I’ve been watching The Pallisers, 1974 BBC series about aristocrats and parliament in the late 1800’s. It’s based on a series of novels by Anthony Trollope. I’ve read some Victorians and I’ve seen a lot of TV and movies set in that time period. I don’t recall ever reading or hearing the British upper class say “ain’t” and " it don’t", “he don’t”, etc.
Is this a convention of Trollope’s, an upper class tic (we’re rich and can speak as we like), or was it once acceptable to say “aint” instead of “isn’t” or “aren’t” and “don’t” instead of “doesn’t”?
I don’t have an answer, but I just had to say that I’ve been wondering the same thing and was about to post a thread asking the same thing. Nice timing!
I’ve seen it done in many places, but one example at my fingertips is in Georgette Heyer’s The Devil’s Cub – Vidal (a marquis) says at one point, “My devil don’t prompt me to marriage, maman” (p. 30 of the Sourcebooks edition). I know Percy Blakeney (in upperclass twit mode) in Orczy’s The Scarlet Pimpernel does it, as well.
Patrick O’Brien’s Aubrey/Maturin series does it too, to some degree. The phrase “It don’t signify” appears regularly, as I recall. The series is set in the early 19 C.
O’Brien also wrote out of existence almost altogether the subjunctive mood, which seems odd until one gets used to it - “If I was shot…” instead of “If I were shot”. These things were not used by O’Brien merely as markers of class.
I suspect that the latter example, specific as it is, represents good research. I don’t know when the present rules for the subjunctive were crystallised. O’Brien spent a long time reading through archives and reports.
If good research is behind the subjunctive thing, then that lends some support to the idea that the former example, about which the OP inquires, may well be good research as well.
I’m thinking it’s so. Trollope was a contemporary of people like the Pallisers, so he would have known the accepted/proper usage. And the Wiki article supplied by Wendell Wagner supports the use of “ain’t”.
Now all that remains to satisfy our curiosity is to learn why “He/she/it don’t” became incorrect. I’ve googled to no avail.
I gotta tell ya, it was a pleasure listening to the Palliser conversations. Those people knew how to say a lot in a few words, and conversely to say little in many words, and to soothe feelings. There’s a scene where the duke’s wife is placating a gentleman snubbed by her husband. The man insists the duke was “cold” to him, but she convinces him that the duke was simply being “diffident” with someone he respected. I could listen to those people talk all day. You don’t hear conversation like that anymore. Or at least I don’t.
I suspect (although I can’t cite) that the advent of Fowler may have had a hand in rationalising much loose usage. “It don’t” is less logically justifiable that “It doesn’t” because reinflating the contraction leads to “It do not”, which is grammatically unsustainable.
But the answer to these things is not always grammatical logic. “Ain’t” is a contraction of “am not”, so there is logically a place for it - “I ain’t missing you at all”, but not “She ain’t coming to dinner”. When I was at primary school, however, rather than teach us the detail of which use of ain’twas sensible, they just told us not to use it at all, probably on the ground that they were trying to prevent us from sounding like Walter Brennan. The demise of “ain’t” was a question of taste, not grammatical logic.
