Non-standard contractions, like should'a & John'd

MJWare · Feb 18, 2010

Is it OK to use non-standard contractions like Should'a for 'should have' and John'd for 'John had'?

I'm taking in dialog and sparingly. Maybe, once or twice in the first chapter to setup dialects for a couple of fast talking California kids.

I've seen Ray Bradbury use the later, but I'm no Ray Bradbury.

PeterL · Feb 18, 2010

I think that one should tread lightly on these. There's no problem about unusing non-standard language in dialogue, but it is a very good idea to keep it there.

IceCreamEmpress · Feb 18, 2010

"John'd" is the correct contraction for "John had."

"Shoulda" is the usual way people write the most shortened version of "should have." I've never seen "should'a" and it doesn't make any sense.

"Should've" is a correct contraction of "should have."

Generally, "shoulda" "woulda" "gonna" and "gotta" are the spellings people use to indicate casual or sloppy pronounciation of "should have", "would have", "going to", and "got to". I've seen "hafta" for "have to" as well. No apostrophes--they're not contractions!

And please, whatever you do, do not write "should of" when you mean "should've". It will make your copyeditor weep bitter tears.

Jamesaritchie · Feb 18, 2010

I wouldn't. "John'd" may be a correct contraction, though I've never seen it used anywhere, but it reads lousy, and I had no idea what it meant. It's sounds more like a bad verb than a contraction. I've never heard anyone speak this way.

But things like shoulda, woulda, coulda aren't really contractions, they just approximate real speech. I'd say they're more dialect than contractions. There's even a song called "Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda."

MJWare · Feb 18, 2010

I think IceCream is correct about "John'd", though it may not be common.

I'll probably use shoulda once to give the reader a taste, then switch to should've after that.

Thanks everyone!

Silver King · Feb 18, 2010

mware01 said:
...I'll probably use shoulda once to give the reader a taste, then switch to should've after that.

It's usually best to keep the dialogue consistent throughout your story. Choose one or the other, but I wouldn't recommend switching between the two unless different characters are speaking.

IceCreamEmpress · Feb 18, 2010

Jamesaritchie said:
I wouldn't. "John'd" may be a correct contraction, though I've never seen it used anywhere

It was very commonly used in the 19th century and early 20th century. (Google "Joe'd been" with the quotes and you'll see a bunch of old books from archive.org and Google books.)

I agree with you that it's probably not worth using today because it would confuse people. But it is correct.

Jamesaritchie · Feb 19, 2010

IceCreamEmpress said:
It was very commonly used in the 19th century and early 20th century. (Google "Joe'd been" with the quotes and you'll see a bunch of old books from archive.org and Google books.)

I agree with you that it's probably not worth using today because it would confuse people. But it is correct.

Yes, it was used in the past, abd may still be today. I've just never heard it. But context is everything.

So, oddly enough, is the name you use, or so it seems to me. This may sound starnge, but, to me, such contractions work better with some names than with others.

CaroGirl · Feb 19, 2010

It makes perfect sense in context and I've definitely seen it and wouldn't be confused by it.

"Joe'd been down to the dump twice before he finally saw the bear."

I believe I'd use that without really giving it a second thought, seeing as it's correct and all. You could use it in dialogue or in narrative that has that a strong voice.

backslashbaby · Feb 19, 2010

Jamesaritchie said:
Yes, it was used in the past, abd may still be today. I've just never heard it. But context is everything.

So, oddly enough, is the name you use, or so it seems to me. This may sound starnge, but, to me, such contractions work better with some names than with others.

I agree!

Sheila'd been a nurse for 10 years. <-- totally fine
John'd been a nurse for 10 years. <-- I wouldn't ever say that

I think it's a consonants thing, but that's entirely speculation.

Maryn · Feb 19, 2010

I agree it's a consonant-sound thing. If the name ends with a consonant sound, it seems to be contractable with had.

Marla'd been up six six. Sheila'd been up since six. Gary'd been up since six. Isaiah'd been up since six. Those work.

Marlene'd, Sheldon'd, Gerald's, and Ike'd do not work.

Maryn, who should work

Fallen · Feb 20, 2010

Being English and a Brummie (Birmingham (also known as Y'am-Y'am land (you am, ain't ya)) both 'Should'a' and 'John'd' are every day colloquial's for us. Shakespearian we ain't (although he does come from just down t' road).

But colloquial language is used in context. I speak to friends like that; colleagues are different, so are my kids (unless I'm messing around with them when they go all standard English on me from school). There's always diversity in discourse: use standard as an option and switch to colloquial when context calls for it. I wouldn't have a problem what you're writing, others might, and then choice should also be aired toward the market you're writing for too.

Chase · Feb 20, 2010

Interesting discussion. I'm always questioning my spelling choices in dialog.

Fallen said:
Being English and a Brummie (Birmingham (also known as Y'am-Y'am land (you am, ain't ya)) both 'Should'a' and 'John'd' are every day colloquial's for us. Shakespearian we ain't (although he does come from just down t' road).

I don't think anyone questions our right to speak our local vernacular. In Montana, we got 'r own mount'n way t' say what's got a feller's tail in a twist (spit!), an' them as don't like it can purty well lump it.

But as the frozen empress pointed out, spelling it in dialog is the issue:

John'd is a contraction leaving out two letters of "had" and follows the rule of contactions.

Shoulda is not a contraction, unless you want to torture out the "h" and "d" letters on either end of "had." Then it would be should'a'. Instead, writers find it easier to make a new word, shoulda. Like dunno and yep, it's a new spelling with no apostrophes.

Colloquials isn't a contraction, either. It's plural, also not requiring an apostrophe.

Jus' sayin'

Vespertilion · Feb 20, 2010

You hear that kind of contraction with a name all the time where I grew up. When it comes to a name like John, where it doesn't look right as "John'd," what is actually said sounds more like "John'ed" or "Johnnid."

"John'id gone by the time I got there."

"Julie'd already gone."

"Ike' id already been."

Chase · Feb 20, 2010

Clovia said:
"John'id gone by the time I got there."

"Ike' id already been."

So I'm curious, what word is being contracted to make 'id?

Vespertilion · Feb 21, 2010

Chase said:
So I'm curious, what word is being contracted to make 'id?

No, no--it's still "had" that you're contracting. That's just how it sounds when spoken.

Chase · Feb 21, 2010

Clovia said:
No, no--it's still "had" that you're contracting. That's just how it sounds when spoken.

I think what you're going for are "sight spellings," not actual contractions.

"We're gonna win, y' betcha."

In the dialog above, we're is a contraction of we and are. y' is a contraction of you. However, gonna and betcha are sight spellings to convey the sounds of going to and bet you, respectively.

Another poster and I have been offering that sight spellings (hafta, wanna, and the like) do not use apostrophes as contractions must.

With the best of intentions, I realize I haven't been clear and have beaten the poor, long-dead horse to death.

Vespertilion · Feb 21, 2010

Maryn said:
I agree it's a consonant-sound thing. If the name ends with a consonant sound, it seems to be contractable with had.

Marla'd been up six six. Sheila'd been up since six. Gary'd been up since six. Isaiah'd been up since six. Those work.

Marlene'd, Sheldon'd, Gerald's, and Ike'd do not work.

Maryn, who should work

Oh, I was just chiming in on this, not trying to dispute anything. Just how it sounds colloquially when someone sticks a contracted had onto the end of a name like the above listed.

Didn't mean to confuse.

OneWriter · Jan 28, 2011

Another contraction question

Is it "what'd you do?" or "what d'you do?"

FennelGiraffe · Jan 28, 2011

OneWriter said:
Is it "what'd you do?" or "what d'you do?"

"what'd you do" is "what did you do"
"what d'you do" is "what do you do"

Deleted member 42 · Jan 28, 2011

mware01 said:
I think IceCream is correct about "John'd", though it may not be common.

I'll probably use shoulda once to give the reader a taste, then switch to should've after that.

Thanks everyone!

IcecreamEmpress is absolutely right, on all points.

You will see John'd in New England writing; say, for instance, Stephen King.

The apostrophe in a contraction means "Hey, I've left out some letters here."

Shoulda is an alternate, dialect pronunciation of should have; not a contraction.

Rhubix · Jan 29, 2011

In Newfoundland these are common words for us as well.
She'd be goin' if he'd let'r finish what she's at. <-- average sentence.
Having said that, though I speak like that I would never ever write it, unless I was writing rum soaked pirate dialogue and my mc wasn't meant to catch any of what they said.

what d'you do - this is just awkward to read

Clarity > colloquialism. Otherwise you end up with gems like:
Me'n me buddy'd do'er best t'get on whit yer racket. and everyone throws the book against the wall.

pdr · Jan 29, 2011

Yes indeed!

The use of 'd - pronounced ud - in my area, and meaning had, is common in NZ, and in the North of England. I've heard it on OZ too.

Interestingly coulda isn't used so much but couldna and wouldna (could not and would not) is still very much in use in the north of UK and in NZ where people are of northern English origin.

Deleted member 42 · Jan 29, 2011

Rhubix said:
In Newfoundland these are common words for us as well.
She'd be goin' if he'd let'r finish what she's at. <-- average sentence.

New Englandahs and Newfies received this dialect trait from a particular part of Yorkshire, and a large strip of territory North of the Humber.

Xelebes · Jan 29, 2011

Couldna is a contraction of "could nae."

Non-standard contractions, like should'a & John'd

Kidlit gang, Junior member.

Hapless Virago

Kidlit gang, Junior member.

Megalops Erectus

Hapless Virago

Living the dream

~~~~*~~~~

Not Any More

Stood at the coalface

It Takes All of Us to End Racism

Flying blind on a rocket cycle.

It Takes All of Us to End Racism

Flying blind on a rocket cycle.

It Takes All of Us to End Racism

Flying blind on a rocket cycle.

Ubi dubium ibi libertas

It's green they say

Deleted member 42

New kid, critique harshly!

Deleted member 42

Delerium ex Ennui

*