> 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