contraction forms of 'would have': woulda and would've. Any rules?

Question

Hi,It's about how  "would (could, should) have + past participle verb" is pronounced in spoken language.The other day I heard a native speaker saying_in spoken language, 'would have' can be reduced to 'woulda' if the following past participle verb begins with a consonant. And it is pronounced 'would've' if a vowel. And the same goes for the negative forms. _It sounded a bit fuzzy to me. So I would welcome any comments and lecture-like explanation on this sort of contraction rules for spoken language.

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

Anonymousin spoken language, 'would have' can be reduced to 'woulda' if the following past participle verb begins with a consonant. And it is pronounced 'would've' if a vowel. And the same goes for the negative forms. _It sounded a bit fuzzy to me.

It seems quite clear to me: [?] before consonant sounds and [?v] before vowel sounds. Keep in mind, however, that not all native speakers reduce these words so much.

Anonymous · Answer

Thanks for the reply.

I would, however, appreciate if you could go a little bit more in depth on your explanation. For example, can we always say that

(1) ‘I woulda been ….’

(2) ‘I would’ve attended to …’

are OK? If so, is there a grammatical rule (perhaps the one you mentioned) that justifies this sort of contractions? What about the rule exceptions? Any?

Still, what about

(3) ‘I woulda been ….’

and

(4) ‘I would’ve been ….’?

Are they both acceptable in spoke language? If so, based on what? If not, why not?

Yet, a contraction form like

(5) ‘I woulda eaten …’

would this never ever be acceptable in spoke language?

Sorry if I’m mulling over this topic a little too much.

Anyway, a list of bibliographical references or web links related to this subject rather than an explanatory exposition would help me a lot.

Fivejedjon · Answer

AnonymousI would, however, appreciate if you could go a little bit more in depth on your explanation. For example, can we always say that(1) ‘I woulda been ….’(2) ‘I would’ve attended to …’are OK?

They are OK in the sense that many people produce these sounds. However, some people rarely contract; others contract but would always retain the /v/

Anonymous If so, is there a grammatical rule (perhaps the one you mentioned) that justifies this sort of contractions? What about the rule exceptions? Any?

There are no 'rules. for this sort of spoken language. Mr M gave you a general guideline.

AnonymousStill, what about(3) ‘I woulda been ….’ and(4) ‘I would’ve been ….’?Are they both acceptable in spoken language? If so, based on what? If not, why not?

They are both heard. Not many would regard them as acceptable in a formal speech, but they go unremarked in informal conversation.

Anonymous(5) ‘I woulda eaten …’would this never ever be acceptable in spoke language?

It's not a question of being 'acceptable'. It is a pronunciation commonly regarded a a sign of a lack of education.

Anonymous · Answer

I find that I use "woulda" almost ironically -- if I'm attempting to intentionally be dismissive of English's use; if there's formal, then informal, "woulda" probably belongs to whatever is a half-step below informal.  "Would've," however, is perfectly acceptable for spoken English, and for informal writing.

KJinCali79 · Answer

Unless I am using the idiomatic expression "Woulda, coulda, shoulda..." I never pronounce would have/would've reduced down to "woulda". I recognize that people do of course. And I believe that I would agree with your friend that it does not work in front of a vowel. Your example, "I woulda eaten..." sounds horrible to my ear.

In written form none of examples are exceptable, but in speech, yes, the sound is sometimes dropped.

contraction forms of 'would have': woulda and would've. Any rules?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions