's 're not and isn't aren't

Seems pretty arbitrary to me. I don't feel like "She isn't tall", "You aren't from South Korea" or "Filip's not American" are any less natural than the examples given there, although "My friends're not boring" seems weird (probably because contractions typically reduce the syllable count or otherwise make the sentence faster to say, and that one doesn't really). I guess it's a good rule to follow, if you're worried about running into situations like the fourth sentence above. And by the way, just letting you know, there are quite a few errors in your post. "Acroos" = "across" and "mutch" = "much" are the most obvious but there's some other grammatical stuff - happy to go through the others if you'd like me to.

This is true, but it isn't strict. You also have made mistakes in your text: >My fellow native english speakers and fluent speakers. I'm **an** **E**nglish teacher from Brazil. Last **lesson** I **came across** this statement. **Honestly**, **I've** never **seen** such **a** thing before, so my question is\*\*:\*\* **How true** is this statement, and how **often** it's used in **a** daily basis? No offense, but it seems you're not ready to teach English.

Came across* much* such a thing*

It seems like it might be warning against double contractions? For example you should use “she’s not” and never “she’sn’t”.

None of the sentences given are wrong, but I don't feel like that's a real "rule". If I read what they are saying correctly, they do not want you to say "She isn't tall" or "Filip's not American", but both of those are completely acceptable to me. (Even "My friends're not boring" I think is OK)

I’ve never heard of this. You can write or say she isn’t tall, and you aren’t from South Korea. They are slightly more awkward to say because of the double vowel sounds, but there’s nothing wrong with those forms (or there isn’t anything wrong with them, also fine). How else could you write my friends aren’t boring? My friends’r not boring? Okay, probably avoid that.

Not a doctor, but it seems you're having contractions.

This rule does not exist

This isn’t a rule at all. The only distinction is that in formal English, you shouldn’t use contractions, but that’s a fairly old-fashioned rule even then. I learned it as a child, but I think I was one of the last since I never notice people actually following it.

To take just one example, both "Filip's not American" and "Filip isn't American" are both correct, and both are commonly used, both by the same people. Using one or the other of these pairs can serve to emphasise things in different ways by altering where the stresses fall in the sentence and might be chosen to highlight contrasts. There are occasions when one of the pair might sound a bit clunky but it won't be *wrong*. Any rule that you should use one form with pronouns and one with nouns is purest arse-hattery which was made up by someone who doesn't English good.

No contractions at all when speaking formally. Informally, no rules matter so long as you are understood. If this is a rule, I've never heard of it and everyone I know breaks it all the time. It seems like one of those arbitrary things that a non-native speaker interpreted as a rule but isn't.

Honestly, we usually just go with what sounds better in the moment, never gave it any thought. "John's not tall" wouldn't sound any weirder or more normal than "John isn't tall." There's no difference in emphasis either. It's only ever odd on plurals; I wouldn't say "geese're not mammals," but "geese aren't mammals" definitely sounds natural

*Much not mutch.

"Filip's not American" would be perfectly fine. "London's not currently on fire" works too. "You aren't from South Korea" would also be acceptable, as would "She isn't tall". All in all, this "rule" doesn't really apply, and it's a case of what flows better in the sentence. "My friends aren't" though is correct, and I wouldn't expect to see it done differently, as "My friends're not" feels clumsy, and most dialects I've met wouldn't spot the difference when speaking.

Both are equally valid ways to express the contractions, although I think there is a strong preference for the second rule in writing. The first rule is objectively false. Ad hoc contractions tend to be more looked down upon in writing, but in actual speech people'll use both. > The dogs're not goin to the store > The dogs aren't going to the store Are both normal and equally correct in spoken English. But you'll hardly ever see 're tacked on to the noun like that. 's perhaps is more common in writing. > Jackie's not picking up anything for us to eat This is a fairly common construction in writing.

It’s not a strict rule or anything, but I do think sticking to this would help you sound more American if you wanted to.

I think this rule partially makes sense for the third person plural. “The chimps’re not in their enclosure” definitely sounds wrong compared to “The chimps aren’t in their enclosure” and “They’re not in their enclousure”, but “They aren’t in their enclosure” is also fine, so it still wouldn’t be entirely right except in that generally plural nouns can’t have contractions added to the end. But generally “isn’t/aren’t” and “-‘s not/-‘re not” are interchangeable in the 2nd & 3rd person singular and 1st person plural for pronouns and regular nouns. And 2nd person singular pronouns universally use “aren’t” and “are not” except in informal speech.

You’re syntax, grammar, spelling mistakes, etc. make me think that you’re actually a learning student with a tad more info than the other students looking to call out your teacher. I wouldn’t recommend that considering the power dynamics. English is not a monolithic language. For that matter, American English is not monolithic. You will get as many different answers as there are regions in a country. Variation and deviation in language happens really fast and, until the advent of radio and television, singular languages drifted into dialects and different languages within a few generations. Language is fluid, dynamic, and quite volatile. I am from Florida, USA. The rule above is far too exclusionary and doesn’t factor in the different meanings that come from shifting the contractions or even not using contractions. And there isn’t a uniform rule to cover it all either. So I will leave you with examples below: She isn’t tall. —> statement of observation She’s not tall. —> She may look tall, but she’s not. She is using platforms or something like that or we are talking about different people. She is not tall. —> I know for a fact. Stop saying otherwise You aren’t from South Korea —> statement of belief of a fact You’re not from South Korea —> I had no idea you were from S Korea and am flabbergasted by this. You are not from South Korea —> I think you are lying. You are most definitely not from South Korea.

It's better to understand the conjugation and negation than just memorize the contractions. You should learn: He is going. & He is not going. Before learning: He's going. & He isn't going, or He's not going.

Might be a general truth that shows how we speak even if we never know we're following that rule. Probably useful for non-natives to make the right choices.

This rule isn’t true since these alternatives are grammatically correct She isn’t tall You aren’t from South Korea Filip’s not American the “my friends aren’t boring” one can’t be changed since “my friends’re not boring” isn’t grammatically correct.

I've never seen that rule before I'm definitely going to look in to it though. I certsi ly don't follow it. As an EFL teacher, there's also a big difference between how Native Speakers use language and a text book. It helps to have a rule because you get asked a lot. The seeming inconsistencies in English a be hard for learners and non expert teachers.

Nope. Just something someone made up. It doesn't exist in English at all. 🫠 Part of the beauty of English contractions is that you can often do them differently depending on which word you want to emphasize, or even just whatever feels better in the moment. "She isn't" and "she's not" are both perfectly normal and correct.

Native speaker. Learned many ins and outs of the complicated crap. That rule doesn't exist. It's not even one of the unwritten rules (like tic tac toe and never toe tac tic, hip hop, never hop hip).

You wouldn't write "My friends're not" because that looks ugly. Other than that, this advice is just silly.

Question's been answered, but at a quick glance I spot 10 errors in the text of this post. I'd recommend further study on your own part as a good idea for you as well as anyone you teach.

You could very well write "She's'n't tall" and be correct but I dare you to say it 

Both versions are 100% normal to hear, just don't try to double contraction it with "he's'nt"

just do both. she'sn't tall

"She isn't tall." "You aren't from South Korea." "Filip's not American." These are all perfectly valid sentences that I could easily use in casual conversation. No idea what this "rule" is talking about. Also, "My friends aren't boring" is the only way to even write that. In conversation, you COULD kind of slur some of the words together and I could see a Native speaker saying something like 'My friends're not boring." but technically speaking this is kind of a slang shortcut and the 'proper' way to write it is definitely the first way. In this case, while we'd pretty much only write it the first way, you could speak it like the second way in casual conversation and it wouldn't sound out of place.

This is wrong

So such a rule doesnt really exist an the statements are identical She's = She is You're= You are isn't= is not aren't is are not so for pronouns She's not tall = She isn't tall = She is not tall For nouns however you cant use 's (because that typically indicates Possession) and 're (just isnt generally used) that being said if you said "Filip's not american" most native speakers will probably just roll with it because native speakers probably use something similar, because native english speakers tend to mangle the language to speak faster.

This isn't a rule, do it however you want.

At least for me, *'s not* and *isn't* are entirely interchangable. On the other hand, *'re not* for me is only used for pronouns taking plural agreement, that is *we*, *you*, *they*, &c.

This is not a real rule. Both types of contractions are fine in both circumstances.

if it has any truth to it, it's an observed general tendency at most, not a rule. a lot of other factors in play, like if you want to emphasize the word *not*, you're not going to contract it to *n't*. personally I wouldn't write it as *'re* following a noun, I'd just write *are*, which is pronounced the same when unstressed anyway.

It’s not a rule, but as a southern American native english speaker, it sounds better this way to me.

British English here I think "She isn't" "You arn't" "Filip's not" are perfectly gramatically fine. The only one that seems grammatically neccisary is "My freinds arn't boring." because it's plural. Some people are pointing out that they'd **say** "My friends're not boring.", and so would I, but I **never** see it contracted like this in the written word, unless someone's trying to represent a character's speaking accent.

Is you is or is you ain’t my baby?

I have no expertise other than being native English speaker, but “She isn’t tall” sounds more natural to me than “She’s not tall.” The latter sounds more British to me?

Sounds like really lazy prescriptivism.

‘She’s not’ and ‘she isn’t’ can be used 99% interchangeably. Maybe if someone misheard you and you wanted to emphasize the ‘not’ then maybe you’d use the first one to better emphasize but this rule is completely wrong

Seems legit

And that’s how a country can have children study English from pre-K through the end of high school and still have 80% of the population who can’t have a simple exchange in the language.

"Filip's not American" sounds totally natural to me, I think this rule is nonsense. "My friends're not boring" sounds odd, but just because it has so many consonants in a row with the "nds're," making it hard to pronounce. Similarly, "she isn't tall" and "you aren't from South Korea" are completely normal.

The only difference is that it lets you move around the emphasis. "isn't" and "aren't" are able to be stressed while " 's " and " 're " are much harder to stress. Like... idk "Oh hey filip's american right?" "NO FILIP *ISN'T* AMERICAN, HE'S CANADIAN" In the first sentence its said pretty breezily, while in the second isn't is used to emphasis that no filip is not American. You can also uncontract them for more options, but it doesn't mean that "Isn't" and "aren't" are stronger somehow, its just an option.

See, many educators form ways in which they feel is the best way to learn, but that doesn’t make it a rule, nor does it make it wrong. It’s just their interpretation. But they made the book, so many others are influenced by that interpretation. This is one of the reasons why I call textbooks “plastic” they may provide information and a context in which to practice, but more often than not, the content doesn’t always easily apply to the “real world” Practice, making mistakes and noticing (learning from others) will 100% help you gain fluency ☺️

She isn't tall You aren't from South Korea Filip's not American All perfectly valid.

Native English speaker from Australia and high school teacher here: Dialect is the key with this. In common conversation, no one cares about these 'rules'. However, in formal writing, adhearing to these tropes can increase the readability of work, as well as when talking in a speech (although our public services are winding back formal writing in public documents to make it more accessible).

I believe this "rule" is meant for natural pronunciation.

This rule doesn't exist, but -'re isn't used after nouns in writing

This is not a rule

Evolve!

Gonna say a big no to that. As a native speaker, I've never encountered this as a rule, or come across any teaching text claiming it.

Not true at all.

I wouldn't call it a rule, but in this case the contraction at the earliest availability makes the not more distinct.

I feel like this explanation over complicates it. In conversation, the speaker can use either 's 're not OR isn't aren't, for pronouns OR nouns, depending on how they feel. There's really no rule for it, although I guess this is alright if it makes it easier to teach with a clear distinction?

English has a culture to it, and "correctness" is often weaponized. This rule really doesn't matter unless you're trying to follow it just for the sake of seeming smart to only yourself and the three other people in the world you'll meet who have heard about it. There are many rules in English that exist only because it makes certain pseudo-authorities feel smart.

Seems completely true

Contractions are solely used in colloquial contexts: one will never encounter them in essays, debates or the court of law. The focus of informal communication is to articulate ideas in the most concise and simplistic manner possible, without regard for proper grammar, punctuation and spelling. Hence, there are no real rules surrounding the utilization of contractions: all that matters is that one's sentence is coherent, effective and arises no ambiguity. That being said, there are several contexts in which case one's breaking the rules outlined in your attached image may arise ambiguity regarding the meaning of their statement, and/or adversely impact the clarity of one's remark. For instance, the suffix **'s**, in both formal and informal scenarios, is applied to a noun in order to reflect the genitive grammatical case and a singular number, that is, when a noun, that is singular in quantity, is in possession of another noun. Additionally, one's embedding usage of dual contraction, in which case a noun contracts with both a verb and a term of negation, may profoundly influence the intelligibility of their statement in an adverse manner. Consequently, one's shortening **"\_\_\_ is not"** to **"\_\_\_'s'nt"** or **"\_\_\_'s not"** in a sentence may pose a detriment to their statement's clarity, and instead, they should opt for simply contracting the verb and term of negation and leaving the subject unchanged, akin to: **\_\_\_ isn't.** Intrinsically, because contractions are solely utilized in colloquial scenarios, there are no real grammatical guidelines surrounding their usage. However, the statement made by the textbook in your image holds some validity: native speakers subconsciously follow the rules outlined, and they serve as useful regulations to follow for constructing clear and effective texts, devoid of any ambiguity.

Completely invented - but then so is language.

They aren't real English grammar rules (see what I did there?) They're more like common American patterns of speech. "They're not here" would be a common pattern in the US and England. "They aren't here" could be common in Ireland or Scotland, and the more slang "They ain't here" could be southern US or south-east England.

andrew's not buying this at all. he is not stupid.

I think this is a *common* way to do it in American English but it certainly isn’t a rule. “Breaking” it would not register as odd or incorrect. Anecdotally, I feel like *‘s not* is more common in certain contexts in British English than American English.

As a teacher, would you accept your sentences?

Your english seems really bad for an English teacher, yikes. Your post is riddled with spelling mistakes...

It's not really a rule since both 'is not', 'are not' are as valid as their contractions ('s not, isn't, aren't, 're not). The only one I wouldn't really use is 're not before a noun. But 's not and isn't can be used before anything, aren't can be used before any plural (and the word "you"), but 're not is only for plural pronouns (we, they, you).

This rule doesn't really exist. I feel "She isn't tall" is more matter of fact - If I said "She's not tall" it would be because I'm emphasising the "not", and likely following up with "but she's *something else*".

"Filip's not American" and "She isn't tall" are perfectly valid sentences.

"She isn't on holiday."  "My friend's house." Whoops, I broke the rules.

it’s not a rule, it’s a matter of emphasis or just preference. for example, “she’s not tall” emphasizes that “she is **not** tall”, meaning u already know who ur talking about and r discussing if said person is tall or not. whereas, “she isn’t tall” emphasizes “**she** isn’t tall”, meaning ur discussing tall people and emphasizing that **she** is not one of the tall ones. same goes with nouns and names.

In conversation, if you say is/are instead of 's/'re it sounds like you're emphasizing things. Other than that it's really not a thing.

The bottom rule feels more true than the top rule. "She's not tall, but she makes up for it with heels." sounds perfectly normal, but "John is American, but Flip is not American." sounds *very* direct and a tiny bit stilted.

Forget "pronouns", it's just he and she.

Sparky's gonna disagree with that. (That's me, by the way.) I don't think anyone is gonna say otherwise. No they aren't.

In common speech, from my experience at least; “She’s not tall” = “she isn’t tall” = “she is not tall” “You’re not from…” = “you aren’t from…” = “you are not from…” For the second rule, it seems more true, especially with plural. In speech you might hear someone say “Filip’s not American” but there isn’t a way I can think of for “my friends’re not boring”. That doesn’t work. And in writing, “Filip’s not” isn’t going to be commonly used either. So I guess to summarize, for pronouns ‘s not/‘re not and isn’t/arent are both acceptable, and for regular nouns isn’t and aren’t are much more common On a side note, this was an interesting one to think about. It’s not a question I’ve ever considered before lol

I think this statement is technically true, but it's not the way I would have said it. What I think it's trying to say is to avoid having a double "is" when using contractions. The word "He's" is a contraction of "He is", and the word "isn't" is a contraction of "is not". So you shouldn't say "He's isn't", because that would be "He is is not". All pronouns have a contraction with "is". The confusing thing is that English speakers aren't consistent about which way they do the contraction. When you want to say "He is not", you could say either "He isn't", or "He's not", and either would be correct

This is a rule of thumb, not a for real rule. “She isn’t tall” “you aren’t from South Korea,” and “Filip’s not American” are all fine.

Plenty of English dialects where multiple contractions are just fine. “I’d’nt’ve done that if I were you”, for example.

After -s [s] or [z] use isn't: This isn't nice. Joyce isn't here. Otherwise prefer 's not: That's not a nice thing to say. Tom's not here. (Isn't is not wrong here, but it is less frequently used).

Yeah never heard this tripe in my life, maybe if it's formal grammar or some shiz, but this is stupid af.

This is partially correct. After pronouns or proper names you can do it either way: She isn't tall She's not tall Filip isn't American Filip's not American However, for some nouns you'd use isn't and aren't. You wouldn't use "My friends're not boring," at least not in writing. In speech it would work but it sounds more like "my friends are not boring" but in writing it's awkward. That said, "my friend's not boring" works because it doesn't create an awkward contraction.

That's from Evolve, right? I've used that book in class a few times and when I got to that part I just told the students to disregard this.