Benno wrote:
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.
I do not wish to dwell on who is right and who is wrong.
My point here is we are all talking using the Internet.
For as long as you understand from the context of the
statement as you do, I don't think it's necessary to
be strict with this specific grammar.
O Plameras
_______________________________________________
coders mailing list
coders@slug.org.au
http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/coders
