Grammarians are the ones writing manuals of style, then? Then you only need to care what they think if your paycheck depends on it.
That is the difference between style manual writers (such as Strunk and White) and linguists: Linguists are advancing our knowledge of language, whereas style manual writers are merely putting their uninformed opinions in print.
Never confuse matters of style, which are dictated from above, with real grammatical knowledge, which comes from observational evidence. After all, you wouldn’t put any stock in ‘prescriptivist physics’, right?
Well, the question that was asked was about a matter of style. I’m not saying anything about whether I think somebody should say ain’t, or not…just the reason it’s been frowned upon.
Although, I have it on good authority that, if you do say ain’t, bad stuff will happen to your family and federal law enforcement will be involved.
There are many prescriptivist ‘rules’ on what is and is not ‘good English.’ This resulted from a standard of nealy a century ago that the ‘cultured’ English of the upper classes and business/academic usage was ‘better’ English than middle- and lower-class colloquial English usage.
It survives in the standard that formal academic or business written English frowns on all use of contractions, not merely “ain’t”, and deems it particularly represhensible, as representing a purely lower-class register of usage.
My ongoing GQ usage rant is that so-called ‘prescriptivist’ English grammar is actually descriptive of a register of usage that is learned at a later stage in life than the basic rules of colloquial English picked up by toddlers, who find their “Me go with Gamma” corrected to “I want to go with Grandma” until they, eager to learn and please, adopt the usage their parents teach. “Ain’t” is good lower-class colloquial register American English while “amn’t” is not – at best it’s an affectation borrowed from North-British usage. But neither is appropriate formal written usage – not because there’s a rule that makes it ‘bad English’, but rather because the style standards adopted by consensus for academmic and business usage reject it as stylistically inappropriate.
Do you really want your mother to pass out? What about your dear ol’ dad … do you want him to fall in a bucket of paint? And your sister? Should she start fibbing? Of course, it should go without saying that fratricide is abhorrent.
I’m not aware that “grammarians” do object with the use of "ain’t,’ at least when it’s used as the OP suggests, as a contraction for “am not.” However, it’s my observation that it’s mostly used as a substitute for “isn’t,” and that’s plainly wrong.
There’s nothing wrong with developing a style manual for particular types of writing. The problem is the tendency to mistake standards of style as the actual and only real rules of the language. I can imagine that it’s difficult enough for teachers to get these rules into a kid’s head, so even if they’re aware that what they’re teaching is more of a template than a sort of divine law, I’ll bet they figure it would only confuse things to try and explain this to the young people.
Unfortunately, the result we have seen is that many people have been developed an irrational belief in the authority of these rules. I say irrational, because I have known intelligent people incapable of conceiving of the idea that the rules they were taught weren’t the immutably-real-and-for-true rules of the language itself.
I always assumed ain’t came from amn’t. Saying /m/ and /n/ together in one syllable is difficult, so the /m/ got elided. (The nasalized vowel before /m/ was closer to /e/ than /æ/, hence the “ai” spelling.
I particularly hate “aren’t I”. It’s fine to say it’s just one more English irregularity, but it’s more irregular than the others, since you would not say “I aren’t”.
I believe what happened was that “ain’t”, already an odd looking contraction for “am not” was misused for “isn’t” and “aren’t” so often that the people who purport to make the rules decided it should be banished entirely. That left us with the sticky problem of how to express “am not” and “aren’t” now is the best we can do. I’ve heard it’s more acceptable in British English than American.
The truth is that we as speakers of English make the rules. If you want to use “ain’t” or “amn’t”, then go ahead. I personally never say “aren’t I” and never hear it without a shudder.
*Ain’t *is a grammatically correct contraction of “am not.”
It is incorrect when used as a contraction of “are not” or “is not.”
Thus “I ain’t” is correct, while “they ain’t” is wrong. The fact that it is wrong five times out of six leads to people objecting even to the one correct time.
Well, regular verbs in English are identical in five of their six conjugated forms in the present tense, only changing for the third person singular. In the past tense, regular verbs aren’t conjugated at all. So “ain’t” is actually more correct than the uncontracted “be.” If correctness is our goal, we should be using “ain’t” all the time.
I agree; amn’t may not be as commonly used as it once was, but it’s still a prefectly good word to use here in Scotland.
And ain’t was easily understood but hardly used when I was growing up in the 60s and 70s; it was definitely seen as an Americanism, often used in gangster movies!
I do, and it ain’t an issue for me, so go right ahead and use it.
'T ain’t so much your choice of grammar or style as it is the overall context of the situation and the skill with which you demonstrate overall mastery of language, which will earn you the right to be “wrong” with impunity. If I create a painting, it’s a piece of crap. If Dali were to create the same painting, it might be considered an interesting experimentation.
Innit true that we infer intelligence and education by examining speech patterns? (And I do not equate “degreed” with “educated.”)
Well, in the case of “ain’t,” context is everything, because its average reputation is that it is substandard. But only an uneducated fool or an amateur pedant would make a grand summary inference or cry Usage Foul if the only context were a single sentence. That isn’t enough information to make a determination whether the speaker is uneducated, or has chosen the word deliberately, or simply has accepted the word as standard usage but is still a master of our language.
In the end, all usage guidelines are arbitrary (which is why I am here).
I wonder how far a thread on chiropractors would get before someone brought up the finer points of sidewalk construction techniques and frost heave. I should also note that the recent thread about going shampooless went its entire course without a single mention of bubblegum or countries’ maritime defenses. What’s the Dope coming to?
I’m actually fully on board with this, but I’m trying to correct people like Peter Morris and others who think words in actual usage can be ‘wrong’ because of their own personal biases, as opposed to (in opposition to, more like) actual evidence.
Where is your evidence for this? Do you have any, or do you only have a vague, fleeting, and totally unreasonable notion that a living language needs to conform to your idea of ‘logic’?
