You are viewing our Forum Archives. To view or take place in current topics click here.

Let me test your knowledge and ask you a simple questionPosted:

  • Rated Awesome
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 25, 20143 Year Member
Posts: 4,515
Reputation Power: 341
Ain't, funner, flustered, conversate, gonna

What do these words have in common? Perhaps if you use them around a grammar Nazi, they will correct you and say those aren't real words, and rather they would be is not, more fun, confused, converse, and going to. That's alright, we've accepted that they aren't real words, but what is a real word?

Well, the definition of "word" is
a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.

These words (or rather not real words) have a distinct element of speech / writing used with other words to form a sentence. As per definition of "word", ain't, funner, flustered, conversate, and gonna are real words.

My question to you is, are these real words? If not, what makes them not real words that does not interfere with the definition of "word" that seemingly shows these as being real words?
#2. Posted:
  • 1K Rainmaker
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 12, 20143 Year Member
Posts: 1,136
Reputation Power: 102
They are most definitely words there aren't proper grammar i think.
#3. Posted:
  • Summer Giveaway
Status: Offline
Joined: Oct 17, 20134 Year Member
Posts: 11,192
Reputation Power: 705
Of course they're real words. As real as "They're" They're is a contraction of they are, which is proper.
#4. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Jun 03, 20135 Year Member
Posts: 2,105
Reputation Power: 138
I know they aren't "real" words, according to dictionaries, and such. However, humans have adapted to these words and used them as an alternative for so long that they might as well be considered real in my books. Personally, I use them all the time. I would consider them real but not "politically correct" if that makes sense.
#5. Posted:
  • 2 Million
Status: Offline
Joined: Oct 09, 20107 Year Member
Posts: 2,320
Reputation Power: 104
Argument for: They are commonly used and socially accepted as part of speech therefore they are words and fit the definition.
Argument against: They aren't defined in things such as a dictionary so they don't truly have a meaning so they cannot be accepted as words.
I believe the first as long as the society you are in understands them then they are words because you can effectively communicate with them. (this is how we add words to the dictionary a lot of the time)
#6. Posted:
  • Video Master
Status: Offline
Joined: May 12, 20153 Year Member
Posts: 10,950
Reputation Power: 67
I always knew aint and gonna was typically slang to use, but I did not know flustered was not a "real" word lol wtf.
#7. Posted:
  • 1K Rainmaker
Status: Offline
Joined: Jul 01, 20162 Year Member
Posts: 3,698
Reputation Power: 1017
I think they are real words
Jump to:
You are viewing our Forum Archives. To view or take place in current topics click here.