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

One can contract I have to I've when have is a helping verb, e.g.

I've got an octopus in my pants.

Is contracting the main verb technically incorrect or merely antiquated? My father loves to say,

I've a month-old smoked shoulder I can cook for dinner,

and he sounds like a crazy old man when he does. I would like to know if I can shut him down by informing him that he is incorrect. :)

share|improve this question
Actually, for the first sentence, "got" can be considered superfluous. "I've an octopus..." is acceptable. It's a matter of ear; "I've to do it" just sounds... off. :) – user730 Dec 29 '10 at 9:54
@J. M.: But "I've yet to do it" sounds just fine. – Jon Purdy Dec 29 '10 at 10:13
True, that. @Jon – user730 Dec 29 '10 at 12:59
I've half a mind to contract a main verb, just to demonstrate that it's grammatical. – user16269 Mar 30 '12 at 11:53
up vote 8 down vote accepted

Contracting the main verb in a sentence is perfectly fine. It sounds awkward only when the pattern of prosodic stress falls on that word:

I have to do it.
* I've to do it.
I have yet to do it.
I've yet to do it.

But this is probably just because you can't use a contracted form in a grammatically stressed position, such as:

I don't know what it is.
* I don't know what it's.

But even then, there are sentences in which the stress falls on the contracted word and it doesn't sound awkward, showing that it's not ungrammatical except perhaps by the standards of a mad prescriptivist somewhere.

share|improve this answer
Considering that contracted verbs end up having no syllables of their own, I’d say you’re almost 100% sure to be wrong that there are sentences in which the stress falls on a contracted verb. There are sentences in which the stress falls on the pronoun that the verb has been contracted with, but that’s a different thing. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Aug 4 '15 at 20:20
@JanusBahsJacquet: You’re right, that’s what I meant to refer to—the word with which the verb has been contracted. – Jon Purdy Aug 4 '15 at 21:19

In American English, the contracted form ’ve is only possible as an auxiliary verb. It is not grammatical as a main verb. This is not the case in British English, where it is grammatical, and this is one of the differences between British and American English

share|improve this answer
I've no problem with this answer. +1 – Robusto Jun 20 '11 at 12:30
@Robusto: I have reservations. Firstly because in my understanding you're an AmE speaker - so according to what nohat says, you should have a problem with your contraction there. But secondly because (BrE or not), I've got serious objections to the idea of contracting the verb in my first sentence here. – FumbleFingers Aug 4 '15 at 21:59


I'd not even consider it antiquated. The contraction that is - the shoulder's a different matter.

share|improve this answer
Ah, nice touch. :-) As you say, it's fine. He's right in saying what he does. – ShreevatsaR Dec 29 '10 at 11:50

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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