3 ms·

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_...