1

From what I can glean, it'll and I've exist as standard contractions, but I am unsure of whether it'll've either exists or is acceptable.

"It will have" should be able to be reduced to "it'll've", shouldn't it?

Greg
  • 121

1 Answers1

3

It is true that "it will have" (or "it'll have") is usually reduced in pronunciation to something that might arguably be better represented in writing is "it'll've".

But not every such reduction is standardly represented in writing. For example, the standard spelling is to write "would have", even though the vowel of "have" is usually pronounced as a schwa. Hence one might argue that it would be perfectly logical to spell this "would've", just as it would be perfectly logical to spell "women" as "wimmin": perfectly logical, just not the standard spelling.

Neil Coffey
  • 19,622
  • Although non-standard renderings are by no means uncommon, and the books they appear in often seem to sell. There was Adrian Plass's 'green and common wimmin', for instance. – Edwin Ashworth Apr 25 '14 at 15:09
  • 1
    I agree. Because the contraction It'll've isn't commonly used in writing, it could give the impression of writing dialect, which is often risky business. – frances Apr 25 '14 at 15:11
  • We have lots of these in spoken English. Many native English speakers use a single word sound for "I am going to" in sentences like "I am going to go to the store". – David Schwartz Apr 26 '14 at 07:13
  • From a site on grammar: Uses of the, on the other hand, is real toughie. You can use it or choose to leave it out of the sentence you give us. I would've* put it in myself, but it's strictly up to you -- in this case, anyway. I recommend the University of Toronto Library's document "The Rules for Using the Word The".* – Hot Licks May 25 '18 at 11:10