The Chapters!
The thing I found most interesting about chapter one was the section on ain't. I loved the when it had the sentences, "I'm good at that, __ I," which showed that ain't really is the proper contraction to use.
In chapter 2, I like the part about phrasal verbs. I think it is neat how phrasal verbs take can take their object after the verb, but if the object is "it," then it must go between the words. (e.g. "I made up a story," is fine, and "I made it up," is fine, but "I made up it," is not.)
Thinking about ain't, I wonder if all the forms of be can be made into contractions. (I am pondering "be." I've heard the form "be-n't," but "to not be -> to be-n't" doesn't seem like a natural transition.)
posted by Anonymous @ 11:11 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Yes contractions are easy, however I still think that we sound lazy when we use them. I just don't think they sound well at all. Ain't to me sounds so improper and sounds like the person using it doesn't care. My opinion though!
If we did use "ben't" would we pronounce it like "bent" or "bee-int"?
I would be tempted to say "bee-int," but if I were to read "ben't" (this all under the assumption that we would say this anyway), I would probably unwillingly say "bent" and just ignore the '.
This comment has been removed by the author.
In a religion class, in my junior year of high school (we were required to take one each semester), we discussed whether it was correct or not to use "can't".
Instead of "can't", we were supposed to use either "can not" or "cannot". There was some sort of distinction between the two.
I believe that the phrase "can not" implied we could, very pointedly, not do something.
Also, the phrase "cannot" implied the conventional use: that the subject is unable to perform the action in the sentence.
Anyone else seen this? Or, can anyone correct my definitions?
"Ben't" sounds strange to me because it would be reversing the word order to substitute it for "not be", and people just don't say "be not" very often.
As far as "ain't" goes, I think that the stigma it presently carries is totally unwarranted. It performs a perfectly legitimate function. What if the 19th century grammarians had targeted some other contraction to be unworthy of our language, such as "won't"?
Personally, I try to keep contractions out of my writing, but I use them however the heck I want in informal speech, including words like "innit" (for "isn't it").
They use "innit" a lot in England, actually, but it carries a Northern England dialectical bias with it, because they say it more in Yorkshire and it's not "the Queen's English." But even my friend's very proper mother slipped and used it when we were visiting York, and my friend made fun of her for about 15 minutes.
Post a Comment
<< Home