Ain't no bones about it.......

[lasher]

Hey now MsC,

I got to thinking about one of my favorite words (probably because I was told it was not proper) and was wondering, what are your thoughts on.........

Ain't....


Ain’t is a word that ain’t had it easy. It first appeared in English in 1778, evolving from an earlier form an’t, which arose almost a century earlier as a contraction of are not and am not. In fact, ain’t seems to have arisen 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. Ain’t and some of these other contractions came under criticism in the 1700s for being inelegant and low-class, even though they had actually been used by upper-class speakers. But while don’t and won’t eventually became perfectly acceptable 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. At the same time ain’t’s uses were multiplying to include is not, has not, and have not. It may be that these extended uses helped provoke the negative reaction. Whatever the case, the criticism of ain’t by usage commentators and teachers has not subsided, and the use of ain’t has come to be regarded as a mark of ignorance. Use it at your peril.

But despite all the attempts to ban it, ain’t continues to appear in the speech of ordinary folks. Even educated and upper-class speakers see that ain’t has no substitute in fixed expressions like Say it ain’t so, Ain't it the truth, You ain’t just whistlin’ Dixie, and You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
ain’t I? 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 early survey, but in writing there is no alternative to saying am I not?

American Heritage Book of English Usage 1996


If some highbrow didn't classify ain't with the lowbrows, would ain't be more accepted in our language today?

Why was it and is it still regarded as a mark of ignorance today? And..

Why shouldn't we use it today, after all, it's just another word, ain't it? :confused:

Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated..........

[ctivnan]

Hello there!

You've got a very good question there. :painting:

I'll do some research first and then I'll tell you my opinion about it!

It's very interesting because I don't teach my students the use of this contraction and I have not given it much thought either. It will be a good discussion!

:smilie1:

[cmo]

After so many years, I've never used this word! I don't even know how to use it!

Lasher brought a good history of the word but since I did not grow up in a spoken English environment, I did not acquire the usage of it.

That's very foreign to me :emoticon-5:

[ctivnan]

Hey now MsC,

I got to thinking about one of my favorite words (probably because I was told it was not proper) and was wondering, what are your thoughts on.........

Ain't....

Hi there, lasher!

Language has always been intertwined with power and your question of ''ain't'' not being used as 'standard' in our language today, in spite of the fact that it is widely used, is justifiable.

Talking about language and power, I'd like to start off my discussion with these questions:
Why are many people, who speak other languages, study the English language?
Is it really important for them to do so?

The answers to these questions are similar to the ideas I have of ''ain't.'' You see, non-English speakers study English because apparently, it has become the 'lingua franca' of commerce, and in the world we live in today, business and commerce are two important aspects in globalization.
Now, why English? Why not other languages, like Spanish or Mandarin?
A simple answer, the United States has become the superpower and has the command in terms of 'lingua franca'. Thus, the idea of ''ain't''not being accepted and deemed low class or ignorant has something to do with power. Those people who were in the 'know-how' were mostly in the upper class during that time (18th century), so they prescribed what ought to be used or not. People then follow and accept this as 'standard'. (This is still true today, if I may add. ^^)

On the other hand, language is so dynamic that only time can tell when ''ain't'' can be accepted as standard, not slang. I'll be one of the people who'll rejoice over this because if ''ain't'' is the substitute for all pronoun+be contractions, then there will be less confusion in spelling (e.g. it's vs its; they're vs there, etc.). :bounce:

Thank you very much for your question and insight! This has led me to be more open to letting my students know about this flexible contraction, ''ain't.'' In addition, it can help them be more immersed in the English spoken language.

[Zahir]

Thanks for bringing this topic up!

I think the development of language is quite biased. It makes us ask why the computer terms tend to be immediately accepted and not the ones that are common in everyday speech.

Just wanna share some thoughts!

[cmo]

Thanks for bringing this topic up!

I think the development of language is quite biased. It makes us ask why the computer terms tend to be immediately accepted and not the ones that are common in everyday speech.

Just wanna share some thoughts!

That's a good point. Very recently we can "Google", "sms" or "text", "pm", "lol", etc, ... and are already found in some dictionaries.

:google:

[lasher]

Hey now MsC,

Your welcome, :mypleasure:

And thank you for your reply, it looks like you did some digging on this one..:thankyou:

And thank you cmo and zahir,

Your absolutely right, how can words such as google, pm, lol and omg be considered words for the English language while ain't still gets the short end of the stick?!

[neyx]

Wow ain't it hard to be "ain't" ? I like the word ain't I hope ain't be accepted.

[trailblazerstravelntours]

On the other hand, language is so dynamic that only time can tell when ''ain't'' can be accepted as standard, not slang. I'll be one of the people who'll rejoice over this because if ''ain't'' is the substitute for all pronoun+be contractions, then there will be less confusion in spelling (e.g. it's vs its; they're vs there, etc.). :bounce:




It's true. Language is dynamic. I wouldn't be surprised if ain't will be accepted as standard English in the future. One reason for language change is economy. I've heard my professors mention in class that speakers tend to make their utterances as simple, as efficient and as effective as possible. Contractions are very economic because they are shorter in form. It saves time and effort when we use contractions. Every now and then I hear people shorten words in their utterances. This is language economy. Contractions are cost-effective when speaking of time and effort in reaching our communicative goals. If there's only one substitute for all pronoun + be contraction, it will be easier to learn and use it. :happy0088:

[pinoypower]

Lasher gave a comprehensive historical background on 'Ain't' but my question is: If 'ain't' is a contraction what is it's full form. This is perhaps the reason why it is not accepted because we cannot identify it's true form. As the saying goes 'No ID, no entry'.Hehehe!
How can 'ain't enter mainstream English if it can't be identified?

[ctivnan]

Lasher gave a comprehensive historical background on 'Ain't' but my question is: If 'ain't' is a contraction what is it's full form. This is perhaps the reason why it is not accepted because we cannot identify it's true form. As the saying goes 'No ID, no entry'.Hehehe!
How can 'ain't enter mainstream English if it can't be identified?

That's a good point, pinoypower. :COOL0020:

The use of "ain't" can be identified through the context it is used.