Grammatically Correct Contractions?

[AvatarVecna]

I wasn't really sure what subforum to put this in, so here goes. At some point last night I went to type "you've" and was suddenly unsure if it was grammatically correct given the context. I first thought to just google it myself, but I'm kinda interested in the conversation arising more naturally rather than finding somebody else discussing it, so here's my question on contractions:

1) Contractions and the possessive 'have'

Sometimes the word 'have' is a form of the word 'has', and as such is usually followed by a verb - to give an example, the word 'have' in the sentence "I have returned from the store" is serving a similar purpose as 'has' does in the sentence "He has returned from the store"...and in either sentence, you could make those words part of a contraction (I've and He's, respectively). However, I'm unsure if the other use of 'has' and 'have' - where they are synonyms for 'possess' or 'own' and are usually followed by a noun - is still appropriate to put in a contraction. Consider this comparative example:


I have ten apples.
I've ten apples.

The second sentence sounds a little weird aloud, but not that bad - I wouldn't expect somebody to say that, but it doesn't seem too bad. But then...


He has ten apples
He's ten apples

...one of these just sounds awful. And the only reason I can think of for what that is, is that when "he's" is followed by a noun instead of a verb, "he's" is almost always a contraction of "he is" rather than "he has". "He's ten apples" doesn't seem inherently grammatically incorrect when you understand where the contraction is coming from, but my understanding is that grammatical rules are put in place to prevent misunderstandings like that, and that if "he's" should always be "he is" instead of "he has", then the possessive "have" should be similarly restricted as the possessive "has".

[Teddy]

I wasn't really sure what subforum to put this in, so here goes. At some point last night I went to type "you've" and was suddenly unsure if it was grammatically correct given the context. I first thought to just google it myself, but I'm kinda interested in the conversation arising more naturally rather than finding somebody else discussing it, so here's my question on contractions:

1) Contractions and the possessive 'have'

Sometimes the word 'have' is a form of the word 'has', and as such is usually followed by a verb - to give an example, the word 'have' in the sentence "I have returned from the store" is serving a similar purpose as 'has' does in the sentence "He has returned from the store"...and in either sentence, you could make those words part of a contraction (I've and He's, respectively). However, I'm unsure if the other use of 'has' and 'have' - where they are synonyms for 'possess' or 'own' and are usually followed by a noun - is still appropriate to put in a contraction. Consider this comparative example:



The second sentence sounds a little weird aloud, but not that bad - I wouldn't expect somebody to say that, but it doesn't seem too bad. But then...



...one of these just sounds awful. And the only reason I can think of for what that is, is that when "he's" is followed by a noun instead of a verb, "he's" is almost always a contraction of "he is" rather than "he has". "He's ten apples" doesn't seem inherently grammatically incorrect when you understand where the contraction is coming from, but my understanding is that grammatical rules are put in place to prevent misunderstandings like that, and that if "he's" should always be "he is" instead of "he has", then the possessive "have" should be similarly restricted as the possessive "has".

I think one more reason, and probably the main reason, for why it sounds bad is because English simply doesn't do it. When contracting a pronoun and a possessive have/has, you stick a "got" after it, changing the meaning of the have/has and thereby maintaining grammatical consistency. It's an interesting artefact of the English language.

[Xuc Xac]

"Have" is a verb meaning "possess" or "own". It's also an auxiliary verb used to indicate the perfect aspect. It's contracted as an auxiliary, but not when it's a full verb on its own.

"I have a copy of that book. I've had it for years." = "I own a copy of that book. I've owned it for years."

Note that there are some dialects of English that do contract "have" when it's the main verb, but they are uncommon and associated with lower social classes so that usage is considered "incorrect".

[veti]

"He's ten apples" doesn't seem inherently grammatically incorrect when you understand where the contraction is coming from, but my understanding is that grammatical rules are put in place to prevent misunderstandings like that, and that if "he's" should always be "he is" instead of "he has", then the possessive "have" should be similarly restricted as the possessive "has".

I don't disagree with anything you say, with this provision: that you seem to have an oversimplified idea of "grammatical rules". They are "put in place", as you put it, for all sorts of reasons and by all sorts of people. But since English has no central authority to dictate what is and isn't "correct", a rule is only as binding as you - or any other speaker - want it to be.

You can make a good case that "he's ten apples" is poorly constructed because it's likely to confuse the listener. (Although even that depends on the listener. Some people in northern England would take it in their stride, no bother.) But "incorrect" implies an objective, definitive quality that I don't think you, or anyone else I can think of, has a defensible authority to claim.

[Aedilred]

There are some dialects where the possessive is contracted ("I've ten apples; he's ten apples, etc.") without inserting the "got" as Teddy mentions. It is not a feature of either standard US or standard Commonwealth Englishes though, so it's not an exception to worry about.

[Knaight]

Grammatical correctness doesn't insure that something won't sound completely bizarre. Take adjectives, which you can basically add in any order in front of a noun, with no hard rules - and how one of those orders sounds much better than the rest. As an example:

"She saw a big, blue, spotted car."
"She saw a blue, spotted, big car."

The second sentence there is exactly as grammatically correct as the first, but it looks like something you would write if you had never actually heard or read English.

[Vinyadan]

But you can't add adjectives in just any order. There are rules, and a wrong order might not make the adjectives incomprehensible, but it still would be extraneous to the language, and consequently wrong: it doesn't just sound bad. When you learn English as a foreign language, they mostly let you play it by hear, but there also is some time spent on the subject of position of adjectives when referred to the same noun.

Also, Tolkien and green great dragons ;) http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=27890

[Xuc Xac]

Yeah, there's a rule for adjective order but native speakers don't learn it in school as part of their English curriculum. If you learn English as a second language, you'll learn the rules explicitly (usually when you're at an intermediate level).

[snowblizz]

But you can't add adjectives in just any order. There are rules,

Taking a punt here. You should start with more generic/general/common ones and go more specific in the order?


Also to anyone who says you can't be incorrect using English. Have you ever tried to argue that infront of a teacher?

[Xuc Xac]

Taking a punt here. You should start with more generic/general/common ones and go more specific in the order?


Opinion-size-age-shape-colour-origin-material-purpose Noun.

[veti]

Also to anyone who says you can't be incorrect using English. Have you ever tried to argue that infront of a teacher?

Teachers - teach. That in itself requires them to assume a level of authority over their pupils. They'd have to be unusually self-aware to lay down that mantle completely whenever they're talking to adults.

So I would expect them to maintain that authority in their own estimation, but that doesn't mean I have to acknowledge it.

I have many years of experience standing up to my father's pedantry. I'd be quite willing to argue the point with any teacher I've met.

[Telonius]

But "incorrect" implies an objective, definitive quality that I don't think you, or anyone else I can think of, has a defensible authority to claim.

One of the things my job pays me to do, is to help maintain and update our style guide. (I work at a science journal). Whenever I'm arguing with a real pedant, I can truthfully say that - yes, actually, I am in charge of the English language (or at least my own little corner of it). They don't usually have a good argument against that. It was particularly great to use that one against my dad (a former English teacher). :smallbiggrin:

There's a place for grammar "rules" - they help give people a roughly standardized set of tools for shoveling ideas from one head into another. This is important especially when you have an international audience. But language is not a static thing. Grammar rules are not absolute, and they're not unchanging.


Regarding order of descriptors, that was a big topic in my high school German class, when we learned "TMP" order. The general rule in German is that you describe something first by time, then by manner, then by place. So you would say, "I arrived at 9:00 by train in Munich," but not, "I arrived by train in Munich at 9:00." Most of us had never considered that English has its own rules for that sort of thing.

[Heliomance]

Opinion-size-age-shape-colour-origin-material-purpose Noun.

Note that this is, like most everything in English, not a hard and fast rule, and can be futzed around with on occasion, c.f. "Big Bad Wolf". Also adjectives can modify other adjectives - if I wanted to be confusing, I could have a Prussian blue Spanish Italian leather German notebook!

[Iruka]

Regarding order of descriptors, that was a big topic in my high school German class, when we learned "TMP" order. The general rule in German is that you describe something first by time, then by manner, then by place. So you would say, "I arrived at 9:00 by train in Munich," but not, "I arrived by train in Munich at 9:00." Most of us had never considered that English has its own rules for that sort of thing.

Naturally, in turn, I never heard about that rule.:smallbiggrin: It does indeed sound the most natural to me. You would only change it if you wanted to put emphasis on one of the descriptors.

[Vinyadan]

Note that this is, like most everything in English, not a hard and fast rule, and can be futzed around with on occasion, c.f. "Big Bad Wolf". Also adjectives can modify other adjectives - if I wanted to be confusing, I could have a Prussian blue Spanish Italian leather German notebook!

Sometimes a formula can crystallize and keep being correct as an exception to general use. Attorney general is one such case -- the adjective follows the name. I wonder if big bad wolf is such a case.

[veti]

Sometimes a formula can crystallize and keep being correct as an exception to general use. Attorney general is one such case -- the adjective follows the name. I wonder if big bad wolf is such a case.

I suspect the "attorney general" formulation is derived, directly or otherwise, from French. The rule that adjectives come before their nouns is much more solid than any rule about the order of adjectives, and the exceptions that I can think of occur in much more formal context.

Indeed I'm still not convinced that's really a rule at all. To me, while I would certainly talk about a "pretty little flower", I would also use "ugly great fungus", and neither one feels any more normal than the other.

[Heliomance]

inced that's really a rule at all. To me, while I would certainly talk about a "pretty little flower", I would also use "ugly great fungus", and neither one feels any more normal than the other.

Those are both opinion-size-noun. Did you mean "great ugly fungus"?

[Xuc Xac]

Opinion and size usually change places if they are the only two adjectives: "big bad wolf", "big beautiful woman", "tall handsome man", etc.

I have no evidence of it, but I suspect it's because size adjectives are often used as intensifiers for other qualities, in which case it is more of an opinion than an indicator of size. For an example relevant to this forum, the "Big Bad Evil Guy". "Evil Guy" is almost a noun phrase in itself equivalent to "villain". It's not "a guy who happens to be evil" any more than "French toast" is "roasted bread from France". You could take a slice of black rye bread baked in France and put it in a toaster in Paris, but it wouldn't be "French Toast". The "big" in "big bad" indicates importance rather than size. We don't call the BBEG "big" because it's physically larger than other enemies.

[Aedilred]

Sometimes a formula can crystallize and keep being correct as an exception to general use. Attorney general is one such case -- the adjective follows the name. I wonder if big bad wolf is such a case.

I think this is due to correlation with military ranks, and equivalence with general officers; "lieutenant-general"; "major-general", "brigadier-general", etc. with "colonel-general" now being relatively rare and "captain-general" being shortened simply to "general". The hyphens may or may not be used.

Surgeon generals are also a thing, the UN chief officer is still the Secretary-General, and in most Commonwealth states that retain the monarchy, the functional head of state (as viceroy) is the Governor-General.

As to why these ranks use "general" as a suffix rather than a prefix, I believe it's because they were originally lifted from French.

[Heliomance]

Opinion and size usually change places if they are the only two adjectives: "big bad wolf", "big beautiful woman", "tall handsome man", etc.

I have no evidence of it, but I suspect it's because size adjectives are often used as intensifiers for other qualities, in which case it is more of an opinion than an indicator of size. For an example relevant to this forum, the "Big Bad Evil Guy". "Evil Guy" is almost a noun phrase in itself equivalent to "villain". It's not "a guy who happens to be evil" any more than "French toast" is "roasted bread from France". You could take a slice of black rye bread baked in France and put it in a toaster in Paris, but it wouldn't be "French Toast". The "big" in "big bad" indicates importance rather than size. We don't call the BBEG "big" because it's physically larger than other enemies.

But in the ur-example, the big bad wolf really is big, and the adjective is intended to convey that. My theory is that the rule about sounds in almost-repeated words - ablaut reduplication or something? - takes precendence. "Big bad" sounds better than "bad big", in the same way that clocks go "tick tock" not "tock tick", crooked lines "zig-zag" and doorbells go "ding dong".

[snowblizz]

I think this is due to correlation with military ranks, and equivalence with general officers; "lieutenant-general"; "major-general", "brigadier-general", etc. with "colonel-general" now being relatively rare and "captain-general" being shortened simply to "general". The hyphens may or may not be used.

Surgeon generals are also a thing, the UN chief officer is still the Secretary-General
In my language he's the UN general-secretary.

I'll posit another theory. Communist countries often had (and have if they are around) a general secretary of the party as actual or nominal head of state.
When making the title in English care would have been taken not to make the terms the same. We are less squemish and the titels was in general use before either the UN or communist countries existed.


, and in most Commonwealth states that retain the monarchy, the functional head of state (as viceroy) is the Governor-General.

In the case of the governor-general I suspect it's because it might be 2 titles rolled into one. You are both civillian governor and military general over the colony. A move that would perhaps simplify command and control a bit though naturally



In a lot of those cases with ranks though I think it is because a general surgeon is a widely specialised surgeon unlike say a plastic surgeon, and surgeon-general becomes a specific title.

But it's also a linguistic convention as I know in german and swedish it's a general-major but in swedish at least general-lieutenant but brigade-general.


It's all quite curious though as to what "sounds" right.


Not to mention the fact a lieutenant-general outranks a major-general eventhough a lieutenant is outranked by a major. So I guess it goes off how much you "discount" off a full rank, or something?

[halfeye]

Not to mention the fact a lieutenant-general outranks a major-general eventhough a lieutenant is outranked by a major. So I guess it goes off how much you "discount" off a full rank, or something?

Yeah, as I understand it, lieutenant general is the highest rank short of a full general, and a colonel general is lower than a major general, a brigadeer is either the highest non-general or the lowest general, I don't know that brigadeer-general actually exists as a rank distinct from brigadeer (though I'm pretty sure I have heard of the rank), and I don't remember ever hearing of a captain general.

[Knaight]

But in the ur-example, the big bad wolf really is big, and the adjective is intended to convey that. My theory is that the rule about sounds in almost-repeated words - ablaut reduplication or something? - takes precendence. "Big bad" sounds better than "bad big", in the same way that clocks go "tick tock" not "tock tick", crooked lines "zig-zag" and doorbells go "ding dong".

That's a pretty well established phenomena - there's basically an order of preferred vowels, and while parts of it are murky the short "I" is pretty firmly in the front and the short "o" pretty firmly in the back, at least for the set of short vowels. It's roughly i, e, a, u, o as a rule.

[Khedrac]

Not to mention the fact a lieutenant-general outranks a major-general eventhough a lieutenant is outranked by a major. So I guess it goes off how much you "discount" off a full rank, or something?


Yeah, as I understand it, lieutenant general is the highest rank short of a full general, and a colonel general is lower than a major general, a brigadeer is either the highest non-general or the lowest general, I don't know that brigadeer-general actually exists as a rank distinct from brigadeer (though I'm pretty sure I have heard of the rank), and I don't remember ever hearing of a captain general.

The reason why a Lieutenant General outranks a Major General is that the rank used to be Sergeant-Major General, hence outranked by the Lieutenant General.

I have never heard of a "Colonel General"and to me the term "Brigadier General" sounds like someone trying to justify why a Brigadier is grouped with the generals when dividing up the ranks.

[GloatingSwine]

Yeah, as I understand it, lieutenant general is the highest rank short of a full general, and a colonel general is lower than a major general, a brigadeer is either the highest non-general or the lowest general, I don't know that brigadeer-general actually exists as a rank distinct from brigadeer (though I'm pretty sure I have heard of the rank), and I don't remember ever hearing of a captain general.

Brigadier General is separate from Brigadier in that you'd be in a different army. (except if you were Croatian, where a Brigadir is equivalent to everyone else's Colonel, and Brigadni General is the OF-6 rank)

[halfeye]

The reason why a Lieutenant General outranks a Major General is that the rank used to be Sergeant-Major General, hence outranked by the Lieutenant General.

I have never heard of a "Colonel General"and to me the term "Brigadier General" sounds like someone trying to justify why a Brigadier is grouped with the generals when dividing up the ranks.

I found this today:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_officer_rank_insignia

Looks as if you were right about the colonel-general and the major-general, but there was a brigadier-general a long time ago.

[Khedrac]

I found this today:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_officer_rank_insignia

Looks as if you were right about the colonel-general and the major-general, but there was a brigadier-general a long time ago.

Well well, though it does make some sense. That said, British army ranks get very weird when you start digging into them - different branches have different names for the same rank and it can get very confusing to civilians (I used to work on an army base, but that was about 15 years ago). Tradition can have a price.

[Aedilred]

In Britain, colonel-general was a rank during the Civil War (which is pretty much the start of the modern British English standing army*).

Captain-general isn't used any more; having always connoted the commander-in-chief, it was gradually superseded by the latter as the formal title and eventually that title was also abolished when the Army Council was created.


*Scotland had one before England did.

[Henry1122]

Have is an action word signifying have or possess, it's likewise an assistant action word used to demonstrate the ideal angle, it's contracted as an assistant, however not when it's a full action word without anyone else...

[Ninja_Prawn]

Opinion-size-age-shape-colour-origin-material-purpose Noun.

Wow. In hindsight it seems crazy that us native speakers can internalise a rule like this (and its many exceptions) without even knowing it's there. I constantly have to remind myself about time-manner-place when speaking German.

To the OP, I'd say don't think too hard about it. This one varies a lot with dialect. For example, where I grew up, people are perfectly comfortable with double contractions like wouldn't've and I'd've...

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Wow. In hindsight it seems crazy that us native speakers can internalise a rule like this (and its many exceptions) without even knowing it's there.

I've somehow internalized it myself despite not being a native speaker and never having been told about it in school; I suspect it comes down to reading them in the established order so often that it becomes lodged in your mind, and when it comes to creating your own, you have a "pattern" in your head that you reuse by swapping out adjectives and nouns by gross equivalency.

In fact, I suspect there are equivalent rules for every language I've learnt, never got taught any of them, and still I know it. It has even been pointed out to me that it is different in other languages, and that a good sign that you are proficient at any given language if you use the correct order for that language - or rather, than there is no better way to sound foreign than to get this particular order wrong.

Grey Wolf