# EN: I have / I've + past participle



## spoik

Hello,

I'm writing cover letters, and I wonder if it's polite to write "I've developed" or if it's better to use "I have developed"
And the same thing for every verb of course !


----------



## snarkhunter

Hello,

I believe _contracted_ forms had best be avoided in formal documents: After all, they are supposed to be only related to speech.


----------



## Ithildyn

I've been looking at conventions on contracted forms too and it seems the general consensus is that not using contractions is your safest bet.

Some people might not mind but non-contracted forms are always going to be right with anyone in such formal documents, therefore, why risk it?


----------



## spoik

I think the same as you, but on the other hand it makes the text more "heavy"


----------



## radiok

Whilst it's true that contracted forms avoid "heaviness" and can (in my opinion) be forgone in certain written texts, I'd definitely agree with what the others have said and suggest you use the uncontracted form in a cover letter, no matter what job you're applying for. Better safe than sorry!


----------



## moustic

Just adding my confirmation. Never use contractions in an official document. 
Contractions are used in spoken English or informal documents (letters or e-mails to friends) or when quoting conversations in writing.


----------



## Wordsmyth

All the more so because some contractions can be ambiguous: not the case with "I've", but "He's" can be "He is" or "He has"; and "I'd" can be "I had" or "I would", etc.

Ws


----------



## spoik

Thank you very much!
Should I also avoid "*I'm*"?


----------



## Wordsmyth

As others have already said, spoik, *all* such contractions are best avoided in formal writing. If this is a _lettre de motivation_ for a job, as radiok suggested, you would run the risk of creating a 'sloppy' impression with "I'm".

Just think of such things as the equivalent of something like "T'as vu ...?", and ask yourself whether you would write that in a similar situation.

Ws


----------



## concours

Bonjour,

En Angleterre, on dit "I have got, I have not got" ou la forma courte "I've got, I haven't got"
En Amérique, on dit "I have, I have not" (sans le got), mais pour la forme courte, est-ce que l'on peut dire également "I've, I'haven't" sans le got ?

Merci d'avance


----------



## Carcassonnaise

Well, I'm British not American but I'm pretty sure they say I've and I haven't in American English!  I also didn't know Americans don't say got - is that right?  They do use the old medieval past of got, he's gotten fat, for example, which the British no longer do (just to confuse you!)


----------



## Language Hound

concours said:


> En Amérique, on dit "I have, I have not" (sans le got)
> "I've, I'haven't"



In the U.S. we do say both _I have got_ and _I have._
We usually shorten _I have got_ to _I've got_ (i.e., I've got a lot of work to do.)
In the U.S. we don't shorten _I have_ to _I've_ unless it's followed by another verb. For example, we would not say "I've a dog."  We'd say "I have a dog."

The negative of _I have_ (in the U.S.) is _I *don't* have_.
The negative of _I have got_ (in the U.S.) is _I haven't got_.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Language Hound has already pointed out that in the US they say both _I have got _and _I have. _

To which I add that in Britain we also say both _I have go_t and _I have__._

So, concours, your question about the short form applies equally to both AmE and BrE — and the answer for BrE is the same as Language Hound's, except that you can also hear "I've" followed by a noun: "I've two children" sounds just as natural to me as "I've got two children". 

Personally I prefer the former, as it's neater (the "got" is redundant) — no doubt my preference was influenced by a primary school teacher who used to award a "gotter's badge" to anyone whose written work was excessively riddled with "got"s!

Ws


----------

