TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Re[2]: shall & will From:BurkBrick -at- AOL -dot- COM Date:Mon, 6 Jun 1994 13:13:59 EDT
>This message brings to mind a recent posting that commented
>on the usage of ain't. That posting caused me to wonder if its
>origin was as a contraction of am not as opposed to are not
>and, if so, why it fell into disrepute. Anyone know?
_The Shorter OED_ lists ain't and an't = am not = is not, are not. They are
listed in the Informal abbreviation forms of "be."
Unfortunately, it doesn't list just the origin of "ain't," but "be" is
sourced from an amazing number of languages for such a short and basic part
of our language - Sanskrit, Indo-European, Greek, and Latin, to name a few.
Wow - two chances to use my _SOED in one day! It takes so little to excite
some people, doesn't it?
