Most contractions pose no problem, but contractions that involve the word “is” can cause confusion or ambiguity. You’ll encounter a problematic “is” contraction when you’re contracting it with a noun... In short, it’s best to avoid contractions with the verb “is” when you are using it with a noun, including a proper name. “Kim’s here” (Kim-apostrophe-s) isn’t wrong, but it just isn’t as clear as “Kim is here.”A quick check of this blog shows only one usage of the terms in that last paragraph (and that in the lyrics of Pink Floyd's "Us and Them"), but personally, I wouldn't worry about using them because readers of this blog would not be misled by the contractions.
Both “had” and “would” are contracted with an apostrophe plus a “d,” as in “I’d already been there” (for “I had already been there”) and “I’d rather not go” (for “I would rather not go”). Sometimes readers (or listeners) can become momentarily unsure whether you mean “I had” or “I would", for example, and they have to spend extra time working out what you mean...
It’s not a good idea to contract two things inside one contraction, as happens with “I’d’ve,” a contraction of “I would have”. It would be better to say, “I’d have” or perhaps not even use a contraction at all...
Also among that list are contractions such as “could’ve,” “should’ve,” “would’ve,” “might’ve,” and “must’ve,” because they encourage people to believe the proper pronunciations are “could of” and “must of,” which are incorrect. It’s better to spell these out when you are writing them, though O’Conner’s book acknowledges that you'll probably find yourself using these contractions in regular speech.
Further details and discussion at Grammar Girl.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق