Contracted verb forms in letters

Question

Where could I find reliable information about the usage of contracted verb forms in informal letters? I know that you cannot use them at all in formal letters, and yet I wonder if you can use them all, and always, in informal written communication. I think some contractions are needed not to appear too formal, but then I'm afraid too many may make the letter look unreadable.
What do you do, in a word, when you have to write to somebody and wish to appear friendly but not sloppy?; if you want to adopt an informal but accurate style?
Bye, FB

Io ho deciso di rifiutarmi di vederlo: Ettore con la faccia di Eric Banana mi fa venire i conati.
(commento sul film "Troy" su it.fan.scrittori.tolkien)

Usenet · Accepted Answer

FB wrote on 06 Jul 2004:
[nq:1]Where could I find reliable information about the usage of contracted verb forms in informal letters? I know that you ... to somebody and wish to appear friendly but not sloppy?; if you want to adopt an informal but accurate style?[/nq]
I think you can use all the standard contractions, such as "don't", "won't", "I'm", "he's" (meaning "he is", not "he has"), "couldn't", etc, but I'd stay away from the more uncommon ones, eg "would've" and "there're" and "there's". Other native speakers will have different opinions, of course, but the most important consideration in an informal letter is not "accurate style", whatever that means, but clarity.

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.

Usenet · Answer

In our last episode,
,
the lovely and talented FB
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
[nq:1]Where could I find reliable information about the usage of contracted verb forms in informal letters? I know that you ... to somebody and wish to appear friendly but not sloppy?; if you want to adopt an informal but accurate style?[/nq]
Contractions are entirely readable to native speakers. A few forms are ambiguous in themselves ( 's = was/has/is, 'd = had, should, would, and so forth ), but that is seldom or never a problem in context.

Of course it is safest to spell everything out. The reader's eye may be relied upon to make the natural contractions. But if you are fluent enough to use contractions naturally in speech, there is no reason to be at pains to avoid them in informal writing.

Lars Eighner ~~finger for geek code~~ (Email Removed) http://www.io.com/~eighner/ "The very essence of the creative is its novelty, and hence we have no standard by which to judge it." Carl R. Rogers, On Becoming a Person

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]FB wrote on 06 Jul 2004:[/nq]
[nq:2]Where could I find reliable information about the usage of ... if you want to adopt an informal but accurate style?[/nq]
There's nothing "inaccurate" about using contractions. Informal writing should reflect the way you'd speak to the person addressed. I often find myself adding extra contractions to letters; otherwise the un-contracted forms give the appearance of having emphasis.
[nq:1]I think you can use all the standard contractions, such as "don't", "won't", "I'm", "he's" (meaning "he is", not "he has"), "couldn't", etc, but I'd stay away from the more uncommon ones, eg "would've" and "there're" and "there's".[/nq]
I agree about "there're" but there's nothing even vaguely "uncommon" about the other two. "Would've" hardly sounds informal either, if one compares it with alternatives such as "woulda" or even *"would of".
[nq:1]Other native speakers will have different opinions, of course, but the most important consideration in an informal letter is not "accurate style", whatever that means, but clarity.[/nq]
True.
Adrian

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]FB wrote on 06 Jul 2004:[/nq]
[nq:1]There's nothing "inaccurate" about using contractions. Informal writing should reflect the way you'd speak to the person addressed. I often find myself adding extra contractions to letters; otherwise the un-contracted forms give the appearance of having emphasis.[/nq]
I just thought that too many contractions (apart from the uncommon ones) might be annoying.
[nq:2]Other native speakers will have different opinions, of course, but ... letter is not "accurate style", whatever that means, but clarity.[/nq]
[nq:1]True.[/nq]
Of course: clarity comes first, but communication doesn't involve only that.
Bye, FB

Io ho deciso di rifiutarmi di vederlo: Ettore con la faccia di Eric Banana mi fa venire i conati.
(commento sul film "Troy" su it.fan.scrittori.tolkien)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Where could I find reliable information about the usage of ... if you want to adopt an informal but accurate style?[/nq]
[nq:1]Contractions are entirely readable to native speakers. A few forms are ambiguous in themselves ( 's = was/has/is, 'd = ... to use contractions naturally in speech, there is no reason to be at pains to avoid them in informal writing.[/nq]
Informal letters are friendly letters. Letters to friends.

To write a letter to a friend: set a photo of that friend where it can be seen as you write. Talk to that friend and write down what you say. (Source of advice: one of the Little Colonel books.) You will, of course, use contractions when speaking to that friend, so use them when writing to that friend.
Cece

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Where could I find reliable information about the usage of contracted verb forms in informal letters? I know that you ... to somebody and wish to appear friendly but not sloppy?; if you want to adopt an informal but accurate style?[/nq]
Contracted verb forms, if you mean what I think you mean, are a historical artifact, not something people do currently. (Or if they do it's a personal idiosyncrasy.)

David Dyer-Bennet, , RKBA: Pics: Dragaera/Steven Brust:

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Contracted verb forms, if you mean what I think you mean[/nq]
I don't think I do. By the way, what do you mean?
Bye, FB

L'importante è che risplenda tu, sola primadonna e immarcescibile leggenda del tuo pianerottolo.
(Lucangel su it.cultura.libri)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Where could I find reliable information about the usage of ... I'm afraid too many may make the letter look unreadable.[/nq]
[nq:1]Of course it is safest to spell everything out. The reader's eye may be relied upon to make the natural contractions.[/nq]
Would not it be fair to say that some contractions are difficult to avoid? Is not it better to use them rather than to assume that spelling them out is always safer?
Anyway, the reader probably could not care less.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Would not it be fair to say that some contractions are difficult to avoid? Is not it better to use them rather than to assume that spelling them out is always safer?[/nq]
If those are meant to be examples, they fall short. The "spelled out" versions would be "would it not" and "is it not". Negative contractions aren't really productively "contracted" in English. They're separate lexical forms. The "question fronting" applies to the (single) modal verb, positive or negative. So if you don't use the contraction, the "not" stays after the subject.

Evan Kirshenbaum + HP Laboratories >Of course, over the first 10^-10
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 >seconds and 10^-30 cubicPalo Alto, CA 94304 >centimeters it averages out to

(650)857-7572 > Philip Morrison

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Would not it be fair to say that some contractions ... than to assume that spelling them out is always safer?[/nq]
[nq:1]If those are meant to be examples, they fall short. The "spelled out" versions would be "would it not" and ... the (single) modal verb, positive or negative. So if you don't use the contraction, the "not" stays after the subject.[/nq]
It was good for Jane Austen. Are I not allowed to do it too?

Contracted verb forms in letters

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions