How do you and the people where you're from (and where is that by the way) usually contract "it is not", "you are not", "they are not", "we are not", etc.? Do you contract the "not" as "n't" and stick it on to the verb or do you contract the verb and stick it onto the noun? Do you use both? In which situations do you choose one over the other and why? Have you ever even given it any thought?
Contractions of "it is not", "you are not&quo
Another one: "they have not" (I make a special inclusion of this because it's a little different ... maybe).
At least for pronoun + "is not", the dialect here seems to prefer forms like "it's not", "you're not", "they're not", "we're not", and so on rather than the opposite forms. However, I cannot deduce a specific set of preferred forms with pronoun + "have not" here though.
I think both are pretty common, and it entirely depends on the rest of the sentence.
"I think both are pretty common, and it entirely depends on the rest of the sentence."
Yes indeed. It would seem to boil down to emphasis. The form "it's not" would appear to be used if the aspect of "not" is being emphasized.
By the way, I don't really see these things as contractions but as words in their right. When people speak, they don't normally go through a process of mental substitution (ie, "I can say 'I don't' instead of 'I do not'").
Yes indeed. It would seem to boil down to emphasis. The form "it's not" would appear to be used if the aspect of "not" is being emphasized.
By the way, I don't really see these things as contractions but as words in their right. When people speak, they don't normally go through a process of mental substitution (ie, "I can say 'I don't' instead of 'I do not'").
I'd say that standard for me (in Minnesota) would be it's not, you're not, they're not, we're not, unless there is a reason to put emphasis on the pronoun.
With pronoun + "have not", however, I would say that the contraction is almost always haven't. The pronoun is almost never combined with have.
i.e:
I haven't, you haven't, they haven't we haven't
Never: I've not, you've not, they've not, we've not.
If emphasis is to be put on the negative:
I have not, you have not, they have not, we have not
With pronoun + "have not", however, I would say that the contraction is almost always haven't. The pronoun is almost never combined with have.
i.e:
I haven't, you haven't, they haven't we haven't
Never: I've not, you've not, they've not, we've not.
If emphasis is to be put on the negative:
I have not, you have not, they have not, we have not
On a tangent, a puzzling aspect is the relatively recent phemonenon of answering a "have" question with a "do" answer.
"Have you got any coffee?" "Yes, I do."
Listen for it.
"Have you got any coffee?" "Yes, I do."
Listen for it.
"On a tangent, a puzzling aspect is the relatively recent phemonenon of answering a 'have' question with a 'do answer.
'Have you got any coffee?' 'Yes, I do.'
Listen for it.'"
Sorry, this is neither a phenomenon nor is it recent and it's perfectly fine English. It's merely good old ellipsis: the omission of words without a loss of meaning.
A very common feature in English that has been around for a dog's age. The auxiliary "do" is frequently associated with ellipsis:
"Surely you don't have to go to work today?"
"Yes, I do [have to go to work today]."
"Have you got any coffee?"
"Yes, I do [have some coffee]."
'Have you got any coffee?' 'Yes, I do.'
Listen for it.'"
Sorry, this is neither a phenomenon nor is it recent and it's perfectly fine English. It's merely good old ellipsis: the omission of words without a loss of meaning.
A very common feature in English that has been around for a dog's age. The auxiliary "do" is frequently associated with ellipsis:
"Surely you don't have to go to work today?"
"Yes, I do [have to go to work today]."
"Have you got any coffee?"
"Yes, I do [have some coffee]."