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? :)
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.
Comments
What's wrong with "who're"?
It's an uncommon contraction, also at first glance, it reads like another word, one that refers to someone who offers professional sexual services.
It's a perfectly idiomatic contraction in spoken English, though.
But then it's pronounced differently from the way aforementioned profession is pronounced.
Yes, absolutely. It poses a greater risk when written than when spoken. :)
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? :)
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.
"shire reeve" -> sheriff
Well I'll be. That is so cool. Thanks!
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_...
Fixed, thanks (btw, liked the way you put it).
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" ;-)