Skip to main content
English Language & Usage

Return to Question

Mod Moved Comments To Chat
edited body
Source Link
Laurel ♦
Laurel ♦
  • 67.3k
  • 10
  • 156
  • 227

We say I had to leave"I had to leave," but not I'd to leave"I'd to leave." Why? This is also unlike other auxiliary usage of the verb "had" (e.g. in past perfect tense), so the difference is more nuanced than the had being an auxiliary verb or not; why is this not contracted like other auxiliary usage of the verb?

We say I had to leave, but not I'd to leave. Why? This is also unlike other auxiliary usage of the verb "had" (e.g. in past perfect tense), so the difference is more nuanced than the had being an auxiliary verb or not; why is this not contracted like other auxiliary usage of the verb?

We say "I had to leave," but not "I'd to leave." Why? This is also unlike other auxiliary usage of the verb "had" (e.g. in past perfect tense), so the difference is more nuanced than the had being an auxiliary verb or not; why is this not contracted like other auxiliary usage of the verb?

deleted 6 characters in body
Source Link
nayfaan
nayfaan
  • 138
  • 5

We say I had to leave, but not I'd to leave. Why? This is also unlike other auxiliary usage of the verb "had" (ine.g. in past perfect tense, where had), so the difference is more nuanced than the hadhad being an auxiliary verb or not; why is this not contracted like other auxiliary usage of the verb?

We say I had to leave, but not I'd to leave. Why? This is also unlike other auxiliary usage of the verb "had" (in past perfect tense, where had), so the difference is more nuanced than the had being an auxiliary verb or not; why is this not contracted like other auxiliary usage of the verb?

We say I had to leave, but not I'd to leave. Why? This is also unlike other auxiliary usage of the verb "had" (e.g. in past perfect tense), so the difference is more nuanced than the had being an auxiliary verb or not; why is this not contracted like other auxiliary usage of the verb?

Source Link
nayfaan
nayfaan
  • 138
  • 5

Why isn't "I had to" contracted to "I'd to" unlike other auxiliary usage of the verb "had"?

We say I had to leave, but not I'd to leave. Why? This is also unlike other auxiliary usage of the verb "had" (in past perfect tense, where had), so the difference is more nuanced than the had being an auxiliary verb or not; why is this not contracted like other auxiliary usage of the verb?