PSA for all them Devs and/or Translators

[NoobNoob-]

Hello there fellow pervs!

I'm just your usual enjoyer of erotic games.
One thing though, and maybe you share my problem, is bugging me.
it doesn't happen always but when I notice it, oh boy do I notice it.
Now, I'm not a native English speaker myself, so it might be a bit hypocritical, but I am a sucker for choice of words.

There is nothing like could of, should of or similar!
It might sound like it, but it is supposed to be should have or should've or other variations with could, would, etc.

Please consider this, when writing your dialogue and scripts.

Sincerely
A fellow perv

PS: If you're looking for a translator English to German or proofreader, hit me up!

 

[peterppp]

since some native english speakers say (and write) it "could of/should of", it could be a style choice of the dev to include such slang in dialogue as well (like having characters say "gonna" instead of "going to"), especially if you want the character to appear uneducated and of less intellect. the devs should avoid making it look like they are the uneducated ones though. the writing should be formal outside of dialogue

 

[NoobNoob-]

In my opinion abbreviations like "gonna" are totally fine.
It shortens the spoken version by one syllable and the written version by 3 characters. It serves a purpose.
But "could of" and the likes don't serve any purpose, which is my problem with it.

 

[Deleted member 484479]

This is one of those mistakes that just keeps getting slipped past me no matter how many times I remind myself. I've seen hella smart people make it too. From what I've seen this tends to irk bilinguals more than anyone because they are more meticulous with the meaning of each individual word.

But yeah you're right, it really shows a lack of polish. In my opinion, there isn't any reason for it it doesn't communicate dialect or any characterization in dialogue, its just wrong.

 

[Insomnimaniac Games]

But "could of" and the likes don't serve any purpose, which is my problem with it.

But yeah you're right, it really shows a lack of polish. In my opinion, there isn't any reason for it it doesn't communicate dialect or any characterization in dialogue, its just wrong.

It can very much serve a purpose, in dialogue. Some characters wouldn't speak perfectly, as most people don't. "Could have" is grammatically correct but if, for example, you want a character who uses informal language "could of" would help convey that. Dialogue is written how people speak, and as such doesn't need to follow any grammatical rules.

 

[Deleted member 484479]

It can very much serve a purpose, in dialogue. Some characters wouldn't speak perfectly, as most people don't. "Could have" is grammatically correct but if, for example, you want a character who uses informal language "could of" would help convey that. Dialogue is written how people speak, and as such doesn't need to follow any grammatical rules.

I get what you mean but since this mistake is already associated with poor grammar its gonna fall flat on its own or when applied in a subtle way. Maybe it can work in combination with other informal words or by using an apostrophe like "could 'of". I'd recommend forgoing it by using a clearer way of conveying dialect. It doesn't contain the intended effect.

If I encountered something like this in a story it would go over my head. Or maybe I wouldn't notice it cause its already speaking my dumbass way of writing.

 

[morphnet]

It could also be a local slang carry over or something picked up from tv / movies / music i.e. could-da, should-da, would-da, could-av, should-av, would-av. It might also be used to imitate an accent or it could be that it is being written phonetically.

 

[Insomnimaniac Games]

I get what you mean but since this mistake is already associated with poor grammar its gonna fall flat on its own or when applied in a subtle way. Maybe it can work in combination with other informal words or by using an apostrophe like "could 'of". I'd recommend forgoing it by using a clearer way of conveying dialect. It doesn't contain the intended effect.

I completely disagree. If you want a character to have informal grammar, usage of could of, or could've helps convey that very well. In addition to words like "gonna" it helps give character. Great authors like Mark Twain made phenomenal usage of "bad" grammar for characterization. Again, people DO NOT speak with perfect grammar. There is no need to place limitations on your writing like that.

 

[Deleted member 484479]

Again, people DO NOT speak with perfect grammar. There is no need to place limitations on your writing like that.

Of course, I'm not arguing that dialogue or story requires perfect grammar. I'm only referring to the particular instance of "could of." People aren't going to see it as character-defining dialogue, they will see it as a mistake. In this particular instance it requires more clarity.

 

[NoobNoob-]

I completely disagree. If you want a character to have informal grammar, usage of could of, or could've helps convey that very well. In addition to words like "gonna" it helps give character. Great authors like Mark Twain made phenomenal usage of "bad" grammar for characterization. Again, people DO NOT speak with perfect grammar. There is no need to place limitations on your writing like that.

As said in my initial post. Could've is totally fine. The reason this mistake exists is because could've and could of sound similar. And with could've as a correct informal way for this expression, could of loses all purpose and is just wrong.
Could've and could of have the same number of characters, are both informal, are not comparable to something like going to and gonna because that actually abbreviates what it replaces, and finally don't mean the same thing, because you just replace the word "have or the shortened 've" with the word "of". I don't have a problem with informal language. I have a problem with this specific mistake.

 

[Insomnimaniac Games]

As said in my initial post. Could've is totally fine. The reason this mistake exists is because could've and could of sound similar. And with could've as a correct informal way for this expression, could of loses all purpose and is just wrong.
Could've and could of have the same number of characters, are both informal, are not comparable to something like going to and gonna because that actually abbreviates what it replaces, and finally don't mean the same thing, because you just replace the word "have or the shortened 've" with the word "of". I don't have a problem with informal language. I have a problem with this specific mistake.

And what I'm saying is, if the writer thinks a character is dumb enough to actually say "could of" then they should go for it. Dialogue is not, and shouldn't be, beholden to grammar rules.

 

[Count Morado]

And what I'm saying is, if the writer thinks a character is dumb enough to actually say "could of" then they should go for it. Dialogue is not, and shouldn't be, beholden to grammar rules.

True about dialogue rules. However, if it is intended to use an inappropriate combination of words to denote lack of knowledge or refinement, then it would benefit the author to bracket the word(s) within apostrophes (quotation marks would be more confusing).

Mary: Yo dude, you 'could of' done this bettuh.​

​

John: You're right, I should've paid attention. I would have hired a proofreader if I could've afforded one.​

Without denoting the intention, it does appear that the writer isn't skilled in the language.

This all being said using 'could of' instead of 'could've' doesn't really give off a greater impression that the character isn't intelligent. Also, readers who have difficulty in knowing the difference aren't going to get the implication, and readers who know the difference will more likely think the author is deficient in either grammar rules or proofreading.

In fact, proper dialogue uses "would have," "should have," and "could have" for a character that is expected to hold at least the average knowledge of the language. Using the contractions "would've," "should've," and "could've" already denotes less formality and leans toward slang or lack of knowledge. EDIT: another acceptable alternative to 'could of' and it's gang would be to use coulda, woulda, shoulda because the intent is clear without misleading the reader about the writer's ability (unless all characters are using it, as well as the narrative and not just the dialogue - then the writer's lack of ability is apparent).

The true rule in writing dialogue is for the character to share information or progress the story while building the character profile without confusing the audience or pulling themselves out of the story because they are wondering about the writer's capabilities.

 

[Losersriot]

I use MTool and play ANY game in ANY language in the globe.

 

[Insomnimaniac Games]

True about dialogue rules. However, if it is intended to use an inappropriate combination of words to denote lack of knowledge or refinement, then it would benefit the author to bracket the word(s) within apostrophes (quotation marks would be more confusing).

Mary: Yo dude, you 'could of' done this bettuh.​

​

John: You're right, I should've paid attention. I would have hired a proofreader if I could've afforded one.​

Without denoting the intention, it does appear that the writer isn't skilled in the language.

This is absolutely true. Also useful for many abbreviated words that don't necessarily have abbreviations ya' know?

This all being said using 'could of' instead of 'could've' doesn't really give off a greater impression that the character isn't intelligent. Also, readers who have difficulty in knowing the difference aren't going to get the implication, and readers who know the difference will more likely think the author is deficient in either grammar rules or proofreading.

In fact, proper dialogue uses "would have," "should have," and "could have" for a character that is expected to hold at least the average knowledge of the language. Using the contractions "would've," "should've," and "could've" already denotes less formality and leans toward slang or lack of knowledge. EDIT: another acceptable alternative to 'could of' and it's gang would be to use coulda, woulda, shoulda because the intent is clear without misleading the reader about the writer's ability (unless all characters are using it, as well as the narrative and not just the dialogue - then the writer's lack of ability is apparent).

The true rule in writing dialogue is for the character to share information or progress the story while building the character profile without confusing the audience or pulling themselves out of the story because they are wondering about the writer's capabilities.

I'm just going to give an example on how you would use something like could of very easily, and still convey what you want to convey.

Mary: Well, I could-of done that!

John: Did you just say could of? C'mon Mary, ya' gotta talk gooder than that!

Mary: Who're you? Tellin' me how ta' talk. That's why Maurine left ya'! Always criticizing folk. She never got a word in, edgewise.

John: You best be leavin' Maurine outta this, Mary! You know she left me cause o' my squid hands!

See, easy usage of could of that fits perfectly, and wouldn't confuse the reader at all. Using incorrect grammar and/or spelling on purpose can be a good and fun way to convey things.

 

[MarshmallowCasserole]

See, easy usage of could of that fits perfectly, and wouldn't confuse the reader at all. Using incorrect grammar and/or spelling on purpose can be a good and fun way to convey things.

Spelling errors, by definition, work only for diegetic writing, which dialogue is not. Grammar, yes. Spelling? Only if it informs the distinct pronunciation, which 'could of' does not (which is why this error exists in the first place).

 

[NoobNoob-]

This is absolutely true. Also useful for many abbreviated words that don't necessarily have abbreviations ya' know?

I'm just going to give an example on how you would use something like could of very easily, and still convey what you want to convey.

Mary: Well, I could-of done that!

John: Did you just say could of? C'mon Mary, ya' gotta talk gooder than that!

Mary: Who're you? Tellin' me how ta' talk. That's why Maurine left ya'! Always criticizing folk. She never got a word in, edgewise.

John: You best be leavin' Maurine outta this, Mary! You know she left me cause o' my squid hands!

See, easy usage of could of that fits perfectly, and wouldn't confuse the reader at all. Using incorrect grammar and/or spelling on purpose can be a good and fun way to convey things.

Dude you just undermined your whole point, by giving the only example in wich it would be ok.
That's because the whole point of this dialogue is, that it's wrong.
Of course you've got to spell out an error, if the argument is about correcting said error.

Using expressions like "could of" in normal, everyday dialogue just spreads the mistake.
It doesn't make the character look uneducated, but the author instead, as said before.

This all being said using 'could of' instead of 'could've' doesn't really give off a greater impression that the character isn't intelligent. Also, readers who have difficulty in knowing the difference aren't going to get the implication, and readers who know the difference will more likely think the author is deficient in either grammar rules or proofreading.

 

[Insomnimaniac Games]

Dude you just undermined your whole point, by giving the only example in wich it would be ok.
That's because the whole point of this dialogue is, that it's wrong.

That IS my whole point. Purposely using incorrect grammar to make a character look stupid. I'm just using could of as an example. It could be anything. You can even have fun with it. Say, for example, you're writing for a game that's more comedic than immersive. You could have a character that's SO stupid that their dialogue has intentional typos. Would it work in a published novel? No. Would that work in something like a game? Absolutely.

Using expressions like "could of" in normal, everyday dialogue just spreads the mistake.
It doesn't make the character look uneducated, but the author instead, as said before.

I never once said that this should be done. Hell, I don't think I ever typed out the phrase could of until this thread.

 

[NoobNoob-]

That IS my whole point. Purposely using incorrect grammar to make a character look stupid. I'm just using could of as an example. It could be anything. You can even have fun with it. Say, for example, you're writing for a game that's more comedic than immersive. You could have a character that's SO stupid that their dialogue has intentional typos. Would it work in a published novel? No. Would that work in something like a game? Absolutely.

I never once said that this should be done. Hell, I don't think I ever typed out the phrase could of until this thread.

I don't think you can generalize what is an isolated issue. Context makes and breaks everything.
What I'm talking about is a clear mistake by the author.
What you describe seems to be stylized writing, wich is not the point of this thread.
In the majority of these games you are usually playing someone educated beyond a degree that could justify stupidness of this level, last but not least because it isn't reflected in the rest of the writing.

 

[Insomnimaniac Games]

I don't think you can generalize what is an isolated issue. Context makes and breaks everything.
What I'm talking about is a clear mistake by the author.
What you describe seems to be stylized writing, wich is not the point of this thread.
In the majority of these games you are usually playing someone educated beyond a degree that could justify stupidness of this level, last but not least because it isn't reflected in the rest of the writing.

My apologies, I thought we were speaking in more general terms. I was mistaken. I admit, my examples only work in very specific circumstances.

 

[NoobNoob-]

My apologies, I thought we were speaking in more general terms. I was mistaken. I admit, my examples only work in very specific circumstances.

No problem dude, nothing to apologize for.