5 ms·

I just couldn't read past the "who're"...

• mintplant 13y ago
  What's wrong with "who're"?
  • lutusp 13y ago
    It's an uncommon contraction, also at first glance, it reads like another word, one that refers to someone who offers professional sexual services.
    • eriksank 13y ago
      I guess you are right on that point. The apostrophe in "who're" is not enough to steer thoughts away from "professional sexual service provider" ;-)
    • volpav 13y ago
      Fixed, thanks (btw, liked the way you put it).
    • BurritoAlPastor 13y ago
      It's a perfectly idiomatic contraction in spoken English, though.
      • lutusp 13y ago
        Yes, absolutely. It poses a greater risk when written than when spoken. :)
      • roel_v 13y ago
        But then it's pronounced differently from the way aforementioned profession is pronounced.
    • vacri 13y ago
      Uncommon, sure, but still correct. Myself, I like "who'd've" and similar. Never seen in written English, but quite common in spoken English. Who'd've thought you could put two apostrophes in the one contraction? :)
      • lutusp 13y ago
        > Who'd've thought you could put two apostrophes in the one contraction? Yes, and perhaps more interestingly, what will it look like 500 years from now? Many common modern words that we assume to be self-contained turn out to be pastiches of two or more older words. Like "shire reeve" -> sheriff.
        • gruseom 13y ago
          "shire reeve" -> sheriff Well I'll be. That is so cool. Thanks! http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sheriff&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sheriff&allowed_in_... Edit: Allow me to repay in kind. Did you know that rhubarb is called "rhubarb" because the Greeks thought only barbarians would eat it? http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rhubarb&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rhubarb&allowed_in_...
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• volpav 13y ago
  If there's a language rule that says you can't combine these two this way, I'd be more than happy to learn about it. English is not my mother language so I apologize for any grammar/spelling mistakes in advance ;-)
  • eriksank 13y ago
    ha :-) It is really a grammatically-correct gotcha ;-) The language construct "who're" looks too much like "whore" and too little like "who are" ;-)
  • mkevac 13y ago
    It's not always about rules. Using "who're" can be grammatically correct, but it is bad english.
  • cynwoody 13y ago
    It's perfectly valid English. "Who're" is a contraction of "who are"†. However, for some reason, unlike more common contractions, it is much more common in spoken English than in written. †http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/who're http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/who're
  • jfarmer 13y ago
    (Native English speaker.) There's definitely no rule against it. I wouldn't think anything of hearing "who're" everyday conversation. It's rare you see it in writing, though. What you hear in every day speech is governed more by the mechanics of how your mouth works when you're speaking fluently, honestly. For example, if I were to say, "I would have done it" it most likely would come out sounding like "I'd've done it." Unless your intention was to get the sound across, though, you'd never, ever write that.
• comex 13y ago
  You couldn't read past an awkward English construction in a post about foreigners learning English?