O
Oliphet
Guest
Double contractions.
Does anyone here agree that the English language should change to grammatically allow double contractions? Like instead of shouldn't have, it would be shouldn't've. Or I wouldn't would be I'dn't. Or they haven't (or they've not) would be they'ven't. And they aren't (they're not) would be they'ren't.
They're more, but you get the idea. Agree? Disagree?
Does anyone here agree that the English language should change to grammatically allow double contractions? Like instead of shouldn't have, it would be shouldn't've. Or I wouldn't would be I'dn't. Or they haven't (or they've not) would be they'ven't. And they aren't (they're not) would be they'ren't.
They're more, but you get the idea. Agree? Disagree?