http://www.englishforums.com/English/LinguisticsDiscussionForum/Forum35.htmGet into the nitty-gritty of the language.enXMOD (Build: 3614.32638)http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/3/hbbnd/Post.htm#742021Fri, 22 May 2009 06:41:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:742021Anonymous0http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/3/hbbnd/Post.htm#742021http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-742021.xmlThe version of English I'm used to does not permit this. I'm from California. I think that in our dialect, the only time you can make a contraction using "have" is when "have" is used as a helping verb. For example, "I have seen many people" can be turned into "I've seen many people."http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/3/hbbnd/Post.htm#594751Sun, 24 May 2009 07:55:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:594751MrPedantic1http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/3/hbbnd/Post.htm#594751http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-594751.xmlI didn't mean to say non-natives should learn or be able to understand lots of different dialects perfectly... I should hope not! Mumbling and misapprehension are the secret keys to fluency in BrE. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/3/hbbnd/Post.htm#594689Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:55:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:594689Kooyeen2http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/3/hbbnd/Post.htm#594689http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-594689.xmlMisunderstanding one another constantly suits the natives. I don't see why it shouldn't suit a non-native just as well. Hmm, what did you mean? I didn't mean to say non-natives should learn or be able to understand lots of different dialects perfectly... I just wanted to say that it seems there are a lot of different features to recognize, if a student is really interested. Of course that is true of American English too, but my impression was that BrE was more... non-homogeneous. Anyway, this was off-topic, sorry.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/2/hbbnd/Post.htm#593523Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:55:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:593523MrPedantic3http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/2/hbbnd/Post.htm#593523http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-593523.xml??!! Then who would you not permit it of? "Ah! Answering that question Brings the priest and the linguist Running in long coats From across the forum." MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/2/hbbnd/Post.htm#593521Sat, 24 Jan 2009 08:55:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:593521Mister Micawber4http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/2/hbbnd/Post.htm#593521http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-593521.xml. I know he'd kick my butt if I tried it! .http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/2/hbbnd/Post.htm#593506Sat, 24 Jan 2009 08:55:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:593506Anonymous5http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/2/hbbnd/Post.htm#593506http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-593506.xmlDid you mean to say "But no, I wouldn't permit myself contraction before a superordinate either."? No, not at all. MrP ??!! Then who would you not permit it of?http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/2/hbbnd/Post.htm#593500Sun, 24 May 2009 07:55:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:593500MrPedantic6http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/2/hbbnd/Post.htm#593500http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-593500.xmlDid you mean to say "But no, I wouldn't permit myself contraction before a superordinate either."? No, not at all. I believe the only way a student would be able to have a good understanding of BrE is just by listening to lots of English from the major dialects Misunderstanding one another constantly suits the natives. I don't see why it shouldn't suit a non-native just as well. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/2/hbbnd/Post.htm#593385Sun, 24 May 2009 07:55:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:593385Kooyeen7http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/2/hbbnd/Post.htm#593385http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-593385.xmlOn second thought, I think I once read somewhere that "I've" is used that way in the UK sometimes, maybe for possession. But since I am not sure, it might be very rare,I have never actually "heard" it, and I have probably just "read" about it... I have no way to tell whether that "I've" should be considered as a monosyllabic contraction or a bisyllabic one in the examples you are giving. In the US, monosyllabic "I've" in sentences like "I've to go there" is just not used, in my opinion. As for other dialects... in the UK, Australia, etc... I don't know. I remember reading that unless "have" is used as an auxiliary verb, it is not reduced in British...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/2/hbbnd/Post.htm#592328Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:55:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:592328Anonymous8http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/2/hbbnd/Post.htm#592328http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-592328.xml<<But no, I wouldn't permit contraction before a superordinate either.>> Did you mean to say "But no, I wouldn't permit myself contraction before a superordinate either."?http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/2/hbbnd/Post.htm#591187Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:55:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:591187MrPedantic9http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/2/hbbnd/Post.htm#591187http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-591187.xmlI wouldn't say "boss". MrP This was the question, MrP. <<Does your variety of English permit contraction here?>> Sorry, old chap. But no, I wouldn't permit contraction before a superordinate either. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/2/hbbnd/Post.htm#591034Sun, 24 May 2009 07:55:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:591034Mister Micawber10http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/2/hbbnd/Post.htm#591034http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-591034.xml. Not I, Molly. .http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/2/hbbnd/Post.htm#591019Sun, 24 May 2009 07:55:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:591019Anonymous11http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/2/hbbnd/Post.htm#591019http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-591019.xmlDo Americans use "we've to..." or "they've to"? How about "they'd to..."?http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/hbbnd/post.htm#590769Sat, 24 Jan 2009 08:55:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:590769Kooyeen12http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/hbbnd/post.htm#590769http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-590769.xmlYou 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...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/hbbnd/post.htm#590724Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:55:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:590724Anonymous13http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/hbbnd/post.htm#590724http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-590724.xml< It seems to de-emphasize the necessity a bit , and add some emphasis to the rest of the sentence.> Yes, it seems to be used as a weak form in some varieties.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/hbbnd/post.htm#590722Sun, 24 May 2009 07:55:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:590722Anonymous14http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/hbbnd/post.htm#590722http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-590722.xml<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.> Are you referring only to written English of your variety? How about in the spoken form?http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/hbbnd/post.htm#590679Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:55:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:590679Clive15http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/hbbnd/post.htm#590679http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-590679.xmlHi 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, Clivehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/hbbnd/post.htm#590673Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:55:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:590673Kooyeen16http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/hbbnd/post.htm#590673http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-590673.xmlDoes 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)http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/hbbnd/post.htm#590584Sat, 24 Jan 2009 08:55:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:590584Anonymous17http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/hbbnd/post.htm#590584http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-590584.xmlI wouldn't say "boss". MrP This was the question, MrP. <<Does your variety of English permit contraction here?>>http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/hbbnd/post.htm#590497Sat, 24 Jan 2009 08:55:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:590497MrPedantic18http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/hbbnd/post.htm#590497http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-590497.xmlI wouldn't say "boss". MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/hbbnd/post.htm#590114Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:55:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:590114Grammar Geek19http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/hbbnd/post.htm#590114http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-590114.xmlIt would sound highly unnatural to me.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/hbbnd/post.htmTue, 24 Mar 2009 08:55:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:590073Anonymous20http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractionIHaveTo/hbbnd/post.htmhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-590073.xmlDoes your variety of English permit contraction here? I have (I've) to be there before the boss tomorrow.