Properly used, conjectures are spelled with apostrophes (couldn't, don't, etc.). With that, people talk in double conjecture terms, so why wouldn't it also be grammatically correct to use double conjecture punctuation (couldn't've - couldn't have - could not have, wouldn't've - wouldn't have - would not have, etc.)? I mean, it makes sense, right?
2007-04-03 07:23:38 · 7 answers · asked by Norak D 7 in Education & Reference ➔ Words & Wordplay
Thanks for the correction, I thought I had it wrong.
2007-04-03 07:39:14 · update #1
But I also think you missed the point of this one. I know the correct usage. This just a brain teaser kind of thing, food for thought, you know, that kind of thing.
2007-04-03 07:41:36 · update #2
That's odd, h_brida, because I rarely, if ever, have seen character dialogue spelled phonetically (could of, etc.). I dont know what you've been reading...
2007-04-08 03:50:15 · update #3
Actually, YmhSilky, people do say them. I say them, and if you've read the answers, allegra mentioned she does as well. I've personally heard other people say it as well. Not just 'na' but actually add the 've' sound.
2007-04-08 10:32:08 · update #4
I think "wouldn't've" is perfectly correct. It's just that it's very casual; you hear it much more in speech than writing. The only time you'd really need to use it is for a piece of literature or poetry with character dialogue in the "local color." Contractions of all kinds are too casual for academic and business writing, and a double contraction like "wouldn't've" would be just too weird for journalistic writing.
Now that I think about it, I think I say "wouldn't've" all the time.
2007-04-03 08:40:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The usual usage when giving a character dialog is to use a phonetic spelling rather than a double contraction. It's usual even when it's not a contraction. I'm accustomed to seeing "would of" and "could of" and "might of" when there'd be sense in "would've" and "could've" and "might've".
The spell checker here won't accept "there'd", "could've" and "might've" in the previous sentence. I've been irritated by this.
The "could na", etc. is only natural in areas where Scottish is in the heritage. I could nay understand him. It's not a sloppy dropping of the t in not. There was ne'er a t in nay.
2007-04-07 23:49:13 · answer #2 · answered by h_brida 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Jane: see my answer above. A double adverse in English could be grammatically superb!! it truly is as much as you. there is very lots of snobbery linked with "superb" grammar. an extremely humorous e book in this subject is: Grammar Snobs Are great great Meanies: A instruction manual to Language for exciting and Spite by ability of June Casagrande Get it from the library and luxuriate in.
2016-11-25 23:33:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Conjectures and contractions are two wholly different things. But in your example, "wouldn't've" makes sense, but it's gramatically incorrect -- because that's the rule.
2007-04-03 07:41:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No one actually says "wouldn't've", "shouldn't've", "couldn't've", or even "hadn't've". They are actually attempting to say "wouldn't have", "couldn't have", "shouldn't have" and yes, "hadn't have". It's just lazy speech, tacking the "na" at the end of the contraction, in place of the word 'have.' Our ears hear the 'na' replacement of 'have' sounding like the word 'of.'
2007-04-08 08:36:30 · answer #5 · answered by YmhSilky (â??Iâ??m Silkyâ??) 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Rather than double contractions, look at them as two contractions: couldn't 've, shouldn't 've, can't 've.
If you are writing something and want to show what someone's speech is like, you could do this. It would show their dialect or lack of education. Don't use it in your prose or you will show your own.
.
2007-04-08 15:36:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
We pronounce it like "couldn't've, but it's not correct - couldn't have is correct. BTW, it's "contractions."
2007-04-03 07:28:07 · answer #7 · answered by gouldgirl2002 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋