Grammar help: When to use "are" / "is"?

[jackson1]

My english speaking friends, please help me sort out when to use "are" as opposed to "is" and vice versa.

Any easy grammar rules you could teach me?

I'm stupid

[HoWheels]

Are : plural
Is : singular
Am: singular personal

examples:
I am ...
He is ...
They are ...

[markD]

i am an english teacher. i'll write out a "lesson" and PM it to you.

[jackson1]

Thanks guys. English is not my native language. Beware of that!

Hey look, up there is my first problem. "English is..." I'm almost certain it's correct, but i can not tell why.

I'm getting trouble with "ain't" and "aren't" too. I think my list is long come to think of it...

[cloudnine]

Aren't = are not.

Ain't = not real English, don't use it.

[jackson1]

markD, i've cleared out my PM box to make space and i'm looking forward to your "lesson". Thanks for doing this, bro!

[Budman68]

Aren't = are not.

Ain't = not real English, don't use it.

1 entry found for aint.

ain't ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nt)
Nonstandard

1. Contraction of am not.
2. Used also as a contraction for are not, is not, has not, and have not.

Usage Note: Ain't has a long history of controversy. It first appeared in 1778, evolving from an earlier an't, which arose almost a century earlier as a contraction of are not and am not. In fact, ain't arose at the tail end of an era that saw the introduction of a number of our most common contractions, including don't and won't. But while don't and won't eventually became accepted at all levels of speech and writing, ain't was to receive a barrage of criticism in the 19th century for having no set sequence of words from which it can be contracted and for being a “vulgarism,” that is, a term used by the lower classes, although an't at least had been originally used by the upper classes as well. At the same time ain't's uses were multiplying to include has not, have not, and is not, by influence of forms like ha'n't and i'n't. It may be that these extended uses helped fuel the negative reaction. Whatever the case, criticism of ain't by usage commentators and teachers has not subsided, and the use of ain't is often regarded as a sign of ignorance. ·But despite all the attempts to ban it, ain't continues to enjoy extensive use in speech. Even educated and upper-class speakers see no substitute in folksy expressions such as Say it ain't so and You ain't seen nothin' yet. ·The stigmatization of ain't leaves us with no happy alternative for use in first-person questions. The widely used aren't I? though illogical, was found acceptable for use in speech by a majority of the Usage Panel in an earlier survey, but in writing there is no acceptable substitute for the stilted am I not?

[horns666]

Ain't talkin' 'bout love..

Isn't talkin' 'bout love ...that would suck!!:ROTF:

[Shawn Lutz]

just use it wrong a few times and Ron will correct you sooner or later

[toejam]

Just don't say would of, could of, should of, and you'll be okay!

Would have/would've, could have/could've or should have/should've is the correct way. I still can't figure out how so many people with English as a first language can't grasp this.

[jackson1]

"I should of bought that San Dimas" .... ?!

[rjohnstone]

Don't get me started on the english language.
I'm still trying to figure out why G-O-O-D and F-O-O-D are pronounced differently.

[El_Kabong]

But, if derivatives and deviations of the language become accepted in within social, cultural or regional situations, these deviations from the norm over time become part of the aformentioneds language. Case in point, the world of Billy Austin and Louis Jordan with their famous lyrics from 1944, "Is you Is, or Is You Ain't My Baby" (http://www.theguitarguy.com/isyouis.htm). In a global English society, the ideals of 'linguistic Imperialism', deeming that only proper and British Englishes are the rule, is a misnomer.

[cloudnine]

I should HAVE bought that San Dimas!!!

[rjohnstone]

I should HAVE bought that San Dimas!!!

A+