On Wed Sep 20, 2006 at 17:20:20 +1000, O Plameras wrote: >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.
In the future, please don't ask what I think if you are going to dismiss my well reasoned and thought out replies. I do not appreciate, being used like that. Benno _______________________________________________ coders mailing list coders@slug.org.au http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/coders
