Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

51

After reading your post, I realised that I say "I'd've" quite a lot in my actual speech. But I have never ever written it down, nor have I seen it written down (or, more accurately, I don't recall having ever seen it written down.) It's not the kind of thing that I'd feel comfortable putting into a business email, definitely not an essay (unless that was my ...


39

Let’s is the English cohortative word, meaning “let us” in an exhortation of the group including the speaker to do something. Lets is the third person singular present tense form of the verb let meaning to permit or allow. In the questioner’s examples, the sentence means to say “Product (allows/permits you to) do something awesome”, so the form with lets ...


38

Contractions definitely aren't rude to use in informal conversations. It's difficult to say why anyone would change your text on SE network that way, but it definitely isn't usual. The only reason I can come up with is that if you're not a native speaker or your English isn't good enough, someone was trying to help save your question and dramatically edited ...


35

This is covered in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL), as it turns out, in Chapter 18, “Inflection Morphology and Related Matters”, section 6, “Phonological reduction and liaison”. The form ’s, representing either has or is, along with ’m (am), ’re (are), ’ve (have), ’ll (will), and ’d (had or would) are called clitics, and they are a ...


31

Wiktionary says: Abbreviation of wollnot or woll + not, negations of archaic form of will. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology agrees: XVII. contr. of wonnot, assim. of wol not As to other forms, Etymonline only mentions wynnot: first recorded mid-15c. as wynnot, later wonnot (1580s) before the modern form [won't] emerged ...


26

The common bit of schoolyard wisdom that “ain’t ain’t in the dictionary, so ain’t ain’t a word” turns out to be untrue. Every online dictionary that I’ve ever looked in contained an entry for ain’t. Merriam-Webster Online: Main Entry: ain't Pronunciation: \ˈānt\ Etymology: contraction of are not Date: 1749 1: am not : are not : is not 2: have ...


26

(Note this answer was previously posted to a question which has since been deleted on Programmers.stackexchange.com) The abbreviated form char, short for character, can be pronounced in several different ways in American English: here's how you represent the various pronunciations in American English using the International Phonetic Alphabet: char as in ...


24

There are 49 incidences of I’d’ve in the Corpus of Contemporary American English (search for I 'd 've). All but one occur in dialogue in fiction. The other one was in a transcript of Oprah. It doesn’t appear that I’d’ve has any substantial contemporary usage in nonfiction writing at any level of formality. Of course, people say I’d’ve all the ...


24

Won’t actually has a pretty interesting and complex history. Ultimately it does come from a contraction of will and not, but it all happened in a rather roundabout way. It all started off with the Old English verb willan/wyllan, meaning to will, wish, or want. Even in Old English it was used occasionally to denote a future intent. “Ic wille gan” could mean ...


22

According to The Time-traveller's Guide to Medieval England 'of the clock' was used to describe time when it was being sliced in 24 equal parts (hours) of the day. It was used to differentiate the practice, used equally as much, of using solar time, whereby the 7th hour would shift in actual time, however would always be 7/12ths of a solar day after ...


19

The "-a" is a mark of the speaker's regional speaking patterns; as you can see from the rest of the lyrics you posted, he has a very "country" way of speaking. The meaning is "I'd lost my job", the "-a" is just a regionalism, it doesn't add any further meaning. The I'd expands to I had; the full sentence is I had lost my job. That is, he's telling his ...


18

I did some searches in the Corpus of Contemporary American English and compared the results to similar searches in the British National corpus. What I found was that overall, in American English there was a 7.9-to-1 ratio of don’t to do not. With breakdowns by type: SPOKEN 19.6 FICTION 17.9 MAGAZINE 7.5 NEWSPAPER 7.7 ACADEMIC 0.5 TOTAL 7.9 ...


17

The only contraction in that sentence is won't, which (always) means will not. None of the other words would be affected when you expand the contraction. Thus, ...will not ever be the same is the proper way to understand this sentence. That said, ...will never be the same is grammatical, as well. In speech, people either use the contracted version or the ...


15

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 ...


15

Are you sure your teacher said "written English", not "formal English"? Not all written English is formal, and not all formal English is written. Contractions are fine in informal English, be it written or spoken, but they are generally frowned upon in formal contexts (again, written or spoken). Forbidding contractions in all written English is stuff and ...


14

I think what you feel uncomfortable with is contraction of "have" as a main verb. When it's an auxiliary verb in, say, a perfect, contraction feels fine: I've had a car before. But contraction of main verb "have" meaning to own or possess feels weirder. ?And I've a car right now. However, I have a feeling that people will contract main verb have ...


14

The answer is simple. You just need to think about how you learned your native language. By ear. Children learn how to speak their native tongue first, and only then learned the grammar and spelling. Thus, many will "sound" a word out to spell it. English language learners, on the other hand, usually learned how to spell a word first, and focused on ...


14

[Edited] What is contraction? In all languages I know, there is a general tendency to contract existing words in speech. I will comment on contraction in writing later. The cause of contraction in speech is probably that speakers pronounce words in an inarticulate manner when they say them fast, just as some say wanna when they pronounce want to. In ...


14

Well, that'll is not a word but a contraction. Some dictionaries include it, some don't. That'll clearly exists, and is used to some degree. It's just a matter of whether it has been used enough to be widely understood. An example of its usage would be in the song That'll be the day (1957) by Buddy Holly.


13

After centuries of being denigrated by schoolmarms the word “ain’t” has taken up a unusual position in the English language. It is a word that almost embodies the essence of informality in language. Using it means that you consider the discourse context to be one of extreme informality, or when using it in a context which is already quite formal, it serves ...


13

This is definitely an American English/British English thing, as you can't do it in American English but you can in British English. In American English, you can't contract "have" if you are using it as a plain (not a "helping" or "auxiliary") verb. "I've a dog" and "They've a great time" are not grammatical in American English. There are a number of other ...


13

"Ain't" is generally pretty stigmatized; it is widely used in African American Vernacular English and Southern English. If someone uses it in a more formal context, it is likely that they want to convey a casual or insouciant attitude. However, any native English speaker knows what it means, so there should be no issue in terms of communication. On the other ...


13

The second one is correct. Let's is a contraction of let us. "Let's go to the ballgame today!" Lets is the third-person singular simple present indicative form of let -- but of course we all knew that already.... It means allows, which looks like what you want to convey here.


13

Contractions are generally considered informal, but have long been part of standard English. Because they are informal, most style guides—which tend to be guides for formal styles of written English—advise against using them. This of course makes sense, because if you are trying to write in a formal style, using informal words, like contractions, makes your ...


12

Contrary to what you seem to think, wouldn't and won't are almost never interchangeable. The simple negative won't is used for future negative actions or for refusals. I won't go to the store tomorrow if it's raining. (Future negative.) I won't go to the dance with you. (Refusal.) The negative wouldn't is used for counterfactual statements, and for ...


11

This is not grammatically correct, but you may hear it in speech. Native speakers tend to slur words together and leave out pieces of words even if they wouldn't write that way. EDIT: I should say that double contractions are not used in writing. They may be "grammatically correct", but a American professor would not allow you to use them in an essay. ...


11

Both are correct. What was originally just a contraction of "do not" has become a word in itself, and can now be placed where the two separate words can't. Both "Don't you..." and "Do you not..." are correct, but you can't re-expand "Don't you..." into "Do not you...". The meaning of the two are the same, but "Do you not..." is considered more formal in ...


11

There're is common in speech, at least in certain dialects, but you'll rarely see it written. If I were being pedantic, I'd advise you to use there are in your example, because there is is definitely wrong, so there's could be considered wrong as well. But a huge number of English speakers, even those that are well-educated, use there's universally, ...


11

The editor (Nag) of your recent post on stack overflow lives in India. In my experience, Indians rarely use contractions, even in informal speech. For formal speech, the difference in use of contractions is even greater between the US and Britain and India. See Table 3.52. IMHO, the choice of formality/informality, along with other matters of style and ...


11

This might be true of British speech -- I wouldn't know -- but it's certainly not true for American speech, where she's can be pronounced anywhere from /ʃiz/ to /'ʃijəz/, with tense /i/ in all cases. And where all of these she's-es can represent either she is or she has. It's totally ambiguous. Exactly like she'd (/ʃid/ to /'ʃijəd/), which can represent ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible