Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
I'm an old truck driver. Went to catholic grade school in the 50's. Learned early on that the abbreviated word "ain't" was a contraction for ( am I not ).
Was I taught error? Are modern definitions of the contraction more or less true then what I hold dear.
The reason I ask is because I was brought up short for pointing out the redundancy of using "I" with the contraction.
Another pet peeve is on our nations highways. " Buffalo an All America City "
Again I was taught that agreement in number is important. Error again????
Thanks for any light you wish to shed on these earth shattering questions.
You are both right that ain't was once a common contraction, with reasonable respect. It was a contraction of am not, or possibly are not. Its history is a bit complicated.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I don't see much evidence that the pronoun I should or must be omitted when using ain't, but clearly there are some examples when it is. "Ain't doing that." omits the pronoun I. But I see this omission as similar to the understood pronoun in the adolescent exchange:
"Am not!"
"Are so!"
The disuse of ain't almost certainly did come from hypercorrection. Strong evidence of this hypercorrection is the abomination of "Aren't I?"
For a lengthy treatment of ain't you can read here:
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage; ain't
As for your second question about agreement in number, I don't think I see how the Buffalo quote applies. Can you explain your question more fully?
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)