Should have, not should of

1:17

have been

1:17

there read out loud

1:27

you should have been there okay can you

1:35

go ahead and correct it if it needs

1:37

correcting all right thank you very much

1:43

so they all got this right but this is

1:45

actually a really really common

1:46

orthographical error amongst native

1:49

speakers in english but why do native

1:51

speakers commit this error the reason is

1:53

because the pronunciation of the

1:55

contracted form of the auxiliary verb

1:57

have is pronounced exactly the same as

2:00

the word of in connected speech for

2:04

example instead of going out last night

2:06

you should have stayed in instead of

2:09

going out last night you should have

2:11

stayed in so in connected speech that of

2:16

changes to and likewise we'd be

2:20

contracted version of the obvious but

2:22

have that changes from using the schwa

2:27

again so then when we go to write words

2:30

like should have would have and cut off

2:32

sometimes