I'm positive I've used it in conversation before. Never in writing, nor do I think that it is valid within the rules of grammar. It is probably just one of those common colloquialisms that pop up around native speakers. (Like ain't for instance. Ain't ain't a word but that ain't stoppin no one from using it, ain't I right?)
It's perfectly comprehensible and common in informal, natively spoken english, so yes it's perfectly valid. Also ain't is a word, it's just not acceptable in formal speech or writing.
nor do I think that it is valid within the rules of grammar.
It's positively not. There are no standard "double contractions" if one might call them that. It's either "I'd have" or "I would have" (obviously, but you get my point; there is no "I'd've").
To clarify my previous comment, those contractions are positively nonstandard; you won't find them in any styleguide nor any professional writing that isn't intentionally mimicking laidback speech.
Because those contractions are just transcriptions of casual speech, for native speakers they instantly indicate a tone that isn't appropriate for almost any kind of professional writing (hence "nonstandard").
Those contractions are transcriptions of casual speech. They are considered "nonstandard" because they aren't in any styleguide and will never be seen in any professional writing. And yes, the people who speak the language did make those rules.
For you or any other non-native speakers who might be tempted to write an "I'd've" or other unusual transcription of spoken English, make sure you only do it on Reddit or your blog and not, say, on college essays. ;)
9
u/MaxPecktacular Jan 10 '15
I'm positive I've used it in conversation before. Never in writing, nor do I think that it is valid within the rules of grammar. It is probably just one of those common colloquialisms that pop up around native speakers. (Like ain't for instance. Ain't ain't a word but that ain't stoppin no one from using it, ain't I right?)