It will happen sooner or later all the words that were thought of as slang and improper english will slowly make their way to be the standard so that saying things like “that ain’t going to happen” will be considered proper english. That is how Olde English evolved into what we have today. I am young enough right now that I think I could still be alive when that transition completes itself because I think it has already started.
It’s already a word. It means “am not”.
With regard to the OP title: Ain’t is, of course, a word.
With regard to the well put explanation that follows: You ain’t that young.
I would amend your opening sentence to read, in part, "…all of the words that were thought of as slang and improper English will slowly make their way to be the standard, or continue as slang or colloquial, or die off altogether, so that saying things… et seq.
You are, on the other hand, young enough to see lots of whacky usages make it into, at least, the Randam House Dictionary. Shoot, I lived long enough to see network make it acceptable verb usage. Go figure.
“Ain’t” is an oddity in that it has an enormously long history, occurs in hundreds of citations from well-regarded authors, and fills a need not well provided by any other single word. Virtually all words that meet these criteria eventually get accepted into the standard language. Yet “ain’t” remains the poster child for the improper use of English.
There is so much animosity toward “ain’t” that I simply don’t see it being elevated to standard English in my lifetime. And to be honest I see no evidence whatsoever that this process has already started.
START can you give any citations where “ain’t” has been found acceptable in a formal, standard context?
i remember reading about ain’t being used in victorian times by the upperclass. I found a cite that promotes this, I’m looking for more as well
http://www.victorianweb.org/art/illustration/dumaurier/73.html
"As we see in the artist’s cartoons about the upper classes, he word “ain’t” was at this time largely an upper class affectation and not a sign of a poor education. "
If you’re wondering about when it will be included in the dictionary, it’s already included:
“Y’all”, as the second-person plural, is arguably an even more extreme example of a really useful word being shoved into colloquialism simply on the collective whim of those who teach English classes and write dictionaries.
As for the rest of your post: There ain’t no Academy of the English Language. Nobody is an arbiter of which words are in' or out’. Even dictionaries are becoming more descriptive and less prescriptive. (Quick, find a dictionary that lists “thou” as an acceptable modern usage, or that all but calls people morons for misusing “lay”/“lie”.) The French Academy isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, either, but in the English-language world, nobody even tries that hard.
(I can go on and on about my beefs with conventional grammar, especially the moronic bans on the split infinitive and the double negative.)
Few people object to split infinitives these days, and it’s rare to see it objected to in any usage guide (other than it’s awkward to split an infinitive with a phrase). The only holdouts are those who are parroting what they mislearned instead of looking to the authorities.
Usage guides haven’t banned these for a hundred years.
There are a few individuals who still do. I call them the Illiterate Pedants because they know everything about the English language except how it actually works. :rolleyes:
Those people are cranks who have little to no influence on the evolution of the language. While English doesn’t have an Academy, it has large numbers of good writers who set the de facto standard for writing. It’s easy to see that process here on the Dope. There is a huge gap between those who write in complete, coherent, grammatically correct sentences inside of fully-developed paragraphs and the semi-literate teenagers whose hands fall on the keyboard in random fashion, missing the shift key completely. The latter have been pitted for this any number of times, which means that good writing is still a factor in considering the worthiness of a person’s thoughts and opinions. And that is what defines good standard English.
Split infinitives - They certainly do make for more dramatic writing (“to boldly go where no man has gone before” - a split infinitive and a preposition at the end of a sentence! Gasp! :rolleyes: )
Double negatives - Maybe part of the reason why it’s a nono is that we don’t really have a conjugation for negative terms. Plus, old habits die hard.
…see, this is why I keep saying that everybody should just learn Chinese. Easiest grammer system in the world - no tense, no number, no gender, nothing!
Of course, the vocabulary is a nightmare, but that’s what dictionaries are for… 
“Ain’t” is not considered proper style for written English. Further, it is considered, for no really good reason, not to be a word used in the prestige dialect of American English. When people are saying that “ain’t” is wrong, they are usually not distinguishing between written and spoken English.
The same comments can be made regarding double negatives.
Splitting infinitives is not “wrong,” but I find them usually to be ugly (to be usually ugly!). Today’s “good writers” (bleh) almost seem to go out of their way to split every damn infinitive they can. Split infinitives were considered to be “bad style,” and I think there is still reason to think of them that way.
[QUOTE=AeschinesSplitting infinitives is not “wrong,” but I find them usually to be ugly (to be usually ugly!). [/QUOTE]
Sorry, that joke should have read, “to usually be ugly.” A truly ugly split infinitive.
In all my years of speaking, hearing, reading, and writing English, I’ve yet to encounter a split infinitive. The examples usually cited, such as “To boldly go…”, are not split infinitives, but infinitives of compound verbs. “Go” is a verb, with infinitive form “to go”. Similarly, “boldly go” is a compound verb, being constructed from the primitive verb “go” and the adverb “boldly”, and the infinitive form of the verb “boldly go” is, of course, “to boldly go”.
Incidentally, in those style guides which frown on the usage of “ain’t”, what do they propose that one use insted? Consider, for example, the sentence “I’m a Doper, ain’t I?”. Without the word “ain’t”, the only way to express that sentence would be the awkward “I’m a Doper, am I not?”. What would the style guides recommend?
How many years before ain’t is a word?
…you mean, it ain’t? 
“Scrogular” is a word. I just made it up. It means “of or pertaining to something that scroggles.”
IN order to sound more educated I will avoid using “ain’t” and start using “amn’t”.
Or “ai not”.
August “Never could wrap my tongue around mn’t” Derleth
I’d like to see an example, actually. I’m not directly opposed to the use of “ain’t”, but I can’t think of any use other than not having to conjugate “to be” and, in the first person singular, to make the contraction uniform (contracting the verb with “not” rather than with the first person singular pronoun).
Interestingly, the OED states that most of our common negative contractions arose as colloquialisms.
OED’s etymology of “ain’t”:
[A contracted form of are not (see AN’T), used also for am not, is not, in the pop. dialect of London and elsewhere; hence in representations of Cockney speech in Dickens, etc.,and subsequently in general informal use. The contraction is also found as a (somewhat outmoded) upper-class colloquialism. Cf. won’t, don’t, can’t, shan’t.]
David Foster Wallace, telling a student in his English class about the value of Standard Written English (SWE):
from Tense Present, Harper’s Magazine, April 2001
I would have used “I’m a Doper, aren’t I?”. Is that wrong?