Afaik, English grammar requires utterances with predicates to have a stressed element in those predicates. Contractions of only a subject and an auxiliary verb - ex: I am > I’m, he has > he’s, they will > they’ll - eliminate that independent auxiliary as a prosodic segment and violate that grammar.
A - “Who’s going to the store?”
B - “I am.” [ok] or “I’m going.” [ok] (or “I am going.”), but not “I’m.” [bad, obvs].
As you all know, many posts are poorly censored to confound OCR. I don’t love that, but it makes sense.
Sometimes I think things have been censored, but it turns out that they were simply partially obstructed by UI elements on my phone.
For this post, I had to try to figure out how “linguist” was offensive before I discovered there’s apparently now an entirely functionless line that shows up on the bottom of my screen when opening images.
Who’s to say that ending sentences in contractions is wrong? Perhaps you’d’ve, but I’dn’t’ve.
This made perfect sense
And hurt my head
deleted by creator
Those are all correct and also sound fine.
It’s what it’s.
“It’s” specifically is funny because you can use its alternative version “'tis” in some places that you cant use “it’s”.
‘Tis what ‘tis
Tits what tis.
Let me teach you a thing: “have” can be “'ve” if it is an auxiliary verb. Ta-daah.
I can’t help you or your fucky language with “'m” or “'s” or “'re”.
what’s an auxillary verb?
I have an apple - in this sentence, “have” is the main verb.
I have bought an apple - here, “to buy” is the main verb, the main action, while “have” is the auxiliary verb that lets you form the past tense “have bought”. The word “auxiliary” means helpful or supportive, an auxiliary verb supports, as it were, the main verb.
Except you can most certainly say, “I’ve an apple.”
You can, but would you? It sounds old-timey because it’s not how modern English works.
I think it might be more common in British English? Like “I’ve a fiver says he muffs the kick.” Or “I’ve half a mind to go down there myself.” (Curiously in American English this latter would probably still have the contraction but add a second auxiliary verb: “I’ve got half a mind to…” English is such a mess.)
Yeah, it’s not as uncommon the UK to hear specifically “I’ve [x]” instead of “I’ve got [x]”. I won’t be told though that Brits say “the [x] that I’ve” ;D
lol, really?
I’ve an apple in one hand, and I’ve an orange in the other.
I’ve modernity all over me.It seems like this usage has survived in British dialects more than elsewhere, I’ll give you that.
Canada, too.
The contractions we say are more loose than what we write. Couldn’t’ve is my go to example.
that makes sense, thank you for the explanation!
So’ve you thought about this before?
Unfortunately I’ve studied English at uni thinking it might’ve in some capacity become useful by now. Alas, so far I’ve’d no opportunity to use the nonsense I’ve learnt other than to shitpost about it. Woe’m’st’ve’d is me.
You wouldn’t
I’m Henry VIII, I’m.
The contraction literally isn’t right. It only works with the adverb version of “have”.
it’s what it’s
This one is correct but sounds wrong because we usually say it the other way.
Well they’re all “correct”. They just don’t sound right. Like saying “the red, big apple” instead of “the big, red apple”.
Wait, I remember learning in primary school about the correct order for adjectives. Is that not a thing?
Fair
You think it do, but it don’t.
They don’t think it be like it is, but it do.
That’s wrong. Correct would be “doesn’t”.
Gah! Yes, quite rightn’t.
That “it’s” is evil. It’s going to be in my head for a long time
