RSS LJ

October 19, 2005

Orthographic heresy ()

by fluffy at 2:01 PM
will + not → won't
not + ever → never
will + not + ever → won'ever

should + not → shouldn't
(anything) + have → (anything)'ve
should + not + have → shouldn't've

I + would → I'd
would + have → would've
I + would + have → I'd've

he + is → he's
is + not → isn't
he + is + not → he'sn't

Comments

#6580 10/19/2005 06:18 pm
I’ve oft used double contractions like “You shouldn’t’ve done it that way; I’d’ve done it differently.” But I will never say “won’ever”.
#6582 10/20/2005 03:35 am
Ditto.

Contracting contractions is fun!
#6583 10/20/2005 05:43 am Hey
I think you've got a typo...shouldn't that line be "would + not → wouldn't"?

I personally like the southern "it + was + not → 'tweren't"
#6584 10/20/2005 07:50 am
er, I meant → shouldn't. Razz
#6585 10/20/2005 08:49 am
You neglected a couple of my favorites, "ought + have" and "ought + not."
#6586 10/20/2005 08:56 am
But "ought" isn't a contraction to begin with, so it'd just be ugly but proper two-way contractions rather than ugly and improper three-way contractions.
#6587 10/20/2005 11:34 am
I know I've used both "shouldn't've" and "I'd've" in informal written conversation. Most of the rest don't really have spoken precedents, though. I don't know why not.
#6588 10/20/2005 11:50 am
Those two are less offensive than the outer two. It's sort of a heretical sandwich.
#6589 10/20/2005 07:44 pm
Huh? Your examples aren't contractions to begin with either... I employ "oughtn't've."
#6591 10/20/2005 09:11 pm
Er, yes they are contractions. "would + not → wouldn't." Wouldn't is a contraction, of would and not. "Wouldn't've" is a contraction of "wouldn't" and "have." It's a three-way.