In the next 20 years

What about camp shouldawouldacoulda?

Difference is that people recognize that spelling as vernacular whereas they think "should of" is the correct spelling, even though it makes no sense.

That's not how it works, kid. Okay, maybe the mongrel retard that is the English tongue would allow it but even then, a language doesn't drastically change because of facebook.

1. It's not a drastic change
2. That's exactly how language changes though, take a linguistics course

>1. It's not a drastic change
It is. You're changing an auxiliary verb for a word that "kinda" sounds like it.
>2. That's exactly how language changes though, take a linguistics course
The fact that your retarded redneck friends from facepoor use an imbecilic spelling doesn't mean it will change for the entirety of the language. And yes, I'm aware English accepts whatever nigger tier spelling its "speakers" use but not every language is like this.

Jesus christ you are clueless to the point of absurdity

I'm not. If the spelling of a basic verb conjugation changed for an entire language everytime some nigger on facebook uses it improperly, then English would be pretty shit at this point. Everytime "would of" is used in fiction is meant to represent uneducated hicks from America, instead of a legitimate spelling.

try and

>What else will change?
"needs done" will replace "needs doing"
I'm OK with this

Attached: Apostrophe guide.gif (790x431, 39K)

>shan't
i like that

>not every language is like this
OP isn't speaking about other languages. -You’re just being a pedantic fuck, not to admit that the regular use of new terms as well as the misuse of existing terms is how a language develops -even if that use originates from “retarded rednecks” on “facepoor”(?) English is a language particularly susceptible to change, as can be clearly observed by looking at even just the last few hundred years, so it’s really no particular stretch of the imagination to guess that perhaps the illogical and lazy “should of” may one day come into popular use.

usage defines a language
if usage changes, then the language does
>muh prescriptivism
fuck off, retard

"gone be" will replace "gonna be"

I’m guessing many auxiliary verbs will start disappearing where “superfluous”- e.g. “I done that” actually carries as much meaning as “I have/I’ve done that”. This omission is already fairly common in many parts of England, though more particularly in the “inferior” accents (northern,Essex etc) and this change would still seem strange spoken by the more posh/refined accents- (London, South England, even the American.)
Of course it would take quite something to extend this development to written language, as spoken language develops independently from written. Which part of language is OP addressing in particular? -because no matter how popular “would of” becomes, it will never make any sense to adjust that as the grammatically correct version. It’s like the misuse of you’re/your, to/too, or the correct placement of commas - the context almost always makes it clear regardless of correct spelling or punctuation, but it’s still grammatically important to be able to differentiate when it’s not merely a hastily typed out message or status update.

>English would be pretty shit at this point.
it literally is. It has lost a shitload of its old systematic grammatical constructions and replaced them with weird verbal phrases and rules about word order.

It will be shidded

My prediction is that English will become something like Norwegian. I think our written form won't change much at all, but our speaking will differ so much that our writing no longer represents how we really speak.

Everyone ITT is a retard. Language used to change like this back when people weren't educated and grammar wasn't really set in stone. Nowadays everything that is written (excluding random fucktard hood messages) has to follow specific rules otherwise everyone's gonna shit on it. Just think about it, have you ever read a book where "should of" was used unironically? No.

Attached: 220.jpg (400x506, 36K)

Presumably accepted grammatical developments of language will not be so subtle as what is ultimately just lazy pronunciation and misspelling of “have”. There are already well established rules for the words “of” and “have” and therefore, a simple substitution will remain incorrect indefinitely/forever. The change would be much less hard to enact if “of” was not already a preposition, bound by the rules of prepositions, and was instead a made up sound. Therefore “coulda” or “woulda” seem more probable acceptable modification, as the change does not misuse any existing grammatical conventions- the a at the end is added on as if it was just another verb conjugation.
Language developments and severe changes to grammar usually come with entirely new concepts, for example, developing of new verb cases to more efficiently express a tense, and are therefore quite difficult to predict. There are many tenses in other languages which have no direct equivalent to English, and perhaps this is a gap waiting to be filled.

>>shan't
this has been in common use for centuries

Ain't will finally be accepted as a real legitimate word.

You saying it ain't already?

>books are still the most popular form of writing, not all of the illiterate retards online trying to write shitty fan fictions for their shitty fandoms to wet their pants over
Wat

Attached: 3B5BB22B-00A8-4DB5-9883-636CEB5481DD.jpg (2003x3000, 3.91M)

nice feets

The prepositional because. "I need to work, because money."

lmao, everyone in this board responds with contempt and disgust, as the authoritarians they are :p

it's and its will switch

Would be going back to the roots.
>Pecuniae causa laborare debeo

might could...

"I might could do that."

Fills a need, as "to be able to" doesn't have a proper subjunctive mood that doesn't imply "desire to" on its own.

>should of will officially have replaced should have
Maybe in Ebonics because blacks are stupid. Should of is just plain bad English. There's a proper spelling of it, which is "should've."

>Muh prescriptivism
Yeah, let's throw all our standards out the window. Dumb nigger.

No, "ain't" is not a word.

>Fills a need
I'm sure you have many special needs

Anons. Is this what you’d call fat?

>should of will officially have replaced should have
>won't happen. makes no sense
What happened to the word "literally"?

Post yourself in a micro bikini and we can judge if you’re fat or thicc

Not your sex life

Doll/robot will replace woman

>shad'nt
I'm gone boys

Attached: 1557795153120.jpg (545x380, 20K)

So it’s subjective then.
Now why would I ever comply with such a demand.

This is already the case, user.
Cheap dolls with built in flesh-lights.