Used by the late Hao Wang (in his book "Beyond Analytic Philosophy: Doing Justice to What We Know") to denote the charting or mapping of human knowledge (similar to aspects of Francis Bacon's Great Instauration).
Ain't is a contraction for "am not". Another form is "amn't" but that's hard to pronounce, no? It was further shortened to "a'n't" or "ain't". We're accepting of "we aren't" in the first person plural, "they aren't" in the third person plural, "he isn't" and "she isn't" and "it isn't" in the third person singular, and "you aren't" in the second person singular and plural. So why the resistance to "I ain't" in the first person singular? Granted, the extension of "ain't" to the second person singular (cf. the song "Is You or Is You Ain't My Baby" by Billy Austin and Louis Jordan) and to the third person singular (cf. "It Ain't Me Babe" by Bob Dylan) is problematic, albeit fun. But as far as I can see, "I ain't" is fair game.
What does it mean to "handle plurals better"? Some folks might simply prefer the plural form. Example: I prefer interstices to interstice because that final "s" adds further sibilance. Why discourage folks from listing one form over the other? And why does the "root" word get preferential treatment in the first place? Sounds like wordism to me. ;-)
BTW, the WSJ story is cool (through which I find yet another parallel between us -- we're both Columbia grads).
Only three? In what dwarfish world do the West Wing writers dwell? Have they been drinking too much dwale? And what kind of dwelling is the White House, anyway? Is the current dweller a mental dwarf (as some allege) or merely a dweeb? Etc.