Not sure if this should be here or in IMHO, but here goes: Why aren’t all contractions suitable for all cases? That’s phrased badly. Sorry, I’m tired. Here’s my example:
Who’s going?
I’m.
Who’s inside?
He’s.
These are grammatically correct, but you never hear them. Is it just because they sound strange, as in the sentence is too short?
Can anyone think of any other examples? Right now mine all involve “to be,” but are those the only ones?
I think it’s just a matter of which usage is usual in your locality. You can say things like “amn’t” for “am not”, but I never hear that around here (and I’m not even sure how to say it), even though I see to recall an Irish poster saying that amn’t was used there.
The various forms of “to be” can function either as auxiliary verbs or full verbs. Contractions are always of the auxiliary form, since they require a verb to complete them.
He is inside. The verb “is” is a full verb.
He is going. “is” is now auxiliary to “going”
I am inside. Full.
I’m going. Auxiliary.
Other auxiliary verbs include do, will, shall, and their ilk.
Here’s the Wiki article on them.
But one can perfectly well say “He’s inside”…
The general gist of your explanation matches what I (vaguely recall once having) learned as well, however your examples don’t seem to work. “He’s inside” and “I’m inside” are unproblematic standard English usage.
-Kris
As far as I can tell, going over examples in my head, the only thing marking the disallowed usages of to be contractions is that they comprise an entire sentence (or anyway, whatchumacallum, “clause” or whatever the term is. Something which at least could be a sentence all by itself.)
-FrL-
I think it’s a matter of emphasis.
Who’s going?
I am
“I’m” doesn’t stress the “I” enough. “It is I that am going.”
Similarly: Who’s inside? He is. Is he inside? He is.
Um, yeah. I thought I remembered the explanation for the dangling “he’s” lies in that distinction, but that doesn’t work. I won’t withdraw the post since it’s accurate if inadequate, but I’ll step back until I can figure out why the particular application isn’t working.
I don’t think you need to retract your post; you were just honestly mistaken. But what do you mean by “accurate if inadequate”? Hasn’t the assertion that contractions are always of the auxiliary form been demonstrated to be inaccurate?
It is not a question of grammar. As the OP says, the examples are grammatically correct, if unorthodox.
Who is playing tennis now?
I am (it is necessary to stress the word I, so you can’t use the contraction “I’m”)
Are you playing tennis?
I am (it is necessary to stress the am)
What are you doing?
I’m playing tennis (no need to stress I or am, so they can be contracted to “I’m”)
For any question to which the answer can be just “I am”, it is necessary to stress one of the words. That is why you never hear the answer “I’m”.
My intuition (and that of the OP in starting this thread, even if they didn’t recognize it as such) is that there is something grammatically incorrect about replying with solely “I’m”, precisely insofar as grammar is meant to track actual facts of usage*. The fact that no one would respond that way and would be struck by such responses as though they were malformed is the fact that they would be ungrammatical (at least, at a suitable level of detail in specifying our grammar).
*: Albeit in a suitably idealized way. It might be reasonable to hold that certain sentences of supermillion word lengths are grammatical, even though no one will ever say them. But I don’t think we need worry about such simplifying mismatches here.
If that were the correct explanation, then there would be something wrong with saying “I’m going” when you intend to stress that it is you that is going. But there’s nothing wrong with that.
Who’s going?
I’m going.
-FrL-
No, because “I’m going” has an extra word in it. You can emphasise the “I’m” or the “going” by stressing one or the other. But you can’t emphasise anything when you only have one syllable to play with.
One thing you have to remember is that languages need redundancy. A single syllable is more likely to get lost in background noise. Just a WAG from a language geek.
But if “I’m” by itself is disallowed because we need another word for contrast of emphasis, then why can’t we use it by itself when no emphasis is intended, or when emphasis on “am” is intended?
“Are you going?”
“I am.”
Are you going?
“I’m.”
Why isn’t the second one okay? There’s no intent to emphasis that it is I myself who is doing the action, so by the rule you’re describing, it should be okay to use the contraction.
-FrL-
I don’t know, but note that the natural answer to the question “Are you going?” if you don’t need to emphasize anything is “Yeah.” It’s sounds somewhat unnatural to me to answer “I am” if you’re not emphasizing anything. “I’m” just sounds weird.
But you can certainly use;
“Are you going?”
“I am.” or “I’m not.” especially where two people are answering the same question.
The first answer couldn’t take a contraction and the second would be strangely formal without it.
Which would fit with the ‘second word needed for emphasis’ theory.
Disclaimer: this is a WAG and I’m too tired to stick around and defend it. 'Night all.