Talk:Amn't

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 March 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for merging with Ain't on October 1 2009. The result of the discussion was Merge.

Formed by analogy

Is there any evidence that amn't I formed "by analogy with" (and hence after) aren't you / isn't it? An alternative theory is that all three formed at the same time, along with shan't, hasn't, weren't, etc; with amn't I>an't I>ain't I>aren't I as later evolution in standard Englishes. jnestorius^(talk) 22:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the text to remove the suggestion that it came after (i.e. I have removed the word "analogy"). I also added a bit about standard English equivalents of "I amn't" and "amn't I", but now I wonder ... Maybe my new sentence should either have "ain't" added, or be deleted! Snalwibma 00:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the "ain't" versions. 4.235.117.133 01:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonstandard?

Isn't "amn't" standard in Scotland and Ireland? Should it be described as non-standard? Makerowner 15:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. "Nonstandard" now eliminated from the article. Snalwibma 16:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are 'I amn't going to work today.' and 'I amn't late, am I?' really 'unacceptable' in Scottish? As a native resident of Aberdeen, brought up in a Doric and Scottish English environment, I heard that construction a lot, and was never corrected on it. Yes, the Doric construction would be different, but NOT the Scottish English one.

Q: You aren't sick are ye? A: I amn't.

I have to insist that I amn't about to be swayed by any argument to the contrary. (That is how I would NATURALLY say it.)

And, yes, I know this hardly constitutes 'proof', but it is something that opens up that discussion again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuitan (talk • contribs) 09:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your local library may have one of those "how we talk in these parts" books. That might offer citable evidence for your contention. jnestorius^(talk) 01:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

What is the current standard Hibernian pronunciation?
Excuse my pet theory, but is there any evidence for amn't being substituted with aren't due to similarity of pronunciation, despite the grammatical incorrectness?

--Rfsmit 18:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I have just removed this recent addition:
... "aren't I?" is, strictly speaking, incorrect. One does not say, "I are." Arguments have even been advanced for "ain't I?" (used in other dialects) as prefereable to "aren't I?" "Amn't I?" although odd-sounding to most English speakers, is in fact the only grammatical alternative to the more formal "Am I not?" and for this reason should perhaps be encouraged more widely.
– because it seems to me an expression of opinion, and therefore a breach of the neutral point of view policy. FWIW, here is my POV on the matter: Even allowing that "I are" is incorrect, it does not follow that "aren't I" is also wrong. Language doeesn't work like that! Snalwibma 19:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I are not sure about that. 4.88.92.112 (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger to Ain't

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Ain't. -- Powers ^T 13:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per a few comments at the AfD, I'd like to discuss merging this article to Ain't. This article is merely a description of the origin and usage of the word, neither of which is significantly different from the usage and origin of "ain't". The topic could be sufficiently covered by a comprehensive article on first-person negating contractions. Powers ^T 13:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The redirect could retain categories like Scottish English, Nonstandard English grammar, Hiberno English. The Ain't article is currently not much longer that this one, though, which is a poor show considering how much more has been written about ain't than about amn't. Ideally the merging would be part of a comprehensive overhaul and expansion of that article. jnestorius^(talk) 14:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The negation (linguistics) article is also poor. The logical nesting would be:

negation (linguistics) > negation in English > n't > ain't > amn't --jnestorius^(talk) 14:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as long as amn't is not relegated to footnote status in an article that sees ain't as "normal" and amn't as abnormal, dialect or of merely regional interest! Looking at jnestorius's "logical nesting" above, I fail to see how amn't is subsidiary to ain't. Surely they are parallel, on the same hierarchical level as equivalent variations on the n't theme. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I substantially agree. Conceptually the article I have labelled ain't could equally be called amn't gap, am not contraction, etc., given that it should discuss all contractions —ain't, amn't, aren't, amnae, been't, bain't, etc.— but under WP:COMMONNAME it will probably be named ain't in any case. jnestorius^(talk) 15:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose - this is the better written article and would overwhelm the more important (i.e. more commonly used) ain't article. If ain't were improved, and the merge was careful - maybe. Smallbones (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per nom. Airplaneman ^talk 22:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - both treat the same general concept. The prose and other content will need to be harmonized. Cnilep (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.