3 ms·

Just a small pointer because I assume you're a non-native english speaker: you never (I think) contract an auxiliary verb before an unconjugated main verb. You

Just a small pointer because I assume you're a non-native english speaker: you never (I think) contract an auxiliary verb before an unconjugated main verb. You have to write "I had to Google ..." The only reason I mention it is because it's an easy error to make but one that makes people have to read the sentence a few times to figure out what it means. If "to Google" was conjugated, you could write "I'd Googled that last week ..."

godelmachine 9y ago
Thanks for this, Sophie!! I reiterated this from my GF who also happens to be a professor of English :)
yesenadam 9y ago
As a native speaker, I've never thought in terms of auxiliary verbs, unconjugated etc, or known what they were. So I'm trying to think of the way native speakers learn, the natural rule. Doesn't it depend on whether there's a stress/emphasis on the verb? I'd to seems wrong because the had in I had to is stressed, so the had just seems missing. In I'd love to - the would isn't stressed. If it is, like "I would love to, but I can't" then the contraction isn't used. It's how contractions arose in the first place, I guess.
- sophistry 9y ago
  I believe the experience of "stress" that you feel in this sentence is because "had" is being used as a modal verb. That is, it's being used to qualify the verb "to Google" rather than specify it's tense like in "I'd Googled that last week". Modal verbs are a type of auxiliary verb. I don't know the "real" rule for when you can contract and when you can't, but I'm sure that there's some linguist somewhere who has written a paper on it. The reason that I didn't try to explain the stress that native speakers feel by talking about modal verbs is because I don't think that you can say in general that you never contract a modal verb. For example you can say "I would talk to Jim" or "I'd talk to Jim" where is "would" a modal verb modifying "talk". Maybe it's the case that the only time you have a phrase in the form of [auxiliary verb] [unconjugated verb] is when the auxiliary verb is being used as a modal verb? I don't know. I don't have any expertise in linguistics, I just know the terms because I took a class on it in college.

godelmachine 9y ago

Thanks for this, Sophie!! I reiterated this from my GF who also happens to be a professor of English :)

yesenadam 9y ago

As a native speaker, I've never thought in terms of auxiliary verbs, unconjugated etc, or known what they were. So I'm trying to think of the way native speakers learn, the natural rule. Doesn't it depend on whether there's a stress/emphasis on the verb? I'd to seems wrong because the had in I had to is stressed, so the had just seems missing. In I'd love to - the would isn't stressed. If it is, like "I would love to, but I can't" then the contraction isn't used. It's how contractions arose in the first place, I guess.

sophistry 9y ago
I believe the experience of "stress" that you feel in this sentence is because "had" is being used as a modal verb. That is, it's being used to qualify the verb "to Google" rather than specify it's tense like in "I'd Googled that last week". Modal verbs are a type of auxiliary verb. I don't know the "real" rule for when you can contract and when you can't, but I'm sure that there's some linguist somewhere who has written a paper on it. The reason that I didn't try to explain the stress that native speakers feel by talking about modal verbs is because I don't think that you can say in general that you never contract a modal verb. For example you can say "I would talk to Jim" or "I'd talk to Jim" where is "would" a modal verb modifying "talk". Maybe it's the case that the only time you have a phrase in the form of [auxiliary verb] [unconjugated verb] is when the auxiliary verb is being used as a modal verb? I don't know. I don't have any expertise in linguistics, I just know the terms because I took a class on it in college.