# apostrophe '



## hellion

hola me gustaria que alguien me dijera en que palabras puedo usar apostrofe
como por ejemplo:
I would like to do something tonight
I'd like to do something tonight

si pudieran incluirlas todas ..

thank you very much.


----------



## YaniraTfe

Hola y bienvenido a WR!
No sé si éstas son todas, pero aquí te van las que puedo recordar ahora mismo:

*Am = ‘m* (I’m tired today)
*Is* *= ‘s* (Where’s Fred? He’s at home)
*Are* *= ‘re* (We’re going to sell it)
*Has = ‘s* (She’s just rung)
*Have* *= ‘ve* (They’ve had an accident)
*Will* *= ‘ll* (I’ll tell them to wait)
*Would* *= ‘d* (If I were him I’d run away!)
*Had* *= ‘d* (He’d been working for a year)

A ver si alguien añade las que falten… Un saludo


----------



## virgilio

hellion,
        A veces en el inglés coloquial, se oyen cosas como:

"If I'd've known that, I'd've let you know."

(If I would have known that, I would have let you know."

Si yo lo hubiera sabido, te lo habría hecho saber."

Hay ingleses que se equivoquen con la prima oración que he citado, creyendo erroneamente que la " -'d" de (if I'd've known) sea del verbo "have". ("If I had have known,......."), lo cual representa una gramática imposible.


Virgilio


----------



## mhp

virgilio said:


> hellion,
> A veces en el inglés coloquial, se oyen cosas como:
> 
> "If I'd've known that, I'd've let you know."
> 
> (If I would have known that, I would have let you know."
> 
> Si yo lo hubiera sabido, te lo habría hecho saber."
> 
> Hay ingleses que se equivoquen con la prima oración que he citado, creyendo erroneamente que la " -'d" de (if I'd've known) sea del verbo "have". ("If I had have known,......."), lo cual representa una gramática imposible.
> 
> 
> Virgilio



Then I feel like an idiot, because the only one that looks correct to me is:

If I'd known that, I'd've let you know. 
If I had known that, I would have let you know.


----------



## hellion

muchas gracias a todos me quedo mas o menos claro solo tengo una duda
escuhe a una persona en una pelicula:

so you were shopping? ,and what'd you buy?
 pues yo pensaba que cuando uno preguntaba algo que hizo en el pasado tambien se podia abreviar la palabra "did"..

am I wrong?...


----------



## mhp

hellion,
Yes you are right. Although I consider it a non-standard form. It is written "what did you buy?"

The only other that occurs to me is n't as in doesn't, wouldn't, haven't, etc.


----------



## virgilio

mhp,
      No way could you ever be considered an "idiot"!  What surprises me a little is that an expression like "If I'd've known" seems - from what you say - not to be commonly used on your side of the Pond.

It is an abbreviation, of course, of "If I would have known" although this expanded form is just about never heard, except in very _précieux_ circles these days.
When English people try to expand it these days, they almost always make the mistake of assuming that the "-'d" stands for "had" and find themselves - often without even blinking -  uttering impossible syntax like:
"If I *had* *have* *known...!!!"*
Still, as they say, today's solecisms are tomorrow's grammar, so who knows what problems future grammarians may have to explain away? Thank Heaven that it won't be me, at any rate, doing the explaining!

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## mhp

virgilio,
I never said that it was not commonly used.


----------



## Jellby

Not = n't (isn't, don't, ...) or 't (can't)


----------



## YaniraTfe

Si no les importa que dé mi opinión, creo que aquí cabría plantear la discusión de dónde acaba lo “coloquial” y dónde se le empieza a dar “patadas al diccionario”, jajaja...

No sé.... Para mí, _“*coloquial*_” podría ser decir: 
_“__I’m gonna do it”_ en vez de“I’m going to do it”o 
_“__Want a bit?”_ en lugar de “Do you want a bit?” o
_“__In your place I’d’ve waited__”_en vez de “I would have waited” o “I’d have waited” o “I would’ve waited”

Pero cosas como:

“_I haven’t broke nothing_” (for “I haven’t broke*n* *any*thing”)
o
"If *I'd've* known that, *I'd've* let you know." (“Si lo *habría* sabido, te lo *habría* dicho”) en mi humilde opinión ya no es coloquial.... sino una metedura de pata dolorosa para los oídos... 

Un saludo


----------



## Jeromed

virgilio said:


> It is an abbreviation, of course, of "If I would have known" although this expanded form is just about never heard, except in very _précieux_ circles these days.


 
In the US, the construction "If I would have known," is common, although it's considered sub-standard and not at all _précieuse_.  Two alternatives that are viewed as correct in this part of the world:

If I had known
Had I known


----------



## virgilio

Yaniratfe,
             Your "“Si lo *habría* sabido, te lo *habría* dicho” is interesting. 
It would appear that soon on Spanish radio we might hear not only:" Son las cinco, las cuatro en Canarias" sino también "las oraciones condicionales ipoteticas contienen un subjuntivo y un condicional - *un subjuntivo menos* en Canarias"!

Virgilio


----------



## mnewcomb71

You are correct with your understanding of the contraction.  I am happy to see as well that you were able to pick up on some pronunciation nuances that are difficult to get!  Good Job!!

PS.

Thank you Jeromed and YaniraTfe for clarifying the use of the ever so precious and misunderstood English subjunctive in if clauses.

Virgilio, "If I would have..." is about the farthest thing from correct grammar either in English or Spanish.


----------



## virgilio

mnewcomb71,
                  You write:" Virgilio, "If I would have..." is about the farthest thing from correct grammar either in English or Spanish."

Well, G B Shaw did once remark "One thing the British and the Americans have in common is that they don't speak the same language".- by which I assume he meant we both try to speak English and both fail. A bit rich from an Irishman, I agree, but he *was* a wise old bird.
The syntax of that form of a protasis is in point of fact unimpeachable. Sorry you don't like it!

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## YaniraTfe

virgilio said:


> Yaniratfe,
> *Your* "“Si lo *habría* sabido, te lo *habría* dicho” is interesting.
> 
> It would appear that soon on Spanish radio we might hear not only:" Son las cinco, las cuatro en Canarias" sino también "*L*as oraciones condicionales *h*ipot*é*ticas contienen un subjuntivo y un condicional - *un subjuntivo menos* en Canarias"!
> 
> Virgilio


 

Hi Virgilio...
I think I’m going to write in English as it seems you have not quite understood the point I was trying to make...

“_Si lo habría sabido, te lo habría dicho_” is the literal translation for what *you *said was something colloquial in English: If I’d’ve known I’d’ve let you know”

Here in the Canary Islands – regardless the time difference -, we’d say the same as in the rest of Spain:

“Si lo hubiera (or hubiese) sabido, te lo habría dicho.”


----------



## mnewcomb71

Just as we should say in English, no matter the time difference either.


----------



## virgilio

YaniraTfe,
               You write:"“_Si lo habría sabido, te lo habría dicho_” is the literal translation for what *you *said was something colloquial in English: If I’d’ve known I’d’ve let you know”

I'm very sorry to have to say it but you are mistaken. That is definitely *not* a translation (literal or otherwise) of what the English means.
Lo siento.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## falbala84

If I’d’ve known I’d’ve let you know  =  Si lo habría sabido te lo habría dicho

Yanira's right, that's a literal translation (although in Spanish, that expression is incorrect)


----------



## mhp

YaniraTfe said:


> Si no les importa que dé mi opinión, creo que aquí cabría plantear la discusión de dónde acaba lo “coloquial” y dónde se le empieza a dar “patadas al diccionario”, jajaja...
> 
> No sé.... Para mí, _“*coloquial*_” podría ser decir:
> _“__I’m gonna do it”_ en vez de“I’m going to do it”o
> _“__Want a bit?”_ en lugar de “Do you want a bit?” o
> _“__In your place I’d’ve waited__”_en vez de “I would have waited” o “I’d have waited” o “I would’ve waited”
> 
> Pero cosas como:
> 
> “_I haven’t broke nothing_” (for “I haven’t broke*n* *any*thing”)
> o
> "If *I'd've* known that, *I'd've* let you know." (“Si lo *habría* sabido, te lo *habría* dicho”) en mi humilde opinión ya no es coloquial.... sino una metedura de pata dolorosa para los oídos...
> 
> Un saludo



 I don’t want to defend this construction, but it is undeniable that it’s used. How does the “colloquial” sentence “Si pudiera, *me iba* ahora mismo” sound to you? It is obviously “wrong”, but I’ll bet it is quite common in your area.

  If you *had *told me, there wouldn’t have been a problem.

  “had” in this sentence is in fact subjunctive. A subjunctive “had” is often replaced with “would have” in spoken language (the same as replacing “me iría” with “me iba”). This tendency is even more widespread for expressing a desire

  I wish you *had *told me!

  In this one, the subjunctive “had” is very commonly replaced with “would have”:

  I wish you’d’ve told me!

  This substitution is generally not acceptable in written language. Of course, these should not be translated literally. It should be recognized that "would have" in these sentences has the same function as the subjunctive "had".

  Si pudiera, me iba ahora mismo (colloquially acceptable)
  If I could, I was going right now (unacceptable translation)
  If I could, I would go right now (acceptable translation)

  I wish you’d’ve told me! (colloquially acceptable)
  ¡Ojalá me lo habrías dicho! (unacceptable translation)
  ¡Ojalá me lo hubieras dicho! (acceptable translation)


----------



## Forero

Additions to list
_
Am = ’m (I’m tired today)
Is = ’s (Where’s Fred? He’s at home)
Are = ’re (We’re going to sell it)
Has = ’s (She’s just rung)
Have = ’ve (They’ve had an accident)
Will = ’ll (I’ll tell them to wait)
Would = ’d (If I were him I’d run away!)
Had = ’d (He’d been working for a year)_
Not = n’t (He didn’t go.)
Not = ’t (He can’t go.)
*Let us = Let’s (Let’s go.)
Of (the) clock = o’clock (It’s ten o’clock.)*

These are all standard forms usable in all but the most formal of situations.  The last two can be used practically anywhere because “of (the) clock” is obsolete and “let us” sounds archaic.


Poetic forms

There exist many forms with apostrophes that are not currently used except in poetry.  For example:

It = ’t (’Tis the season.)
Over = o’er (O’er the ground we go.)


Forms standard only in speech

Personal pronouns that start with “h” are often pronounced without the “h”, but they are only written with apostrophes when imitating speech:

Her = ’er (I miss ’er, you know.)

Two “h-less” personal pronouns (very common in speech, but not in writing) are “irregular”:

Him = ’im [rhymes with “teem”, not “Tim”] (Let ’im sit with you.)
Them = ’em [actually from Old English _hem_ rather than _them_] (Put ’em in the basket.)

Here is another word commonly shortened, but only in speech:
[/COLOR]
Of = o’ (pot o’ tea)


Possessives

Apostrophes are regularly used to form possessives:

Possessive of *horse* = *horse’s*
Possessive of *horses* = *horses’*
Possessive of *children* = *children’s*
Possessive of *everybody else* = *everybody else’s*

Some possessives are very unusal, and some are even controversial:

Possessive of *mother-in-law* = *mother-in-law’s*
Possessive of *you-know-who* = *you-know-who’s*
Possessive of *chassis* = *chassis’s*
Possessive of *Arkansas* = *Arkansas’s*
Possessive of *fleur-de-lys* = *fleur-de-lys’s*
Possessive of *fleurs-de-lys* = *fleurs-de-lys'*

“Whose” and possessive forms of personal pronouns do not have apostrophes (whose, my, his, its, yours, etc.).


Special uses of apostrophes

Irish surnames like O’Reilly use the apostrophe to indicate the “O” is long.  (There is a special mark in Irish to indicate this that resembles an apostrophe.)

The apostrophes can be used in loanwords (and loan phrases) where it represents a glottal stop or similar sound for which we have no letter.  The apostrophe is the only “letter” for the glottal stop in Hawaiian words:

Aloha ’Oe (a famous song from Hawaii)
A’a (in geology, a kind of lava)


Concerning “If I would have known”

To hypothesize contrary to the fact that “I didn’t know”, I would say “If I had known”, or less ambiguously, “Had I known”, “Were I to have known”, or “Should I have known”.

To hypothesize contrary to the fact that “He wouldn’t go with us”, I would say “If he would have gone with us”, or less ambiguously, “Had he been willing to go with us” or “Should he have consented to going with us”.  Well I admit this last is not quite the same meaning, but it beats “Would he have fain gone with us”. 

Hi, Virgilio.

In your sentence, what is the fact being hypothetically denied by “If I would have known”?


----------



## virgilio

falbala84,
             Sorry but with respect I have to say that you are mistaken. I think I know what you are trying to say but, if - as you admit - the  sentence "Si lo habría sabido te lo habría dicho" is bad Spanish, how can it be a "translation" of a sentence which is good English.
 The art of translation requires rather more than you seem to imply.
Bad Spanish is *not* a "translation" (literal or otherwise) of good English.


Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## falbala84

I get your point and probably you're right, obviously that is not a translation after all, but I spoke of a "literal translation", which I know to be mistaken, but, for me, is a kind of translate since many times people can get to understand what the original text wants to say.


Nevertheless, I think it's all a question of points of view.

Saludos!


----------



## virgilio

falbala84,
             If syntax were "all a question of points of view", the words "correct and "incorrect" would be meaningless, wouldn't they?
There are different interpretations of syntax phenomena, but I do not know of any system which admits bad grammar as a "translation" of good grammar.
Let us be frank. The sentence ""Si lo habría sabido te lo habría dicho" is incorrect grammar, whereas the sentence "If I would have known that, I would have told you" is perfectly correct grammar and - in its abbreviated form "If I'd've known" - is used daily by many English people.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## YaniraTfe

virgilio said:


> I'm very sorry to have to say it but you are mistaken. That is definitely *not* a translation (literal or otherwise) of what the English means.
> Lo siento.
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


 
Thank you Virgilio!

If you _wouldn’t have told me_ I was mistaken I would have kept speaking bad English!!!   
Best wishes to you too!


----------



## Ynez

Virgilio, I don't think I will be able to prounounce that contracted form, maybe I'll practice when I'm bored


----------



## virgilio

Ynez,
Good idea!
Virgilio


----------



## Forero

virgilio said:


> falbala84,
> If syntax were "all a question of points of view", the words "correct and "incorrect" would be meaningless, wouldn't they?
> There are different interpretations of syntax phenomena, but I do not know of any system which admits bad grammar as a "translation" of good grammar.
> Let us be frank. The sentence ""Si lo habría sabido te lo habría dicho" is incorrect grammar, whereas the sentence "If I would have known that, I would have told you" is perfectly correct grammar and - in its abbreviated form "If I'd've known" - is used daily by many English people.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio



The fact is that "If I would have known" is perfectly acceptable to some and absolutely unacceptable to others in both BE and AE.  Some hear it daily, but others claim never to have heard it.

I began hearing this construction being used with the same meaning as "Had I known" less than 30 years ago, but it is common now even among university students. I believe the current state of affairs is that most grammarians find it nonstandard but disturbingly common, but that most who use it find it indispensible.

Though I don't consider "If I would have known" a good substitute for "Had I known", I will not reject it outright. I would like to know why there is such a dichotomy of opinion about it.

But that is a topic for another thread.

Have we covered all the apostrophes to the original poster's satisfaction?


----------



## Alan Oldstudent

mhp said:


> Then I feel like an idiot, because the only one that looks correct to me is:
> 
> If I'd known that, I'd've let you know.
> If I had known that, I would have let you know.


As someone else said, you're no idiot (_you're=you are, another example of an apostrophe._). I have learned from you in other threads when you were kind enough to correct some of my errors, and I bet you're quite intelligent. As you know, constructions with an apostrophe such as "_you're, I'd,_" etc are called contractions. 

If I would have _*had*_ known that, I would have let you know​
This should be: "_If I had known that, I would have let you know._"

You are right when you say it is not correct to use "_would have_" in first clause of this sentence. This clause expresses a condition contrary to fact and therefore requires the past subjunctive in English. The conditional clause would be in the subjunctive, and the main clause normally has "_would_" or "_should_" as a helper to the verb. Click *here* to see the Americat Heritage Book Of English Usage website's description of the English subjunctive. You will need to scroll down a bit to find the part that covers this. 

This is an if...then... construction. Here is the formula
If...(_subjunctive_)...etc
(then)...(_should or would_)+ verb...etc​
Also, it is not correct to write "_I'd've_," although it is perfectly acceptable to say that. Standard American English would write this "_I'd have_." These contractions are completely acceptable in informal written or spoken English, but in very formal writing, one uses the full form. 

I am speaking of Standard American English. English in the United Kingdom and Ireland may be slightly different, although I suspect not.

Saludos

Alan


----------



## Forero

Alan Oldstudent said:


> ... This clause expresses a condition contrary to fact and therefore requires the past subjunctive in English. The conditional clause would be in the subjunctive, and the main clause normally has "_would_" or "_should_" as a helper to the verb. ...



I expect this rule does not preclude "would" in the conditional clause when "would" has meaning as a verb in the subjunctive, but only when "would have" is used for "had".  For example, "he wouldn't" can mean "no quiso", and the subjunctive would be "if he wouldn't have" = "si no hubiera querido" (¿Está bien esta frase?).

By the way, I don't think any of us here is an idiot, but I imagine we have each felt like one at least once among so many intelligent cohorts. 

I love the fact that we are all students and all teachers of language here.


----------



## mhp

Forero said:


> The fact is that "If I would have known" is perfectly acceptable to some and absolutely unacceptable to others in both BE and AE.  Some hear it daily, but others claim never to have heard it.
> 
> I began hearing this construction being used with the same meaning as "Had I known" less than 30 years ago, but it is common now even among university students. I believe the current state of affairs is that most grammarians find it nonstandard but disturbingly common, but that most who use it find it indispensable.
> 
> Though I don't consider "If I would have known" a good substitute for "Had I known", I will not reject it outright. I would like to know why there is such a dichotomy of opinion about it.
> 
> But that is a topic for another thread.
> 
> Have we covered all the apostrophes to the original poster's satisfaction?



After your post #20 I think the original issue is completely covered.  

I agree that the replacement of the subjunctive "had" with the subjunctive "would have" deserves its own thread, perhaps in the English Only forum.

For what is worth, I completely agree with your views on this subject.



Alan Oldstudent said:


> As someone else said, you're no idiot (_you're=you are, another example of an apostrophe._).



Thank you Alan. 

Please also read what I wrote in post #19. For an excellent explanation of how the subjunctive "would have" is used and its acceptability see:

http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/061.html


----------



## virgilio

Forero,
         I'm sorry that the grammarians you refer to don't like protases like "if I would have known" but I was talkng - as I always do on this forum - about syntax and not about style. From the point of view of syntax it happens to be perfectly correct.
  If we're talking about style, well, fashions come and fashions go but syntax is unchanging; that's what I like about it, I suppose. You don't have to keep learning new rules, once you've learned the old ones.

Anyway, even more astonishing is your assertion that "most grammarians find it ("would have" replacing "had" in a hypothetical protases) nonstandard but disturbingly common". What's all this "disturbingly" nonsense.? If they don't like the words "would" and "have", they may be in the wrong line of business completely.
Grammarians should not dabble in questions of personal taste; let them stick to grammar; it's much simpler.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Jeromed

virgilio said:


> Grammarians should not dabble in questions of personal taste; let them stick to grammar; it's much simpler.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio



Can you give us some evidence that UK grammarians consider the construction _If I would have known..._ correct?


----------



## virgilio

Jeromed,
            Re your "Can you give us some evidence that UK grammarians consider the construction _If I would have known..._ correct?"
Forget grammarians; I can give you much better evidence than them, the widespread use of that form of hypothetical protasis in its abbreviated form ("-'d have") by at least half the British population on a daily basis.
e.g.
"If I'd have known" (or more demotically) "If I'd've known".
   Remember it's the speakers who make the language. The grammarians follow them trying to tidy up what the speakers have left lying around. 
The interesting thing is that the speakers themselves all seem to unconsciously follow the same syntax patterns, irrespective - in my experience - of language.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Forero

How does the half of the population that does not say "If I'd have known" (when "Had I known" is meant) feel about that usage?  Don't readers and listeners also help to define the language?


----------



## virgilio

Forero,
         Thank you for your reply. Re your "How does the half of the population that does not say "If I'd have known" (when "Had I known" is meant) feel about that usage?  -  you are to be congratulated, I think, on having been endowed with this extraordinary power of knowing, presumably through highly developed intuition, what other people really mean to say, when they actually express themselves otherwise, though I must admit that quite a few people on these forums seem to have it. I must have been behind the door, when it was given out! 
I really have no idea - and no desire to - what the other half feels. Surely one's feelings, at least, should be private.
You go on to ask:"Don't readers and listeners also help to define the language?". 
Indeed they do and writers and speakers will not last long, if they do not give them the sort of language they expect. So it would seem that your readers and listeners actually support what I said. Don't you agree?

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------

