3

I've always wondered (and as a child caused quite a few frowns from my English teachers) working this out..

If we can abbreviate words like:

  • Would and Not to Wouldn't
  • Could and Have to Could've

What stops intertwining the two examples to:

  • Could and Not and Have to Couldn't've

e.g.

Joe wasn't even there so he couldn't've been in that race.

I do apologise if this comes across as a really silly question…!

Regards,

Ade

update I've seen a good post (which has a few posts leading off of it) (thanks rathony), but what I was more looking for was the correctness "grammatically speaking". (Both American English and British English sides would be interesting to hear). Although many seem to say that it goes down well in literature, loads have even thrown in a few of their own double-abbreviations in the comments (chuckle), but I can't seem to get a definitive "these are the do's and don'ts of abbreviations and grammatical (written, not spoken) correctness"

update **Another few posts which show some "vague" examples, but I see no blatant iteration of "double plurals". I've seen questions, I've seen examples but no definitive answer as to whether it's correct or not.. Both there Oxford Dictionary and Webster Dictionary make utterances of the double plurals, but there's no exact example...

****Wouldn't've been more logical to post links to something directly related? (sorry, had to be cheeky and post that!)

To outline my question "Is the use of double plurals correct or not". i.e if were to teach English Language (British or American) to students, how would I define this?

(Sorry, This has plagued me since I was a teen! -- even got sent to the head-master for being a Smart-Alec lol!)... So any direction would be helpful! (Both British or American English help)

Adrian Sluyters
  • 139
  • Hi thanks for answering. I took a peek at that link (and the few off-shoots from there) and none seem to spell out if it's "correct or not".. There's quite a bit of ambiguity around it. (Indeed it does sound nice and rolls well off the tongue), but "grammatically speaking" is what I was after (I'll update the question and be more precise) sorry… First time I've posted on this particular SE site. – Adrian Sluyters Dec 19 '15 at 08:19
  • 1
    Your question does look better after the edit. Good luck! +1 :-) –  Dec 19 '15 at 08:28
  • I've updated my question to hone it down to "written" rather than spoken. I do understand that most contractions are discouraged in any form of formal writing (well that it when it comes to the British Statute, then it's riddled with it!). At school, friends, family, my business partners, business colleagues etc… all discourage it, but I'm trying to work out where this discouragement came from and why in "grammatically correct English" (British English as I'm in the UK) hasn't encouraged nor discouraged it. It's a "shush shush no-no (taboo if you will). – Adrian Sluyters Dec 19 '15 at 08:30
  • As you said, some say that contractions do not belong in writing, but anyone who refuses to use them when speaking comes off sounding like a science fiction movie android. That being said, when a writers wans to write natural-sounding dialog, they do use contractions within quotes, and some of those contractions may be double, such as "wouldn't've." But my spell-check doesn't like that, and the reason is simply that the convention in the English language is to write contractions out, and if you read the book aloud, pronounce them as you normally would, using spoken contractions. – Steven Littman Dec 19 '15 at 11:07
  • +1, Nice question. However - you're confusing weak forms with contractions and abbreviations. Could've isn't a standard abbreviation for very good reasons. It isn't a contraction in speech. It's simply the word could followed by the weak form of the word have. It's easy to demonstrate this in the grammar. It's also easy to show therefore why couldn't've isn't a contraction either. – Araucaria - Him Dec 19 '15 at 11:28
  • @Araucaria I'm sure you know what you're talking about especially since you study linguistics, but I don't see why there's a distinction. Why not say "couldn't" is using a weak form of the word "not?" – Matt Samuel Dec 19 '15 at 14:54
  • @AdrianSluyters Probably the reason you're not getting a definitive answer because contractions are fine in American writing but, as far as I understand, discouraged in British writing even though not technically grammatically incorrect. – Matt Samuel Dec 19 '15 at 14:56
  • @MattSamuel Well, if I get round to finishing my answer post, you'll be able to read it there :) but one reason is that the whole chunk couldn't behaves like a single word. So when not is contracted with an auxiliary, we move the whole chunk before the Subject to make questions. If the not isn't contracted it stays in it's normal position: "Couldn't they go?" versus "Could they not go?" versus the ungrammatical "Could not they go"? – Araucaria - Him Dec 19 '15 at 15:54
  • @MattSamuel In contractions with personal pronouns, the contraction is the result of the loss of a syllable. So "I've" is one syllable, but The boys've retains a distinct syllable for the ve. – Araucaria - Him Dec 19 '15 at 16:00
  • @Araucaria what I'm gunning for is the "standard",,, I do realise British and American English is a few strides apart, but I"m after the Etymology of the words (finally found the word, etymology)... – Adrian Sluyters Jan 06 '16 at 18:34
  • @AdrianSluyters an answer is wending your way. Slowly though. – Araucaria - Him Jan 06 '16 at 19:34
  • Hopefully so! As much as I love correct English, I do love obscurity too. In this case, I remain steadfast in my ways.. I need to know which foot, planted firmly in the mud of grammar, is the correct one to choose :D – Adrian Sluyters Jan 06 '16 at 19:48
  • @AdrianSluyters Your question was closed several weeks ago. Nobody's answering, and they won't be able to either unless you do something about getting it reopened. "Etymology" isn't the word you're after, btw. :/ I've written half an answer that may get under the bar, but one answer won't get you a very balanced picture maybe. – Araucaria - Him Jan 06 '16 at 20:32
  • Thanks, I'm still new to this side of Stack Exchange (I come from the IT side so still need to find the ropes here). Indeed etymology was the wrong word, but for lack of a better word I was at a loss. I was trying to find out what the better way around using plurals was. Personally, the "funky, double apostrophe" is more my thing, but I'm merely trying to dig down to the fundamentals.. Even if this means digging though some latin, it'd be interesting to see where the divide (or rules) of the "apostrophe rule". Or where the "apostrophe rule" discredits using it twice in a word... – Adrian Sluyters Jan 06 '16 at 20:41

0 Answers0