Talk:shouldn't've
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
If we are going ot have entries for incorrect "double" contractions, we should at the very least explain what regions (British English?) they aren't considered errors. Additionally, the reference books that do indicate this is sometimes allowed, need to be listed. --Connel MacKenzie 19:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- As per wouldn't've below, this is not uncommon in British English informal speech, but I'm not certain I've ever seen it written before. Thryduulf 11:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Does it matter whether it's incorrect? ain't is surely incorrect, but it's incuded because it's in use. bd2412 T 19:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep while Google gets about 52000 hits.--Jusjih 00:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Does it matter whether it's incorrect? ain't is surely incorrect, but it's incuded because it's in use. bd2412 T 19:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)