all 43 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 57 points 10 months ago* (5 children)
  • [–] 48 points 10 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

    "It's" specifically is funny because you can use its alternative version "'tis" in some places that you cant use "it's".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 10 months ago*

    Afaik, English grammar requires utterances with predicates to have a stressed element in those predicates. Contractions of only a subject and an auxiliary verb - ex: I am > I'm, he has > he's, they will > they'll - eliminate that independent auxiliary as a prosodic segment and violate that grammar.

    A - "Who's going to the store?"

    B - "I am." [ok] or "I'm going." [ok] (or "I am going."), but not "I'm." [bad, obvs].

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago

    I'm Henry VIII, I'm.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago
    [–] 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Some times that rule applies, other times it doesn't.

    Shall we find a situation that's in the grey zone?

    Yeah, let's!

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    You think it do, but it don't.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    That "it's" is evil. It's going to be in my head for a long time

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    If I could add another contraction to that list, I'd

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    A contraction is a separate word, with its own accepted usages in the community. For example, “gonna” comes from “going to”, but is not the same, as “I’m gonna the shop, do you want anything?” sounds wrong

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    Yeah, "gonna" needs to be followed by a verb for it to sound right, I think, with the exception of it being used as a response affirming they'll be doing an action.
    "You gonna go to the store?"
    "I'm gonna, just gettin my shoes on first."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    Sometimes they end up that way (at which point they stop being contractions). However, there are also cases where distinct syntactic words end up being pronounced as phonetically single words. Or, as my morphology professor put it, "word" is not a meaningful category.

    For example, consider the sentence "I'm happy". What is the subject of this sentence? The verb? What part of speach is "I'm"?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    Ever since I was a kid, I've had the dumb thought that if you and your friends are imprisoned, you'd ask the warden to "let's out!"

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    The contraction literally isn't right. It only works with the adverb version of "have".

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 10 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    This one is correct but sounds wrong because we usually say it the other way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Well they’re all “correct”. They just don’t sound right. Like saying “the red, big apple” instead of “the big, red apple”.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    Wait, I remember learning in primary school about the correct order for adjectives. Is that not a thing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    There’s not a rule, it’s just a “sounds correct”. Because English doesn’t have rules, it has exceptions.

    Cambridge even uses the word “normally” lol. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/adjectives-order

    And here’s a fun stackexchange link where people argue about the order (since there isn’t a rule, it’s all made up). https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1155/what-is-the-rule-for-adjective-order

    One good quote from that link:

    @cori - the fascinating linguistic point is that native speakers will have subconsciously inferred a rule like this without it ever being stated. The "rule" is really an observation of what they do. All languages and dialects consist of such unconscious rules. – Nathan Long Commented Apr 16, 2013 at 15:25

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Some folks will never eat a skunk, but then again some folk'll.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago
    [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    I would never say YOU HAVE GOT MAIL without the contracion, I would say "you have mail", and with the contraction in the shorter sentence it sounds British to say: "you've mail"

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    English is three languages in a trench coat acting like one.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago
    [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    You wouldn't

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    As you all know, many posts are poorly censored to confound OCR. I don't love that, but it makes sense.

    Sometimes I think things have been censored, but it turns out that they were simply partially obstructed by UI elements on my phone.

    For this post, I had to try to figure out how "linguist" was offensive before I discovered there's apparently now an entirely functionless line that shows up on the bottom of my screen when opening images.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    This must be why Data can't use contractions. Except in those episodes where he apparently can.

  • source