The most common pronunciation of "would" in "I would like to"

Yes . . . you should note, however, that in the example you provide, a native speaker of English would almost invariably elide the first two words--"I'd like to . . . " I'll also point out that an English speaker is most likely to use the word "would" in such a case to emphasize that they are in fact unlikely to do something, and they then stress the word "would." Some examples.

I'd stay away from her party if i were you. [would has been elided]
I would go to her party, if she didn't have such a nasty reputation.

1 Reply

@oristarA,

would sounds exactly the same as wood...

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Yes . . . you should note, however, that in the example you provide, a native speaker of English would almost invariably elide the first two words--"I'd like to . . . " I'll also point out that an English speaker is most likely to use the word "would" in such a case to emphasize that they are in fact unlikely to do something, and they then stress the word "would." Some examples.

I'd stay away from her party if i were you. [would has been elided]
I would go to her party, if she didn't have such a nasty reputation.

Thank you.

What I haven't got clearly is that when the "the first two words" in " I would like to" is elided, it will become "like to".

I think you meant that "I'd like to " is the form most commonly used. Am I on the right track?

When a famous writer was invited to address in Harvard graduate commencement ceremory, she said "The first thing I would like to say is 'thank you.'"

Here she stressed an emphasis, so "I would like to" should be remained in its full form. It would be inappropriate to use an elided form "I'd like to?"

1 Reply

@Region Philbis,

Region Philbis wrote:

would sounds exactly the same as wood...

Thanks.

In BrE? Setanta referred to ArE, I suppose.

1 Reply

One normally refers to AmE--although personally, i find the mania for abbreviations of this type distasteful.

0 Replies

@oristarA,

Your first question in this post makes no sense to me. You wrote: "I would like to . . . "--therefore, if "I" and "would" are elided, of course you come up with "I'd like to . . ."

Quote:

When a famous writer was invited to address in Harvard graduate commencement ceremory, she said "The first thing I would like to say is 'thank you.'"

Here she stressed an emphasis, so "I would like to" should be remained in its full form. It would be inappropriate to use an elided form "I'd like to?"

". . . was invited to address a Harvard . . . " or ". . . was invited to address the Harvard . . .

No, you are wrong, she was stressing no emphasis. Many people, when speaking in public, tend to speak more formally, and one might in such a situation dispense with verbal abbreviation. It would have been perfectly acceptable for her to have said "I'd like to . . . "

1 Reply

I'm not giving you hard and fast rules about using "would"--i'm just pointing out common usages in speech.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Maybe you don 't care,
but when counselling an alien, its ideal
to avoid use of run-on sentences,
for better grammatical precision.

I 've noticed that when u address
Americans, your sentence structure
is fraught with that specific error,
but I did not believe that it 'd be
good form to point them out
within that context.

Again:
it may well be that u just don't care.

David

2 Replies

@oristarA,

oristarA wrote:

Region Philbis wrote:

would sounds exactly the same as wood...

Thanks.

In BrE? Setanta referred to ArE, I suppose.

It sounds exactly like "wood" in the US as well. Saying "I would" instead of "I'd" may sound a bit more formal, but "I'd" is appropriate in any setting including a Harvard commencement.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Or maybe it's just that you're delusional. It's really hilarious to see you criticize anyone else for their writing style, Mr. Spelling.

1 Reply

@Region Philbis,

Region Philbis wrote:

would sounds exactly the same as wood...

Yes; i.e., the inside of a tree.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Maybe you don 't care,
but when counselling an alien, its ideal
to avoid use of run-on sentences,
for better grammatical precision.

I 've noticed that when u address
Americans, your sentence structure
is fraught with that specific error,
but I did not believe that it 'd be
good form to point them out
within that context.

Again:
it may well be that u just don't care.

David

So rarely have I found grammatical mistakes in Setanta's posts. If you found any, please let me know.

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

oristarA wrote:

Region Philbis wrote:

would sounds exactly the same as wood...

Thanks.

In BrE? Setanta referred to ArE, I suppose.

It sounds exactly like "wood" in the US as well. Saying "I would" instead of "I'd" may sound a bit more formal, but "I'd" is appropriate in any setting including a Harvard commencement.

Cool.

Thank you.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Your first question in this post makes no sense to me. You wrote: "I would like to . . . "--therefore, if "I" and "would" are elided, of course you come up with "I'd like to . . ."

Quote:
When a famous writer was invited to address in Harvard graduate commencement ceremory, she said "The first thing I would like to say is 'thank you.'"

Here she stressed an emphasis, so "I would like to" should be remained in its full form. It would be inappropriate to use an elided form "I'd like to?"

". . . was invited to address a Harvard . . . " or ". . . was invited to address the Harvard . . .

No, you are wrong, she was stressing no emphasis. Many people, when speaking in public, tend to speak more formally, and one might in such a situation dispense with verbal abbreviation. It would have been perfectly acceptable for her to have said "I'd like to . . . "

Thank you.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Or maybe it's just that you're delusional. [All emfasis has been added by David.]

Is this a CHALLENGE??? Have we a demand for proof ????? OK.

Wikipedia wrote:

A run-on sentence is a sentence in which two or more independent clauses
(i.e., complete sentences) are joined without appropriate punctuation or conjunction.
[All emfasis has been added by David.]

Delusion #1 ( from Setanta Post: # 4,588,054 ):

Setanta wrote:

Yes . . . you should note, however, that in the example you provide, a native speaker of English
would almost invariably elide the first two words--"I'd like to . . . "
[That is a complete sentence. The subsequent word "I 'll" shoud be preceded by a period or a semicolon.
Arguably, it was a run-on sentence, even as it stands above, lacking a connective word
before the quotation, where Setanta put the double dash. David]

I'll also point out that an English speaker is most likely to use the word "would" in such a case to emphasize that they are in fact unlikely to do something, and they then stress the word "would." Some examples. [That is a second complete sentence,
which deserved to have been separated from the first.]

Delusion #2 (from Setanta Post: # 4,588,097 ):

Setanta wrote:

No, you are wrong, she was stressing no emphasis.

He shoud have said:
"No, you are wrong. She was stressing no emphasis."

"No. You are wrong. She was stressing no emphasis" is also correct.
"No, you are wrong; she was stressing no emphasis" is also correct.

Setanta wrote:

It's really hilarious to see you criticize anyone else for their writing style, Mr. Spelling.

Enjoy your chuckles.
My contributions r a modest n humble effort
toward assisting a paradime shift that is a few centuries overdue.

I supported the erroneous paradigmatic spelling for too long.
I was part of the problem. I contributed to its perpetuation.

I seek expiation for the orthografic violence that I committed
against logic and efficiency b4 I began to use fonetic spelling.

I have never intended that MY rendition thereof be the final, polished lexical product,
but repudiation of the error is the first step in the right direction.

Incidentally,
while we r on the subject of Mr. Setanta's grammatical foibles n follies:

We may notice that he frequently disagrees with himself
as to the NUMBER of people in a sentence of his, to wit (from Setanta Post: # 4,588,054):

Mr. Setanta wrote:

I'll also point out that an English speaker is [Mr. Setanta contemplates ONE SPEAKER. David]

most likely to use the word "would" in such a case to emphasize
that they are in fact unlikely to do something, . . . . [HOW ` MANY speakers are unlikely to DO something???????

Where did the other ones come from???? Maybe the others are DELUSIONS???? David]
[All emfasis has been added by David.]

From Mr. Setanta's Post: # 4,588,146:

Mr. Setanta wrote:

. . . It's really hilarious to see you criticize anyone ` [That's ONE person. David]
else for their ` [How many ` MULTIPLE people r there in "their" number?? David]
writing style, Mr. Spelling. [All emfasis has been added by David.]

His writing (in general) is replete with this particular flaw
of grammar and of reason, with unexplained people
suddenly, mysteriously popping up in his sentence structure,
in numerical disagreement with his earlier indications within the same sentence.

Verbs and subjects shoud agree in number,
Setantical delusions to the contrary notwithstanding.

David

1 Reply

More loud and pointless noise from the great, braying jackass . . . nothing unexpected there.

1 Reply

bookmark

0 Replies

@oristarA,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Maybe you don 't care,
but when counselling an alien, its ideal
to avoid use of run-on sentences,
for better grammatical precision.

I 've noticed that when u address
Americans, your sentence structure
is fraught with that specific error,
but I did not believe that it 'd be
good form to point them out
within that context.

Again:
it may well be that u just don't care.

David

oristarA wrote:

So rarely have I found grammatical mistakes in Setanta's posts.

If you found any, please let me know.

Mr. Setanta is a man of reasonably decent intellect
(better than many in this forum)
with whose values and whose opinions I seldom agree.

Incidentally, let me point out that among ourselves,
in a spirit of light-hearted informality,
native speakers of English frequently deviate from
the known rules of grammar, or of spelling.
For instance, in an informal context such as this,
I sometimes write:
"I 'm gonna do thus and so" instead of
"I 'm going to do thus and so"; this is harmless
because all the other native English speakers
understand what is meant, but I 'd not joke around
like that in a formal setting, e.g., in a court of law.

Have a look at my recent Post: # 4,588,291,
in response to your request concerning
Mr. Setanta 's errors of grammar.

For the most part (not 1OO%),
correct use of grammar tends to promote use of accurate logic,
which underlies and permeates much of the fabric of grammar.
Hence, I am interested (as a general rule) that correct grammar be employed.

David

1 Reply

@oristarA,

Contractions are a thing of speech, Ori. Contracted forms are much more common than the full pronunciation but as a number of people have noted, this all depends upon the social register that a speaker encounters.

Where you encounter forms and collocations that are used in more polite situations, you would almost certainly see a more equal balance in the contraction/non-contraction rate.

Setanta has more than a few grammatical errors in his posts, as we all do. Native speakers all make errors in their writing. That's exactly why editors and proof readers exist, though it must be noted that many editors don't actually understand English grammar, they have simply memorized a list of rules, many of which are not rules of English. [Notice the uncontracted 'are not'.]

0 Replies

The most common pronunciation of "would" in "I would like to"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know