Is it grammatically incorrect to say "Am" instead of "I'm"? Does it annoy you when you read the former instead of the latter?
>>7382504
that has nothing to do with grammar and everything to do with 'what words mean'
what the actual fuck, kill yourself
What? "I'm" is a contraction of "I am".
>>7382522
no like
"ill be right back, am going down to the shops"
instead of
"ill be right back, i'm going down to the shops"
>>7382527
Are you OP? If so is your first language a romantic language? If so, we don't do that as much, though, it is considered grammatically correct.
>>7382527
There might be some sort of style exception when the first instance is contracted (?), but "I will ... , am..." is correct, if uncommon.
>>7382527
>>7382504
Well it depends what you mean by grammatical. Traditionalists (or any grammar book) will say that in English the subject is always required, like in French but not, e.g., Spanish.
That's pretty prescriptive, because the reason is just "because it is".
I would say that if one wants to postulate a rule it should be for the sake clarity in communication.
It's said that in French you need to specify the subject because, unlike the other major Latinate languages, the verb forms have decayed to the point that they are homonymous, i.e., they sound the same, and thus confusion could commonly arise if you don't specify he/they/I/you.
However, in this case, the verb 'to be' is conjugated to 'am' which is unique to the subject 'I'. It's therefore not ambiguous to drop it, and I would argue that doing so isn't really *ungrammatical*, but avoid it for formal writing because although it's not confusing it may be slightly distracting in a formal environment.
>>7382542
>>7382527
I should add that, in a case such as "ill be right back, am going down to the shops", one of the few places it may be acceptable in formal writing is when a profusion of verbs occur and the repetition of the subject may be perceived as annoying.
>I'm a journalist, have a PhD in economics, and am a member of the committee.
as opposed to (maybe) the stuffier sounding
>I'm a journalist, I have a PhD in economics, and I'm a member of the committee.
>>7382531
>>7382542
I'm English, maybe I just worded it strangely, or I am just stoopid, but it is related to grammar, right? (it's about the structure and rules of phrases and words in sentences)
It was just a curious thought since I see it sometimes, wondering whether it was more of a slang thing or not, but I do agree it looks sloppy
>>7382583
Yes it's under the subject of grammar. However, if you ask if something is *grammatical* or not, as in does it conform to the rules of English grammar, then it depends.
If it makes sense to you and you can understand what the other person is saying, then to me it's "good grammar". However, to other people it may not be, because what they consider grammatical may be based off differing principles.
I actually don't know if dropping the "I" here is a new thing or if it's be present in the language for even centuries. Written language is naturally conservative, so the more laissez faire style dropping things that aren't strictly necessary for clear communication, such as the "I" here, probably just look weird here because you're not used to it.To me it look fine. Okay, I wouldn't write like that on my CV, but if someone messaged me that I wouldn't think twice about it...
