I don't think these are technically correct, but I find them awesome, and oh so interesting. If I were one of the ones making the rules for English, I'd've included them. Ah well, they can still be introduced through incessant usage.
The one I find most interesting is it's'nt (it is not), as it can be expanded to have an ordinary contraction in two ways, it's not and it isn't. Has a strange, but nice sound, I reckon. (Learning Japanese causes me to append the verb on the end often, rather than using it at the beginning as is the more natural way in English - ah well)
There are lots of others, at times I even find myself using them unintentionally, like couple of hours ago, I used they'd've (they would have). So why not try and use a double contraction this week. Go on, I dare you.
But triple contractions, they're just ridiculous.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hope it's alright to reply to a post from last year...
ReplyDeleteHow about 'twouldn't've? (it would not have)
I doubt that even double contractions would be accepted as being proper, given that single contractions aren't to be used in formal writings like essays. But I believe that the language belongs to the people who speak it, and not to some person who sits on a pedestal and makes rules.
That's a triple contraction! That's ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteBut yeah, I do like it, I'll probably start using it now (if I wasn't before).