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 might ...


As an American Southerner, I had a good laugh when I read this. Depending on where you're from, this could either be incredibly easy or nigh impossible to pronounce. Look at the words 'didn't' and 'hadn't,' first of all. In a Southern U.S. dialect especially, the 'd' in the middle of these words is soft, unlike the initial hard consonant of 'don't' or '...


I'm going to show the acoustic signals that are on the tape. It's hard to be certain on this one because the normal cues that you'd look for are just very faint or hard to distinguish. I'd be surprised if a linguist comments decisively for the media about what the tape shows going strictly by the physical audio (they might infer using other techniques). ...


Because the logical stress in that sentence falls on "is": Where IS it? If you abbreviate the stressed syllable, it results in nothing but nonsense.


I'd say this contraction of "you all would not have" as three syllables: [ˈjɔːɫ.ᵈn̩.tɘ̆v]. [ˈjɔːɫ] is y'all, a contraction of you all that serves as the plural of you in Dixie-influenced dialects of American English. The l with a tilde represents a "dark" l, which I realize with pharyngealization (secondary constriction in the throat) and some other ...


"Wanna" can, in conversation, be an extremely casual spoken substitute for either "want a" or "want to". "I wanna watch" can either mean "I want a [wrist] watch" or "I want to watch [something]". If "want to" is the meaning intended, then "wanna" can stand anywhere that the more formal phrase can. Except in direct speech, such contractions as "wanna", "gonna"...


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 ...


Forgive me 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 your/you're, ...


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 “...


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 formal ...


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'."


It's simply a way of contracting "I is a". In your context I would guess it's a faked patois.


The clitic 's meaning "is" can only be used to substitute for a "weak form" is (pronounced /əz/). The is in in "Where is it" is the "strong form" is (pronounced /ɪz/) since it is used as a main verb and not as a modal (or helping) verb. Therefore it cannot be replaced with the clitic 's. See a related answer I wrote a while back discussing this restriction ...


Yes, Old English had contractions: Old English contractions include nis from ne is (“is not”), naes from ne waes (“was not”), nolde from ne wolde (“would not”), naefde from ne haefde (“did not have”), and nat from ne wat (“does not know”). Is “who’s” short for “who is” or “who has”? For example, take a look at Ælfric's translation of Genesis 2:5: ...


According to Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com, "what's" is short for: "what is" (What's the matter?) "what has" (What's happened to the car?) "what does" (What's that mean?) So it appears that "What's that do?" is grammatically correct. Merriam-Webster: what's Dictionary.com: what's


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


"He sez I'za gonna look like you some day" . google books and I'se 1847 in representations of African-American vernacular, a contraction of I is (see is), irregular for I am. (etymonline) Variations in AAVE an other colloquial AmE: I is, I am Similar to fidna: a fixin to. Seen more written than spoken though I did hear, in jest: I'za gonna whup yo ...


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


"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)."


DOs & DON'Ts that would be appropriate.


I think most native English speakers would have similar troubles. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Also, different people will say this different ways: somebody from Virginia (like me) will say it differently from somebody from Mississippi, who will say it differently from somebody from Texas. But if you're curious, I'd start with the words that it's ...


In the South the phrase "Y'all would not have . . . " would most commonly be pronounced "Yaw woot nuh" with woot rhyming with foot. "Y'all would not have done that" = "Yaw woot nuh dun nat."


The NOAD reports that 's is the informal contraction for: is: "it's snowing" has: "he's gone" us: "let's do it" does: "what's she do?"


I would must be followed by an infinitive without to ( or perfect infinitive as in I would have gone). I had must be followed either by an object (a noun phrase, e.g. I had a little lamb, in which meaning it is rarely contracted) or by a verb's past participle. So it's (almost) always possible to distinguish between them by analyzing the words that follow. ...


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 ...


To be clear, I understand your question to be primarily about grammar as it applies to pronunciation, not primarily about spelling, since you said "it sounds odd to me". There are certainly grammatical rules about the pronunciation of contractions, weak forms and other things that native English speakers often ignore or just think of as "lazy", "careless" or ...


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 ...


The following nGram suggests that dos and donts, do's and don'ts, and do's and don't's are all used, but it appears that do's and don'ts takes the cake. A quick search suggested that capitalizing all but the s is also fairly popular: DO's and DON'Ts

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