A question about a contraction.

Agree with Maryn. Your sentence is proper English and perfectly okay.

However, your presumed sentence without the contraction is incorrect because
the removal of the contraction does not add the word we - it only expands the word can't to cannot.

Bufty said:

Agree with Maryn. Your sentence is proper English and perfectly okay.

However, your presumed sentence without the contraction is incorrect because
the removal of the contraction does not add the word we - it only expands the word can't to cannot.

Click to expand...

English doesn't really have rules, so much as 'suggestions'.

CndnPhoenix said:

Hello.

I was wondering, when one writes, "Why can't we choose for ourselves?" is this proper English? After all, wouldn't the sentence without the contraction be: "Why can we not choose for ourselves?" With the word "we" put in between the contracted words can and not.

Well, this is simply something I have become curious about. And a warm thank you to everyone or anyone who takes the time to reply.

Click to expand...

Contractions are proper English (as in, They've been a widely used and accepted part of the English language since its inception), and words like "they're" are found in the dictionary. They can be construed as less formal. The writer (and his/her editor, perhaps) gets to decide whether they suit the voice and tone of his or her work. It would be strange to read a work of fiction, or even non fiction if it's intended to be a smooth and approachable read, that used no contractions. They're used in journalism, business writing, and even scholarly publications, though house styles can differ.

Grab some book, magazines, and newspapers and check them out.

It's also important to be aware that things that are not, strictly speaking, proper English can still be a part of effective writing, depending on context. Fiction writers often make use of sentence fragments and colloquialisms in order to create the right feel in their work, for instance.

I don't follow the meaning of this in relation to the post to which you appear to be responding.

Angry Guy said:

English doesn't really have rules, so much as 'suggestions'.

Click to expand...

Bufty said:

I don't follow the meaning of this in relation to the post to which you appear to be responding.

Click to expand...

I was riffing a bit on Captain Barbossa's explanation of the Pirate Code. But the TL;DR version is that English is such a conglomeration of languages, dialects, and what-all else that to talk about "rules" is pushing it a bit. It's really more "conventions", and even that only because someone decided to write a book declaring arbitrarily that thus and so is the proper way to spell/pronounce/inflect.

Angry Guy said:

I was riffing a bit on Captain Barbossa's explanation of the Pirate Code. But the TL;DR version is that English is such a conglomeration of languages, dialects, and what-all else that to talk about "rules" is pushing it a bit. It's really more "conventions", and even that only because someone decided to write a book declaring arbitrarily that thus and so is the proper way to spell/pronounce/inflect.

Click to expand...

That goes for every language. English has taken a lot from other languages, but only really in the vocabulary department; grammar is still very much germanic, excusing the word order trumphing cases.

NRoach said:

That goes for every language. English has taken a lot from other languages, but only really in the vocabulary department; grammar is still very much germanic, excusing the word order trumphing cases.

Click to expand...

It was a typical day at the UN, and the German delegate was going on and on about something. The American delegate was listening to the translation through his earpiece. Suddenly the translation cut off, although the German delegate was clearly continuing to talk. The American turned and looked at the translator, who was standing, red-faced and furious. Suddenly, as if unable to contain himself, the translator yelled, "The VERB man! Get to the VERB!"

Angry Guy said:

It was a typical day at the UN, and the German delegate was going on and on about something. The American delegate was listening to the translation through his earpiece. Suddenly the translation cut off, although the German delegate was clearly continuing to talk. The American turned and looked at the translator, who was standing, red-faced and furious. Suddenly, as if unable to contain himself, the translator yelled, "The VERB man! Get to the VERB!"

Click to expand...

Okay?

It's very much a matter of style. In informal writing, such as most fictional narrative, your example sentence would be fine. In formal academic writing, it would probably be frowned upon. Other than that, don't fret about it.

caw

blacbird said:

It's very much a matter of style. In informal writing, such as most fictional narrative, your example sentence would be fine. In formal academic writing, it would probably be frowned upon. Other than that, don't fret about it.

caw

Click to expand...

I agree with blacbird. In informal writing the contraction sounds like something an American English speaking person would say. However, in formal writing or speaking the second example would be more suited for both American English and UK English.

CndnPhoenix said:

Sorry it took so long for me to get back. (My pet got sick.)

Thank you all for your many many responses. I had an English teacher once, who insisted there were English "rules" to follow, but it seems that that is up for debate as well.

Click to expand...

It really, really isn't. The issue with English's grammatical rules is that they're muddied by a million and one exceptions to each and every one of them; this does not mean there aren't rules, though.

It's like the deal with killing someone in law. There are situations in which you won't go to jail for it: self-defence, provocation, castle laws, etc, but at the end of the day, killing someone is still illegal

Here is an English rule to follow when using had...

James, while John had had “had,” had had “had had;” “had had” had had a better effect on the teacher.

That is a 100% legit sentence that follows all English rules of syntax, diction, and grammar.

Sentence example is fine. It's an issue of style, not grammar. If the more informal style, using the contraction, is appropriate for the piece, no problem whatever.

caw

dantefrizzoli said:

James, while John had had “had,” had had “had had;” “had had” had had a better effect on the teacher.

That is a 100% legit sentence that follows all English rules of syntax, diction, and grammar.

Click to expand...

It's not quite a hundred percent correct. A semicolon inside the end quote would definitely not have had a good effect on an English teacher.

Meh, Syntax. lol

CndnPhoenix said:

Hello.

I was wondering, when one writes, "Why can't we choose for ourselves?" is this proper English? After all, wouldn't the sentence without the contraction be: "Why can we not choose for ourselves?" With the word "we" put in between the contracted words can and not.

Well, this is simply something I have become curious about. And a warm thank you to everyone or anyone who takes the time to reply.

Click to expand...

I recall some controversy about some guy who split an infinitive with an adverb every week for several years: "... to boldly go where no man has gone before." But I think most people figured out what he was trying to say.

Decades later they DID change the saying, but the split infinitive was still there: "... to boldly go where no one has gone before."

Roxxsmom said:

...
It's also important to be aware that things that are not, strictly speaking, proper English can still be a part of effective writing, depending on context. Fiction writers often make use of sentence fragments and colloquialisms in order to create the right feel in their work, for instance.

Click to expand...

Sentence fragments are happening more and more in nonfiction as well, as I pointed out in a thread a while back in Office Party (where it got as much respect as the late Rodney Dangerfield).

I don't think I ever saw a sentence fragment in classic SF (or even in the older Piers Anthony stuff I read), even when characters were speaking, but then a lot of those writers didn't dare bend the laws of physics, much less the rules of English, for the sake of a story.

dantefrizzoli said:

Here is an English rule to follow when using had...

James, while John had had “had,” had had “had had;” “had had” had had a better effect on the teacher.

That is a 100% legit sentence that follows all English rules of syntax, diction, and grammar.

Click to expand...

I think I've been had. The Internet certainly has had an effect on me.

benbradley said:

I don't think I ever saw a sentence fragment in classic SF.

Click to expand...

Ray Bradbury wallows in them. Quite effectively. He's by no means immune to the exclamation mark, either!

caw