Talk:it'd

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Metaknowledge in topic RFV discussion: January–May 2017
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RFV discussion: January–May 2017

[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.


"It had" and "it would", yes, but "it should"?? Equinox 04:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Possibly, if it's a UK use of should for NA would, but isn't that normally restricted to first person ? Leasnam (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
The only instance where should = would that is not first person that I can think of off the top of my head is the passage in Numbers 23:19 where it say "God is not a man, that he should lie" where should there clearly means would, but this is archaic usage at least Leasnam (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
I cannot think of any context in BrE in which "it'd" could mean "it should". I question even whether "I'd" can reasonably mean "I should". "I should" in the sense of "I would" (e.g. "I should like to ...") feels formal or dated, and I'm not sure whether anyone would understand "I'd" as meaning that. Mihia (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)Reply