+0
Does your variety of English permit contraction here?

I have (I've) to be there before the boss tomorrow.
1 2 3
Comments  
It would sound highly unnatural to me.
I wouldn't say "boss".

MrP
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
MrPedanticI wouldn't say "boss".

MrP

This was the question, MrP.

<<Does your variety of English permit contraction here?>>
AnonymousDoes 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)
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
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
<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?
<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.
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...
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Show more