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 ...
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'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"...
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 “...
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, ...
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'."
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 ...
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.
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:
"He sez I'za gonna look like you some day" . google books
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 ...
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 ...
T. O. Churchill, A Grammar of the English Language (1823) identifies two somewhat surprising culprits as being responsible for the deplorable rise of the apostropheless its: printers, and English speakers who inexcusably use of the wrong contraction for "it is." Here is Churchill's argument:
The word it's in particular, is now generally robbed of ...
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 ...
This is an interesting question. I haven't an authoritative answer, but I can sketch the historical development and make some suggestions for how it came to be.
The first thing is that not is an anomaly in English: it is a kind of modifier that follows the word it modifies. This is normal in some languages, but unusual in English, where modifiers (such as ...
Written English is different from spoken English. If "who'd've" is part of a direct quote or you're trying to reproduce colloquial speech, it fine.
However, in almost all other cases, the reader will stumble around with all those apostrophes. Our brains don't read words the same way we hear them. Your three options of "who would have," "who'd have," and "...
Whether to contract an auxiliary verb with a following negative (haven't, aren't, isn't, etc.), or with a preceding subject (I've, you're, he's, etc.) is pretty much a stylistic decision, and practice varies. With some exceptions (e.g, *amn't), either is possible.
In particular, I've not, you've not, etc. is much more common in UK English than in American ...
"Emily's" can be a contraction – like when you're saying:
Emily's going with us tomorrow.
However, you've used a possessive, which is not the same thing as a contraction.
Remember, if you've used a contraction, you should be able to split the word back into two:
Emily is going with us tomorrow.
But you can't do that with "Emily's argument."
So, I ...
It's an idiom used by particular groups of English speakers (Southern Americans, Brooklynites, for example) in colloquial speech. It means, those are the rules. If you see it in printed form, it will likely be in dialogue spoken by a person who uses a distinct dialect. Here are some examples of its use over the years. You'll see that each example contains a ...