You might have noticed that for a couple minutes, the previous post had a miswritten first sentence: "I was commenting in off-blog life, so I can prove to you that I'd noticed the absence of this particular thing."
Obviously, "can" was supposed to be "can't," but I realize that it was an example of the kind of typo I find very easy to make because write by transcribing what feels like speech in my head.
That's why I, like many people, am forever writing "to" for "too" and "your" for "you're" and "their" for "there." The only problem is that you look slightly dumb until you correct it. But no one is confused.
"Can" for "can't" is another matter! I wrote the opposite of what I meant and forced readers to waste time puzzling over whether I was saying something counterintuitive or just making a mistake. But now I want to waste your time even more by asking you to look at something strange: We Americans — many of us — pronounce "can" and "can't" almost identically:
Why doesn't this cause more problems? You're saying "I can't" and it sounds like "I can." Maybe we're constantly verifying: Did you say you can or you can't?
Fortunately, I will and I do don't present the same problem. We have the irregular "n't" contraction for will. What woes were there before there was won't?
And for some reason, we pronounce the "do" in do and don't completely differently. Do gets an ooh and don't gets an oh. And do is often left out in expressions that use don't — like I understand and I don't understand.
Grammarphobia has some discussion of how the word "won't" came to be:
“Won’t was shortened from early wonnot, which in turn was formed from woll (or wol), a variant form of will, and not.”...
So etymologically, there’s a case to be made for contracting “will” and “not” as “won’t.” Nevertheless, some language commentators have grumbled about the usage.
Joseph Addison, for example, complained in a 1711 issue of the Spectator that “won’t” and other contractions had “untuned our language, and clogged it with consonants.”
“Won’t,” in particular, “seems to have been under something of a cloud, as far as the right-thinkers were concerned, for more than a century afterward,” Merriam-Webster’s says.
“This did not, of course, interfere with its employment,” the usage guide adds.
It was popular enough, M-W says, “to enjoy the distinction of being damned in the same breadth as ain’t in an address delivered before Newburyport (Mass.) Female High School in December 1846.”
Both “won’t” and “ain’t” were condemned by the Newburyport speaker as “absolutely vulgar.”
“How won’t eventually escaped the odium that still clings to ain’t is a mystery,” M-W Usage says....
Ain't it though?
Posts
39 comments:
Can versus can't? I could/ couldn't care less.
It all seems so familiar. Auto-correct / auto-predict doesn’t help when using a mobile device. I used to write everything in a word processor before pasting in comments, but those days are long gone.
I have alot of respect for you. Alot. Alot. Alot.
You only look dumb to weak people and you only feel dumb because you are insecure. Typos and misspellings even grammar are completely meaningless as long as your readers understand exactly your meaning. Of course if you are a attorney drafting a legal document it is important. But that's what you hire the girl to do clean up all the easy stuff so that your mind doesn't get cluttered with extraneous details and minutiae and you can stay focused on the big picture and solving the real problem. Somehow though it's different in computer programming.
I wrote the opposite of what I meant
Each one is better than the next
Fills a much-needed gap
Can't be underestimated
"Ain't" is a contraction for "am not." It is, therefore, technically correct to say "I ain't" but not to say "you ain't" or he ain't." I believe the main reason "ain't" has come to be considered improper is its frequent incorrect usage with second and third person pronouns.
I never have a problem hearing the difference between "can" and "can't" where I live, or anywhere else I've lived for that matter. Maybe it's a regional thing?
Spelling is flattening out. Messages from the future would strike us as illiterate. Already "its" and "it's" are becoming almost interchangeable, because it's the spell checker that decides and people know what you mean anyway.
Billy Eichner blames homophones for the failure of his LGBTQ+ romcom. He says there are a lot of them in some parts of the country. My guess is that they may be almost equally sick of straight rom coms. Billy is a very funny guy ... but only in small doses. Nobody is up for an hour and a half of him.
In other news, "iconic jurist Laurence Silberman" has died. This goes in my "people I have never heard of when they were alive file."
It reminds me of a segment from one of my favorite movies, "Avalon". The difference between 'may' and 'can'.
The German for "I can" is "Ich kann." The German for "I can't" is "Ich kann nicht." Like everything grammatical, German is more precise. If only we still said "I cannot".
I noticed that the errors go when up when I type. If I write, I don't make the error of Your v. You're, etc. And I will skip words.
So, I have forgotten the "Not" as in "I can (not) do that" but I have never added a "Not" where none was meant.
I have mental block about effect v. affect. I've been writing these words at work for 20 years, and I still have to look them up. In fact, right now, I couldn't tell you the difference.
You made a homophobe typo?
Down here we say Can and Caint. Simple and effective if you don't mind sounding misunderedumacated.
Jordan Peterson delves into this internal speech, which is how most develop thinking ability in this Uncommon Knowledge appearance. The internal speech becomes internal debate which is how you investigate problems. And from this he shows the importance of freedom of speech, since to develop disciplined thinking most people engage in debate with others. If open debate is inhibited as it is now on university campuses, then learning to think is greatly diminished. Thus those universities which limit speech are not places for students to learn to discipline their intellect and regulate their emotions, i.e., become educated.
https://youtu.be/DcA5TotAkhs?t=1821
I agree with Howard above, the mistake is used to go after people and try to accuse them of being "dumb" simply because of the "cargo cult" of English class. People use rigorous grammar to feign being educated. It's a Hollywood trope.
My favorite contraction is "ahmo", short for "I am going to".
You get your butt over here or ahmo beat your ass.
Which goes to show that y'all should just use proper english; as this answer to this question
"will you clean your room?"
i ain't a gonna do that
Althouse writes, "We Americans — many of us — pronounce "can" and "can't" almost identically: Why doesn't this cause more problems?"
Well, at least the listener is fairly sure the speaker has something to say about either ability or inability. Whereas those who hear Received speech could be more confused, as in Which khan, Genghis or Kublai? or What has an inscrutable German philosopher have to do with the subject at hand?
American English is arguably more pure than Received English, which was established before the last phase of the Great Vowel Shift. If one were to listen to an Englishman of Marlborough's time, his pronunciation of common words would, in most cases, more resemble American speech than modern British speech. The broad A's and faded final R's that we Colonials associate with snooty Etonians are mostly post-Revolutionary War developments. Marlborough would have said "carpenter", while his descendant, Winston Churchill, said "carpentah". So, what's my point, one may well ask? The matter of the pronunciation problems of can and can't is a pleasant diversion. However, a too-little used homophone, cant, i.e. empty, hypocritical talk, should be used daily if not hourly regarding literally every word spoken by Resident Biden and his myrmidons.
A homophonic error. Back... black hole... whore h/t NAACP for-profit.
But it ain't me babe
No, no, no, it ain't me babe
It ain't me you're lookin' for, babe
Ahmo tay yew whut!
Baceseras... thawt boi ain't rawht.
“Obviously, "can" was supposed to be "can't," but I realize that it was an example of the kind of typo I find very easy to make because [I] write by transcribing what feels like speech in my head.“
In speech you would never leave out that third “I”. Usually typos result from the act of typing.
JK Brown writes, "People use rigorous grammar to feign being educated. It's a Hollywood trope."
That's an uneducated trope if I ever read one. Rigorous grammar is a manifestation of logical thought and accurate descriptions of events and intentions.
Temujin said...
It reminds me of a segment from one of my favorite movies, "Avalon". The difference between 'may' and 'can'.
I haven't watched "Avalon" but my mother drilled into our heads at a very young age the difference between "may" and "can".
If this happens frequently then I, like Eleanor, have no conscious recollection of a recent instance. Not dispositive but it seems to me that a hard "Ta" at the end of both can't and don't provides a distinction, or as Narr noted, those who pronounce "can't" more like "kaint". Seems more likely to be a typo related to thinking you completed the keystrokes for the word when you didn't make them.
I saw it, and by context, I knew immediately you meant "can't."
"'Ain't' is a contraction for 'am not.'"
Only as slang, not as formally accepted grammar:
"(You) ain't (met my brother) (slang): (You) have not (met my brother) (slang)
idiom
"In slang, ain't is the contraction of 'is not', 'are not', or 'have not'. In standard English, isn't, aren't, and haven't are preferred."
https://www.gymglish.com/en/gymglish/english-translation/you-aint
My father created his own contraction for am not: "amn't". I think that's much more melodious than "ain't."
EX: "I'm a human being, amn't I?"
I never have a problem hearing the difference between "can" and "can't" where I live, or anywhere else I've lived for that matter. Maybe it's a regional thing?
People don't pronounce the t. You can tell the meaning from context, the tone of voice, the facial expressions, and the body language. Also in the stress of the sentence. When you stress the go in "You can go," it means you can go. Stress the "can" and it can paradoxically mean you can't go. Some people say that "can" gets shortened to "ken" or "kin" or "k'n" when people speak quickly and informally and "can't" is less likely to. But if you get it wrong, the other person will pronounce (or not pronounce) the "t" more markedly, and then you'll know for sure.
If people are going from dictating messages to sending them without bothering to check them over there will be a lot more errors.
Here (central Illinois) there's a much bigger difference. Can't rhymes with rant, but can doesn't rhyme with ran. It's not quite kin or ken; maybe close to a mix of those.
Temujin: I haven't watched "Avalon" but my mother drilled into our heads at a very young age the difference between "may" and "can".
Teachers, too. "I don't know - can you?" was a common response if we said "Can I..." when asking for permission.
BTW, I almost laughed out loud watching the video of the woman discussing "can" and "can't" when she said that the vowel sound in "can" is often changed to a schwa, but it never is in "can't". No, not in America, it isn't!
Actually, my father didn't create "amn't" as a contraction of am not, as I claimed in my previous comment. It is a word in at least occasional use in Ireland and Scotland. Now I'm not even sure if my father said that was his own coined word or if he was aware it was an already existing word.
“I have mental block about effect v. affect.”
The effect will affect you.
"Can versus can't? I could/ couldn't care less."
There's only one correct form of the latter phrase: "couldn't care less".
Omitting the negative on contractions is probably the error I make the most often when typing. It is weird, too, because I don't omit "not" when I choose to write out the two words rather than the one.
Maybe can for can't is a homophone error, not that there is anything wrong with that.
“Actually, my father didn't create "amn't" as a contraction of am not, as I claimed in my previous comment. “
Or, in the words of Popeye, I am’sk what I am’sk and that’s all that I am’sk.
I wonder if Q has come out to his parents yet?
People who do drop the "t" in can't sometimes leave a little nasal at the end of the word that substitutes for the letter -- or maybe it's the dreaded glottal stop.
It's possible, maybe likely, that most Americans have heard people, perhaps children, speak and pronounce "can't" like "can", but they knew exactly what was meant, so it didn't register with them.
In the 70s, 80s, and into the 90s grammar maven and celebrity usage books were common and were best sellers, Edwin Newman, William Safire, John Simon. You don't see that nowadays. There's an English woman who wrote "Eats Shoots and Leaves" and other books, but the emphasis is on how strange language is, not on writing "correctly." Or possibly, the prescriptive books are still being written, but not by celebrities, because 21st century celebrities were never taught grammar.
The redneck use of "ain't" and "cain't" suddenly seems advantageous to clear and correct expression.
Post a Comment