My answer to Joanne's questing why I am 'happy' with the return to Latinate
terms, is the same as Noam Chomsky's answer to a question he was asked
during an Australian lecture tour:  'What is the best language in the
world?' - "English, I can speak that language quite well."   This is not to
say I know all I would like to  know about these terms but, like most of our
primary school teachers, I fail to see the need for a change.
 
I am sorry, but I am unable to source any teaching material on Functional
Grammar and I doubt, due to its general rejection, that much was ever
prepared. (Joanne:  I will email to you, early next week, some material from
my archives.)
 
Turning to the 'ain't' discussion, I am disappointed that Fowler's Modern
English Usage has, seemingly, no correcting ability in putting 'ain't' into
its logical use.   I refer to Fowler's BE,7 (a), where he says:
 
    "A(i)n't is merely colloquial, & as used for isn't is an uneducated
blunder & serves no useful purpose.   But it is a pity that a(i)n't for am
not, being a natural contraction & supplying a real want, should shock us as
though tarred with the same brush."
 
 Fowler's following comments are worth reading.   Am I right in thinking
Fowler's opinions are still valuable?
 
Donald Hocking.
 
Donald Hocking
Procedural & Protocol Consultant
<http://www.ozemail.com.au/~donaldh/art0.htm>