The most meaningful question that doesnt matter.

[Salacious_Scribe]

Earlier today I shared a part of a story with someone. We spent an hour discussing how to properly write "We are not" as a contraction.

I used We're not, my reader said it should be We aren't.

Which would you use and why?

 

[KeithD]

Either. both are correct and English is an elastic language. Might be a context where one is more natural than the other, but that would depend on the specific context. I think most would intuitively use one or the other in different contexts without even realizing they did.

 

[SimonDoom]

Think of it this way. The Twisted Sister song wouldn't work as "We Aren't Gonna Take it." It's just not as good that way, and if you have any sort of ear, you know that. There's no "proper" answer. Listen to your ear and choose accordingly based upon the demands of the story and the circumstance. This is fiction.

 

[TheRedChamber]

Depends on context, but I feel like 'We're not' would be the one I would use 90% of the time. British English (mix of North and South) speaker.

 

[neuroparenthetical]

"We aren't" has an uncomfortable hitch in between the two words. It's not a glottal stop, really, but it's similarly gross-feeling in the throat.

"We're not" gets my vote as the standard. The alternative needs to be justified somehow.

 

[DouglasFinney]

“We aren’t” isn’t as direct or emphatic as “we’re not.” It’s a stressed syllable (“we are”) that negates itself as an afterthought (“n’t”). The latter announces itself emphatically and is all but definitely not a question. “We aren’t” isn’t as certain as it could be; “we’re not” leaves little room for ambiguity.

 

[DouglasFinney]

A-and the question does matter.

 

[Carnevil9]

I agree that "we're not" and "we aren't" have subtle differences in shading, even though they are semantically equivalent.

But I recommend you don't use either of them. Go whole hog and coin a new triple contraction of "we'ren't."

Fortune favors the bold.

 

[ElectricBlue]

We're not gonna take it.

The Who can't be wrong, there's no debate on this one!

 

[oggbashan]

I would prefer 'we are not' but it depends on the context.

In reported speech - 'we are not' reads better.

In dialogue? - Depends on the tone you have given to that character. - 'We aren't' sounds American to me, unlikely to be used in British English.

 

[Lifestyle66]

It depends on the context and emphasis.

"WE aren't" doing that would emphasize the people or couple are not going to do something the others are doing. That might be used when either a husband or wife is telling their spouse no.

"We're NOT" is emphasizing their objection to the activity. It may be more appropriate when the couple agree they don't want to do it. My wife often uses this form, and (can you believe it) turns NOT into a two or three syllable word, effectively meaning "end of discussion!"

 

[SimonDoom]

Gotta admit, when speaking I would personally say, "We ain't," and I 100% blame the time I did in the southern US. I don't think I've ever used it in writing outside of childhood conversation scenes.

The word/contraction "ain't" is interesting. Other than singing along with a song, I never, ever use this word. I can recall once saying the word in front of my mother when I was around 6, and she reproved me for saying it. Nobody in my personal experience ever uses it. I cannot recall the last time I heard someone in my presence say that word.

But it's interesting how common it is in popular music. It's so common we don't even think about it. The Beatles: "Ain't she sweet" "I ain't got nothing but love, babe" (from 8 Days a Week). George Gershwin: It Ain't Necessarily So. Marvin Gaye, Ain't No Mountain High Enough. It's a great example of how the "propriety" of a word depends very much on its context. People who would think "ain't" is uncouth in most settings think nothing of it in songs, because it works, in terms of meter and sound.

 

[ElectricBlue]

My wife often uses this form, and (can you believe it) turns NOT into a two or three syllable word, effectively meaning "end of discussion!"

You married her, mate. Don't bring us your problems .

 

[Zeb_Carter]

The word/contraction "ain't" is interesting. Other than singing along with a song, I never, ever use this word. I can recall once saying the word in front of my mother when I was around 6, and she reproved me for saying it. Nobody in my personal experience ever uses it. I cannot recall the last time I heard someone in my presence say that word.

But it's interesting how common it is in popular music. It's so common we don't even think about it. The Beatles: "Ain't she sweet" "I ain't got nothing but love, babe" (from 8 Days a Week). George Gershwin: It Ain't Necessarily So. Marvin Gaye, Ain't No Mountain High Enough. It's a great example of how the "propriety" of a word depends very much on its context. People who would think "ain't" is uncouth in most settings think nothing of it in songs, because it works, in terms of meter and sound.

Well, back when you were six, ain't wasn't a recognized word, at least as far as dictionaries were concerned. Nowadays, it is a word, it's in every dictionary. Well, except maybe the dictionary they use on Countdown in the UK.

 

[Salacious_Scribe]

I agree that "we're not" and "we aren't" have subtle differences in shading, even though they are semantically equivalent.

But I recommend you don't use either of them. Go whole hog and coin a new triple contraction of "we'ren't."

Fortune favors the bold.

I seriously considered this.

 

[Salacious_Scribe]

Gotta admit, when speaking I would personally say, "We ain't," and I 100% blame the time I did in the southern US. I don't think I've ever used it in writing outside of childhood conversation scenes.

I use ain't in writing either to show informality, or ineducated folk. My problem is I tend to write in more formal language and it worjs fine, except in dialogue.

No one says "We are going to the store to buy some alcohol for tonights party. Do you want us to get you something"

So I gotta 'member ta have 'em tawk like a person, not a damn bot.

 

[KeithD]

Like stage set and costume design, successful fiction presentation isn't totally literal. If you faithfully rendered dialogue as it was actually spoken, it would be close to gibberish. You strike somewhere between that and the king's English to make it comprehensible and to keep it from getting in the way. Too often, even in mainstream publishing, the use of dialect gets in the way of reader comprehension.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Well, back when you were six, ain't wasn't a recognized word, at least as far as dictionaries were concerned. Nowadays, it is a word, it's in every dictionary. Well, except maybe the dictionary they use on Countdown in the UK.

Countdown uses the Online Oxford Dictionary, which includes ain't. You couldn't use it as a Countdown word though because of the apostrophe.

Like stage set and costume design, successful fiction presentation isn't totally literal. If you faithfully rendered dialogue as it was actually spoken, it would be close to gibberish. You strike somewhere between that and the king's English to make it comprehensible and to keep it from getting in the way. Too often, even in mainstream publishing, the use of dialect gets in the way of reader comprehension.

Very true. Possibly the only person who could get away with phonetically-rendered dialect was Mark Twain. I use a fair bit of dialect phrases and pronunciation in my stories but try to follow the advice - possibly from Twain - of writing and then removing 3/4 of the non-standard words and spellings (and then a fair few of the Brit-specific words, too).

It's the Queen's English, btw - Her Maj may be 96 and increasingly frail but I bet she's not going to cark it until at least after her official Platinum Jubilee at the start of June. The actual 70th anniversary was in February.

 

[KeithD]

It's the Queen's English, btw - Her Maj may be 96 and increasingly frail but I bet she's not going to cark it until at least after her official Platinum Jubilee at the start of June. The actual 70th anniversary was in February.

That would be King Harald V of Norway, who speaks very good English from having lived extensively in the United States.

 

[Lifestyle66]

You married her, mate. Don't bring us your problems .

This reminds me of the song by Bill Withers 'Use Me'.

"It ain't too bad the way you're usin' me
'Cause I sure am usin' you to do the things you do'."

Or as my wife says when I call her a bitch: "But I'm YOUR bitch."

 

[SimonDoom]

It's the Queen's English, btw - Her Maj may be 96 and increasingly frail but I bet she's not going to cark it until at least after her official Platinum Jubilee at the start of June. The actual 70th anniversary was in February.

If she keeps it up for another 2 years and 31 days, she'll have Louis XIV beat, and she'll be the longest-serving monarch of all time. As a Yank I've never understood the fascination with the British monarchy, but I'm rooting for her to hang on and get the record.

 

[ElectricBlue]

If she keeps it up for another 2 years and 31 days, she'll have Louis XIV beat, and she'll be the longest-serving monarch of all time. As a Yank I've never understood the fascination with the British monarchy, but I'm rooting for her to hang on and get the record.

Never say that in front of Australians, Simon. One roots a pig or the skank next door, but never Her Maj. It just wouldn't do, even if you were an (Australian) republican .

You Americans vaguely got the idea of royalty with the Kennedys. Caroline is just about to start her gig as the US Ambassador to Oz, so that's a nice touch.

 

[SimonDoom]

Never say that in front of Australians, Simon. One roots a pig or the skank next door, but never Her Maj. It just wouldn't do, even if you were an (Australian) republican .

You Americans vaguely got the idea of royalty with the Kennedys. Caroline is just about to start her gig as the US Ambassador to Oz, so that's a nice touch.

I have no patience with royalty at all, but it just seems like the courteous, decent thing to root for her to make it. I mean, better her than Louis XIV, right?

 

[ElectricBlue]

I have no patience with royalty at all, but it just seems like the courteous, decent thing to root for her to make it. I mean, better her than Louis XIV, right?

You always say you want to try different categories, different kinks, so hey, if an old French dude in high heels does it for ya, go for it, I say!

 

[jehoram]

Depends on where you want the emphasis?

We're emphasizes the we. As in WE are not going to do that, but someone else might.

Aren't emphasizes the not. As in we are most definitely NOT going to be doing that, ever.


At least that's how I would use them.

I agree with you there, although some would read "We're not" as "We're NOT" with the emphasis on "not." I think that the "aren't" term migrated from "ain't" when the speaker was used to saying "ain't" but was trying to correct his speech for a more formal context.