Timeline for “kinda”, “sorta”, “coulda”, “shoulda”, “lotta”, “oughta”, “betcha”, "tseasy", etc. What are these?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
44 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 11, 2023 at 13:05 | history | edited | tchrist♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Jun 22, 2021 at 23:45 | history | edited | Scott - Слава Україні | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed orthography (har har!).
|
| Jun 12, 2021 at 16:43 | history | edited | tchrist♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Oct 5, 2018 at 21:12 | history | edited | Araucaria - Him |
edited tags
|
|
| Mar 25, 2016 at 16:31 | history | protected | Centaurus | ||
| Feb 19, 2016 at 15:58 | history | edited | Centaurus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Jan 2, 2016 at 16:33 | history | edited | Centaurus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 47 characters in body; edited title
|
| Dec 29, 2015 at 11:42 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | Adding this related question for the sake of completeness What is “Gatcha” short for? | |
| Dec 28, 2015 at 20:47 | comment | added | The Photon | @SlippD.Thompson, I betcha that sometimes betcha means "bet you", but you betcha it also sometimes means "bet your". | |
| S Dec 27, 2015 at 21:34 | history | suggested | Robert Harvey | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
This doesn't really need to be said twice in the same question, especially preceded by an EDIT moniker.
|
| Dec 27, 2015 at 21:32 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Dec 27, 2015 at 21:34 | |||||
| Dec 27, 2015 at 21:16 | vote | accept | Centaurus | ||
| Dec 27, 2015 at 21:09 | answer | added | Araucaria - Him | timeline score: 37 | |
| Dec 27, 2015 at 20:57 | history | edited | Centaurus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 5 characters in body
|
| Dec 27, 2015 at 20:31 | comment | added | ab2 | Re tchrist's point: Although most of us would cringe if wanna or its relatives appeared in a question or an answer on this site, wannabe is a word that fulfills a need; describing someone as a want-to-be just doesn't cut it. | |
| Dec 27, 2015 at 19:52 | comment | added | Mitch | You just made an edit emphasizing that these are not contractions. I'm not sure that that is the case. Is there an authoritative source that makes a case for saying these are not contractions? And if so, what are those reasons that separate them from contractions? Can you add these reasons to your question? | |
| Dec 27, 2015 at 19:14 | history | edited | Centaurus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 75 characters in body
|
| Dec 27, 2015 at 15:05 | comment | added | Mentalist | @tchrist Good point. The implication is that you can break the rules of grammar, but you can't put it in writing that you broke the rules. One would be forced to... admit guilt. | |
| Dec 27, 2015 at 15:05 | comment | added | Yee-Lum | @Tonepoet Yeah, that's true. I wouldn't use "wouldn't" in most academic papers, for example. My comment was responding to the OP's statement that "While contractions are acceptable in any register..." and I did skip over the fact thay there are probably plenty of registers where they wouldn't be acceptable. | |
| Dec 27, 2015 at 11:56 | comment | added | Tonepoet | @Yee-Lum All contractions are often considered prohibitively informal, though I must admit perhaps somewhat less now than they were in the past and most to a lesser degree than these.. | |
| Dec 27, 2015 at 11:24 | answer | added | J.R. | timeline score: 7 | |
| Dec 27, 2015 at 7:09 | answer | added | Burhan Khalid | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 27, 2015 at 2:22 | comment | added | Euan M | @Joe Blow Betcha it is. Sometimes, at least. | |
| Dec 27, 2015 at 1:08 | vote | accept | Centaurus | ||
| Dec 27, 2015 at 1:08 | |||||
| Dec 27, 2015 at 0:36 | history | edited | curiousdannii |
edited tags
|
|
| Dec 27, 2015 at 0:20 | answer | added | Fattie | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 27, 2015 at 0:02 | comment | added | Fattie | It seems to me the form has become kind of a snowclone (or whatever the hell the best term is there). We now GENERATE words "in this style", such as lotsa and bitsa and so on. | |
| Dec 27, 2015 at 0:00 | comment | added | Fattie | betcha is not at all a contraction for "bet you". | |
| Dec 26, 2015 at 9:45 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackEnglish/status/680685776754061312 | ||
| Dec 26, 2015 at 9:41 | answer | added | Elian | timeline score: 15 | |
| Dec 26, 2015 at 8:59 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | related: Are “kinda”, “sorta”, “oughta” and “sposta” acceptable in formal writing? | |
| Dec 26, 2015 at 8:55 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | ...pst...(looks furtively behind her shoulder) they're mostly originated as Americanisms ... but don't tell anyone that I told you so. It's just between you and me, no one else. Mum's the word. | |
| Dec 26, 2015 at 6:03 | comment | added | phoog | @tchrist still, it's not too difficult to think of a formal context in which spoken contractions such as "it's" would seem out of place. | |
| Dec 26, 2015 at 4:14 | comment | added | Slipp D. Thompson | I think “betcha” is more accurately “bet your”, a shortened version of “you bet your [ass]” with the final word completely implied in present-day tongue. | |
| Dec 26, 2015 at 3:20 | comment | added | tchrist♦ | The bizarre thing is that even though all these are perfectly common and normal to say, actually writing them is something else entirely. Our writing and our speech diverge enormously. | |
| Dec 26, 2015 at 2:15 | comment | added | Hot Licks | @Mitch - I would guess even the Queen uses a contraction every now and then. Some wilder ones are "discouraged", but common ones are perfectly "proper" (if you're not Commander Data). | |
| Dec 26, 2015 at 2:04 | comment | added | Mitch | I thought the contractions like "don't" or "I'll" were discouraged in formal speech too. | |
| Dec 26, 2015 at 0:58 | answer | added | ralph.m | timeline score: 13 | |
| Dec 25, 2015 at 23:31 | answer | added | The Nate | timeline score: 48 | |
| Dec 25, 2015 at 23:19 | history | edited | StoneyB on hiatus |
edited tags
|
|
| Dec 25, 2015 at 23:18 | answer | added | StoneyB on hiatus | timeline score: 16 | |
| Dec 25, 2015 at 23:18 | comment | added | Hot Licks | I would call them contractions. | |
| Dec 25, 2015 at 23:10 | comment | added | Yee-Lum | oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/kinda indicates that it's a contraction. I don't think that they're not contractions simply because they aren't permissible in formal writing, whereas other contractions are--they're just particularly informal contractions. | |
| Dec 25, 2015 at 22:46 | history | asked | Centaurus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |