The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

The apostrophe is a fabulous tool. Magically, 'you would' becomes 'you'd'; and 'you have' becomes 'you've'.

But, and now to the real question: is you'd've grammatically correct.

I cannot be bothered to find out myself.

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

I dont think it is. But since im about as intelligent as a mouldy shoe i doubt thats correct.

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

how intelligent is a mouldy shoe, is the real question

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

No.

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

It's certainly grammatically correct in spoken English and informal writing. Many people disapprove of contractions altogether in formal writing.

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

Amazingly The Bedford Handbook for Writers says nothing about it in the section on contractions. Microsoft Word doesn't like it, and to be honest, is that even pronouncable?

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

No, it isn't grammatically correct to write it down like that.

In common speech people do use it, but it would be typed as "you'd have". It's just that people often slur their words nowadays (in this fast crazy world we live in!) so it sounds like "you'd've".

I wouldn't be surprised if it became incorporated in our language at some point though, as it's still evolving.

A word I'm confused about is "anymore" - I'm sure that never used to be a word, and used to be two separate words. People use it so commonly that I'm doubting my memory though.

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

my personal favourite is 'anyway' or 'anyways'

anyway.. i've heard the term 'you'd've' so many times but i've never stopped to think about how you'd write it down, or if it's an actual word. i'm with TK though i think i would have written 'you'd have' instead of the double contraction.

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

"anyway" is a word though :confused:

(or is that not what you meant?)

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

And people start writing it as "you'd of" :(

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

There is no such thing as a "proper" word. There are merely words that are understandable and aesthetically pleasing to the originator and recepient of any communication.

You'd've sounds fine in spoken form so I'd use it (and indeed I do) - in written form it looks awkward so I'd avoid it.

English is a free language and there is no central authority which deems words "proper" or not - dictionaries recognise words already in common usage after the fact but do no more.

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

They also serve to allow the large retarded population on the internet to distinguish between the verbs to lose and to loose and the proper noun Toulouse.

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

I can't believe you had to ask.

'I ain't' is clearly the most used phrase for people who can't speak English properly. But You'd've is somewhere quite high on the list.

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

How is "you'd've" incorrect in spoken english? Obviously it's incorrect in written english, but does anybody actually say "you would have"?

I would say that people who confuse "would have, could have" etc... for "would of, could of" are the most common mistake in not only spoken, but also frequently written english.

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

are you people honestly telling me that somewhere there are people who say "you'd've"

it sounds almost impossible to articulate properly

what's wrong with you would've

how much time can you possible save???

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

Personally I reckon I say "you'd've" just as much as I say " you would've" - obviously I don't think about which one to say before I say it, I suppose it just depends which fits in better in the sentence.

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

prenounce as "udof"

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

I think it's as much to do with laziness of people talking (not putting the effort in to articulate words or speak well), as time saving.

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

No. But if we both start using it the inherent incorrectness will be overridden by the collective usage, making it indeed correct.

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

The apostophe is sometimes used for the omission of letters in the pronounciation of words.
Also in the case of possession, "Boogster's" is simply short for "Boogster his"
I have learned in the past that using "you've", "you'd" or anything with an apostrophe that indicates an abbreviation of a word, with the exception of possessive constructions, isn't proper written English.
But, apart from it being proper or not, if the pronounciation of "you'd've" is acceptable and understandable when spoken aloud, I'd say it's grammatically correct too.

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

BTW, how do you British people pronounce Leicester? I had a discussion with my old schoolmates last Friday where one of them said you call it "Lester". I wouldn't believe it untill I heard the lady in the underground say it. Are there any other pronounciations or is that the only proper way of saying it?

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

No.

If it's any consolation, I feel the same about several Dutch words.

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

Less-ter.

Or, Less-ta.

There are no other 'correct' way of pronouncing it. It's an odd pronunciation.

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

'Fernaux Pelham' - heard people say 'furr-no pell-em' and 'furr-noks pell-em'. I'm sure the people who live there don't even know how to say it.

'Worcester' - 'wuss-ter'

'Leinster' - 'Lens-ter'

'Ciabatta' - why do some people say 'chee-ah-batta'?? (completely unrelated to the others, just a pet-peeve)

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

No it's not.

Nonsense. It might be discouraged in guides to formal writing, but it's certainly not improper.

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

Because that is the proper Italian pronounciation.

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

oh dear, could i persuade you to delete your post somehow? :D

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

Neither do the people of Shrewsbury, who can't decide whether it's "Shroosbury" or "Shrowsbury".

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

One suitcase of small unmarked bank notes and an airplane ticket to Rio de Janeiro should do the trick :cool:

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

id never say that, but then, i have no idea about english and you people always did strange things with it.

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

Because that's how it's pronounced?

I like the "Merlot" one.
Most people pronounce it "mer-loh", as in the French pronunctiation. When in England, supposedly you should pronounce it "Mer-lot" - mainly because we're not in france, so shouldn't pronounce a silent "t".

True story.

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

i always anglicise my french words

can't have the frogs thinking they matter

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

It's like the horrible parvenus who refer to Harrogate as "harrow gate" when it's "'arr i gut" and always will be.

Re: The wondrous intricacies of Grammar
 

Remember your glottal stops guys, every commoner knows his glottal stops.