Why isn't "ain't" a word?

[GorillaMan]

@ITR champion

That may be true. It is certainly irrelevant. If you’re confusing people today, it doesn’t help them to know that the confusion results from a word that originated from “bain’t” in southwestern English dialects.

Who’s being confused, other than in abstract scenarios of your own creation?

(And if you’ve got a problem with local dialects, heaven forbid you ever meet some of my pupils, from whom I regularly hear the verb learn, pronounced ‘larn’, as synonymous with ‘teach’. As in “I ain’t been larned that yet”. No, I do not ‘correct’ them, because it’s correct already.)

Yes, I certainly do. Suppose somebody tells me, “Bob wants to go to the aquarium, but he ain’t gone yet.” This admits at least two meanings.
…

One might say, “Bob wants to go to the aquarium, but he hasn’t gone yet.” That would definitely give you meaning 1.

It would? I read that as equally ambiguous, when devoid of context.

@ITR champion

And if the same philosophy spreads, punctuation guides will have to explain when to use seven exclamation points versus when to use eight. Usage guides will have to clarify when to use “ROTFLMAO” and when a mere “LMAO” is appropriate. And I’m not even sure which authority takes charge of :), ;), ::), etc.

My emphasis. Such guides are, errr, guides, which suggest ways to employs particular aspects of English in particular situations, and do not necessarily have any relevance whatsoever to unconnected uses of the language. And also, any decent guide is revised and adapted over time, in the same was as dictionaries are.

[WotNot]

@Schroedinger's Dog

“There’s too much space between Pigs and And and And and Hogs.”

@Left Hand of Dorkness

There’s an extra “And” in there, unless the sign is dumb.

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Oops–in addition to there being an extra “And,” there’s an extra “and.”

No, that’s right– the sign reads “Pigs And Hogs”.
There is too much space between “Pigs” and “And”.
There is too much space between “And” and “Hogs”.

There’s too much space between “Pigs” and “And” and “And” and “Hogs”.

As you can see, it’s a lot clearer if you put quotation marks between Pigs and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and Hogs.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@WotNot

No, that’s right– the sign reads “Pigs And Hogs”.
There is too much space between “Pigs” and “And”.
There is too much space between “And” and “Hogs”.

Ah yes–you’re right, of course!

Daniel

[Polycarp]

It Ain’t Necessarily So

[Johanna]

@GorillaMan

the verb learn, pronounced ‘larn’, as synonymous with ‘teach’. As in “I ain’t been larned that yet”. No, I do not ‘correct’ them, because it’s correct already.)

The word larn in the sense of ‘to teach’ is a direct descendant of the Old English causative form of the verb, with a vowel shift from e to a. So learn means ‘to acquire knowledge’, while larn means ‘to cause someone else to learn’–i.e. to teach. Note that an obsolete meaning of learn in standard English was ‘to give information to’. In an ironic sense, larn meaning ‘teach’ is much more conservative than modern standard English, which can be said to have “decayed” from the past with regard to this word.

[GorillaMan]

@Johanna

In an ironic sense, larn meaning ‘teach’ is much more conservative than modern standard English, which can be said to have “decayed” from the past with regard to this word.

That’s fantastic!! So all ITR Champion needs to do to find the desired purity of language is visit the arse-end of Suffolk
(Actually, that’s going to be really annoying smug knowledge for me to quote at people who criticise my willingness to accept the validity of such remnants of local dialect…many thanks )

[Johanna]

GorillaMan, this is fun! Bonus pack. Remember another perennial Dope favorite, why do people say “ax” instead of “ask”? That too goes back to Old English acsian. If this is decay, it’s been like that for 1500 years. As Miller aptly said,

I rather think that if “decay” has always existed, what you’re looking at isn’t decay at all.

[Polycarp]

@Johanna

GorillaMan, this is fun! Bonus pack. Remember another perennial Dope favorite, why do people say “ax” instead of “ask”? That too goes back to Old English acsian. If this is decay, it’s been like that for 1500 years. As Miller aptly said:

I rather think that if “decay” has always existed, what you’re looking at isn’t decay at all.

The mavens, they weep and they wail,
“The language is going to Hail!
Our English,” they’re saying,
“just keeps on decaying.”
Those mavens, they weep and they wail.

It ain’t necessarily so…

[Procyon]

It is highly possible that entering the thread at this juncture will prove an ill-fated expedition, but there is something that Miller said that caught my eye.

@Miller

No, they really don’t. Language existed for tens of thousands of years before anyone decided they needed to start writing down all the rules. People communicated perfectly well before the authorities existed, they communicated perfectly well when the authorities were followed slavishly, and they communicated perfectly well when the authorities were ignored. The point being, the authorities are pretty much useless.

It strikes me as a little strange, and perhaps even somewhat depressing, that communicating “perfectly well” should be the point to which we all aspire. Satisfactory, sure, but why should you or I or anyone else be content with that? I am sure that people, being the creative engines that they are, could communicate perfectly well without any language at all. Grunts, gestures, and maybe some well timed eye-contact are probably all I need to get through an average day. But why, when I have been given the gift of language – something capable of beauty and complexity and elegance – should communicating “perfectly well” be treated as desirable?

I am not enough of an egoist to assume that whatever shape in which the knotted and confused thoughts arrive in my brain is the ideal one to express those thoughts. That is, at least for me, why linguistic authorities are useful.

@Miller

Well, “useless” is a bit harsh. But linguists are to language like ornithologists are to birds. They can make many interesting observations, from which we can learn a great deal, but people no more need a linguist to tell them how to speak than a bird needs an ornithologist to tell it how to fly. We’re the authorities on language. You, me, and the twelve year old calling people “fags” in CounterStrike. Humans invented language, and we reinvent it everyday. We all share the patent on it, and changing it at need is the birthright of every one of us.

I am not sure I agree with your analogy. Language, unlike the habits and behavior of birds, is a man-made artifact. It is something that we can consciously shape to our own desires. In that sense, linguistic authorities are more like engineers. Anyone can make a dwelling out of a tree and some animal hides, but it takes an authority to build the pyramids, the White House, or a space station. Clearly, not everything one says or writes needs to be the linguistic equivalent of the ISS, but it is possible to follow the same principles, the same basic rules, that govern the creation of masterpieces so that our own words may imitate some of their grandeur.

I realize that most of this thread is about whether or not ain’t should be considered proper and, more generally, what constitutes “decay” of a language. Yet many of the responses seem to me to be venturing towards an even more general idea – so-called “proper English” does not or should not exist – that is a bit perplexing to me. So, sorry if this message seems off the topic.

[Miller]

@Procyon

It strikes me as a little strange, and perhaps even somewhat depressing, that communicating “perfectly well” should be the point to which we all aspire. Satisfactory, sure, but why should you or I or anyone else be content with that? I am sure that people, being the creative engines that they are, could communicate perfectly well without any language at all. Grunts, gestures, and maybe some well timed eye-contact are probably all I need to get through an average day. But why, when I have been given the gift of language – something capable of beauty and complexity and elegance – should communicating “perfectly well” be treated as desirable?

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your objection. Did I not use a sufficiently intense modifier? People communicated excedeingly well before the experts. Superlatively well. You wouldn’t believe how well these people communicated. They communicated like motherfuckers, that’s how well they communicated.

Is that better?

I am not enough of an egoist to assume that whatever shape in which the knotted and confused thoughts arrive in my brain is the ideal one to express those thoughts. That is, at least for me, why linguistic authorities are useful.

That’s alright, I’ve got enough ego for the both of us. But don’t worry, I’m only repeating what the vast majority of linguistic authorities have been saying for years now.

I am not sure I agree with your analogy. Language, unlike the habits and behavior of birds, is a man-made artifact. It is something that we can consciously shape to our own desires. In that sense, linguistic authorities are more like engineers. Anyone can make a dwelling out of a tree and some animal hides, but it takes an authority to build the pyramids, the White House, or a space station.

Language is a tool, but it is the only tool that is innate to the human animal. Humans naturally, instinctively create language. Unlike engineering, its principles do not need to be taught, although the customs of a particular language (vocabulary, grammar, spelling, etc.) do. Language is what humans do. More than anything else, it’s what defines us as human. Language is also an evolutionary process, and the languages we have today are the result of thousands of years of evolution. But that evolution has never been guided. It does not bend to the dictates of scholars and academics. The way you and I are speaking right now was not dictated in the classroom or linguistic journals. It was grown in the homes and businesses and streets, where people spoke in the way that felt natural to them, and which communicated their intent in as accurately as possible.

Clearly, not everything one says or writes needs to be the linguistic equivalent of the ISS, but it is possible to follow the same principles, the same basic rules, that govern the creation of masterpieces so that our own words may imitate some of their grandeur.

Do you want to listen to the masters, or the linguists, to learn how to speak? Because they will tell you some very different things.

I realize that most of this thread is about whether or not ain’t should be considered proper and, more generally, what constitutes “decay” of a language. Yet many of the responses seem to me to be venturing towards an even more general idea – so-called “proper English” does not or should not exist – that is a bit perplexing to me. So, sorry if this message seems off the topic.

Oh, that. No, there is no such thing as proper English. Never has been, never will be.

[Polycarp]

While in general I agree with everything Miller puts forth above, I have to differ with his last statement, for good reason.

All linguistics is properly descriptive – it describes, to the best ability of the linguistic scholars, how people use the language in the various things they do. “Me talk pretty some day” is only a well-constructed sentence if you are (a) under 4 years of age or (b) David Sedaris. English grammar calls for the “I/we/he” forms when functioning as the grammatical subject of the finite verb. It draws a distinction between past tense and past participle in certain “strong” verbs: “I went/I was gone”

But one element of descriptive linguistics is what is commonly referenced as prescriptive linguistics – the group of usage scholars who presume to say what is correct and what incorrect construction in that specialized aspect of English called formal written English (along, it might be noted, with the now very rare formal spoken English). It is as much contrary to the non-judgmental, descriptive canons of how English is appropriately used to include a contraction or a slang term in something intended to be produced in FWE as it is for the child to produce “I goed” or the faux-proprietist to utter “between him and I.”

This must be understood, not as a question of “better” but of “appropriate.” Just as, socially, “Wanna fuck?” is perfectly acceptable as playfully used between members of a committed couple, but is inappropriate as a greeting when introduced by someone to his nubile daughter, “I couldn’t get it to react” is a proper statement used conversationally between two chemistry students but inappropriate in a scientific paper formally describing efforts to duplicate the formation of krypton compounds.

[Procyon]

@Miller

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your objection. Did I not use a sufficiently intense modifier? People communicated excedeingly well before the experts. Superlatively well. You wouldn’t believe how well these people communicated. They communicated like motherfuckers, that’s how well they communicated.

Is that better?

My initial reaction is to ask “how do you know?” but that is not really the point of what I was trying to say. What I’m really after is this: communication is not the sole purpose of language, nor is it the standard by which the “correctness” (for lack of a better term) of a given usage should be judged. Human communication is an incredibly broad spectrum that encompasses much more than spoken and written words. Language itself is capable of far more than the mere transmission of ideas and information. Why, then, should we restrict ourselves to asking the single question “did the usage communicate well?” when critiquing a given word situation.

I didn’t mean to be unclear. Just that even if we agree that authorities are useless for improving communication, which I am not sure we do, they might be necessary for other aspects of language which should not be ignored.

@Miller

That’s alright, I’ve got enough ego for the both of us. But don’t worry, I’m only repeating what the vast majority of linguistic authorities have been saying for years now.

I suppose I’m not too well-versed in the world of linguistic authorities and their current ideas. Do they really say that, for example, stream of consciousness is a better way to express ideas than sitting down and thinking about how best to phrase the idea within the extant rules of grammar?

@Miller

Language is a tool, but it is the only tool that is innate to the human animal. Humans naturally, instinctively create language. Unlike engineering, its principles do not need to be taught, although the customs of a particular language (vocabulary, grammar, spelling, etc.) do. Language is what humans do. More than anything else, it’s what defines us as human. Language is also an evolutionary process, and the languages we have today are the result of thousands of years of evolution. But that evolution has never been guided. It does not bend to the dictates of scholars and academics. The way you and I are speaking right now was not dictated in the classroom or linguistic journals. It was grown in the homes and businesses and streets, where people spoke in the way that felt natural to them, and which communicated their intent in as accurately as possible.

When you refer to “customs of a language” and I refer to “rules of a language,” I think we are talking about the same thing. The different in our terminology is interesting. It is clear to me that language in the world operates as you describe it. I guess I’m concerned with whether or not it should. Even if language does not typically bend to the will of academics, as any trip outside will readily confirm, is that incompatible with a set of rules, developed by authorities, that permit people to take full advantage of their tongue? Is it wrong for me to want this?

@Miller

Do you want to listen to the masters, or the linguists, to learn how to speak? Because they will tell you some very different things.

Honestly, I’m willing to listen to anyone and be convinced one way or the other. That’s, I figure, why people still argue about all this stuff. What makes up “proper English” is debatable. I am asserting its inherent necessity and desirability.

[yBeayf]

What I’m really after is this: communication is not the sole purpose of language, nor is it the standard by which the “correctness” (for lack of a better term) of a given usage should be judged.

What other purposes of language did you have in mind?

Do they really say that, for example, stream of consciousness is a better way to express ideas than sitting down and thinking about how best to phrase the idea within the extant rules of grammar?

Linguistics doesn’t describe how people should speak, it describes how they do speak. If a person used stream of consciousness in one situation, and carefully-constructed sentences that conformed to an arbitrary standard of “correctness” in another, then a linguist would note that, but not say that one was better than the other.

Even if language does not typically bend to the will of academics, as any trip outside will readily confirm, is that incompatible with a set of rules, developed by authorities, that permit people to take full advantage of their tongue?

People (unless they have a communication disorder of some sort) instinctively take full advantage of their language. Whether their language is the same as an artificially-defined “correct” language is a different matter.

[Miller]

@Procyon

My initial reaction is to ask “how do you know?” but that is not really the point of what I was trying to say. What I’m really after is this: communication is not the sole purpose of language, nor is it the standard by which the “correctness” (for lack of a better term) of a given usage should be judged. Human communication is an incredibly broad spectrum that encompasses much more than spoken and written words. Language itself is capable of far more than the mere transmission of ideas and information. Why, then, should we restrict ourselves to asking the single question “did the usage communicate well?” when critiquing a given word situation.

What other purpose does language have, besides communication? What’s an example of language that communicates nothing? How do you recognize it as language?

I suppose I’m not too well-versed in the world of linguistic authorities and their current ideas. Do they really say that, for example, stream of consciousness is a better way to express ideas than sitting down and thinking about how best to phrase the idea within the extant rules of grammar?

It all depends on what idea you’re trying to express. If you’re trying to write stereo instructions, then stream of consciousness is probably not the tack you want to take. If you’re writing a novel from the POV of a mental patient, stream of consciousness might be the most effective way of communicating how that character percieves the world. One approach is not “more correct” than the other, though, simply more appropriate to the task at hand.

When you refer to “customs of a language” and I refer to “rules of a language,” I think we are talking about the same thing. The different in our terminology is interesting. It is clear to me that language in the world operates as you describe it. I guess I’m concerned with whether or not it should. Even if language does not typically bend to the will of academics, as any trip outside will readily confirm, is that incompatible with a set of rules, developed by authorities, that permit people to take full advantage of their tongue? Is it wrong for me to want this?

But the authorities do not develop the rules! The rules are inherent in the way we use language. Linguists who go and study foreign languages in cultures with no formal language education find systems of grammar every bit as complex as English. Humans instinctively create and impose their own rules on language. All linguists do is study and record those rules. There’s really no “should” or “want” involved. It’s like saying, “Should we do something about the ocean’s tides?”

Honestly, I’m willing to listen to anyone and be convinced one way or the other. That’s, I figure, why people still argue about all this stuff. What makes up “proper English” is debatable. I am asserting its inherent necessity and desirability.

I’m afraid I’ll have to defer the “Is there such a thing as proper English?” debate to the actual linguists on the board. I’ve seen the argument many time before, and found it convincing, but I don’t trust myself to repeat it correctly or cogently.

[Bosstone]

I’d like to throw myself in here with an analogy that I think might address Procyon’s issue, and maybe some others:

A paper plate can hold food on it. A glass plate can hold food on it. An exquisitely designed china plate can hold food on it. Are the paper and glass plates any less able to hold food because they’re not china? Are they any less plates? They’re cheaper, certainly, and not as beautiful or finely crafted as the china, but they do their job just as well as the china plate, and thus are perfectly good plates.

Of course, you would never want to serve food on paper plates when hosting a dinner for your boss, and you probably wouldn’t even think of breaking out the good china when you’re having a barbecue for your friends. They’re both plates, but certain situations call for different kinds of plates.

Now, let’s say a bad material was added into the construction of a paper plate. This bad material corrupts the stability of the plate such that it falls apart when it tries to hold food. If the manufacturer sent the plates out as they were, nobody would want to buy it, so that material has to get taken out. If, however, a new material was added that either strengthened the plate for no additional cost or maintained the same stability for a lower cost, then this would be seen as beneficial and would probably generate good sales, no?

With a china plate, though, the construction is even more rigorous. Not only do materials have to provide stability and cohesion, but they also have to be pretty and add to the exquisiteness of the piece. Cost efficiency isn’t a factor as much as aesthetics and quality.

Finally, wouldn’t it be just downright silly to criticize a cheap paper plate for not being as pretty and well-constructed as a china plate?

I think I’ve belabored the analogy enough. Common-use language is not “bad” simply because it doesn’t adhere to rules that are more applicable to writing and formal contexts. There is no decay in language when a word is added; if a word catches on, there was a niche for it that the speakers could fill. Do you think “truthiness” caught on just because people liked Stephen Colbert? If a word or usage actually does harm the language, you’ll find that most people just won’t use it, no matter how hard the coiner tries to inject it into the mainstream.

Further, beauty and eloquence are certainly admirable qualities, and there’s times when it’s almost essential for the language you use to possess them, but quite frankly they just don’t matter for a language to work, as long as it holds the food without breaking apart.

(I like this analogy. Take commemorative plates, for instance: fun to look at, but not intended to hold food. Pig Latin, anyone? )

[Procyon]

@Miller

What other purpose does language have, besides communication? What’s an example of language that communicates nothing? How do you recognize it as language?

Both you and yBeayf asked me this question and I am not entirely sure what to make of it. Certainly communication is something that language does, but there is so much more! What you are saying seems a lot like saying the purpose of music is to fill the air with a particular sequence of sounds: that is something music does but it is not why people play it. When you are finished reading a novel or hearing a great orator, do you think “I have received the communication”? Or are you inspired, uplifted, filled with glee, reduced to tears, or any number of other emotional states? For me at least, when I experience finely crafted language, there is far more than communication at work.

@Miller

It all depends on what idea you’re trying to express. If you’re trying to write stereo instructions, then stream of consciousness is probably not the tack you want to take. If you’re writing a novel from the POV of a mental patient, stream of consciousness might be the most effective way of communicating how that character percieves the world. One approach is not “more correct” than the other, though, simply more appropriate to the task at hand.

There is nothing I really disagree with here. Forgive me for bringing it up in the first place.

@Miller

But the authorities do not develop the rules! The rules are inherent in the way we use language. Linguists who go and study foreign languages in cultures with no formal language education find systems of grammar every bit as complex as English. Humans instinctively create and impose their own rules on language. All linguists do is study and record those rules. There’s really no “should” or “want” involved. It’s like saying, “Should we do something about the ocean’s tides?”

Perhaps I’m just confused, but I’m referring to the same authorities you said were “useless” in your earlier response to ITR Champion, the ones you said were the ones writing down the rules. Now, if all they’re doing is writing down the rules of the language as they observe them and then saying “anything that deviates from the rules I just recorded is incorrect,” then I agree with you that they are useless. Yet my impression was that these authorities are in fact codifying how they believe usage should be. So they are developing rules in the sense of taking what already exists in language and then tweaking it, twisting it, and synthesizing it with what they already know to come up with, in their mind, the ideal usage. I own a couple of usage guides and this seems to me to be what the authors’ aim is, but I could be wrong. Academic linguists, as you and others have described them, are a wholly different beast that I’m not worrying about right now.

@Miller

I’m afraid I’ll have to defer the “Is there such a thing as proper English?” debate to the actual linguists on the board. I’ve seen the argument many time before, and found it convincing, but I don’t trust myself to repeat it correctly or cogently.

Fair enough. If such a linguist does come along he’ll likely wipe the floor with me, as my attachment to the existence of proper English is not really based on any solid linguistic principles but on sheer affinity for the language itself.

[GorillaMan]

@Procyon

Both you and yBeayf asked me this question and I am not entirely sure what to make of it. Certainly communication is something that language does, but there is so much more! …For me at least, when I experience finely crafted language, there is far more than communication at work.

What, other than communication, is involved in your description? You seem to regard ‘communication’ as limited to a dry and mechanical system, rather than a complex evocation of emotions and responses.

I own a couple of usage guides

I commented on style guides earlier - they deal with recommending one particular style of language for one particular context. It’s nothing to do with ‘good language’, or bad words, or anything else.

[Miller]

@Procyon

Both you and yBeayf asked me this question and I am not entirely sure what to make of it. Certainly communication is something that language does, but there is so much more! What you are saying seems a lot like saying the purpose of music is to fill the air with a particular sequence of sounds: that is something music does but it is not why people play it. When you are finished reading a novel or hearing a great orator, do you think “I have received the communication”? Or are you inspired, uplifted, filled with glee, reduced to tears, or any number of other emotional states? For me at least, when I experience finely crafted language, there is far more than communication at work.

Yes, language can have those effects, because those are the effects communicated to me by the author. If an author wants me to feel sad, and I read his story, and I feel sad, he has succesfully communicated a sad story to me. If I read it and bust a gut laughing, he has unsuccessfully communicated with me: the intent he wanted to convey with his words was not conveyed. Language can communicate a great deal: emotions, abstract concepts, visual images, and much, much more. But it’s all still communication.

Perhaps I’m just confused, but I’m referring to the same authorities you said were “useless” in your earlier response to ITR Champion, the ones you said were the ones writing down the rules. Now, if all they’re doing is writing down the rules of the language as they observe them and then saying “anything that deviates from the rules I just recorded is incorrect,” then I agree with you that they are useless. Yet my impression was that these authorities are in fact codifying how they believe usage should be. So they are developing rules in the sense of taking what already exists in language and then tweaking it, twisting it, and synthesizing it with what they already know to come up with, in their mind, the ideal usage.

No, that is absolutely not what they do. They record how language is used because it offers an insight into how people think. The study of language is ultimatly the study of the human mind. When they come across a usage that violates the rules they have observed, they do not say that usage is wrong, or should be suppressed. Instead, they have to come up with a rule that explains both the previous recorded behavior and the newly observed usage. Linguistics is a science: when a scientist gets a result he doesn’t expect, he does not ignore it, or try to force it to match the result he had predicted.

I own a couple of usage guides and this seems to me to be what the authors’ aim is, but I could be wrong. Academic linguists, as you and others have described them, are a wholly different beast that I’m not worrying about right now.

It may very well be the author’s aim. ITRChampion could go out and publish a style guide where he rails against the usage of “ain’t,” but that won’t make me agree with him. Getting a book published doesn’t make you right, it just makes you published.

Fair enough. If such a linguist does come along he’ll likely wipe the floor with me, as my attachment to the existence of proper English is not really based on any solid linguistic principles but on sheer affinity for the language itself.

I love the language quite a bit myself, which is why I object so strenuously to be people who try to force it into the artificial constraints of prescriptivist grammar. What’s wonderful about language, and the English language in particular, is its amazing inventiveness, flexibility, and adaptation. The prescriptivist approach to language strikes me as similar to scorning a Ferrari because it is so different than a Model T.

(Also, that was an awesome analogy, BayleDomon!)

[Johanna]

Procyon, perhaps your confusion is caused by using the word “linguist” when what you’re really talking about is “grammarian.” Linguists do not behave prescriptively. Grammarians have often been known to write prescriptively, in earlier times more than nowadays.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Procyon]

@Johanna

Procyon, perhaps your confusion is caused by using the word “linguist” when what you’re really talking about is “grammarian.” Linguists do not behave prescriptively. Grammarians have often been known to write prescriptively, in earlier times more than nowadays.

There is some confusion here. I was using the term linguistic authority, which was first mentioned by ITR Champion as a guardian against “linguistic anarchy.” Miller then repeated the term when describing those authorities as useless, which I took issue with. I had interpreted, perhaps wrongly, the term to mean something like what you are calling a grammarian, i.e. a prescriptivist or at least someone who feels that he or she is an authority on the subject of language. So I had mostly been using the term linguistic to mean “pertaining to languages” rather than to refer to the social science. I think I described studiers of the latter as “academic linguists” but I don’t know how clearly I made the distinction.

In any case, thank you for attempting to set everything straight. I will now proceed using your corrected terminology.

@Miller

Yes, language can have those effects, because those are the effects communicated to me by the author. If an author wants me to feel sad, and I read his story, and I feel sad, he has succesfully communicated a sad story to me. If I read it and bust a gut laughing, he has unsuccessfully communicated with me: the intent he wanted to convey with his words was not conveyed. Language can communicate a great deal: emotions, abstract concepts, visual images, and much, much more. But it’s all still communication.

There is so much here that I want to respond to, but I believe that the ensuing discussion would be beyond the boundaries of this thread. You, GorillaMan and yBeayf are all hounding me about this point and I apologize that I’m not able to give you a satisfactory answer without starting a new thread, which at present I do not have enough time for.

Let me say this: even if every instance of the use of language falls under some incredibly broad definition of communication (which I do not believe is true), then that fact still does not imply the purpose of language is communication. Unless everyone here is a hardcore Aristotelian, I don’t think that is too difficult to believe.

No, that is absolutely not what they do. They record how language is used because it offers an insight into how people think. The study of language is ultimatly the study of the human mind. When they come across a usage that violates the rules they have observed, they do not say that usage is wrong, or should be suppressed. Instead, they have to come up with a rule that explains both the previous recorded behavior and the newly observed usage. Linguistics is a science: when a scientist gets a result he doesn’t expect, he does not ignore it, or try to force it to match the result he had predicted.

I think your response assumes I was talking about academic linguists, not grammarians. I believe grammarians are in fact searching for the ideal usage.

The question then arises as to whether or not they are correct. Clearly, there is disagreement about what rules should be included in the language, as this thread demonstrates. I could see myself being convinced that ain’t is acceptable usage. Is the crux of your disagreement with grammarians the fact that they say, essentially, “my vision of English is the One True English and all others are wrong” instead of the more diplomatic “my vision of English is more elegant, precise, and simpler than all others for reasons X, Y, and Z”? I don’t think it’s possible to “force” a language to be anything, especially one as widespread as English, but is there anything undesirable about wanting to raise the standards of language for all? Or even with disdaining people who use what one feels is lazy, sloppy, or imprecise grammar? That is simply another way the language evolves, which I’d think you’d support.

BayleDomon, I am still thinking about your post, and I suppose it overlaps with what I was just talking about. I will arrive with something more coherent to say about the plates when I am able. I think your analogy is apt, I will say for now.