|
|
| Is "aint" a correct word? |
| Yes. Its been around since 1778. |
|
37% |
[ 30 ] |
| No. Its a vulgarity. Using it shows ignorance and lack of grammar. |
|
27% |
[ 22 ] |
| I dont have enough information to make a good decision. |
|
35% |
[ 28 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:36 pm
I would say that ain't is a word, but not one that should ever be used formally. I've always been taught that the word is slang.
I agree that it can be used in writing to indicate a certain dialect or accent, however.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:02 am
I see it this way.
If things like ebonics are starting to become accepted as words by the general populace, then something thats been aroudn that long, such as ain't, most definitely is.
Besides, I'm from Texas. And even if I've luckily managed to avoid the corruption of the accent, that word is a part of the culture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 8:34 pm
I personally believe that a word is an actual word if, when used, it gets the point intended across. The moment a combination of syllables gets an association that is understood, it becomes a word.
Example: the word "Boycott" is actually based on the last name of a British official that colonists refused to buy goods from, hence the use of the word now.
The phrase "ninja" in terms of use as a verb: it's not actually defined as a verb, and yet, when someone uses it as such, it's understood.
If someone says "ain't," as long as the person listening understands what is meant, I think it's a word.
Language is, at its core, a means of conveying ideas and information. If a "word" can convey and idea or information I darn well consider it a word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:32 pm
That makes a lot of sense!
I totally agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 7:54 am
It's not a proper word, but I don't think it counts as improper, either. I use it a lot in real life, sometimes on the internet. It sounds stupid in some context, but also humerous in others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 5:07 am
Personally, I think that it's a word. I say it often when I find it appropriate, and even if my spell check doesn't let me use it, I have characters in the books I'm writing use slang such and ain't and such. Still, it depends of your point of view. As for me, rack up another point for the word ain't being a word, even if it ain't in the dictionary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:54 pm
It's A Colloquialism, It's Widely accepted as a word but not a formal one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:01 am
I see nothing wrong in using it. It is a word, but I understand some people have problems accepting it, because in some sentences it happens to be a bit weird. But a word, yes, a word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 1:22 pm
I try not to use it. It seems rather quaint to me, as it's been around for a while. Although one could argue that the same applies with Pride and Prejudice and William Shakespeare's plays. I have a strict policy of NEVER using it in writing, as my English teachers have been tough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 5:47 pm
I never use "ain't " and I'm proud of it.
I think any word that people use is a word, even if it is not in the dictionary. So, I do believe that "ain't" is a conjunction and a set of words. However, I do not believe that "ain't" is a proper, grammatically correct word that people should use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:21 pm
Katzuka.Manamori I personally believe that a word is an actual word if, when used, it gets the point intended across. The moment a combination of syllables gets an association that is understood, it becomes a word. Example: the word "Boycott" is actually based on the last name of a British official that colonists refused to buy goods from, hence the use of the word now. The phrase "ninja" in terms of use as a verb: it's not actually defined as a verb, and yet, when someone uses it as such, it's understood. If someone says "ain't," as long as the person listening understands what is meant, I think it's a word. Language is, at its core, a means of conveying ideas and information. If a "word" can convey and idea or information I darn well consider it a word.
While I, like most people here, do not use it in formal writing I see nothing wrong with giving it every day use. I used to use the word frequently even though I'm not from the south however at some point I stopped. Just something that happened.
I think its' being shunned simply because to some it is synonomous with ebonics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 4:59 am
DarkElf27 I use it if I'm trying to imply an accent, but not as an actual word. That's exactly what I do!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:21 pm
Ain't is a word. It is an informal word, but a word nontheless.
The Oxford English Dictionary has this to say:
Oxford English Dictionary ain't - contr. informal - 1 am not; are not; is not. 2 has not; have not. Usage: ain'tAin't is not good English and should not be used when writing or speaking in a formal fashion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:29 pm
Well, it is a correct word. I don't think it's that bad, but it's not something an intelligent person, as it has been said, would use. It pisses off my mom, so I use it alot! Heh heh heh. Basicly, I would use this word around friends, but around more intelligent or richer people, it's not a good idea, for you will be judged as being stupid, and the such. I usualy don't use it alot unless I'm joking, or I have a character use it. It's a word, and not as bad as something like ********, but you shoudl still try not to use it. No offence to people say it should be used more. I still believe that it is a word in the english language. If bling-bling and bootyliciouse can be considered words (They are. They made their way into dictionary), I think ain't should still be in there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:35 pm
Here's my full position. I will not be taking a stand, and will only say facts. The word "Ain't" is used constantly becuase it is generally accepted by the public. The English language is constantly changing. The reason for this is that English is a language. A language is simply made up of sounds made by our vocal cords to produce sound. We use English to desribe our world, as we preceive it. We constantly add new words as our world changes. Contractions are the way we combine words. Slang is what we use to change the language. Eventually slang becomes new words. From what I gather this is all from the early 18th or 19th century when they were using slang to create new words- conjunctions, which shorten the language. If we found a new word or action, we would name it. My next point- Ain't is not created from any two words and so cannot be a conjunction. At its best it is (it's) slang. But slang is language too. There is no denying that Ain't is a word. However there is denying its feasibility for use.
then there's the natural flow of Shakespearean(?) English that uses imbeanic(?) pantameter(?)- the flow allows us, and asks of us, to use slang and to use contractions because they add to the flow and make it more imbeamic(?)- one sylable strong then one weak- Ex.: I ate the bannana. I is not important. Ate is the describing action, and is so emphasized. The is not really important and has no bearing, but is used in the flow. banana is the subject, and is so important. Anyway, the conjunctions add to the flow, so that you don't need two strong words together (IS and NOT). Thus Ain't fits perfectly into the pattern, but really has no words it pertains to, but has the same meaning as Isn't. That is my analysis of the word Ain't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
![[River]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/6a/b0/62b898cb1cb06a_flip.png?t=1365478397_6.00_11)
