That'd be a contraction of 'would' in this case, wouldn't it? As an ESL speaker I used to find these grammar 'mistakes' (for lack of a better word) made more difficult for me to parse the sentences. As with code 'written once but read many times' would apply here.

[–] sparkle@lemm.ee 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

For a lot of English speakers, the "had" and "have" in contractions is completely omitted in certain contexts. It's more prevalent in some dialects (I'm in the south US and it's more common than not). Usually "had" is dropped more than "have".

Also, English can drop the pronoun, article, and even copula for certain indicative statements. I think it's specifically for observations, especially when the context is clear.

looking at someone's bracelet "Cool bracelet." [That's a]

wakes up "sigh Gotta get up and go to work..." [I've]

"Ain't no day for picking tomatoes like a Saturday." [There]

"No war but class war!" [There's]

"Forecast came in on the radio. Says there's gonna be a hell of a lot of rain today." [It said -> Says/Said]

"Can't count the number of Brits I've killed. Guess I'm just allergic to beans on toast." [I; I]

"House came tumblin' down after the sinkhole opened up" [The]

"I'd" can be "I would", mainly if used with a conditional or certain conjunctions/contrastive statements (if, but, however, unfortunately). Also when preceding "have" – e.g. "I'd have done that". Because "I had have" doesn't make sense, nor does "I had " anything. "I'd" as in "I had" is followed by a past participle.

"I'd" is usually "I had" otherwise, forming the past perfect tense. But in "I'd better", it's a bit confusing because "had better" is used in a different sense – the "had" here comes from "have to" (as in "to be necessary to") and can be treated as both a lexical verb and an auxiliary verb. "had better" is a bit of a leftover of more archaic constructions.

[–] candybrie@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

It would be a contraction of had: "I had better write..." Using would there doesn't make sense.

[–] OfCourseNot@fedia.io 2 points 3 months ago

More or less my point, languages are weird with lots of arbitrary idiomatic things—'would rather' but 'had better'.

After posting the comment I've thought 'wait, it makes more sense for it to be should' so my guesses are a bit off today.

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

for lack of a better word

Usages of non-standard grammar.

This one poses me (ETL) no problem, but my brain always tilts when the natives mix subject/verb contractions (you're, it's, they're) with the possessives (your, its, their).

[–] OfCourseNot@fedia.io 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah maybe not even non-standard as much as non-formal in this case.

I wanted to mean 'different from what you learn in English class in school as a kid' so non-formal, non -standard, dialectal, slang, misspellings, same-sounding words...

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 2 points 3 months ago

That's all covered by "non-standard" - because the standard of a language dictates what's to be taken as informal/vulgar/archaic, dialectal, slang, different words or the same word, etc. And while there are exceptions most of the time when people learn a non-native language they learn the standard, in detriment of other varieties.

(Sorry for nerding out about this, I just love this sort of topic.)