- Personally, I think the rules of grammar should derive from the living language, rather than, having inherited an obtuse set of rules, trying to make ourMessage 1 of 31 , Dec 3, 2005View SourcePersonally, I think the "rules" of grammar should
derive from the living language, rather than, having
inherited an obtuse set of rules, trying to make our
language conform to these latter. I see little
reference in the Grammar taught in China to those
approaches to grammar developed in the late 20th
Century rather than to the one that emerged over half
a millenium earlier from the quills of the few
(inferior) scribes who survived the Black Death.
Mert - Dr.M.L.Bland, Dean, Grad Studies, CBU
Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
- ... What is all the fuss about ain t anyway? Look in an OED, the word is a contraction of am not, is not are not, has not and have not. It is very common inMessage 31 of 31 , Dec 4, 2005View Source
>What is all the fuss about "ain't" anyway? Look in an
> IS there any other works of English literature in
> AIN"T is included?
OED, the word is a contraction of am not, is not are
not, has not and have not. It is very common in speech
all over native English speaking countries and is
associated with a lack of formal education. It is not
part of accepted standards of frormal or stnadard
English but nevertheless students will come across it
in conversation, literature and especially modern pop
songs. So what? Teach that it exists and teach them
the biggest problem they have, when yo use it.