The fact that you seem to not have seen this before indicates that you cannot actually always contract ‘you’ and ‘are’. ‘Cannot’ in the sense that most people don’t do it and you will get grades deducted if you do it when learning English as a second language.
I retract the word ‘indicate.’ It’s not proof, but if you haven’t seen a phrase before, despite n years of reading and/or speaking a language, it means that that phrase is uncommon. If that phrase also looks like it should be used more (I’m referring to “you’re” being very common in different sentence structures), that’s a strong hint that the phrase doesn’t exist or has some very different meaning in that context.
I’m not a native speaker and I’ve written plenty of awful English, but “never contract” is just bullshit they tell you in case you’ll have a career writing important English texts.
Cannot can be contracted, but it depends on context. When you’re talking or when you’re quoting something someone said (even in formal context), you can use words like “gonna”, “can’t”, and a whole bunch of other stuff that English teachers don’t like, because accuracy is more important than perceived grammatical correctness. Imagine writing an essay on “You cannot touch this” by M.C. Hammer, you’re not going to rewrite the lyrics!
Even in (informal) writing, it’s fine to contract such words. However, you need to know when native speakers do or don’t. Contractions aren’t just fine and replace, you need to get a sense of what “feels” English or you’ll write weird (but technically correct) sentences like these.
In the case of “it’s what it’s”, the “it is” part is being stressed, so contracting it is weird. On the other hand, nobody will bat an eye if you write “it’s raining” outside academic work; the “it” and “is” are just there to communicate “raining”. In the case of “cannot” I’d argue that “No, you can’t” is a perfectly natural response, because the “no” at the start is more than clear enough about the intention of the sentence.
I wasn’t trying to imply that contracting is always wrong. Rather, it is not always right.
In the case of “it’s what it’s”, the “it is” part is being stressed, so contracting it is weird.
This is why I find contracting “You are already“ weird. To me, the stress is on the are. However, after reading and re-reading the statement in my head, I can feel people stressing the already instead. To those, “You’re already” would probably be fine.
![You will pay for this [Salo Comics]](https://startrek.website/pictrs/image/859bd19d-fce2-49f3-8146-bdeab35d1216.jpeg){kind=link}
The fact that you seem to not have seen this before indicates that you cannot actually always contract ‘you’ and ‘are’. ‘Cannot’ in the sense that most people don’t do it and you will get grades deducted if you do it when learning English as a second language.
I’m still re-reading this sentence. How does not having seen this before indicate what you can or can not do?
I love how they are trying to correct bad grammar with even worse grammar
🤡
Both of these are perfectly grammatical in modern English though?
It’s poor sentence structure
By what objective metric?
They don’t think it be like it is, but it do
Now that I re-read it, I’m pretty sure the second one should be “actually cannot always”.
Because language is a thing that everyone agrees on, together. If nobody else is using the words like that, maybe you shouldn’t either.
This is the line I am referring to, not any specific word. This sentence is nonsensical:
“The fact you seem to not have seen this before indicates…” followed by “that you cannot always contract ‘you’ and ‘are.’”
How are those related? If someone hasn’t seen this before… it indicates … grammar rules? How does not seeing it indicate a grammar rule?
I retract the word ‘indicate.’ It’s not proof, but if you haven’t seen a phrase before, despite n years of reading and/or speaking a language, it means that that phrase is uncommon. If that phrase also looks like it should be used more (I’m referring to “you’re” being very common in different sentence structures), that’s a strong hint that the phrase doesn’t exist or has some very different meaning in that context.
I’m not a native speaker and I’ve written plenty of awful English, but “never contract” is just bullshit they tell you in case you’ll have a career writing important English texts.
Cannot can be contracted, but it depends on context. When you’re talking or when you’re quoting something someone said (even in formal context), you can use words like “gonna”, “can’t”, and a whole bunch of other stuff that English teachers don’t like, because accuracy is more important than perceived grammatical correctness. Imagine writing an essay on “You cannot touch this” by M.C. Hammer, you’re not going to rewrite the lyrics!
Even in (informal) writing, it’s fine to contract such words. However, you need to know when native speakers do or don’t. Contractions aren’t just fine and replace, you need to get a sense of what “feels” English or you’ll write weird (but technically correct) sentences like these.
In the case of “it’s what it’s”, the “it is” part is being stressed, so contracting it is weird. On the other hand, nobody will bat an eye if you write “it’s raining” outside academic work; the “it” and “is” are just there to communicate “raining”. In the case of “cannot” I’d argue that “No, you can’t” is a perfectly natural response, because the “no” at the start is more than clear enough about the intention of the sentence.
I wasn’t trying to imply that contracting is always wrong. Rather, it is not always right.
This is why I find contracting “You are already“ weird. To me, the stress is on the are. However, after reading and re-reading the statement in my head, I can feel people stressing the already instead. To those, “You’re already” would probably be fine.
I mean, no, it is not proper grammar/English. It would be marked incorrect you are totally right. But that’s not as fun as what I wrote lol
Fun fact: you should be typing “can not”!
No, “cannot” is the more formal way to write it.
asdfasfs