0

I hear contraction d'you've from "do you have" quite often, broadly [djuv], yet google throws back no result for such a phonetic word. I'd like to know how it's orthographically represented.

For example, in the series Shameless, s07e03., min 21:13

Orthographic examples

D'you've any links to pictures of that?

the answer is "yeah, d'you've a problem with that?

| improve this question | | | | |
  • It's just ordinary slurring of words together. No different from "can't", really. "D'you've" is a reasonable representation. – Hot Licks Oct 12 '18 at 1:09
  • I would line “I’ve a wrench you could use” up with “D’you’ve a wrench I could use?” whereas i’d line “I have a wrench...” with “D’yav a wrench...” “D’you’ve” sounds like older British English to me. Not something you’d hear in the US. – Jim Oct 12 '18 at 3:51
  • @Jim e.g. in the series shameless, s07e03., min 21:13 – GJC Oct 12 '18 at 8:31
  • 1
    It's not possible in American English, where the 'possess' sense of have does not contract. In American, it would be "d'you have" /dyu'hæv/ or /dyuw'æv/, always with a "have" vowel, never just a /v/. – John Lawler Oct 12 '18 at 13:44
  • 2
    I should probably have mentioned that contractions like this aren't orthographically represented in English. Otherwise we'd have things like should'ven't and hadn'a and gods know what else floating around. Normally one simply writes out the whole words and leaves it to the reader to contract, unless one is trying to achieve a sense of intimacy, in which case good luck. – John Lawler Oct 12 '18 at 14:03
1

As for spelling, whereas "have" as an auxiliary verb may contract in some circumstances, "have" as a lexical verb may not. In a question beginning "Do you have...", the "have" is a lexical verb (and the "do" is an auxiliary verb). So the "have" cannot contract. You could contract "Do you" to "D'you" if you want (as in "D'you know..."). But you can't further contract "D'you have" to "D'you've".

As for pronunciation, I've never heard such a thing but don't doubt that some people speak like that.

| improve this answer | | | | |
1

For the most part, it isn't orthographically represented, because it isn't one of the "commonly recognized" contractions.

There are several kinds of "contractions" in English. Forms like "Don't", "won't", "aren't" are highly lexicalized and behave as single words syntactically. It's not really possible to represent a sentence like "Aren't you coming" without using a "contraction" in writing.

Forms like "I'm", "You've", "He's" are typically analyzed as containing "clitic" realizations of the auxiliary verb, which occur in specific phonological contexts. Although they could be replaced by uncontracted forms (like "I am", "You have", "He is/He has") in writing with no change in meaning, the use of these contractions is an established part of non-formal writing.

In addition to the two preceding classes of contractions, there is just the phenomenon of slurring or eliding sounds in "fast speech". Slurred pronunciations aren't very commonly represented in writing, even in non-formal contexts. "D'you've" is as good a way as any of explicitly representing a pronunciation like [djuv], but the spelling "Do you have" would also implicitly include slurred "contracted" pronunciations like this.

Similarly, even if someone pronounces "going to" as "gonna" or "want to" as "wanna", it is by no means obligatory to indicate the slurred pronunciation in writing. The "contracted" pronunciation is much more common and acceptable than the spelling. In fact, I often see non-native speakers use spellings like "gonna" and "wanna" in contexts where they are inappropriate, such as in questions on this site.

| improve this answer | | | | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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