It took this thread for me to realize the awesomeness of the double contraction: It’sn’t.
It would be a win in any context, so no discussion would be required.
Well, of course I haven’t read everything that’s ever been written, but I have never seen it used unless it was:
[ul]
[li]A direct quote[/li][li]Used ironically or humorously[/li][li]Used to affect the voice of a narrator[/li][/ul]
Do you know of an example of an author who has used it earnestly?
“If you think it’s butter, but it’s snot…”
I prefer to use isn’t as much as possible.
According to the Associated Press Stylebook that I keep next to my keyboard, ain’t is
It ain’t just uncommon, it ain’t right.
What does that mean “earnestly”? If an author is writing in his own voice and uses “ain’t” is that “earnestly” or is that “affect[ing] the voice of a narrator”?
For example, in this New York Times op-ed piece by Paul Krugman, he writes “politics ain’t beanbag…” Would that be disqualified based on one of your three exceptions, or are you going to argue that he isn’t a professional writer, or something else?
Yes, professional writers use “ain’t.” They use the entire palate of the English language. “Ain’t” is a more emphatic word than “isn’t,” so I’d argue its usage is tied to emphasis for those writers who normally employ “isn’t” in their writing.
To be more accurate, “it ain’t right nowadays.” “Ain’t” used to be an acceptable contraction for “am not,” in British English, around the 17th century, IIRC. However, it wasn’t common in the area of GB where Webster’s family were from, and thus was frowned upon.
Well, of course. Ann Landers famously said, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” But she obviously knew that “ain’t” is nonstandard and also knew that “broken” is the past tense of “broke” but she was saying it to sound folksy, not because that’s the way she writes everything.
Yes, the article uses “ain’t” but in the same way. It is a dramatic departure from the style of the rest of the article, and clearly he used it to create a certain cutesy tone. Compare to a sentence in the same article, “It’s not perfect, by a long shot — it is, after all, originally a Republican plan, devised long ago as a way to forestall the obvious alternative of extending Medicare to cover everyone.” Why didn’t he write “it ain’t perfect” there? Because he knows better.
My point was that deeming something nonstandard is based in part on its use in published works. It’s not that you will never see it used, but rather than you won’t see a writer use “ain’t” without being conscious that it’s nonstandard. It’s like when a jazz musician plays a dissonant note–it’s technically a wrong note but he knows it and he’s going for a certain sound that takes advantage of its wrongness.
Have there been enough serious answers?
Apologies if not.
[QUOTE=Monty Python]
MP: It’s just contradiction!
JC: No it isn’t!
MP: It IS!
JC: It is NOT!
MP: You just contradicted me!
JC: No I didn’t!
[/QUOTE]
The more I read this thread, the more that sketch is looping in my brain.
I don’t hear it as “cutesy.” I hear it as emphatic myself. I’m not sure any example I could pull up could satisfy you, then, as you’ll write it off as “cutesy” or “folksy” or similar. If I bring up a professional writer writing in his own dialect, then you’re going to write it off as affecting the voice of a narrator, I assume. I don’t know exactly what kind of example you’re looking for that would satisfy you. We’re not arguing here whether “ain’t” is used in formal writing–I think we both agree that it’s not. But the claim that professional authors don’t use it “earnestly” or some such is pure balderdash.
If you bring up a professional writer writing in his own dialect, because that’s the way he writes everything, then I will bow to your position. Otherwise it’s just being used as a device.
But professional writers don’t necessarily write in a single tone. Nobody is arguing whether “ain’t” is formal or not. The claim you initially made was that you won’t find it in the writings of professional writers. This is simply untrue. And then you moved the goalposts to, well, if you do find it, it’s being used as a device–that somehow this makes it not earnest (whatever that means.) So what? Using “ain’t” as an emphatic form of “isn’t” is not an acceptable usage to you?
I think that’s an important point to make about “ain’t” in formal settings. It conveys a stronger sense of negativity than “isn’t”.
I didn’t say it informal, I said it was nonstandard. One yardstick for standard English is how professional writers write. Like I said, if you can show me a professional writer whose normal style includes “ain’t” wherever “isn’t” would normally be used, then I concede the point that some professionals write like that.
“…A nonstandard dialect can thus be characterized as having socially marked forms, such as ain’t. A socially marked form is one that causes the listener to form a negative social judgment of the speaker.”
(F. Parker and K. Riley, Linguistics for Non-Linguists. Allyn and Bacon, 1994)
“In fiction nonstandard forms are mostly found in dialogue and they are used as a powerful tool to reveal character traits or social and regional differences.”
(Irma Taavitsainen, et al., Writing in Nonstandard English. John Benjamins, 1999)
This quote deals with one of the classic uses of nonstandard English in literature:
“The kinds of errors that Huck makes [in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn] are by no means haphazard; Twain carefully placed them to suggest Huck’s basic illiteracy but not to overwhelm the reader. Nonstandard verb forms constitute Huck’s most typical mistakes. He often uses the present form or past participle for the simple past tense, for example, see or seen for saw; his verbs frequently do not agree with their subjects in number and person; and he often shifts tense within the same sequence.”
(Janet Holmgren McKay, “‘An Art So High’: Style in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.” New Essays on Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, ed. by Louis J. Budd. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985)
Another example where the novel is written in first person with nonstandard forms is The Help.
So, yes, some authors may use this style in a deliberate way but those would not be the examples that scholars would use to describe standard English.
Over here I’m careful always to say “it’s not,” because if I say “it isn’t,” Thais often don’t hear the “-n’t” part and think I’m saying “it is.”
“Ain’t” is not simply just an added emphasis. There is a deliberatenessin it’s usage for writers.
Both of these agree that its usage is not simply for emphases.
No, it’s not simply for added emphasis, but that is one of the usages. Both of your cites reflect that. I’m not trying to say that “ain’t” is only used as an emphatic form of “isn’t.” Of course, it’s not. It can be used for many things, many of them mentioned by CookingWithGas. But many of your examples ARE emphatic ones.
I never said it wasn’t nonstandard, nor was implying such. If you thought that was my argument, then you misunderstood me. To me, it sounded like you thought a “professional writer” would never use such a word in his prose, when I am saying, that is incorrect. We seem to agree on that point, so what’s the argument?
To summarize, I said that “ain’t” is considered non-standard, and one reason for that conclusion is that writers don’t use it. You said that writers do use it, and instances of it can be found in the writing of professionals. My point is that those usages per se do not define standard usage because of how it’s use in those writings. In review of my earliest post I said “you won’t find it in writing by professional journalists or authors” but I did not mean that as an a point in itself, and maybe you are objecting to that rather than my overarching point about how the usage is non-standard. Perhaps we are talking past each other.
Then you need to work on how you respond to things, as it clearly seems as if you were arguing that ain’t was not non-standard, seeing as that was the point of the post you were responding to, and you were challenging one of its premises. Unless you specify otherwise, you don’t challenge a premise unless you think the conclusion is faulty.