# Is this sentence violating a specific grammatical rule? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 6, 2015, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sentence-violating-a-specific-grammatical-rule/736838 "2015-11-06T19:18:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![brujaja](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4af34b/32.png) [@brujaja](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brujaja)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2015, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sentence-violating-a-specific-grammatical-rule/736838/1 "2015-11-06T19:18:33Z")
I found this sentence in a book I was reading. In it, the author used “would’ve” in a way that you never would use it when speaking: _“I knew it’d be a popular excursion, so Lili and the system techs would’ve plenty of help finding and pulling the systems we needed.”_ But try as I might, I cannot come up with an explanation as to why you don’t say this. Is it because you only use a contraction when “would have” is one concept? (i.e., the two words\*\* together\*\* constitute the verb?) Just one of those little things that drive you crazy until you figure it out. P.S. I am certain that the sentence was not meant to be “would’ve had plenty of help” because of the structure of the rest of the paragraph. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2015, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sentence-violating-a-specific-grammatical-rule/736838/2 "2015-11-06T19:32:46Z")
I don’t think it’s a grammatical rule but a matter of style and custom in pronunciation and informal writing. “Would’ve” is usually a contraction of “would have” as a single concept (the auxiliary verb to make a pluperfect subjunctive\*, hence the expectation that it stands for “would have had”), whereas if the author meant a simple subjunctive, the auxiliary verb is just “would”, so the “would” and the “have” are pronounced separately. \*As in the saying “Coulda, woulda, shoulda” ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2015, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sentence-violating-a-specific-grammatical-rule/736838/3 "2015-11-06T19:42:13Z")
Yes, that’s the problem. The elided have after would in Standard English is used only to notify tense, ie _They would’ve gone there_ Fine _They would’ve had a good time_ Fine _They would’ve a good time_ (ie would have a good time) Not fine and unidiomatic ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2015, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sentence-violating-a-specific-grammatical-rule/736838/4 "2015-11-06T19:50:33Z")
The use of “it’d” is also odd. I can find references to it being used as a contraction for “it would” but I don’t recall ever seeing it before, and I would of bet it tweren’t an actual word. The sentence comes from [A Bright Black Sea by C. Litka](http://shakespir.com/ebook/the-bright-black-sea-3846). In context, is it supposed to be some version of future speech? That might justify the odd usage. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2015, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sentence-violating-a-specific-grammatical-rule/736838/5 "2015-11-06T19:56:55Z")
I think the problem isn’t grammatical it’s more that “would’ve”, while being a contraction of “would have”, is recognized as a word in its own right and has its own definition. Therefore if you use the word in such a way that the definition doesn’t work, the word is misused. You can use the example of a compound word like “bedroom”. We define that as a room someone sleeps in. Not every room with a bed is a bedroom. A mattress store display room isn’t a bedroom until someone begins sleeping in one or more beds there. ---
**Author:** ![brujaja](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4af34b/32.png) [@brujaja](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brujaja)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2015, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sentence-violating-a-specific-grammatical-rule/736838/6 "2015-11-06T20:42:00Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > The use of “it’d” is also odd. I can find references to it being used as a contraction for “it would” but I don’t recall ever seeing it before, and I would of bet it tweren’t an actual word. Well, people say, “It’d be a shame,” although it gets slurred to “id be a shame.” But you’re right; the whole book has an odd cadence to it, with numerous little departures from, uh, what I would call natural English. As I was reading it, I thought, maybe it’s a non-native English speaker; but the vocabulary is otherwise quite good, spelling too. Oh, and I don’t believe it’s meant to be some kind of future informal English. There are none of the usual indicators of such a device. ---
**Author:** ![RadicalPi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/radicalpi/32/9806_2.png) [@RadicalPi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RadicalPi)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2015, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sentence-violating-a-specific-grammatical-rule/736838/7 "2015-11-06T21:10:45Z")
There are essentially two different versions of “have.” (Well, there’s actually more, but two at issue here.) The first is “have” as a normal verb meaning “possess,” and the other as an auxiliary verb that gives the verb following it a particular relationship with the time of the utterance. And it turns out that in American English, only the second of these, the auxiliary use, can be contracted. There aren’t really any normal verbs that can form contractions. And so “have” doesn’t when used as a normal verb. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2015, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sentence-violating-a-specific-grammatical-rule/736838/8 "2015-11-06T21:33:04Z")
> [@RadicalPi](#): > > And it turns out that in American English, only the second of these, the auxiliary use, can be contracted. There aren’t really any normal verbs that can form contractions. And so “have” doesn’t when used as a normal verb. Does British English differ? I always found the last line of Pink Floyd’s _Time_ to be slightly odd: _The time is gone, the song is over, Thought I’d something more to say._ Clearly, the “had” in “I’d” is in the normal possessive sense, not the auxiliary verb sense. Just poetic license or is there a language difference? ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2015, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sentence-violating-a-specific-grammatical-rule/736838/9 "2015-11-06T21:39:13Z")
I’ve seen “I’d” used in a colloquial fashion as a contraction of “I had”. It’s pretty common, one discussion of how to tell between “I had” and “I would” is here: [http://speakspeak.com/resources/english-grammar-rules/various-grammar-rules/apostrophe-d-had-or-would](http://speakspeak.com/resources/english-grammar-rules/various-grammar-rules/apostrophe-d-had-or-would) A Google of “I’d=I had” shows many others. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2015, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sentence-violating-a-specific-grammatical-rule/736838/10 "2015-11-06T21:46:59Z")
> [@brujaja](#): > > …_“I knew it’d be a popular excursion, so Lili and the system techs would’ve plenty of help finding and pulling the systems we needed.”_ > > … IMHO this sentence could read two ways to be correct (and neither of them is the way quoted): \*“I knew it’d be a popular excursion, so Lili and the system techs would’ve HAD plenty of help finding and pulling the systems we needed.” \* or \*“I knew it’d be a popular excursion, so Lili and the system techs would HAVE plenty of help finding and pulling the systems we needed.” \* Not violating a specific rule. It’s just that the second contraction is awkward. ---
**Author:** ![RadicalPi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/radicalpi/32/9806_2.png) [@RadicalPi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RadicalPi)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2015, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sentence-violating-a-specific-grammatical-rule/736838/11 "2015-11-06T21:47:34Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Does British English differ? I always found the last line of Pink Floyd’s _Time_ to be slightly odd: > _The time is gone, the song is over, > Thought I’d something more to say._ > > Clearly, the “had” in “I’d” is in the normal possessive sense, not the auxiliary verb sense. Just poetic license or is there a language difference? Yes, the British is a bit different from the American here. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2015, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sentence-violating-a-specific-grammatical-rule/736838/12 "2015-11-06T22:12:56Z")
I agree with the above descriptions of the problem. The contraction of have to 've can be used only for the auxiliary have, not for the main verb. There is a similar situation with wanna. Consider the following pair of sentences: This is the man I wanna succeed. This is the man I want to succeed. The first can mean only that I want to follow him (in some office or position, presumably). The second, while it can have that meaning is more likely to mean I hope he is successful. The difference is usually explained by a so-called trace (of an implicit subject of succeed) coming between want and to. In the first one, that trace is the object, not subject, of succeed. The point is that these contractions follow their own grammatical rules and the sentence of the OP violates one of them. Incidentally, the it’d doesn’t bother me at all. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2015, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sentence-violating-a-specific-grammatical-rule/736838/13 "2015-11-06T23:52:40Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > I’ve seen “I’d” used in a colloquial fashion as a contraction of “I had”. My question wasn’t about “I’d” as “I had”, but rather the distinction that **RadicalPi** brought up. That is: _I’d gone to the store / I had gone to the store_: “had” is an auxiliary to “gone” to put it in the past perfect (I think?) tense. _Thought I’d something more to say / Thought I had something more to say_: “had” indicates possession of the noun phrase “something more to say”. It’s this second usage which is somewhat odd in American English. The first usage is common. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2015, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sentence-violating-a-specific-grammatical-rule/736838/14 "2015-11-07T00:02:07Z")
Since there are no “grammatical rules” in English, I’d have to say no. ---
**Author:** ![Ornery\_Bob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/da6949/32.png) [@Ornery\_Bob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ornery_Bob)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2015, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sentence-violating-a-specific-grammatical-rule/736838/15 "2015-11-07T03:20:55Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Since there are no “grammatical rules” in English, I’d have to say no. It’s a common notion that English follows rules of grammar. The reality, of course, is that it’s the other way 'round. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2015, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sentence-violating-a-specific-grammatical-rule/736838/16 "2015-11-07T04:29:26Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > … I would of bet it tweren’t an actual word. I see what you did there. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hilarity_n.suze/32/6223_2.png) [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hilarity_N.Suze)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2015, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-sentence-violating-a-specific-grammatical-rule/736838/17 "2015-11-07T05:20:46Z")
I’m guessing editorial error. Possibly English as not a first language editorial error, but it could just be a goof. Words get left out all the time, you expect to see them there, and in this case it is just so close.