16

Are double contractions, such as following, formal (ie allowed in formal documents/papers)?

  • it'll've for "it shall have" or "it will have"
  • mightn't've for "might not have"

How about multiple contractions such as y'all'd've for "you all would have" ?

Zeeshan Ali
  • 1,798
  • 3
  • 18
  • 35
  • 27
    Contractions of all kinds are avoided in formal writing. – Michael Harvey May 08 '19 at 08:40
  • 4
    Multiple contractions appear to be more common in the southern U.S. I mean, it's just an attempt to put the drawl in writing. You may like this related video about triple contractions (from Merriam-Webster). – Peter - Reinstate Monica May 08 '19 at 13:12
  • 2
    Not only are they not formal, they are rarely seen in written form at all (except perhaps when quoting the dialog of someone with a strong Southern drawl). I'm a native speaker, and it took a bit of puzzling to even figure out what your examples were supposed to mean. So no, I wouldn't've used them in writing :) – BradC May 08 '19 at 18:13
  • 2
    I would avoid using "y'all" in any formal writing, regardless of the number of contractions surrounding its usage. Unless maybe, and just maybe, you're only addressing locals from particular areas of the US. – Ricardo van den Broek May 08 '19 at 19:25
  • 1
    Just to be clear, your final example is not a proper generalization of the prior pattern, because y'all'd've is necessarily ambiguous (and not representative of spoken contractions, which is what contractions are for) in a way the other contractions aren't. How is anyone supposed to know you meant "would" instead of "could" or "should" there? – mtraceur May 08 '19 at 20:53
  • Related: It's become somewhat of an internet joke to write "whom'st'd've" instead of "who" or "whom", even going as far as "whom'st'd've'dist'd'n't'st'd've'll's'd've're'n't'y'all'll'ven't" (but at that point I think it stops being funny). – user45266 May 09 '19 at 01:54
  • Is there a better example? It's not obvious "it'll've" and "mightn't've" are distinct from "it'll have" and "mightn't have" even in speech. (y'all'd and y'all'd've are better examples, in this respect, but they are clearly not formal for other reasons) – Don Hatch May 09 '19 at 10:58

2 Answers2

27

No, double or multiple contractions are not formal.

While some style guides support the moderate use of common contractions, even single contractions are sometimes discouraged in formal writing. See MLA style on contractions and this roundup of views on contractions.

Edit to address some of the points in the comments:

  • In formal writing, it is appropriate to use contractions if you are quoting a line of text or speech that contains contractions, or if the topic you are discussing is the use of contractions.

  • O'clock is standard and formal.

  • Diacritical marks in words like Qur'an, Hawai'i and Xi'an are not contractions and are not discouraged.

Katy
  • 11,033
  • 31
  • 48
  • 4
    There are a few words which etymologically are contractions and which have apostrophes, but which are nonetheless the standard spellings and which would be acceptable in formal writing. The most common is o'clock, also Ma'am used verbally in the military, the police etc, and addressing royalty (according to Debrett's), and rarer words bos'n, sou'wester. Many transliteration schemes for other languages use apostrophes eg Qur'an. – jonathanjo May 08 '19 at 10:27
  • @jonathanjo As an aside, I wasn't aware of bos'n - I have always seen it as bosun (but the rest of your point still stands). – Martin Bonner supports Monica May 08 '19 at 11:12
  • 2
    besides their formality I also find it hard to pronounce double contractions... – Laurent S. May 08 '19 at 12:03
  • 2
    @MartinBonner - I've seen 'bosun' though I would suspect it is a back-formation, as bos'n is short for boatswain, with no 'u' in sight.Having said that, focsle without apostrophes is common enough too, as opposed to fo'c'sle.... & gunnel [I bet there are a lot of maritime words the same has been done to over the years] – DoneWithThis. May 08 '19 at 12:43
  • Double contractions are really very rare, and not formal. My comment is really just to note that there are just a couple of exceptions to Katy saying even single contractions are very rarely used in formal settings, The only formal ones I know are "o'clock", and "ma'am". – jonathanjo May 08 '19 at 14:39
  • 3
    I'm not sure anyone even thinks of o'clock as a contraction these days. The expansion is never used, it's nearly lost to history. I'd call it an idiom that takes the form of a contraction. And ma'am is more like an abbreviation, since it doesn't combine two words. – Barmar May 08 '19 at 16:18
  • 1
    @jonathanjo the apostrophe in "Qur'an" (representing the Arabic maddah) does not indicate a contraction, so it is a red herring in this discussion. – Monty Harder May 08 '19 at 17:08
  • @LaurentS.I don't see why. You can presumably pronounce "could've" and "couldn't", so you just combine the two endings to get "couldn't've". It's the way I'd pronounce it in normal speech. – Muzer May 08 '19 at 17:52
  • To the OP: perhaps also worth pointing out that double contractions are rare, although not unheard of, even informally (eg in fiction, I think Lewis Carroll used them and a few other authors, but I don't think there's too many other examples). – Muzer May 08 '19 at 17:52
  • 5
    "fo'c'sle" might be the most standard use of an actual double contraction. – chepner May 08 '19 at 19:55
  • The question doesn't ask about speech, but these are certainly very common in speech; it's simply that the convention is to represent some reductions in writing and not others. –  May 08 '19 at 22:43
  • @MontyHarder Of course. In response to "even single contractions" of katy's answer, I was just trying to bring up that etymologically "o'clock" and "ma'am" are contraction/abbreviation, as are some rare words, and are acceptable in formal contexts. As it can be difficult for a non-native to see if the use of apostrophe is contraction or something I else, I was trying to include transliteration schemes as proper in formal writing. – jonathanjo May 09 '19 at 09:37
5

I agree with Katy's answer that in quite formal contexts even individual contractions are frowned upon. But, since you ask about double contractions, you may be interested in writing that is informal enough that contractions are acceptable, but still somewhat formal. And, generally, your intuition is valid that doubling up contractions increases the informality. For instance, a news article about trade negotiations is generally written in a fairly formal style, but contractions are often shown in quoted speech. But, if someone said "wouldn't've" out loud, that would show up as "wouldn't have" in the article.

On the other hand, the way you write dialogue in a novel is part of your style. You may want to convey more about how the speech is being delivered than what comes across in standard, cleaned-up prose. I would still advocate restraint. Complicated contractions, like dialect respellings, tend to stand out and can distract the reader.

Mark Foskey
  • 3,201
  • 9
  • 13
  • 5
    Yes, I'd consider double contractions to be eye dialect: representations of actual speech patterns, appropriate for dialog, or for representing how your own speech might sound, for example, in informal communications with friends. As a simple way to save characters in writing, where no spoken dialog is conceived, I don't think they'd be used. – CCTO May 08 '19 at 19:06