Search results for 'tag:Conversations tag:Contractions' matching tags 'Conversations' and 'Contractions'

Re: Ann will / Ann'll

Philip — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:55:15 GMT

In the spoken word, the contraction occurs naturally and often. I would never use it in written form, unless quoting a person in conversation.

Re: abbreviation point

MrPedantic — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:52:20 GMT

I've returned this thread to "regular" format, as the "question and answer" format can cause confusion, in a discussion of this kind, with a compound question.

In response to the original question, I would agree with Forbes that in BrE books and academic journals, a contraction (e.g. Revd) tends not to take a stop, whereas a truncation (e.g. Rev.) does.

In ordinary magazines and newspapers, on the other hand, it is quite common to see a truncation without a stop; and in ordinary BrE usage (e.g. address labels, emails) it is quite common to see contractions with a stop. When disputes arise, it's usual for both parties to end the conversation with "Well, that's how I was taught to do it!".

Best wishes,

MrP

Re: Comes in colours.

Alan.es — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 11:34:49 GMT

Yes, I'll and we'll are contractions of I shall and we shall.

Yes, teaching whom does irritate me a little but it's not tested as much so minor irritation only.

I accept and use shall in my own conversations and writing but then I learned my grammar when you couldn't end a sentence with a preposition nor could you split an infinitive.

Google is very useful but I don't accept its use as a means of proof for correct usage in English.

Let's not argue about the disappearance of shall from the English language. It will be with us for many years yet but its use in everyday English has declined enormously already.

The same is true for whom.

Re: Teach me some contractions!

CalifJim — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:40:33 GMT

My impression is that was never contracts. I would take When's the last time... as When is the last time ... -- I think.

Forms of do do contract after question words in very casual conversation ('s, 'd). The 'd seems to me more common and more natural sounding than the 's. I placed question marks before the sentences below that don't strike me as the best choices. (Personal opinion.)

Where'd he go on vacation? [wair dee]
??Where's he go on vacation?   [wair zee]
?When'd he leave? [wen dee]
??When's he leave? [wen zee]
How'd he find out? [howdee]
???How's he find out?   [howzee]
Why'd he do that?   [widee]
???Why's he do that?    [wizee]
Who'd he think'd do it? [hoodee]
?Who's he think'll do it? [hoozee]
???What'd he say? [wuddidee] [wuddee]
?What's he say? [wutsee]

CJ

Re: "hadn't have been..., ...wouldn't have had to have..."

CalifJim — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 05:51:43 GMT

The first one seems wrong at the end. Let me change it a little. Make another post if you still have a question about that last bit of the first one, OK?

1 "If it hadn't have been for the accident, I wouldn't have had to report late for work."

2 "If it wouldn't have been for the accident, I would have been on time."

These are both used in casual conversation, though the patterns in the if-clauses are not the standard forms for the "Third Conditional". In your place I would learn to recognize them, but I would not imitate them.
To give a realistic imitation of how these are actually said, more contractions need to be shown.

If it hadn't've been for the accident, I wouldn't've had to report late for work.
If it wouldn't've been for the accident, I would've been on time.

Since this is almost entirely a spoken, not a written, pattern, less schooled natives wouldn't even know how to spell them, and might write them as If it hadn't of been ... and If it wouldn't of been ... because the sound of 've and of are the same.

The standard (spoken or written) versions are:

If it hadn't been for the accident, I wouldn't have had to report late for work
If it hadn't been for the accident, I would've been on time.

CJ

Re: Contractions again (I am sorry)

Maple — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 17:48:27 GMT

CalifJim wrote:
My observation is that learners find these nearly impossible to incorporate in their own conversations. Any comments on that?

It is possible for us to incorporate contractions in our conversations, say, at an English corner, though not that common. I actually often use the simple ones of them-the ones which can be easily found in written form. But I don't know if they sound naturally. My classmates can get whatever I say because of the familiarity. But maybe it's a disaster to stranger addressees. LOL

I guess the more difficult part of contraction for us is the listening. When you native speakers' speech speed is normal, some sounds are omitted, some are swallowed and some are combined, the sentences are a mess to my ears.

Maple

Re: Contractions again (I am sorry)

Kooyeen — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:26:03 GMT

Thank you all for your comments, guys.

CalifJim wrote:
My observation is that learners find these nearly impossible to incorporate in their own conversations. Any comments on that?

My opinion is that learners use contractions if they are used to them, for example because they hear them often. So maybe I wouldn't use an "s" after a voiceless sound because I've never noticed one (I probably heard some, but I don't remember hearing them). But after all I'm not listening very much. I'll try to listen to some English as often as I can, from now on.

Yesterday, for example, I heard "did" contracted to 'd. I'd never noticed that feature, but I think it is only possible in some cases, like:
How'd you do that? (How joo)
What'd your girlfriend do? (What jur)
Why'd your mother go there? (Why jur)

Notice there is always a "you" or "your" after "did", and there are no personal pronouns. So you can't contract "did" in "She did a good job" or "I think Mike did a great thing".
But there's a thing I'm not sure of:
How'd you do that? = How did you do that -- But it can't also mean "How would you do that?", right?

Re: Contractions again (I am sorry)

CalifJim — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 05:46:50 GMT

I agree that it's useless to add apostrophe-s to indicate is when the word ends in a sibilant (i.e., would take -es to form a plural). In these cases the apostrophe-s looks very strange, and nothing is gained where pronunciation is concerned. But in all other cases (regardless of whether they end in a voiced or unvoiced sound), the apostrophe-s for is is fine. (Go figure!)

*My watch's slow.
My watch is slow.
Dinner's ready.
Mike's here.

My observation is that learners find these nearly impossible to incorporate in their own conversations. Any comments on that?

CJ

Re: "...second-guess" "...foggiest idea..." "...going/ \immediately" Thank

CalifJim — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:44:37 GMT

1. Sounds natural to me.
2. Sounds unnatural to me, but not for the same reason as Yankee gives.
It's clearly an expression more often heard in conversation than seen in writing, so contractions should be used to make it sound more natural.

I haven't the foggiest idea ... has a slightly British flavor.

More commonly in American English: I don't have the foggiest idea ...

I have never heard the version with notion, and I would never use it. Could it be a regionalism? To me, notion sounds like a word my parents' or grandparents' generation would use. The most natural version in my opinion would be one of these:

I don't have the [slightest / foggiest] [idea / clue] [what time / when] the rehearsal is.

foggiest clue is the least felicitous combination, in my opinion.

3. ... going to bed immediately is the only version that sounds natural to me.

CJ

Re: Don't

Lil' Ruby Rose — Thu, 31 May 2007 18:12:59 GMT

Yes, they're all grammatically possible. However, as Bokeh pointed out, I doubt you'd hear any of them in natural conversations.

Your suggestion that if people were to use that kind of construction, they'd tend to use the full version rather than the contraction was not correct - and that's what both Bokeh and Nona were saying. If we did say something like this, we'd tend to use a contraction.