Yeah I was and thank you.

Honestly not sure here, but my guess is that it follows all other title rules.

If you could replace the phrase with their name, then capitalize. If not, don't.

Thought I'm having trouble using that "title" in a lowercase fashion, so maybe I'm off here.

well, she didn't actually mean "could have." you should of texted back: "could've."

My head just literally exploded

Care to explain?

wanna is an elision of two words - this is acceptable in colloquial speech and there are many other examples (gonna, etc.). when we write something like this, we're aping the way we actually talk, and it should be clear what we mean.

'could of' is not because the correct elision is already provided for us - could've. it's one word, not two, plus 'of' makes the writing more confusing in the context of a sentence.

anyway i'm not totally up on my proper usage, so this might all be [censored], but most grammar rules at bottom are [censored] - most of them, besides the nittiest ones, are there to ensure the greatest clarity in the written word.

"Wanna" is an obvious shortcut, and the user knows it isn't a word. When you see "could of," the user likely doesn't realize they're being incorrect. They actually think the correct phrase is "could of." It's unintentional misuse, which is worse than intentional shortening.

From the WSU book of errors:

want to = wanna
could've = coulda
could've =/= could of

?':Sup£"

How? By magic?

"wanna" and "could of" are both forms where the correct spelling is preplaced by a spelling that mimics the pronunciation.
"could've" has nothing to do with this since it is a short form that cannot be pronounced.
The only difference between "wanna" and "could of" is the spacing.
(Also, but this is just a guess - has "wanna" been around longer?)
If you hate "could of", you hate "wanna". Accepting one and hating the other is completely arbitrary.

Wow. Two people already posted that "wanna" is way more acceptable than "could of." Both posts explained it very well and any sane human should be able to see the difference.

Are you trolling? This is so aggravating!

No, it is anything but arbitrary. Writing "wanna" doesn't make it clear, whether the writer is aware of the fast that it actually represents two words and thinks this is actually a new word (although it is highly likely he does, due to the high frequency of use of said phrase).

"Could of" makes it clear that the writer is aware of the fact that this actually consists of two words, although it is not transparent, whether the writer knows which words that is. I think both options are equally likely, or at least closer in probability of being true that in the other example.

cliffs: "Could of" people are more likely to be morans.

You are not helping.

First of, you cannot pronounce could've since in contrast to <I'll>, <you're>, there is no vowel in <could've> which is so obvious that I think you are trolling.

Second, I explained why the above explanations don't cut it. You explained nothing. Stop trolling.

I assume this is a joke — anyone who doesn't get that that the spelling of could've implies a schwa after the d, thus making the word easy to pronounce, really shouldn't be participating in this discussion.

I was going to answer the original question, but that's been done well and in detail. But I'll add: this is not something one proves logically, because various explanations for the different constructions are theoretically possible, but seriously, come on: we all know that wanna is usually intentional, while could of is usually written out of ignorance. The difference may appear arbitrary, but even a modicum of experience with those who write and speak English will show that there is a significant practical difference. You can pretend you don't see it, but either you do, or your failure to grasp the obvious is truly impressive.

i COULD care less about what this guy has to say.

I would bet you that the word "versing" is in the current dictionaries.

It's Bart. Of course he's trolling.

I didnt do nothing.

Sometimes I try to correct people who say this, but most are too dumb to understand.

I apologize if this has already been posted but this is a must.

David Cross on "literally"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ly1UTgiBXM

This:
wanna and could of do not imply anything. Thank you for making my point.


... and this:
If your proof is "everyone says so", then this discussion is over.

Everyone in this thread - except me - agrees that wanna is not the same phenomenon as could of. But no one can give a correct reason.
That is the definition of arbitrary.

People gave you the correct reason, one of them was even nice enough to provide the actual counterpart to wanna(coulda).

Aren't you German and thus not a native English speaker? Perhaps the native English speakers telling you things about English punctuation are right and you are mistaken.

I went to a new teacher orientation yesterday for high school teachers in my region. Another English teacher was writing on a giant piece of paper and wrote "in-put." I was confused.

Age of offender?

Why, was this proper usage a really long time ago (like "to-day" was)?

I defenately approve.