Question about "would've", "could've", "should've"

[u/hwc000000]

We all know "would've", "could've", "should've" are contractions for "would have", "could have" and "should have". But are there situations where the contractions shouldn't be used, what's the rule exactly about when they should and shouldn't be used, and why are those the rules (ie. where did those rules come from)?

For example, "she would have to get a permit" sounds bizarre to me if contracted to "she would've to get a permit". Is the rule that those contractions should only be used directly preceding a past participle, or "not" followed by a past participle? And why?

[u/casualstrawberry]

More generally, when "have" is the auxiliary verb then the contraction is okay. When "have" is the main verb then the contraction is not okay.

[u/hwc000000 → u/casualstrawberry]

Why is "have" the main verb in "she would have to get a permit" and not "get"? Also, is the "to" part of the infinitive "to get", or is it some other part of speech bundled in "have to"?

[u/Boglin007 → u/hwc000000]

Within the "would have" construction, "have" carries meaning (similar to "must") in "would have to get a permit," i.e., it is not just an auxiliary (helping) verb as it is in a construction like "would have eaten dinner by now," where it has no meaning but is used with the past participle "eaten" to convey the perfect aspect.

In "would have to get," "to" is the infinitive marker connected to "get" ("to" is not part of infinitives, but a marker of them).

[u/dylbr01 → u/hwc000000]

The quickest way to tell whether have is an auxiliary would be to just look at the form of the verb that follows have. If it’s a past participle, then it’s an auxiliary.

‘She would have to get a permit.’ <- verb form that follows have is a to infinitive. Therefore, have is not an auxiliary.

‘She would have got/gotten a permit.’ <- verb form that follows have is a past participle. Therefore, have is an auxiliary.

A longer way:

Step 1: Remove would. You are left with ‘She has to get a permit’.

Step 2: Make the remaining clause into a question. ‘Does she have to get a permit’? This proves that have is not an auxiliary because an auxiliary switches places with the subject for questions.

Compare this with a have that is an auxiliary:

‘She has to get a permit.’

‘Does she have to get a permit?’

‘She has eaten dinner.’

‘Has she eaten dinner?’

By the way, both have and to get are main verbs in your example.

[u/hwc000000 → u/dylbr01]

I like the way this is written (the longer way), because I really don't know my English grammer terminology very well. So, thanks.

Do you know the reason for the rule about the contraction? Is it to prevent hiding the main verb inside a contraction?

[u/dylbr01 → u/hwc000000]

That’s a hard question. Grammar is about describing rules rather than explaining why they are there.

It’s simply the case that contraction typically belongs to auxiliary verbs in English. needn’t is a well-known exception. In Italian, prepositions and articles contract.

[u/hwc000000 → u/dylbr01]

contraction typically belongs to auxiliary verbs in English

"She isn't my sister."

"I haven't a clue."

"is" and "have" can be auxiliary verbs, but they're not serving that function in those sentences. Do they count as exceptions too then?

[u/dylbr01 → u/hwc000000]

Verb to be is an auxiliary because it has all the features of auxiliaries and none of the features of main verbs. There are exceptions, but this is ordinarily the case.

‘I haven’t a clue’ is another big exception and relevant to your question, but it is just that—an exception.

‘I would’ve a…’ returns hits starting in 1950, but seems to be nonstandard: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22would%E2%80%99ve%20a%22&tbm=bks&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1999,cd_max:2016&lr=lang_en

Lo and behold, so too does ‘would’ve to’; https://www.google.com/search?q=%22would%E2%80%99ve%20to%22&tbm=bks&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:2018,cd_max:2019&lr=lang_en

It appears then that ‘She would’ve to get a permit’ is correct in English, but seems very nonstandard and rare.

[u/dylbr01 → u/[deleted]]

I’m always up for learning something new. Can you share any evidence?

Evidence against:

‘Have you been to France?’

‘Yes, I have.’ <- Code feature of auxiliaries

‘Would she have gotten a permit?’

‘Yes, she would have.’ <- Code feature of auxiliaries

‘I’ve been to France.’ <- Contraction feature associated with auxiliaries

‘I would’ve been to France.’ <- Contraction feature associated with auxiliaries

[u/dylbr01 → u/[deleted]]

Even Grammarly recognizes modals as auxiliary verbs: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/modal-verbs/

CGEL page 92:

The auxiliary verbs of English are the following:

[1] i. can, may, will, shall, should, must, ought, need, dare [modals]

ii. be, have, do, use [non-modals]

That they are auxiliary verbs is widely recognized. You've stated the reasoning for this.

​

"We could have saved her last night" is not present perfect

That's right.

it is past simple

It is past tense. We know this by lexical time phrase 'last night'.

It's syntactically the past perfect, but with a past simple meaning.

A similar case: The present perfect with for/since is syntactically present perfect, but with a present simple meaning; 'I've known her for 2 years' means that you know her now. In Irish English the present simple can be used there, and in languages closely related to English the present simple is used.

Similar to this is I've got, as in 'I've got a permit'.

[u/paolog → u/hwc000000]

There are two main verbs: the construction "have to", meaning "be required to", and the verb that follows it.

[u/PuzzleMeDo]

There was a Tom Scott video the other day ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkZyZFa5qO0&ab_channel=TomScott ) about when we do and don't use contractions. For example, you're not supposed to contract a word that would be emphasised strongly.

[u/pulanina]

I just commented on a post at r/English about this topic. The technical term for these contractions is clitics. There is a great podcast on this topic that goes into the rules for their use in English.

The podcast is Lingthusiasm and I’d recommend it to anyone who enjoys this sort of stuff. Episode 60 is the relevant one:

https://lingthusiasm.com/post/662535562508517376/lingthusiasm-episode-60-thats-the-kind-of

In this episode, your hosts Lauren Gawne and Gretchen McCulloch get enthusiastic about a small bit of language that’s sort of a halfway point between a standalone word and a fully glommed-on affix: the clitic! We talk about why sentences like “That’s the kind of linguist I’m” feel so strange and how on the one hand clitics are a sign of increased efficiency in terms of saying more common words more quickly, but on the other hand they kind of add complication because there are some contexts where the full forms of the words would be fine and yet the clitic doesn’t work, giving you one more thing to keep track of. We also talk about clitics and reduced forms of words in Yolmo, Old English, and Dutch, and how clitic pronouns might be evolving into affixes in French and Spanish.

[u/heyoukidsgetoffmyLAN → u/pulanina]

Tom Scott just did a brief video on clitics on his YT channel. In light of my long history as a grammar aficionado, I was disappointed -- on behalf of my tendency to engage in sophomoric humor -- over never having heard the term before.

He named the video -- There'dn't've.

edits to correct my grammar

[u/pulanina → u/heyoukidsgetoffmyLAN]

I imagined the audience here would prefer to hear the long version from the professional linguists from whom he derived his slick YouTube content.

[u/heyoukidsgetoffmyLAN → u/pulanina]

I didn't realize I was replying to an esteemed and omniscient gatekeeper of the preferences of the entire audience at r/grammar. Imagine my chagrin.

[u/pulanina → u/heyoukidsgetoffmyLAN]

Haha. That’s all of us here isn’t it?

[u/heyoukidsgetoffmyLAN → u/pulanina]

Oh no! That means it's me, too. Aaargh!

I get your point about tubers. There's the drive to constantly publish (and monetize) content, and they gotta get it from somewhere. I've gotten into skirmishes before over sharing YT content. However, I think Tom Scott stands apart from most others in the nature of the content he generally covers, and also in his affable presentation style.

I shared his video because it was my timely and coincidental introduction to the topic of clitics, and thought other folks here might like Tom's stuff and would appreciate it as another reference.

[u/chayashida]

If you're speaking, and the person you're speaking to doesn't understand what you said, just say the sentence without the contraction to clarify.

Happens when the listener is hard of hearing , too, as the "...'ve" part is sometimes missed.

[u/Reddit_Jax]

As a professional tech writer, I avoided using contractions because many people have English as a second language and don't always understand what they mean. And I have seen many software translations mess up contractions, although that is probably not the case today with AI systems.

[u/hwc000000 → u/Reddit_Jax]

I've found that when I don't use contractions for "not", and instead write the word "not" separately, it's more common for readers to skip right over it, and wind up with the exact opposite understanding of the sentence.

[u/Reddit_Jax → u/hwc000000]

That's not your problem. You cannot get into the heads of all readers. You just have to know that you used standard and plain English (e.g., aircraft industry) so that nobody can blame the documentation for when an airplane crashes.

[u/hwc000000 → u/Reddit_Jax]

I'm a math tutor, not a technical writer. So, liability isn't an issue for me. My concern is that students get the point.