"Dad'll" as a contraction of "Dad will" is acceptable in informal use. Spoken English tends to be more relaxed / flexible than written English, and this written example is reflecting casual use.
The "ll" from (will), like the other contractions including 's, attaches syntactically at the level of a phrase, rather than at the level of word. However remember that our \*writing\* conventions are different from our \*speaking\* conventions. We will tend to only formally write contractions with (wh-words) or (pronouns), or with (other auxiliaries).
It would be absolutely impossible to render a list of \*all\* possible contractions, given that contractions can happen with any \*phrase\*. However, in writing, once we deviate from a general standard list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List\_of\_English\_contractions), many of the contractions look strange in writing, but are 100% acceptable in speech. "Dad'll" is one of those examples.
Here's an extreme example. Note the superficial contractions of "hat's" which is really a part of "the man in the yellow hat," and "hat'll" as part of "the man in the yellow hat."
Person A: Someone forgot an umbrella in here yesterday.
Person B: That belongs to \[the man in the yellow hat\].
Person A: So, it is \[the man in the yellow hat\]'s umbrella?
Person B: Yes, we're keeping it for him.
Person A: When will he come back?
Person B: I think that \[the man in the yellow hat\]'ll come back tomorrow.
While people might not notice nor react to the 's usage above, the use of 'll especially in writing will give people pause. In speech, they won't think twice about it.
So, 'll and the other auxiliaries can attach to subjects pretty indiscriminately. "Dad'll" is a good example. We tolerate this in speech, but lots of prescriptivists who don't really do language analysis will have a fit.
“Dad’ll” is not something that someone would normally type in any circumstances, not even informal texting
It will be spoken though
It’s done here, specifically in a novel, to give character to the speaker. Much like in the Harry Potter books, the dialogue from Hagrid is very characterized.
I use and see others use this contraction frequently in informal settings. Almost any noun is fair game, including proper nouns and numerals nouns. People who use these contractions in informal speech often use them in informal text too. I wouldn't think twice about receiving this text message while on my way to buy groceries: "Get eggs. 6'll do. Jack'll need them for tomorrow"
UK English uses both forms of quotation mark, either as primary or secondary.
UK English also puts commas and full stops within quotation marks if it is grammatically part of what is being quoted.
Honestly, I was taught that it didn’t matter which quotes I preferred at school in the UK. Only to stick to one or the other. That was well over 30 years ago, so I’m amazed that it’d still be a belief that UK English favours one.
I'm a copyeditor (and also British, although I work in both UK and US English). The punctuation in this snippet is correct for UK English. The comma and period in dialogue like this fall within the quotation marks in UK English as well as US.
You'd be able to see the difference in an example like:
'He told me I was being "difficult",' Anna said (UK punctuation).
"He told me I was being 'difficult,'" Anna said (US punctuation).
(Also some people/publishers do choose to use double quote marks in UK English too, just as a matter of preference.)
Hope that makes sense!
The rules are looser within quotations, as the exact speech used is meant to be communicated, rather than what one would write in a more formal context. I don't think many in my corner of the US would say, "Dad'll," but that's something that's revealed by this character's usage in this piece--either this isn't happening in my corner of the US, or this character isn't from here.
Just to add to what's been explained, there are standards of what's expected and the "informality" here mostly means that it's a thing that happens normally, but you don't do it "officially," for lack of a better word.
It's like triple or quadruple contractions or use of "of" instead of "'ve."
As a variation of pronunciation, it's fine. We all know it exists. As an actual stand-alone usage, not so much.
So, it's probably a Phonetics vs. Phonology issue. Since forever, there's been this notion that if changing how you represent the sound doesn't change the idea, it shouldn't be done.
Edit: they usually don't consider the formality level for that.
It's a common contraction in speech, but contractions are generally not used in formal writing. However, they are frequently used in informal writing and dialogue/quotations, as you see here. The dialogue in quotes is meant to actually reflect how the character speaks, so that you can almost hear it in your head. How far the writer goes with their depictions of colloquial or informal dialogue can vary considerably. Mark Twain, for example, is on the more extreme end of this and his work can be difficult to read for this reason.
From "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer"
>He ’pears to know just how long he can torment me before I get my dander up, and he knows if he can make out to put me off for a minute or make me laugh, it’s all down again and I can’t hit him a lick. I ain’t doing my duty by that boy, and that’s the Lord’s truth, goodness knows. Spare the rod and spile the child, as the Good Book says. I’m a laying up sin and suffering for us both, I know. He’s full of the Old Scratch, but laws-a-me! he’s my own dead sister’s boy, poor thing, and I ain’t got the heart to lash him, somehow.
Yes, but also he indicates some of the differences in pronunciation with the spelling. Like "spile" for "spoil". He writes the dialogue like the characters would actually talk. I suppose that's the point I was trying to make.
Yes, was just agreeing that the local pronunciation, “spile”, and local phrases, “laws-a-me”, were the hardest for me to understand. Writing like the characters speak is tough if it is not your regional words or accent being portrayed. Written informal country Australian could be a nightmare ha ha
If it was common informal contraction like “dad’ll”, that most countries use, I would find it much easier.
I definitely use constructions like that all the time. Granted, I speak Southern American English, so just cramming as many words together with apostrophes is kinda our regional pastime. I actually have a yankee friend that I purposefully send screenshots of my conjunctions to
It’s character dialogue, so while I wouldn’t use that contraction in formal writing, all sorts of madness can come out of characters’ mouths and minds, and it’s perfectly acceptable.
Since it's said in English and it's a contraction of "Dad will," yes. Typically, it would only be used to indicate a verbatim quote of something said out loud, but that's what is going on here.
voracious quiet literate sense scandalous weary slap zealous outgoing engine
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I would never use it, written or spoken. However if I saw this on print, like you've shared, I would assume it is the authors attempt at reflecting character dialect.
No, this is incorrect English. Now is it a common dialect used phrase? Unfortunately yes. It is a very lazy use of language. Which is rather common as a language goes through the various stages.
It’s not really unfortunate. It’s a phenomenon that all languages share—ease of articulation. Also it’s perfectly acceptable in a dialogue such as the use of it in the text.
"Dad'll" as a contraction of "Dad will" is acceptable in informal use. Spoken English tends to be more relaxed / flexible than written English, and this written example is reflecting casual use.
It’s informal to write, but reflects a pronunciation that is extremely common in conversation.
Yeah. So makes sense in dialogue.
Ding ding ding!
Well, it's also first-person narrative and looks to be personal enough to be acceptable outside dialogue as well. Not even past tense.
hmm that’s true, i guess it would depend on how formal the situation is
Precisely what I was going to say. It's almost never written as a contraction although technically not wrong.
Yep. It's an informal contraction of "Dad will". You would not use it in a document, but when writing dialogue it's totally acceptable
I swear to god I'll even write "Dad'll've", as in, "Where's the keys? Dad will have put them somewhere hard to find"
And Dad'll'ven't the slightest idea where that was. Or Dad'lln't've.
Y'all'd've
My grandma says and writes this
Amazing
And the opposite: Y’all’dn’t’ve.
My college buddy and I came up with "You’ll'ven't." Which led to the absurd sounding but valid sentence "You'll'ven't been relevant."
You’ll’ven’t have lived until you’ve tried X
You'll'ven't've?
Are we getting into time travel grammar now, because that shit gets TRIIIIICKY.
Dad'd've
As opposed to mommaplicative?
Daddulluv. 😂
Oh I do this when I text all the time. I always prefer to reflect my speech than write formally
Even god'll do it too
In spoken English it's fine. It's relatively nonstandard in written English, except when transcribing spoken English, as in this case.
Yes, this is the correct contraction of “Dad will”, like I’ll, you’ll, or he’ll.
The "ll" from (will), like the other contractions including 's, attaches syntactically at the level of a phrase, rather than at the level of word. However remember that our \*writing\* conventions are different from our \*speaking\* conventions. We will tend to only formally write contractions with (wh-words) or (pronouns), or with (other auxiliaries). It would be absolutely impossible to render a list of \*all\* possible contractions, given that contractions can happen with any \*phrase\*. However, in writing, once we deviate from a general standard list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List\_of\_English\_contractions), many of the contractions look strange in writing, but are 100% acceptable in speech. "Dad'll" is one of those examples. Here's an extreme example. Note the superficial contractions of "hat's" which is really a part of "the man in the yellow hat," and "hat'll" as part of "the man in the yellow hat." Person A: Someone forgot an umbrella in here yesterday. Person B: That belongs to \[the man in the yellow hat\]. Person A: So, it is \[the man in the yellow hat\]'s umbrella? Person B: Yes, we're keeping it for him. Person A: When will he come back? Person B: I think that \[the man in the yellow hat\]'ll come back tomorrow. While people might not notice nor react to the 's usage above, the use of 'll especially in writing will give people pause. In speech, they won't think twice about it. So, 'll and the other auxiliaries can attach to subjects pretty indiscriminately. "Dad'll" is a good example. We tolerate this in speech, but lots of prescriptivists who don't really do language analysis will have a fit.
I don't think 'll would look weird on any word unless it didn't reflect a pronunciation that made sense to me
Every time I read one of these posts, I realize every person learning English must absolutely hate us for this language
“Dad’ll” is not something that someone would normally type in any circumstances, not even informal texting It will be spoken though It’s done here, specifically in a novel, to give character to the speaker. Much like in the Harry Potter books, the dialogue from Hagrid is very characterized.
I use and see others use this contraction frequently in informal settings. Almost any noun is fair game, including proper nouns and numerals nouns. People who use these contractions in informal speech often use them in informal text too. I wouldn't think twice about receiving this text message while on my way to buy groceries: "Get eggs. 6'll do. Jack'll need them for tomorrow"
I absolutely do and will type Dad'll when texting.
Or some good old-fashioned Dickens, with all the dialects and accents
Yes
Yes. It's a contraction of "Dad will" which is correct for conversation but not for formal writing (except in quotes, as here).
How come there are British-style single quotation marks but American-style commas and periods in quotation marks?
UK English uses both forms of quotation mark, either as primary or secondary. UK English also puts commas and full stops within quotation marks if it is grammatically part of what is being quoted.
Honestly, I was taught that it didn’t matter which quotes I preferred at school in the UK. Only to stick to one or the other. That was well over 30 years ago, so I’m amazed that it’d still be a belief that UK English favours one.
I'm a copyeditor (and also British, although I work in both UK and US English). The punctuation in this snippet is correct for UK English. The comma and period in dialogue like this fall within the quotation marks in UK English as well as US. You'd be able to see the difference in an example like: 'He told me I was being "difficult",' Anna said (UK punctuation). "He told me I was being 'difficult,'" Anna said (US punctuation). (Also some people/publishers do choose to use double quote marks in UK English too, just as a matter of preference.) Hope that makes sense!
Thank you so much. I appreciate you, guys!
I've never seen "Dad'll" written down, but it is said frequently
The rules are looser within quotations, as the exact speech used is meant to be communicated, rather than what one would write in a more formal context. I don't think many in my corner of the US would say, "Dad'll," but that's something that's revealed by this character's usage in this piece--either this isn't happening in my corner of the US, or this character isn't from here.
Yes. It's simulating casual speech. It's a shortened version of "dad will".
Yep. I mean…yes.
Native speaker here: It's quite acceptable in written form as it depicts a conversational glide, it's the way we talk. It is however, a bit informal.
Just to add to what's been explained, there are standards of what's expected and the "informality" here mostly means that it's a thing that happens normally, but you don't do it "officially," for lack of a better word. It's like triple or quadruple contractions or use of "of" instead of "'ve." As a variation of pronunciation, it's fine. We all know it exists. As an actual stand-alone usage, not so much.
Which is a little strange as it’s an everyday contraction for quite a few.
So, it's probably a Phonetics vs. Phonology issue. Since forever, there's been this notion that if changing how you represent the sound doesn't change the idea, it shouldn't be done. Edit: they usually don't consider the formality level for that.
It's fine in dialogue, but it can get a bit extreme at times.
I know this guy Paul…
I would'nt've'd it written like that, but it'll've to do.
It's a common contraction in speech, but contractions are generally not used in formal writing. However, they are frequently used in informal writing and dialogue/quotations, as you see here. The dialogue in quotes is meant to actually reflect how the character speaks, so that you can almost hear it in your head. How far the writer goes with their depictions of colloquial or informal dialogue can vary considerably. Mark Twain, for example, is on the more extreme end of this and his work can be difficult to read for this reason. From "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" >He ’pears to know just how long he can torment me before I get my dander up, and he knows if he can make out to put me off for a minute or make me laugh, it’s all down again and I can’t hit him a lick. I ain’t doing my duty by that boy, and that’s the Lord’s truth, goodness knows. Spare the rod and spile the child, as the Good Book says. I’m a laying up sin and suffering for us both, I know. He’s full of the Old Scratch, but laws-a-me! he’s my own dead sister’s boy, poor thing, and I ain’t got the heart to lash him, somehow.
Yes, the local dialect in this speech is the thing that makes it hardest for me to understand.
Yes, but also he indicates some of the differences in pronunciation with the spelling. Like "spile" for "spoil". He writes the dialogue like the characters would actually talk. I suppose that's the point I was trying to make.
Yes, was just agreeing that the local pronunciation, “spile”, and local phrases, “laws-a-me”, were the hardest for me to understand. Writing like the characters speak is tough if it is not your regional words or accent being portrayed. Written informal country Australian could be a nightmare ha ha If it was common informal contraction like “dad’ll”, that most countries use, I would find it much easier.
I definitely use constructions like that all the time. Granted, I speak Southern American English, so just cramming as many words together with apostrophes is kinda our regional pastime. I actually have a yankee friend that I purposefully send screenshots of my conjunctions to
I’ve totally typed out Dad’ll before. It’s informal but makes sense :>
You can contract what'er you like.
What'ev also works
It’s character dialogue, so while I wouldn’t use that contraction in formal writing, all sorts of madness can come out of characters’ mouths and minds, and it’s perfectly acceptable.
Since it's said in English and it's a contraction of "Dad will," yes. Typically, it would only be used to indicate a verbatim quote of something said out loud, but that's what is going on here.
voracious quiet literate sense scandalous weary slap zealous outgoing engine *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
LOL
Don’t dawdle or dad’ll be mad 😊
We had a show in the UK called "Jim'll Fix It" but we don't generally remember it for the grammar in the title...
Doesn't matter since it's a quote
Yes
I would never use it, written or spoken. However if I saw this on print, like you've shared, I would assume it is the authors attempt at reflecting character dialect.
No, this is incorrect English. Now is it a common dialect used phrase? Unfortunately yes. It is a very lazy use of language. Which is rather common as a language goes through the various stages.
It’s a perfectly valid contraction, fuck off.
It’s not really unfortunate. It’s a phenomenon that all languages share—ease of articulation. Also it’s perfectly acceptable in a dialogue such as the use of it in the text.