Contractions in english

I noticed, that, at least IMD, you can say things like "he would've done it" but you cant say "he'd have done it". It seems that it is natural in my dialect to group the auxiliary verbs together instead of one with a pronoun and one alone.

I've heard some people violate this though.

Maybe unrelated, but I've heard people say things like "I've it" to mean "I have it", which is totally illegal IMD because 'have' can only be a contraction when it is an auxiliary verb....

What? Who says "I've it"? Unless you are 95 years old, you might says, "Sir, I've only a cold!"

"[Y]ou can say things like 'he would've done it' but you cant say 'he'd have done it'."

You certainly can say "he'd have done it." Indeed, I've heard that come out as "he'd've done it."

>>You certainly can say "he'd have done it." Indeed, I've heard that come out as "he'd've done it."<<

Definitely agreed. However, it seems that the latter is actually more common than the former here, as the cliticization of both "would" and "have" is more common than the cliticization of only "would", as if what is really going on is that "would've" is being attached to the preceding word as opposed to "have" being attached to an already cliticized "would".

The main thing is that it is not necessarily the easiest to really make generalizations about how cliticization goes on in English dialects, as such stuff seems to vary a lot even from idiolect to idiolect, much the less dialect to dialect.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "I've it," but I've definitely heard things like "I've a new car". It seems British to me, but maybe it is old-fashioned there.
"He'd have done it" is illegal in my dialect as well, but I think "He would've (or 'woulda') done it" is more likely than "He'd've done it".

<<I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "I've it," but I've definitely heard things like "I've a new car". It seems British to me, but maybe it is old-fashioned there.>>

Definitely agreed. I can't recall hearing things like "I've it" and "I've a new car". I read something like that in a contemporary British drama some time ago (I'm not sure...either Sarah Kane or Mark Ravenhill...in one of them). Quite frankly I was a taken aback as I have always thought of it as "old-fashioned". I don't know. Probably it's just non-standard.

Since "have" is the main verb in utterances like "I have a new car", it is pronounced fully. If "have" is the indicator of present perfect, the weak form is used (in the case of modal verbs, auxiliaries, prepositions - in certain positions etc.). That seems quite logical. However, as we know, language is NOT logic.

<<"He'd have done it" is illegal in my dialect as well, but I think "He would've (or 'woulda') done it" is more likely than "He'd've done it".>>

I don't know...
I wouldn't say it is illegal, but "He would've (so "woulda") done it" sounds far more natural to me than "He'd have done it".

Can you say I'LL NOT instead of I WON'T?

<<Can you say I'LL NOT instead of I WON'T?>>

In my dialect, no. I would only say "I won't".

How do you all pronounce "won't"? I pronounce it something like [w6nt] or [w6n].

I pronounce it [w7Unt]. In everyday speech, I tend to pronounce it [w7Un] before vowels and [w7~U?] before consonants, but it always has [7U].

I likewise have variation between [wo~n] (note that this vowel is specifically short) and [wo~?] for "won't", but while the former only shows up before vowels, the in more careful or emphatic speech latter will show up before both consonants and vowels rather than before only consonants.

I use [wo~?] before consonants and either [wo~t] or [wo~n] before vowels, with the former being more formal.

As you guys are not marking vowel length in your transcriptions, do you guys have persistence of vowel length allophony in cases like "won't" despite the elision or glottal stopping of /t/, as is the case in my dialect, or is your [w7Un] or [wo~n] truly homophonic with how /won/ (which for me would be [wo~:n] rather than [wo~n]) would be realized?

Expressions such as I’ll not do it are characteristic of the North of England (Trudgill 1984; Kjellmer 1998) and of Scottish English (Aitken, 1984). Indeed, an investigation into the regional distribution of ’ll not in the BNC suggests that the form is primarily produced by speakers from the North of England and Scotland.

<<Expressions such as I’ll not do it are characteristic of the North of England (Trudgill 1984; Kjellmer 1998) and of Scottish English (Aitken, 1984).>>

That's weird. I was just reading that in Trudgill today, and I was going to post it here, but you beat me to it.

<<do you guys have persistence of vowel length allophony in cases like "won't" despite the elision or glottal stopping of /t/>>

I haven't really looked into vowel length in my dialect that much, but I don't think that a hypothetical word *wone would be the same as "won't" before vowels. It would probably be like yours: *wone [wo~:n] as opposed to "won't" [wo~n] (before a vowel).