I was told the use of contraction for 'be' and 'have' sometimes idomatically alters the meaning of an expression (e.g., that's vs. that is, you've vs. you have, etc...). Is this right? If so, could you please show me a few examples and explain the meaning behind each one of them?
Thank you much in advance. Hoa Thai
Top answer
, that's vs. that is, you've vs. ).
— Clive
, that's vs.
that is, you've vs.
).
Is this right?
If so, could you please show me a few examples and explain the meaning behind each one of them?
Free · every Monday
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
I was told the use of contraction for 'be' and 'have' sometimes idomatically alters the meaning of an expression (e.g., that's vs. that is, you've vs. you have, etc...). Is this right? If so, could you please show me a few examples and explain the meaning behind each one of them?
Too bad that the person who told you this didn't off
I would like to know the answer to form my thought in order to follow up with another question in another thread that I will soon start. By the way, the person who told me that gave me a simliar example like yours, but added that 'stressing' altered the meaningdue to an interjection of an emotion. I understood that emotional amplification might introduce ad