Abuse of language

[sparkwright]

Ha'penn'worth.

 

[JohnW2]

... I can't think of any commonly-used 'contracted word' that uses more than one apostrophe to represent 'missing letters', can you?

Yeah, like I mentioned " 'n' " instead of "and".

Fo'c'sle ? Bo's'n ? ...and of course 'tisn't !

How about shouldn't've ?

'tisn't 'tisn't, 'tis 'taint. or is it 'tisn't 'taint, 'tis 'tisn't.

I'd've.

Who'd've.

Ha'penn'worth.

OK, so a good few there .

However, whilst many of them are common enough in spoken English (when one does not know anything about the presence/absence or number of 'apostrophes', anyway!), many/most of them would very rarely actually be seen written (other than in 'quoted speech') (at least in anything I would read ) and I certainly don't think I would hardly ever write any of them myself, even in very informal writing.

Would you folks who have made these suggestions ever (or often) write the things you have suggested?

Kind Regards, John

 

[RandomGrinch]

Would you folks who have made these suggestions ever (or often) write the things you have suggested?

Personally, I haven't written much about shipping, or yachting!

However, it is interesting to me that the recognised pronunciation of 'Forecastle' is ˈfoʊksəl'.

Hence fo'c'sle is the predominant spelling in publications, as it better matches the way it is said.

Although, I suspect the use of apostrophes in a noun, may be more acceptable than these other contractions; especially when in written form.

 

[sparkwright]

I don't think I'd often write "I should not have done that", looks too dramatic, and if I was writing about myself, I think I'd write it in the way I spoke it.

 

[sparkwright]

Here's one with three apostrophes, you'dn't've.

 

[securespark]

many/most of them would very rarely actually be seen written

Maybe not written in books etc, but on signs: FISH 'N' CHIPS

 

[JohnW2]

However, it is interesting to me that the recognised pronunciation of 'Forecastle' is ˈfoʊksəl'. ... Hence fo'c'sle is the predominant spelling in publications, as it better matches the way it is said.

Maybe but, for example, "Cholmondeley" is written like that, not "the way it is said" (which would not only need apostrophes, but also ideally have some indication that a "u" had somehow 'crept into' the spoken version!).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I don't think I'd often write "I should not have done that", looks too dramatic, and if I was writing about myself, I think I'd write it in the way I spoke it.

If you mean you would write " shouldn't've ", then fair enough, but I'm pretty sure I would never write anything like that (in any context) - and I very rarely see that sort of think written.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Maybe not written in books etc, but on signs: FISH 'N' CHIPS

That quite an interesting one since, firstly, if you look around, you'll see every possible variant of (between 0 and 2) apostrophes:
FISH 'N' CHIPS
FISH 'N CHIPS
FISH N' CHIPS
FISH N CHIPS
... and sometimes even things like:
FISH N'CHIPS

Secondly, the "N", with anything from 0 to 2 apostrophes, is usually pronounced something like "urN", not "eN".

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Here's one with three apostrophes, you'dn't've.

How on earth does one pronounce that - and what is it meant to be a contraction of (I can think of several possibilities)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

Of course there is every possible variant out there....because many people don't know the rules, so they'll' stick one anywhere they think.one should go (see what I did there?).

 

[davelx]

How on earth does one pronounce that - and what is it meant to be a contraction of (I can think of several possibilities)?

Kind Regards, John

Much as written, I'd say - youd|nt|ve
I assume it means "you'd not have", i.e."you would not have"

 

[JohnW2]

Of course there is every possible variant out there....because many people don't know the rules, so they'll' stick one anywhere they think.one should go (see what I did there?).

I think the issue is that there are not really any 'rules' - at least, not 'universal'/'official' ones - which is not really surprising, given that we are talking about what many would regard as 'abuse' of proper English!

All those decades ago, I sometimes had an argument about this with my English teachers. They insisted that contracted words (with apostophes) were 'not proper English', 'not recognised' and therefore should not be used, yet they accepted that, in words like "its" (when used in its possessive sense) one should omit the 'possessive apostrophe' that should really be there - so as to avoid the possessive " It's " being confused with "It's " being used as a contraction of "it is". I repeatedly pointed out that if the latter was 'not recognised', then we really should not alter the former in order to 'avoid confusion' - and that probably got my knuckles wrapped' a few times!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Much as written, I'd say - youd|nt|ve

I can't pronounce that - at least, not without adding in a few vowel sounds!

I assume it means "you'd not have", i.e."you would not have"

That was one of the possibilities I considered, but if I heard it spoken, I'm far from convinced that I would be sure what was being meant (or even 'said')!

Kind Regards, John

 

[BS3036]

one should omit the 'possessive apostrophe' that should really be there -

Cobblers. And I suppose you claim that his should be hi's? There is no difference