In oral conversation we use contracted words routinely (and properly):
isn’t for “is not”
it’s for “it is”
aren’t for “are not”
it’s for “it has”
couldn’t for “could not”
who’s for “who is”
you’re for “you are”
let’s for “let us”
they’d for “they would”
they’d for “they had”
In each of these illustrations we are doing two things; first, we are putting two words together (is and not, are and not, could and not, etc.), and second, we are omitting one or more letters. To do so promotes the flow of the spoken sentence; not to contract would cause stilted language in many cases. While the same reasoning might apply to informal notes, using contractions in more formal writing such as an academic treatise is generally frowned upon. Then there are always the gray areas such as newspapers; generally a newspaper of the stature of the New York Times will not use contractions though there are many exceptions to the rule, especially in editorials (rather surprisingly). Query: where do you put this Newsletter on the formality-scale? Should we or shouldn’t we contract?
Irrespective of the degree of formality of a writing, if the writer is quoting someone who has used a contraction, the contraction is retained.
Use care not to misplace the apostrophe which is used to replace one or more letters; an error which sometimes occurs is the placement of the apostrophe between the words being joined, such as the improper is’nt instead of the proper isn’t. And remember it’s is correct as a contraction (“it is”) but never as a possessive where there is no apostrophe (“the dog scratched its back”).
Note: In our last issue the apostrophe to denote the possessive was discussed, but we neglected to touch upon double possessive. From the Philadelphia Inquirer of September 14, 2000: “…a close friend of Gore’s…”; either “Gore’s close friend” or “a close friend of Gore” would have delivered the identical message, and the �s probably should have been omitted (although unlike double negatives, double possessives are not per se improper). However, consider these two phrases: “It’s a picture of Bill” (i.e., it is his likeness) and “It’s a picture of Bill’s” (i.e., a picture that belongs to him); in the latter illustration the double possessive would seem to clarify and eliminate what might be an ambiguity.
Finally, last time we misspelled Achilles’ heel; we would like to claim it was all a test to see if you were paying attention, but in all candor we let it get by. Of course, Achilles would have been more than happy to have been healed.
– Ken Butera