English language question...

[WyWyWyWy]

Originally posted by Jammrock
er ... conjuctions come to mind.

Has not = hasn't
Are not = aren't
etc...

What I mean is...
Some people use "ain't" for everything.
"I ain't done this yet."
"He ain't a policeman."
"You ain't fishing, are you?"
"It ain't a typhoon!"

And that "ain't" is a real word for "am not".
Anyway, let's wait till tomorrow when some real British people wake up.

[GNEP]

I'm awake "Ain't" is slang. But English is a living and evolving language - if through continued usage, "ain't" is universally understood I have no objection to people using it.

People might look down on you as uneducated though if you start using slang or other overtly familiar or informal language in academic papers or formal written letters and so on. This is often through their [the reader's] own pretentiousness however, but as it's quite common behaviour, I'd watch yourself. Many even suggest that no conjugations AT ALL should be used in written english - always expand to the full version if possible.

Here endeth the lesson according to Gnep, who is now going to bed

[Wombat]

The non-word that I really wish would be considered proper English is "alright." It actually isn't a word, and you're supposed to say "all right."

[GNEP]

alright is okely dokely by lil ole me

[Gurm]

Originally posted by WyWyWyWy
What I mean is...
Some people use "ain't" for everything.
"I ain't done this yet."
"He ain't a policeman."
"You ain't fishing, are you?"
"It ain't a typhoon!"

And that "ain't" is a real word for "am not".
Anyway, let's wait till tomorrow when some real British people wake up.

No. See, in order for a word to be a real contraction, and appropriate for use in a particular sentence, the law of substitution must hold.

For example:

"I haven't seen Zokes' avatar nearly often enough."

You can substitute "have not" in for "haven't".

"I have not seen Zokes' avatar ... "

And it still makes sense.

Now, let's take YOUR examples, substituting in "am not".

"I ain't done this yet."

"I am not done this yet."
While this is a correct sentence, it doesn't mean what you originally intended. You intended, by saying "I ain't done this yet" to convey that you HAVEN'T done this yet, which implies that you haven't started. "am not done" implies that you HAVE started, but not finished.

"He ain't a policeman."

"He am not a policeman."
Clearly wrong. In this case, you want the contraction "isn't", short for "is not".

"You ain't fishing, are you?"

"You am not fishing, are you?"
Incorrect. The "am" doesn't match the "are". You can't change from a first-person to second-person in midsentence. It just doesn't work. The correct contraction here is "aren't".

"It ain't a typhoon!"

"I am not a typhoon!"
Again, incorrect. Now you're mixing first and THIRD person. Still VERY wrong.

So we see that in EACH of the examples you've provided, "ain't" is the WRONG word to use. The fact that people use it as a catch-all contraction doesn't make it CORRECT.

You can continue to use slang, but the only words to make it into the langauge proper are those with distinct meanings. You cannot have a word that means "am not", "have not", "is not", "are not" all in one. Sorry.

Even Webster only allows "am not" as the correct usage, as in:

"I ain't buying any of this crap."

It makes you sound ignorant. Just like Ebonics.

- Gurm

[WyWyWyWy]

Originally posted by Gurm
Even Webster only allows "am not" as the correct usage, as in:

"I ain't buying any of this crap."

And that's what I have been saying!!
"Ain't" as in "am not" is a real word.
"Ain't" as in "haven't", "hasn't" and "aren't", no.

[KvHagedorn]

Originally posted by cjolley
Yes, but that's the rat infested Third edition.
What does the, far superior, Second edition say?

chuck

PS It is no coincidence that the present that I have given my wife that she cherishes the most is a Second Edition (on India Paper and in perfect condition!) that I bought her for Christmas about 12 years ago.
In fact, I had to go to Denver to find one

Well, since you have one, what DOES it say? I had always wanted one of those, but had never been able to find a decent used copy. Since you put it in my head though, I actually went and found one listed on abebooks in extremely fine condition, so I ordered it tonight.

Originally posted by Gurm
Oxford is, IMHO, the standard.

Originally posted by cjolley
They are for "American" and "English" english respectively, aren't they?
Besides, we don't have enough free shelf space for an OED.
chuck

I agree that the OED is pretty much the authority, but I was just too lazy to look at more than one source this morning, and I have the compact OED, which has 4 pages to a page in tiny print, and I just didn't feel like squinting at the time. It does solve the shelf space problem, though.. (and cost considerably less than the many-volume set)

[mutz]

Yanno, I don't believe in tea parties and correctness. I delight in people's individual expression. I see language only as a medium for communality. Language as a sign of social strata, upbringing, education or any other synthetic means to separate, elevate and express superiority is discrimination, segregation, prejudice, snobbery and says more about those who use it that way than anything else. The people I enjoy most are those who seek contact and exchange in their own original fashion, and they generally communicate better than any Phd or Dr. Words are only 20% of communication.

Back to topic, IMO, in a scientific paper, report, whatever, "thus" is clean in the flow of communication, whereas "thus-ly" has a tripper on it. Common when translating a word with "-lich" on the end.

Ain't is quaint.

[DukeP]

It is, isnt it?



~~DukeP~~

[Brian Ellis]

There is a book "Mind the Gaffe" ISBN 0-14-051476-7 by R.L. Trask, an American with wide knowledge of UK English, as well, and he is that rara avis, a grammarian with a sense of practicality and humour. It's not an expensive work and deserves a place on the bookshelf of anyone interested in either major dialect of the English language.

I can't resist quoting Partridge for "ain't", though:
ain't for isn't (colloquial) or is not (Standard English) is an error so illiterate that I blush to record it. As for ain't for hasn't (has not) or haven't (have not)...! More is to be said for ain't = am not, but it is now -- and long has been -- adjudged illiterate. [To Americans, G.P. Krapp's comment is of interest (A Comprehensive Guide to Good English): 'Although students of English and critical speakers would probably agree that ain't is low colloquial, it is true nevertheless that many educated persons permit themselves this habit, even though they reprehend it as careless. Only the enforcement of a strong academic authority prevents ain't from becoming universal colloquial use.']

I would add that I think the worst perpetrators are the inhabitants of some of the poorer districts of a few large cities on both sides of the pond.

[GNEP]

Originally posted by mutz
Yanno, I don't believe in tea parties and correctness. I delight in people's individual expression. I see language only as a medium for communality. Language as a sign of social strata, upbringing, education or any other synthetic means to separate, elevate and express superiority is discrimination, segregation, prejudice, snobbery and says more about those who use it that way than anything else. The people I enjoy most are those who seek contact and exchange in their own original fashion, and they generally communicate better than any Phd or Dr. Words are only 20% of communication.

Ain't that around about what I said, albeit wrapped in verbosity?

[Brian Ellis]

There are at least two kinds of language. Spoken language uses all sorts of colloquialisms, twisted grammar, circumlocutions and so on. Provided it conveys the intended intelligence, then it serves its purpose, although mispronunciation and flagrant bad grammar from native speakers may often grate on one's ears. (E.g., I shudder every time I hear 'we was', unfortunately increasingly common in the UK. Another is the Oz 'cheers' instead of 'thanks'. These may, however, be personal foibles.)

OTOH, the written word is a different kettle of fish. In formal writing (technical papers, literary works, etc.), then the writing should be as correct in vocabulary, orthography, syntax and grammar as possible. In less formal work, such as personal letters, e-mails and internal memos, then various degrees of colloquialisms may be permissible, according to the degree of intimacy between the recipient and the sender. Nevertheless, it is flagrantly discourteous to breach reasonably accepted rules of spelling and grammar in anything committed to paper (or computer monitor). This is because you're forcing the reader to interpret your meaning and mistakes become common. For example, if you said to me, 'The referee only sent off one of the players', I would know what you meant, but it is bad written English because it literally implies that the referee alone did it, that and nothing else. In written English, it should read,'The referee sent off only one of the players.' This is not a question of snobbery or any other of Mutz's sins, but of clear and unambiguous communications.

Of course, those of foreign mother-tongue cannot avoid making mistakes in writing a complex and illogical language such as English and the reader usually makes due allowance.

[Gurm]

Hear hear, Brian.

- Gurm

[GNEP]

I think we are nearly there Brian.

Spoken - I think we are in agreement.
Written - because we lack a "tone of voice" it is necessary to adhere to the generally accepted rules to avoid any misdirected inference. I think this argument is the only really acceptable justification for being a pedant about written english.

When reading good litereature however, it is an entirely different matter. I read not just for a story, but to take joy in the language and ideas presented. And bad grammar can really get in the way . However deliberately twisting the rules can produce some rather wonderful effects - and it is in this use/abuse of rules (not restricting us to the common-or-garden grammatical ones here) that I find joy and wonder in poetry. ee cummings is a great example there. As is Vikram Seth.

[cjolley]

Originally posted by KvHagedorn
Well, since you have one, what DOES it say?
I had always wanted one of those, but had never been able to find a decent used copy. Since you put it in my head though, I actually went and found one listed on abebooks in extremely fine condition, so I ordered it tonight.

1, But I don't have one at work. Which is where I usualy post from.

2, Cool! You always seemed like a Second Edition kind of guy to me. Glad you found one. Hope it gets to you in good shape.

Also, the one that grates on my nerves and that I hear the most.
Every f***ing day in fact.
Is:
"When was this report ran?" and "This report was ran on Friday."

It makes me blanch every time.

chuck