I am unconversant , aren't I?
-
The Cambridge Guide to English Usage wrote:
Historically speaking, both ain’t and aren’t are probably descended from an’t, recorded during the late C17 as the regular contraction. Sound changes of the C18 affected the pronunciation of the vowel "a" before nasal consonants, raising it in some dialects, and lowering and retracting it in others. While ain’t is a product of the first process, aren’t represents the second in terms of British (r-less) pronunciation – though not in general American. If only an’t was still available, it would avoid the grammatical discomfort and provide a nonstigmatized alternative to ain’t.
So, I am clear now then, ain't I? :confused:
-
The Cambridge Guide to English Usage wrote:
Historically speaking, both ain’t and aren’t are probably descended from an’t, recorded during the late C17 as the regular contraction. Sound changes of the C18 affected the pronunciation of the vowel "a" before nasal consonants, raising it in some dialects, and lowering and retracting it in others. While ain’t is a product of the first process, aren’t represents the second in terms of British (r-less) pronunciation – though not in general American. If only an’t was still available, it would avoid the grammatical discomfort and provide a nonstigmatized alternative to ain’t.
So, I am clear now then, ain't I? :confused:
Yes, you are literally clear [^]. yours, Bill
~ “This isn't right; this isn't even wrong." Wolfgang Pauli, commenting on a physics paper submitted for a journal
-
The Cambridge Guide to English Usage wrote:
Historically speaking, both ain’t and aren’t are probably descended from an’t, recorded during the late C17 as the regular contraction. Sound changes of the C18 affected the pronunciation of the vowel "a" before nasal consonants, raising it in some dialects, and lowering and retracting it in others. While ain’t is a product of the first process, aren’t represents the second in terms of British (r-less) pronunciation – though not in general American. If only an’t was still available, it would avoid the grammatical discomfort and provide a nonstigmatized alternative to ain’t.
So, I am clear now then, ain't I? :confused:
No, you an't.
This message is manufactured from fully recyclable noughts and ones. To recycle this message, please separate into two tidy piles, and take them to your nearest local recycling centre. Please note that in some areas noughts are always replaced with zeros by law, and many facilities cannot recycle zeroes - in this case, please bury them in your back garden and water frequently.
-
No, you an't.
This message is manufactured from fully recyclable noughts and ones. To recycle this message, please separate into two tidy piles, and take them to your nearest local recycling centre. Please note that in some areas noughts are always replaced with zeros by law, and many facilities cannot recycle zeroes - in this case, please bury them in your back garden and water frequently.
Yay :-D So I am conversant!!
-
Yes, you are literally clear [^]. yours, Bill
~ “This isn't right; this isn't even wrong." Wolfgang Pauli, commenting on a physics paper submitted for a journal
So, it seems, were some other "chaps":
Bill's link provided:
Good writers have used “literally” nonliterally as far back as the 18th century. Charles Dickens used it. So did James Joyce, Louisa May Alcott, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Vladimir Nabokov. ... (and) ... If you’re hearing the nonliteral “literally” or “irregardless” or “ain’t” enough to annoy you, that’s a case for including them in dictionaries, not against it.
-
The Cambridge Guide to English Usage wrote:
Historically speaking, both ain’t and aren’t are probably descended from an’t, recorded during the late C17 as the regular contraction. Sound changes of the C18 affected the pronunciation of the vowel "a" before nasal consonants, raising it in some dialects, and lowering and retracting it in others. While ain’t is a product of the first process, aren’t represents the second in terms of British (r-less) pronunciation – though not in general American. If only an’t was still available, it would avoid the grammatical discomfort and provide a nonstigmatized alternative to ain’t.
So, I am clear now then, ain't I? :confused:
Better ain't it than innit.
--------------------------------- Obscurum per obscurius. Ad astra per alas porci. Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
-
Better ain't it than innit.
--------------------------------- Obscurum per obscurius. Ad astra per alas porci. Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Innit the truth.
This message is manufactured from fully recyclable noughts and ones. To recycle this message, please separate into two tidy piles, and take them to your nearest local recycling centre. Please note that in some areas noughts are always replaced with zeros by law, and many facilities cannot recycle zeroes - in this case, please bury them in your back garden and water frequently.
-
Innit the truth.
This message is manufactured from fully recyclable noughts and ones. To recycle this message, please separate into two tidy piles, and take them to your nearest local recycling centre. Please note that in some areas noughts are always replaced with zeros by law, and many facilities cannot recycle zeroes - in this case, please bury them in your back garden and water frequently.
Word
--------------------------------- Obscurum per obscurius. Ad astra per alas porci. Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
-
The Cambridge Guide to English Usage wrote:
Historically speaking, both ain’t and aren’t are probably descended from an’t, recorded during the late C17 as the regular contraction. Sound changes of the C18 affected the pronunciation of the vowel "a" before nasal consonants, raising it in some dialects, and lowering and retracting it in others. While ain’t is a product of the first process, aren’t represents the second in terms of British (r-less) pronunciation – though not in general American. If only an’t was still available, it would avoid the grammatical discomfort and provide a nonstigmatized alternative to ain’t.
So, I am clear now then, ain't I? :confused:
Quote:
a nonstigmatized alternative to ain’t.
"Aren't" ain't stigmatised in my book. Ugh! I can't believe I just used "ain't" [spits repeatedly]... Pedantic? No, just precise in my ways.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
-
The Cambridge Guide to English Usage wrote:
Historically speaking, both ain’t and aren’t are probably descended from an’t, recorded during the late C17 as the regular contraction. Sound changes of the C18 affected the pronunciation of the vowel "a" before nasal consonants, raising it in some dialects, and lowering and retracting it in others. While ain’t is a product of the first process, aren’t represents the second in terms of British (r-less) pronunciation – though not in general American. If only an’t was still available, it would avoid the grammatical discomfort and provide a nonstigmatized alternative to ain’t.
So, I am clear now then, ain't I? :confused:
-
The Cambridge Guide to English Usage wrote:
Historically speaking, both ain’t and aren’t are probably descended from an’t, recorded during the late C17 as the regular contraction. Sound changes of the C18 affected the pronunciation of the vowel "a" before nasal consonants, raising it in some dialects, and lowering and retracting it in others. While ain’t is a product of the first process, aren’t represents the second in terms of British (r-less) pronunciation – though not in general American. If only an’t was still available, it would avoid the grammatical discomfort and provide a nonstigmatized alternative to ain’t.
So, I am clear now then, ain't I? :confused:
Herbisaurus wrote:
If only an’t was still available
Standards at Cambridge have certainly plummeted, if they no longer know how to form a subjunctive.
Herbisaurus wrote:
it would avoid the grammatical discomfort and provide a nonstigmatized alternative to ain’t
... But would cause other problems, e.g:
ant -projecthelp
Does that mean it ain't not helpful to the project?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
So, it seems, were some other "chaps":
Bill's link provided:
Good writers have used “literally” nonliterally as far back as the 18th century. Charles Dickens used it. So did James Joyce, Louisa May Alcott, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Vladimir Nabokov. ... (and) ... If you’re hearing the nonliteral “literally” or “irregardless” or “ain’t” enough to annoy you, that’s a case for including them in dictionaries, not against it.
I pity the fool who doesn't have enough brainpower to use literally figuratively.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Word
--------------------------------- Obscurum per obscurius. Ad astra per alas porci. Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Excel
-
The Cambridge Guide to English Usage wrote:
Historically speaking, both ain’t and aren’t are probably descended from an’t, recorded during the late C17 as the regular contraction. Sound changes of the C18 affected the pronunciation of the vowel "a" before nasal consonants, raising it in some dialects, and lowering and retracting it in others. While ain’t is a product of the first process, aren’t represents the second in terms of British (r-less) pronunciation – though not in general American. If only an’t was still available, it would avoid the grammatical discomfort and provide a nonstigmatized alternative to ain’t.
So, I am clear now then, ain't I? :confused:
Ain't that a fact! You sho' is!
