Edit: @pumpkin: Synchronpunkte für uns!

As I recall, "ain't" has its origins as an accepted way of saying "am I not" but has been broadened in its meaning to include second and third persons and is these days not considered to be standard English (although its use is widespread).

You say 'Irish'. That would explain it, my Irish relations use it all the time. It is also the usual form in Scotland (or at least very common).

There is a case for saying that the standard 'aren't I?' should actually be spelt 'amn't I?' (But that would get the hypercorrecters saying /æmənt/.)

#8 - I remember reading "sha'n't I" for "shall I not" (in an old book), so then perhaps it should be spelled "a'n't I".

Also " ca'n't ", just looked it up.

Re.: FWIW:

As I may have said the last time you brought this up, I don't find the word "ain't" the least bit refreshing, and it doesn't sound particularly honest to me. I always advise learners to avoid it like the plague on the grounds that their bosses may think them illiterate, which would not be helpful to their career prospects.

"amn't" is something I, like others, associate with Irish English.

Pity, given that you've made the comment in #10 - or something very like it - before, and that you don't add caveats.

Shouldn't be used in job applications? You are apparently not acquainted with working life in today's Germany.

Have you considered what the LEO user market probably looks like? One sector, my guess is that it's a relatively large sector, is made up of business people for whom English is a foreign language but who are now required to use English on a daily basis at work. Phone calls, emails, meetings, presentations in English.

Those I know check things on LEO quite frequently. Some of them happily got through half their working lives before being confronted with the English language requirement. Now they have a problem.

I have met managers who didn't know what "ain't" meant. (They had heard it in songs on the radio, they said.) They asked me if I knew. After explaining what it means, I advised them to leave it in their passive vocabulary. The reason I gave was that their upper management people don't use language like that; they speak standard - in some cases excellent, cultivated - English.

So, you see, my experience of working life persuades me that we should consider the audience we may be addressing.

First of all, Leo serves various purposes. It's not Leo's sole function to cater only to those just beginning to study English.

Second, if the beginners here read #10, they probably also read ##11-13, and they are capable of understanding that some words are sometimes used for one circumstance or purpose but not for others. I'm sure they are familiar with that concept from their native language.

First of all,

a. Nobody said anything about "sole function," so please don't misrepresent what I wrote.

b. I said nothing about "just beginning to study English," so ... (see above).

Second,

c. They are not beginners! Repeating it doesn't make it true.

d. It's their fault if they read what you write (refreshing and sounds honest) and take it seriously because you won't include caveats? Well, that's just great.

That is certainly a good principle, because whatever our own view of a particular usage, consensus is fundamental to language (unless you're Humpty Dumpty).

However, that doesn't explain SD3's phobia regarding 'ain't'. I daresay when people first started writing 'aren't I?' (which probably happened between 1770 and 1830) other people got very hot under the collar about it. But the world didn't end. The threat to society posed by language comes not from unconventional working-class or regional grammar, but from deliberate obfuscation or lazy imprecision.

It really makes no difference if we say 'We are not amused', 'We ain't amused' or 'Us be not amused'.

However, if one person says after a tragedy that's wiped out half their family that they're 'devastated', and another uses the same word because she hasn't won the medal she expected (and I'm not exaggerating, I've heard both on the news), then the word has clearly become empty. And Satan finds mischief for empty words.

Phobia? May I reveal to you, as someone who, I imagine, knows next to nothing about me, that any phobias I have are about creatures in the natural world that could possibly see me as a free lunch? You couldn't pay me enough to go to the Everglades.

I don't think I have a phobia about social class, although it does distress me when the wealthy buy politicians. I'm certain I don't have a phobia about regional language - dialects are one of my interests. (And I have absolutely no objection to West Country people.)

I agree with you on deliberate obfuscation and lazy imprecision, although avoidance of the latter requires high standards that we mere mortals sometimes fail to meet.

Horses for courses. If I were advising a teenager who was trying to break into the rock music business, my advice on "ain't" would be different. But I'm not.

"It really makes no difference if we say..." I agree with your statement if you are referring to explicit information content only. Otherwise, I think in the world in which I operate it's factually incorrect. I believe it would make a difference if a business associate of mine were invited to speak to the board of a traditional, conservative German company and then peppered the board members with "ain't"s. It would be professionally irresponsible of me to withhold relevant information on usage.

Usage information included with all lazy comments about enjoying this or that word would benefit many users, I suspect..

"It ain't necessarily so ..."

Ich habe noch nie verstanden, wieso die Tatsache, dass ich die Schule nur bis zur sechsten Klasse besucht habe, mich automatisch in eine ehrliche Haut verwandelt.

(Und heißt das im Umkehrschluss, dass Leute, die mehrsilbige Wörter und komplexe Grammatik benutzen, Betrüger sind?)

#25:

#19

Calm down. Look at my own first sentence in #18. I agree with you for all practical purposes.

The point I was trying to make is that one sometimes needs to stand back and examine one's subjective attitude to language. For example 'tête' in French comes from a Late Latin word 'testa', which meant 'pot'. It was probably low military slang to use it to mean 'head'. But it is now used by the great and the good all over the French-speaking world. Or a more recent example. Bertrand Russell's book 'Why I am Not a Christian' is called in Dutch 'Waarom ik geen Christen ben'. In Afrikaans it's 'Waarom ek geen Christen is nie'. Afrikaans is basically Dutch, but in this one title, we have both 'Ek is' ('I is') and a double negative. This must sound to Dutch-speakers rather like 'Why I Ain't No Christian'. Those Dutch-speakers I know have told me they think Afrikaans at best quaint and at worst barbarous. However, Afrikaans is now a recognized language with its own standards, standards which were considered barbarisms 150 years ago.

So, of course as teachers we should teach the standard version, and as users we should think about our audience. But when we consider departures from our own usage, or from the standard, we should ask: In what sense does this matter? Why don't I like this? And as I said before, sometimes there are good reasons, and sometimes there aren't.

@27

I don't need to know your "background" to draw my conclusions about you. If you want to know where I am from, you could ask. But I am sure you are not interested.

"I am not going to let Mr. Kissinger turn me around" also lacks something.

BTW, MikeE, I'll once again show some ignorance here and ask you to tell me who said that about Kissinger.

Yessir. I like that line.

Do you like acoustic or electric, dude?

Or even "Yessiree."

I prefer acoustic, piano and guitar. (Otis Spann, Pinetop Perkins, et al.) I like the blues for the music (the tunes), but also for the words, which often are fairly hilarious, such as in #34.

I don't remember the artist now, but one song has the guy saying, "I wrote you a letter. I threw it in your back yard."

I also like the blues for its music and words, but I like the words because a lot of them are very sexual, but cleverly disguised. :-)

Years ago I used to work in music (festivals mostly) and got to meet people like BB King and James Brown (I like soul, too, and a lot of Motown stuff). That was always a personal highlight.

That does sound like a cool experience, though.

It is less likely to be found in written texts, which is why a study of Irish literature may not reveal it. Had the people you asked grown up in Ireland/Northern Ireland/Scotland, or had they spent time there?

I certainly still use it with family and friends. I only ever write it in a very casual context such as an E-Mail to a family member. I might prefer not to use when speaking to a non-native speaker, as it would probably not be helpful to someone learning English.

Does any of that help?

#9: so then perhaps it should be spelled "a'n't I". That for me would be pronounced "aren't I", not "amn't I", which has two syllables and in which the m is clearly heard.

Pumpkin, here's a blg article on the subject that I found quite interesting and entertaining.

It wouldn't be broadly used in Ireland whether North or

South. It is a colloquial term. Sometimes spelt "a'n't" just because

the n and m together isn't pronounced. We have trouble with certain sound

formations in Northern Ireland.

 

It is probably used more in Black Country which has

Scottish influence. And maybe it originated from areas of Scotland and

influenced Ireland and West Midlands? I've certainly heard it more as a Black

Country term than an Irish one and in context of "amn't I right" it's

a proper Black Country term.

 

It still wouldn't be accepted practice to use it in

schools as an expression or a shortened form of speech, unless a piece of text

being studied used the term and only then would you be allowed to quote the use

of language to demonstrate "colloquial" language. In Northern Ireland

it's probably a "belfasty" who uses the word (I've still never heard

it ever used at home).

 

If it is a more modern term it could be an increase in

mixing of colloquial language by how much people move around and younger

generations studying at universities away from home? (End)

 Thank you again Jaymack, I will certainly take a look. The above is a comment from my friend who grew up in Ireland and later moved to the Birmingham area. Also interesting!

This is also used in NW England.

Here is a recent example of Northern Irish use (Liam Neeson, around the 0:50 mark): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqA577_IoBk

Dear escoville,

Sorry for the delay in responding – I was out of action for several days.

I’ll ignore your imperative if you don’t mind. It serves no purpose.

 

Yes, I got that. What I don’t understand is your speculation about me.

On to your additional points:

Naturally, we have subjective attitudes to language. However, the comments I made about innocently using “ain’t” (that is, innocent of the possible consequences) were based on observed reality in my part of the business world. Did I mention what I personally happen to like or dislike? No, that was somebody else.

Of course, languages evolve. I speak neither Dutch nor Afrikaans, and even I know that.

Of course, some people believe their “native tongue” is going to the dogs. There’s a history of people objecting to the "degeneration" of the English language (Orwell, Swift, Johnson, etc.). Apparently, Brits write to the BBC to complain bitterly of Americanisms. Maybe “Disgusted from Tunbridge Wells” is among them.

Just to recap: One of the points I made about “ain’t” was that in different circumstances I would give different advice. “Horses for courses.”

So, the view I have already expressed is that German speakers need to know that sometimes “ain’t” is appropriate and sometimes it isn’t. You frame the underlying decision as a question: “In what sense is it important?” I gave an example from my professional experience of when it’s extremely important (not to me personally, but to the non-native speakers of English I do business with).

I note there are users who have either a different view or just different priorities, and therefore have no qualms about cavalierly blurring the distinction.