lemmy.4d2.org
  • Communities
  • Create Post
  • Create Community
  • heart
    Support Lemmy
  • search
    Search
  • Login
  • Sign Up
cm0002@suppo.fi to Funny@sh.itjust.works · 9 days ago

Makes perfect sense

suppo.fi

message-square
64
link
fedilink
729

Makes perfect sense

suppo.fi

cm0002@suppo.fi to Funny@sh.itjust.works · 9 days ago
message-square
64
link
fedilink
alert-triangle
You must log in or # to comment.
  • Horsecook@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    8 days ago

    deleted by creator

    • spankinspinach@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      8 days ago

      This made perfect sense

      And hurt my head

    • luciferofastora@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 days ago

      Cyanide and Happiness: Contractions

    • Kairos@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 days ago

      Those are all correct and also sound fine.

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 days ago

      Shouldn’t’ve

    • blueworld@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 days ago

      I prefer Scottish, where they just ignore the punctuation and string it together. isnae = is not. didnae = did not. cannae = cannot.

    • potoooooooo ✅️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      deleted by creator

  • 667@lemmy.radio
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    8 days ago

    It’s what it’s.

    • Mac@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      “It’s” specifically is funny because you can use its alternative version “'tis” in some places that you cant use “it’s”.

      • Zorcron@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        8 days ago

        ‘Tis what ‘tis

        • bonenode@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          8 days ago

          Tits what tis.

        • ImWaitingForRetcons@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          It’s what ‘tis.

  • Lumidaub@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    8 days ago

    Monty Python: It's.

    Let me teach you a thing: “have” can be “'ve” if it is an auxiliary verb. Ta-daah.

    I can’t help you or your fucky language with “'m” or “'s” or “'re”.

    • bearboiblake@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      8 days ago

      what’s an auxillary verb?

      • Lumidaub@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        I have an apple - in this sentence, “have” is the main verb.

        I have bought an apple - here, “to buy” is the main verb, the main action, while “have” is the auxiliary verb that lets you form the past tense “have bought”. The word “auxiliary” means helpful or supportive, an auxiliary verb supports, as it were, the main verb.

        • slothrop@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          8 days ago

          Except you can most certainly say, “I’ve an apple.”

          • Lumidaub@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            8 days ago

            You can, but would you? It sounds old-timey because it’s not how modern English works.

            • slothrop@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 days ago

              lol, really?

              I’ve an apple in one hand, and I’ve an orange in the other.
              I’ve modernity all over me.

              • Lumidaub@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                12
                ·
                8 days ago

                It seems like this usage has survived in British dialects more than elsewhere, I’ll give you that.

                • sik0fewl@piefed.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  8 days ago

                  Canada, too.

            • monotremata@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              8 days ago

              I think it might be more common in British English? Like “I’ve a fiver says he muffs the kick.” Or “I’ve half a mind to go down there myself.” (Curiously in American English this latter would probably still have the contraction but add a second auxiliary verb: “I’ve got half a mind to…” English is such a mess.)

              • Lumidaub@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                8 days ago

                Yeah, it’s not as uncommon the UK to hear specifically “I’ve [x]” instead of “I’ve got [x]”. I won’t be told though that Brits say “the [x] that I’ve” ;D

                • monotremata@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  “I’ve got” seems particularly strange to me because without the contraction Americans would still just say “I have.” (There are some circumstances where they’ll say “I have got” without a contraction, but it’s mainly when they’re drawing a contrast with what they “haven’t got.” E.g., “No, I don’t have a baseball… oh, but I have got a lacrosse ball, will that work?”)

                  I think the rule is probably closer to “you don’t contract a stressed verb,” but that’s not terribly useful since there are so few rules about stress patterns. Verbs at the end of sentences are typically stressed, though, so you’re right that ending with that kind of contraction is going to sound wrong to most people.

          • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 days ago

            In murican that sounds odd.

          • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 days ago

            The contractions we say are more loose than what we write. Couldn’t’ve is my go to example.

            • TurtleTourParty@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 days ago

              Who’d’ve gone and done a thing like that?

        • bearboiblake@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          8 days ago

          that makes sense, thank you for the explanation!

    • MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 days ago

      So’ve you thought about this before?

      • Lumidaub@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        8 days ago

        Unfortunately I’ve studied English at uni thinking it might’ve in some capacity become useful by now. Alas, so far I’ve’d no opportunity to use the nonsense I’ve learnt other than to shitpost about it. Woe’m’st’ve’d is me.

        • TurtleTourParty@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          Woe’m’st’ve’d

          ?

          • Lumidaub@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            Nonsense gibberish made up to imitate English-language contractions paired with a common phrase. It’s usually “who’m’st’ve’d” and the phrase is “woe is me”.

    • KSP Atlas@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 days ago

      I see “'ve” used in the possessive context, it’s not super rare but it’s not super common

      I think it’s more common in some places

      “I’ve no idea what you two are doing” is a valid sentence

  • MaybeNaught@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    8 days ago

    Afaik, English grammar requires utterances with predicates to have a stressed element in those predicates. Contractions of only a subject and an auxiliary verb - ex: I am > I’m, he has > he’s, they will > they’ll - eliminate that independent auxiliary as a prosodic segment and violate that grammar.

    A - “Who’s going to the store?”

    B - “I am.” [ok] or “I’m going.” [ok] (or “I am going.”), but not “I’m.” [bad, obvs].

  • slothrop@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    8 days ago

    I’m Henry VIII, I’m.

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    8 days ago

    Relevant Tom Scott.

  • Nooodel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    8 days ago

    Some times that rule applies, other times it doesn’t.

    Shall we find a situation that’s in the grey zone?

    Yeah, let’s!

    • JargonWagon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      Nah, we won’t.

      • Zozano@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        ~800 years ago:

        will = wol

        wol not > won’t

  • Kairos@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 days ago

    The contraction literally isn’t right. It only works with the adverb version of “have”.

    • bearboiblake@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      8 days ago

      it’s what it’s

      • Kairos@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 days ago

        This one is correct but sounds wrong because we usually say it the other way.

        • tyler@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 days ago

          Well they’re all “correct”. They just don’t sound right. Like saying “the red, big apple” instead of “the big, red apple”.

          • Ansis100@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            Wait, I remember learning in primary school about the correct order for adjectives. Is that not a thing?

            • tyler@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              There’s not a rule, it’s just a “sounds correct”. Because English doesn’t have rules, it has exceptions.

              Cambridge even uses the word “normally” lol. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/adjectives-order

              And here’s a fun stackexchange link where people argue about the order (since there isn’t a rule, it’s all made up). https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1155/what-is-the-rule-for-adjective-order

              One good quote from that link:

              @cori - the fascinating linguistic point is that native speakers will have subconsciously inferred a rule like this without it ever being stated. The “rule” is really an observation of what they do. All languages and dialects consist of such unconscious rules. – Nathan Long Commented Apr 16, 2013 at 15:25

          • Kairos@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            Fair

  • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 days ago

    You think it do, but it don’t.

    • 18107@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 days ago

      They don’t think it be like it is, but it do.

    • Kairos@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 days ago

      That’s wrong. Correct would be “doesn’t”.

      • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 days ago

        Gah! Yes, quite rightn’t.

  • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 days ago

    A contraction is a separate word, with its own accepted usages in the community. For example, “gonna” comes from “going to”, but is not the same, as “I’m gonna the shop, do you want anything?” sounds wrong

    • JargonWagon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      Yeah, “gonna” needs to be followed by a verb for it to sound right, I think, with the exception of it being used as a response affirming they’ll be doing an action.
      “You gonna go to the store?”
      “I’m gonna, just gettin my shoes on first.”

    • homura1650@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Sometimes they end up that way (at which point they stop being contractions). However, there are also cases where distinct syntactic words end up being pronounced as phonetically single words. Or, as my morphology professor put it, “word” is not a meaningful category.

      For example, consider the sentence “I’m happy”. What is the subject of this sentence? The verb? What part of speach is “I’m”?

    • GaMEChld@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Language is…

  • bampop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 days ago

    If I could add another contraction to that list, I’d

  • TachyonTele@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 days ago

    That “it’s” is evil. It’s going to be in my head for a long time

  • Hupf@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 days ago

    https://youtu.be/-sfHsZ-GbMU?t=55s

  • JTskulk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 days ago

    Ever since I was a kid, I’ve had the dumb thought that if you and your friends are imprisoned, you’d ask the warden to “let’s out!”

  • missingno@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 days ago

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnrLOug3u6s

Funny@sh.itjust.works

funny@sh.itjust.works

Subscribe from Remote Instance

Create a post
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !funny@sh.itjust.works

General rules:

  • Be kind.
  • All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
  • Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
  • No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
  • Don’t post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

Visibility: Public
globe

This community can be federated to other instances and be posted/commented in by their users.

  • 826 users / day
  • 3.28K users / week
  • 6.88K users / month
  • 12.7K users / 6 months
  • 2 local subscribers
  • 13.1K subscribers
  • 1.11K Posts
  • 9.08K Comments
  • Modlog
  • mods:
  • TheDude@sh.itjust.works
  • kersploosh@sh.itjust.works
  • example@reddthat.com
  • VicksVaporBBQrub@sh.itjust.works
  • BE: 0.19.13
  • Modlog
  • Legal
  • Instances
  • Docs
  • Code
  • join-lemmy.org