"I'll not", "I'd not", and "I've not".

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Does anyone else have a clitic initial /j/ for you? For instance, I can pronounce you have as /jæ(v)/, you haven't as /ˈjævən(t)/, and you don't as /joʊn(t)/.

I don't have those contractions, but when speaking quickly, you have can sound like /jhæv/, and you don't can sound like /jdount/.

My favorite is when I stack clitics so as to have /djæv/ for do you have (note that in this case I never coalesce /dj/ to *[dʒ]).

My really fast did you have is [dʒ(ə)hæv].

[Travis B.]

I don't have those contractions, but when speaking quickly, you have can sound like /jhæv/, and you don't can sound like /jdount/.

My favorite is when I stack clitics so as to have /djæv/ for do you have (note that in this case I never coalesce /dj/ to *[dʒ]).

My really fast did you have is [dʒ(ə)hæv].

I similarly often have /dʒæv/ for did you have in fast speech. Note that the difference beween /dj/ ([d̥j]) and /dʒ/ ([tʃ]) is phonemic here, and is hard to explain since /d/ followed by /j/ across word boundaries frequently becomes [tʃ] for me but this never happens for me in do you have.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

My favorite is when I stack clitics so as to have /djæv/ for do you have (note that in this case I never coalesce /dj/ to *[dʒ]).

My really fast did you have is [dʒ(ə)hæv].

I similarly often have /dʒæv/ for did you have in fast speech. Note that the difference beween /dj/ ([d̥j]) and /dʒ/ ([tʃ]) is phonemic here, and is hard to explain since /d/ followed by /j/ across word boundaries frequently becomes [tʃ] for me but this never happens for me in do you have.

Maybe you have some sort of devoiced micro-schwa in there? I have no idea if this is something that can actually happen.

[Travis B.]

My really fast did you have is [dʒ(ə)hæv].

I similarly often have /dʒæv/ for did you have in fast speech. Note that the difference beween /dj/ ([d̥j]) and /dʒ/ ([tʃ]) is phonemic here, and is hard to explain since /d/ followed by /j/ across word boundaries frequently becomes [tʃ] for me but this never happens for me in do you have.

Maybe you have some sort of devoiced micro-schwa in there? I have no idea if this is something that can actually happen.

I likewise think that my lect kinda phonologically remembers that a vowel once separated the /d/ and the /j/ and doesn't coalesce them as it normally would.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I similarly often have /dʒæv/ for did you have in fast speech. Note that the difference beween /dj/ ([d̥j]) and /dʒ/ ([tʃ]) is phonemic here, and is hard to explain since /d/ followed by /j/ across word boundaries frequently becomes [tʃ] for me but this never happens for me in do you have.

Maybe you have some sort of devoiced micro-schwa in there? I have no idea if this is something that can actually happen.

I likewise think that my lect kinda phonologically remembers that a vowel once separated the /d/ and the /j/ and doesn't coalesce them as it normally would.

I've never heard of a variety of North American English having an exception to yod coalescence like this. Even my (comparatively) fairly conservative speech has heavy palatalisation where yod-dropping isn't mandatory or I haven't hypercorrected in the sequence [nj]. I can't think of an example of where I have a sequence of /tj dj sj zj/ that hasn't shifted to [tʃʰ dʒ ʃ ʒ]. This also tends to happen before /r/, though not across syllable boundaries, so tree, drink, Sri Lanka can have [tʃʰ dʒ ʃ] in free variation with the expected [tʰ d s], but Ezra does not ever have [ʒ].

I'm not sure if anybody else here does this, but, before front vowels and /j/, my /k g/ also seem to affricate, sounding something like [cçʰ ɟʝ] such that (when not using the nearest I can get to a native pronunciation), Kyoto sounds like ['cçʰjoːʊ.doʊ].

Oh, and maybe to answer the original question of the thread, using I'll not or I'd not for me separates the I'll or I'd from the rest of the sentence, indicating that the not is attached to what follows, rather than being exact synonyms of I won't or I wouldn't.

[jal]

My favorite is when I stack clitics so as to have /djæv/ for do you have (note that in this case I never coalesce /dj/ to *[dʒ]).

As a native speaker of Dutch I find it funny that English has contractions in formal speech and writing, but limits contractions almost to those. As opposed to Dutch, that doesn't have contractions in formal speech or (non-eye-dialect) writing, but heavily contracts pronouns, some adverbs and some auxiliaries in fast colloquial speech (my favourites being [ˈɑjdɑ(t)] and [ˈɑjtni] for /ɑls jə dɑt/ and /ɑls jə dɑt nit/ respectively).


JAL

[Rounin Ryuuji]

As a native speaker of Dutch I find it funny that English has contractions in formal speech and writing, but limits contractions almost to those.

What, exactly, are you trying to say here?

[jal]

As a native speaker of Dutch I find it funny that English has contractions in formal speech and writing, but limits contractions almost to those.

What, exactly, are you trying to say here?

I'm sorry, wasn't my English clear enough? Or are you the on-topicness police?


JAL

[Travis B.]

As a native speaker of Dutch I find it funny that English has contractions in formal speech and writing, but limits contractions almost to those.

What, exactly, are you trying to say here?

I'm sorry, wasn't my English clear enough? Or are you the on-topicness police?

I think jal was speaking of how there are standardized contractions in English which are acceptable* to use outside of specifically formal writing, whereas standard Dutch lacks them.

The thing is that informal and dialectal English can have far more contractions and reduced forms than the standardized ones, including ones that are so common that they might as well be standard but just have not been canonized as "standard", such as "hafta" /ˈhæftə/ and "didja" /ˈdɪdʒə/.

Edit: * Actually, contractions are practically mandatory in actual speech except when specifically emphasizing something, or in the case of contractions that are missing from particular dialect groups, e.g. how *mayn't, as mentioned, is missing from NAE.

[Travis B.]

I should also note that non-native English-speakers have to be taught reduced forms that are extremely common in actual spoken English but are absent from written standard English such as gonna, wanna, gotta, hafta, didja, and so on lest they not understand actual native English-speakers.

[jal]

Re gonna etc., those are now lexical item in and of itself, I think, which I think - though I'm not a linguist nor someone who reads formal studies of Dutch - is not the case in Dutch.


JAL

[Travis B.]

Re gonna etc., those are now lexical item in and of itself, I think, which I think - though I'm not a linguist nor someone who reads formal studies of Dutch - is not the case in Dutch.

Gonna is a special case because it cannot be used for going to in general, but rather only for the prospective aspect. For instance, one would say I'm gonna get some food but one cannot say *I'm gonna the store, but rather one must say I'm going to the store; hence gonna is specificially lexicalized and cannot be chalked up to mere reduction alone. The other forms though, too, are probably best treated as lexicalized.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

What, exactly, are you trying to say here?

I'm sorry, wasn't my English clear enough?

I've reread the statement several times, and I'm still not totally sure what it's supposed to mean. It's specifically the part about limiting "contractions almost to those", which isn't at all true of spoken English — Travis has already noted the numerous "non-canonical" contractions that are so frequent daily speech can sound unnatural without them. Do you perhaps mean you find it odd that there are a subset of canonical contractions in written English that also appear in the spoken language, but that not all broadly-used contractions have canonical written forms?

Re gonna etc., those are now lexical item in and of itself, I think, which I think - though I'm not a linguist nor someone who reads formal studies of Dutch - is not the case in Dutch.

I would disagree with this analysis, and simply call them "weak forms" of extremely common sequences of function words and pronominals.

[Linguoboy]

Gonna is a special case because it cannot be used for going to in general, but rather only for the prospective aspect. For instance, one would say I'm gonna get some food but one cannot say *I'm gonna the store, but rather one must say I'm going to the store; hence gonna is specificially lexicalized and cannot be chalked up to mere reduction alone. The other forms though, too, are probably best treated as lexicalized.

Similarly used to in its past habitual use vs used to as a mere concatenation of the verb use and the preposition to.

Cf. "Where's the knife I used to cut with?" vs "Where's the knife I used to cut it?"

(Incidentally, this is an extremely common contraction for which there is no commonly accepted written form. I have occasionally seen usta but I don't think most dictionaries list it.)

And a shoutout to the AAVE contractions I'ma and finna, also found in the colloquial dialectal English of non-AAVE-speakers.

[Travis B.]

And a shoutout to the AAVE contractions I'ma and finna, also found in the colloquial dialectal English of non-AAVE-speakers.

I would say that I'ma is simply a colloquial English contraction that happens to be found in AAVE along with other English dialects. For instance, in the variety I speak, I have it in the form of [ˈãːẽ̯mə̃ː] even though AAVE influence on my speech is pretty negligible.

[Linguoboy]

And a shoutout to the AAVE contractions I'ma and finna, also found in the colloquial dialectal English of non-AAVE-speakers.

I would say that I'ma is simply a colloquial English contraction that happens to be found in AAVE along with other English dialects.

Next time I need an example of "a distinction without a difference", I'ma use this one.

[Travis B.]

And a shoutout to the AAVE contractions I'ma and finna, also found in the colloquial dialectal English of non-AAVE-speakers.

I would say that I'ma is simply a colloquial English contraction that happens to be found in AAVE along with other English dialects.

Next time I need an example of "a distinction without a difference", I'ma use this one.

The difference between what you stated and what I stated is that what you stated implies that I'ma is specifically associated with AAVE in particular (which further implies that its presence in other English varieties is under AAVE influence), whereas what I stated is that it is a colloquial English form which just happens to be found in AAVE out of the many English varieties it is found in.

[jal]

I've reread the statement several times, and I'm still not totally sure what it's supposed to mean. It's specifically the part about limiting "contractions almost to those", which isn't at all true of spoken English — Travis has already noted the numerous "non-canonical" contractions that are so frequent daily speech can sound unnatural without them. Do you perhaps mean you find it odd that there are a subset of canonical contractions in written English that also appear in the spoken language, but that not all broadly-used contractions have canonical written forms?

All the examples Travis stated are what I'd call lexicalized items, and all also in grammaticalized constructions (aux verbs, mostly). I feel it's also different from the type of contractions in Dutch, that are less grammaticalized, and definitely not lexicalized.

I would disagree with this analysis, and simply call them "weak forms" of extremely common sequences of function words and pronominals.

For something to be a "weak form" I'd say it also need to be lexicalized. Though perhaps our definition of "lexicalized" differs.


JAL

[Herra Ratatoskr]

Do you ever use "I'll not", "I'd not", or "I've not"? I don't. I would use "I won't", "I wouldn't", and "I haven't". Pronoun contractions are only natural with forms of "be not" for me.

I've found myself using "I've not" on an occasional-but-increasing basis, but I'm also the type that likes to sprinkle in archaisms/pretentionisms like "thou" or "t'is" into my speech for fun, so I'm probably not the most representative sample.

[Travis B.]

Do you ever use "I'll not", "I'd not", or "I've not"? I don't. I would use "I won't", "I wouldn't", and "I haven't". Pronoun contractions are only natural with forms of "be not" for me.

I've found myself using "I've not" on an occasional-but-increasing basis, but I'm also the type that likes to sprinkle in archaisms/pretentionisms like "thou" or "t'is" into my speech for fun, so I'm probably not the most representative sample.

I should say that I will at times use I've not when I am specifically emphasizing negation rather than perfectness.