are incorrect English, they should all read have instead of of.

ok for example sycamorex post :
so If I would have retired at the age 0f 90 {..}is incorrect?

thanks all . yes, actually , i knew the part that people sometimes write should if instead of should have..

I think he's aware of this, and he's just pointing out the flaw by correcting with contractions (i.e. "could've", "should've", "would've").

C'est possible. But that is one of my bugbears, along with "for all intensive purposes" when it should be "for all intents and purposes". Oh, and using "tenants" when it should be "tenets". Not earth shattering, but I notice these things

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Obviously, phrases like "could of" are incorrect.

Yes, it's incorrect.

If I had known that, I would have written it in a more detailed way.

An auxiliary verb (ie. would, should, could, might, etc) + have + past participle (gone, done, seen, etc.) usually refers to the past.

My personal pet peeves are:
"your" instead of "you're"
"its" instead of "it's" (or the other way round)
"there" instead of "they're"

The sad thing is, you see this all the time, e.g. "your dumb" or "its time to go"...

In fact, it seems to have become so prevalent that I'm afraid I might succumb to it myself, just because everyone else does, even if I'm not aware of it consciously.

The way I remember them, though, is to pronounce them each a little differently. "There" and "their" are pronounced as written, whereas "they're" is a little more accentuated: "they-urr". Of course it's not quite that exaggerated (I don't have a southern accent ), but you get the idea.

Another one is the "i.e."/"e.g." mix-up: I've always understood "i.e." to be short for "in other words", while "e.g." is "for example". People tend to like to use "i.e." when giving a list of examples, though.

and i thought i.e stood for InternetExplorer .. i keed

i thought it was indicative example

"i.e." is short for the Latin "id est", or "that is" in English. "e.g." means "exempli gratia", or "for example".

In Oldham, they are all pronounced "thur".

Shouldn't that thur be "In Oldham, thur all pronounced "thur""

Aye, yur reet thur.

Yeah...please don't think I'm weird for this, but I have a tendency to internally read posts by people not from the US with the accent of the country/region they're from, and I could never figure out what an Oldham accent is supposed to sound like.

I mean, I've tried espeak -a 10 -v lancashire "<whatever>", but I take espeak's rendition with a grain of salt.

LOL?

Sorry if this was OT...

When I first read that, I thought you meant "Ureter"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ureter