I don’t know if shouldn’t’ve is grammatically correct but I hear it a lot so it seems like fair play. Same for other contractions that I never see in text, possibly because they’re wrong. Because’ve. He’d’ve.
Also like I’ma which can’t possibly be ok, but “I am going to” is for suckers.
I think double contractions are cool. Maybe unnecessary, but cool and reflect real-world speech.
If I may also propose some triple contraction abominations: I’dn’t’ve (I would not have), he’dn’t’ve (he would not have), she’dn’t’ve (she would not have), etc.
I don’t know if shouldn’t’ve is grammatically correct but I hear it a lot so it seems like fair play. Same for other contractions that I never see in text, possibly because they’re wrong. Because’ve. He’d’ve.
Also like I’ma which can’t possibly be ok, but “I am going to” is for suckers.
Would’ve: fine. Would have: fine. Would of: me go mental! Why do people do this?! Argh!
I will accept “would ve” before “would of”
Agreed. I enjoy that I confused “because of” with “because have” in my own example tho
Don’t confuse dialectal differences with bad grammar, please.
I like y’all’re
Y’all’d’ve (YAWL-duh if your drawl is heavy enough): You all would have
Good effort, let’s make it bigger: y’all’d’nt’ve
Because have? When and how has that ever been used?
Hah! I mightn’t’ve thought enough about that example, probably because of a lack of sleep.
I think double contractions are cool. Maybe unnecessary, but cool and reflect real-world speech.
If I may also propose some triple contraction abominations: I’dn’t’ve (I would not have), he’dn’t’ve (he would not have), she’dn’t’ve (she would not have), etc.