To have = to've?
Instead of writing '' to have '' wouldn't it be possible to write it like '' to've '' instead? This really had me thinking for a while.. and I'm probably just stupid... But does anybody care to explain why this works or not?
I can't find anything about this online.
- a confused swede
Top answer
No. There are a few standard contractions in English, but that's not one of them. Sometimes you will see novels which have a lot of nonstandard contractions in direct speech.
- No.
- There are a few standard contractions in English, but that's not one of them.
- Sometimes you will see novels which have a lot of nonstandard contractions in direct speech.
- The author is trying to capture the speech patterns of the speakers.
- I don't know of any dialect where the two syllables in "to have" are reduced to a single syllable.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
No. There are a few standard contractions in English, but that's not one of them.
Sometimes you will see novels which have a lot of nonstandard contractions in direct speech. The author is trying to capture the speech patterns of the speakers.
I don't know of any dialect where the two syllables in "to have" are reduced to a single syllable.
0AnonymousInstead of writing '' to have '' wouldn't it be possible to write it like '' to've '' instead?
Not in writing. No.
When you say it, though, and you're speaking fairly fast, it might come out that way.
I didn't have the presence of mind to have said something clever to break the hostile mood.
In this sentence, you might
0
Related Questions