Cristophe said:

>Well, I'm only a L2 English speaker, but I agree with Teoh that this 'd
looks
>awkward. First, it's an ambiguous abbreviation (it can be "had" or "would",
and
>somehow I consider it is more often "would" than "had", so I tend to
translate
>it as "would", and only when I see the next word I realise my mistake, so
it
>tends to break my reading pace). Then, it's an abbreviation used in a
>narrative, and whether it's a formal narrative or not, it just looks plain
>wrong to me. To me, this kind of abbreviation is fit for transcribing
spoken
>language, or for informal written communication like letters or e-mail to
>friends or acquaintances. For a narrative organised in chapters (thus a
"book",
>whether it's on paper or not), it just doesn't fit. It's just way too
informal.
>And having "had" itself doesn't sound formal to me at all. It just sounds
>neutral.

I agree. Personally, I have no problems reading things with 'd added in, but
in anything written, it generally sounds odd if it's used too much. It
sounds lazy. :)
Someone said something about "talking like a book" being derogatory...I like
it when people talk like books :) I think it's better to talk like you write
than write like you talk (says the king of mumbling...)


>It's all equivalent to the use of 'ne' (the first part of any negation in
>standard French) in French. In spoken French, it's just never used.

It's not?! /dies
I like the 'ne' because it ensures that I will catch what's going on. If I
ever go to france, I will have to ask people to write everything down. Agh,
French, I love you, but why must I be so horrible at processing it?
I bet if I told my teacher that she'd have a fit. :)

>What do you find formal in just writing "had" instead of 'd? I personally
never
>abbreviate 'had' in my speech either (although I do abbreviate "would" to
'd
>very often) and yet no native speaker of English has ever said I was too
formal.

I think I abbreviate had more than would, but probably not by much. My
dialect also does that "I've got" thing though, so...
Sometiems I do exciting things like "I'd've" for "I would have" though.

Anyway,  I think the he'd vs. he had thing needs a happy medium; writing "he
had" all the time would be repetetive, writing he'd all the time is
repetetive and not very appropriate for written English, imo it would be
best to use mostly had with 'd sometimes. But I'm no writer. :)
I haven't read the story yet, but I mean to, when I get done with homework
(I should be doing that now, but I really...am lazy) + SATs. I reada little
bit of it, though, and like it so far.
Tristan said:

> No it isn't [equivalent]. From earlier discussions on French, I
> understand Standard Written French is practically a different language
> from Spoken French, that's how different the two are. SWE and SpPDE may
> be divergent in the writing/pronunciation of the words, but in grammar,
> SWE keeps updating itself against the speech.

I think SWE is a LOT different from most any given dialect of spoken
English. Most contractions that I use in speech I wouldn't use in writing,
especially things like "I'd've" or "you'dn't've."
Lost my train of thought.

This is a random thought, but are there any contractions with "one?" I don't
think contractions would ever sound right with one.

Thomas said:

> As for contractions like "don't"/"he'd", I was always taught to avoid
> such contractions in prose (this was in the normal course of
> schooling for native speakers of English).  Thus I must agree with
> the analogy with the French "ne...pas".  Not sure whether I would
> always find such contractions "awkward" myself, though.

unfortunately, I don't think anyone ever told us to avoid contractions in
writing,  I think that's something I picked up. I don't think I'd make don't
into do not or it's into it is, unless I was going for emphasis... THAT
would be the line of "too formal" for me.

-Kendra
http://www.refrigeratedcake.com
http://www.refrigeratedcake.com/comics/theatre -- Vade Mecum (comic)