/lit/ - Literature

>>7077706
yes

>>7077706
yes, but only because it's a contraction. "Why are not you smiling" is incorrect.

>>7077706
yes but it sounds weird?

>>7077730

>"Why are not you smiling" is incorrect.

How?

>>7077739
Because the correct one would be "Why are you not smiling?". It's the same with infinitives: you are supposed to say "I told you not to say that" instead of "I told you to not say that", because the "not" is modifying the whole infinitive. If you say it in the second way, to would be a preposition when it actually is part of the infinitive.

>>7077730
It's not grammatically correct, you filthy nigger

>>7077749
It's not proper English.

So, no, It's not grammatically correct.

>>7077759
>>7077751

Then why is the formulation acceptable in conversation? Can contractions modify syntax? Is this the same old problem with "ain't?"

>>7077706
>is this grammatically correct?
The lowercase "i" is wrong

>>7077804
In the context of spoken conversation, people don't put as much attention and care to grammar accuracy. I think the main reason being that a spoken conversation involves the brain dealing with a bigger quantity of linguistics data, and in a faster manner than on reading/writing.

>>7077759

That's exactly what I said.

>>7077706
It's customary, so yes.

We say "shouldn't (pronoun)" all the time, which by logic should be incorrect, being "should not (pronoun)," but it's customary, so it's canonical English.

"Why not smile?" or "Why frown?" would be more elegant.

"Why are not you smiling" is grammatically correct. It's just that in modern English the form is not commonly used, compared to say a few hundred years ago.

>>7078092
Ugh, just realised that example doesn't work, since it's based on the same logic as the questioning "do." But now that I think about it, so is the original problem sentence.

You don't smile.
Don't you smile?
You aren't smiling.
Aren't you smiling?

It's correct, just clunky.

ITT: No one who ever picked up a linguistics book

>>7078147
Ok Professor Chomsky, why don't you tell us all about it, since you're so smart.

>>7078177

Don't you know already? /lit/ is about shitposting, nobody actually contributes anything.

>>7077804
Oh, you lil' wanker, come here a minute I'll fix you up good, eh?

>>7078212
>Don't you know already? 4chan is about shitposting nobody actually contributes anything.
Fixed that for you, anon.

>>7078212
>I don't know what I'm talking about, so after getting called out " lelele only members here guys "

Fuck off

>>7077843
or maybe what you see as grammar is a huge meme among a small group of academics

>>7077706
"Why aren't you" makes a handy way to identify English-as-a-second-language people. The sentence is fine and first-language speakers wouldn't even think twice about it, but for second-language speakers trying to unpack it, they might think it's wrong.

>>7078318
A meme is *exactly* what grammar is.

>>7078318
its still wrong grammatically

you are just saying that there is noting inherently wrong with ordering symbols in any which way.

>>7078555
>555