[Grammar] Having debates's cool

[Sneymarin]

Hello, I would like to ask if it's possible to contract "is" in a sentence such as "Having debates is cool" to make "Having debates's cool" or "Their dog is as big as a mountain" to make "Their dog's as big as a mountain" in writing.

Thank you for your time

 

[PeterCW]

It isn't natural. Try reading it out loud, the only way that you can pronounce it is by putting back the vowel.

 

[Sneymarin]

I'm aware that it's not natural, but would it be wrong if I were to write it like that?

 

[GoesStation]

"Having debates's cool." :cross:

"Their dog's as big as a mountain." :tick:

I'm aware that it's not natural, but would it be wrong if I were to write it like that?

No editor would publish the "debates" sentence, and no native speaker would write it. It's too awkward.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I'm aware that it's not natural, but would it be wrong if I were to write it like that?

Yes.

 

[Sneymarin]

What about something like "Talking to James's a total waste of time" or "Teaching energetic children's very tiring". Is this acceptable in writing in a normal context (i.e. not informal but not formal at the same time)?

 

[GoesStation]

What about something like "Talking to James's a total waste of time" or "Teaching energetic children's very tiring". Is this acceptable in writing in a normal context (i.e. not informal but not formal at the same time)?

Native speakers don't use contractions when their use would impede comprehension. The above sentences would be difficult to understand and a speaker, sensing this, would not use them. This applies equally to the written and spoken language.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

What about something like "Talking to James's a total waste of time" or "Teaching energetic children's very tiring". Is this acceptable in writing in a normal context (i.e. not informal but not formal at the same time)?

Also, when it's written that way, it looks like a possessive: James's dictionary. So "James's total waste time" doesn't work in print, either.

 

[Sneymarin]

Native speakers don't use contractions when their use would impede comprehension. The above sentences would be difficult to understand and a speaker, sensing this, would not use them. This applies equally to the written and spoken language.

Why are those sentences difficult to understand? The only way they could make sense is if "'s" were "is", so the reader doesn't have to do any effort in interpreting the sentences since there is only one correct option

 

[Sneymarin]

Also, when it's written that way, it looks like a possessive: James's dictionary. So "James's total waste time" doesn't work in print, either.

I don't understand. Isn't the only way that sentence would make sense is if "'s" were "is"?

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I don't understand. Isn't the only way that sentence would make sense is if "'s" were "is"?

People might get what you mean, but you would sound unnatural. You don't want that, right?

Keep it simple. Don't tangle your tongue on S. If you want it to mean is, use is.: James is. Having debates is.

Your children's example is better, because the tongue doesn't get tangled up.

 

[GoesStation]

Your children's example is better, because the tongue doesn't get tangled up.

It's easy to pronounce, but it looks and sounds like a possessive as in Children's Hospital. The listener won't hear that apostrophe-s as a contraction.

 

[tedmc]

It creates confusion between the possessive and the auxiliary verb.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I just meant it's easier to justify than James's or debates's.

And I don't think it's a high crime. We often say things like "The car's running hot" and "That dog's barking too loudly."

We don't say (or write) "The lens's not powerful enough" or "The house's on fire."

But to be clear fo Sneymarin, we all agree: "Having debates's cool" and "James's a total waste of time" are both wrong.

 

[Sneymarin]

People might get what you mean, but you would sound unnatural. You don't want that, right?

Keep it simple. Don't tangle your tongue on S. If you want it to mean is, use is.: James is. Having debates is.

Your children's example is better, because the tongue doesn't get tangled up.

I was talking specifically about writing, not speech. In speech the problem of contracting "is" with nouns ending in "s" might arise, but in writing the structure and the meaning of the sentence becomes apparent.

It's easy to pronounce, but it looks and sounds like a possessive as in Children's Hospital. The listener won't hear that apostrophe-s as a contraction.

These problems don't appear if the sentence is read, as opposed to spoken. And even if it was spoken, how can the listener interpret "'s" other than "is"? Hearing that ""s" as something other than a contraction wouldn't make sense logically.

It creates confusion between the possessive and the auxiliary verb.

Is that confusion present in "Talking to James's a total waste of time"? If it were, one could just add some context as in "James is one of my co-workers. Talking to James's a total waste of time. He always argues with everyone for no apparent reason and never admits it when he is wrong."

I just meant it's easier to justify than James's or debates's.

And I don't think it's a high crime. We often say things like "The car's running hot" and "That dog's barking too loudly."

We don't say (or write) "The lens's not powerful enough" or "The house's on fire."

But to be clear fo Sneymarin, we all agree: "Having debates's cool" and "James's a total waste of time" are both wrong.

How is "That dog's barking too loudly" different from "The house's on fire" and "Talking to James's a total waste of time"?

 

[Sneymarin]

But as Charlie Beinstein pointed out in his last post it's not unusual to use contractions after nouns. Is the only reason "That dog's barking too loudly" works and "Talking to James's a total waste of time" doesn't that I contracted "is" after a noun ending in an "s"?

 

[GoesStation]

Is the only reason "That dog's barking too loudly" works and "Talking to James's a total waste of time" [STRIKE]doesn't[/STRIKE] that I contracted "is" after a noun ending in an "s"?

It has to do with how the noun's pronounced. Don't contract "is" or "has" after a word ending in a voiced /s/ sound, [z].

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

But as Charlie Beinstein pointed out in his last post it's not unusual to use contractions after nouns. Is the only reason "That dog's barking too loudly" works and "Talking to James's a total waste of time" doesn't is that I contracted "is" after a noun ending in an "s"?

Yes. Do not do it with nouns that end with S or Z sounds! I used your examples, James's and debates's.

Not good! We never do that in speech or writing.

If it doesn't make sense yet, don't worry about it. It's one of a zillion English details to remember, and not an important one.

So even if you don't understand it, just let it go. It's wrong. And one day you'll get it.

 

[GoesStation]

I was talking specifically about writing, not speech. In speech the problem of contracting "is" with nouns ending in "s" might arise, but in writing the structure and the meaning of the sentence becomes apparent.



These problems don't appear if the sentence is read, as opposed to spoken. And even if it was spoken, how can the listener interpret "'s" other than "is"? Hearing that ""s" as something other than a contraction wouldn't make sense logically.



Is that confusion present in "Talking to James's a total waste of time"? If it were, one could just add some context as in "James is one of my co-workers. Talking to James's a total waste of time. He always argues with everyone for no apparent reason and never admits it when he is wrong."




How is "That dog's barking too loudly" different from "The house's on fire" and "Talking to James's a total waste of time"?

I disagree with Charlie about The house's on fire. "House" ends with an unvoiced /s/, and we naturally insert a schwa between that and the voiced /s/ of "'s".

I already explained why James's doesn't work as a contraction and why we follow the same rule in writing and in speech. But while the reason may be interesting, you don't have to understand it. Just accept that native speakers follow these natural rules from an early age because they're part of the structure of English.

 

[Tarheel]

You don't understand the purpose of contractions if you think their purpose is to make things harder to say. Furthermore, arguing accomplishes nothing. If you disagree, fine. But nobody is going to change their mind because of that.