When (if ever) will “ain’t” become acceptable in English. What about lousy and swell? How come they never made it into standard English?
If usage decideds proper English all should quality.
Maybe the next generation of English users won’t have a rod stuck so far up their collective asses and let language evolve the way its been doing since who knows when.
HorseloverFat wrote:
Standardization of the language has been and will continue to be a good idea. If the alternative to having a rod up your ass is, as Freud would call it, being anal expulsive, I’ll take the rod.
Yes, it’s true that the language can take care of itself, and that people will continue to be able to communicate without standardization. What standardization is truly essential will happen without the help of grammarians. But keep in mind that the dynamic evolution of the language has taken place and will continue to take place even within the restrictions of standardization. Anybody who thinks standardization is stifling his ability to express himself is not that good with the language to begin with, so why would we want to hear what he has to say?
That having been said, ain’t is perfectly acceptable, so long as you’re prepared to be seen as the sort of person who says ain’t.
Consider this sentence:
I’m your friend, aren’t I?
That sounds correct. Then compare it to:
He’s my friend, isn’t he?
And notice that I and aren’t are out of subject/verb agreement, while he and isn’t do agree. That is, we would never say I aren’t, but we would say He isn’t. I posed this problem to a friend of mine who has his doctorate in linguistics. His analysis:
The grammatically correct way to say the first sentence, would be:
I’m your friend, amn’t I? OR
I’m your friend, ain’t I?
But we are so paranoid about using ain’t–the contraction for am not–that we actually create a subject verb disagreement to avoid it.
as_u_wish wrote:
Aren’t is an interogative form of the verb, which happens to be identical in the singular and plural. It is also othographically and phonologically identical to the declarative plural aren’t. But gramatically, they are different.
as_u_wish is correct, and no less an authority than H. W. Fowler agrees with him.
The American Heritage Dictionary adds
I use ain’t I in questions unselfconsciously. I get a lot of funny looks, but I know I’m not wrong.
Poets instantly come to mind, maybe you don’t to hear what they have to say, but I sure do.
The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual ©1998, the journalist’s bible
Another tidbit to toss into the pot…
Okay, I’m sure we all know that the subjunctive mood is an obscure and rare thing in English, but it does show up once or twice. For instance, in indefinite conditional clauses:
If I were a rich man…
“Were” is the subjunctive form of “was”, so the above clause is correct, and there is no number disagreement. However, the subjunctive mood can also be used in something known as deliberative questions. I always assumed that the following was an example of a deliberative question:
I’m so modest, aren’t I?
If that’s so, and “are” is the subjunctive form of “am”, that would be correct. So if, as many seem to say, that’s not correct, either that’s not a deliberative question, or “are” is not the subjunctive of “am”. Or both. Which is it?
The present singular first person subjunctive form is:
If I be.
I don’t know what a deliberate question is, but “I’m modest, be I not?” just doesn’t sound right. It has been a long time since I took grammar.
My various reference books don’t exactly agree about the subjunctive, but here’s how I understand it:
There are 2 forms of the present subjuntive of be[ul]1) be, used in demands and requests as in "I ask that you be attentive. This is also used in past constructions as in "I askeed that you be attentive.
2) were, used in contrary-to-fact statements as in "I wish I were in Germany right now. Note that “were” here is not in the past tense, but present. Past subjunctive of “be” in contrary-to-fact statements is “had been” as in "I wish I had been in Germany when the wall came down. [/ul]“Are” is not subjunctive at all.
HorseloverFat wrote:
As a matter of fact, I’m speaking as a poet. Every poet of any regard has been well familiar with the laws of the grammarians, and when they broke them, it wasn’t by accident. If we suddenly decided that anything goes, poetry would suffer first, because there would be no more rules to play sly games with.
Haveing a broad spectrum of idioms to choose from–ranging from the very formal to the very colloquial–is a strengh, not a weakness. By choosing our idiom we communicate much more than the bare meaning of our words–we are able to establish ourselves as members of a group, set the tone for a debate, establish our authority toward a particular subject, etc. Each person here develops a distinct posting “voice” through the careful, even if largely subconcious, choice of word and phrase. Having a standardized English as a “baseline” is an enourmous aid in this; it is by having something to deviate from that our speech becomes interesting.
Going back to your OP, as far as I know “lousy” is perfectly acceptable english. And I always assumed that “swell” was normal some time ago. Now it’s kind of quiant and outdated.
From Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Online)
The trouble with using ‘ain’t’ is that it gets used for too much. If it was simply a contraction for ‘am not’ (instead of the difficult amn’t), everything would be fine. But, as the dictionary notes, the origin of the contraction is actually ‘are not’. Thus, the ‘correct’ usage would be “They ain’t going to win.” But, likely because it is easier to use one word rather than learn the proper contractions for many verbal constructions, ain’t becomes the colloquial contraction for all constructions.
The OP asked ‘when, if ever, will ain’t become acceptable in English?’ This question contains a common error: assuming that ‘proper’ English and common English are supposed to be the same. Folks, let’s face it, the average Joe doesn’t use ‘proper’ English and doesn’t want to [do so]. If everyone spoke and wrote ‘proper’ English, there would be a considerable difference in what we would hear and read. In everyday usage, how do you react to hearing ain’t? On the other hand, how do you react to hearing bodkin? Or lugubrious? Your words convey something about yourself, like it or not. 
DSYoungEsq said
Not all references agree with that. My unabridged dictionary has
Fowler implies that it is a proper contraction of am not.
according to the OED:
ain’t (eInt), v.1 dial. and colloq. [a contracted form of are not (see an’t), used also for am not, is not, in the pop. dialect of London and elsewhere; hence in representations of Cockney speech in Dickens, etc., and subsequently in general informal use. The contraction is also found as a (somewhat outmoded) upper-class colloquialism. Cf. won’t, don’t, can’t, shan’t.]
re: the AP stylebook. The same book says to use “teen-ager” with a dash, so it could use a little updating.
I don’t find “ain’t” particularly annoying at all, but I do think DSY is on to something by pointing out that the reason it’s considered substandars is because it’s basically a contraction for all contractions. However, I think that “ain’t” should be at least acceptable for the “am not” form, as we don’t have a good contraction for this (execpt I’m not.)
[hijack] while we’re on this subject of grammar, i’d like to point out that apparently the split infinitive and dangling preposition have been accepted by at least british grammarians as being okay. i believe it was in the oxford concise dictionary of english grammar (or something like that.) it’s about time. the only reason split infinitives were a no-no was because this rule was based on latin grammar where it was impossible to split an infinitive because it was one word!
now i’d like the double negative to get acceptance as well.
[/hijack]
I forget the name of the book, but there was apparently one particular grammar book that tried to bring English more in line with Latin standards, and its proscriptions became standard. Before that, it seems, ain’t was considered perfectly proper in all eschelons of society.
Everybody who wants the language to loosen up in some areas also wants to cling to other rules. Here’s what I would update in a grammar text, if I were writing one:
Double Negatives – I haven’t studied the semantics, but I don’t recally ever hearing such a construction come out ambiguous. When we hear a double negative, we know when it’s a strong negative and when it’s a weak positive, and even when it’s an emphatic positive. It’s consistent, communicative, rule-bound, and I think it should be accepted.
The Singular They – It’s consistent, fluent, and natural to fill in the blanks in the neuter personal pronoun paradigm with they.' In most cases it will be at least as obvious that this pronoun is being used in the singular as it is when you’ is being used in the singular.
Split Infinitives and Dangling Prepositions – Though we have a class of words called prepositions, in English it’s generally perfectly obvious what words these attach to even if they don’t pre-pose those words directly. Furthermore, this doesn’t mean we can put the preposition anywhere we want it. It’s rule-bound and consistent. But English is comfortable letting a preposition stray, and it is often expressive to do so. If the justification for keeping the just before the word it modifies is that Latin does it that way, this is insufficient. Latin certainly has far fewer word order rules than English, and sometimes you have to get all the way through a long sentence to find out which word an adjective modifies. So, why should a very strongly word-ordered language like English take word-order advice from a loose word-order language like Latin?
Got in Place of Have Got – The verb is evolving to the point where the `have’ will not be necessary.
Some things I do not accept:
Nu-kyu-ler – Don’t be a hairy-knuckled proto-man. Nuclear is not hard to pronounce.
Nominitive Uses of Objective Pronouns – Don’t say, “Him don’t like it.” “Them’s good eatin’.” We’re not dealing with a defective paradigm here. There’s a nominitive form, so use it.
Gots in Place of Have Got – There is already a good alternative to Have Got, and one that doesn’t make one sound like one is still running around the playground.
They used to spell without rules, too. My kind of world! Never sweat out essay tests again.