Woulda, coulda, shoulda used contractions

By Curtis Honeycutt
Posted 6/6/19

Americans like being the best at things. We’re the best at baseball, jazz, freedom, national parks—pretty much anything Ken Burns has already covered.

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Woulda, coulda, shoulda used contractions


Americans like being the best at things. We’re the best at baseball, jazz, freedom, national parks—pretty much anything Ken Burns has already covered.
Yes, living in the Land of Opportunity is glorious. Today, I’d like to award us (and, by us, I mean U.S.) a super-sized gold medal for smashing words together more efficiently than anyone else in the world.
Because Americans value efficiency, we combine multiple words into one super word. One way we do this is through contractions. Don’t worry—I’m not talking about the kind of contractions that lead to babies. I’m talking about combining two words to make one short word. These words include don’t (do not), we’ve (we have), and can’t (can not). Yes, contractions increase our efficiency, so we have more time to manage our burgeoning stock portfolios while refilling our Big Gulps (for free). But some contractions can be tricky.
Have you ever been tripped up by should’ve? Should’ve is a contraction for “should have.” For instance, “I should’ve worn sunscreen when we were at the zoo.” This is a truism for me even on cloudy days. As a redhead, I cause secondhand sunburns to people around me because the sun reflects off my skin onto others’ skin. I can even get a sunburn from a full moon. I should’ve worn sunscreen. You get the point.
What about “should of”? As Americans, sometimes we talk so quickly, we say things like “shoulda,” which is an even shorter way of saying “should’ve.” Many people mistakenly think this phrase is “should of.” “Should of” is incorrect and should never be spoken, typed, or otherwise communicated. The same rule applies for “must’ve” (not must of), “could’ve” (not could of), and “would’ve” (not would of).
If someone you care about uses “should of,” wait until you have some one-on-one time with them, calmly sit them down, and then gently correct them. Please don’t correct them in public; that’s the quickest way to lose friends and end up with a house full of cats (I believe the politically correct term is “fur babies”).
In general, contractions like “should’ve” are still regarded as informal speech, so, if you’re writing your doctoral dissertation or cover letter to be hired as a lawyer, avoid these shortcut words. However, in everyday conversations, feel free to contract away. After all, the first amendment grants us free speech—and—since it’s the first one, that probably means that it’s the best.

It’s all good
Good is an adjective while well is an adverb (most of the time). Here’s what you already know about good and well. Good is an adjective. It should always be used to describe or modify nouns. For example: Nate is a good sportswriter. Well is (almost) always an adverb. Use it to modify a verb, adverb or an adjective. For example: He writes about the Texans well. He does his job well.
Only use “well” as an adverb when using linking verbs (including be, look, or feel) that describe the state of someone’s health. Yesterday I was sick; today I am well. I don’t feel well because I drank some water from the dilapidated well.
If we use “well” to describe someone’s health, we use “good” to describe someone’s emotional state of being. LeBron felt good about his decision to take his talents to Miami. Byron didn’t feel good after he lied to his kids about Santa. In these cases, we’re using “good” as an adverb. Did you ever know it was okay to use “good” as an adverb? My mind is blown.
(Curtis Honeycutt is a nationally award-winning syndicated humor writer. Connect with him on Twitter (@curtishoneycutt) or at curtishoneycutt.com.)


No comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment