Iggins
August 4, 2008, 8:30pm
21
I’m also in the, “why am I not” camp. That sounds right to me.
Amn’t all the way. Even had a thread about it a while ago.
Kind of OT. I did some of my own Googling on this subject and ran across a reference to the following, which turned out to be on Google Books. I’m particular about things like this, but this excerpt did get a small smile out of me. (I’ve added "sic"s and extra paragraphing.)
ADDRESS DELIVERED BEFORE THE NEWBURYPORT FEMALE HIGH SCHOOL, ON THE THIRD ANNIVERSARY OF ITS ESTABLISHMENT, DECEMBER 19, 1846.
BY ANDREW P. PEABODY.
…I propose to give you a few hints on conversation…
…for some of the new grammars sanction these vulgarisms, and in looking over their tables of irregular verbs, I have sometimes half expected to have the book dashed from my hand by the indignant ghost of Lindley Murray.
Great care and discretion should be employed in the use of the common abbreviations of the negative forms of the substantive and auxiliary verbs. “Can’t”, “don’t”, and “havn’t” [sic], are admissible in rapid conversation on trivial subjects. “Isn’t” and “hasn’t” are more harsh, yet tolerated by respectable usage.
“Didn’t”, “couldn’t”, “wouldn’t”, and “shouldn’t”, make as unpleasant combinations of consonants as can well be uttered, and fall short but by one remove of those unutterable names of Polish gentlemen, which sometimes excite our wonder in the columns of a newspaper.
“Won’t” for “will not”, and “aint” [sic] for “is not” or “are not”, are absolutely vulgar; and “aint” [sic], for “has not” or “have not”, is utterly intolerable…
I don’t know if this is the same person: Andrew Preston Peabody - Wikipedia
“How come I’m not going with them?”
Well, that’s what I’d say.