PDA

View Full Version : Is "should've" a proper contraction?

Leaper
04-21-2009, 07:05 PM
It's not recognized by Firefox's spellcheck. It's not listed in any dictionary.com dictionary. But for the life of me, I can't see why it shouldn't be. Can anyone enlighten?
Sunspace
04-21-2009, 07:07 PM
Doesn't seem unusual to me, although it was flagged by Firefox.
Indistinguishable
04-21-2009, 07:27 PM
Yes, it's totally proper.

dictionary.com doesn't list many regular contractions (e.g., you won't find "would've" or "could've" either. And the latter, Firefox flags as well. Firefox's spellcheck dictionary isn't in any sense exhaustive)
troub
04-21-2009, 08:22 PM
Much better than "should of" in any case :-)

Which spell checkers of course have no problem with.
panache45
04-21-2009, 09:03 PM
I would call it "proper colloquial," as opposed to "proper highfalutin."
twickster
04-21-2009, 09:08 PM
I wouldn't've gotten my knickers in a twist about it.
Balthisar
04-21-2009, 09:13 PM
And to think that I constantly use contractions such as "I'd've" without blinking an eye.
CaveMike
04-21-2009, 09:14 PM
Wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_contractions) includes it in their list of contractions. I wouldn't consider the page authoritative, but it is interesting none the less; particularly for the entries of double and triple contractions.
Elendil's Heir
04-21-2009, 11:19 PM
Yup. You mustn't be shy about using it. Oughtn't you?
Bryan Ekers
04-22-2009, 12:03 AM
It's not recognized by Firefox's spellcheck.

Huh, I wouldn't've thought so.
Bosstone
04-22-2009, 12:06 AM
It's not recognized by Firefox's spellcheck.Huh. It shoulda.
BigT
04-22-2009, 01:43 AM
What is a "proper contraction" anyways?
Malacandra
04-22-2009, 01:52 AM
It's as opposed to a Braxton-Hicks.
Khadaji
04-22-2009, 04:43 AM
Many contractions are flagged by Firefox on my machine.
Keeve
04-22-2009, 05:47 AM
And to think that I constantly use contractions such as "I'd've" without blinking an eye.Do you use it in writing, or only in speech?

It never occurs to me to use "I'd've" in writing. I wrote "I'd have". I do speak it a lot, but I consider it to be a slurring, not a contraction.
Olentzero
04-22-2009, 07:32 AM
Much better than "should of" in any case :-)Thank you. God, I have so few grammatical pet peeves, but this one is by far the biggest.Which spell checkers of course have no problem with.I weep for humanity.
An Gadaí
04-22-2009, 07:51 AM
I amn't the only one who uses it then?
Elendil's Heir
04-22-2009, 08:38 AM
Whaddya talkin' about?
Philster
04-22-2009, 08:57 AM
That's a whole nother issue. Besides, ''it's'' is a contraction and not a possessive. Didya know that? Many don't.

Damn, I could've had a V-8. Where's the Beef?
Mudz
04-22-2009, 09:10 AM
I amn't the only one who uses it then?

My kids use "amn't." They came up with it themselves. Which makes me wonder why this isn't proper. Why is "aren't" proper, but "amn't" not? It fits the pattern: isn't, aren't, amn't.
An Gadaí
04-22-2009, 09:19 AM
My kids use "amn't." They came up with it themselves. Which makes me wonder why this isn't proper. Why is "aren't" proper, but "amn't" not? It fits the pattern: isn't, aren't, amn't.

I think it's proper but YMMV.
fachverwirrt
04-22-2009, 09:22 AM
Huh, I wouldn't've thought so.

You would be so much cooler if you'd spelled that I'dn't've.
Sunspace
04-22-2009, 09:50 AM
My kids use "amn't." They came up with it themselves. Which makes me wonder why this isn't proper. Why is "aren't" proper, but "amn't" not? It fits the pattern: isn't, aren't, amn't.Who said that "amn't" is improper? It's just very, very unusual, at least on this side of the pond.
GoodOmens
04-22-2009, 11:16 AM
Much better than "should of" in any case :-)


I'm not much of a grammar stickler, but this one just makes me want to burn things.
Fish
04-22-2009, 11:21 AM
I see the contractions in this thread are coming very regularly now.
Chronos
04-22-2009, 11:27 AM
My kids use "amn't." They came up with it themselves. Which makes me wonder why this isn't proper. Why is "aren't" proper, but "amn't" not? It fits the pattern: isn't, aren't, amn't."Amn't" isn't used much because it's hard to say; the standard contraction for "am not" is "ain't".
rowrrbazzle
04-24-2009, 12:49 AM
Some opinions of proper contractions.

ADDRESS DELIVERED BEFORE THE NEWBURYPORT FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL, ON THE THIRD ANNIVERSARY OF ITS ESTABLISHMENT, DECEMBER 19, 1846.

BY ANDREW P. PEABODY.

...I propose to give you a few hints on conversation...

...for some of the new grammars sanction these vulgarisms, and in looking over their tables of irregular verbs, I have sometimes half expected to have the book dashed from my hand by the indignant ghost of Lindley Murray.

Great care and discretion should be employed in the use of the common abbreviations of the negative forms of the substantive and auxiliary verbs. "Can't", "don't", and "havn't" [sic], are admissible in rapid conversation on trivial subjects. "Isn't" and "hasn't" are more harsh, yet tolerated by respectable usage.

"Didn't", "couldn't", "wouldn't", and "shouldn't", make as unpleasant combinations of consonants as can well be uttered, and fall short but by one remove of those unutterable names of Polish gentlemen, which sometimes excite our wonder in the columns of a newspaper.

"Won't" for "will not", and "aint" [sic] for "is not" or "are not", are absolutely vulgar; and "aint" [sic], for "has not" or "have not", is utterly intolerable...
Richard Pearse
04-24-2009, 03:59 AM
"Amn't" isn't used much because it's hard to say; the standard contraction for "am not" is "ain't".
I disagree about it being hard to say. It looks like it should be hard to say with the adjacent m and n but it is no more difficult than shouldn't, with a vowel of convenience placed between the consonants.