Talk:it'd

RFV discussion: January–May 2017

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

it'd

"It had" and "it would", yes, but "it should"?? Equinox ◑ 04:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Possibly, if it's a UK use of should for NA would, but isn't that normally restricted to first person ? Leasnam (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The only instance where should = would that is not first person that I can think of off the top of my head is the passage in Numbers 23:19 where it say "God is not a man, that he should lie" where should there clearly means would, but this is archaic usage at least Leasnam (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I cannot think of any context in BrE in which "it'd" could mean "it should". I question even whether "I'd" can reasonably mean "I should". "I should" in the sense of "I would" (e.g. "I should like to ...") feels formal or dated, and I'm not sure whether anyone would understand "I'd" as meaning that. Mihia (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)