>>>>>>I think his point was that we pronounce the "f" in "of" as a "v" and he wanted an "f."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Tamar
>>>>>
>>>>>But have you ever heard anyone use 'should of' pronounced as an 'f'? It's always sounded to me like 'should uv'. If Dragan is getting it with an 'f' sound, then that'd be why I didn't understand. I've never heard it said like that.
>>>>
>>>>That's because you're hearing someone slurring the 'have' part of the phrase, making it into 'shoulduv' - which then gets parsed into 'should of' by some segments of the population.
>>>
>>>Yes, That was my point. But from Dragan's post, it seems he's hearing 'shoulduff', and I've never heard it like that. That's why I was questioning his tongue-in-cheek 'should off' instead of a tongue-in-cheek 'should of'.
>>
>>Quite possibly because in many languages a 'v' is pronounced like an 'f'? I work for a couple of Germans and they pronounce 'shoulduv' as 'shoulduf'
>>
>>I've always wonder why the HECK there's an 'L' in 'should', 'would', and 'could'.
>>
>>Any why isn't there an 'H' in 'sure' and 'sugar'?
>>
>>And it's not a 'mute' point (unless the point can talk), it's a freakin' moot point!
>
>How about the use of the prefix "in". Why is "invisible" the opposite of "visible" but "inflammable" is not the opposite of "flammable".

For the same reason that mallard doesn't mean bad lard? ;)