On Wed Sep 20, 2006 at 16:53:54 +1000, O Plameras wrote:
>O Plameras wrote:
>>Benno wrote:
>>>
>>>By the way, the contraction of are not, is aren't, not are'nt.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Ok. I am not going to find excuses for this "aren't to are'nt" mistake
>>I'll take your word for it.
>>
>Hi Benno,
>
>I found this link, using are'nt.
>http://www.amazon.com/best-comedys-that-arent-stupid/lm/39PS74BEWTY9B
>
>I'm saying he's right and you're wrong. I'm sure you're right.
>Is there a possibility that it is acceptable American English Grammar ?
>
>But what do you think ?
<sigh> If we are going to go via the google spelling rating:
are'nt scores: 379,000
aren't scores: 421,000,000
Winner! Me!
But seriously, how about we play contractions 101. The apostrophe is used
in the place of other letters. Let's play the contraction game:
aren't: are not (' -> o)
let's: let us (' -> u)
wouldn't've: would not have (' -> o, ' -> ha)
he's: he has (' -> ha)
it's: it is (' -> i)
Please note, the apostophe is also used in the possesive form. E.g: Ben's
simple
guide to contractions.
Cheers,
Benno
(P.S: I was really loathe to do this because I screw up grammar and
spelling often enough, usually through laziness, and I've just set
myself up to get flamed for every typo I make in the future. But so be
it.)
_______________________________________________
coders mailing list
coders@slug.org.au
http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/coders
