Is there any consensus on which is the proper abbreviation for the phrase “They are not”? I’d assume that both are technically correct but is one preferred by English experts?
All I know is that in grade school, you were fine if you said “it isn’t!” but invited a lot of snickering if you said “it’s not!”
(“If it’s snot, wipe your nose!”)
How about they’ren’t? 
They’re both perfectly valid. Use whichever you prefer.
Agreed with typhoon: at least from a UK English viewpoint, both are absolutely fine (assuming you’re speaking/writing in a context where your audience doesn’t have a downer on contractions).
Okay, so I guess this is poll time, then?
I’m generally a “They’re not” person.
I use both. But to me, “they aren’t” looks better written, but when speaking, I generally use “they’re not”
Both are fine. Switch hit. It confuses people.
Even more fun are:
They’ve not
They haven’t
There may be a touch of regionalism with such things, but I assume they’re equally acceptable grammatically.
Can I just point out that “could of” is not an acceptable variant of “could’ve”?
It isn’t even a variant of could’ve, which is a compression of “could have”. “Could of” is plain wrong, and makes me wince.
Julie
Shrinking Violet, that was kind of my point. I really did mean variant, in the sense of unplanned variant. People that write “could of” just don’t seem the realize they mean “could’ve” – here in Michigan we say them the same. I’ll say what sounds like “could of” only because it’s virtually identical to “could’ve.”
It drives me crazy, too. When I read it – often from smart, educated engineers – I have to re-read the sentence because “of” is programmed in my brain as “of” and not “-'ve.”
Which one I use depends on where I wish the emphasis to be placed. To me, at least, “they’re not” has a much stronger negative impact than “they aren’t”.
SC
Google fight!
They are not – 3.63 million
They’re not – 1.64 million
They aren’t – 1.08 million
I’m not – 4.33 m
I am not – 3.12 m
I ain’t – .42 m
It is not – 6.23 m
It’s not – 4.75 m (includes contraction of ‘it has not’)
It isn’t – 2.42 m
You are not – 4.64 m
You’re not – 2.89 m
You aren’t – 1.19 m
They have not – 1.1 m
They haven’t – .75 m
They’ve not – .02 m
I have not – 1.78 m
I haven’t – 3.2 m
I’ve not – .35 m
It has not – 1.29 m
It’s not – 4.75 (includes contraction of ‘it is not’)
It hasn’t – .73 m
You haven’t – 2.56
You have not – 2.1
You’ve not – .08
Note that the contractions of “you haven’t” and “I’m not” beat out their uncontracted forms.
Note the relative infrequency of “you’ve not” and “they’ve not.”
Peace.
I would haven’t preferred to go into such a detailed analysis.
Bah, clearly they’ve not been looking at my stuff- both of these constructions are staples of my written lexicon.
But how do the double contractions measure up? Personally, I try to use constructions like “I’ven’t” whenever applicable.
I’ven’t- 340 (not in millions, just plain 340)
It doesn’t look so good Chronos.