Re: CHAT: which's

Roger Mills wrote:
>As for Andreas' original "which's" for "which is", my suspicion is that
>"which" simply does not enter into written contractions-- even though in
>its
>unstressed pronunciation [WitS@z] it might appear to be one.  Same with
>"which're" = which are--- it just isn't done.  OTOH something like
>"wouldn't've", also reflecting the usual pronunciation [wUdn=t@v]-- might
>well occur in a novel or story that was trying to indicate colloquial or
>relaxed speech ("wouldn't of..." would be an alternative writing but
>probably wouldn't get past a good editor).
>But I believe there is (or at least was) a general rule in proper written
>work against piling contraction on contraction. (I seem to recall a recent
>"I'ven't"?? in one of A's posts, which also got commented on.....)
A quick googling turned up only 359 instances of "I'ven't", and only dozens
of forms like "you'ven't", "he'sn't", so it is indeed rare, and I should
probably better stop doing it. It just seems I'm a natural contracter (or is
that "contractor"?).

                                             Andreas

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Replies