Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzX
Where does it say it's incorrect grammar anyway?
|
There are many pages from websites supporting the fact that such contractions are a form of
informal speech and not suitable to proper, scientific, or formal language.
Here is an example:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wikipedia.org
Contraction (grammar) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Informal contractions are, by their nature, more frequent in speech than writing, e.g., John'd fix your television if you asked him.
An informal type of contraction occurs frequently in speech and writing, in which a syllable is substituted by an apostrophe and/or other mode of elision, e.g., can't for "cannot", won't for "will not". Such contractions are often either negations with not or combinations of pronouns with auxiliary verbs, e.g., I'll for "I will". Extremely informal examples include ain't for "am not" or "are not", and wouldn't've or even wouldn've for "would not have". At least one study has sought to analyze the category of negative informal contractions as the attachment of an inflectional suffix.[2]
Contractions are used sparingly in formal written English. The APA style guide prefers that contractions, including Latin abbreviations, are not used in plain text, and recommends that the equivalent phrase in English be written out. An exception is made for the Latin abbreviation et al ("and others"), which may be used with citations outside parentheses.[3]
|