It used to be 'bored with' or 'bored by.' Bored 'of' sounds wrong to our older ears, even though, it, too, is a preposition. But you wouldn't substitute any old preposition with another, would you? You wouldn't say I'm bored upon this computer game. Or I'm bored above the dull book. Here's the current online definition of 'of' from the Webster's dictionary. "Of" is one of those words that is very difficult to define, and is used in so many ways. I suppose, technically, there isn't any reason why you couldn't be bored 'of' something, but it just seems off, for some reason. It's certainly passed into regular usage, so I'm fighting a losing battle. Ach well.... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/of The same dictionary defines 'with' (another preposition) in many ways as well, but this is the definition I would choose to use in conjunction with 'bored.' 6 a —used as a function word to indicate the means, cause, agent, or instrumentality hit him with a rock pale with anger threatened with tuberculosis he amused the crowd with his antics It also defines 'by' in many ways as well. This is the usage I would pick to choose 'by' in conjunction with 'bored.' 4 a : through the agency (see agency 3) or instrumentality of a poem written by Keats death by firing squad taken by force happened by luck ....... Prepositions are a horrible quagmire to define, individually, but we native speakers instinctively recognise their function. Don't we? Maybe we don't.
Just goes to show why foreigners will always struggle with phrasal verbs - there's basically no rhyme or reason why certain prepositions are used to create the meaning that it does Not that "bored of/by" is a phrasal verb but it sorta falls under the same principle of "verb + preposition" unit. "Bored by" does seem to make a lot more sense than "bored of"... But then we have "I'm tired of this!" While "tired by" would probably make sense, no one says that. Or did they, once upon a time!?
"Should of" is a straight-up misspelling, so I can't imagine it becoming standardized anytime soon. There's just something different about spoken language change vs. written language change. If a whole generation starts saying "bored of," it becomes standard form, but if 90% of people can't spell perspicacious right the spelling of perspicacious doesn't change. I'm not sure why this is. Spoken and written language are different animals as far as the brain is concerned, but I can only speculate as to what exactly is going on there. I'll grant you that these aren't interchangeable in English, but one thing I've been struck by when I study other languages is that the difference in meaning among various prepositions is really pretty loose. A lot of English learners struggle with the difference between in, on, and over, for instance, or to and at. So looking up dictionary definitions to find the nuances of meaning between prepositions... eh, they're just not carved in stone. Seems like humans are pretty loosey-goosey when it comes to that part of speech. So-called "native speaker intuition" is king here, and if mine tells me that "bored of" is okay but "bored under" is not, then so it must be. (Also worth noting that no dictionary entries are carved in stone. Dictionaries are continuously updated according to current usage.)
Well, English is annoyingly unique in the sense that there's no global standard to begin with, no single authority to dictate how things are to be - how is it that we don't have one anyway? I've seen too many people online write "should of" though, but at least it's true that it takes rather a long time before language shifts like this makes it into official grammar!
Can you point me to a case where lazy internet spelling already made into official grammar? Because I consider "should of" or "could of" an error of the same ilk as "they're/their/there" or "we're/where/were" errors. They're different words with different meanings, and just because some people don't know better and think they can write all homophones the same just because that's the way they speak, these differences don't get suddenly erased. To standardise a written language that only makes sense when it's read out loud makes no sense at all.
I've always assumed it was regional--like "try and" versus "try to". It does follow the same pattern as "tired of" or "sick of" so there's precedent.
English. Urkkk. I suspect it's the hardest-ever language for a non-speaker to learn. Heck. Even those of us who have spoken it all our lives get it wrong, and that includes those of us who are 'educated.' It's all convention, with just enough 'rules' thrown in to make people think the language is governed by rules.
'Bored of' is actually rather new. I'd say 30 years ago, nobody said 'bored of.' Now it's everywhere. I can't make a case against it, except that it's not an improvement on 'bored with' or 'bored by.' These pesky prepositions.... Where I came from, if you're 'waiting on' somebody, you are serving them food or taking money at a checkout. (I need to wait on that customer.) My friend, whose family comes from another part of the USA, says 'waiting on' when I would have said 'waiting for.' In the sense of awaiting the arrival of somebody or something. ("Thanks, I don't need a ride. I'm waiting on my boyfriend to pick me up.") Pesky prepositions....
Yeah, that was one of the two I was raised to say. Bored with or bored by. I'm bored with this book and I'm going to stop reading it now. I'm bored by this stupid argument, so I'm going for a walk. Never bored of. But hey....
There's always that tipping point with pedantry - where you have to leap, drop one's baggage and join the bubblegum people. I had it personally with 'oh my gosh' - but that has completely taken over as currency, so much so I doubt my original indignation. Granny saying lulz is unpleasant. I keep posting my wife the aubergine but she hasn't twigged as yet. Then, the other day my finger slipped, and I sent her two aubergines - I couldn't sleep until she returned with the shopping, very worrying situation.
I was thinking more like people will write "had, had, but never say it. I have read 'whom' in text but I've yet to meet someone who says it. Of course most of my friends are dirtbags and have not had the opportunity to meet someone sophisticated.
You posted two (unstuffed?) aubergines (eggplants) to your WIFE? I used to respect you, but no more....
Nah, wouldn't say it's the hardest. It's pretty irregular and takes a good amount of intuition, but grammatically it isn't the worst out there. The existence of people like @KaTrian makes me think English can't be that hard! I looked up Cantonese grammar a little while ago and there were like, two standardised forms of sentence structure, and then something like 7 or 8 exceptions governed by "unspoken rules". We have 31 final particles, all of which express a tone of voice/intent, and get this, you can pair two or sometimes three different final particles together! How do you know which ones and when? You don't! They are governed by, again, "unspoken rules". Like, wtf? Then that reaction was followed by: how the F did I learn this to begin with!? What kinda weird-ass language do I speak? I've come to realise, mind you, any time you dig into a language - like really dig - you come away thinking WTGF? English isn't easy - no language ever actually is! Having said this, I once read a polyglot who said, "Think of every language as easy and then find actual real reasons to support that." The aim being: thinking of it as being difficult (which it is) doesn't help you learn. On the other hand, thinking of a language as easy peasy will motivate you to give it a go. I've totally taken that tact with Czech There comes a point when you no longer think of it as difficult or easy - it just is and if you wanna speak this language, then these are the rules. Accept it. This is my current pep talk to myself - I'm hoping to go to the B1 exam in the summer! (basically intermediate level)
I'll venture a guess and say hast >> has probably would be one. I haven't looked this up - just my guess. In terms of pronunciation, it also happens, for example knight. The k was spoken in the past. I think to get any further for real though, we'd probably have to start looking into the evolution of spelling. The phenomenon of how the internet has revolutionised English spelling is probably gonna be a rather interesting one. There's the emergence of "European English" too because the number of people who speak English as their second language far outnumber actual native speakers, and with the internet, I can only imagine their influence will be felt (or has already been felt). Just all speculations but it's quite interesting! The reason why I'm guessing "should of" will eventually make it into official grammar is because the number of people who genuinely don't seem to know the correct form is astounding, and a language is only as correct as the majority of users. I've even seen people use it here on this forum - a group of writers, who should probably pay the most attention to these things and who can be real pedants about spelling and grammar! Give it a few generations when people like us won't be here anymore, and you're left with people who used to use "should of" all the time, some of whom may have known it was wrong and others may have been in doubt, then the generation after them will probably not know "should have" at all.
To me bored with and bored by are subtly different I'm bored by discussing prepositions means that the whole subject bores me and i have no interest in discussing them I'm bored with discussing prepositions on the other hand means we've been discussing them for ages and i am now bored and ready to move on , it doesn't necessarily mean I won't wish to discuss them again in the future
bored of just sounds wrong i wonder if its a corruption of with, in the same way that you some times hear could of , should of when they mean could've