Contraction & "I have to".

It would sound highly unnatural to me.

I wouldn't say "boss".

MrP

MrPedanticI wouldn't say "boss".

MrP

This was the question, MrP.

<<Does your variety of English permit contraction here?>>

AnonymousDoes your variety of English permit contraction here?
I have (I've) to be there before the boss tomorrow.

No, if you consider I've to be a monosyllabic contraction, as it is usually considered. That's probably why "would've" is not considered a contraction in written English: no one really says "would've" as one syllable.

Hi guys,
Does your variety of English permit contraction here?

I have (I've) to be there before the boss tomorrow.

I think I say that occasionally. It certainly wouldn't sound odd to me.

It seems to de-emphasize the necessity a bit, and add some emphasis to the rest of the sentence.

I'd put some vocal stress on 'be there'.

Best wishe

<No, if you consider I've to be a monosyllabic contraction, as it is usually considered. That's probably why "would've" is not considered a contraction in written English: no one really says "would've" as one syllable.>

Are you referring only to written English of your variety? How about in the spoken form?

<It seems to de-emphasize the necessity a bit, and add some emphasis to the rest of the sentence.>

Yes, it seems to be used as a weak form in some varieties.

You definitely know IPA, so what I was saying is:

I've is supposed to be /a?v/
The same goes for the other contractions, they just add /v/, and so are still monosyllabic.

Would've, according to that convention, would be /w?dv/, but since it would be pronounced more like two syllables, /w?d?v/, the contraction would've is not part of the co

Do Americans use "we've to..." or "they've to"? How about "they'd to..."?

.
Not I, Molly.
.