Talk:Ain't

Older discussions
I have moved what had been "Talk:Contractions of negated auxiliary verbs in English" to Talk:Ain't/Contractions of negated auxiliary verbs in English. -- Hoary (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

"Ain't is a contraction for am not, is not, are not, has not, and have not"
I believe this is incorrect. Historically ain't was a contraction of am not, as well as are not, and is now used in place of a number of other pairs of words. But that doesn't mean it's a contraction of those other pairs. If there's no objection, I'll try to to fix this to make it clearer. —johndburger 18:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It has certainly been called a contraction of all its uses. Essentially, "ain't" came from "an't" and "han't", which were independent contractions at one point of the various forms of "to be" and "to have". So "ain't" is a contraction of all the underlying verbs. See here for example. See this Google Books search for many more examples. Dohn joe (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We need to base this on what reliable sources say. Just now I found this: "Originally a contraction of am not, by extension ain't became a contraction of is not and are not, even of has not and have not." Similar wording here: Then we have " Ain't really did become a kind of omnibus contraction - am not, are not, is not, has not, and have not all at some time contracted to ain't. "  All of these sources agree that ain't is a contraction of those other phrases, even if it doesn't look much like them. --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, being both a contraction and used in place of certain words doesn't mean it's a contraction of those words . If people started saying "I isn't" that wouldn't suddenly make isn't a contraction for am not. Most of these sources seem to be confusing used in place of with contraction of . Only the Burridge reference actually bothers to explain how the transformation might have occurred, and I don't find it very convincing. But with so many sources describing this with such poor precision I can see I'm unlikely to win this argument. Cheers! —johndburger 20:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but I think the evidence points the other way. And by the way, people do say "Aren't I" quite a lot, with aren't indeed being a contraction of am not, via a rhoticization of one pronunciation of an't, which as we know, was a contraction of, among things, am not. Likewise with has not to han't to an't to ain't (or han't to hain't to ain't). There's a direct etymological lineage for all these contractions - it's just been obscured. It doesn't help that the stigma attached to ain't led so many sources to deny that there was any connection whatsoever.... Dohn joe (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Who uses ain't - ain't a good citation
The present citation for the distribution of ain't in American usage is a recursive; the source is not the original source, but citing another source. If someone can find the actual original sourcing, that would be good. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag. The cite included a "cf." to another work. Using "cf." invites a comparison to that other work, but the claim itself comes from the article in question. Finding that other cite would be great, but we don't need the tag in the meantime. Dohn joe (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ain't. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140727145455/http://www.boystown.org/blog/the-story-behind-he-aint-heavy to http://www.boystown.org/blog/the-story-behind-he-aint-heavy

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Usage requires "got" to mean "to have not"
No one says "I ain't money" to mean "I do not have money." In fact, the meaning of "I ain't money" is "I am not money". They need to say "I ain't got money," or more likely "I ain't got no money." There is no mention in the article of the "got" requirement to mean "to have not." In fact, ain't can also be used to negate verbs other than "got", as in "I ain't going." This is essentially the "be not" usage (I am not going). It could be argued that "ain't" never means "have not," making that whole section garbage. Vinzklorthos (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem. The contraction is for "have not" or "haven't". It's not a contraction for "haven't got". Just as no one would say "I haven't money," they wouldn't say "I ain't money", and the article doesn't suggest that anyone does. In this case "haven't" is a helper verb, making another verb into past tense; "ain't" is also a helper verb and modifies another verb. The examples in the text make that clear, using "I ain't got" several times. The same substitution for "haven't" works with many other verbs, as in "I ain't been to school," "I ain't eaten today," "I ain't heard from him," "I ain't done nothin'", "I ain't told nobody" (sorry, but double negatives go with the dialect). --MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

aint is cool iam cool your not cool — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.220.31.226 (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, no one would say "I haven't money". They may say "I have no money" which means the say thing as "I ain't got no money" or "I don't have any money". Fish567 (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)