It'd = It would? [Contraction with 'would'] | WordReference Forums
Double contractions - "You would've" or "you'd have"?
Let's construct a whole clause to play with, so we can see these things in their proper context.
I thought it was a bad idea, but you would have agreed right away.
Now, as you point out, there are three obvious ways — obvious to native speakers of English, anyway — to contract here. They are:
I thought it was a bad idea, but you'd have agreed right away.
I thought it was a bad idea, but you would've agreed right away.
I thought it was a bad idea, but you'd've agreed right away.
Question is, which among these are, strictly speaking, correct? Which naturally brings along with it questions like "According to whom?" and "Does it actually matter all that much?"
The first case, you'd, is pretty much unassailable in the correctness department. Not only is you'd an incredibly common contraction both in spoken and written English, but the contraction itself has been singled out for inclusion in the dictionary — or at least in mine, which is the New Oxford American and which defines it as both a contraction of you would and you had.
However, would've is not quite so unambiguously pedigreed. My dictionary does not approve of would've, though it does give the nod to wouldn't. But that's just this dictionary. The Internet-based "Wiktionary" certainly does recognize would've as a perfectly acceptable contraction of would have … for whatever that's worth. And of course, there are myriad examples of would've in the corpus. So we're on reasonably solid ground in using it. Not as solid as the purebred you'd, but pretty solid nevertheless.
Then there's the double contraction you'd've. Double contractions are essentially unheard of in written English, although they appear in spoken English all the time. If you were saying the example sentence aloud, you would absolutely glide your way through the three words, rendering them into a sort of monosyllabic paste that could best be transcribed as youda or something similar. And if you were writing dialogue, you'd be excused without prejudice for writing it as youda if you were trying to convey the accent of a Brooklyn teenager circa 1979, or you'd've for an Eton-educated Londoner during Mrs. Thatcher's time.
But if you're trying to remain neutral, you're best off sticking with either you'd have or you would've, which ever best fits in your opinion. If you want to be exactingly proper, use you'd have.
More on reddit.comQuestion: I am having a hard time trying to figure out if “I'ld“ (for “I would”) is a correct word/contraction or not. I really, sincerely believe, that “I’d” is the only correct form and spelling, isn’t it?
is it " I'D / she'D / he'D / it'D a contraction of the word "would"?
What is the difference between an abbreviation and a contraction?
What are contractions?
When should you use contractions?
Videos
The title sums it up, really. Is it one of those two, or is it "you'd've"?
EDIT: For clarification, the un-contracted version is "You would have".
Let's construct a whole clause to play with, so we can see these things in their proper context.
I thought it was a bad idea, but you would have agreed right away.
Now, as you point out, there are three obvious ways — obvious to native speakers of English, anyway — to contract here. They are:
I thought it was a bad idea, but you'd have agreed right away.
I thought it was a bad idea, but you would've agreed right away.
I thought it was a bad idea, but you'd've agreed right away.
Question is, which among these are, strictly speaking, correct? Which naturally brings along with it questions like "According to whom?" and "Does it actually matter all that much?"
The first case, you'd, is pretty much unassailable in the correctness department. Not only is you'd an incredibly common contraction both in spoken and written English, but the contraction itself has been singled out for inclusion in the dictionary — or at least in mine, which is the New Oxford American and which defines it as both a contraction of you would and you had.
However, would've is not quite so unambiguously pedigreed. My dictionary does not approve of would've, though it does give the nod to wouldn't. But that's just this dictionary. The Internet-based "Wiktionary" certainly does recognize would've as a perfectly acceptable contraction of would have … for whatever that's worth. And of course, there are myriad examples of would've in the corpus. So we're on reasonably solid ground in using it. Not as solid as the purebred you'd, but pretty solid nevertheless.
Then there's the double contraction you'd've. Double contractions are essentially unheard of in written English, although they appear in spoken English all the time. If you were saying the example sentence aloud, you would absolutely glide your way through the three words, rendering them into a sort of monosyllabic paste that could best be transcribed as youda or something similar. And if you were writing dialogue, you'd be excused without prejudice for writing it as youda if you were trying to convey the accent of a Brooklyn teenager circa 1979, or you'd've for an Eton-educated Londoner during Mrs. Thatcher's time.
But if you're trying to remain neutral, you're best off sticking with either you'd have or you would've, which ever best fits in your opinion. If you want to be exactingly proper, use you'd have.
I just sent a text to my friend and used the contraction youd've but then I second-guessed myself after I hit send and Google searched you'd've because I thought that was the likely most proper way to spell what I was saying in my head (you would have), and then I landed here on this post. Hello, from 2024. Lol. 👏😄🤗
I only know ONE person, that uses the contraction “I’ld”, and she believes that this is an okay form to use. I really want to prove my friend wrong.