> My quick response (I'm removing myself from responsibility for being
> intelligent and fair): "If it ain't broke..." is an idiom and therefore
> should not be altered. I would rather consult Webster's DICTIONARY OF
> ENGLISH USAGE than Fowler. Unlike Fowler, who merely guesses,
> Webster's tells the real story behind"ain't" (it's a low economic
> class pronounciation of the same root word that upper class citizens
> pronounced "aren't"; out of those two different pronunciations grew
> two different spellings, which are now considered two different words).
> Aren't, in other words, does not dervive from "are not."
>         --Bill Murdick
 
That logic of the conclusion doesn't quite follow from the Webster's
entry.  Am I misinterpreting what you meant in your last statement?
 
Paul Baltes