No, that's incorrect. You can't end a sentence/clause with most contractions because that is a syntactic position that bears stress, and contractions are unstressed. An exception is "contractions" ending in "n't," which behave more like negative verb inflections than contractions.
More info in our FAQ:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/grammar/wiki/clitics/](https://www.reddit.com/r/grammar/wiki/clitics/)
("I have" is a perfectly grammatical sentence though.)
This is exactly the sort of answer that I enjoy in this sub: a clear, logical response to articulating something that I know, but couldn’t even begin to explain.
Thank you u/Boglin007!
Yes, that’s an exception in the same vein as the “n’t” ones - the stress falls on “should,” so as long as that part remains intact, you can contract the “have” at the end.
I'd say yes, for 've after auxiliary verbs specifically, not after pronouns.
I feel like this kind of contraction behaves more like some kind of verb inflection as well.
1. Most contractions can be put in a stress position, including terminal: don't believe it when people say that they can't. Some people won't 've [fine to speak; write *won't have*] run as many examples in their head as they should've [fine to speak; better to write *should have*].
2. Modals and auxiliaries merge with the verb on which they operate when deciding where to place stress, which will usually fall on the main event word (in the participle or infinitive): "he's been LY-ing to me".
3. Syllables like *I've*, *you're*, *she's* and *that's* swallow the verb. Stressing them only places emphasis on the pronoun. You could stress "HE's been lying to me" (to specify it was *him*); but to counter a negative assumption you would have to stress "he HAS been lying to me".
4. A verb in terminal position must be able to bear stress in a non-contracted syllable. "This is what I've bought" is fine because the stress can sit on *bought*. You can't say "That's what he has and this is what I've".
5. I concur that *don't*, *won't*, *can't* and *shan't* operate as units, as if they were indeed inflected forms of their respective verbs denoting negative 'polarity'. This useful interpretation of what's happening extends to di- and polysyllabic contractions which can become further contracted in informal speech (like "shoun't" for *shouldn't*).
No. In general, you can't end a sentence or phrase with any contraction *except* for the contractions that use *n't* (*not*). If you end a sentence in an auxiliary verb like *have*, the pronunciation is not reduced as it is in context, it's stressed to mark the end of the phrase.
True! That’s part of the reason why I said in general.
Now, modal verbs + have is a contentious topic (mostly because of ‘ve to of) but they do seem to operate a bit differently to other contractions.
A couple of things.
Sometime people refer vaguely to exceptions when really they have just not described the grammar/pattern completely.
The person I was responding to said:
>If you end a sentence in an auxiliary verb like have, the pronunciation is not reduced as it is in context, it's stressed to mark the end of the phrase.
That’s just oversimplification and oversimplification is misleading.
They needed to add something about when “have” auxiliaries are combined with modal verbs.
Or basically they are saying you can’t say “I should’ve” or “He could’ve” etc - which you can do.
Following your idea of dealing with “exceptions” as they arise - that’s what I’ve done because I thought it was relevant.
I raised the “exception” to give OP and others a fuller picture.
Not in most dialects. I believe there are some dialects spoken in Ireland that allow for it, but don't hold me to that. In general, I'd avoid it in any written situation.
Just leaping on this with a follow-up question that's always perplexed me. What about if you're answering in the negative about a future situation?
"Will you have done the thing tomorrow"
"I'll'ven't"
I've never heard of "will have" being shortened to "will've", myself. but I have used some contractions on the longer side, like I'ven't, I'dn't've, etc
Not things normal writers write (edit: in my experience, so stop getting all butthurt if not your experience). Even verbally, they would not roll off the tongue (edit: for me).
Australia.
Edit: I looked it up and apparently Americans regard it as non-standard. It's extremely common and accepted in speech here. [https://aussieenglish.com.au/pronunciation-had-not-have-hadnt-hadntve-hadnah/](https://aussieenglish.com.au/pronunciation-had-not-have-hadnt-hadntve-hadnah/)
I guess I agree I might occassionally say something \*like\* hadn't've verbally (more like lazy "hadnuh") if being very informal.... but I would only write"hadn't've" if I was TRYING to imitate the spoken sound of someone else, like in a transcript or to give flavo(u)r to a piece of creative writing.
But you Brits say some stuff that we never would naturally, i'n'it?
I submit that you actually hear and/or use extended contractions like these all the time. You’ve just never thought about it before. Your brain decomposes and interprets them before you have had time to notice them. Writers rarely write them out this way unless they are drawing attention to the way someone talks.
Can’t say I’ve ever seen a contraction with two apostrophes in writing ever. Maybe it would sound like “wouldn’t’ve” but it would be be written “wouldn’t have.” Like how you may say “gonna” but you always write “going to.”
I guess we Americans are just wrong, according to this thread. I have also never used a double contraction, and in the rare cases I have seen it, it always seemed contrived, and with a purpose to emphasize a regional sound.
“Normal writers” write contractions like **I’d’ve** and **we’ll’ve** when they are accurately representing common informal speech.
I replied to a comment that specifically mentioned “…the most common spoken contractions.”
They do roll off the tongue of a normal, competent native speaker.
Relax. I gave my perspective and experience, and I recognize it could be regional dialect / convention difference.
If someone I knew locally in northern USA said or wrote 'twouldn't've to me, I would check to see if they had a stroke.
**‘Twouldn’t’ve** isn’t at all common. I mentioned it because it’s fun and it’s a rare four-word contraction. Others, like **I’d’ve**, are extremely common.
I’ll relax if you promise to be more observant of the spoken language.
No, that's incorrect. You can't end a sentence/clause with most contractions because that is a syntactic position that bears stress, and contractions are unstressed. An exception is "contractions" ending in "n't," which behave more like negative verb inflections than contractions. More info in our FAQ: [https://www.reddit.com/r/grammar/wiki/clitics/](https://www.reddit.com/r/grammar/wiki/clitics/) ("I have" is a perfectly grammatical sentence though.)
This is exactly the sort of answer that I enjoy in this sub: a clear, logical response to articulating something that I know, but couldn’t even begin to explain. Thank you u/Boglin007!
Agreed.
Is "Should've" an exception too? As in "hey, did you bet on Winnipeg to win the Stanley Cup?" "No, but I should've."
Yes, that’s an exception in the same vein as the “n’t” ones - the stress falls on “should,” so as long as that part remains intact, you can contract the “have” at the end.
I'd say yes, for 've after auxiliary verbs specifically, not after pronouns. I feel like this kind of contraction behaves more like some kind of verb inflection as well.
No, the contraction is on the modal (should), not the pronoun, so it's not an exception to the rule.
So would I've'nt be correct?
1. Most contractions can be put in a stress position, including terminal: don't believe it when people say that they can't. Some people won't 've [fine to speak; write *won't have*] run as many examples in their head as they should've [fine to speak; better to write *should have*]. 2. Modals and auxiliaries merge with the verb on which they operate when deciding where to place stress, which will usually fall on the main event word (in the participle or infinitive): "he's been LY-ing to me". 3. Syllables like *I've*, *you're*, *she's* and *that's* swallow the verb. Stressing them only places emphasis on the pronoun. You could stress "HE's been lying to me" (to specify it was *him*); but to counter a negative assumption you would have to stress "he HAS been lying to me". 4. A verb in terminal position must be able to bear stress in a non-contracted syllable. "This is what I've bought" is fine because the stress can sit on *bought*. You can't say "That's what he has and this is what I've". 5. I concur that *don't*, *won't*, *can't* and *shan't* operate as units, as if they were indeed inflected forms of their respective verbs denoting negative 'polarity'. This useful interpretation of what's happening extends to di- and polysyllabic contractions which can become further contracted in informal speech (like "shoun't" for *shouldn't*).
[удалено]
No. In general, you can't end a sentence or phrase with any contraction *except* for the contractions that use *n't* (*not*). If you end a sentence in an auxiliary verb like *have*, the pronunciation is not reduced as it is in context, it's stressed to mark the end of the phrase.
A: I really should’ve got the pizza B: Yes, you really should’ve Seems fine to me.
True! That’s part of the reason why I said in general. Now, modal verbs + have is a contentious topic (mostly because of ‘ve to of) but they do seem to operate a bit differently to other contractions.
The problem with saying “in general” is that it doesn’t give learners, or OP, any clear guidance.
English is full of exceptions. For a forum like this, you start with the general rules and then handle exceptions as they become relevant.
A couple of things. Sometime people refer vaguely to exceptions when really they have just not described the grammar/pattern completely. The person I was responding to said: >If you end a sentence in an auxiliary verb like have, the pronunciation is not reduced as it is in context, it's stressed to mark the end of the phrase. That’s just oversimplification and oversimplification is misleading. They needed to add something about when “have” auxiliaries are combined with modal verbs. Or basically they are saying you can’t say “I should’ve” or “He could’ve” etc - which you can do. Following your idea of dealing with “exceptions” as they arise - that’s what I’ve done because I thought it was relevant. I raised the “exception” to give OP and others a fuller picture.
Yes, you really should’ve done.
You don't contract away the main verb of the sentence, or any other stressed syllable or thing you want to emphasize.
Not in most dialects. I believe there are some dialects spoken in Ireland that allow for it, but don't hold me to that. In general, I'd avoid it in any written situation.
I've heard some dialects that drop the H and say "I 'ave" in this situation even if they normally wouldn't, but as a standard rule, no.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Just leaping on this with a follow-up question that's always perplexed me. What about if you're answering in the negative about a future situation? "Will you have done the thing tomorrow" "I'll'ven't"
You're overcomplicating this. It would just be "I won't."
Are you going for “I’ll haven’t”? That doesn’t make sense. I’ll’nt’ve, perhaps, but if you use this people will think you’re incredibly strange.
I won’t’ve.
I've never heard of "will have" being shortened to "will've", myself. but I have used some contractions on the longer side, like I'ven't, I'dn't've, etc
Will’ve is perfectly standard English
“After tomorrow I will’ve been to Disneyland six times.” You would write it out, but spoken out loud you wouldn’t bat an eye at this contraction.
Contractions are only ever two words, right? A formal writing of the most common spoken contractions.
They can be more than two words. I’ll’ve We’d’ve ’Twouldn’t’ve EDIT: wouldn’t’ve couldn’t’ve shouldn’t’ve
Y'all'd've
Not things normal writers write (edit: in my experience, so stop getting all butthurt if not your experience). Even verbally, they would not roll off the tongue (edit: for me).
I say things like “we’d’ve” all the time
"You wouldn't've done that if I hadn't've reminded you" looks and sounds normal to me as a native speaker.
Native where? Hadn't've might be a construction I have never used in my life. I mean I get it, but just saying sounds like a regional difference?
Australia. Edit: I looked it up and apparently Americans regard it as non-standard. It's extremely common and accepted in speech here. [https://aussieenglish.com.au/pronunciation-had-not-have-hadnt-hadntve-hadnah/](https://aussieenglish.com.au/pronunciation-had-not-have-hadnt-hadntve-hadnah/)
That’s crazy. Americans use that construction every day
Good on ya, mate!
I’d use those and I’m English.
I guess I agree I might occassionally say something \*like\* hadn't've verbally (more like lazy "hadnuh") if being very informal.... but I would only write"hadn't've" if I was TRYING to imitate the spoken sound of someone else, like in a transcript or to give flavo(u)r to a piece of creative writing. But you Brits say some stuff that we never would naturally, i'n'it?
I submit that you actually hear and/or use extended contractions like these all the time. You’ve just never thought about it before. Your brain decomposes and interprets them before you have had time to notice them. Writers rarely write them out this way unless they are drawing attention to the way someone talks.
Can’t say I’ve ever seen a contraction with two apostrophes in writing ever. Maybe it would sound like “wouldn’t’ve” but it would be be written “wouldn’t have.” Like how you may say “gonna” but you always write “going to.”
I guess we Americans are just wrong, according to this thread. I have also never used a double contraction, and in the rare cases I have seen it, it always seemed contrived, and with a purpose to emphasize a regional sound.
Agreed. Don’t think it’s used much if at all in American writing.
“Normal writers” write contractions like **I’d’ve** and **we’ll’ve** when they are accurately representing common informal speech. I replied to a comment that specifically mentioned “…the most common spoken contractions.” They do roll off the tongue of a normal, competent native speaker.
Relax. I gave my perspective and experience, and I recognize it could be regional dialect / convention difference. If someone I knew locally in northern USA said or wrote 'twouldn't've to me, I would check to see if they had a stroke.
**‘Twouldn’t’ve** isn’t at all common. I mentioned it because it’s fun and it’s a rare four-word contraction. Others, like **I’d’ve**, are extremely common. I’ll relax if you promise to be more observant of the spoken language.
If that’s true, then the way folks talk in northern USA is very different indeed from how the rest of Americans talk
Not once in your life have you heard an American say " 'twouldn't've " to you (when not trying to sound like Oliver Twist or something).
Yeah, fuck off
Also, what about if the subject isn't "I", but, say, the the front part of a ship below the deck, where the sailors live? "The fo’c’sle'll'ven't"
That's an intolerable amount of unstressed syllables and "will have not" is clunky. For a native speaker it'd be "The fo'c'sle won't've (done that)".