13 July 2008

One Stop Shopping:

Conspiracy Theories and Grammar lessons... all in one easy-to-swallow pill. (May not be suitable at all for humans. Can cause labor pains and minor navel-hair growth in pregnant or ovulating or menopausal women, or men looking to enhance their portfolio. Be sure to ask your doctor if this treatment is right for you...)
.
Not too long ago, I read someone's opinion that humans in the cities are far more happy and content than rural folk. They stated, in their opinion, if people would move from their huts in the country to the roaring metropolises which make up our great country, we could then move on to modes of mass transpo - effectively taking a bit of strain off our energy predicament. Not only would we drive our own cars less, we'd only drive out of necessity... and when we did travel via mass transit, it would force us to converse and interact with other humans be-ings along our paths (tracks?).

My opinion is this author is from a big city - like NYC, or LA - and has never ventured outside his limits to see human be-ings of the heartland already drive only when it's necessary; we already know our neighbors - at least the ones who wish to be known, or we wish to know (think No-You-Aints). We don't need no stinking buses or trains to make us act more humanely.

I wonder if the opposite will become true - people start hating each other more because they're forced to interact with others who play as nicely as they do, which is probably not at all. Familiarity breeds contempt.

Here's a conspiracy theory for you: Get all the lemmings onto buses and trains, and then the terrorist will have an easier/compact target. (I figured I may as well give you a conspiracy theory every now and again to help the less fortunate. You're welcome. I'm just doing my part.)

I like living in a smaller community. I like having clean air and stress-free shopping. I don't like living, as my mom would say, "elbow to arsehole" - so city living isn't for me. No Sir-eee, Bob. Thanks anyway.
Did you know, while researching my current book project this weekend I discovered (or rediscovered?) the word 'ain't' is a contraction of 'I am not'? I did not know that. Did you? It's improper, and grammatically incorrect to say: "Aren't I?" because one doesn't say "I aren't" - the correct grammar is "Aren't you?" or "Aren't we/they?" and "Isn't s/he?" but about 100 years ago, if you wanted to express "I am not" in that fashion, you were to say: "A'n't I?" Or, "Am not I?" which, throughout the years became "ain't" and has since been shunned by English professors and mothers alike. I think the accepted form now is "Am I not?" but I amn't sure.

I still think we should use that word: amn't. It was good enough for my children as they were learning to speak.

"A'n't I correct?"


Enjoy & In Joy

1 comment:

Sandra Miller Linhart said...

Update! Jo found her glasses this morning. They were under her bed - a place we all looked.

Thank God for small wonders... and found glasses.

pass the popcorn, please!