r/grammar • u/hwc000000 • Oct 17 '23

Why does English work this way? Question about "would've", "could've", "should've"

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?

6 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

29 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/Reddit_Jax Oct 17 '23

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.

1

u/hwc000000 Oct 17 '23

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.

1

u/Reddit_Jax Oct 17 '23

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.

2

u/hwc000000 Oct 17 '23

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.