Talk:Contraction (grammar)

message: What are we talking about here ? Is it only standard (even mandatory) contractions in written text, or can we speak of fairly common contractions in oral speak ? if so, please tell me, I'll add a couple of things in the french section--Yitscar 11:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extend of the page contents

message: "Ce est" seems very awkward, "C'est" is (at least generally) better replaced by "Cela est" than "Ce est". Google seems to be supportive on this with 24 times the number of pages revealing "Cela est"  than "Ce est" , and most results for "Ce est", at least on the first pages, are not even related to the pronoun. --A Sunshade Lust 07:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, it's "Cela est".  (I'm a native French speaker) --Dandin1 16:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whereas you are probably right in saying that c'est is better replaced by cela est than by ce est, that is only because ce est is completely wrong, just like je ai for j'ai or si il ne a pas for s'il n'a pas. I believe you are mixing two different phenomena: Usually, ce should always be used in conjunction with être and cela reserved for use with other verbs (exceptions include colloquial speech, especially when ce(la) is stressed): Cela fait, cela fit and cela a fait; but c’est (contraction of ce+est), ce fut and ç’a été (contraction of ce+a été). Google is unlikely to give a good indication on this because 1) no one will ever write ce est (the contraction is mandatory in French), and 2) cela may be the last part of a (longer) nominal expression, e.g., tout cela in tout cela est, in which case cela will appear to be used with être. Because of the duality between cela and ce, the best solution would probably be to choose a different example.
I'm going to change this back with a note emphasizing that the contraction is mandatory. "Ce" and "cela" are essentially different words in French, though related, of course ("cela" comes from "ce + là").  Ce+est is always rendered "C'est" and cela+est (which doesn't have a cedilla, incidentally) wouldn't be contracted (so "cela est"), although the previous comment is right to point out that "cela" is usually reserved for other verbs. N. Paul Inast 15:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This is an old discussion (which seems to have been resolved), but another point supporting ce + est is that the plural of c'est is ce sont. — 194.74.1.82 (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  c'est = ce est     changed to     c'est = cela est 

message: I'm not sure about the rule for contractions. From what source are you drawing this conclusion? My understanding is that one should use contractions sparingly (and some not at all, such as "should've") in formal writing, but that omitting them entirely is old-fashioned and unnecessary. I have looked in the Chicago Manual of Style, Turabian Guide, and the APA Publication Manual and found nothing to support the assertion of contraction-free writing. Ideas? --Natalie indeed 19:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Contractions are certainly not used in academic writing, and I would never use contractions in a formal letter. The form cannot should always be used, however; and the distinction between cannot (negating can, used when can't would have been used in spoken or less formal language) and can not (negating the following verb [most of the time], used when can't would not have been an option) must be observed.
Well, I'm here to tell you that contractions ARE used in academic writing, and I say this based on the fact that I am an academic, a writer, and an editor of an academic journal. And yes, I know how to use the word "cannot" (not sure why you went into that little tirade). I again assert that this "no contraction" business is an ancient taboo that deserves to be chucked into the wastebin of hegemony. Has anyone actually seen this old-fashioned convention in a style book? Love, Natalie
I'd like to see a source for that statement, too. English is not my first language, but I've gone through English IB (International Baccalaureate) course without knowing anything about such rule. Sergei Klink 06:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contraction-free writing 

message: the portuguese,german,ancient greek, and japanese sections are stuck in the table wuth the spanish lyris containing contractions. i don't know how to fix it, but maybe one of y'all can.--Idon'texist 00:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portuguese, german, ancient greek, and japanese are messed up 

message: Will the author of the section on "let's" kindly expand on his or her views? I really do not understand them. Thank you. GeorgeLouis 12:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let us go then, you and I . . .  

message: I always thought that ikanakucha (ikenai) was contracted from ikanakute wa ikenai, which is its more formal form, and not from the -chau forms as the article explains. Ditto for itcha dame coming from itte wa dame and not itchau dame. Can someone tell me if I'm right or not? (Sorry I can't input Japanese from my present location.) Bigpeteb 19:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. It's been fixed.LeeWilson 06:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese -nakucha forms? 

message: Why would it be incorrect to say "I'm the way I'm."
Besides other than It sounds stupid.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.112.152 (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have explained it in Clitic#Clitics in English.  Stress prevents cliticization.  You can't say *"I don't know who she's."  - TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm and I am in one sentence 

message: "In informal speech, also aufm for auf dem, unterm for unter dem, etc. are used, but would be considered incorrect if written, except maybe in quoted direct speech, in appropriate context and style."
What about Hesse's novel, Unterm Rad?208.81.93.99 (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Auf dem

message: After waiting since July for a response to my note above, headed Let us go then, you and I, I am removing all reference to let's from the article because they are not comprehensible. I am also tagging this article as Citations Missing. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there - I was the original author of the "Let's" paragraph, although it was edited a bit after I wrote it.  Sorry for not getting back sooner, but I haven't looked at this page in some time.  I don't really understand your confusion.  "Let's" is a contraction of "let us" in forming the imperative -- for example, instead of saying "Let us go to the park", you'd normally say "Let's go to the park".  This is one of the most commonly used contractions in the English language.  The uncontracted form is not unheard of, but is typically only used in very formal settings, such as a minister / priest saying "Let us pray".  I'm going to put the paragraph back, as this is a rather glaring omission from a discussion of English contractions.  Seansinc (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As a followup, is the discussion of "let us" in the sense of "permit us to..." the part that's confusing you?  That part was added by someone else, but I think it's a valid point.  "Let us go" is similar to "Let him go", "Let them go", etc., and you would never use "let's" to express that meaning. Seansinc (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Coming in late, I agree with Seansinc that the contraction is a significant one and should not be removed. However, GeorgeLouis is perfectly correct in citing T S Eliot's usage Let us go then, you and I, wherein the construction is clearly a "first-person-plural imperative" and could equally correctly be written Let's go. . .  Bjenks (talk) 07:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bjenks - You are correct; the uncontracted form "Let us" can be used in an imperative construction, but it is much less common than the contraction "Let's".  I say so above: " The uncontracted form is not unheard of, but is typically only used in very formal settings, such as a minister / priest saying 'Let us pray'."  The T.S. Elliot quote is another example.  The paragraph in the article reflects this as currently written, (both that "Let us" may be used that way and that it is less commonly seen), so I think we're fine. Seansinc (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

text:  Arnav - I Disagree. I just read it, and the meaning was unclear to me. I think it's an important distinction to make, but the difference should be noted between "Let's go [to somewhere; with someone; to do something; et c.]." and "[You] let us go." In the former, there's nothing missing from the sentence, i.e., "Let us go [to somewhere; with someone; to do something; et c.]." is a complete sentence. Subject and verb are present. "[You] let us go." (sans the clarification) is missing it's true subject: the implied "you." This is what makes the real distinction for when you have to use "let us" as opposed to "let's." To my knowledge, there's not any case in which it's unacceptable to use "let us" in place of "let's," as it should be; "let's" is always just contracting "let us." It seems like a squares and rectangles situation to me. Consider revising it to some to the effect of, "It's never unacceptable to use "let us" in the place of "let's." However, there are some cases in which using "let's" would not work. Such is the case in the sentences "Let's go." and "Let us go." In one sense, it is possible for them to have the same effect: to implore someone to leave one place to to go to another. However, it is possible, and much more common, for the latter to be an imperative sentence, implying the subject "you," as in "You let us leave." It would not be correct to say, "You let's leave.""  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.222.200 (talk) 07:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing let's 

message: The article mentions that in English both "would" and "had" can be contracted with pronouns. It seems both these two auxiliary words would form contractions with "'d", possibly causing confusion. Based on experience, it seems not many American literary works use the "'d" contraction with "had", perhaps indicating a preference for "'d" to refer to "would" exclusively, and thus avoiding confusion. Whereas in British literary works liberal uses of contractions with "had" can be seen. Although it is always possible to decipher which of the two words is being represented by "'d", since "had" is always followed by the past participle of a verb and "would" is followed by the present participle, I think nonetheless this is a special case wherein two different words share the same contracted form and may be worth noting. 24.44.180.209 (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contractions with "would" and "had" 

message: Would it be useful to at least add something noting when the use of contractions began? Chrisbrunner.com (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Contractions 

message: An example of obligatory contraction is sentence-initial negated verbs lacking do-support; for example, Wasn't that nice? (cf. ungrammatical *Was not that nice? and syntactically reordered Was that not nice?).
I'm not sure what this is trying to say. Why is this contraction obligatory since the sentence can be recast without it? 96.248.235.84 (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obligatory contractions 

message: It's short for of the clock or on the clock. o'clock definition Darrenaustralia (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't forget o'clock 

message: It might be useful to mention the common error "would of", and the like, where "would've" would be correct. Unimath (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would of - error 

message: I think "y'all" is worthy of mention, y'all. Unimath (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, as long as it's noted that it's informal and mostly a regional usage (southern US, although in fairly common use in other areas and recognized in much of the Anglosphere).  Seansinc (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd definitely like to see y'all included. Then when I see someone use ya'll, I can point them to this page and show them how wrong they are. How on earth can the apostrophe go between the a and the ll. It makes on sense whatsoever.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.155.219.129 (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Y'all 

message: Common single-word contractions include: St for "Saint" (in proper names), ma'am for "madam" and fo'c'sle for "forecastle".
Is it appropriate to include a 16th century nautical term in a list of "common" contractions?  It is an interesting note, but is suspect as "common."  Why not put any other number of truly common contractions?  And is not "St" technically an abbreviation?  Delvebelow (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. "St" is an abbreviation. "Forecastle" has no place in this article. "gov't" etc are also abbreviations. What is a "written contraction"? I believe the article would be better off if we just lost the whole paragraph. -lethe talk [ +] 15:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, St is an abbreviation and not a contraction, since the pronunciation is not affected.  See the previous section herein (Gov't and int'l). Duoduoduo (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saint (a problematic example) and Forecastle 

message: Question: what's a greek urn? Answer: About 40 drachma. The joke depends on 's intended as short for 'is' being taken as short for 'does' (as well as 'urn' sounding the same as 'earn'). Is this a true contraction or simply the result of rapid pronunciation of 'does'? When does a contraction become true? Jagdfeld (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 's for does

message: I'm just thinking we should mention something about common and uncommon informal double contractions in English such as they'd've and you'ven't.TheDefiniteArticle (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double contractions 

message: I am no expert in German, but it seems to be there's a mistake here and that the beginning of the German section is actually about formal German. 188.169.229.30 (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In informal, spoken German" 

message: It should be noted that the omitted syllable in English contractions is never a stressed syllable. In particular, if it's an auxiliary verb it can only be in its clitic use. 188.169.229.30 (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  English contractions and stress 

message: I would think that contractions are a study of morphology rather than grammar. Consider calling this article "Contraction (morphology)"? 174.27.251.239 (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's both grammar and morphology. Grammar includes morphology. — Eru·tuon 15:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it grammar or morphology? 

message: "generally deprecated in modern use"
:No, no it really ain't. Just because your second grade teacher wanted it so, doesn't mean it is. You can go ahead and say that most (cite who, BTW) prescriptivists want ot deprecated, but you certainly cannot say it IS. 24.143.240.85 (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you can.  -- Evertype·✆ 13:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ain't ain't deprecated. 

message: The  1st sentence;
> A contraction is a shortened version of the written and spoken forms of a word, syllable, or word group, created by omission of internal letters (actually, sounds).[1] 
cites New Hart's Rules, p.167. However, that source does not provide support for the notion that a contraction can be formed by omission of a sound. All it says is:
> Contractions are formed by omitting the middle of a word or words
Can someone identify a more definitive source?
This issue connects with the mention, on the elision page of 'cannot' (ˈka-(ˌ)nät; kə-ˈnät) as a contraction. Iiuc, 'cannot' is a compound, not a contraction. That example is marked by omission of a space and a sound (one 'n') but not a letter per se (unless one counts a space as a letter).
humanengr (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contraction as omission of 'sound'  rather than letter? 

message: The table states we're /wɪr/ is pronounced differently from were /wɜr/ in some dialects. However, this is not a dialect. Pronouncing we're and were differently is absolutely standard. Please change that. --2.245.202.97 (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  We're/were 

message: Example were apostrophe is not used.
For example Formula Translation contracted to FORTRAN.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steamerandy (talk • contribs) 01:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can somebody include contractions of word group. 

message: I would argue that it's not necessarily informal to contract "has" to "-'s", or at least no less formal than any other contraction. Sure, the example "What's [does] he do there every day" is informal. But "he's" for "he has" seems no less formal than "we've" for "we have".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RazarTuk (talk • contribs) 16:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  has becoming 's 

message: I think the current pronounciation guide, which does very little to help should be replaced with IPA. E.g the pronounciation of dække is given as "dakkeh", how is this pronounced? /dak:eh/? /dæk:e/? is the consonant geminated or not?
Could a native Norwegian speaker with knowledge of IPA do this? I'm not familiar with Norwegian pronounciation myself.Strombones (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norwegian pronounciation 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Isnt. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 30#Isnt until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 17:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Isnt" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: How do you call "physical" for ph. exam and "non-profit" for n-p entity/organization/body? And what are more examples? The (main) noun is not said/written. In German these days more and more supposedly competent speakers say "Legislatur" (= parliament) for "Legislatur-Periode" (election period). To me it sounds like "belt" for "beltway" or "ring" for "ring road". 2A02:8109:B6A2:5500:DC41:EC80:517:25FD (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "physical" and "non-profit" are neither acronyms nor contractions -- what are they?