slangular memesis

From: Wade T.Smith (wade_smith@harvard.edu)
Date: Sun May 13 2001 - 15:35:39 BST

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Re: memetics of the heroine" 

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA13475 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 13 May 2001 15:39:40 +0100
Subject: slangular memesis
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 10:35:39 -0400
x-sender: wsmith1@camail2.harvard.edu
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas
From: "Wade T.Smith" <wade_smith@harvard.edu>
To: "Memetics Discussion List" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Message-ID: <20010513143539.AAA4372@camailp.harvard.edu@[205.240.180.40]>
Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    Hi Richard Brodie -

    >What's the consensus on the use of the word "ain't"?

    Ya know, I've had eyebrows and I've had who-cares? but, basically, I've
    always liked 'ain't', mainly because of its folksie charm. I ain't
    writin' papers here....

    But also, I've affected it in a sort of similar way that Lord Peter
    Wimsey, fictional character in british mystery fiction, did. It's
    harmless, it's gentile (in the grammatical sense), and it pricks those
    who perhaps deserve to be pricked if it pricks them at all.

    But I don't think anyone is confused or baffled about what it means, what
    it refers to, or what I intend to communicate and make understood when I
    use it....

    - Wade

    ===============================================================
    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 13 2001 - 15:43:19 BST