If I could add another contraction to that list, I’d
This must be why Data can’t use contractions. Except in those episodes where he apparently can.
A contraction is a separate word, with its own accepted usages in the community. For example, “gonna” comes from “going to”, but is not the same, as “I’m gonna the shop, do you want anything?” sounds wrong
Sometimes they end up that way (at which point they stop being contractions). However, there are also cases where distinct syntactic words end up being pronounced as phonetically single words. Or, as my morphology professor put it, “word” is not a meaningful category.
For example, consider the sentence “I’m happy”. What is the subject of this sentence? The verb? What part of speach is “I’m”?
Language is…
Yeah, “gonna” needs to be followed by a verb for it to sound right, I think, with the exception of it being used as a response affirming they’ll be doing an action.
“You gonna go to the store?”
“I’m gonna, just gettin my shoes on first.”
Some times that rule applies, other times it doesn’t.
Shall we find a situation that’s in the grey zone?
Yeah, let’s!
Nah, we won’t.
~800 years ago:
will = wol
wol not > won’t
Ever since I was a kid, I’ve had the dumb thought that if you and your friends are imprisoned, you’d ask the warden to “let’s out!”
Who’s to say that ending sentences in contractions is wrong? Perhaps you’d’ve, but I’dn’t’ve.
Cyanide and Happiness: Contractions
I prefer Scottish, where they just ignore the punctuation and string it together. isnae = is not. didnae = did not. cannae = cannot.
This made perfect sense
And hurt my head
Those are all correct and also sound fine.
deleted by creator
Afaik, English grammar requires utterances with predicates to have a stressed element in those predicates. Contractions of only a subject and an auxiliary verb - ex: I am > I’m, he has > he’s, they will > they’ll - eliminate that independent auxiliary as a prosodic segment and violate that grammar.
A - “Who’s going to the store?”
B - “I am.” [ok] or “I’m going.” [ok] (or “I am going.”), but not “I’m.” [bad, obvs].
It’s what it’s.
“It’s” specifically is funny because you can use its alternative version “'tis” in some places that you cant use “it’s”.
‘Tis what ‘tis
It’s what ‘tis.
Tits what tis.
Let me teach you a thing: “have” can be “'ve” if it is an auxiliary verb. Ta-daah.
I can’t help you or your fucky language with “'m” or “'s” or “'re”.
I see “'ve” used in the possessive context, it’s not super rare but it’s not super common
I think it’s more common in some places
“I’ve no idea what you two are doing” is a valid sentence
what’s an auxillary verb?
I have an apple - in this sentence, “have” is the main verb.
I have bought an apple - here, “to buy” is the main verb, the main action, while “have” is the auxiliary verb that lets you form the past tense “have bought”. The word “auxiliary” means helpful or supportive, an auxiliary verb supports, as it were, the main verb.
Except you can most certainly say, “I’ve an apple.”
In murican that sounds odd.
You can, but would you? It sounds old-timey because it’s not how modern English works.
I think it might be more common in British English? Like “I’ve a fiver says he muffs the kick.” Or “I’ve half a mind to go down there myself.” (Curiously in American English this latter would probably still have the contraction but add a second auxiliary verb: “I’ve got half a mind to…” English is such a mess.)
Yeah, it’s not as uncommon the UK to hear specifically “I’ve [x]” instead of “I’ve got [x]”. I won’t be told though that Brits say “the [x] that I’ve” ;D
“I’ve got” seems particularly strange to me because without the contraction Americans would still just say “I have.” (There are some circumstances where they’ll say “I have got” without a contraction, but it’s mainly when they’re drawing a contrast with what they “haven’t got.” E.g., “No, I don’t have a baseball… oh, but I have got a lacrosse ball, will that work?”)
I think the rule is probably closer to “you don’t contract a stressed verb,” but that’s not terribly useful since there are so few rules about stress patterns. Verbs at the end of sentences are typically stressed, though, so you’re right that ending with that kind of contraction is going to sound wrong to most people.
lol, really?
I’ve an apple in one hand, and I’ve an orange in the other.
I’ve modernity all over me.It seems like this usage has survived in British dialects more than elsewhere, I’ll give you that.
Canada, too.
The contractions we say are more loose than what we write. Couldn’t’ve is my go to example.
Who’d’ve gone and done a thing like that?
that makes sense, thank you for the explanation!
So’ve you thought about this before?
Unfortunately I’ve studied English at uni thinking it might’ve in some capacity become useful by now. Alas, so far I’ve’d no opportunity to use the nonsense I’ve learnt other than to shitpost about it. Woe’m’st’ve’d is me.
Woe’m’st’ve’d
?
Nonsense gibberish made up to imitate English-language contractions paired with a common phrase. It’s usually “who’m’st’ve’d” and the phrase is “woe is me”.
'Tis.
Some folks will never eat a skunk, but then again some folk’ll.
Cletus, the slack jawed yokel?
I’m Henry VIII, I’m.
I would never say YOU HAVE GOT MAIL without the contracion, I would say “you have mail”, and with the contraction in the shorter sentence it sounds British to say: “you’ve mail”
The contraction literally isn’t right. It only works with the adverb version of “have”.
it’s what it’s
This one is correct but sounds wrong because we usually say it the other way.
Well they’re all “correct”. They just don’t sound right. Like saying “the red, big apple” instead of “the big, red apple”.
Wait, I remember learning in primary school about the correct order for adjectives. Is that not a thing?
There’s not a rule, it’s just a “sounds correct”. Because English doesn’t have rules, it has exceptions.
Cambridge even uses the word “normally” lol. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/adjectives-order
And here’s a fun stackexchange link where people argue about the order (since there isn’t a rule, it’s all made up). https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1155/what-is-the-rule-for-adjective-order
One good quote from that link:
@cori - the fascinating linguistic point is that native speakers will have subconsciously inferred a rule like this without it ever being stated. The “rule” is really an observation of what they do. All languages and dialects consist of such unconscious rules. – Nathan Long Commented Apr 16, 2013 at 15:25
Fair
