British English and "ain't"

[The Man With the Soap]

I'm curious if the British Escapists here either use or hear the word "ain't" used by folks from where you're at. I'm also pretty sure that it's a regional thing for the Southwest US, too, but I'll study that at a later date.

It ain't just the Southwest. It's the whole South. It started in the Southeast I believe. Hell, I think it's pretty universal in the United States.

 

[Naheal]

Ain't is quite common here.

/etymological_hat
originally a contraction of am not, and in proper use with that sense until it began to be used as a generic contraction for are not, is not, etc., in early 19th cebtury. Cockney dialect of London; popularized by representations of this in Dickens, etc., which led to the word being banished from correct English.

It's actually a proper English word from about the 18th century.

Although, because of our melting pot, it's commonly replaced with ", innit?"

I was aware of most of that, but I wasn't aware that it was the works of Dickens and such that led to it being dropped to slang.

 

[nyeeh]

I live in the North East and I hear ain't fairly often (though always in casual conversation). I wish I could say more but alas, analysing vocabulary change (in Present Day English) is not my strong point.

That said, these conversations always interest me so I'll be sticking around.

 

[Naheal]

I live in the North East and I hear ain't fairly often (though always in casual conversation). I wish I could say more but alas, analysing vocabulary change (in Present Day English) is not my strong point.

That said, these conversations always interest me so I'll be sticking around.

I'm gathering side data at the moment for vocal communication for a study that I'm doing. I'll probably post it up here at some point when I'm done.

 

[nyeeh]

I'm gathering side data at the moment for vocal communication for a study that I'm doing. I'll probably post it up here at some point when I'm done.

Two Quick questions.

Are you only interested in vocabulary, or are you also looking at variation within other categories (phonology, syntax etc) as well?
What is your area of study? Are you examining the United Kingdom (in general terms) or a more specific area?

(hey I told you I like this stuff)

 

[Naheal]

I'm gathering side data at the moment for vocal communication for a study that I'm doing. I'll probably post it up here at some point when I'm done.

Two Quick questions.

Are you only interested in vocabulary, or are you also looking at variation within other categories (phonology, syntax etc) as well?
What is your area of study? Are you examining the United Kingdom (in general terms) or a more specific area?

(hey I told you I like this stuff)

My current study is structure and word use on the internet in comparison to verbal and written communication. Because of the nature of the internet, I have to gather data from foreign word usage.

Initially, my study was going to be on linguistic evolution and it's effects on brain chemistry and psychological development, following a hypothesis that linguistic evolution is a manifestation of a verifiable means by which we can monitor human evolution, but I realized that we have a completely separate community here that is almost completely untapped by linguistic study. So, I'm starting here and will probably use the data gathered for my current study to assist in the study that I'll do at a later date.

Also, are you studying linguistics? If not, you might want to have a look yourself. Linguists are to English professors as a Mathematician is to a Physicist. Linguists are interested in the base of what makes English work. English professors are interested in a single language.

 

[rangerman351]

I'm from New York (around brooklyn and staten island) so I here it almost every day. Plus I say it almost every day.

 

[Ironman126]

It isn't a word in American English, why should it be one in any other dialect of English?

 

[Naheal]

It isn't a word in American English, why should it be one in any other dialect of English?

Your information is old.

 

[Joshimodo]

Nope, not common. Ugly word, both phonetically and written.

It doesn't even make sense.

 

[Ironman126]

It isn't a word in American English, why should it be one in any other dialect of English?

Your information is old.

Is that so? And just exactly WHY should it be a word? It is not a contraction, it makes no sense, and it just sounds ignorant and so very American (i am an American, by the way. I can insult my fellow countrymen for their gross misuse of language). "Ain't" is not a word. It is an amalgamation of sounds, with no more meaning than saying "blah." How it has been perpetuated throughout the language i will never understand. "Isn't," short for "is not," "aren't," short for "are not," "can't," short for "cannot;" those are all words, even if they are contractions. "Ain't" isn't short for anything.

 

[Naheal]

It isn't a word in American English, why should it be one in any other dialect of English?

Your information is old.

Is that so? And just exactly WHY should it be a word? It is not a contraction, it makes no sense, and it just sounds ignorant and so very American (i am an American, by the way. I can insult my fellow countrymen for their gross misuse of language). "Ain't" is not a word. It is an amalgamation of sounds, with no more meaning than saying "blah." How it has been perpetuated throughout the language i will never understand. "Isn't," short for "is not," "aren't," short for "are not," "can't," short for "cannot;" those are all words, even if they are contractions. "Ain't" isn't short for anything.

First, it is a contraction. The word itself is a contraction of the words "are not" and became popular in use in the 18th and 19th century. It only fell out of use after publications of various others (Dickens being one) brought it's use to light and it fell into slang.

Second, a word doesn't have to have a relationship to other, similar, words in order to come into use and to be a word. All it needs is a definition. Once that definition is coined, it's acceptance is determined by it's use, which is an implied consent within speakers of that language for that word to be a word.

Third, the word "ain't" is a negative conjugation for the irregular verb "to be," which is used only in casual conversation and depictions of casual conversation in literature. It has a grammatical place within a sentence and a definition.

Finally, even linguists, such as myself, and English professors-you know, the guys with doctorates in English-agree that this is a word. It's status as slang has no bearing on whether or not it's a word.

Also, to you comment that "blah" doesn't have a meaning, you are completely false in that. Depending on the situation and usage, the word "blah" can indicate a particular emotional or physical state, just to point to a single example.

 

[Gitty101]

I hear it often, but I try not to use it. Ain't just sounds so lazy ^^

 

[Ironman126]

First, it is a contraction. The word itself is a contraction of the words "are not" and became popular in use in the 18th and 19th century. It only fell out of use after publications of various others (Dickens being one) brought it's use to light and it fell into slang.

Second, a word doesn't have to have a relationship to other, similar, words in order to come into use and to be a word. All it needs is a definition. Once that definition is coined, it's acceptance is determined by it's use, which is an implied consent within speakers of that language for that word to be a word.

Third, the word "ain't" is a negative conjugation for the irregular verb "to be," which is used only in casual conversation and depictions of casual conversation in literature. It has a grammatical place within a sentence and a definition.

Finally, even linguists, such as myself, and English professors-you know, the guys with doctorates in English-agree that this is a word. It's status as slang has no bearing on whether or not it's a word.

Also, to you comment that "blah" doesn't have a meaning, you are completely false in that. Depending on the situation and usage, the word "blah" can indicate a particular emotional or physical state, just to point to a single example.

Well then, as a linguist, can you honestly say that you would use this "word" in a sentence? Lets assume for a minute that you are talking to a colleague. Would you really say "ain't?" To me, using it makes you sound like a complete idiot. Just because you can use a word does not mean that you necessarily should use it.

In the case of "blah," perhaps i should clarify. I was simply trying to think of a way to say a random collection of vocal sounds. "Blah" happened to come to mind before "a random collection of vocal sounds." I would agree, within certain scenarios, it would be perfectly acceptable as a word. I know for a fact i a number of times use it while writing my novel. However, I would contend that only within the context of writing could "blah" be a word. If it is vocalized, it is simply a noise, similar to a sigh or moan.

Personally, i think that we need to do away with "ain't" as slang or a word and replace it with:

Artillerize (ar-til-er-ize): Verb. To be bombarded with high-explosive shells in a massive artillery barrage.

By your definition, this is technically a word.

 

[Naheal]

First, it is a contraction. The word itself is a contraction of the words "are not" and became popular in use in the 18th and 19th century. It only fell out of use after publications of various others (Dickens being one) brought it's use to light and it fell into slang.

Second, a word doesn't have to have a relationship to other, similar, words in order to come into use and to be a word. All it needs is a definition. Once that definition is coined, it's acceptance is determined by it's use, which is an implied consent within speakers of that language for that word to be a word.

Third, the word "ain't" is a negative conjugation for the irregular verb "to be," which is used only in casual conversation and depictions of casual conversation in literature. It has a grammatical place within a sentence and a definition.

Finally, even linguists, such as myself, and English professors-you know, the guys with doctorates in English-agree that this is a word. It's status as slang has no bearing on whether or not it's a word.

Also, to you comment that "blah" doesn't have a meaning, you are completely false in that. Depending on the situation and usage, the word "blah" can indicate a particular emotional or physical state, just to point to a single example.

Well then, as a linguist, can you honestly say that you would use this "word" in a sentence? Lets assume for a minute that you are talking to a colleague. Would you really say "ain't?" To me, using it makes you sound like a complete idiot. Just because you can use a word does not mean that you necessarily should use it.

It depends on the situation. If I'm having a casual conversation during lunch, sure. It's a prevalent part of my native accent and dialect. If we're talking about slang, I'd bring it up as a case where a particular slang word has "ping-ponged" from being a proper word to slang to proper word. If I'm giving a lecture, I probably wouldn't, since that situation is far more formal.

You can't judge a word's viability based on a simple idea of something that "should" be used. I can use casual conjugations of Japanese verbs in formal conversation. I'd be extremely rude in doing so, but I can certainly do it. That said, I could probably use formal/polite conjugations of Japanese verbs in casual conversation. I'd come off as either a foreigner or someone who's got a rod permanently shoved up their ass.

The only part that I can potentially agree with is flow and sound, which varies from individual speaker to individual speaker.

In the case of "blah," perhaps i should clarify. I was simply trying to think of a way to say a random collection of vocal sounds. "Blah" happened to come to mind before "a random collection of vocal sounds." I would agree, within certain scenarios, it would be perfectly acceptable as a word. I know for a fact i use it while writing my novel a number of times. However, I would contend that only within the context of writing could "blah" be a word. If it is vocalized, it is simply a noise, similar to a sigh or moan.

You're being stubborn. Example:

"How are you feeling today?"

"I'm in a bit of a blah mood at the moment."

Definition: slightly negative connotation toward lethargy.

Personally, i think that we need to do away with "ain't" as slang or a word and replace it with:

Artillerize (ar-til-er-ize): Verb. To be bombarded with high-explosive shells in a massive artillery barrage.

By your definition, this is technically a word.

That's not even remotely close to an equivalent word. If you really want to coin artillerize, I have no issue with it. It seems situational and exceedingly specific, meaning that it wouldn't be used that often, but I can see it working. It's actually very clear in what it's intending to portray.

If you want to replace the word, you need to come up with something with an equivalent word that will be used in the same situation. Then you need to start using it and hope it catches on.

 

[Ironman126]

It depends on the situation. If I'm having a casual conversation during lunch, sure. It's a prevalent part of my native accent and dialect. If we're talking about slang, I'd bring it up as a case where a particular slang word has "ping-ponged" from being a proper word to slang to proper word. If I'm giving a lecture, I probably wouldn't, since that situation is far more formal.

You can't judge a word's viability based on a simple idea of something that "should" be used. I can use casual conjugations of Japanese verbs in formal conversation. I'd be extremely rude in doing so, but I can certainly do it. That said, I could probably use formal/polite conjugations of Japanese verbs in casual conversation. I'd come off as either a foreigner or someone who's got a rod permanently shoved up their ass.

The only part that I can potentially agree with is flow and sound, which varies from individual speaker to individual speaker.

Fair enough, within regard to dialect. I still maintain it is a rather stupid word and it is one i will not be using. Of course, i speak like i'm talking to Congress, lots of big words and well constructed sentences, at least when i can.

You're being stubborn. Example:

"How are you feeling today?"

"I'm in a bit of a blah mood at the moment."

Definition: slightly negative connotation toward lethargy.

Ich bin ein Amerikaner. Of course i'm stubborn, it's the way i was raised, but i did agree that within certain context it is a word.

That's not even remotely close to an equivalent word. If you really want to coin artillerize, I have no issue with it. It seems situational and exceedingly specific, meaning that it wouldn't be used that often, but I can see it working. It's actually very clear in what it's intending to portray.

If you want to replace the word, you need to come up with something with an equivalent word that will be used in the same situation. Then you need to start using it and hope it catches on.

I never said we need an equivalent word. I just want a different word to take the place of "ain't" under "A" in the dictionary.

It would be extremely situational. However, there would never be any doubt as to what is meant. Plus, i like the idea of a field officer running up to a Captain and saying "Sir, at 0700 hours we artillerized the enemy base. We can move in anytime."

 

[Naheal]

I never said we need an equivalent word. I just want a different word to take the place of "ain't" under "A" in the dictionary.

It would be extremely situational. However, there would never be any doubt as to what is meant. Plus, i like the idea of a field officer running up to a Captain and saying "Sir, at 0700 hours we artillerized the enemy base. We can move in anytime."

This word is sounding like Newspeak... and I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not at this point, so I'll continue to treat your responses as if you're being serious.

Anyway, the problem that you'd have at that point is that the dictionary would be incomplete. If you truly want to replace the word, you need to come up with something that's equivalent to the use of "ain't," note that flow, ease of use, and audio quality in relation to dialect and accent would be key in introduction here, and then use it in conversation on a regular basis until you hear others using it. The word should then spread on it's own.

 

[Ironman126]

I never said we need an equivalent word. I just want a different word to take the place of "ain't" under "A" in the dictionary.

It would be extremely situational. However, there would never be any doubt as to what is meant. Plus, i like the idea of a field officer running up to a Captain and saying "Sir, at 0700 hours we artillerized the enemy base. We can move in anytime."

This word is sounding like Newspeak... and I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not at this point, so I'll continue to treat your responses as if you're being serious.

Anyway, the problem that you'd have at that point is that the dictionary would be incomplete. If you truly want to replace the word, you need to come up with something that's equivalent to the use of "ain't," note that flow, ease of use, and audio quality in relation to dialect and accent would be key in introduction here, and then use it in conversation on a regular basis until you hear others using it. The word should then spread on it's own.

I'm completely serious about coining "artillerize." My military buddy was the first to use it, if that clarifies anything. At first it was a joke, but then we defined it and it just works, in context.

I don't have the patience to think up new words to replace old ones, though. "Ain't" can stay, so long as it stays away from me. "Blah" is still not a "true" word, in that it is a word only sometimes. Now i'm done arguing English. I also know when i'm beat. So, thanks for setting me on the right path, linguistically anyway. Still don't like "ain't."

 

[Naheal]

I never said we need an equivalent word. I just want a different word to take the place of "ain't" under "A" in the dictionary.

It would be extremely situational. However, there would never be any doubt as to what is meant. Plus, i like the idea of a field officer running up to a Captain and saying "Sir, at 0700 hours we artillerized the enemy base. We can move in anytime."

This word is sounding like Newspeak... and I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not at this point, so I'll continue to treat your responses as if you're being serious.

Anyway, the problem that you'd have at that point is that the dictionary would be incomplete. If you truly want to replace the word, you need to come up with something that's equivalent to the use of "ain't," note that flow, ease of use, and audio quality in relation to dialect and accent would be key in introduction here, and then use it in conversation on a regular basis until you hear others using it. The word should then spread on it's own.

I'm completely serious about coining "artillerize." My military buddy was the first to use it, if that clarifies anything. At first it was a joke, but then we defined it and it just works, in context.

I don't have the patience to think up new words to replace old ones, though. "Ain't" can stay, so long as it stays away from me. "Blah" is still not a "true" word, in that it is a word only sometimes. Now i'm done arguing English. I also know when i'm beat. So, thanks for setting me on the right path, linguistically anyway. Still don't like "ain't."

Huh. I'll have to present that to some of the folks I know from the military and see if it'll actually catch on. Worth checking to see how quickly it spreads.

How long have you been using this word?

 

[nyeeh]

My current study is structure and word use on the internet in comparison to verbal and written communication. Because of the nature of the internet, I have to gather data from foreign word usage.

Initially, my study was going to be on linguistic evolution and it's effects on brain chemistry and psychological development, following a hypothesis that linguistic evolution is a manifestation of a verifiable means by which we can monitor human evolution, but I realized that we have a completely separate community here that is almost completely untapped by linguistic study. So, I'm starting here and will probably use the data gathered for my current study to assist in the study that I'll do at a later date.

Also, are you studying linguistics? If not, you might want to have a look yourself. Linguists are to English professors as a Mathematician is to a Physicist. Linguists are interested in the base of what makes English work. English professors are interested in a single language.

Ok, I definatly want to see the results of this when you're done. I'm sure it will make for interesting reading.

To answer your question, I am studying linguistics. However, while I'm not a stranger to sociolinguistics, my studies have focused more on the theoretical side. The practical studies I have done have focused almost exclusively on variation of phonology or syntax within dialects.

I have looked at lexical variation (so I'm not completley ignorant) but only in the context of Early Modern English (the English spoken around 1500-1750).

On a side note, I'm enjoying the discussion in this thread. Will continue to observe.