a result, people who aren’t well-versed in their grammar will often write “could of” when they really mean “could’ve” or “could have”.
Basically, the construction “could of” is (almost?) always wrong. I legitimately can’t think of any instance in which it would be correct. 99.99% of the time, people mean could’ve. The other .01% of the time, find a way to rephrase the sentence, because you’re probably wrong anyway. 😆
Hope that helps. It might be a bit obscure to foreign speakers because there’s sort of a feeling (at least in America) that anyone who corrects someone else’s grammar is an annoying pedant.
Thank you for explaining this! I had already seen "could of" here and there and it just looked weird to me. I didn't think of the pronunciation, but knowing it, it makes a lot more sense.
Personally, not caring about grammar/spelling in informal contexts doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me. I don't know if it's still that way (I mostly steer clear of social media now) but about 10 years ago there was this trend here, mostly among people of my generation targeting younger or older people, to bully others into oblivion over their spelling, grammar or perceived ignorance on the internet. I never really understood the point of it.
Bullying people over grammar is not right. And online we must remember that many people are typing out on small keyboards and many are not English natives. That said, pointing out minor issues is not necessarily a bad thing.
I also emphasize that while a few minor changes take place naturally, most bad grammar just makes a person look ignorant. Whenever I hear someone say "good" when "well" is required, I think less of the person's education. It doesn't matter if 90% of Americans can't use adverbs correctly, it is still wrong. That doesn't mean they are not really skilled in other areas, it simply means that I wouldn't hire them for proofreading or educating my children.
So while acknowledging that some grammar changes will happen, let us not use that as an excuse for intellectual laziness.
My wife’s sister is a speech pathologist in a school. She says “look it” when she wants someone to look at something. After every word is uh. As in oh my godduh and that is annoyingguh. And this is someone who has a Masters in teaching our children how to speak correctly. She also is a so called expert in child behavior and her kid is an absolute train wreck. It is true that kids don’t care to learn things correctly but it’s also true that sometimes the wrong people for the job are in place too
My wife’s sister is a speech pathologist in a school. She says “look it” when she wants someone to look at something. After every word is uh. As in oh my godduh and that is annoyingguh. And this is someone who has a Masters in teaching our children how to speak correctly. She also is a so called expert in child behavior and her kid is an absolute train wreck. It is true that kids don’t care to learn things correctly but it’s also true that sometimes the wrong people for the job are in place too
This is not the first time that I have heard of experts in child care, basically, being rotten parents.
Actually, heard of, is wrong I knew them , both parents experts. Did fantastic job helping others with their children, but, a lousy job with their own.
My wife’s sister is a speech pathologist in a school. She says “look it” when she wants someone to look at something. After every word is uh. As in oh my godduh and that is annoyingguh. And this is someone who has a Masters in teaching our children how to speak correctly. She also is a so called expert in child behavior and her kid is an absolute train wreck. It is true that kids don’t care to learn things correctly but it’s also true that sometimes the wrong people for the job are in place too
Actually, heard of, is wrong I knew them , both parents experts. Did fantastic job helping others with their children, but, a lousy job with their own.
My wife’s sister is a speech pathologist in a school. She says “look it” when she wants someone to look at something. After every word is uh. As in oh my godduh and that is annoyingguh. And this is someone who has a Masters in teaching our children how to speak correctly. She also is a so called expert in child behavior and her kid is an absolute train wreck. It is true that kids don’t care to learn things correctly but it’s also true that sometimes the wrong people for the job are in place too
Actually, heard of, is wrong I knew them , both parents experts. Did fantastic job helping others with their children, but, a lousy job with their own.
My wife’s sister is a speech pathologist in a school. She says “look it” when she wants someone to look at something. After every word is uh. As in oh my godduh and that is annoyingguh. And this is someone who has a Masters in teaching our children how to speak correctly. She also is a so called expert in child behavior and her kid is an absolute train wreck. It is true that kids don’t care to learn things correctly but it’s also true that sometimes the wrong people for the job are in place too
Actually, heard of, is wrong I knew them , both parents experts. Did fantastic job helping others with their children, but, a lousy job with their own.
My wife’s sister is a speech pathologist in a school. She says “look it” when she wants someone to look at something. After every word is uh. As in oh my godduh and that is annoyingguh. And this is someone who has a Masters in teaching our children how to speak correctly. She also is a so called expert in child behavior and her kid is an absolute train wreck. It is true that kids don’t care to learn things correctly but it’s also true that sometimes the wrong people for the job are in place too
This is not the first time that I have heard of experts in child care, basically, being rotten parents.
Actually, heard of, is wrong I knew them , both parents experts. Did fantastic job helping others with their children, but, a lousy job with their own.
I think a similar thing happens with a lot of teachers too. Being able to effectively communicate knowledge and skills to others doesn't always go hand in hand with being able to make a good use of them in one's own life.
Or the other way around. I've had to do with people who are really good at working in their field of expertise, but completely unable to communicate their skills to others, even if they've been teaching for years.
It's important not to generalise too much though. Some child experts being bad parents doesn't mean that all child experts are bad parents. Like everything, they sit somewhere on a spectrum of competence and indeed their expertise may be a total mismatch for their personality or their children's personality.
Every piece of information you get, and I mean every bit, only serves to move some needle on whether the probability that that person is the right match for a specific problem. Someone having a qualification or a job title should increase the probability that they can help, but its not a guarantee. So scepticism is healthy, but too much scepticism is totally destructive as you end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater so to speak.
Also remember that the main benefactors of a rejection of expertise are snake oil salesmen and people knowingly peddling falsehoods (they also exist on a spectrum of general competence which doesn't preclude them from being actually helpful occasionally but it makes the probability of it much lower).
I don't know, if I went to the home of a three star Michelin chef and they could not even make mashed potatoes, it would really cause me to question the competency of all chefs. Or if a mechanic could not change the oil in their own car. Or a plumber who could not fix their own sink. Or a gardener who could not figure out how to grow lettuce in their garden. Or history teacher who has never heard of Alexander the Great.
Assuming there was not limit on purchases, I could have bought 50 packs with it
Nothing really to add to the discussion here. Just wanted to say thank you for correctly using "could have" rather than the more popular (and incorrect) "could of". Carry on.
Assuming there was not limit on purchases, I could have bought 50 packs with it
Nothing really to add to the discussion here. Just wanted to say thank you for correctly using "could have" rather than the more popular (and incorrect) "could of". Carry on.
You could of let it go..........
I'm not a native speaker so I don't really know what this is about
The contraction for “could have” is could’ve. However, when spoken, could’ve sounds exactly like “could of”. As a result, people who aren’t well-versed in their grammar will often write “could of” when they really mean “could’ve” or “could have”.
Basically, the construction “could of” is (almost?) always wrong. I legitimately can’t think of any instance in which it would be correct. 99.99% of the time, people mean could’ve. The other .01% of the time, find a way to rephrase the sentence, because you’re probably wrong anyway. 😆
Hope that helps. It might be a bit obscure to foreign speakers because there’s sort of a feeling (at least in America) that anyone who corrects someone else’s grammar is an annoying pedant.
Thank you for explaining this! I had already seen "could of" here and there and it just looked weird to me. I didn't think of the pronunciation, but knowing it, it makes a lot more sense.
Personally, not caring about grammar/spelling in informal contexts doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me. I don't know if it's still that way (I mostly steer clear of social media now) but about 10 years ago there was this trend here, mostly among people of my generation targeting younger or older people, to bully others into oblivion over their spelling, grammar or perceived ignorance on the internet. I never really understood the point of it.
Bullying people over grammar is not right. And online we must remember that many people are typing out on small keyboards and many are not English natives. That said, pointing out minor issues is not necessarily a bad thing.
I agree on that and I never took part in it, but some of my friends did and I couldn't understand why. This was in Italy though, so those were usually native speakers targeting other native speakers. It went all the way from constant unsolicited remarks and corrections to hundreds of adults publicly shaming and insulting a 13 year old for her ignorance (which was an awful thing to do).
Apart from that, which uses of a language are or aren't acceptable doesn't only depend on the time (language evolves) but also on the context. It makes sense for people to have a high level of competence in their mother tongue, to be able to adapt to the register that different contexts require. This also means being able to use proper grammar in contexts that require it, not just because of other people's judgement, but because sometimes efficient communication depends on that too.
Ideally, a native speaker should be aware of the use they make of their language and of the requirements of a specific context. That's often impossible for me in English, because I don't know the nuances of the terms and expressions that I use and I have no idea how I sound or what kind of mistakes I make. But in Italian and German I know which register I'm using and whether or not I can tweak the rules in a given context.
I don't know, if I went to the home of a three star Michelin chef and they could not even make mashed potatoes, it would really cause me to question the competency of all chefs. Or if a mechanic could not change the oil in their own car. Or a plumber who could not fix their own sink. Or a gardener who could not figure out how to grow lettuce in their garden. Or history teacher who has never heard of Alexander the Great.
You get the idea.
But you're only talking about theoretical knowledge or practical skills here, not of the two things together. A mediocre chef could still teach you perfectly what you need to use and do to prepare a complex recipe (and maybe yours will taste better than his) whereas a Michelin chef could be a really bad teacher.
I'm not saying that that's always the case, but it happens.
All this talk about "words and language change" but I haven't seen an example of grammar or sentence structure changing. I'm all for new words and phrases. I don't like when definitions change, but I understand that it happens. Typos are a mild annoyance, but very understandable. I don't type perfectly and I understand that correcting small errors isn't always worth the time. But typing a preposition where a verb is needed due to ignorance of the language... there's a problem. It could be laziness. It could be a poor educational system. Either way, it's annoying.
Comments
To be honest, I didn't read any such undertone in RaraRacing's post. This game can be frustrating to low spenders (and they do also contribute to its existence with their purchases, so it probably shouldn't be too frustrating) but that's not his main argument. He just pointed out that low spenders have different strategies and that a honor sale does make sense for some of them. There are lots of players who were hoping for this kind of sale, because for one reason or another it fits into their game play.
Assuming there was no limit on purchases, I could have bought 50 packs with it and with the honor from those packs I could have bought an average of 9 more. That means I would probably have gotten about 6 begolds (maybe 4, maybe 8) and a bunch of useful ship schematics. Possibly a 5* that I want, some additional stars for those that I have and maybe a copy of one the very few 4* that I still want or need.
I'm not sure if I would have actually bought 50 packs with my honor instead of immortalizing Cheesecake Seven, but I can see why it could make sense to do that.
In the last month or so I've gone on two big runs of pack-opening. In early November I opened 80 that I'd saved up, and a few days ago I opened 40 from two of the first 12-day packs. In 120 packs, I got 6 begolds. In fact, at one point I went on a run of 30 without one. The second of those two aforementioned 12-day packs had zero.
I'm not kvetching - RNG is RNG! Just pointing out how much of a gamble it really is, and why spending honor on packs doesn't make much sense at that price. At least for me!
I still think we may get terrific honorifics this year. Last week we had the 490 packs in the store, next week we have the 390 packs in the store, but this week we have neither. And this week is "Christmas week" (I guess). I wouldn't be at all surprised to see similar honor discounts to last year for Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday this week. Hey! That's Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and Boxing Day! What a coeekypeek!
I'd also like to see a 5% discount on citations this year. Not enough for anybody to be mad at missing out, but enough to make people happy from their little saving. (And while we're wishlisting, let's drop the begolds a bit further! 24K, DB? Ah go on!)
I didn’t read any envy from his tone. Just Rara explaining the strategy that works for people that don’t spend a lot and why a legendary begold sale would be good for low lvl spenders. It wasn’t envy that others had crew Rara didn’t but goals to get those crew and a path to succeed.
I was agreeing with them... Sorry if that was ambiguous!
Nothing really to add to the discussion here. Just wanted to say thank you for correctly using "could have" rather than the more popular (and incorrect) "could of". Carry on.
You could of let it go..........
I'm not a native speaker so I don't really know what this is about
As an aside, I could not get into The Great Gatsby. You'd think that was because the characters are universally loathsome, but nope. It's because Fitzgerald used "of" instead of "have" throughout the entire novel.
The contraction for “could have” is could’ve. However, when spoken, could’ve sounds exactly like “could of”. As a result, people who aren’t well-versed in their grammar will often write “could of” when they really mean “could’ve” or “could have”.
Basically, the construction “could of” is (almost?) always wrong. I legitimately can’t think of any instance in which it would be correct. 99.99% of the time, people mean could’ve. The other .01% of the time, find a way to rephrase the sentence, because you’re probably wrong anyway. 😆
Hope that helps. It might be a bit obscure to foreign speakers because there’s sort of a feeling (at least in America) that anyone who corrects someone else’s grammar is an annoying pedant.
That’s funny because I was just thinking about my kid’s English/grammar teacher this week. They were having a test on prepositional phrases (among other things). The kid brings home a study guide and it’s very...conceptual. I say, “Didn’t you have to memorize your list of prepositions?” (I did, and I can still remember them XX years later.)
He tells me, “Nope,” and while I wonder how he’s going to identify a prepositional phrase without having memorized the list, I go by the study guide and shrug my shoulders. Kid bring home his test, and every question he got wrong was because he didn’t pick the correct preposition out of the sentence. (!!!)
I know rote memorization isn’t “the fad” in education these days, but some things just need to be memorized. And if you’re giving a test in such a way that a good grade is only achievable through rote memorization, but refuse to tell the kids to memorize, you’re kind of setting kids up for failure.
Now sure, you could say that the kid should know independently to memorize them without it being told to them, but that’s not really an expectation in U.S. elementary schools.
Learning grammar stinks, and it’s as boring as watching paint dry. But instead of accepting that, schools seem to want to make it less rote, but still expect the kids to know the same things. If I learned grammar the same way my kid was “learning” it, I’d be pretty checked out and uncaring as well, because it would make absolutely no sense.
(This isn’t personal. I’m sure many teachers are frustrated as well, and hamstrung by how they have to teach according to the curriculum.)
(And...I’m probably getting busted because this is off topic.)
Thank you for explaining this! I had already seen "could of" here and there and it just looked weird to me. I didn't think of the pronunciation, but knowing it, it makes a lot more sense.
Personally, not caring about grammar/spelling in informal contexts doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me. I don't know if it's still that way (I mostly steer clear of social media now) but about 10 years ago there was this trend here, mostly among people of my generation targeting younger or older people, to bully others into oblivion over their spelling, grammar or perceived ignorance on the internet. I never really understood the point of it.
People used to say "dove" instead of the (then) proper "dived". Now, "dove" is the accepted "standard" for having dived into something at a previous time............
Bullying people over grammar is not right. And online we must remember that many people are typing out on small keyboards and many are not English natives. That said, pointing out minor issues is not necessarily a bad thing.
I also emphasize that while a few minor changes take place naturally, most bad grammar just makes a person look ignorant. Whenever I hear someone say "good" when "well" is required, I think less of the person's education. It doesn't matter if 90% of Americans can't use adverbs correctly, it is still wrong. That doesn't mean they are not really skilled in other areas, it simply means that I wouldn't hire them for proofreading or educating my children.
So while acknowledging that some grammar changes will happen, let us not use that as an excuse for intellectual laziness.
This is not the first time that I have heard of experts in child care, basically, being rotten parents.
Actually, heard of, is wrong I knew them , both parents experts. Did fantastic job helping others with their children, but, a lousy job with their own.
I think you meant to say 'heard have'.
Actually it was have heard
Or "of whom I have heard"?
Captain Level: 95
VIP Level: 12
Unique Crew Immortalized: 525
Collections Completed: Vulcan, Ferengi, Borg, Romulan, Cardassian, Uncommon, Rare, Veteran, Common, Engineered, Physician, Innovator, Inspiring, Diplomat, Jury Rigger, Gauntlet Legends
I think a similar thing happens with a lot of teachers too. Being able to effectively communicate knowledge and skills to others doesn't always go hand in hand with being able to make a good use of them in one's own life.
Or the other way around. I've had to do with people who are really good at working in their field of expertise, but completely unable to communicate their skills to others, even if they've been teaching for years.
Every piece of information you get, and I mean every bit, only serves to move some needle on whether the probability that that person is the right match for a specific problem. Someone having a qualification or a job title should increase the probability that they can help, but its not a guarantee. So scepticism is healthy, but too much scepticism is totally destructive as you end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater so to speak.
Also remember that the main benefactors of a rejection of expertise are snake oil salesmen and people knowingly peddling falsehoods (they also exist on a spectrum of general competence which doesn't preclude them from being actually helpful occasionally but it makes the probability of it much lower).
You get the idea.
I agree on that and I never took part in it, but some of my friends did and I couldn't understand why. This was in Italy though, so those were usually native speakers targeting other native speakers. It went all the way from constant unsolicited remarks and corrections to hundreds of adults publicly shaming and insulting a 13 year old for her ignorance (which was an awful thing to do).
Apart from that, which uses of a language are or aren't acceptable doesn't only depend on the time (language evolves) but also on the context. It makes sense for people to have a high level of competence in their mother tongue, to be able to adapt to the register that different contexts require. This also means being able to use proper grammar in contexts that require it, not just because of other people's judgement, but because sometimes efficient communication depends on that too.
Ideally, a native speaker should be aware of the use they make of their language and of the requirements of a specific context. That's often impossible for me in English, because I don't know the nuances of the terms and expressions that I use and I have no idea how I sound or what kind of mistakes I make. But in Italian and German I know which register I'm using and whether or not I can tweak the rules in a given context.
But you're only talking about theoretical knowledge or practical skills here, not of the two things together. A mediocre chef could still teach you perfectly what you need to use and do to prepare a complex recipe (and maybe yours will taste better than his) whereas a Michelin chef could be a really bad teacher.
I'm not saying that that's always the case, but it happens.