Re: Re[2]: shall & will

Subject: Re: Re[2]: shall & will
From: BurkBrick -at- AOL -dot- COM
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 13:13:59 EDT

>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?

_The Shorter OED_ lists ain't and an't = am not = is not, are not. They are
listed in the Informal abbreviation forms of "be."

Unfortunately, it doesn't list just the origin of "ain't," but "be" is
sourced from an amazing number of languages for such a short and basic part
of our language - Sanskrit, Indo-European, Greek, and Latin, to name a few.

Wow - two chances to use my _SOED in one day! It takes so little to excite
some people, doesn't it?


Previous by Author: Re: Enter vs. Type and v...
Next by Author: Re: Grammar and rhetoric...
Previous by Thread: Re: shall & will
Next by Thread: Re: Re[2]: shall & will

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

Sponsored Ads