Talk:Ain't

"found in most dictionaries"

Before yesterday, the lead had the phrase "Widely used by many people, and found in most dictionaries", with references to several dictionaries that had a listing for "ain't". Not the best-referenced item on WP, but not the worst either. Then User:Foobard made this edit, changing the phrase to "It is used in some regional dialects and found in some dictionaries", and adding a note from the Oxford English Dictionary that ain't should not be used in formal or written contexts.

I restored the previous language with this edit, adding a reference for the exact phrase "found in most dictionaries". I also moved (note: did not remove) the specific reference to the Oxford dictionary to the section on linguistic prescription. Why? Because the lead is meant to be a general summary of what follows, and there is no need to introduce a specific reference.

So far so good. No new content removed, and previous language bolstered by an actual reference that backs up exactly what was in the article. Then, however, an IP reverted me here, with an edit summary of "undid vandalism". Obviously, finding a reference for an exact phrase is not vandalism, so I reverted the IP here, noting the reference, and asking the IP not to revert without going to the talkpage. The IP then reverted again here, again citing "vandalism".

So now I leave it to the WP community to decide! I believe it's clear that ain't is indeed found in most, not some dictionaries. If others agree, I would welcome someone restoring my version. Comments are also welcome on the placement of the Oxford dictionary material. In the meantime, I would encourage our IP friend to study WP:VANDALISM. Dohn joe (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Having slept on it, I decided to reinstate my edits, as they were better referenced than the other version. Note again, that I did not "remove" any of the new content added by User:Foobard, just moved it into the body of the article. Please raise any concerns in this section. Particularly, if there is any support for the proposition that ain't is not "found in most dictionaries", please raise it here. Dohn joe (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I also found and added a ref for the fact that ain't is "widely used". Dohn joe (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You have removed content from the lead, which significantly harms its neutrality, casting "ain't" in a much more positive light than is supported by references. As to whether "most" or "some" dictionaries contain "ain't," referencing some that do supports the latter, not the former. Foobard (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Here are the two full quotes on which I relied for the "widely used" and "found in most dictionaries" language:

"Ain't today is highly stigmatized, but nevertheless widely used." Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English.

"First, many argue that ain't is not a word, although it is listed in most dictionaries as a word and looks, sounds, and feels like a word." Concepts in Composition: Theory and Practice in the Theory of Writing.

There are lots of sources which say essentially the same thing: that lots of people use it, but it's got some issues, especially in formal settings. Your attempt to limit its usage to "some regional dialects" and usage in "some dictionaries" is just not supported in sources. There are certainly some dialects that use it more often or in different contexts, but most sources will agree with the unqualified "wide usage" of the word.

If you're concerned that ain't gets off too easy in the lead, perhaps we could remove "by prescriptionists", and thus implicitly expand the pool of those who consider the word nonstandard, etc. What do you think? Dohn joe (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think that's appropriate, so long as it's counterbalanced. I've re-written a lot of the lead to more accurately reflect what the sources say. I'm not sure there's much point to debating "most" versus "some," as there are only two major English dictionaries.

I think it could use more along your line of thinking, particularly around language privilege.Foobard (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the constructive engagement, and I think we can see our way to some progress. Two concerns I still have are that there are certainly more than two major dictionaries - and indeed many well-respected specialist dictionaries - that list ain't. So I still think it better to remove references to specific dictionaries in the lead. As I say below, though, I think it is a very good idea to include more information in the body about the misconception that ain't is not found in dictionaries. Second - I'm a little worried that some of your language is getting close to WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Unless we have a source that says that "it has primarily been used in dialects outside of the financial and academic elite", we can't make that assertion. Of course, we have more leeway to summarize the content of the body of the article in the lead without specific attribution, but so far we don't have a source for that assertion in the body. Let's think what a better formulation of the idea that "ain't gets used a lot, but some people don't like it" we can come up with. Thirdly, I wholeheartedly agree that the article could use more in depth discussion of the effect of cultural bias and privilege. Dohn joe (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there are more than two dictionaries, but I'd dispute that there are more than two major dictionaries. I'm not sure including the views of, say, the Penguin English Dictionary really adds anything that the two majors don't cover. I agree that the elite statement should be sourced.Foobard (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster

The lead currently says that ain't is listed in "Merriam-Webster". Can we clarify that? Strictly speaking, and per wikilinks, Merriam-Webster is a company, not a dictionary. Dictionaries with Wikipedia articles include Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary and Merriam–Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, and there are others. The reference is to an online site. Should we just say "and dictionaries published by Merriam-Webster"? --MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This is one issue that I think we could avoid by going back to the "found in most dictionaries" language. I appreciate Foobard's constructive engagement, but there are certainly more than two major English-language dictionaries. It may be notable that the OED and various M-W dictionaries list the word, but I think it is more appropriate for the lead to keep to general statements, and discuss particular dictionaries in the body. I agree that it's a very good idea to develop a paragraph on the idea that "ain't ain't in the dictionary", which is a common misconception. Thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I note that there are 91 articles listed at Category:English dictionaries, and while most of them are not major reference works, some are - more than two. LOL, I was also thinking about that old joke! --MelanieN (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of those listings are either variations or derivatives of the two majors, or not dictionaries in the sense we're using the term here (such as A Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature or Thomas Aquinas Dictionary).Foobard (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Here's a Reliable Source reference [1] pointing out that "Saying Ain't ain't in the dictionary ain't so!" And maybe somebody who has JSTOR access could find this: "We Ain't Responsible. Who Says Ain't Ain't in the Dictionary? It Just Ain't True Anymore." Scholastic Teacher 4 Oct. 1961: 6. Continued 14 Sept. 1963.--MelanieN (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I think simply stating that they're in dictionaries without the caveats those dictionaries impose is a bit disingenuous.Foobard (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Simply stating that a word is in a dictionary without mentioning the caveats is misleading, particularly with descriptive (rather than prescriptive) references. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary (the major dictionary for Canadian English) lists "ain't" but says "Usually regarded as an uneducated use, and unacceptable in spoken and written English, except jocularly or in fixed informal phrases..." So, except for sayings such as "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." don't use the word in that country. Meters (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course we're going to include the caveats; nobody is saying we shouldn't. There should be caveats even in the lead. How about something like this: Most dictionaries list the word, but warn that it is "widely disapproved as nonstandard" [2] and "should never be used in formal or written contexts".[3] --MelanieN (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Something along those lines is fine with me. It's not at all clear to me that no one is saying that we shouldn't list the caveats. For months the lede has downplayed the issue, and it seems it took a near edit war to get teh current discussion going. Meters (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd still like to keep the lead as general as we can. I also think we should convey the following: 1) ain't is in fact used by wide swathes of English speakers; 2) its usage is generally seen by official sources as nonstandard or stigmatized. Whether we use the examples of dictionary listings coupled with caveats is less important to me. I'm sorry for my part in the near edit war, but I actually thought the lead was pretty balanced in explaining 1) and 2) in a neutral fashion. To me, that's actually the crux of the entire article, and what lifts it beyond a mere dictdef - the amount of material that has been written about this word and the tension between vernacular and academic, "right" and "wrong", as well as the issues of bias and privilege. How's this sound: "Commonly used by many speakers in oral or informal settings, ain't has long been a shibboleth, with its usage generally disapproved of by dictionaries and style guides, and it is rarely found in formal written works." Dohn joe (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

How do you justify "commonly" and "many"? That's just begging for someone to ask for definitions and citations. And I don't think it's true, at least not everywhere. I've never heard anyone I know use ain't in anything but a fixed expression, and I have never (not just "rarely") seen it in formal writing. The lede before this all started was not balanced in my opinion. It seemed to be impling that only pedantic perfectionists had issues with the use of ain't. That's not truw where I am from. Meters (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

That was one of the main points I was trying to make in the back and forth with Foobard - lots of sources say that ain't is "commonly" or "widely" used, among various regions and social strata. I tried citing those very points, with Foobard reverting them as "vandalism". Look in the section above, or see my edit here for the cites I introduced. If it's a matter of sources, I can show several more. I can also show several sources for the "rarely" claim if you're interested. Here, for example. In any event, how do you like my most recent attempt at a balanced sentence, immediately above? Dohn joe (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Your link is less than convincing since it doesn't say how "ain't" shows up in formal contexts. I doubt any executive making a formal speech would use ain't other than for effect in one of the fixed expressions. Sure, you can find refs to support either side (I've already quoted a major Canadian ref that says ain't "should never be used in formal writing"), but I think it is better to just leave out the quantifications. And the term "shibboleth" is not widely known outside of the US and gives the lede the same confrontational feel as the original version. I would prefer to see the lede sentence read more like "Used by some speakers in oral or informal settings," and "its usage generally disapproved of by dictionaries and style guides, particularly in formal written works."

But that's the point - style guides and references like the one you cited say that ain't should never be used formally, but apparently in the real world, it is sometimes used anyway. And we don't need "shibboleth" per se. But we do need to show the tension between actual usage and prescription, without making a value judgment ourselves. Dohn joe (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your changes because you were simply deleting my contributions wholesale, and I don't see how that's anything but vandalism. It certainly isn't constructive. I would dispute "ain't" being "commonly" or "widely" used; those sources reference loan phrases, but not instances of it being used commonly on its own outside its native dialects.Foobard (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

But that's just not true, on both counts. I never deleted your contributions - I kept the reference to the Oxford dictionary, just moving it into the body of the article - and explaining myself in both edit summaries, and later, here on the talkpage, while my own references were in fact just deleted. And I don't see how you can limit the "widely" cite to loan phrases - that doesn't make sense to me. Would you please explain how the source I used limits "widely used" to loan phrases? That source also says that ain't is used "world-wide", and in the context of the UK, is used throughout the country by between 5% and 15% of the population. There are regions that use it more frequesntly, but it is commonplace throughout. Dohn joe (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not delete your edits, I reverted them because the primary change was simply to remove mine. Had you left mine in place while adding yours, I would not have needed to. Foobard (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Dohn joe, I think we would be doing our readers a disservice if we let them think the word can be used with impunity. Many Wikipedia users, particularly people looking up this word, may be non-English speakers trying to figure out what the deal is with "ain't". We mustn't let them think that they can use it freely; they need to know that using it may give others a bad impression of them. That caveat should be in the lead IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

100% in agreement. Isn't that what my sentence conveys - that 1) a lot of people use it; and 2) a lot of official sources on the language disapprove of its use? Isn't that pretty verifiable and WP:NPOV? The lead should be neither pro-ain't nor anti-ain't; it (and the article as a whole) should simply reflect real-world usage, as reported in reliable sources. Right? Dohn joe (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It may not be possible to say all of that in one sentence. I think we may need to provide sourcing for "widely used" since that seems to be in contention here. In addition to the points already made, we need to make it clear that acceptability depends on context and milieu. How about something like this:

Ain't is widely used in informal speech in some dialects and regions,[4] but may stigmatize the speaker as ignorant if used in a setting where it is not common.[5] Most dictionaries do list the word (despite a popular myth that "ain't ain't in the dictionary"[6]). However, they add that it is "widely disapproved as nonstandard" [7] and "should never be used in formal or written contexts".[8] --MelanieN (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC).

Although it is unusual to cite references in the lead, I think we may need to do so here - just to verify that we are not doing Original Research but sticking to what the sources say. --MelanieN (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Melanie - this is what I'm finding frustrating. I noted the contention, which is why I had already found and added refs - in secondary sources - to support "widely used" (Günter Rohdenburg, ed. Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. p.517. DeGruyter. 2003.); and "found in most dictionaries" (Clark, Irene L. Concepts in Composition: Theory and Practice in the Teaching of Writing, Routledge, 2011.); and located several for "rarely used in formal writing" (see here, for example).

We have to be careful with our use of M-W and Oxford, because in this context, they are serving as both primary sources and tertiary sources - and we need to depend as much as possible on secondary sources, which is why I went to books and journals for my cites. We also have to be careful not to pass judgment ourselves, no matter how implicitly, on the usage of ain't. While it's true that some users of ain't will be seen as ignorant by some, it is just as accurate to say that some non-users of ain't will be seen as outsiders or as elite by some - and all of these statements can be sourced.

Let me try a new version: ""Commonly used by many speakers in oral or informal settings,[add ref] especially in certain regions and dialects, ain't has long been regarded as nonstandard. Its usage is generally disapproved of by dictionaries and style guides, and it is rarely found in formal written works.[add ref]" What do you think? Dohn joe (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I like that. It's much simpler and more straightforward than my proposal above. But I would like to see some indication that its usage in the wrong setting is more than just "nonstandard", it is stigmatizing. We have references for that, too. (I seriously doubt that someone who says "isn't" in informal conversation would be stigmatized as an elitist because they didn't say "ain't". Whereas a person who says "ain't" in the wrong context WILL be regarded as ignorant, and that is something our readers need to know.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The stigma does go both ways, which is why I used the word "shibboleth" earlier. Ain't can serve as a marker of "in-group" and "out-group" - see this ref for example. Not using ain't can certainly mark a person as an outsider, whether "elite" or not. That's the gist I'm trying to get across. Commenting only on the negative connotations of ain't is misleading, and feeds into issues of cultural bias and privilege. How about the same sentence, except "ain't has long been used as a marker of socioeconomic or regional status", or something like that? Does that seem neutral enough? Dohn joe (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

That would be OK; for even more neutrality how about "ain't may be used..." ? And I would still like to get across the idea (maybe not in the lead) that a speaker who uses "ain't" will be regarded as poorly educated by some people - as your link specifically states. --MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that works: "Commonly used by many speakers in oral or informal settings,[add ref] especially in certain regions and dialects, ain't may be used as a marker of socioeconomic or regional status. Its usage is generally disapproved of by dictionaries and style guides, and it is rarely found in formal written works.[add ref]"

If you agree, let's add it to the lead. And thanks to this discussion, I've been compiling sources to use in and improve the current linguistic prescription and regional/dialect sections. Feel free to jump in and make improvements yourself as well! Dohn joe (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's wait a day or so to give User:Foobard and User:Meters a chance to chime in. They have been active participants in this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happier without the "many". What's many? 100,000? 10,000,000? 10%? 80%? "Commonly used by some people in oral or informal settings, particularly in certain regions or dialects..." removes that problem. Meters (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I could counter, of course, with the question: What's "some"? 10? 10 million? Neither "some" nor "many" is meant to be quantifiable. Again, the sources back up the "many" claim, and it is already immediately tempered here by the "particularly in certain regions" language. I would leave it as is. Dohn joe (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that it should be left as is. "Some" is any number greater than 0, without trying to quantify it. Your "many" is indeterminate, but seems to imply a significant percentage of the English speaking world. 10,000,000 people using ain't is a large number, but only a tiny percentage of the population of the US, let alone of the English-speaking world. Meters (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I think "many" is appropriate here. Judging by the regions where "ain't" is used, the number must be in the tens of millions, and that is "many" people by any measure. --MelanieN (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's important to reflect that it is not in common usage outside of specific dialects and loan phrases, and that quite to the contrary it's quite stigmatised. User:Dohn joe, your wording tends to skirt around that, and as User:MelanieN points out that does a disservice to non-native speakers who may be relying on Wikipedia.Foobard (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

But this gets to the core of the issue here: ain't is very much "in common usage outside of specific dialects and loan phrases" worldwide. It is certainly associated with specific dialects, but its usage is not limited. And as for the stigma, as I noted above, that depends on your standpoint. There are those who champion the use of ain't, See American Dialects: A Manual for Actors, Directors, and Writers: "The adoption of "ain't" is rapidly becoming universal, despite the fight against it. Even in England, where the awkward "amn't" is used, "ain't" is being fostered as a legitimate substitute for "am not," "is not," and "are not." on both linguistic and cultural bases. To say "it has a stigma" - without acknowledging the counterpoint - is one-sided, promotes cultural bias, and in short is not WP:NPOV. And to echo Melanie below, what specifically in the proposed wording to you find objectionable? Dohn joe (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"Stigmatized" comes from one of the references you provided [9]: "Ain't today is highly stigmatized, but nevertheless widely used." --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is the core of the issue, but you're wrong. "Ain't" is rarely, if ever found outside of its dialects and a few loan phrases. I can't say I've ever personally witnessed someone use the word unironically. If you really insist on this point, you're going to have to do more than find a reference that claims it's so, you're going to need one that's actually studied the matter and can quantitatively back your assertion. WP:NPOV does not require us to actively ignore cultural bias. Quite the opposite, it's a violation to attempt to scrub the mention of it as you seem to be attempting. As to wording, I'm uncomfortable with the weasel words like "widely" or "commonly." You could say that "ain't" is used "widely" because millions of people in the American south use it as a part of regular speech, but one might incorrectly infer from the same wording that people in, say, Seattle do as well. Foobard (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you prefer something like the draft that I put in block-quotes above? (P.S. I've found in this kind of editing discussion, it helps to focus on finding consensus for actual wording - rather than on trying to get everyone to agree on philosophy or approach). --MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Following my own advice and sticking to the wording, how about something like this: "Ain't is commonly used by many speakers in oral or informal settings, especially in certain regions and dialects.[add ref] However, ain't may be used as a marker of socioeconomic or regional status, and a person who uses it in an inappropriate context may be stigmatized as uneducated.[add ref] Its usage is generally disapproved of by dictionaries and style guides, and it is rarely found in formal written works.[add ref]"

I'm obviously not making my point here, so I'll try again. The stigma of ain't is real, but it is not universal, and not the only side of the coin. There are millions of people - many of them well-educated by any measure - who routinely use and encounter ain't without feeling or applying that stigma, and for whom it's just a word. Presumably, many of those millions are part of our readership. For us to use the "voice of the encyclopedia" to comment only on the negative perspectives of ain't alienates and marginalizes that swathe of people, and, more importantly from a WP policy perspective, violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. All I'm trying to do is make sure that both sides of the coin are presented with the proper weight given to each. I think that "marker of socioeconomic or regional status" already conveys the point we're trying to make, but neutrally. I hope that makes sense. Dohn joe (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that you did come up with a reference which claims that "ain't" is "rapidly becoming universal". However, I find that assertion unconvincing. I note the book is written to teach dialect to actors; it is not in any sense a linguistic analysis or based on any research that I can find. (And BTW "amn't" does not appear to be used in England, as they claim, although it is sometimes used in Ireland and Scotland; another indication that these authors are not authorities). This compares to the overwhelming weight of scholarly and common advice saying the word has a stigma. But OK, let's give "due weight" to "both sides"; that would result in something like the version I just suggested: that it is "commonly used by many speakers in oral or informal settings," but that using it in the wrong context can get you stigmatized as uneducated. That's "due weight"; it would be a false equivalence to try to give equal weight to anti-ain't and the pro-ain't viewpoints. Of course we should note (but better below, not in the lead) that it is commonly used by all strata of society in standardized phrases such as "Ain't it a shame" or "you ain't seen nothin' yet." I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying your contention (I think this is what you are saying) that Reliable Sources give equal weight in favor of and against the use of "ain't", so that our lead should be "balanced" between two supposed factions. Reliable Sources are overwhelming in saying that this is a "nonstandard" word, a word which is unacceptable in many contexts, regions, and social classes - and we wouldn't be doing our duty as encyclopedia writers if we didn't reflect that. --MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. This is the kind of thing we find in reliable sources: "The use of ain't has come to be regarded as a mark of ignorance. Use it at your peril." We would be misinforming and censoring if we suppress this kind of RS information in the name of "balance". --MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views." --MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit disingenuous here. I'll grant that an educated person might be able to use the word with their peers in some contexts, but if they exit that context (through travel, or written correspondence) and use it they are certain to face stigma for it. Foobard (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

There are four of us in discussion here. How do we four feel about the following wording for the lead? --MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Ain't is a contraction for "am not", "is not", "are not", "has not", and "have not" in the common English language vernacular. In some dialects ain't is also used as a contraction of "do not", "does not", and "did not". The usage of ain't is a perennial subject of controversy in English. Ain't is commonly used by many speakers in oral or informal settings, especially in certain regions and dialects[add ref] or in certain clichéd phrases. However, ain't may be used as a marker of socioeconomic or regional status, and a person who uses it in an inappropriate context may be stigmatized as uneducated.[add ref] Its usage is generally disapproved of by dictionaries and style guides, and it is rarely found in formal written works.[add ref]

I still object to "commonly used by many." Ain't may be commonly used by some, or in some regions, but I don't believe "commonly used by many" gives an accurate view of worldwide use. 10s of millions is indeed a large number, but not in terms of the worlds's English speaking population (estimated at 1.2 billion in List of countries by English-speaking population). Is the word in commonuse anywhere outside of the US? Meters (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

According to Reliable Sources, yes, it is "flourishing" in both the US and the UK. --MelanieN (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's used in Canada, the Caribbean, the UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and the South Pacific at least. See this ref at p.314. Dohn joe (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It may be a word people are aware of, particularly in loan phrases, but I can state from personal experience that it is not used in everyday speech in Canada, at least. Foobard (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That's Original Research. It may be used in some areas or some social strata that you are less familiar with. I never hear it in everyday speech either, in the circles I move in, but that doesn't mean it isn't used in the U.S. In any case, "not used in Canada" is not a reason for denying that the word is commonly used "in some regions". --MelanieN (talk) 04:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course, and this is the talk page, not the article. I have no problem with wording that says it's commonly used within certain specific dialects and regions, but I do with anything that suggests it has wider use that it actually does. Foobard (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I also strongly object to the "commonly used by many." I feel that statement would require a reference with a survey of its frequency of use outside of dialects and loan phrases, and/or a definition of "many." Foobard (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't need a survey, we need Reliable Sources. "It is still perfectly normal in many dialects and informal speech in both Britain and North America." [10] "ain't in senses 1 and 2 is flourishing in American English. ... Our evidence shows British use to be much the same as American."[11] "Ain't today is highly stigmatized, but nevertheless widely used."[12] --MelanieN (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The caveat "in many dialects" is critical there. It is not commonly used in the wider sense. Foobard (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Except that references 11 and 12 say it is. Look, I understand where you are coming from; I never hear anyone use this word either. But that is an artifact of the "region" and "social stratum" in which I live and move. My experience doesn't overrule the Reliable Sources that say the word is widely used. But let's stick to specific wording: it looks to me like we already include the caveat "in many dialects" in our drafts. The sentence in the above draft that says "commonly used by many speakers" immediately adds, in the same sentence, the caveat about certain regions. The alternate draft below, which Dohn Joe has proposed and I have accepted, also contains the "regions" limitation in the same sentence: "Ain't is commonly used by many speakers in oral or informal settings, especially in certain regions and dialects". Both drafts then immediately say that its usage can "stigmatized". I'm not sure what you are objecting to in these drafts, or how you want them to be worded. But if you can come up with an alternate wording, propose it - and maybe it will be something that we can all accept. --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Suppose we say "primarily in certain regions and dialects" instead of "especially"; would that get at what you are trying to change? --MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy with that wording. My problem with "widely" is that it can be used to note that the word is used in common and widespread dialects (such as African American Vernacular English), but without caveats tends to imply that it's used widely across all or most English dialects. Foobard (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Melanie, as always, I appreciate your work and efforts to find consensus, and I think we're close. I'm still having a couple issues, however. Thinking about it some more, and looking back at what's been written so far, I can see how I might be construed as the Ain't Crusader. That's not my intent. But I think that one of the sources of the disconnect here between us may be different approaches to the question of ain't. Wikipedia is not a style guide. Our job is not to give usage advice, or to promote or discourage the use of ain't by English learners. It's tricky, because the stigma of ain't as given in style guides is an essential part of the story, but that means we have to be especially careful just to describe the stigma, and not prescribe it ourselves. The distinction I'm trying to draw here is a fine one, but what I'm trying to say is we need to be careful not to adopt a value judgment ourselves in describing the usage of ain't. To me, "a person who uses it in an inappropriate context may be stigmatized as uneducated" falls on the side of giving advice. I've tried a tweak to the language below.

  My other quibble is with the "cliched phrases". If we're going to mention that in the lead, I would rather say "or for rhetorical effect". That encompasses the cliches, and also includes when people intentionally use ain't to sound "folksy" without using one of the stock phrases. I also think it is important to keep the reference to "nonstandard", which most reliable sources use as a description.

  So I would try the following to end the lead: "Ain't is commonly used by many speakers in oral or informal settings, especially in certain regions and dialects.[add ref] Its usage is often highly stigmatized, and it may be used as a marker of socioeconomic or regional status, or education level. Its use is generally considered nonstandard by dictionaries and style guides except when used for rhetorical effect, and it is rarely found in formal written works.[add ref]" This seems more balanced to me, but what do I know. Thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with that - except I wonder if we should add a [ref] after the "stigmatized...marker" sentence? On second thought, maybe we should leave out all the refs - refs are supposed to be in the main body of the article, not in the lead. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I would be glad to drop the refs, if others agree - hopefully this discussion has enough refs to back up the way the paragraph would read now. Dohn joe (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. "That's not my intent." Aww, come on - you missed a perfectly good chance to say "That ain't my intent." 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, ma'am, that just ain't my style. (Note the rhetorical effect, pulled off to perfection...) Dohn joe (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, so here is our new draft. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ain't is commonly used by many speakers in oral or informal settings, primarily in certain regions and dialects. Its usage is often highly stigmatized, and it may be used as a marker of socioeconomic or regional status, or education level. Its use is generally considered nonstandard by dictionaries and style guides except when used for rhetorical effect, and it is rarely found in formal written works.

Sorry, Melanie, I have to object to "primarily". You and I have both found reliable sources that show that ain't is in fact used in all English-speaking regions. (Here's another, calling ain't a "pervasive feature on a global scale", and one of two negation features "most widely known to occur in all non-standard varieties".) All we have from User:Foobard is a gut feeling and personal observation. If Foobard doesn't personally believe "that it's used widely across all or most English dialects", that's fine. But we have to follow the sources, which do not limit it to "primarily in certain regions and dialects". I think the previous proposal is an accurate summary of what we've found in sources. Dohn joe (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I am still OK with "especially", which conveys almost the same meaning. My personal experience is the same as Foobard's, but we do need to reflect sources and not our own viewpoint. The sources claim that it is used "across all or most English dialects," but they also confirm that it is used much more commonly in some dialects and regions than in others. That's what we need to convey. --MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. And I think that "especially" does that better than "primarily". Dohn joe (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that the sources are saying that, they're just not defining "widely," assuming the reader will interpret it reasonably. If people want to go down that road, I'm going to have to insist on a source that unambiguously states that "ain't" is used widely across all dialects of English. Foobard (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

First, that seems an unfair standard - if reliable sources can trust their audiences to reasonably interpret "widely", we should be able to do the same. Second, we've already provided numerous sources attesting to the global pervasiveness of ain't across all regions. Research is fun, though, so I found another: "ain't has been a staple of all nonstandard English dialects since at least the eighteenth century". And another: "Some folk speech is found in all dialects of a language, such as double negatives and ain't, whereas other folk usages are specific to certain regions, such as the use of y'all in the American South." Dohn joe (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Those sources aren't trying to use semantics to apply a particular spin, though. Here's a source that says the use of "ain't" is highly segregated - with actual data rather than baseless claims: http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=PvP2iW5pOX0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=ain%27t+dialect&ots=ntmxwVyRlD&sig=8uKfSg-VQz-F-KWnZycj7V4YOZQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=ain't%20dialect&f=false Foobard (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the attempt to use an actual reliable source to back up your claims - I appreciate that. However, your source only looks at the use of ain't to mean didn't, as a marker of African American Vernacular English, which is something that many sources already state. It doesn't say anything about the overall segregation of the usage of ain't, so in the end, it doesn't back up your statement. Dohn joe (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, Foobard, it is time to accept what the sources say. Dohn Joe has come up with ample proof that "ain't" is widely used. You "insisted" on seeing "a source that unambiguously states that ain't is used widely across all dialects of English." Dohn Joe provided two such sources. It's time to accept this wording (with "especially") for the lead sentences and move on, perhaps to expand by adding some of these points and sources to the body of the article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay folks - it's been over three days since a substantive edit on the talkpage. Shall we implement the new lead language? Dohn joe (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking the same. I went ahead and put our new sentences into the lead. I also moved the "dictionary references" out of the lead and into a new section of their own, but I could be persuaded to put them somewhere else. Meanwhile, Dohn Joe, I look forward to seeing some of your research get incorporated into the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Organization of the article

(Broken out from the section above)
Thanks Melanie - looks good. As for the dictionary refs, I'm not sure the best placement for them. Maybe in the linguistic prescription section? Also, I've been contemplating a new organization for the article, so maybe I'll find a new spot for them. Dohn joe (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Good, go for it! I agree the current organization is not ideal. Is there any guidance or pattern for how such articles should be organized, I wonder? --MelanieN (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't really think of any good pattern articles. There's an article on y'all, but it's in worse shape than this one. Any thoughts from folks would be appreciated. Dohn joe (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Then we'll have to go with what makes sense to us. For starters, I think the section "Conjugation lexical gaps for present tense "be" " is a mess. It's completely unsourced and written in impenetrable prose. I'm half tempted to delete the whole section - or else to reduce it to something readable and make it a subsection the "etymology" section. I suspect it's a leftover from the now-redirected page "Contractions of negated auxiliary verbs in English" (see top of this page).

I agree we should put "Dictionary usage" as a subsection under "Linguistic prescription". I'll go ahead and move that, seems uncontroversial.

Any broader vision of how to organize the article? --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The "conjugation lexical gaps..." refers to the so-called "amn't gap", which means that there is no standard English contraction for "am not", whereas there is one for "are not" and "is not". "Ain't" functions in part to fill that gap, but only in nonstandard usage. It's important to cover, but I agree that we can probably handle it here in a few sentences with a hatnote to English_auxiliaries_and_contractions#Contractions_representing_am_not.

As for the broader vision, it's probably not too far off from what it is now. An etymology section; a linguistic prescription section, covering the development of the stigma and the coverage of dictionaries and style guides; and a usage section, which could cover both regional/dialect usage and rhetorical usage (the current "Deliberate usage" section). What do you think? Dohn joe (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Go ahead with it - and I'd like to see the "usage" section expanded with some of the references you have cited here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW I have already changed "deliberate usage" to "rhetorical usage". After all, all usage (whether in nonstandard context or not) is deliberate; "rhetorical" is a much better word for when people do it for effect. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ain't/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tezero (talk · contribs) 23:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey, it looks like I'm not the only one with a language-related GAN! Interesting topic for one, too; I'll give comments later on. Tezero (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• "In non-rhotic dialects, aren't also began to be represented by an't." - Source?

  I slightly reworded and added a cite. Dohn joe (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Charles Dickens likewise used ain't to mean haven't in Chapter 28 of Martin Chuzzlewit (1844): "You ain't got nothing to cry for, bless you! He's righter than a trivet!"" - ditto

  Done. Dohn joe (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Like with an't, han't and ain't were found together late into the nineteenth century, as in Chapter 12 of Dickens' Our Mutual Friend: "Well, have you finished?" asked the strange man. "No," said Riderhood, "I ain't"...."You sir! You han't said what you want of me."" - ditto

  Done. Dohn joe (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• "the classic example" - Too subjective for a source to work, I think. "A widely-known example", "A well-known example", "perhaps the most widely-known example", etc. would be preferable.

  "Classic example" actually comes from the source itself - let me know if you still think it should change. Dohn joe (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  I know it does. It's kind of biased in the source, though, which is outside Wikipedia's goals (otherwise, as a stronger example, we could say "Abbey Road is one of the greatest albums of all time"). I'd prefer it be changed, although if you feel strongly I won't require it. Tezero (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  Tried "prominent". Dohn joe (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• "all nonstandard English dialects" - I don't know if it's possible to definitively quantify nonstandard English dialects, so I'd prefer "all nonstandard English dialects studied so far".

  This language also comes from the source itself. Dohn joe (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  This I'll buy. Tezero (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• "In American English, ain’t is associated with a middle level of education,[38] although it is widely believed that its use establishes of lack of education or social standing in the speaker.[43]" - I don't see the distinction. If it's widely believed that its use correlates with some demographic variables, in what way is it "associated" with other ones?

  My reading is that usage of the word is objectively associated with - i.e., actually used by - people with a middle level of education, according to the one source, and at the same time, subjectively believed to be used only by people with lesser education, according to the other. Perhaps I should reword to make that clearer? Dohn joe (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  Yeah, "associated" has more than one meaning. I'd prefer something like "is most often used by" or "correlates with". Tezero (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  Tried "corresponds to." Dohn joe (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Since you talk about the song "He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother" after the motto that goes thus, mention the existence of other things titled "Say It Ain't So". I can think of the Weezer song, but I'm sure there are more.

  Didn't actually find that many, but added Weezer and Murray Head. Dohn joe (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• The section "Contractions of to have not" - consists of all short paragraphs that are kind of stilted to read. Try merging them together in some combination.

  Gave it a shot.... Dohn joe (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• The intro doesn't summarize the article too well. Its history as at least two independent constructions merging over time isn't even mentioned, for one.

  Added a bit on the independent derivations. The rest of the lead was recently hammered out after a long discussion on the talkpage. If you have specific things you'd like to see, feel free to suggest; otherwise, I'm loathe to change it on my own. Dohn joe (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Some citations need more formatting - for example, the Merriam-Webster entries. Those need the publisher (just Merriam-Webster) and the accessdate. Excepting Google Books, all online citations need accessdates, actually. Similarly, Love for Love, The Relapse, The Country Wife, etc. need full citations as books; a link with a title and a page number isn't enough.

  Started on this one....

  Okay - think I got them all. User:Tezero - have at! Dohn joe (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm putting this on hold; ping me when you've addressed or responded to all of these. Tezero (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks much better. Good job! Tezero (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"Ain't is a contraction for am not, is not, are not, has not, and have not"

I believe this is incorrect. Historically ain't was a contraction of am not, as well as are not, and is now used in place of a number of other pairs of words. But that doesn't mean it's a contraction of those other pairs. If there's no objection, I'll try to to fix this to make it clearer. —johndburger 18:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It has certainly been called a contraction of all its uses. Essentially, "ain't" came from "an't" and "han't", which were independent contractions at one point of the various forms of "to be" and "to have". So "ain't" is a contraction of all the underlying verbs. See here for example. See this Google Books search for many more examples. Dohn joe (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

We need to base this on what reliable sources say. Just now I found this: "Originally a contraction of am not, by extension ain't became a contraction of is not and are not, even of has not and have not."[13] Similar wording here: [14] Then we have " Ain't really did become a kind of omnibus contraction - am not, are not, is not, has not, and have not all at some time contracted to ain't. " [15] All of these sources agree that ain't is a contraction of those other phrases, even if it doesn't look much like them. --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, being both a contraction and used in place of certain words doesn't mean it's a contraction of those words. If people started saying "I isn't" that wouldn't suddenly make isn't a contraction for am not. Most of these sources seem to be confusing used in place of with contraction of. Only the Burridge reference actually bothers to explain how the transformation might have occurred, and I don't find it very convincing. But with so many sources describing this with such poor precision I can see I'm unlikely to win this argument. Cheers! —johndburger 20:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I think the evidence points the other way. And by the way, people do say "Aren't I" quite a lot, with aren't indeed being a contraction of am not, via a rhoticization of one pronunciation of an't, which as we know, was a contraction of, among things, am not. Likewise with has not to han't to an't to ain't (or han't to hain't to ain't). There's a direct etymological lineage for all these contractions - it's just been obscured. It doesn't help that the stigma attached to ain't led so many sources to deny that there was any connection whatsoever.... Dohn joe (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Who uses ain't - ain't a good citation

The present citation for the distribution of ain't in American usage is a recursive; the source is not the original source, but citing another source. If someone can find the actual original sourcing, that would be good. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I removed the tag. The cite included a "cf." to another work. Using "cf." invites a comparison to that other work, but the claim itself comes from the article in question. Finding that other cite would be great, but we don't need the tag in the meantime. Dohn joe (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ain't. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140727145455/http://www.boystown.org/blog/the-story-behind-he-aint-heavy to http://www.boystown.org/blog/the-story-behind-he-aint-heavy

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Usage requires "got" to mean "to have not"

No one says "I ain't money" to mean "I do not have money." In fact, the meaning of "I ain't money" is "I am not money". They need to say "I ain't got money," or more likely "I ain't got no money." There is no mention in the article of the "got" requirement to mean "to have not." In fact, ain't can also be used to negate verbs other than "got", as in "I ain't going." This is essentially the "be not" usage (I am not going). It could be argued that "ain't" never means "have not," making that whole section garbage. Vinzklorthos (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. The contraction is for "have not" or "haven't". It's not a contraction for "haven't got". Just as no one would say "I haven't money," they wouldn't say "I ain't money", and the article doesn't suggest that anyone does. In this case "haven't" is a helper verb, making another verb into past tense; "ain't" is also a helper verb and modifies another verb. The examples in the text make that clear, using "I ain't got" several times. The same substitution for "haven't" works with many other verbs, as in "I ain't been to school," "I ain't eaten today," "I ain't heard from him," "I ain't done nothin'", "I ain't told nobody" (sorry, but double negatives go with the dialect). --MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

aint is cool iam cool your not cool — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.220.31.226 (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, no one would say "I haven't money". They may say "I have no money" which means the say thing as "I ain't got no money" or "I don't have any money". Fish567 (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)