English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is "that'd" an appropriate contraction of "that" and "would"? I say it, but I'm not sure if it's a legitimate contraction in written form.

share|improve this question
I also often hear "that've" as a contraction of "that would have". For example, "That've been great if we would have thought of it" . – user57279 Nov 13 '13 at 9:57
up vote 17 down vote accepted

There are many incidences of that’d meaning “that would” in the Corpus of Contemporary American English:

SPOKEN    208  (2.39/million words)
FICTION   384  (4.7/million words)
MAGAZINE   58  (0.67/million words)
NEWSPAPER  48  (0.57/million words)
ACADEMIC    3  (0.04/million words)
TOTAL     701  (701/million words)

It is most common in spoken English and fiction, so the idea that it’s more for informal registers has merit.

share|improve this answer
Note that "that'd" may also be the contraction of "that" with "had". Example: "That'd happened before my time." – b.roth Sep 19 '10 at 17:29
@Bruno you make a reasonable point. I updated the statistics to exclude cases like that. There were very few cases in COCA where that’d means “that had”, so my overall point I think is still valid. – nohat Sep 19 '10 at 18:03

It is certainly acceptable in the sense that any native speaker would understand it. So, I think that would characterize it as legitimate. In formal writing, most contractions are avoided anyway — though if I were somewhere between formal and informal, I would definitely get rid of that'd before I would get rid of it's. So it is on the "more informal" end of the contraction formality spectrum.

share|improve this answer

It would certainly be acceptable in written dialogue—as you point out, you say it, so it can be written as a representation of what you/a character says.

With text being used more and more for conversation—i.e., chatting and informal emails—I would consider that'd to be acceptable in casual text-based conversation but not in formal letters, papers, etc.

share|improve this answer

Insofar as any contractions are suitable for formal written English, I'd put "that'd" towards the more casual end of the spectrum.

share|improve this answer

I actually use 'that'd' quite often when speaking and pronounce it as, "thad"...kind of like short for Thadeus. Since everyone seems to know, or at least pretend to know what I'm saying I would have to assume that 'that'd' is an actual word and that I was saying it correctly. (though maybe it is just a slang word?)

share|improve this answer
If you'd read the answers, you'd know whether "that'd" is an actual word and/or slang. This might help explain for the down-vote from the ELU community user. You can always edit your answer, even adding links to back up your claim. I personally thought your way of pronouncing that'd as thad (do you know of others who pronounce it similarly?) added an interesting and worthy note. – Mari-Lou A Aug 11 '13 at 8:30

I've seen that sometimes, and it have always confused me. I'd think that it (ignoring how contractions are normally written in English) really should be spelled "that'ould" or "that'ud" (or more phonetically "that'ed" / "that'wd") because I cannot understand how you'd pronounce that without at least a schwa sound between the t and the d (it's the same consonant unvoiced and voiced). I'm not a native speaker, but if you are and can pronounce it without a sound between the t and the d, while it still is possible to make out both consonants; I'd love to hear it. That'd be impressive ;)

I think contractions are sometimes over used in English, words in all languages are contracted when speaking but it doesn't need to be written like that. In my language, Norwegian, i would pronounce "Det er ikke det" (meaning "That's not it" or "It's not that") as (using Norwegian informal phonetic spelling) as [dæk:ede:] but if we wrote it "D'er'ke det" or something like that it would be really hard to understand.

I'd recommend not contracting it in any case unless you're deliberately trying to represent slurred/sloppy/vulgar speech in a quote for humorous effect. (I think I've only seen it as lines for characters in Terry Pratchett novels; but he also write stuff like "I ate'nt dead" for comedic purposes)

share|improve this answer
I went with "that'd" based upon: "I" + "would" = "I'd". Fancy thinking that English words should actually be spelled phonetically though :-) – travis Dec 15 '10 at 16:48
Since this is a Q&A site for English language and usage, the fact that another language uses contractions less, or not at all, is not relevant to the question. The schwa, while not written in the contraction, is understood and pronounced by native English speakers. – TecBrat Apr 14 at 19:46

I guess it's one of those words americans (no offense or racism at all) "invent" on the go. One of those millions of contractions you can find throughout the internet. Nothing more.

share|improve this answer
It's not an American thing. I hear it (and say it) all the time in Britain. – toryan Nov 15 '13 at 22:23

protected by tchrist Aug 13 '14 at 14:36

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.