Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

83

a. I love you and your bananas. b. I love you and you're bananas. This particular case depends on the your/you're coming after an independent clause followed by "and," since its feasibility depends on functioning either as a second direct object or as another independent clause. It also depends on the noun serving either as a thing that someone ...


55

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 ...


50

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 ...


44

They certainly aren't rude, but editing them with no explanation is.


40

Forgive if there's some subtlety of grammar that I've missed, but I believe the following sentence works: I know your fine. I am aware of the amount of money that you have been fined. Alternatively: I know you're fine. I am aware that you are doing alright. In my opinion, both sentences would work better with a "that" inserted before ...


38

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 ...


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 ...


38

There's an old joke that goes like "A man walks into a psychiatrist's office. He's completely naked except that he's wrapped himself in Saran wrap. The psychiatrist takes one look at him and says 'well, I can clearly see your/you're nuts'."


36

It should be the first: "Y'all" In contractions, apostrophes represent where letters were taken out. "Y'all" is a contraction of "you all". the "ou " was taken out, so you put an apostrophe were it used to be, giving you "y'all".


33

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 ...


33

(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 ...


28

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 ...


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

Your right to believe what you want is important. vs You're right to believe what you want is important.


25

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

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 ...


23

With an implied subject, the sentence could be written as: Do not dare touch that button. Is that what you're looking for?


21

"I know your trouble." = "I understand the trouble you have." "I know you're trouble." = "I know that you are going to be a trouble (for me/us)."


19

Two of my favorite double contractions are "couldn't've" and "shouldn't've", both of which are flagged by my spell checker, but seem completely correct to me.


18

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.


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 ...


18

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 ...


18

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 ...


17

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 ...


16

To an American ear, it sounds awkward, but in British English, this is not uncommon. Ironically, a Brit will probably tell you that the correct form is "I have got a small dog".


16

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 ...


16

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.


16

Grammatically, you can use can't instead of can not or cannot in the majority of circumstances. There is an exception. In wh-movement, the contraction should not be expanded unless you also change the word order: Why can't I have some bacon? //OK Why cannot I have some bacon? //not OK, archaic Why can I not have some bacon? //OK again, although ...


15

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 ...


15

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 ...



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