![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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.
"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.
"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.
In the absence of any more feedback, I think I will go ahead and implement the changes. Nov. 28 2005
"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" [1] than "Ce est" [2], 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)
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)
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)
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.Daly
134.241.222.226
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)
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)
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).
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."?
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It's short for of the clock or on the clock. o'clock definition Darrenaustralia ( talk) 11:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
I think " y'all" is worthy of mention, y'all. Unimath ( talk) 00:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"generally deprecated in modern use"
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
What about including the contraction 'n' , used in:
Although, this sometimes appears as 'n , n or n' .
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Isnt. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 30#Isnt 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)
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)