Is “that've” a valid contraction for “that have”?
Is "that've" a valid contraction for "that have"?
For example, the sentence: "I've been working with some substances that've been detrimental to my health."
It follows the patterns of other similar contractions (like would've, that'll've, and others), but doesn't seem to be any dictionary I could find.
contractions
asked Aug 30 '12 at 16:23
pR0Ps
149116
|
show 2 more comments
Is "that've" a valid contraction for "that have"?
For example, the sentence: "I've been working with some substances that've been detrimental to my health."
It follows the patterns of other similar contractions (like would've, that'll've, and others), but doesn't seem to be any dictionary I could find.
contractions
asked Aug 30 '12 at 16:23
pR0Ps
149116
4
It's frowned upon by grammarians. I would avoid it when writing, but in conversation it's easy to slur the two words together ("that" + "have") to sound as if it's a contraction.
– Zairja
Aug 30 '12 at 16:52
2
@Zairja: Which grammarians?
– Barrie England
Aug 30 '12 at 17:40
@BarrieEngland I suppose I should have qualified that. I'm not sure about the opinions of "scholarly" grammarians in the strict linguistic sense, but "prescriptivists", "armchair grammarians", writers and copy-editors seem to have a consensus about the matter. In this case, I'd point to my source: Patricia T. O'Conner.
– Zairja
Aug 30 '12 at 17:52
@Zairja: Never heard of her. Neither she nor the other anonymous figures you cite sound particularly authoritative.
– Barrie England
Aug 30 '12 at 17:55
@BarrieEngland Ah, but we both know that there is no main authority on English, so that'd be moot. I can only offer general opinion as sourced from those who are vocal about it online and in publications. From a prescriptive perspective (e.g. what people are taught in school, copy-editing and so forth), this contraction isn't favored. On the descriptive side (e.g. dictionaries, what we see in common use, and as the question mentions) it's not usually present outside of spoken speech, dialogue or informal writing. Note: this says nothing of the "validity" of the contraction. :)
– Zairja
Aug 30 '12 at 18:01
|
show 2 more comments
Is "that've" a valid contraction for "that have"?
For example, the sentence: "I've been working with some substances that've been detrimental to my health."
It follows the patterns of other similar contractions (like would've, that'll've, and others), but doesn't seem to be any dictionary I could find.
contractions
asked Aug 30 '12 at 16:23
pR0Ps
149116
Is "that've" a valid contraction for "that have"?
For example, the sentence: "I've been working with some substances that've been detrimental to my health."
It follows the patterns of other similar contractions (like would've, that'll've, and others), but doesn't seem to be any dictionary I could find.
contractions
contractions
asked Aug 30 '12 at 16:23
pR0Ps
149116
asked Aug 30 '12 at 16:23
pR0Ps
149116
asked Aug 30 '12 at 16:23
pR0Ps
149116
asked Aug 30 '12 at 16:23
pR0Ps
149116
asked Aug 30 '12 at 16:23
pR0Ps
149116
149116
4
It's frowned upon by grammarians. I would avoid it when writing, but in conversation it's easy to slur the two words together ("that" + "have") to sound as if it's a contraction.
– Zairja
Aug 30 '12 at 16:52
2
@Zairja: Which grammarians?
– Barrie England
Aug 30 '12 at 17:40
@BarrieEngland I suppose I should have qualified that. I'm not sure about the opinions of "scholarly" grammarians in the strict linguistic sense, but "prescriptivists", "armchair grammarians", writers and copy-editors seem to have a consensus about the matter. In this case, I'd point to my source: Patricia T. O'Conner.
– Zairja
Aug 30 '12 at 17:52
@Zairja: Never heard of her. Neither she nor the other anonymous figures you cite sound particularly authoritative.
– Barrie England
Aug 30 '12 at 17:55
@BarrieEngland Ah, but we both know that there is no main authority on English, so that'd be moot. I can only offer general opinion as sourced from those who are vocal about it online and in publications. From a prescriptive perspective (e.g. what people are taught in school, copy-editing and so forth), this contraction isn't favored. On the descriptive side (e.g. dictionaries, what we see in common use, and as the question mentions) it's not usually present outside of spoken speech, dialogue or informal writing. Note: this says nothing of the "validity" of the contraction. :)
– Zairja
Aug 30 '12 at 18:01
|
show 2 more comments
4
It's frowned upon by grammarians. I would avoid it when writing, but in conversation it's easy to slur the two words together ("that" + "have") to sound as if it's a contraction.
– Zairja
Aug 30 '12 at 16:52
2
@Zairja: Which grammarians?
– Barrie England
Aug 30 '12 at 17:40
@BarrieEngland I suppose I should have qualified that. I'm not sure about the opinions of "scholarly" grammarians in the strict linguistic sense, but "prescriptivists", "armchair grammarians", writers and copy-editors seem to have a consensus about the matter. In this case, I'd point to my source: Patricia T. O'Conner.
– Zairja
Aug 30 '12 at 17:52
@Zairja: Never heard of her. Neither she nor the other anonymous figures you cite sound particularly authoritative.
– Barrie England
Aug 30 '12 at 17:55
@BarrieEngland Ah, but we both know that there is no main authority on English, so that'd be moot. I can only offer general opinion as sourced from those who are vocal about it online and in publications. From a prescriptive perspective (e.g. what people are taught in school, copy-editing and so forth), this contraction isn't favored. On the descriptive side (e.g. dictionaries, what we see in common use, and as the question mentions) it's not usually present outside of spoken speech, dialogue or informal writing. Note: this says nothing of the "validity" of the contraction. :)
– Zairja
Aug 30 '12 at 18:01
4
4
It's frowned upon by grammarians. I would avoid it when writing, but in conversation it's easy to slur the two words together ("that" + "have") to sound as if it's a contraction.
– Zairja
Aug 30 '12 at 16:52
It's frowned upon by grammarians. I would avoid it when writing, but in conversation it's easy to slur the two words together ("that" + "have") to sound as if it's a contraction.
– Zairja
Aug 30 '12 at 16:52
2
2
@Zairja: Which grammarians?
– Barrie England
Aug 30 '12 at 17:40
@Zairja: Which grammarians?
– Barrie England
Aug 30 '12 at 17:40
@BarrieEngland I suppose I should have qualified that. I'm not sure about the opinions of "scholarly" grammarians in the strict linguistic sense, but "prescriptivists", "armchair grammarians", writers and copy-editors seem to have a consensus about the matter. In this case, I'd point to my source: Patricia T. O'Conner.
– Zairja
Aug 30 '12 at 17:52
@BarrieEngland I suppose I should have qualified that. I'm not sure about the opinions of "scholarly" grammarians in the strict linguistic sense, but "prescriptivists", "armchair grammarians", writers and copy-editors seem to have a consensus about the matter. In this case, I'd point to my source: Patricia T. O'Conner.
– Zairja
Aug 30 '12 at 17:52
@Zairja: Never heard of her. Neither she nor the other anonymous figures you cite sound particularly authoritative.
– Barrie England
Aug 30 '12 at 17:55
@Zairja: Never heard of her. Neither she nor the other anonymous figures you cite sound particularly authoritative.
– Barrie England
Aug 30 '12 at 17:55
@BarrieEngland Ah, but we both know that there is no main authority on English, so that'd be moot. I can only offer general opinion as sourced from those who are vocal about it online and in publications. From a prescriptive perspective (e.g. what people are taught in school, copy-editing and so forth), this contraction isn't favored. On the descriptive side (e.g. dictionaries, what we see in common use, and as the question mentions) it's not usually present outside of spoken speech, dialogue or informal writing. Note: this says nothing of the "validity" of the contraction. :)
– Zairja
Aug 30 '12 at 18:01
@BarrieEngland Ah, but we both know that there is no main authority on English, so that'd be moot. I can only offer general opinion as sourced from those who are vocal about it online and in publications. From a prescriptive perspective (e.g. what people are taught in school, copy-editing and so forth), this contraction isn't favored. On the descriptive side (e.g. dictionaries, what we see in common use, and as the question mentions) it's not usually present outside of spoken speech, dialogue or informal writing. Note: this says nothing of the "validity" of the contraction. :)
– Zairja
Aug 30 '12 at 18:01
|
show 2 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
It's certainly found in speech alongside who've and which've, and that's how the pronunciations are normally represented in writing. It's a matter of judgement whether you use them in writing when not reporting actual speech, depending on the degree of formality of the context.
answered Aug 30 '12 at 17:39
Barrie England
128k10202347
add a comment |
As a native speaker of English, I consider "that've" to be a perfectly valid word. Grammarians be damned!
answered Aug 30 '12 at 17:16
TecBrat
3,20041831
add a comment |
I definitely use it in spoken English (native of the United Kingdom) and have heard it used often here. I've never seen it written that I can remember. Google books search doesn't find much and the Google Ngram search only brings up a very small number.
edited Mar 13 '13 at 20:20
RegDwigнt♦
82.7k31281377
answered Mar 13 '13 at 19:54
Bernie
1
add a comment |
I do use it in writing. But with a caveat. I write novels and only use it in dialogue to simulate local speech. (Pacific Northwest for me)
My editors accept it in these circumstances. And only these circumstances.
answered 18 hours ago
Sofía T Garcia
1
New contributor
Sofía T Garcia is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f80069%2fis-thatve-a-valid-contraction-for-that-have%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It's certainly found in speech alongside who've and which've, and that's how the pronunciations are normally represented in writing. It's a matter of judgement whether you use them in writing when not reporting actual speech, depending on the degree of formality of the context.
answered Aug 30 '12 at 17:39
Barrie England
128k10202347
add a comment |
It's certainly found in speech alongside who've and which've, and that's how the pronunciations are normally represented in writing. It's a matter of judgement whether you use them in writing when not reporting actual speech, depending on the degree of formality of the context.
answered Aug 30 '12 at 17:39
Barrie England
128k10202347
add a comment |
It's certainly found in speech alongside who've and which've, and that's how the pronunciations are normally represented in writing. It's a matter of judgement whether you use them in writing when not reporting actual speech, depending on the degree of formality of the context.
answered Aug 30 '12 at 17:39
Barrie England
128k10202347
It's certainly found in speech alongside who've and which've, and that's how the pronunciations are normally represented in writing. It's a matter of judgement whether you use them in writing when not reporting actual speech, depending on the degree of formality of the context.
answered Aug 30 '12 at 17:39
Barrie England
128k10202347
answered Aug 30 '12 at 17:39
Barrie England
128k10202347
answered Aug 30 '12 at 17:39
Barrie England
128k10202347
answered Aug 30 '12 at 17:39
Barrie England
128k10202347
128k10202347
add a comment |
add a comment |
As a native speaker of English, I consider "that've" to be a perfectly valid word. Grammarians be damned!
answered Aug 30 '12 at 17:16
TecBrat
3,20041831
add a comment |
As a native speaker of English, I consider "that've" to be a perfectly valid word. Grammarians be damned!
answered Aug 30 '12 at 17:16
TecBrat
3,20041831
add a comment |
As a native speaker of English, I consider "that've" to be a perfectly valid word. Grammarians be damned!
answered Aug 30 '12 at 17:16
TecBrat
3,20041831
As a native speaker of English, I consider "that've" to be a perfectly valid word. Grammarians be damned!
answered Aug 30 '12 at 17:16
TecBrat
3,20041831
answered Aug 30 '12 at 17:16
TecBrat
3,20041831
answered Aug 30 '12 at 17:16
TecBrat
3,20041831
answered Aug 30 '12 at 17:16
TecBrat
3,20041831
3,20041831
add a comment |
add a comment |
I definitely use it in spoken English (native of the United Kingdom) and have heard it used often here. I've never seen it written that I can remember. Google books search doesn't find much and the Google Ngram search only brings up a very small number.
edited Mar 13 '13 at 20:20
RegDwigнt♦
82.7k31281377
answered Mar 13 '13 at 19:54
Bernie
1
add a comment |
I definitely use it in spoken English (native of the United Kingdom) and have heard it used often here. I've never seen it written that I can remember. Google books search doesn't find much and the Google Ngram search only brings up a very small number.
edited Mar 13 '13 at 20:20
RegDwigнt♦
82.7k31281377
answered Mar 13 '13 at 19:54
Bernie
1
add a comment |
I definitely use it in spoken English (native of the United Kingdom) and have heard it used often here. I've never seen it written that I can remember. Google books search doesn't find much and the Google Ngram search only brings up a very small number.
edited Mar 13 '13 at 20:20
RegDwigнt♦
82.7k31281377
answered Mar 13 '13 at 19:54
Bernie
1
I definitely use it in spoken English (native of the United Kingdom) and have heard it used often here. I've never seen it written that I can remember. Google books search doesn't find much and the Google Ngram search only brings up a very small number.
edited Mar 13 '13 at 20:20
RegDwigнt♦
82.7k31281377
answered Mar 13 '13 at 19:54
Bernie
1
edited Mar 13 '13 at 20:20
RegDwigнt♦
82.7k31281377
edited Mar 13 '13 at 20:20
RegDwigнt♦
82.7k31281377
edited Mar 13 '13 at 20:20
RegDwigнt♦
82.7k31281377
82.7k31281377
answered Mar 13 '13 at 19:54
Bernie
1
answered Mar 13 '13 at 19:54
Bernie
1
answered Mar 13 '13 at 19:54
Bernie
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
I do use it in writing. But with a caveat. I write novels and only use it in dialogue to simulate local speech. (Pacific Northwest for me)
My editors accept it in these circumstances. And only these circumstances.
answered 18 hours ago
Sofía T Garcia
1
New contributor
Sofía T Garcia is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I do use it in writing. But with a caveat. I write novels and only use it in dialogue to simulate local speech. (Pacific Northwest for me)
My editors accept it in these circumstances. And only these circumstances.
answered 18 hours ago
Sofía T Garcia
1
New contributor
Sofía T Garcia is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I do use it in writing. But with a caveat. I write novels and only use it in dialogue to simulate local speech. (Pacific Northwest for me)
My editors accept it in these circumstances. And only these circumstances.
answered 18 hours ago
Sofía T Garcia
1
New contributor
Sofía T Garcia is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I do use it in writing. But with a caveat. I write novels and only use it in dialogue to simulate local speech. (Pacific Northwest for me)
My editors accept it in these circumstances. And only these circumstances.
answered 18 hours ago
Sofía T Garcia
1
New contributor
Sofía T Garcia is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 18 hours ago
Sofía T Garcia
1
New contributor
Sofía T Garcia is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 18 hours ago
Sofía T Garcia
1
answered 18 hours ago
Sofía T Garcia
1
1
New contributor
Sofía T Garcia is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Sofía T Garcia is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Sofía T Garcia is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f80069%2fis-thatve-a-valid-contraction-for-that-have%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
It's frowned upon by grammarians. I would avoid it when writing, but in conversation it's easy to slur the two words together ("that" + "have") to sound as if it's a contraction.
– Zairja
Aug 30 '12 at 16:52
2
@Zairja: Which grammarians?
– Barrie England
Aug 30 '12 at 17:40
@BarrieEngland I suppose I should have qualified that. I'm not sure about the opinions of "scholarly" grammarians in the strict linguistic sense, but "prescriptivists", "armchair grammarians", writers and copy-editors seem to have a consensus about the matter. In this case, I'd point to my source: Patricia T. O'Conner.
– Zairja
Aug 30 '12 at 17:52
@Zairja: Never heard of her. Neither she nor the other anonymous figures you cite sound particularly authoritative.
– Barrie England
Aug 30 '12 at 17:55
@BarrieEngland Ah, but we both know that there is no main authority on English, so that'd be moot. I can only offer general opinion as sourced from those who are vocal about it online and in publications. From a prescriptive perspective (e.g. what people are taught in school, copy-editing and so forth), this contraction isn't favored. On the descriptive side (e.g. dictionaries, what we see in common use, and as the question mentions) it's not usually present outside of spoken speech, dialogue or informal writing. Note: this says nothing of the "validity" of the contraction. :)
– Zairja
Aug 30 '12 at 18:01