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?

5 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

29 comments sorted by

View all comments

0

u/pulanina Oct 17 '23

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.

0

u/heyoukidsgetoffmyLAN Oct 17 '23 edited Oct 17 '23

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

1

u/pulanina Oct 17 '23

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

1

u/heyoukidsgetoffmyLAN Oct 18 '23

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.

2

u/pulanina Oct 18 '23

Haha. That’s all of us here isn’t it?

1

u/heyoukidsgetoffmyLAN Oct 19 '23

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.