I've != I have

orly?

Yes I am citing both Merriam AND Webster. How does "I've" not equal "I have"?

how does

"Adam has more apples than I've"

sound to you.

Different forms of "have" I think.

so you would agree then,

I've is not the same as I have.

No I'd disagree. They're the same, but ambiguous in meaning if left out of context. One is possessive, the other is not.

so by equal you do not mean that in all sentences you can replace I have with I've and retain grammaticalness.

of course i've = i have

wtf??

I think the difference is between have (meaning "own") and have denoting the perfect tense, e.g. I have been baking some cookies. It would be perfectly acceptable to abbreviate that to I've been baking some cookies, but saying "I've some cookies" sounds a little strange. Not wrong, probably, but a bit weird.

"take the reigns" and "you have free reign to do whatever you want" tilt me quite a bit. I can see why people screw it up, especially in the second phrase, because reign kinda makes sense there. But in the actual saying it's rein/reins, like for a horse.

I'm pretty sure snowden realizes he's wrong and is just arguing to argue, but of course "I've" MEANS "I have" in every instance of "I've." That doesn't mean that you can always replace "I have" with "I've" (although I'd be willing to bet that the rules of grammar dictate you can, but it's just not common practice). But at the most basic level - I have no idea what his "I've != I have" comment has to do with the post that he quoted.

EDIT: Boom - "In British English, it is acceptable to form a contraction with the verb have even when it is used as the primary verb (as with the phrase "I've a date today") as it is allowed also, but less common, in American English."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraction_(grammar)

I think he's probably referring to the fact that, in the US, it is almost unheard of to use "I've" in place of the possessive sense of "I have," even though it's technically fine and widely used in the UK (see any of luckyjimm's posts for examples).

haha nice semi-ninjaedit otnemem

fwiw the edit came before the reply...

Even though you can use it appropriately if you're trolling (fishes, not forums)?

I agree that "I've" means "I have" but not that "I have" means "I've". Regarding your edit, although it's true in Britain it's not grammatical in the US. I've never heard someone say

"I've a date today"

"Adam has more apples than I've"

and I'm pretty sure that almost all American speakers (95%) would call those ungrammatical.


As a side not this all started bc someone was talking about "I've got some cookies" being redundant when you can just say "I have some cookies". The first isn't redundant as "I've" is a more limited instance of "I have"

First of all, you would have to have little understanding of grammar (or logic, for that matter) to say "I have means I've." Like, seriously, I don't think I've ever heard anyone make this claim, so I don't know why you're refuting it.

Secondly, it doesn't matter what 95% of American speakers would say about anything. As we've learned in this thread, proper grammar often goes against what the majority of speakers believe to be proper. Still, according to the rules of grammar, "I have" can be replaced with "I've" in any instance, no matter how uncommon it is in the U.S.

what does the sentence

"I've = I have"

mean to you?

Change the equal sign to the word "means."

so "=" is not a symmetric relation for you, interesting. In retrospect your logic comment is a bit puzzling.

Oh my god, dude. The semantics are a bit much for me. All is moot anyway, because according to the rules of grammar I've = I have = I've. So you're wrong any way you feel like phrasing it.

So that's where the confusion originated? Obviously "I've" and "I have" are not 100% identical in meaning in all instances, and 100% interchangeable no matter what the context. I assumed you were at least of 8th grade intelligence to figure that I meant "I've means I have," and not the former.

QFT.

if you give me a better cite than wiki I'll admit you're right. The wiki site is misleading at best with the phrase "less common in American English" as I've literally never heard someone from America use it in writing or speaking.

Also, I vi ii v7 what was the point of your first post if you realize that?

no, bad deal, cause their faux movies