Don't for doesn't is used in songs and in poetry (for metric reasons).
It can be standard.
It can be standard.
Acceptable in US English?
Previous page Pages: 1 2
That doesn't make anything standard. Songs and poetry can be just an nonstandard as vernacular speech -- they don't legitimize anything just because of their format.
<<Don't for doesn't is used in songs and in poetry (for metric reasons).
It can be standard.>>
<<That doesn't make anything standard. Songs and poetry can be just an nonstandard as vernacular speech -- they don't legitimize anything just because of their format.>>
Uriel is correct, just because Al Jolson got up on stage and sang, "Mammy's little baby" doesn't make the language in the song standard nor does Picasso’s "Les Demoiselles d' Avignon" standardize the shape of a French prostitute . . . at least I hope not. There is a term for these things, it is stylized. And yes, regionalism as well as class based language structures in text is a form of stylization.
It can be standard.>>
<<That doesn't make anything standard. Songs and poetry can be just an nonstandard as vernacular speech -- they don't legitimize anything just because of their format.>>
Uriel is correct, just because Al Jolson got up on stage and sang, "Mammy's little baby" doesn't make the language in the song standard nor does Picasso’s "Les Demoiselles d' Avignon" standardize the shape of a French prostitute . . . at least I hope not. There is a term for these things, it is stylized. And yes, regionalism as well as class based language structures in text is a form of stylization.
Previous page Pages: 1 2