Anonymous  +  590073 Thu, 20 Nov 08 11:46 PM Does your variety of English permit contraction here? I have (I've) to be there before the boss tomorrow. Anonymous Contractions

	Grammar Geek  +  590114 Fri, 21 Nov 08 01:27 AM It would sound highly unnatural to me.   Grammar Geek Joined on Tue, Jan 10 2006 Veteran Member 19,506 Barbara, who answers in American English. My housekeeping skills attest to the truth of the second law of thermodynamics: Left to themselves, things get more and more random!

	MrPedantic  +  590497 Sat, 22 Nov 08 12:25 AM I wouldn't say "boss". MrP MrPedantic Joined on Tue, Oct 12 2004 Veteran Member 13,616 ...opella forensis / adducit febris...

	Kooyeen  +  590673 Sat, 22 Nov 08 01:05 PM Anonymous “Does your variety of English permit contraction here? I have (I've) to be there before the boss tomorrow. ” No, if you consider I've to be a monosyllabic contraction, as it is usually considered. That's probably why "would've" is not considered a contraction in written English: no one really says "would've" as one syllable. So the answer is no, for eyev to be there. A form with two syllables is possible though: I eff to be there. (rising of the vowel, h-dropping, v turns into f) Kooyeen Joined on Thu, Dec 22 2005 Italy Senior Member 4,933 Parental Advisory / Explicit Posts Vowels, Contractions

	Clive  +  590679 Sat, 22 Nov 08 01:33 PM Hi guys, Does your variety of English permit contraction here? I have (I've) to be there before the boss tomorrow. I think I say that occasionally. It certainly wouldn't sound odd to me. It seems to de-emphasize the necessity a bit, and add some emphasis to the rest of the sentence. I'd put some vocal stress on 'be there'. Best wishes, Clive Clive Joined on Thu, Oct 28 2004 Canada Veteran Member 29,298 El tango argentino es un pensamiento triste que se puede bailar (The tango argentino is a sad thought which can be danced) Enrique Santos Discépolo Contractions

	Kooyeen  +  590769 Sat, 22 Nov 08 05:10 PM You definitely know IPA, so what I was saying is: I've is supposed to be /aɪv/ The same goes for the other contractions, they just add /v/, and so are still monosyllabic. Would've, according to that convention, would be /wədv/, but since it would be pronounced more like two syllables, /wədəv/, the contraction would've is not part of the conventional ones. That said, the way something is written doesn't force anyone to read it in a certain way. Just because it's written as "I have seen", doesn't mean I can't read it as "I've seen", or vice versa, so conventional contractions are just conventions that most native speakers don't need to understand or care about, other than learning them by heart in case they want to write according to some kind of "Standard Written English". So I really don't think Americans ever say I've to... /aɪv tə/. If a reduced form were to be used, it would be I have to pronounced as /aɪ ef tə/... more or less. That's what I can say from my experience... Kooyeen Contractions