Re: CHAT: which's
|From:||David Barrow <davidab@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, February 26, 2003, 17:05|
My watch's broken
Rich's standing over there
Which doesn't make which's any more grammatical
michael poxon wrote:
> Er... if which's is a contraction, what's it a contraction of? It can't be
> the genitive, 'cause it ain't grammatical, and -/tSz/ or -/tSs/ isn't a
> valid consonant cluster in English (not off the top of my head, anyway). If
> the sense intended is as in something like "The tree which is over there" I
> can't see this ever contracting. Most people would contract this statement,
> if at all, as "The tree that's over there". This 'which' type of relative
> construction seems to be disappearing.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Arthaey Angosii" <arthaey@...>
> To: <CONLANG@...>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 6:17 PM
> Subject: Re: CHAT: which's
> > Emaelivpaer Muke Tever:
> > >But I think the restraint against /Ss/ prevents "which is" from ever
> > >contracting at all.
> > T'emaelivpar John Cowan:
> > >"Which's" is never acceptable in standard English. [snip examples]
> > >But the right thing for non-native speakers is simply never to use it.
> > Personally, I'm a contraction-happy sort of person, especially online. If
> > I'm not careful, I'd've had "'cause 'cept 'specially" in my postings here,
> > which's a bit of an overkill. ;)
> > I think it just depends on context. If you look at my log files of IM
> > chats, there are contractions everywhere. The more grammatically "proper"
> > I'm trying to be -- such as when writing less-spoken-English-like e-mails
> > -- I'll try to weed out some of the less standard contractions.
> > "Which's" would count as very informal in my book, but still acceptable.
> > --
> > AA