46

I've seen a contraction of two words. I can't see why it wouldn't've been possible to have been contracted twice. Is it possible and how should it be punctuated?

Update: Ok, to sum up the answers so far

  • This appears in spoken British and American English
  • It is from one of the lower registers of English
  • Even if spoken this way sometimes, it isn't really written as a double contraction, except as written speech in fiction.
  • And from my own googling in Wiktionary, it appears most written forms are old British words, often nautical like fo'c'sle.
Community
  • 1
MatthewMartin
  • 2,504

13 Answers13

31

Two of my favorite double contractions are "couldn't've" and "shouldn't've", both of which are flagged by my spell checker, but seem completely correct to me.

mskfisher
  • 2,155
  • 9
    What about when you get something like "y'all'dn't've" O_o (You all would not have) – Ullallulloo Oct 21 '10 at 22:37
  • 18
    Then you have achieved an admirable level of efficiency. ;) – mskfisher Oct 21 '10 at 23:41
  • 1
    I use shouldn't've a lot, I have to say - in informal typed conversation. That is how we say it colloquially in London, as in "Ya shouldn't've done that mate." – Orbling Dec 15 '10 at 17:29
  • 1
    What about I'm'nt (I'm not) same idea, but it sounds completely wrong to me. – Nobody Feb 03 '11 at 16:23
  • 1
    Wiktionary lists couldn’t’ve, but flags it as nonstandard. – Edwin Ashworth Dec 19 '15 at 16:29
  • Well Wikipedia lists a bunch of what it calls"double contractions."

    If sha'n't (shall not) is valid, why isn't something like sha'n't've (shall not have) just as valid? Besides, since we now just use shan't, it's really just a double contraction: shan't've.

    As we learned from Jurassic Park, though, just because we CAN do something doesn't mean that we should.

     – Max P Magee Mar 31 '16 at 20:44
  • @Orbling I've always heard it said: couldna to replace could not have but admittedly that's in the Scottish dialect. Reading a Broons or Oor Wullie book should be required reading for dictionary makers. – OneProton Aug 04 '17 at 19:11
26

This is not the highest register, but you may hear it in speech. Native speakers tend to slur words together and leave out sounds even if they wouldn't write that way.

Double contractions are not used in writing. They may be grammatically correct, but a professor would not allow you to use them in an essay. Typically, even single contractions are avoided in formal writing.

RegDwigнt
  • 97,231
mouche
  • 2,102
  • 14
    Why is this grammatically incorrect? I + have = I've, and have + not = haven't, so why is I'ven't strictly incorrect? Who wrote we can't doubly contract? Is it principally "I'ven't" doesn't feel right to you? If so, then it's not incorrect. This flexibility is what makes the English language so powerful. – David Foster Aug 05 '10 at 21:24
  • 4
    @David, that is also what makes it one of the hardest languages to learn. At least it isn't tonal! – Arlen Beiler Aug 05 '10 at 21:32
  • 3
    My two sources of what is "right" in English are dictionaries and professors/teachers. You won't find "I'ven't" in the Oxford dictionary, and it's very unlikely that a professor would let that slide in an essay. – mouche Aug 05 '10 at 21:35
  • 1
    It's hard to find a grammar rule that states explicitly that you should not use double contractions for the simple reason that that most people just never think of doing this. As in an IT Support Team I worked in once, this is what we would call a "DDT error", i.e. "Don't Do That". – Edward Tanguay Aug 05 '10 at 21:37
  • 2
    It is not true that contractions should be avoided in formal writing. I'd challenge anyone to find a decent, lengthy piece of formal writing which doesn't use contractions. – Alan Hogue Aug 05 '10 at 22:23
  • 4
    It might be impossible to find such a piece, but that doesn't change the fact that every English teacher I've ever had told everyone that using contractions in formal writing was Very Very Bad. The words were also underlined. – kitukwfyer Aug 06 '10 at 00:57
  • 1
    @kitukwyer: I agree and personally avoid contractions in writing when possible but it is quite possible for English teachers to agree on something and all still be wrong. See "50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice" http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497 where Pullum carefully pulls apart Strunk and White. – Jared Updike Aug 06 '10 at 05:17
  • 18
    Perhaps I shouldn't've said anything. – David Foster Aug 06 '10 at 08:01
  • 2
    I don't think "a professor would not allow you to use them in an essay" is good enough. Professors aren't necessary experts in English. – Pacerier Nov 05 '15 at 13:44
  • English teachers aren't always right. English teachers taught me "I before E, except after C" (wrong), and to never split infinitives (wrong), and other things that are entirely personal preference. – nnnnnn Dec 22 '19 at 00:16
12

The example you give is not done in American English. You can't contract non-auxiliary "have". "I've not a clue if this is possible" is also not grammatical in American English. It may be in British English, though.

I copied this from a comment I left below, because I think it clarifies what I'm trying to say:

I've" is a fine contraction, just in American English you can only use it to replace "I have" when "have" is used as an auxiliary verb (e.g. in conjunction with a past participle). "I've been there" is OK. "I've a dog" is not. In the example "I'ven't a clue"—"I haven't a clue", the verb "have" is not auxiliary, so it can't be contracted with the pronoun "I".

nohat
  • 68,560
  • No one's called me on saying "I've not" or "I'ven't" yet... – kitukwfyer Aug 05 '10 at 21:08
  • 2
    @kitukwfyer if you do that, you should know that you risk it coming off at best as a pseudo-British affectation and at worst as simple misuse. – nohat Aug 05 '10 at 21:12
  • 1
    I think it's generally because I talk too quickly and mumble a lot. :) – kitukwfyer Aug 05 '10 at 21:14
  • @nohat, I've never heard that before! I've is a common contraction (more often a common "leave out". "I got to go" instead of "I've got to go") – Arlen Beiler Aug 05 '10 at 21:35
  • Yes, nohat is right here. – Alan Hogue Aug 05 '10 at 22:25
  • 4
    "I've not a clue" is OK in British English, but tends to be limited to (a) certain regions, or (b) the past. To me as a Londoner, it sounds very old-fashioned, but it may be appropriate to use if you're from elsewhere in the UK. – Steve Melnikoff Aug 26 '10 at 12:17
  • How about "I've no idea" and "You've no right (to do that to me)"—both good Americanisms, which contract non-auxiliary "have"—as counter-examples to your assertion? – MarkDBlackwell Apr 25 '20 at 19:14
  • @MarkDBlackwell Both those examples seem strange-sounding and British to me. As an American, I would only say them if I were affecting some kind of foreign accent. Re-reading these comments from above, I would say my comment from August 2010 applies to your two examples as much as kitukwyer's. – nohat Apr 26 '20 at 04:44
  • Here are two American examples caught in the wild: 1. "You've no right to be unkind" by Arizonan American Marty Robbins; and 2. "I've no idea which direction to go" by Angeleno American Elle King. – MarkDBlackwell Apr 27 '20 at 13:46
  • I don't think song lyrics make good examples of demonstrating idiomaticity. Songwriters often choose marginally grammatical formulations for all kinds of reasons, from artistic effect to just making the stress pattern fit. I'm not saying that American English speakers never contract non-auxiliary "have"—just that it's strange and foreign-sounding and not grammatical at all to my ears. A compelling counter-argument would consist of examples of extemporaneous speaking. – nohat Apr 27 '20 at 16:57
  • A Google search restricted to an American Literature site for the phrase "I've no" reveals many interesting counter-examples: "I've no engagement this afternoon" and "His wife has the whole of New York behind her, and I've no one" by Edith Wharton; "I've no doubt I shall make a model governess" and "I've no objection, if you do something" by Louisa May Alcott; and "I've no idea of sleeping with a madman" by Herman Melville. – MarkDBlackwell Apr 28 '20 at 20:22
  • I've heard (in extemporaneous American speech) "There's no rush. We've all the time in the world", "I've no patience for this", and "I've no use for people like that". – MarkDBlackwell Apr 28 '20 at 20:32
  • Two points regarding speech of this kind: 1) I've observed some listeners hear "we have" and "I have" despite these productions' actual brevity as measured by technical equipment. One listener readily reported to me that this perception comes from her own rule set; and 2) Just as various pressures generally alter combinations of phonemes outside our awareness, so too various pressures such as emphasis and listener-familiarity (or -expectation) generally alter speech outside our awareness in ways deeper than the shared, common rule set. – MarkDBlackwell Apr 28 '20 at 20:39
  • Examples from 19th century American literature tell us very little about contemporary idiomatic spoken usage, as they aren't contemporary, idiomatic, or spoken. Your unverifiable reported examples of contemporary usage—to me—all sound like they're missing a "got" – nohat Apr 29 '20 at 18:59
11

"Fish 'n' chips" and similar phrases with "'n'" technically have a double-contracted "and."

moioci
  • 4,678
  • 1
    "rock'n'roll" has a double contraction too. The difference with what asked from the OP is that the double contraction is not done on a verb. – apaderno Aug 13 '10 at 19:09
  • 3
    Personally I wouldn't call that a double contraction, because you rarely, if ever, have the single contraction form (i.e. 'nd or an'). – DisgruntledGoat Sep 07 '10 at 10:44
  • I'd say that in Australian English (at least my Adelaide version) we sometimes say Fish 'nd Chips and Rock 'nd Roll, but I doubt any one would normally type the d. – Mark Hurd Feb 17 '11 at 09:55
7

I don't think you can get away with "I'ven't" in writing either. However, I think I've read "'tweren't," "'twouldn't," and "'twasn't" before. I'm guessing, though, that double contractions like that are never technically correct. Colloquially speaking, if you're understandable, anything goes.

kitukwfyer
  • 3,753
7

I guess this isn't entirely formal standard English, but I'm pretty sure "y'all're," "y'all've," and "y'all'll" are accepted in areas that use "y'all" as the second person plural.

Ophiuroid
  • 1,097
  • 7
    "If y'all'd started when I told you to, y'all'ld've already been done by now!" - No, I'm not making that up. I've never seen it written before, but I've heard (and said) things like it my whole life. – Dennis Williamson Aug 12 '10 at 21:19
5

I wouldn't use I'ven't in speech or writing. I've not perhaps, I haven't more likely. I do use, in both speech and writing, I'd've. I'd've thought this would be more common.

TRiG
  • 6,487
4

I would avoid doing that in any serious writing, but if you are looking for ways to do this creatively to affect a regional dialect, etc. I would suspect any text by Mark Twain would be a good source to find examples of this.

Edward Tanguay
  • 14,007
3

See: 19th-century English: wo'n't and ca'n't

GEdgar
  • 25,177
2

Nobody seems to have mentioned it, but what you'd be more likely to hear in British English is "I 'aven't".

As Steve Melnikoff commented, "I've not" is sometimes used in the UK, though his example reads strangely to me; I'd have suggested something like "I've not seen him before".

Stormblessed
  • 373
Benjol
  • 4,729
2

When you say "I've done it" it's pronounced something like [aiv donit] (with the stress on [ai]), but when you say "I haven't done it" it's pronounced something like [ai (h)avent donit] (with or without an h sound, with the stress on [av]). Since the initial "h" is very weak in English anyway it's superfluous to omit it with an apostrophe unless you're making a point about exactly how someone pronounced it.

If you're saying [ai hav donit] (with stress on [hav]), you should write it "I have done it", with or without the italics depending on how important the emphasis is.

(By the way, I'm not a native speaker, this is how I see it with my foreign eyes. I'm sure the phonetic spelling is all messed up, but I hope you understand it anyway...)

Stein G. Strindhaug
  • 757
  • 5
  • 7
1

See also Apostrophes in contractions: shan't, sha'n't or sha'nt?.

I was looking into the example of sha'n't because I just ran across that spelling in Henry James's short story, "The Great Condition" (1900), where characters named Bertram Braddle and Henry Chilver converse as follows:

"A-ah!" Chilver murmered, as if only only now with a full view. "She means she'll speak when you are married."

"When we are. And then only on one great condition."

"How great?"

"Well, that if after six months I still want it very much. She argues, you know, that I sha'n't want it."

"You won't then—you won't!"cried Chilver with a laugh at the odd word and passing his arm into his friend's to make him walk again.

There are several striking things about this occurrence of sha'n't. First, in the many stories that James wrote between 1892 and 1900, the spelling with two apostrophes occurs only this once (I believe). Notably, James doesn't spell won't with two apostrophes one line later—and more to the point, he spelled shan't with one apostrophe earlier in the same story:

"Shan't I go with you to the station?" his companion [Chilver] asked.

And finally, Chilver is particularly struck by "the odd word," though he himself used shan't earlier. This suggests that James is using the double punctuation to indicate an unusual pronunciation of the word sha'n't (perhaps as two syllables: sha-ent?), much as he uses a hyphen to indicate an unusual pronunciation or drawing out of "A-ah!" at the beginning of the quoted dialogue.

In any event, it's clear that writers can and do sometimes use two apostrophes in a single contraction, just as they can and sometimes do compress multiple words into one (as in the case of whadya for "what do you") without using any punctuation to clarify what's going on.

Community
  • 1
Sven Yargs
  • 163,267
0

Not sure if it counts, but o'clock is a contraction of "of the clock".

Eric
  • 1,934