Ain’t has been around since 1749, with an’t and in’t preceding it. It seems to have always been associated with the common people, and familiar/colloquial talk. Dickens used it a lot for that reason.
Aren’t to an’t makes perfect sense among people who don’t pronounce their rs like certain Brits (non-rhotic).
And isn’t to in’t, and haven’t/hasn’t to hasn’t are certainly no more difficult elisions to understand than Worcestershire or Cholmondly, although those have kept their spelling because they’re names.
…“aren’t”. What’s “ain’t” a contraction of, exactly?
I agree with the sentiment though.
Ain’t has been around since 1749, with an’t and in’t preceding it. It seems to have always been associated with the common people, and familiar/colloquial talk. Dickens used it a lot for that reason.
Aren’t to an’t makes perfect sense among people who don’t pronounce their rs like certain Brits (non-rhotic).
And isn’t to in’t, and haven’t/hasn’t to hasn’t are certainly no more difficult elisions to understand than Worcestershire or Cholmondly, although those have kept their spelling because they’re names.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain't
AI not. Ain’t.
Snicker. :)
In fairness they never said they ain’t stupid, they want to know if who they’re messaging isn’t stupid.
Ain’t is just a shifted dialectal pronunciation of aren’t
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ain't
Also relevant to the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster’s_Third_New_International_Dictionary#Treatment_of_the_contraction_'Ain’t’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain't