• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      151 year ago

      Correcting the reviewer.
      Notes: “should of” isn’t valid, should implies a verb, of isn’t a verb. I expect you meant “should have”. Please recall this in future submissions.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        They should of course keep that in mind, but it’s not that “should” should always be followed by a verb directly. The problem is that “of” in this context is a mishearing/spelling of “have”, so they should in this case have written it like that instead.

        • jadero
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          I would argue that “should of” is just a naive written rendition of the spoken contraction “should’ve”. They are homophones, so it’s a completely understandable error among those without the relevant education or background. I know only English and was in Grade 9 at a different school before someone corrected me.