Author Topic: Ain't (Read 1082 times)

Porter · « **on:** February 23, 2006, 12:20:03 PM »

What is wrong with the word ain't? Why is considered wrong?

Brinestone · « **Reply #1 on:** February 23, 2006, 12:27:26 PM »

If you ask me, there ain't nothing wrong with ain't.

But because those with status somewhere in the development of English didn't say ain't and those without status did, the word became associated with lower status and therefore taboo. It's all about who wears the suits.

Porter · « **Reply #2 on:** February 23, 2006, 12:37:47 PM »

You left out the h in hain't.

Jonathon · « **Reply #3 on:** February 23, 2006, 12:52:42 PM »

In a nutshell: it's an irregular and obscure form that is used in place of the traditional forms. For a long time grammarians objected to negative contractions in general, and ain't seems to have borne the brunt of the criticism because it bears the least resemblance to the full form and because it's used for several different forms of to be.

Add to that the fact that it's also used for forms of to have, and it's easy to see how it attracted the negative attention of grammarians who felt it to be ungrammatical and vulgar. If someone uses an odd contraction to stand for half a dozen different things, all of which have more regular forms, then obviously it must be an atrocity against the language.

pooka · « **Reply #4 on:** February 23, 2006, 01:52:34 PM »

I was always taught the status explanation. I like it better than "aren't" for use with "I". As in 'Why aren't I happy" which was an article in the Ensign in 1991.