View Single Post
Old 10-25-2010, 10:18 AM   #169
RDaneel54
Aging Positronic Brain
RDaneel54 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RDaneel54 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RDaneel54 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RDaneel54 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RDaneel54 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RDaneel54 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RDaneel54 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RDaneel54 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RDaneel54 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RDaneel54 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RDaneel54 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
RDaneel54's Avatar
 
Posts: 633
Karma: 2155452
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Aurora (when off-Earth)
Device: Amazon Oasis; iPhone, iPad Mini
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrscoach View Post
I will say it again about ain't. It IS a proper word. In Understanding English Grammar by Martha Kolln and Robert Funk it states on p. 9, "Written texts from the seventeenthand eighteenth centuries show that ain't was once a part of the conversational English of educated people in England and America." (period within quotes because that was the sentence) It continues on to say that sometime in the nineteenth century it fell out of use because it was stigmatized and marked speakers as uneducated and ignorant. Only because of popular use is the word less proper that it used to be.
Serious question: How about 'tis and 'tain't?

Another question: Do rules of English evolve? I worked for the U.S. Department of Defense for almost 40 years. During that time, what was considered acceptable in official correspondence changed innumerable times. I assume the changes were due, in part, to changes in usage. So, do changes in usage, over time, result in changes to the "rules of English"? (feels wrong to put the quotes before the question mark)

Dean
RDaneel54 is offline   Reply With Quote