Talk:Ain't/Contractions of negated auxiliary verbs in English

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Ain’t is also obligatory in some fixed phrases...[edit]

"Ain’t is also obligatory in some fixed phrases, such as “Say it ain’t so” and “you ain’t seen nothing yet” (though for the former, “Say it isn’t so” is also sometimes used)"

In which case it's not exactly obligatory, is it?88.67.248.27 (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be some discussion of the connection between ain't and amn't, which apparently predated ain't as a contraction for "am not" (and is still used in some places). It seems likely that ain't evolved from amn't, since amn't is so hard to pronounce. Terry 20:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. I always assumed it had come from "estn't" from the days of Anglo-French, through association with the English verb forms art and are (I hadn't considered to include am, and is would be a redundant inclusion, since est is already is...) Amn't isn't that difficult to pronounce, but it simply doesn't lend itself to contraction, which makes it seem rather strange to learn that ain't is derived therefrom... I had assumed that the usage "amn't" was an invented form to distinguish it from "ain't" (for "isn't"...remember the nyänyä line..."ain't ain't a word 'cuz ain't ain't in the dictionary"...in the cases where it has a meaning in that phrase, it quite clearly is a contraction for "is not"). Why "ain't" should be more from "amn't" than "i'nt" (isn't) or "a'nt" (aren't) is beyond me, especially when those forms are easier to confuse than "amn't". Anyways, I'm happy to report that the form "amn't" is still quite commonly heard (albeit not as commonly as "aren't" in "aren't I?"...well ok, so, in Wisconsin, most people actually say "ain I?")  :-) Tomer TALK 06:29, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
I had heard, or read, at one time that "ain't" was derived from Creole speakers in Louisiana. It was from a combination of French and English: "J'ai not" -> "Je ain't". Can anyone else verify this? I can't seem to find any references on the Internet to substantiate this, but Tomer's comments above seem similar ("estn't")...
"J'ai not" is not proper French -- the equivalent would be "J'ai pas"
"J'ai pas" is not proper French either, it should be, "Je n'ai pas" --Mike Oosting (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That theory looks highly dubious, considering that ain't originated in Great Britain. Only its exact etymology is debated.

Hain't[edit]

The AfD for "Hain't" suggested that the content be merged here. This is the content:

Hain't, as used in Mark Twain's The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, appears to be a contraction of "has not" or "have not" modeled after "ain't" (originally a contraction for "am not", but now a substandard or dialect contraction for several negations.)

Contributed by User:Idon'texist --thanks, Babajobu 20:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prescriptivists consider the word a shibboleth. Critics say frequent use of ain't is a marker of basilectal — which is to say, "vulgate" or "common people", and by inference, low class — speech. The same applies for using i'n'it (normally written as innit) instead of "isn't it". This judgement, hard to justify on etymological or grammatical reasons, remains a widespread belief, and is to some extent self-perpetuating, since prescriptivist teachers and parents discourage the use of the term.

she ain't call me[edit]

Doesn't sound right to me. Though "she ain't called me" for "she hasn't called me" sounds right. I'll just be bold and change it, though I'm no language expert so feel free to revert. Matt 12:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In parts of Ireland, people under-pronounce the letter "d", so this can sound like "I i'nt see it" (apostrophe marking mild glottal stop), but I've never heard "I ain't see it" - not in life and not on TV. Gronky 09:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prescriptivists consider the word a shibboleth. Critics say frequent use of ain't is a marker of basilectal — which is to say, "vulgate" or "common people", and by inference, low class — speech. The same applies for using i'n'it (normally written as innit) instead of "isn't it". This judgement, hard to justify on etymological or grammatical reasons, remains a widespread belief, and is to some extent self-perpetuating, since prescriptivist teachers and parents discourage the use of the term.

Do I detect a contributor's personal feelings in these sentences? Consider rewriting it. Rintrah 17:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

maybe you should use U.S.A. instead of America

What basis is there for calling these usages "incorrect"? That sounds uncomfortably prescriptivist, from a linguist's point of view. Can't we just say "In some dialects it is also used as a contraction of...", without passing judgment on these dialects by calling them wrong? eliah 23:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British vs. American Usage[edit]

Ain't this word used more frequently (and perhaps by upper classes) in British English? I ain't no expert on how wikipedia works, but this article seems to cover almost exclusivley American usage.

I ain't not heard it been used there by those folks. But I ain't live there anytime. So I wouldn't know. I think, if the article ain't right, you gotta look up the riiiight sources, then correct it, if you know what I'm sayin'. Nuthin' too hard in that. Yeehaa!! Rintrah 05:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy, I reckon I disagree with the statement up yonder. Ain't is used very frequently in American rural areas and in African American Vernacular English. Fcfisher 05:08, 18 March 2008

If youse guys go to Southern New England, youse ain't gonna believe how often ain't gets used. Mostly in blue collar neighborhoods, but here and there in a few of the middle class enclaves. Ain't it the truth, though? 63.167.255.154 (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its actually used in Canada a fair amount as well, atleast by those who ain't grammar freaks. Then again maybe I just spend to much time down in the South. :P --Mike Oosting (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its the opposite, Ain't is used ALOT by the lower/middle classes in UK, certainly in southern England. Although the term originates from upper class English restoration writers, the upper classes in England very RARELY (if ever) use the term. Dickens used the slang term often when he started in the 1830's, and he often dealt with the lower classes (in Oliver Twist as mentioned in article). Current TV shows such as Eastenders that is based in East London, use Ain't very often. ChristianCole 21:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Written and spoken language[edit]

This article is sadly deficient because it focusses on POV prescription-bashing instead of looking at what style manuals etc. actually say. Ain't is very acceptable spoken English, but is rarely found in formal writing, and would not be found, for example, in an academic report. It is a question of register. The "prescriptivists" whom this article seems to enjoy knocking perform a very important task: they help non-linguists, who can't engage in descriptive research for themselves, to judge what language is appropriate in what situations. They base their judgments on descriptive study, combined with a common-sense approach to avoiding ambiguity, and try to make sensible recommendations, though they themselves are as aware as anybody that all such judgments are problematic. See Linguistic prescription. Since ain't belongs to the spoken language of large parts of the English-speaking world, you will find no serious authorities who will condemn it in speech (though the situation in that respect may well have been different in the 19th century, when the form was less wide-spread than it is today), but most authorities advise against using it in writing, and rightly so. This article needs a complete rewrite under that perspective. --Doric Loon 21:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The article sets out to prove a point: that "ain't" is misunderstood, and prescripitivists endorse this misunderstanding. The article takes a denunciating tone against the stated opponents of "ain't"—consider these sentences:

There is little justification for this judgment on etymological or grammatical grounds, but it remains a widespread belief that the word is "not a word" or "incorrect"... Many prescriptivists prefer "Aren't I" in this situation; this is illogical in conjugation (the Hiberno-English and Scottish English form Amn't I?

I suggest this article be rewritten so as to not document a war between descriptivists and prescriptivists. We should not be enlisting readers for a grammatical war, but rather be informing them objectively and impartially. Rintrah 18:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't is most assuredly not acceptable in spoken English. Try using it in a job interview. 63.167.255.154 (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Used incorrectly[edit]

From the opening paragraph:

In some dialects it is also used incorrectly as a contraction of “do not”, “does not”, and “did not”, as in I ain’t know that. The word is a perennial issue in English usage.

Does this make sense? Maybe "also used additionally".. --24.118.213.206 19:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--I removed the "incorrectly"; the sentence stands fine as it is. Ain't is incorrect in Standard American English, but not in other variants. It's more than a little insulting to say that speakers of a language don't know how to use their native tongue. 134.10.20.160 09:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Song lyrics[edit]

I removed this list of mostly song lyrics from the article in chief. "Ain't" figures in many, many song lyrics and titles, and cataloguing all of them is probably a vain endeavour. One or two of them, maybe the Hollies and Gershwin, might be worth adding. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ain’t, uhr, is this a self-contradiction,...?: Origin and early usage[edit]

Ain’t arose toward the end of an eighteenth century period that marked the development of most of the English contracted verb forms such as can’t, don’t, and won’t. The form first appears in print in 1685, in a Latin text regarding English variability,.....

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 02:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wain't[edit]

"Wain't" might deserve to be on this page. [1] [2] [3] Kyle McInnes (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wain't? I've never heard that in my life, atleast around these parts. --Mike Oosting (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double-Negative[edit]

When 'ain't' is used the sentence often results in a double-negative. Consider:

"I ain't got any" "I ain't got none"

These typically both have the same meaning, despite the obvious contradiction. Nprey (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ain't[edit]

Ain't is often italicized throughout this article. Since it is not a title, I'm sure if this is correct. Can anyone cite me why this italics is correct?--Marcus Brute (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that "ain't" would be italicized because it is being referred to as a word. In that last sentence, I used quotation marks for the same purpose.71.30.225.18 (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism mistake[edit]

I attempted to make a legitimate edit to the Wikipedia page a couple days ago, and unfortunately a malicious script on my browser autochanged every instance of "Bush" to "Douchebag." So I guess I accidentally vandalized the page. I just figured it warranted an explanation. Eebster the Great (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New article?[edit]

Seems to me that "ain't" should have its own article, given that well over half of the uses of "ain't" in Contraction of am not are not, in fact, contractions of "am not", but rather the other contractions of "ain't", such as "is not", "have not", etc. I'd propose leaving the relevant "ain't" stuff here with the "amn't" stuff, and moving the rest to a new Ain't article. Thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course, that's what we had until the article was moved here. Most of the discussion above relates to the article entitled "ain't". :-) --Doric Loon (talk) 10:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes sense. But since most of the content of this article doesn't relate to its title, shouldn't there be two articles - one that talks only about contractions of "am not", and one that talks about the various contractions of "ain't"? I'd do it myself, but I understand there are issues with preserving history and so forth when you reuse an old article title. Dohn joe (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split request[edit]

See above for reasoning. For now, I'd have the first half of the current article (with differing leads) in both Contraction of am not and Ain't, and then move the rest (Linguistic prescription, Deliberate usage, and Notable examples) to Ain't. Another option would be to move all of the "ain't" sections to Ain't, leaving just a link on Contraction of am not. Again, I'd do it if I knew how to reconcile the history pages. Dohn joe (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, after consultation. Dohn joe (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was undone the other day, and because of a complaint I ahve re-structured the article and moved it to Ain't and amn't (with a section on related words hain't and bain't and I hope that can be the end of it. ;-) Until somebody wants to merge Innit... -- Evertype·✆ 07:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anything had really been undone - owing to my lack of technical prowess, I had to ask User:Anthony Appleyard to help out. He just rearranged things in the proper order to execute what I was trying to do.
Also, I do understand that in some cases not everyone will be happy with an outcome (in Wikipedia and in life), but I would still strenuously argue that there should be an article simply titled Ain't. I've learned a lot about amn't in the last few weeks, and wouldn't necessarily be opposed to its having its own article (or returning to Ain't and Contraction of am not). But ain't, due to its importance in terms of usage and as a cultural touchstone, deserves its own entry - and in the context of discussing ain't, amn't is, overall, secondary.
Having an article called Ain't and amn't is akin to having an article called London and the City of London. London and the City of London are distinct, but related topics. A full discussion of the former requires discussion of the latter. But millions of people live in London, while only a few thousand people live in the City of London. And importantly, London simply covers more ground (literally) than the City of London. Likewise, ain't and amn't are distinct but related words. The former evolved from the latter, with the latter continuing to exist. But a Google search for "ain't" turns up over 51,000,000 results, while a search for "amn't" returns just over 48,000. (A search for "hain't -ghost", by the way, returns over 300,000, which prompts the question why the article might not be titled Ain't and amn't and hain't and bain't.) And ain't also covers more ground than amn't (i.e., it contracts more than just am not, and it is part of the culture to a far greater extent).
So, that's my argument for an Ain't-only article. Thanks to User:Evertype for trying to come up with a solution to what has obviously been a difficult question over the last several months. Anybody have any reaction? Dohn joe (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody wanting Ain't will arrive here. Anyone wanting Amn't will arrive here. The two are related, as are Hain't and Bain't. All the bases are covered. Percentages of article content are, in my view, irrelevant. -- Evertype·✆ 01:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amn't is very widespread in Ireland. People from all over the country use it without hesitation, so much so in fact that after 20 years in Ireland I have assimilated it as a natural part of my own speech. (I am a native speaker of conservative Eastern Pennsylvania English, and a linguist on top of that.) I don't believe that there should be two articles (like your London analogy). I think there should only be one article. Now, the article is mostly about ain't which is very very widespread. But amn't is a form of am not, not a form of ain't. There is a fair bit on hain't on Google, but subtracting -ghost gets me 130,000 and -lang (K D Lang lyrics) gets 126,000, and subtracting -huck -twain puts it back up to 555,000 so methinks there is something weird there. Anyway, apart from Dr Timothy Hain, poor fellow, it looks as though many of the hits are song lyrics rather than (say) blog entries. Amn't belongs in this article (and not in another one) because it is in fact an antecedant, an etymon of ain't. So is an't but the difference is that amn't is still alive and well in speech, and an't has fallen out of use entirely. Hain't and bain't seem to be newer formations on analogy with ain't, so even if they might be widespread (thought the article suggests they are found in older literature and I have found them in songs), I don't see how they'd merit getting in the article title.
Your argument seems to be that Ain't "deserves" an article without amn't in it. I think that's not the better view. The two belong in the same article. I still stand by the name Ain't and amn't with the relevant redirects to it. I think this title is nice and educational. It's an encyclopaedia, after all. -- Evertype·✆ 13:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We really do agree on so much here, Evertype. For example.... 1) I like amn't. I think it fills a need in English grammar, and if people in California didn't look at me funny, I might try using it myself. :) 2) Amn't without question belongs in this article. I actually found and added the historical material linking amn't and ain't (via an't) that's in there now. And to take your statement above one step further, not only is amn't not a form of ain't, ain't is essentially a form of amn't. 3) I don't know much about hain't. My first guess about finding it more in song lyrics than in blogs and other written places is that it is largely a spoken form, and song lyrics often mirror the vernacular around their creation (which is why you'd find ain't relatively more frequently in lyrics than journals, or even blogs, I'd bet). 4) Google results don't always make sense. I had the same issues with subtracting things like ghost, lang, and huckleberry from hain't, and yet getting more results. Weird. 5) Ain't did not belong only on Contraction of am not, for the simple reason that it is a contraction for much more than that.
And I hope folks can see that my argument is not at all that ain't deserves an article without amn't in it (and my edit history hopefully backs me up there). Really, my position is only that ain't merits a title without amn't in it. The article should, as it does, have all the amn't (and hain't) content that it does now. But (and only - I stress only) only in the context of discussing ain't, amn't is a related word (not a subordinate or derived word), and not a word of co-significance, and therefore shouldn't be in the title.
Why? Well, to me, the reason that ain't belongs in Wikipedia in the first place, as opposed to just Wiktionary (i.e., Ain't: nonstandard contraction of am not, is not, etc.) is because of its place in English-speaking culture. Why don't we have Wikipedia entries for Doesn't, Aren't, or Haven't? Because they're simply words. Ain't has content beyond what's found in the dictionary. And that content is only tangentially related to amn't and hain't. Those words have their own content, and have had their own Wikipedia articles at various times, and may have them again - but ain't has independent content from those (and all other) words.
Okay - latest impassioned plea over. :) Like I told Evertype, I'm just trying to get the clearest, most straightforward article we can, and I think we get that by changing the title - and only the title - back to Ain't. And like Evertype has said, there's little practical difference between Ain't and amn't and Ain't - people searching for ain't and amn't and hain't will all get here and find the same content. It's really just a question of which title do we use. I'd love to have some input from folks out there. What do you all think? Dohn joe (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the suggestion that this article should be named Ain't only. Ain't derives from amn't; that makes amn't important. Both ain't and amn't are currently in use in different parts of the world. People who search for ain't will get here. Please. We've had arguments about splitting into multiple articles. We had the awful title Contraction of am not. We have the articles merged again. We have a title that covers the basic material concisely. Your pleas aren't convincing me, anyway, or your analogies. I encourage you to improve the content of the article, but at this stage, let's just leave it at Ain't and amn't, which is both accurate and concise. -- Evertype·✆ 00:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I really think "deserves" is POV. -- Evertype·✆ 00:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try again, with more new (to me) information. :) Would it matter that ain't, in its two senses of forms of to be not and to have not actually derives from both amn't and hain't? (See here, too.) Or that hain't is also [www.stanford.edu/~rdgreene/qp2.doc currently in use]? That would seem to put amn't and hain't on par with each other, certainly in their importance as ain't antecedents, and perhaps to a lesser extent in their continued vitality. If those are the criteria for title-inclusion, then hain't should be added to the title. I would still argue that the title should revert to Ain't, with subcategories devoted to amn't and hain't.
I think I've been objective here, backing up my assertions with sources and facts. "Deserve" was just meant as a synonym for "merit". Anyhow, no pleas, no analogies - I think I've laid it out plainly. And if not, look out bain't! (I don't even know what that means....) Dohn joe (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hain't derives from have not, hae not, apparently, with a subsequent loss of h in some places. That secondary development doesn't put hain't at the same level as amn't in my opinion. The "famous" ain't that you think makes ain't primary for this article is the amn't-derived ain't, not the haven't-derived (h)ain't. My view that Ain't and amn't is the best name for this article is unchanged. -- Evertype·✆ 18:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? The to have not meaning of ain't is attested on both sides of the Atlantic since at least the 1830s. It is listed in every dictionary definition of ain't that I've found - without any geographical delimitation. Some dictionaries list the to have not sense as the second meaning after to be not - but some don't even make that distinction. Both senses are currently "flourishing". In listing only one example of ain't, MSN Encarta chose the to have not sense - You ain't seen nothing yet. Given the widespread, commonplace use of ain't as a form of to have not, I would call to have not a subsequent development in the history of ain't - not a secondary one.
Also (in the more new information department), according to several sources, the to be not sense of ain't is thought to have derived, via an't, from several conjugations of to be not - not just amn't. While the first known use of an't was as a contraction of am not, the very next year an't was used to mean are not. Merriam-Webster (in a source already cited on Ain't and amn't) says that an't "arose almost simultaneously from both am not and are not." (Ain't for isn't may have even a third development, via in't or en't.)
Which means that there are several origins for today's ain't: amn't-an't-ain't; aren't-an't-ain't; and has/have not-hain't-ain't (at least). Amn't, aren't, and hain't seem like fairly equal antecedents to me. Since I assume no one wants to see this article called Ain't and amn't and aren't and hain't (and maybe isn't), I think this is the strongest argument yet for a return to Ain't.
I hope you're enjoying this debate as much as I am, Evertype (the same goes for any other readers). I've learned so much about all these words, and I think the end result is a much stronger article - hopefully entitled Ain't. :) Dohn joe (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy if you dropped the debate. I don't, and won't agree to move amn't into ain't since amn't is a precursor which is still in current use, even if you haven't heard it. The article is fine with its present title. Work to improve the article. Stop worrying about its title. The title is good enough, and Ain't ain't a better title. Amn't is not a subordinate form of ain't. -- Evertype·✆ 23:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that amn't is a precursor which is still in current use. But isn't aren't a precursor which is still in current use? Same with haven't/hain't? I don't see what distinguishes amn't from those words. Dohn joe (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For starters am is the inherited Old English verb (ic eom) and are when used with a first person singular sense is a Norse loanword. Both ar'n't and a'n't are used in the 17th century for "am not" and "are not"; but are not and aren't are hardly notable and I would not think that either would belong in the article title for any reason. It appears that the form hain't is influenced by ain't; the OED cites ain't in the sense of "haven't" fairly late, not earlier than 1845, though it may also be influenced by Scots hae which would have found its place in parts of the Eastern US about that time and earlier. Amn't is not influenced by ain't but I don't think the same can be said of the other words. That's why Ain't and amn't works well: the two are equal, though the former is more widespread. -- Evertype·✆ 08:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

OK, after seeing the request on Wikipedia:Third opinion I thought I'd give this a shot. In reading the discussion above, the first thing that comes to my mind is WP:UNDUE. Even if "amn't" is still in use in Ireland, I am skeptical that its use among all English speaking people is as widespread as "ain't". Therefore, I don't believe that the spirit of Wikipedia's undue weight principle is served by giving "amn't" equal weight to "ain't" in the title of this article. In my opinion, it should be enough that Amn't, Hain't, and so forth all redirect to this article that explains the variations and origins of each word. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a request "on Wikipedia:Third opinion"—I only see some rules about how to make a request. Where is the request? In any case, amn't is not only in use in Ireland, but in Scotland. I cannot speak for Scotland, but in Ireland it is not "still in use"; it is in widespread use throughout the country, at every level of society, from pubs to the halls of Leinster House. It might surprise you to know that ain't isn't used in Ireland at all. I have never heard it here. Is it WP:UNDUE in your opinion because Ireland is small? Amn't is not a variety of ain't; it is not a derivative of ain't either. Indeed it is a pre-cursor of ain't, just as an't is, although the latter has fallen out of disuse. Hain't and bain't are arguably derivatives of ain't, formed from haven't and *be-n't on analogy with ain't. (Hain't may be influenced by Scots haena) They are subordinate in a way that amn't is not. I don't believe that just because Hiberno-English is not well known outside of Ireland that this makes Ain't and amn't an inappropriate title. Please read the article. Doesn't the initial paragraph make it clear what the distinctions are? I believe that all of these words should be in a single article. But although other words are either back-formations or certainly influenced by ain't, that isn't the case for amn't. Dohn Joe seems to have been on about how ain't "deserves" the glory of a one-word article title. I think that is not linguistically correct, so I oppose that view. Conversely, amn't "deserves" not to be considered to be a variant or derivative of ain't since the opposite is the case. I stand by the article title Ain't' and amn't. Linguistically, this is the most appropriate title, and I do not believe that it gives "undue weight" to amn't. -- Evertype·✆ 08:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Evertype, and I do not want to see amn't treated merely as a variant of ain't - so I support the current title of Ain't and amn't. The article itself provides the justification for this, when it says "Amn't, in addition to being an antecedent of ain’t, is a standard contraction of am not in some dialects...". Amn't, in other words, has far more of an independent life than hain't, bain't, etc. Including it in the article title affords it due weight, not undue weight. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 12:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Third opinion requests are removed from Wikipedia:Third opinion when the request is answered. You can view the request here. The request didn't ask about article content. Instead, it asked whether "amn't" belongs in the title. In my opinion it does not.
This is the English Wikipedia. English is read and spoken outside of Ireland and Scotland; in fact I would say that the majority of English speakers are neither Irish nor Scottish. Also, the word "ain't" is common not only throughout North America, but also in the UK. The usage of "amn't" appears to be quite confined to a minority population of English speakers. Therefore, the spirit of WP:UNDUE is violated by giving "amn't" equal billing in the title of the article.
However, I agree with Evertype that this isn't linguistically correct. To expand on my third opinion, I will say that "Ain't" doesn't belong in the title either.
A better solution would be to change the title of the article to describe the subject in accordance with WP:TITLE. The current title fails to comply with WP:TITLE. This article discusses a number of different related words. The title should be about this particular class of words. I suggest dialectal contraction or something similar, with ain't, amn't, etc. being redirects to that article. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for jumping in here, Amatulić. I thought I had answered Evertype's linguistic concerns by showing that amn't, aren't, isn't, an't, hain't, haven't, and hasn't are all antecedents of ain't. This is what the sources I've found have told me, at least. I still haven't seen Evertype refute that with sources of his own.
Eh? The OED is my source, and many of your sources have hardly been rigorous. Haven't and Hasn't may have been reduced to hain't but unless influenced by Scots haena the form hain't is likely to have been influenced by ain't. Accordingly, hain't is by no means an antecedent of ain't but rather a development influenced by it. OED's earliest reference to hain't is 1865, which is very late indeed. As to amn't and ar'n't I have answered that above. -- Evertype·✆ 23:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And if I'm correct about the linguistics (and I'm open to being shown otherwise!), then I still think the article should be Ain't. Ain't has such a prominent place in the language, that it will dominate whatever article it's in. To me, the article is about ain't, with the other contractions like amn't and aren't supporting the ain't story.
That said, if Ain't doesn't have consensus, I'd propose Nonstandard contractions as opposed to Dialectal contraction, since ain't is used across many dialects of English. Dohn joe (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, because this article isn't about just the two words "ain't" and "amn't", the title should reflect what the article is really about. I like the idea of a more general subject. I came up with "dialectal" because that's how Wiktionary categorizes "ain't". "Dialectical" doesn't necessarily mean "restricted to one dialect", it just means "associated with dialect". The problem with "nonstandard" or "informal" is that one gets into opinionated arguments about what is and isn't standard. Look at Wiktionary:Category:English contractions for example. There's a lot of stuff in there, and it's hard to determine what's nonstandard. We need a title for this article that covers the general topic of this sort of slang contraction involving "not". Maybe dialectal negative contraction or some such title. I dunno. Brainstorming is welcome. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody would ever search for this article with Nonstandard contractions and Dialectal contraction is going to apply to a bazillion things, not exceptin' reduction of -ing to -in'. I maintain my support for Ain't and amn't. Concise. Balanced. Educational. Job done. -- Evertype·✆ 22:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is ain't and its derivatives, and the related word amn't. To be frank the arguments here on this page against Ain't and amn't do not show much linguistic rigour. -- Evertype·✆ 23:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And of course ain't has an important place in the language. But amn't does too, in places where the language is spoken by many native speakers, even if that is not known to you in North America. English is an official language of Ireland, and since both ain't and amn't are "nonstandard" I am going to have to object to the statement that "the majority of English speakers are neither Irish nor Scottish". Thou shalt not dismiss millions of speakers thus. -- Evertype·✆ 23:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having easy access to the OED is one of my lifetime goals. But in the meantime... What does the OED say about ain't meaning hasn't or haven't? If hain't didn't appear until the 1860s, but ain't meant hasn't at least by the 1830s, that sense had to have come from somewhere.... Dohn joe (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OED's earliest citation is 1906: "I'll show 'em the Waldoff ain't got nothin' on Maggie de Shine". All the citations are American. Which of course makes all of them late. ;-) -- Evertype·✆ 00:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, interesting. My source for the earliest use of ain't to mean hasn't is Merriam-Webster (p.60), which claims that in the 1830s, ain't meant hasn't - and on both sides of the pond at some point. What happens when two heavyweights like the OED and M-W differ so greatly on dates? Dohn joe (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype, you can object all you want, but the fact remains that millions of English speakers in Ireland and Scotland are a minority of English speakers, even when you restrict the population to those parts of the world having English as the official language. I'm not "dismissing" them, not in the least! I'm simply stating a fact in the context of Wikipedia policy. And so we get back to the WP:UNDUE principle. "Ain't" is common in the English speaking world, and "amn't" is comparatively obscure.
Look, someone asked for an opinion on the title. I gave two opinions grounded in Wikipedia policy, both giving a reason why the title of the article should change. The title fails WP:UNDUE or fails WP:TITLE or both. But... We also have the Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (IAR) policy. I'm not involved here; if the consensus is to keep the title as it is because it makes sense to do so, then IAR is perfectly fine, because it does no harm and doesn't push a point of view. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - Article title[edit]

There's a dispute over the best name for this article, with Ain't and Ain't and amn't being the two main choices. See above for discussion, including a neutral third opinion that has not yet produced consensus. All comments welcome! Dohn joe (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request-for-commentators should read the discussion above. In summary, however: There seems to be consensus that there should be one article comprising a set of colloquial abbreviations deriving from am not and are not. Historically, both a(m)n't and ar(e)n't fell together as an't with raising to en't leading to ain't. But in Scotland and Ireland, a disyllabic contraction amn't was used and is preserved and is in widespread use (at least in Ireland) today. (Ain't is not used in Ireland.) So ain't and amn't are related, but have separate etymologies. For my part I do not believe they ought to be in separate articles; readers of the encyclopaedia are better-served by a single article.
Now there are some other words, hain't and bain't which evidently derive from ha(ve)n't (or Scots hae n't) and be n't but whose modern forms seem quite clearly to be influenced by ain't. Further, ain't itself has been extended mean "have not" in addition to "am/is/are not". I'd consider these to be subordinate to ain't on the basis of that influence; amn't is not subordinate in the same way. So I don't believe there is cause for the article to be named Ain't and amn't and hain't and bain't. But on linguistic grounds since amn't is not a form of ain't I believe the name Ain't only for the article to be misleading.
The argument against the double-barrelled title seems to be that ain't is somehow "deserving" because it is more widespread. I'd stipulate that most people may be interested in ain't because it is widespread. I do not, however, believe that the title gives amn't undue emphasis. Since amn't is an independent but related word, uninfluenced by ain't (and incidentally not attracting the kind of deprecation ain't has attracted by prescriptivist linguists), I maintain my support for the title as Ain't and amn't. Concise. Balanced. Linguistically accurate. Educational. Job done. -- Evertype·✆ 08:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really do not understand the argument against Ain't and amn't as a title. It seems to me to encapsulate the content of the article neatly and succinctly. It is sensible to cover both words in the same article, because there is considerable overlap in the ground they cover. But ample evidence has been produced in the discussion above, and some of it is in the article itself, that amn't has a considerable life beyond ain't, in a way that forms such as hain't and bain't do not. Amn't is not a variant of ain't but a different contraction, with a different history and a different pattern of current usage. I completely reject the notion that because ain't is more common it should subsume amn't within it, in contradiction to all the linguistic and cultural evidence. A few weeks ago this article was called Contraction of am not, until someone rightly pointed out that ain't has meanings/usages beyond what that title suggested. So the title has been changed, and I think the current one is just right. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My latest two cents (I think my total is about $1.84 so far....): Having amn't in the title is undue for two reasons. First, singling out amn't unduly emphasizes it over the other derivations of ain't. ain't means hasn't, haven't, am not (amn't), aren't, and isn't (and didn't to a lesser extent) rather equally. As noted above, all of these senses of ain't are currently "flourishing", according to Merriam-Webster, and they've all been around for awhile. (No disrepect to the OED, but ain't meant has/haven't in both the U.S. and England well before 1906. See here, here, and here, for starters.) And if the various meanings of ain't are roughly equal in use and history, that makes amn't just one of several equal antecedents.
Second, having amn't in the title gives undue weight to the proposition that amn't is the only prominent word related to ain't. Allowing for the "boring" or "normal" related words (like "isn't" and "haven't"), I still don't understand the argument that hain't is "subordinate" to ain't in a way that amn't is not. Despite Evertype's repeated insistence otherwise, hain't came before ain't, in its sense of haven't. Hain't has its own independent history that predates its change to ain't. Hain't is used today in a wide geographical area (e.g., Appalachia, the Ozarks, London). It's found in literature and popular songs. In other words, hain't is just like amn't. Putting amn't in the title doesn't reflect that.
No one is proposing to banish the amn't or hain't content - it's all vital to the full picture. But in the end, the article is about ain't and all of its senses of to be not and to have not. "Ain't" is concise, accurate, and straightforward. Dohn joe (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether ain't has a variety of meanings is not relevant to the argument here. It is the word that is a subject of the article; the article can and should describe the various senses in which it is used. So it doesn't matter if the word ain't is as you say "flourishing" in a number of usages: it is stipulated that the word is important and that it has a number of uses. Its chief use is as a replacement for am/is/are not; that is also its primary historical use.
You have said "singling out amn't unduly emphasizes it over the other derivations of ain't," and this is part of the problem. Amn't is not a derivative of ain't.
Hain't on the other hand does not appear to have the same independence as amn't does. Your use of the citation at hain't came before ain't does not "prove" anything. The big OED's earliest attestation for ain't is 1778 (in the sense of isn't) and its earliest attestation for an't is 1706. THe OED does not give any citations for hain't but simply says "vulgar contr. of have not." Under have the OED also does not give citations for hain't. Under not the OED gives a citation for arn't you 1639 and if I amn't 1691 and I an't 1701 and actually doesn't give citations including haven't at all. Note that an't and amn't predate ain't, and as we shall see, ain't seems in fact to pre-date hain't at least in attestations.
Now it may be the case that haven't > ha'n't (and you will find examples in in Fielding's Tom Jones (1748) and in Dickens' Great Expectations (1860) and Our Mutual Friend (1864)) but that form has certainly fallen out of use and it seems likely that the form hain't has been influenced by the raising of the vowel from an't to ain't. Moreover, if hain't and ain't co-existed in London dialect, they would have certainly fallen together due to H-dropping, which is exactly where you get the ain't got that you cited from Niles' Weekly Register (1819) and Dickens' Martin Chuzzlewit (1843) and the Reynolds book (1849). H-dropping merges hain't with ain't in London. And even if the h is preserved as you say in the Ozarks, I strongly suspect that hain't is regularly replaced by ain't even there, and even if it is attested in some easily-googlable songs (and in Huck Finn (1884) of course) I think it is probably safe to say that I ain't got no satisfaction is more prevalent than I hain't got no satisfaction.
So we're back to the living words, and it seems clear that ain't and amn't are alive and well. Amn't is not a derivative of, and is not influenced by, ain't. The article is about ain't in all of its senses and derived/influenced words, and about the independent amn't. It would be wrong to subsume the latter under the single title Ain't. The title Ain't and amn't is concise, linguistically accurate, and educational. -- Evertype·✆ 08:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First off, a mea culpa: I meant to say that "singling out amn't unduly emphasizes it over the other antecedents of ain't," not derivations. I do realize and agree (and have consistently maintained) that amn't is a precursor of ain't, largely untouched by ain't's subsequent development. It remains true, though, that amn't is only one of several precursors of ain't. That was my point, and I'm sorry if I obscured that by using the wrong word.
So - if ain't got came about through H-dropping, doesn't that mean there was an "h" there in the first place? Making hain't an antecedent of ain't?
And I still don't understand your claim of the primacy or chiefness of ain't meaning am/are/is not over has/have not. Ain't developing from am/are/is not and has/have not is a diachronic coincidence, meaning the senses developed independently, at different times. It doesn't mean that has/have not is a subordinate sense. And in any event, the development of both senses of ain't was not all that far apart, temporally. We have both an't and han't/ha'n't by the early 1700s. We have ain't for isn't by 1750 or so - but we also have ain't for has/haven't by 1819. That's a difference of just 70 years in the centuries-long development of ain't - and it means that ain't has meant both am/are/isn't and has/haven't for nearly two hundred years. Major authors like Dickens used ain't in both its to be not and to have not senses - where is your evidence that to be not is the chief use or the primary historical use?
I also think that reports of the demise of hain't have been greatly exaggerated. It's as alive as ain't and amn't. Both as a direct descendant of han't/ha'n't, and as a current variant of ain't in H-adding dialects such as Cockney. And since many dialects are both H-adding and H-dropping, it's likely that hain't's fortunes have and will continue to wax and wane. But there remain dialects where hain't and ain't co-exist - independent of each other. In other words, there are places today where hain't means only has/haven't, and ain't means only am/are/isn't. Of course hain't in all its usages is less prevalent than ain't - but so is amn't. I didn't think mere commonality was a deciding factor here. Hain't and amn't are both living words with independent histories and usages.
I still think that the better title for the article is Ain't. Dohn joe (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Ain't" per Dohn joe. Roscelese (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having just arrived on the scene, I do think the best option would be to find a title describing the phenomenon as a whole rather than using the words themselves as the title. Some title like Contraction of negated auxiliary verbs in English would, if nothing else, reduce the chance that someone comes along and AFDs the whole article on the grounds that it's a "dicdef" and that "article titles are supposed to be nouns". I would be opposed to using the word "nonstandard" in the title because, as Evertype has shown (and as I know from personal experience), amn't isn't actually nonstandard in Hiberno-English: the construction amn't I is thoroughly standard in that dialect. As to content, it would be good if the article could be expanded to include the Southern American English form cain't (= can't) whose vowel (like those of hain't and bain't) has also been influenced by ain't. —Angr (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise?[edit]

This title issue is not getting resolved. And although the RfC is still open, I'd like to propose the following: a return to the brief status quo ante of Ain't and Contraction of am not. Snalwibma earlier expressed support for that position.

The Contraction of am not page could have sections on ain't (with a link to Ain't); amn't; amnae; and the tag question Aren't I?. The Ain't page would look much the same as it does now, except the Usage of amn't section would be moved to the Amn't section of Contraction of am not, with links to that info in the Ain't article. Amn't would redirect to Contraction of am not.

People looking for info on either amn't or ain't would still easily find it, either directly or with one click of a link. Amn't would not be subsumed by ain't, and both words would still get the full treatment warranted. This solution is not completely ideal, but it's offered in the spirit of compromise, and I do think it will keep us out of each other's hair on this issue. We can then close the RfC and move forward with article improvement. Dohn joe (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title issue is being resolved just fine. We do not find that there is a consensus to change the article title to something else. With respect to your proposed compromise, I do not find it appealing. I do not think there should be two separate articles Ain't and Amn't (however you spin the title of the second). I believe that there should be one article; I don't believe that an article on its own of "contractions of am not" can sustain itself. And I believe that the title of the present article should remain Ain't and amn't.
Listen, you've done diligence with your attempt to garner consensus, but you're just not getting it. Isn't it time to leave the article title alone, and work on the article? -- Evertype·✆ 21:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype, I think you have it backwards. On 6 September, you moved the article to a new title without consensus or discussion about the change. The discussion has been all about whether to change it back. There is currently no consensus for the move. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BOLD, the article could/should be moved back to the status quo ante (that would be Contraction of am not before the split, correct?), with discussion shifting to moving it either here or to one of the other suggested titles.
Problem with the periphrastic title is that the article also covers some, but not all, contractions of have not. "Ain't and related contractions" seems a bit wordy, but that might be unavoidable.
I agree with Evertype, why would we want a separate article for ain't? The article could stay together at the periphrastic title.
Regardless, both the split and the move appear to have been done without (significant) discussion, and so can be reverted without discussion if someone objects. — kwami (talk) 08:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Amatulić, it has been a mess since before my re-naming of 6 September. Contraction of am not was moved to Ain't which is synchronically false even if it might be diachronically (though weakly) defensible;. It was in fact Dohn Joe's original split of content into two articles which was done without consensus. See above, he proposed it 22 August, he moved it 28 August, and nobody had said it was a good idea. I objected to the merger, Dohn Joe explained that it had been Ain't and Amn't merged into Ain't then, followed by a move of the whole article to Contraction of am not, which he objected to on linguistic grounds, and then it was split again into Ain't and Contraction of am not, but Dohn Joe had no problem having them merged together again, and asked views. I suggested Ain't and amn't as a compromise title, Dohn Joe suggested re-merging and preferred Ain't as a title (which he still does). I agreed with a re-merging, Dohn Joe merged. And then Snawlimba objected, quite rightly, on linguistic grounds because amn't is not a derivative of ain't. So then I moved it to Ain't and amn't which is accurate as to the content of the article and accurate as to the relation between the two words. (As pointed out above, hain't and bain't are not as independent of ain't as amn't is.) Dohn Joe's argument to keep the article at Ain't does not have consensus. Having a single article does have consensus; the only reason Dohn Joe wants to re-split them is because he wants Ain't to have an article all its own. I think that's not an encyclopaedic view, just Dohn Joe's POV that ain't "deserves" an article of its own. Sorry, but that's all it comes down to. If you look at his arguments, they're all aimed—not at linguistic accuracy—but at his goal of having a one-word title for the article. Our goal should rather be about an interesting and informative and encyclopaedic article. Ain't and amn't is an accurate, interesting, and informative title. -- Evertype·✆ 08:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, as an Irish-born person and long-time resident (ok, so I'm in the US this last four years), I have to agree with Evertype here. The phrase "ain't" is almost unheard-of in Ireland and the phrase "amn't" is highly prevalent, especially in Dublin. Saying "ain't" feels totally alien to me, even now. I think it's very unfair to dismiss its relevance given its prevalence in Ireland. Sometimes I feel that the English Wikipedia loses sight of the fact that it's not just the United States that speaks English - Alison ❤ 09:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alison, this is a WP:UNDUE issue, as addressed in my third opinion above. This has nothing at all to do with United States vs Ireland. It has to do with usage worldwide. As to your last sentence, the rejoinder would be: Sometimes I feel that people think the English Wikipedia should conform to their own regional usage of English. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean you are happy (1) with a single article and (2) with the title Ain't and amn't? -- Evertype·✆ 12:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with both the single article and the title being the way it is currently. Splitting this, IMO, would be a mistake - Alison ❤ 23:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the title Ain't and amn't as there are other less common contractions as well as these two forms, and the title should reflect the generic phenomenon of contraction of the first person forms of the verb to be rather than being named after the most common form or forms of contraction. I think that Contractions of am not is a better title, but as the article covers contractions of has not, have not, be not etc., and is not restricted to first person usage, that is not ideal either. It may be an idea to broaden the scope of the article to cover all the contractions of the verbs to be and to have (standard and non-standard), and name it accordingly Contractions of the verbs to be and to have. BabelStone (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my suggestion at the bottom of the previous thread. —Angr (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contraction of negated auxiliary verbs in English is the best of those three. -- Evertype·✆ 15:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contraction of negated auxiliary verbs in English would satisfy me too, mouthful though it is! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would also cover "aren't I". We might have an intro that mentions which negative contractions are nearly universal, and then move on to the ones like am not which are more variable. — kwami (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten so wrapped up in the linguistic colloquy with Evertype and Snalwibma lately that I'd like to restate the overarching reason I think an article titled Ain't belongs in Wikipedia. Which is: in addition to its interesting linguistics, ain't has a socio-cultural dimension that hain't and amn't don't. Like the intro alludes to, the usage of ain't has been an issue in English for two hundred years. It's the sociological and prescriptive history in conjunction with the linguistic history that makes the single word ain't notable, in my view. If the article were only about the etymology and usage of ain't, I'd be inclined to delete the article entirely, since Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

So the first question that has to be answered is: Is there sufficient encyclopedic content about ain't to warrant an article in Wikipedia? If not, let's delete this article and head over to Wiktionary. :)

But if there is.... Evertype has said at least a couple of times that amn't does not warrant an article of its own. If that's true, and its encyclopedic interest is dependent on there being article about ain't, then I would think the title should be Ain't.

Also, if folks think it stands on its own, an article on ain't could coexist with any of the proposed linguistic category articles (Contraction of this or that, etc.). My reservation with putting ain't only in Contraction of negated auxiliary verbs in English is that ain't and amn't function as both an auxiliary and a full verb at times. So my druthers might be more along the suggested Contractions (or Negative contractions) of to be and to have.

Glad to see people taking an interest in this article. What further thoughts do folks have? Dohn joe (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, give over, Dohn Joe. (1) I said that amn't could not sustain an article of its own. It's notable, but there is only so much to say. It belongs in context. So does ain't. (2) I oppose your continued efforts to sanctify ain't with an article of its own. Give it up. Please. Nobody wants that. Nobody but you. The "reservation" you mention immediately above is a red herring. There's enough discussion already on this Talk page alone to show encyclopaedic content. -- Evertype·✆ 23:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if Contractions of negated auxiliary verbs in English is Evertype's preference, (and I also would like to see a title that better reflects the content of this article), what does everyone else think? For brevity, I would suggest English contractions of negated auxiliary verbs (to remove one word). ~Amatulić (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
re:Evertype - Firstly, I'm not sure I see a practical difference between amn't not warranting and not being able to sustain an independent article. Either way, your view suggests that the amn't content is dependent on there being some other article (whether it's Ain't, Ain't and amn't, Contraction of am not, etc.). Also, I don't mind (and in fact I enjoy, as I've mentioned before) honest debate among different positions; you hold one position and try to convince others that it's best, and I do the same - and so does everyone, which is how we build consensus (along with compromise). I don't appreciate, however, blatant exaggerations, such as that nobody but me thinks an article titled Ain't might be appropriate. Just above here, in the RfC, Roscelese expressed support for Ain't. Amatulić's first (Third) opinion was that Ain't was a better title than Ain't and amn't, based on WP:UNDUE. Earlier this year, Snalwibma and others reached consensus to merge Amn't into Ain't. Of course, people can change their opinions, but my position is rational, and it has had and does have neutral support.
re:Amatulić - My understanding is that, in a sentence like Amn't I happy?, amn't is not an auxiliary verb, but a full verb. Same with many uses of ain't (especially the am/are/is not varieties). Is there a concise way to cover that situation in your title? I know Negative contractions of be and have is a mouthful, but it's the same number of words as your suggestion, and it also keeps out other auxiliary verbs (like may, shall, etc.) that are not currently in the article. If we want to cover those other verbs, then I like your title, but I'm still uncertain about the auxiliary/full issue for the be contractions. What do you think?
Lastly, (and here's my main point again), does anyone agree that ain't has a distinct socio-cultural dimension that hain't and amn't don't? (By the way - I'm not saying that hain't and amn't don't have socio-cultural dimensions. They clearly do. In fact, I might disagree with Evertype that Amn't couldn't sustain its own article. It has interesting linguistic and cultural aspects of its own. "How come amn't survived in Ireland and Scotland but disappeared elsewhere?" "Why is it used mainly in tag questions, and less often in declarative sentences?" These are interesting questions that I'd love to see explored in its own article. Here, though, I'm just asking whether ain't has a notable cultural dimension of its own.) An analogy would be Y'all. Linguistically, you find discussion or mention of y'all in Pronoun, English personal pronouns, Grammatical person, and other articles. Because of its distinct colloquial and cultural usage, however, y'all also has its own article. No one "sanctified" y'all; it's simply a notable subject for an encyclopedia. That should be the principal question for ain't - in addition to the various grammatical categories it belongs to, is the word itself notable enough for an article? I would think so - but what do y'all (or you, or ye, as the case may be) think? Signed, the Wild-eyed Crusader for the Apotheosis of Ain't, :) aka Dohn joe (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about am and have not always being auxiliary! I think that rules out English contractions of negated auxiliary verbs and indicates Negative contractions of be and have – which at least is no more of a mouthful. @ DohnJoe – I agree that ain't has a distinct socio-cultural dimension that may merit an article of its own. What it does not merit is the subjugation of amn't within that article. I suggest, then, an article about Negative contractions of be and have (or Contractions of am not and have not?), and maybe also a separate article about Ain't, if there is enough material to justify it. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can support negative contractions of be and have. It complies with WP:TITLE a lot better than the current title. Anyone object? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that seems okay. It also seems to me that "ain't" is a sociolinguistic problem in a way that some of the others don't appear to be, but I don't know enough about them to support a split of the article on that ground alone. What I can say is that I imagine quite a few Usonians and Canadians may be interested in an article specific to "ain't", and "negative contractions of be and have" could be quite off-putting to many of them, so I do support a main "ain't" article alongside the more general one. — kwami (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I cannot support Negative contractions of be and have as this excludes cain't. As well as discussion of Lewis Carroll's spellings ca'n't and wo'n't and sha'n't. It seems quite clear to me that Contractions of negated auxiliary verbs in English makes perfect sense, and the fact that be and have are also used in a non-auxiliary fashion is hardly relevant. Amatulić's proposal to put English at the front of the title would not be correct, as one might then expect "Scottish contractions" or "Californian contractions". Contractions of negated auxiliary verbs in English is the most encyclopaedic title. -- Evertype·✆ 11:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would think it would depend on what the content of the article is. Right now, the content is closer to negative contractions of be and have than contractions of negated auxiliary verbs in English, but obviously the content could be expanded to include Evertype's examples (and beyond). I still am concerned about the non-auxiliary uses of be and have, and don't know why that's irrelevant to a proposed title that mentions only auxiliary verbs. I was thinking about it, though, and I'm wondering - are there any full verbs besides be and have that get contracted in their negative form? We don't say I walkn't to the park, for example. Even if there are, maybe the article could be just Contractions of negated verbs in English, which bypasses the auxiliary/full issue for be and have. The article could discuss how generally it is the auxiliary verb that gets contracted in the negative form, but there are a few exceptions. Thoughts?
Also, it seems there may be support for an article on Ain't that doesn't marginalize amn't. Devil's in the details, obviously, but does anyone object to that general proposition? Dohn joe (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I object to that general proposition, though I have noted that it seems to be your great wish to give Ain't an article of its own. I do not support a separate article on Ain't at all. I think you should put your concern about the non-auxiliary uses of be and have to rest: they clearly have auxiliary uses, and it is not the case that haven't is two different words when it is and when it is not an auxiliary. The article title does not itself have to be encyclopaedic and all-encompassing. Contractions of negated verbs in English is not, I think, better than Contractions of negated auxiliary verbs in English, as the latter is more precise, more inclusive and also includes be and have. If it is necessary to specify that those two verbs have non-auxiliary functions, that could be done in the article. (Note that most verbs in English to not have contractions; we do not say writen't or cookn't for example, so not having "auxiliary" in the title could be misleading. Can we just move this to Contractions of negated auxiliary verbs in English and get on with it? -- Evertype·✆ 11:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is "negated auxiliary verbs" more inclusive than "negated verbs"? The latter includes the former, not vice versa. "Negated verbs" also seems more accurate to me, as it encompasses both full and auxiliary senses of be not and have not. It's also more concise. What do other people think? Or is Negative contractions of be and have still the popular choice?
And what's the basis for your continuing objection to Ain't? Do you disagree that ain't has notable socio-cultural content that is separable from the linguistics of amn't, hain't, and all the other negatively contracted verbs? If it has sufficient content that is notable and unique, shouldn't there be an article describing it? Dohn joe (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The set of verbs is much much much larger than the set of auxiliary verbs. Have and be and can and will and shall are certainly auxiliary (whether have and be have non-auxiliary uses does not negate that fact) and apart from the verb dare which has a contracted for dursn't the other thousands of non-auxiliary verbs simply would not belong in the article.
I do not find any strong reason for Ain't to be hived off into its own article. This whole mess has arisen because you wanted to split the articles. Give it up. A number of people have said that they don't see a need for two articles. There isn't consensus to have two articles. Your idea that there should be two articles hasn't been taken up with alacrity. Your asking for it again and again doesn't make it a more appealing idea. In fact, this whole discussion gets more and more boring and irritating. And during all the meta-discussion the article isn't being improved or re-structured. The socio-cultural content of ain't can be a part of this article. Why not work on the article instead of spending another month arguing about its name? -- Evertype·✆ 01:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to split the article into two. One article on the general subject of these contractions seems most appropriate. Let's not lose focus here. The question is what to call this one. The current title violates WP:TITLE as well as WP:UNDUE. Suggestions for alternative titles have been put forth, and problems have been pointed out with each. So decide: which of the suggested titles could you live with in spite of your misgivings, if one of them were implemented? ~Amatulić (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a case has been made to show that the title actually violates WP:TITLE or WP:UNDUE. However, I do agree that the title should be broadened to include other words. I believe that Contractions of negated auxiliary verbs in English is the most appropriate title; I think that this encompasses amn't and ain't and 'can't and won't and shan't (and Lewis Carroll's ca'n't and wo'n't and sha'n't) and an't as well as wouldn't and isn't and aren't and innit and in't and dursn't. I do not support Contractions of negated verbs in English because it is too broad since it could include every verb in the language. I think that non-auxiliary use of have and be is not sufficient grounds to proscribe the use of "auxiliary" in the title. -- Evertype·✆ 03:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have written a new introductory paragraph which should guide the re-write of the article as Contractions of negated auxiliary verbs in English. -- Evertype·✆ 03:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a fine intro, and I'd be willing to support Contractions of negated auxiliary verbs in English as a compromise title.
I'd like to point out, though, that the previous two commenters, Snalwibma and kwami, expressed support for two articles: a general linguistics article on negative contractions, and a separate article on ain't, as a notable subject on its own. Which I think makes sense; ain't's prescriptive history is out of place in an article about how English contracts negative verbs. Again, an analogy is Y'all; y'all appears in several linguistics articles, but also has a separate entry. Likewise, ain't is already in linguistics articles (like Contraction (grammar)), but should have a separate entry to discuss the cultural use of the word.
So - I would support Evertype's Contractions of negated auxiliary verbs in English as the general linguistics article, but would still request a separate Ain't. And hopefully that can spell the end of this adventure.... Dohn joe (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may be feasible to have a lengthy "main article" on the subject of "ain't" with a summary in this one pointing to that main article, if such an article can be fleshed out adequately. OK, I'll be bold and rename this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Well done. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done, Amatulić. Dohn Joe, I would really rather see this article improved (it now needs restructuring for instance) and request that you work on the Ain't section within this article rather than pursuing an agenda of getting it an article of its own. -- Evertype·✆ 06:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - see what you think of the restructuring. I added a little bit, but mainly moved existing content around. There's still a lot of fleshing out that needs to be done, but I think this article has promise. Thanks for your help with this, Amatulić. Dohn joe (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring[edit]

Should we sketch out an outline for restructuring here? -- Evertype·✆ 19:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need not = neednt, oughtn't[edit]

???? what about needn't, oughtn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.25.39.246 (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split of "ain't"[edit]

I'd like to propose splitting much of Ain't into a separate article. The current article is mainly about grammar, but the "Ain't" section contains a lot of sociocultural information that the other sections don't - not to mention that the length of the "Ain't" section dominates the current article and dwarfs the other entries. I would suggest having an entry here about "ain't" that is more balanced with the other entries, along with a link to the new Ain't page.

As background (see above sections), there had previously been an Ain't article, to which information on the word "amn't" was eventually added, since they are related words. Due to the change in content, the article was moved to Contraction of am not. This was unsatisfactory, as "ain't" is a contraction of more than just "am not". Moving back to Ain't was also unsatisfactory, since it devalued the "amn't" content of the article. After much discussion, it was decided to create this article as an umbrella article encompassing not just "ain't" and "amn't", but other contractions as well.

During that discussion, several editors expressed an opinion that a separate article on "ain't" could co-exist with the general grammar article if both were fleshed out enough. I think that this article has developed nicely over the past several months, and I think there is enough strong content about "ain't" to justify a split. Do you all agree? Dohn joe (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fine as long as someone can forumlate a concise summary of that split-off article here. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that the current "Ain't" section would form the split-off article essentially as is, with a four-paragraph or so distillation of the grammatically salient points to remain at this article. Dohn joe (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my suggested text to stay in the current article, with wikilinks and refs omitted for now (click "show" to view):
proposed Ain't section

Main article: Ain't

"Ain't is a colloquialism and contraction for "am not", "is not", "are not", "has not", and "have not". In some dialects ain't is also used as a contraction of "do not", "does not", and "did not". The usage of ain't is a perennial subject of controversy in English.

Ain't has several antecedents in English, corresponding to the various forms of to be not and to have not that ain't contracts.

An't (sometimes a'n't) arose from am not (via amn't) and are not almost simultaneously. An't first appears in print in the work of English Restoration playwrights. In 1695 an't was used as a contraction of "am not", and as early as 1696 an't was used to mean "are not". An't for is not may have developed independently from its use for am not and are not. Isn't was sometimes written as in't or en't, which could have changed into an't. An't for is not may also have filled a gap as an extension of the already-used conjugations for to be not.

An't with a long "a" sound began to be written as ain't, which first appears in writing in 1749. By the time ain't appeared, an't was already being used for am not, are not, and is not. An't and ain't coexisted as written forms well into the nineteenth century.

Han't or ha'n't, an early contraction for has not and have not, developed from the elision of the "s" of has not and the "v" of have not. Han't also appeared in the work of English Restoration playwrights, as in The Country Wife (1675) by William Wycherley: Gentlemen and Ladies, han't you all heard the late sad report / of poor Mr. Horner. Much like an't, han't was sometimes pronounced with a long "a", yielding hain't. With H-dropping, the "h" of han't or hain't gradually disappeared in most dialects, and became ain't. Ain't as a contraction for has not/have not appeared in print as early as 1819. Like with an't, han't and ain't were found together late into the nineteenth century."
That's just a starting point: critiques are welcomed. Dohn joe (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it's been over a week with no objections, I've implented the split. Dohn joe (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or keep separate?[edit]

I've started a new article on English auxiliaries and contractions, of which this is clearly a subtopic. For now I've copied the text of this article into that one. Should we merge this one into that one (i.e. keep the full text there and make this title into a redirect), or should we keep this article separate and reduce the text there to a summary? Victor Yus (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So in the absence of any opinions, I'm going to merge this. All the information is preserved in the other article. Victor Yus (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice the original proposal, so I apologize for coming in late.
This is a separate subject. If you look at the talk page history this article started off as an article about the word "ain't" or "amn't" and the current title was the result of a compromise between people hotly disagreeing about whether "amn't" or "ain't" should be given prominence in the article title.
I am undoing the redirect for now. Due to the history of this article dwelling on slang contractions with particular emphasis on "ain't", going into deeper detail than the parent article you created, I think a summary there is appropriate. For now, your new article should have a {{main}} tag pointing to this article, in the section on contractions. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support the redirect/merge. While Amatulić is correct about the origin of this article, since then Ain't has been split into its own article, and this one has thus lost much of its focus on slang contractions. Overall, I think the topic fits well in the new article created by Victor. (Note: I was heavily involved in the discussions leading to the creation of this article and the re-creation of Ain't.) Dohn joe (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it certainly wasn't clear to me (either from the content or the title) that this article was supposed to be focusing on things like "amn't". No objection to someone writing an article on "amn't" (like there already is one on "ain't") if this word is considered notable in its own right, but the overall topic of this article seems to fit naturally into the general article on contractions. (Incidentally, I don't mind whether we keep English auxiliaries and contractions or split it into English auxiliary verbs and English contractions.) Victor Yus (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there still objections, then, or can we redo the redirecting? Victor Yus (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in the absence thereof, I'm going to make the redirect again (but I'll leave this talk page unredirected so that this discussion can continue if desired). Victor Yus (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ain%27t/Contractions_of_negated_auxiliary_verbs_in_English&oldid=1198198801"