Hi, Anton!  Recently you wrote in a message to Alexander Koryagin:

 AK>  My mother answered, "How will the doctor know if you
 AK>  are turning blue with that stuff on?"

 AS>  But Ardith's grammar is immaculate and only right for
 AS>  this hypothetical sitatuation,


          Thankyou... or perhaps I should say "(I) thank you".  :-)



 AS>  whereas your use of "wanna" and "inside of" can make
 AS>  any literate person's nails turn blue :-)


          When I say "ain't nobody here but us chickens" in response to a query
 from somebody who needs help in deciding whether or not to abandon the XYZ
echo as a lost cause, I'm making a bit of friendly noise in a jocular fashion
to let them know I'm still reading the echo even if I don't write very often. 
I think Alexander knows I wouldn't recommend using "ain't" or "wanna" on a
grade twelve English exam... but he's read widely enough to be aware of their
existence.

          I hear the above in many popular songs from the US.  I also note with
 interest that our neighbours to the south tend to shorten the spelling of
words like "cheque" and "neighbour", in an apparent attempt to simplify the
language. What I don't understand is the tendency to leave out "of" in stock
phrases like "a couple of" only to add it where others wouldn't use it... e.g.
"inside of" & "off of".  I have requested MODERN AMERICAN USAGE from the public
 library.  :-)




--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
 * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)