Re[2]: shall & will

Subject: Re[2]: shall & will
From: Virginia Krenn <asdxvlk -at- OKWAY -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 1994 14:58:23 CDT

This message brings to mind a recent posting that commented on the
usage of ain't. That posting caused me to wonder if its origin was as
a contraction of am not as opposed to are not and, if so, why it fell
into disrepute. Anyone know?

You are not -- You are n't -- You aren't

I am not -- I am n't -- I amn't (difficult to pronounce,so) -- I ain't

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Author: Sally Marquigny <SALLYM -at- MSMAILHQ -dot- NETIMAGE -dot- COM> at SMTP
Date: 6/3/94 2:33 PM

That's the REAL reason it's fallen out of use in American English: it ain't
easy enough!

Previous by Author: Re: TYPE versus ENTER
Next by Author: Re[2]: "Shall" & "Will"
Previous by Thread: shall & will
Next by Thread: Re: shall & will

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads