+0
The first question.

I had a dispute with my English teacher. She told me that "am I not" is old fashioned and not used anymore and that "aren't I" is better to be used, but I don't agree with her at all. In my opinion, "am I not"(by example, in "I am your teacher, am I not?") is more grammatically correct than the form "aren't I" which makes no sense for me, at all.
The pronom "am" is used for the first person, not "are".

But anyway, what is your opinion about: "am I not", "aren't I", "ain't I" and "amn't I"?

The second question.

Should I use "shall/I shan't" or "will/won't" for the first person? Once again, in my opinion, the first one is more grammatically corect.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Comments  (Page 5) 
fivejedjonQuite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_English
Well, that's just the thing. According to the census mentioned at the very top, 72% of Indian males (based on the ones surveyed) don't speak any English at all. If nearly three-quarters of the population don't speak English, how can we entertain the notion of Indian English?
All riiiiiiight, a lot of spam. Anyway, if I was rude in any way(I have this habit sometimes) with anyone, I'd ask for forgiveness. And, in the end, I want to thank to every one for their help. I truly appreciate.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
One quarter of one and a quarter billion people is a lot of people, Xerxes. Read some of the facts that were in that wikipedia article I linked you to.

In any case, you can't get away from the fact that linguists recognise Indian English as a variety of English.
I'd add, as a variety, the international English used by diplomats, scientists, politicians, businessmen, sportsmen, seamen, pilots, UN troops, etc., all around the world.
XerxesIf nearly three-quarters of the population don't speak English, how can we entertain the notion of Indian English?
If nearly 87% of Americans are not black, how can we entertain the notion of an African American? Emotion: thinking

CJ
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
fivejedjonOne quarter of one and a quarter billion people is a lot of people, Xerxes. Read some of the facts that were in that wikipedia article I linked you to.
Yes, sir. Twenty-five percent is a lot. And I did read the article. But I just don't see how we can speak of Indian - or any other - kind of English in a country where 75% do not speak it!
fivejedjonIn any case, you can't get away from the fact that linguists recognise Indian English as a variety of English.
Sure. Sometimes I wonder about these linguists, though. I spend half of my time in Amsterdam, where almost every local seems to speak English, often with a fluency that will impress many native English speakers. Yet we don't speak of Dutch English. Yes, I know all about the British heritage in India, but . . .
CalifJimIf nearly 87% of Americans are not black, how can we entertain the notion of an African American?
You are a cunning sophist! But origin and language are different things. Language defines society. It's the primary ingredient of any society. Americans are not defined by any racial group, but they are defined by the English language.
GlumflakeAll riiiiiiight, a lot of spam. Anyway, if I was rude in any way(I have this habit sometimes) with anyone, I'd ask for forgiveness. And, in the end, I want to thank to every one for their help. I truly appreciate.
It's not spam! It's conversation!
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
XerxesBut origin and language are different things.
That's irrelevant. Perhaps the crux of the division here is the definition of "entertain the notion of", which to me means "accept the idea of", but which may mean something different to you.

Percentages don't determine existence. Otherwise, we can ask many other questions of the same form. If nearly 100% of wars are not nuclear wars, how can we entertain the notion of a nuclear war?

CJ
Show more