text:
Talk:Contraction (grammar)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Khaleesi29. Peer reviewers: Khaleesi29.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Extend of the page contents
What are we talking about here ? Is it only standard (even mandatory) contractions in written text, or can we speak of fairly common contractions in oral speak ? if so, please tell me, I'll add a couple of things in the french section--Yitscar 11:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What is a "plural contraction" (cf. here)? --JKeck (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes to paragraph on Portuguese
I have greatly simplified this paragraph, and removed some questionable examples. My justifications for some of the deletions, below:

"In Portuguese the contraction is an official resource." It's unclear what is meant by this.
 * Agreed. --Haggen Kennedy 12:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

"A common example still in use today is d'água (meaning from, or made of, water). However, the use of the apostrophe is somehow rare (as opposed to French, for example)." These contractions in set phrases, marked with an apostrophe, are very infrequent in contemporary Portuguese. I thought it was preferable to give more typical examples.
 * Understandable. However, according to your next paragraph, it maybe should be taken into account. The whole section on Portuguese deals only with pronouns - differently from Spanish and French. If anything, it should explain how the apostrophe is not a very usual resource in Portuguese. Which is useful information. --Haggen Kennedy 12:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? I think something similar happens in Spanish, but it's not mentioned in the paragraph for that language. Here's the situation: the apostrophe was common in ancient Portuguese, but it has been largely proscribed by spelling reforms in the last hundred years. It only remains in use in a few set phrases such as d'água, and in poetry. Even the spelling d'água is somewhat optional: in Portugal, the elision of a vowel at the end of a word when the next word begins with another vowel is normal, so many people already pronounce de água as d'água, and the apostrophe is redundant for them; the elision is implicit. I think that in Brazilian Portuguese the elision is not the norm, and that's probably why Brazilians seem to have held on to the apostrophe (the spelling d'água is not common in Portugal, unless the author wants to be poetic).
 * Well, I don't think we need to base a text about Portuguese on the Spanish part. Perhaps they just didn't think of it, or didn't write it for some reason that ultimately might have nothing to do with whether it's appropriate or not to include on their version. But it was just a suggestion anyway. I'm aware of its (or rather lack of) usage in Portuguese, but I just thought perhaps the reader would be interested in the info? Just a thought/suggestion.--Haggen Kennedy 21:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You say that the section on Portuguese deals only with pronouns, but the version I made speaks of prepositions and articles. The previous version also did not mention pronouns.
 * True. It's better now. :)--Haggen Kennedy 21:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, are you sure it's necessary to explain that o is the masculine definite article, and it means the? Wouldn't it be enough to just say it is an article? Too many details can clutter the text...
 * I thought it was a good idea, since they did the same on the French part. It doesn't necessarily have to clutter the text, it's all about editing. Which I see you have done already. :)--Haggen Kennedy 21:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

"Instead, the syncopes become new words: pra, a usual contraction (usually mispelled as prá), comes from para (meaning to)." This may be a syncope or an elision. Either way, it happens within a single word. It's not the fusion of two words.
 * Agreed. --Haggen Kennedy 12:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * On another note, the sentence "Other types of contractions found in Portuguese are the crasis, the enclisis and the mesoclisis" confuse me a little. If you think about it, Enclisis, Proclisis and Mesoclisis are, indeed, contractions, but first of all they are clitics, performing what you'd call infixing. Isn't there another way to write that? --Haggen Kennedy 13:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You're quite right! There can be enclisis without a contraction. I've edited the paragraph to exclude those words. What I was thinking was that in Portuguese there are interesting contractions between verb forms and enclitic pronouns, in some cases. E.g.: amar + (l)a = amá-la. This happens in Spanish too, though less extensively: dar + le + lo = dárselo. I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning.
 * I agree on the "less extensively". I don't think you can say "dar-vo-lo-emos" or "far-no-las-ias" in Spanish. "We will give it to you" and "You would make them[f] for us" - 6 words conjoined in one. Not bad for a non-agglunating language, eh. :)--Haggen Kennedy 21:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, why don't you register? Nothing personal, it's just that it's a little weird talking to someone who's not only faceless (as it's common on the Internet), but also nameless. I checked your "profile page" (the page redirecting to the changes made by the user with your IP) and it seems extensive. Any particular reason why you prefer to remain cast in darkness? :-) --Haggen Kennedy 22:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * He, he, he. Thanks! I've thought about it, but I'm really not very available right now, so I didn't want to make a commitment. Nov. 29 2005.

In the absence of any more feedback, I think I will go ahead and implement the changes. Nov. 28 2005

c'est = ce est   changed to     c'est = cela est
"Ce est" seems very awkward, "C'est" is (at least generally) better replaced by "Cela est" than "Ce est". Google seems to be supportive on this with 24 times the number of pages revealing "Cela est" than "Ce est", and most results for "Ce est", at least on the first pages, are not even related to the pronoun. --A Sunshade Lust 07:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, it's "Cela est". (I'm a native French speaker) --Dandin1 16:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Whereas you are probably right in saying that c'est is better replaced by cela est than by ce est, that is only because ce est is completely wrong, just like je ai for j'ai or si il ne a pas for s'il n'a pas. I believe you are mixing two different phenomena: Usually, ce should always be used in conjunction with être and cela reserved for use with other verbs (exceptions include colloquial speech, especially when ce(la) is stressed): Cela fait, cela fit and cela a fait; but c’est (contraction of ce+est), ce fut and ç’a été (contraction of ce+a été). Google is unlikely to give a good indication on this because 1) no one will ever write ce est (the contraction is mandatory in French), and 2) cela may be the last part of a (longer) nominal expression, e.g., tout cela in tout cela est, in which case cela will appear to be used with être. Because of the duality between cela and ce, the best solution would probably be to choose a different example.

I'm going to change this back with a note emphasizing that the contraction is mandatory. "Ce" and "cela" are essentially different words in French, though related, of course ("cela" comes from "ce + là"). Ce+est is always rendered "C'est" and cela+est (which doesn't have a cedilla, incidentally) wouldn't be contracted (so "cela est"), although the previous comment is right to point out that "cela" is usually reserved for other verbs. N. Paul Inast 15:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Two people have given fairly convincing arguments for c'est being a contraction of ce + est, and there have been no counter arguments regarding how and why exactly the la of cela would disappear (thus becoming ce + est anyway), allowing the e of ce to be removed. I also get the feeling that the two people who have argued against it are actually arguing against the grammatical correctness of an uncontracted "ce est" which we all agree is wrong. I'm going to go ahead and change it. LeeWilson 07:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that c'est is a contraction of ce + est. Take the phrase that starts a question 'est-ce que'. If this interrogative phrase is inverted back into "sentence-form", it is 'c'est que'. Of course, if 'est-ce que' is translated into English, it would not make any sense. --Mayfare 01:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that the negation of c'est is ce n'est pas, not cela n'est pas, at least not most of the time. 96.248.235.84 (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

 * This is an old discussion (which seems to have been resolved), but another point supporting ce + est is that the plural of c'est is ce sont. — 194.74.1.82 (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Contraction-free writing
I'm not sure about the rule for contractions. From what source are you drawing this conclusion? My understanding is that one should use contractions sparingly (and some not at all, such as "should've") in formal writing, but that omitting them entirely is old-fashioned and unnecessary. I have looked in the Chicago Manual of Style, Turabian Guide, and the APA Publication Manual and found nothing to support the assertion of contraction-free writing. Ideas? --Natalie indeed 19:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Contractions are certainly not used in academic writing, and I would never use contractions in a formal letter. The form cannot should always be used, however; and the distinction between cannot (negating can, used when can't would have been used in spoken or less formal language) and can not (negating the following verb [most of the time], used when can't would not have been an option) must be observed.

Well, I'm here to tell you that contractions ARE used in academic writing, and I say this based on the fact that I am an academic, a writer, and an editor of an academic journal. And yes, I know how to use the word "cannot" (not sure why you went into that little tirade). I again assert that this "no contraction" business is an ancient taboo that deserves to be chucked into the wastebin of hegemony. Has anyone actually seen this old-fashioned convention in a style book? Love, Natalie

I'd like to see a source for that statement, too. English is not my first language, but I've gone through English IB (International Baccalaureate) course without knowing anything about such rule. Sergei Klink 06:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You go Natalie. "Contraction-free" writing is up there among what Garner would call "superstitions" of the English language. In other words, lies your mis-informed teachers taught you, based on 18th and 19th century attempts to force Latin grammar onto English. Still with us, I'm afraid. Sacundim (above) is also right about this entry: as far as English goes, this page is nearly useless. C.Daly134.241.222.226 18:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This is what I read in a book e'en,e'er,ne'er and o'er(even,ever,never,over) used in Poetry .D'you and 'em are colloquial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rswamy85 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese, german, ancient greek, and japanese are messed up
the portuguese,german,ancient greek, and japanese sections are stuck in the table wuth the spanish lyris containing contractions. i don't know how to fix it, but maybe one of y'all can.--Idon'texist 00:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Japanese -te shimau forms?
I know that in Japanese, the ～てしまう -te shimau form shows up in shortened forms in colloquial speech as ～ちゃう or even ～ゃ: してしまう shite shimau → しちゃう shichau, しなくてしまう shinakute shimau → しなきゃ shinakya, etc. (There might be other verbs that can do that too, but that's the only one I know about.) Assuming I'm analyzing the changes correctly, is this considered a type of contraction, or is it a different phenomenon? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.87.115.207 (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
 * These are indeed contractions. The contractions are as follows:
 * ってしまう→っちゃう tte shimau -> cchau
 * いてしまう→いちゃう ite shimau -> ichau
 * いでしまう→いじゃう ide shimau -> ijau
 * んでしまう→んじゃう nde shimau -> njau
 * Shortening to ゃ is actually a further contraction of the negative なく naku and ちゃう chau as in 行かなきゃ (ikanakya - I have to go). The う u has been dropped because it is a conjunctive form (although the part it is connecting to has been dropped). Dropping of the う can occur in the positive as well, like in 言っちゃダメ (yuccha dame - you can't say that).
 * There are also several other contractions that take place in informal or rapid speech. A few of these include:
 * ている/ていた/etc.→てる/てた/etc. te iru/te ita/etc. -> te ru/te ta/etc.
 * ておく/ておいて/etc.→とく/といて/etc. te oku/te oite/etc. -> toku/toite/etc.
 * という→って/て to iu -> tte/te
 * といえば→ってば to ieba -> tte ba
 * also, だ, だった et al are themselves are originally contractions of である and its various forms, and です from でございます, and じゃ ja is a contraction of では dewa
 * sometimes words get abbreviated, either in quick speech:
 * です→っす desu -> ssu
 * すみません→すいません sumimasen -> suimasen
 * or to form a new word with a new meaning:
 * なにか→なんか nanika -> nanka
 * じゃない→じゃん ja nai -> jan (I know that was two words)

 * LeeWilson 15:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the details. (I actually forgot about ～ている → ～てる and friends until you brought them up.)  Maybe this should be worked into the article? 164.55.254.106 21:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can write something up.LeeWilson 05:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Isn't there further contraction of -te ru to -ten (at least before no)? I've heard it, but I don't know how general it is. Also, are we sure -tte is a contraction of to iu? I thought it was a contraction of itte (itself from the verb iu). 75.135.82.119 06:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

English contractions left out?
What of the contractions using "that," "this," or "there"? Perhaps it is a facet of the region where I reside (US: South Florida), but I hear common phrases such as "That's a great idea!" or "I think that'd be a good idea!" which use these contractions. I also hear contractions with "there" and "this" such as "There's one over there" or "This'll be great!"

The ones I can think of that I've heard are these:

that + is = that's                   (common) that + has = that's                  (common, limited to colloquial expressions, e.g "That's got great lyrics!") that + will/shall = that'll          (common) that + will/shall have = that'll've  * that + would/should = that'd         (common) that + would/should have = that'd've *

this + will/shall = this'll          (common) this + will/shall have = this'll've  * this + would/should = this'd         * this + would/should have = this'd've *

there + is = there's                 (common) there + will/shall = there'll        * there + would/should = there'd       (common)

The asterisks denote contractions that I think I might simply be confusing with fast and contracted speech. If a grammarian or other expert could correct any errors on my part, it would be appreciated. Now, I do not claim to be an expert in the idiosyncrasies of English grammar but I consider myself a decent speaker and I have noticed these contractions used commonly. I just find it odd that it does not mention this type of contracting (going insofar as to say that the ones listed in the section are the only commonly used ones), even if it is regional or perhaps unique to the US. I reasoned that, if the article went to such depth with regionalities in German dialects then it should address this as well.

JPadron 00:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

And, now that I think about it, what of contractions with interrogative words such as "Who's, Where's, What've, ect."?

 * These are actually all contractions of pronouns plus auxilliary verbs or the verb to be, which is covered in the article. The complex contractions such as this'd've are not mentioned specifically since there are too many of them to list, but there is a section about them as well. LeeWilson 08:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Good point! I should've probably remembered that demonstratives are also pronouns! :P
 * Jorge Padrón 04:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Let us go then, you and I . ..
Will the author of the section on "let's" kindly expand on his or her views? I really do not understand them. Thank you. GeorgeLouis 12:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

WUT?!?! Kittens2004 (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Japanese -nakucha forms?
I always thought that ikanakucha (ikenai) was contracted from ikanakute wa ikenai, which is its more formal form, and not from the -chau forms as the article explains. Ditto for itcha dame coming from itte wa dame and not itchau dame. Can someone tell me if I'm right or not? (Sorry I can't input Japanese from my present location.) Bigpeteb 19:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. It's been fixed.LeeWilson 06:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Contraction on everything on Wikipedia!!!
Why not try to do contraction on every word found on every article on every system on Wikipedia?

You aren't currently logged in. While you're free to edit without logging in, your IP address (which can be used to determine the associated network/corporation name) will be recorded publicly, along with the time and date, in this page's edit history. It's sometimes possible for others to identify you with this information. Creating an account will conceal your IP address and provide you with many other benefits. Messages sent to your IP can be viewed on your talk page. Please don't save test edits. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox.

...wow!

Shorten every cannot into can't (I really needed this)

I'm and I am in one sentence
Why would it be incorrect to say "I'm the way I'm." Besides other than It sounds stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.112.152 (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have explained it in Clitic. Stress prevents cliticization.  You can't say *"I don't know who she's."  - TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Auf dem
"In informal speech, also aufm for auf dem, unterm for unter dem, etc. are used, but would be considered incorrect if written, except maybe in quoted direct speech, in appropriate context and style."

What about Hesse's novel, Unterm Rad?208.81.93.99 (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing let's
After waiting since July for a response to my note above, headed Let us go then, you and I, I am removing all reference to let's from the article because they are not comprehensible. I am also tagging this article as Citations Missing. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi there - I was the original author of the "Let's" paragraph, although it was edited a bit after I wrote it. Sorry for not getting back sooner, but I haven't looked at this page in some time.  I don't really understand your confusion.  "Let's" is a contraction of "let us" in forming the imperative -- for example, instead of saying "Let us go to the park", you'd normally say "Let's go to the park".  This is one of the most commonly used contractions in the English language.  The uncontracted form is not unheard of, but is typically only used in very formal settings, such as a minister / priest saying "Let us pray".  I'm going to put the paragraph back, as this is a rather glaring omission from a discussion of English contractions.  Seansinc (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As a followup, is the discussion of "let us" in the sense of "permit us to..." the part that's confusing you? That part was added by someone else, but I think it's a valid point.  "Let us go" is similar to "Let him go", "Let them go", etc., and you would never use "let's" to express that meaning. Seansinc (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Coming in late, I agree with Seansinc that the contraction is a significant one and should not be removed. However, GeorgeLouis is perfectly correct in citing T S Eliot's usage Let us go then, you and I, wherein the construction is clearly a "first-person-plural imperative" and could equally correctly be written Let's go. . . Bjenks (talk) 07:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Bjenks - You are correct; the uncontracted form "Let us" can be used in an imperative construction, but it is much less common than the contraction "Let's". I say so above: " The uncontracted form is not unheard of, but is typically only used in very formal settings, such as a minister / priest saying 'Let us pray'."  The T.S. Elliot quote is another example.  The paragraph in the article reflects this as currently written, (both that "Let us" may be used that way and that it is less commonly seen), so I think we're fine. Seansinc (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC).
 * Arnav - I Disagree. I just read it, and the meaning was unclear to me. I think it's an important distinction to make, but the difference should be noted between "Let's go [to somewhere; with someone; to do something; et c.]." and "[You] let us go." In the former, there's nothing missing from the sentence, i.e., "Let us go [to somewhere; with someone; to do something; et c.]." is a complete sentence. Subject and verb are present. "[You] let us go." (sans the clarification) is missing it's true subject: the implied "you." This is what makes the real distinction for when you have to use "let us" as opposed to "let's." To my knowledge, there's not any case in which it's unacceptable to use "let us" in place of "let's," as it should be; "let's" is always just contracting "let us." It seems like a squares and rectangles situation to me. Consider revising it to some to the effect of, "It's never unacceptable to use "let us" in the place of "let's." However, there are some cases in which using "let's" would not work. Such is the case in the sentences "Let's go." and "Let us go." In one sense, it is possible for them to have the same effect: to implore someone to leave one place to to go to another. However, it is possible, and much more common, for the latter to be an imperative sentence, implying the subject "you," as in "You let us leave." It would not be correct to say, "You let's leave."" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.222.200 (talk) 07:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Contractions with "would" and "had"
The article mentions that in English both "would" and "had" can be contracted with pronouns. It seems both these two auxiliary words would form contractions with "'d", possibly causing confusion. Based on experience, it seems not many American literary works use the "'d" contraction with "had", perhaps indicating a preference for "'d" to refer to "would" exclusively, and thus avoiding confusion. Whereas in British literary works liberal uses of contractions with "had" can be seen. Although it is always possible to decipher which of the two words is being represented by "'d", since "had" is always followed by the past participle of a verb and "would" is followed by the present participle, I think nonetheless this is a special case wherein two different words share the same contracted form and may be worth noting. 24.44.180.209 (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

SO BORING!!! Kittens2004 (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

History of Contractions
Would it be useful to at least add something noting when the use of contractions began? Chrisbrunner.com (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Obligatory contractions
''An example of obligatory contraction is sentence-initial negated verbs lacking do-support; for example, Wasn't that nice? (cf. ungrammatical *Was not that nice? and syntactically reordered Was that not nice?).''

I'm not sure what this is trying to say. Why is this contraction obligatory since the sentence can be recast without it? 96.248.235.84 (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an example of n't being used as an inflectional suffix rather than a contraction (cf. actual obligatory contractions in other languages). This information is unsourced anyway, so I'm removing it.24.182.224.111 (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget o'clock
It's short for of the clock or on the clock. o'clock definition Darrenaustralia (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Would of - error
It might be useful to mention the common error "would of", and the like, where "would've" would be correct. Unimath (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Y'all
I think "y'all" is worthy of mention, y'all. Unimath (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, as long as it's noted that it's informal and mostly a regional usage (southern US, although in fairly common use in other areas and recognized in much of the Anglosphere). Seansinc (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC).
 * I'd definitely like to see y'all included. Then when I see someone use ya'll, I can point them to this page and show them how wrong they are. How on earth can the apostrophe go between the a and the ll. It makes on sense whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.155.219.129 (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Gov't and int'l
In the section on English, I've taken issue with (and removed) the distinction '[are] more accurately categorized as shorthand expressions' in relation to 'Forms like gov't for "government" and int'l for "international"'. My reason is that, surely, all or most written contractions are essentially shorthand expressions. I've also added the forms govt and intl (without apostrophe) which are more commonly seen, imho. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The disambiguation page for "Contraction" gives the description of content on this page as "a word formed from two or more individual words". The second paragraph of the article notes that "contractions should not be confused with abbreviations", where an abbreviation is a shortened form of a word or phrase.  "Govt" and "intl" are each an abbreviation of a single word, and as such, don't belong in this article at all.  What do others think? Seansinc (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC).
 * At page 166, New Hart's Rules defines: "Abbreviations in the strict sense are formed by omitting the end of a word or words. Contractions are formed by omitting the middle of a word or words (emphasis added)."There is nothing controversial about that definition, which has not been observed by the author of the dab clause to which you refer. I would propose simply to change the dab to conform with the authoritative rule. Bjenks (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Actually that "strict" definition is totally non-standard. For example, Random House Webster's College Dictionary defines "abbreviation" as

 * "a shortened form of a word or phrase used to represent the whole, as Dr. for Doctor, U.S. for United States, NW for Northwest, ab. for about, ft. for foot, or lb. for pound."

 * And it defines "contraction" as

 * "a shortened form of a word or group of words, with the omitted letters often replaced in written English by an apostrophe, as in isn't for is not, they're for they are, e'er for ever."

 * The examples make it clear that the distinction between the two is that an abbreviation does not affect the pronunciation, whereas a contraction does affect it. I'm going to clarify the article in this regard.  Duoduoduo (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Or maybe the above strict distinction is in fact standard in British English, and the distinction I gave is standard in American English. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Saint (a problematic example) and Forecastle
Common single-word contractions include: St for "Saint" (in proper names), ma'am for "madam" and fo'c'sle for "forecastle". Is it appropriate to include a 16th century nautical term in a list of "common" contractions? It is an interesting note, but is suspect as "common." Why not put any other number of truly common contractions? And is not "St" technically an abbreviation? Delvebelow (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm absolutely sure that 'St' for 'Saint' and 'St' for 'Street' are abbreviations. If one more seconds us, then I'll edit the main page. Abel.CHN (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

First thing I thought when I read this...those are abbreviations. Surfbruddah (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree. "St" is an abbreviation. "Forecastle" has no place in this article. "gov't" etc are also abbreviations. What is a "written contraction"? I believe the article would be better off if we just lost the whole paragraph. -lethe talk [ +] 15:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes, St is an abbreviation and not a contraction, since the pronunciation is not affected. See the previous section herein (Gov't and int'l). Duoduoduo (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

's for does
Question: what's a greek urn? Answer: About 40 drachma. The joke depends on 's intended as short for 'is' being taken as short for 'does' (as well as 'urn' sounding the same as 'earn'). Is this a true contraction or simply the result of rapid pronunciation of 'does'? When does a contraction become true? Jagdfeld (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Double contractions
I'm just thinking we should mention something about common and uncommon informal double contractions in English such as they'd've and you'ven't. TheDefiniteArticle (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"In informal, spoken German"
I am no expert in German, but it seems to be there's a mistake here and that the beginning of the German section is actually about formal German. 188.169.229.30 (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

English contractions and stress
It should be noted that the omitted syllable in English contractions is never a stressed syllable. In particular, if it's an auxiliary verb it can only be in its clitic use. 188.169.229.30 (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it grammar or morphology?
I would think that contractions are a study of morphology rather than grammar. Consider calling this article "Contraction (morphology)"? 174.27.251.239 (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's both grammar and morphology. Grammar includes morphology. — Eru·tuon 15:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ain't ain't deprecated.
"generally deprecated in modern use"
 * No, no it really ain't. Just because your second grade teacher wanted it so, doesn't mean it is. You can go ahead and say that most (cite who, BTW) prescriptivists want ot deprecated, but you certainly cannot say it IS. 24.143.240.85 (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course you can. -- Evertype·✆ 13:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete section on nonstandard German dialects
Because (a) the level of detail is excessive for the topic of the page and (b) because those languages or dialects have no standardized pronunciation or orthography, there is no way to determine which contractions are contractions within the language/dialect and which only appear to be contracted by comparison with standard German. Rebuttal?—Wegesrand (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know of a policy on the appropriate level of detail for a topic. I haven't heard of content being deleted for having too much detail, only too little. I think in general Wikipedia allows users to create articles on any topic in as much detail as they like, provided that the topic and the content follow Wikipedia policy. Unless you know of a policy limiting the amount of detail appropriate to a topic, this objection is not valid. If it is valid, I would think it would also apply to the Norwegian section, which goes into even greater detail.

 * Your second objection is valid (though I don't know if it's correct), but it would be better pursued by placing a tag like "citation needed" in the section, or by correcting the section according to your knowledge of the topic, than by deleting content. I'm inclined to think the contractions in the section are real, not just phantoms of dialectal difference, but the section could use better phonetic transcription and sources. I don't have much knowledge on the topic, though, and can't help. I will, however, restore the section, and allow others to work on it. — Eru·tuon 03:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. Upon reflection, the second objection was the real one. Perhaps a linguist will happen along and answer it scientifically. As it stands, the section looks like some German WP editor's hobby-horse.—Wegesrand (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Contraction as omission of 'sound' rather than letter?
The 1st sentence;

> A contraction is a shortened version of the written and spoken forms of a word, syllable, or word group, created by omission of internal letters (actually, sounds).[1]

cites New Hart's Rules, p.167. However, that source does not provide support for the notion that a contraction can be formed by omission of a sound. All it says is:

> Contractions are formed by omitting the middle of a word or words

Can someone identify a more definitive source?

This issue connects with the mention, on the elision page of 'cannot' (ˈka-(ˌ)nät; kə-ˈnät) as a contraction. Iiuc, 'cannot' is a compound, not a contraction. That example is marked by omission of a space and a sound (one 'n') but not a letter per se (unless one counts a space as a letter).

humanengr (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

We're/were
The table states we're /wɪr/ is pronounced differently from were /wɜr/ in some dialects. However, this is not a dialect. Pronouncing we're and were differently is absolutely standard. Please change that. --2.245.202.97 (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Can somebody include contractions of word group.
Example were apostrophe is not used.

For example Formula Translation contracted to FORTRAN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steamerandy (talk • contribs) 01:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Norwegian Grammar Change
There is a translation for "It will sort itself out.": "Det ordner seg av seg selv.", and says that it is ""correctly" pronounced approximately like "Deh vill ordneh say ahv say sell" However, the first sentence is lacking the 'vil,' so one (or both) of these should be changed.

has becoming 's
I would argue that it's not necessarily informal to contract "has" to "-'s", or at least no less formal than any other contraction. Sure, the example "What's [does] he do there every day" is informal. But "he's" for "he has" seems no less formal than "we've" for "we have". — Preceding unsigned comment added by RazarTuk (talk • contribs) 16:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Norwegian pronounciation
I think the current pronounciation guide, which does very little to help should be replaced with IPA. E.g the pronounciation of dække is given as "dakkeh", how is this pronounced? /dak:eh/? /dæk:e/? is the consonant geminated or not? Could a native Norwegian speaker with knowledge of IPA do this? I'm not familiar with Norwegian pronounciation myself.Strombones (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

English 'n'
What about including the contraction  'n' , used in:
 * Fish  'n'  Chips
 * Rock  'n'  Roll

Although, this sometimes appears as  'n ,  n  or  n' .

"Isnt" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Isnt. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 30 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 17:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

"physical" and "non-profit" are neither acronyms nor contractions -- what are they?
How do you call "physical" for ph. exam and "non-profit" for n-p entity/organization/body? And what are more examples? The (main) noun is not said/written. In German these days more and more supposedly competent speakers say "Legislatur" (= parliament) for "Legislatur-Periode" (election period). To me it sounds like "belt" for "beltway" or "ring" for "ring road". 2A02:8109:B6A2:5500:DC41:EC80:517:25FD (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Contraction (grammar)