10

I've never seen or heard the explanatory "that is" shortened to "that's", but it wouldn't hurt to be sure if it's possible or not

When you recount a story, you can either use past or present tenses, but consistency is key. That is, if you choose present tenses, for instance, to portray some of the events of a story set in the past, then you should stick with present tenses for the entire story.

AndyT
  • 2,133
  • 17
  • 20
Sara
  • 101
  • 4

1 Answers1

10

No, you cannot shorten it. The explanatory that is as here:

That is, if you choose present tenses, ...

is the anglicised latin id est, which is usually itself abbreviated to ie or i.e.

i.e. if you choose present tenses, ...

As such, this usage of that is is a grammatical construction and should not be shortened.

So, while in general text and speech you can shorten that is to that's with an apostrophe to denote the missing letter in the contraction, you cannot shorten an explanatory that is.

Mick
  • 1,961
  • 14
  • 24
  • 1
    That is, that's one way to destroy intelligibility. – GalacticCowboy Nov 13 '17 at 15:47
  • Except that the explanatory "that is" is very often contracted to "that's" in informal speech and writing. ; – charmer Nov 13 '17 at 16:50
  • 3
    I think the conclusion is right, but the reasoning is totally wrong. The right answer is, (as @MrLister said in a comment to the question), because you can't abbreviate syllables which are emphasized. – Martin Bonner supports Monica Nov 13 '17 at 16:58
  • @charmer Really? Can you give an example? – David Schwartz Nov 13 '17 at 18:49
  • @DavidSchwartz try here https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&ved=0ahUKEwjan9i2t77XAhUH0hoKHa3UBLEQFghyMAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fprogrammes%2Fp018pxzq%2Fp018pyx7&usg=AOvVaw3UISU4yZvJkhQIt8gHxRO5 or simply search for the phrase "That's because". – charmer Nov 14 '17 at 16:09
  • @MartinBonner - any supporting evidence for 'you can't abbreviate syllables which are emphasized." Is that not what you just did with "can't"?. – charmer Nov 14 '17 at 16:13
  • @charmer : I don't have supporting evidence, but no, it is not what I did with "can't". That would be spoken (at least in my British English accent) as "car-nt". If I were speaking, and wished to emphasise the "not" - as in "You can not abbreviate..." - I would have written it like that. – Martin Bonner supports Monica Nov 14 '17 at 16:30