Tuesday, March 01, 2005

I've also started another blog over here.

Check it out. It's going to deal with comics, and I will likely update it more often than I do this blog (though I ain't going anywhere).

Yes - I used "ain't." I think "ain't" should be a perfectly good word. Here's why:

Here are several phrases capable of contraction:

I am not - You are not - he/she/it is not - we are not - they are not.

You can contract them in this manner:

I'm not - you're not - he's/she's/it's not - we're not - they're not.

But things get tricky when you try to contract them another way:

I (something) - you aren't - he/she/it isn't - we aren't - they aren't.

What goes after I in this case? Nothing. We have no way to contract am and not in the English language. "Ain't" is the only real candidate, but grammarians have deemed it unworthy for whatever reason.

I fight those grammarians.

(I also aim for the hasty death of the word "whom." )

What's wrong with "whom"? Sure, you can not use "ain't" but then you come off as self-rightous, and people don't like that. But when you do use "whom" you sound smart and people are impressed. (Whether you used it correctly or not.)
Yeah - but I think "Whom" makes you sound like a butler.

Plus, what you said constitutes part of the problem. So few people know how to use it correctly, and when you can impress people by using a word incorrectly - well, there's something wrong there.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?