Tetsuo, I agree that 'ain't' and double negatives work well in certain situations. Still I avoid them except when being facetious or -- rarely -- when being emphatic. When I do use them, I change the tone of my voice to show that I'm consciously using a non-standard expression. As Mxsmanic points out, persons who use them run the risk of sounding illiterate. I'm willing to vote with my own usage in favor of some non-standard expressions but not 'ain't' and double negatives. (There ain't no way I'll ever do that. :-) I've heard ignorant persons use them for so many years that they carry too many negative associations for me.
A thought about using ain't in conversational English
>A surprising amount of otherwise reasonable and educated people truly believe that such different kinds of native speech forms are actually indicative of lower IQ/intelligence/education, etc. [Kirk]
That's because they are. :-) I agree with your other statements about these forms not being garbled and that we shouldn't assume that an individual who uses them is necessarily stupid or ignorant. Not assuming that a stereotype applies to every individual is different, though, from failing to recognize statistical facts. I'm quite sure that persons who use 'ain't' are disproportionately ignorant (and even stupid too) as measured by standardized tests.
In another discussion I've just been defending those who wish to maintain their regional accents, including my own Southern accent. Still, I recognize that the average score on standardized tests of people in the South has tended to be lower than the average in regions where a General American accent prevails. (This holds for Ebonics too -- most blacks who speak that way score lower.) What I object to isn't the recognition of the difference but the assumption that it's great enough to justify discriminating against individuals. In most situations we can evaluate individuals as individuals -- more accurately and more fairly -- and not have to rely on stereotypes.
I consider the stigma attached to 'ain't' and to 'double negatives' to be so great that it's not worth fighting. Accents are different. There are far more educated persons who speak with a regional accent than there are persons who habitually use 'ain't'. Minor variations in syntax when speaking aren't a significant problem (e.g., 'y'all' -- a less ambiguous alternative for 'you' plural). Major variations in either speech or writing, though, definitely are a significant problem (e.g., 'he don't', 'he ain't got none', 'he be there every Tuesday'). It's not that they are "garbled" or unclear. It's that they typically represent a failure to learn the things that society expects educated persons to learn. I'd be willing to bet that most persons who write like that will fall in the bottom twenty percent on most standardized tests -- not only of English but of almost any academic subject, even math.
We aren't doing students a favor when we ignore this important fact. Students shouldn't be deceived about the effect that their dialect may produce – almost certainly will produce. If they talk the way most ignorant persons talk, they'll have a serious obstacle to overcome in convincing people that they themselves aren't ignorant. Of course, young persons are free to make their own choices as long as they're willing to live with the consequences. My own view is that they would do well to save the major deviations from the accepted standards for their informal conversation, preserve only their basic pronunciation in more formal speech, and for formal writing adhere to the national standard with only minor regional variations (except in writing that's specifically aimed at reflecting those variations).
That's because they are. :-) I agree with your other statements about these forms not being garbled and that we shouldn't assume that an individual who uses them is necessarily stupid or ignorant. Not assuming that a stereotype applies to every individual is different, though, from failing to recognize statistical facts. I'm quite sure that persons who use 'ain't' are disproportionately ignorant (and even stupid too) as measured by standardized tests.
In another discussion I've just been defending those who wish to maintain their regional accents, including my own Southern accent. Still, I recognize that the average score on standardized tests of people in the South has tended to be lower than the average in regions where a General American accent prevails. (This holds for Ebonics too -- most blacks who speak that way score lower.) What I object to isn't the recognition of the difference but the assumption that it's great enough to justify discriminating against individuals. In most situations we can evaluate individuals as individuals -- more accurately and more fairly -- and not have to rely on stereotypes.
I consider the stigma attached to 'ain't' and to 'double negatives' to be so great that it's not worth fighting. Accents are different. There are far more educated persons who speak with a regional accent than there are persons who habitually use 'ain't'. Minor variations in syntax when speaking aren't a significant problem (e.g., 'y'all' -- a less ambiguous alternative for 'you' plural). Major variations in either speech or writing, though, definitely are a significant problem (e.g., 'he don't', 'he ain't got none', 'he be there every Tuesday'). It's not that they are "garbled" or unclear. It's that they typically represent a failure to learn the things that society expects educated persons to learn. I'd be willing to bet that most persons who write like that will fall in the bottom twenty percent on most standardized tests -- not only of English but of almost any academic subject, even math.
We aren't doing students a favor when we ignore this important fact. Students shouldn't be deceived about the effect that their dialect may produce – almost certainly will produce. If they talk the way most ignorant persons talk, they'll have a serious obstacle to overcome in convincing people that they themselves aren't ignorant. Of course, young persons are free to make their own choices as long as they're willing to live with the consequences. My own view is that they would do well to save the major deviations from the accepted standards for their informal conversation, preserve only their basic pronunciation in more formal speech, and for formal writing adhere to the national standard with only minor regional variations (except in writing that's specifically aimed at reflecting those variations).
Though 'ain't' may have started as a contraction of 'am' and 'not', it now seems to be used in the third person more than the first. Google results:
"it ain't" 5,990,000
"I ain't" 3,330,000
"it isn't" 35,300,000
"I'm not" 94,700,000
"it ain't" 5,990,000
"I ain't" 3,330,000
"it isn't" 35,300,000
"I'm not" 94,700,000
Another reason (besides wanting to sound informal) why 'ain't' and also 'don't' in the 3rd person singular sometimes appear in songs is that they have just a single syllable. Sometimes the meter needs just one syllable. Also the hissing second syllable of 'doesn't' isn't very euphonious.
<<Hi, folks!
If a person says, "I ain't gonna tell nobody nothing.," to me it sounds much stronger and effective than "I'm not going to tell anybody anything."
What do you think?
Incidentally, what would you call the type of the sentence of the first expression? A "triple-negative" sentence?>>
"I ain't gonna tell nobody nothing" I'd tend to say that this is OK when you are talking to your mates or something. But I wouldn't use it in normal situations. Because that triple negation, sounds very clumsy, akward and it shows a very careless way of speaking.
Moreover, there's no need of saying all that. "I'm NOT gonna tell anything" is enough and perfectly fine.
If a person says, "I ain't gonna tell nobody nothing.," to me it sounds much stronger and effective than "I'm not going to tell anybody anything."
What do you think?
Incidentally, what would you call the type of the sentence of the first expression? A "triple-negative" sentence?>>
"I ain't gonna tell nobody nothing" I'd tend to say that this is OK when you are talking to your mates or something. But I wouldn't use it in normal situations. Because that triple negation, sounds very clumsy, akward and it shows a very careless way of speaking.
Moreover, there's no need of saying all that. "I'm NOT gonna tell anything" is enough and perfectly fine.
Oops, I shouldn't have said that 'ain't' saves a syllable. Though 'I ain't' (2) has one fewer than 'I am not' (3), it has the same number as 'I'm not' (2), so what I said about the meter wouldn't hold there. It would hold, though, for 'it don't' (2) and 'it doesn't' (3).
Why in English, singers are allowed to destroy their fucking language. I assure you in Spanish this doesn't happen.
What English-speaking singers do is to take the English language to the lowest level anyone can ever imagine. Shame on you.
What English-speaking singers do is to take the English language to the lowest level anyone can ever imagine. Shame on you.
Ain't.
What kind of a word is that? That's one of the most vile Americansms ever to enter the English language.
What kind of a word is that? That's one of the most vile Americansms ever to enter the English language.
"Ain't"
Blimey. What happens if you want to say "is"? Do you say "He ai going to town"?
Blimey. What happens if you want to say "is"? Do you say "He ai going to town"?
"Why in English, singers are allowed to destroy their fucking language. I assure you in Spanish this doesn't happen.
What English-speaking singers do is to take the English language to the lowest level anyone can ever imagine. Shame on you. "
Spanish is lucky in that not many Americans speak it as a native language.
What English-speaking singers do is to take the English language to the lowest level anyone can ever imagine. Shame on you. "
Spanish is lucky in that not many Americans speak it as a native language.
"Ain't" has been around since at least Middle English (way before America was even known about by English speakers).
<<Why in English, singers are allowed to destroy their fucking language. I assure you in Spanish this doesn't happen.
What English-speaking singers do is to take the English language to the lowest level anyone can ever imagine. Shame on you.>>
I've listened to plenty of Spanish-language music in which native Spanish speakers used non-standard forms in their music for lyrical or syllabic/metrical effect. No different happens in English. It's not even possible to "destroy" a language.
Gjones, I'm not naive about sociolinguistic reality. While I do think it's interesting (and sometimes sad) that valid historical forms become stigmatized for whatever reasons, I'm not over-idealistic about sociolinguistic reality. I merely wanted to point out that what are stigmatized forms are quite often historical forms which, far from being "deviant" from the "standard," are actually the historical forms where the "standard" has actually gone away and done different things.
<<Why in English, singers are allowed to destroy their fucking language. I assure you in Spanish this doesn't happen.
What English-speaking singers do is to take the English language to the lowest level anyone can ever imagine. Shame on you.>>
I've listened to plenty of Spanish-language music in which native Spanish speakers used non-standard forms in their music for lyrical or syllabic/metrical effect. No different happens in English. It's not even possible to "destroy" a language.
Gjones, I'm not naive about sociolinguistic reality. While I do think it's interesting (and sometimes sad) that valid historical forms become stigmatized for whatever reasons, I'm not over-idealistic about sociolinguistic reality. I merely wanted to point out that what are stigmatized forms are quite often historical forms which, far from being "deviant" from the "standard," are actually the historical forms where the "standard" has actually gone away and done different things.
"Blimey."
What kind of word is that? That's one of the most vile Britishisms ever to enter the English language. You should be deported back to Bolton!
What kind of word is that? That's one of the most vile Britishisms ever to enter the English language. You should be deported back to Bolton!
"I'm quite sure that persons who use 'ain't' are disproportionately ignorant (and even stupid too) as measured by standardized tests."
Language - the one socially acceptable prejudice left in modern PC society.
Language - the one socially acceptable prejudice left in modern PC society.