3

One of my students asked me today what the difference is between "woulda" and "would've" in spoken English.

I think it has to do with the sound that follows, right? If the sound in the next word is a vowel, we use "woulda," but if it's a consonant, we use "would've." Is this correct, or vice versa?

I feel like they can be interchangeable too, so I'm not sure.

Azor Ahai -him-
  • 4,310
Sarah Swangstu
  • 31
  • 1
  • 1
    Personally, I would never say "woulda" and would try to avoid "would of" – Henry Oct 30 '17 at 21:35
  • 2
    I'm pretty sure that woulda is just a lazy / incorrect version of would've. Similary to how would of is almost always an incorrect version of would have. My advice would be to try to say would have, to shorten it to would've if you must, and to avoid would of and woulda altogether. – Kevin Workman Oct 30 '17 at 22:56
  • 1
    Pronounce it yourself and listen to what you say. If you're not a native English speaker, find some and listen to them talk. Don't believe anything you read online about correct language. – John Lawler Oct 30 '17 at 23:17
  • 1
    "Woulda" is used in rapid and fluent speech, and I wouldn't call it "lazy" or "incorrect" in speech, although it wouldn't be written unless it was used as "eye dialect." – Azor Ahai -him- Oct 30 '17 at 23:17
  • 1
    Quote for the day - (from 'Mass and Count Nouns' by @John Lawler) : The language can get along without us . – Nigel J Oct 31 '17 at 00:03

1 Answers1

3

First, the question has the same answer with most other modal auxiliary verbs besides would, e.g:

  • would have, may have, might have, must have, should have, could have

  • would've, may've, might've, must've, should've, could've

  • woulda, maya, mighta, musta, shoulda, coulda

  • /wʊdə, meyə, maytə, məstə, ʃʊdə, kʊdə/

    Willa is unusual, because will have is unusual; normally will prefers to contract with a subject (ideally a personal pronoun) rather than with a following have. And shall, the remaining modal auxiliary, never appears with a following have in American English, since it's restricted to two first person question constructions exemplified by Shall I open the door? and Shall we dance?

Phonologically, the auxiliary have in these compounds is never pronounced /hæv/ like the verb halve; since the modal is stressed, the have is unstressed, and therefore reduced to a central schwa vowel /ə/, like what happens to the to of want to, got to, have to resulting in wanna, gotta, hafta in eye spelling, or /wanə, gatə, hæftə/ in speech.

All that's left of have, in unstressed position, is /əv/, and that's why people spell these constructions might of and should of, etc. It's the best way English offers to represent what people say, and people take any opportunity to be clear when they can.

The question of whether the /v/ of /əv/ gets pronounced or not usually depends on (a) how fast the speaker is talking and (b) what sound comes after the /v/. But there are other factors as well, and one speaker will vary a lot from one instance to another, and speakers will vary from one another individually, so it's not a matter of just two representations. To say there are no hard-and-fast rules is to understate the case; it's moment-to-moment individual judgement all the way.

Generally, it's hard to say /v/ before another consonant; names like Vbirski or Dromovd look difficult to pronounce, whereas Varski and Dromova don't. But it's possible, and some people have convinced themselves that they always say might've with a real /v/, no matter what they actually do. Some even believe they're really pronouncing have, again no matter what.

This is all about the language. English spelling is just medieval technology, so it's no wonder eye dialects of all sorts spring up everywhere.

Community
  • 1
John Lawler
  • 107,887
  • Now, I think that even further contracted forms such as "he'd a" work the same way, but it would be good to cover this in your answer, even briefly. – Laurel Nov 09 '23 at 21:06
  • Once you get into the variations in contracting, there's no end in sight. Frankly, I thought this was way too short, but so is life. – John Lawler Nov 09 '23 at 22:30