# Origin of "ain't" - Swedish? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 30, 2001, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-aint-swedish/96215 "2001-11-30T23:17:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![mutatron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cdc98d/32.png) [@mutatron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mutatron)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2001, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-aint-swedish/96215/1 "2001-11-30T23:17:20Z")
Working for a Swedish company, I’ve learned a tiny bit of their lingo. It happens that Swedish for “is” is “e” (pronounced “eh”), and Swedish for “not” is “inte” (pronounced “in tuh”). So Swedish for “is not” is “e inte”, which sounds a whole lot like “ain’t” if you say it quickly. So, does anyone know of any other credible theories for the origin of “ain’t”. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2001, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-aint-swedish/96215/2 "2001-12-01T00:00:32Z")
Ain’t is a contraction for “am not”, because amn’t is to difficult to say combining the m and n sounds together. So, “m” became “i” for easier pronunciation. It’s not a Sweedish word…it’s an american contraction, like “isn’t”, “aren’t”, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Jpeg\_Jones](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/4bbf92/32.png) [@Jpeg\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jpeg_Jones)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2001, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-aint-swedish/96215/3 "2001-12-01T00:41:15Z")
[This site](http://www.takeourword.com/arc_logi.html#ain't) says it is a contracted form of “are/am/is not”. Personally, I wouldn’t completely discount some foreign influence, though probably not Swedish. “Ai” is one of the conjugations of the French “Avoir” (as in “J’ai”). Maybe this helped the word gain popularity in America. Why don’t we see similar corruptions of other contractions like “haven’t” (han’t?) or “wouldn’t” (woun’t?). I’m still not totally satisfied. ---
**Author:** ![Montfort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Montfort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Montfort)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2001, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-aint-swedish/96215/4 "2001-12-01T01:20:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jpeg Jones \* > **Why don’t we see similar corruptions of other contractions like “haven’t” (han’t?) or “wouldn’t” (woun’t?).** Too similar to “won’t,” perchance? ---
**Author:** ![Palve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a698b9/32.png) [@Palve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Palve)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2001, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-aint-swedish/96215/5 "2001-12-01T03:28:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jpeg Jones \* > **Why don’t we see similar corruptions of other contractions like “haven’t” (han’t?) or “wouldn’t” (woun’t?).** They aren’t necessary. ‘Ain’t’ is. Example: **Ain’t I an idiot?** Most English teachers would change it into **Aren’t I an idiot?** , but the world ‘aren’t’ is not for the first person conjugation, gramatically speaking. Think about it: **I aren’t an idiot.** makes as much sense. The word itself comes from an earlier form of English. It was standard speech in the eighteenth century (as well as ‘you is’ when referring to only one speaker), but for some reason or another was shunned by the general community. In the twentieth century, it increased in popularity in the US, and even has the support of some of the big guys in linguistic advice, such as William Sapphire. ---
**Author:** ![Palve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a698b9/32.png) [@Palve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Palve)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2001, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-aint-swedish/96215/6 "2001-12-01T03:29:26Z")
Oh, right, I forgot to say it’s a contracted form of ‘am not’, not ‘is not’ or ‘are not’. Gramatically speaking, it is only suitable for the first person singular (‘I’). ---
**Author:** ![Floater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dc4da7/32.png) [@Floater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Floater)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2001, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-aint-swedish/96215/7 "2001-12-01T12:17:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mutatron \* > **It happens that Swedish for “is” is “e” (pronounced “eh”), and Swedish for “not” is “inte” (pronounced “in tuh”).** Swedish for “is” is **är** , which, depending on where in the country you are, can be pronounced in severeal ways. Apparently you have been taught Swedish pronounciation by an elderly Stockholmer (ie someone in my age or older) who would say “eh”, but for some reason the Stockholm dialect has changed drastically during the last 30 years or so, so a young person would use a much broader sound, almoust like “air”. ---
**Author:** ![JeffB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jeffb/32/188_2.png) [@JeffB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JeffB)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2001, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-aint-swedish/96215/8 "2001-12-01T14:24:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Palve \* > \*\*Oh, right, I forgot to say it’s a contracted form of ‘am not’, not ‘is not’ or ‘are not’. Gramatically speaking, it is only suitable for the first person singular (‘I’). \*\* That’s not enitrely correct. Most dictionaries list _ain’t_ as a contraction for _are not_, _is not_, and _am not_. Both the OED and Webster’s Unabridged list the _are not_ contraction first. [The American Heritage Dictionary](http://www.bartleby.com/61/63/A0156300.html) lists the _am not_ contraction first. The AHD has a nice outline of the word’s history, including this: > [@](#): > > 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. I think this provides the reason why _ain’t_ didn’t become acceptable in the same way as other contractions: it did not have a “set sequence of words from which it can be contracted.” Getting back to the OP, it doesn’t look like Swedish was involved anywhere with the origin of _ain’t_. The OED seems to indicate that its origin was the dialect of London. ---
**Author:** ![robcaro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df705f/32.png) [@robcaro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robcaro)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2001, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-aint-swedish/96215/9 "2001-12-01T18:11:51Z")
From the American Heritage dictionary, however it doesn’t give the origin: ain’t (³nt). Non-Standard. 1. Am not. 2. Used also as a contraction for are not, is not, has not, and have not. ———————————————————— USAGE NOTE: The use of ain’t as a contraction of am not, are not, is not, has not, and have not has a long history, but ain’t has come to be regarded as a mark of illiteracy and has by now acquired such a stigma that it is beyond any possibility of rehabilitation. However, it is used by educated speakers, for example, when they want to strike a jocular or demotic note, as in fixed expressions like Say it ain’t so or You ain’t just whistling Dixie. · 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 admittedly stilted am I not?