Contractions

This post promises to keep it short and sweet. 

I’m just wondering if anyone else out there ever wishes we were more tolerant of contractions.  Especially compound contractions.  We use them all the time in speech but I never see anyone typing them.  So I will type them.

Here are some compound contractions I wish I could use in term papers:

You’ll’ve – you will have
Example: You’ll’ve seen by now that these contractions are super useful.

Y’all’re – you all are
Example: Y’all’re ridiculously awesome.  

He’sn’t – he is not, he has not
Example: He’sn’t showered in at least a week!  

I’d’ve – I would have
Example: I’d’ve eaten over 9000 hot dogs.  

Couldn’t’ve – could not have
Example: She couldn’t’ve described just how cute that ocelot was, so she took a picture!  

I’dn’t’ve – I would not have
Example: I’dn’t’ve believed you could make a three-apostrophe contraction, but I just did.  That’s right.

CORRECTION:

I’d’n’t’ve – I would not have
Example: I’d’n’t’ve written the above contraction that way if I’d realized I could have said it’s got FOUR apostrophes in it.  FOUR.

See?  Aren’t those useful?  You’dn’t think there’d be so many practical applications for compound contractions, eh?  You’re welcome.


UPDATE ABOUT THE CORRECTION: I still stand by my three-apostrophe contraction.  If your intention is to say, “I wouldn’t have,” there’s no apostrophe between the d and the n.  You’re not replacing a letter with that fourth apostrophe, which is the convention in a contraction.

That said, Google currently gives only 177,000 results for I’dn’t’ve, whereas I’d’n’t’ve has 2.8 million hits.  So it seems the language has moved beyond convention here and popular opinion has won.  And I’m fine with that.  I concede.

But no matter how popular opinion shifts, I will never accept “your” in the place of “you are.”  Never.