So the lady in the book I'm reading, the oldest living Confederate widow, goes into a lengthy story about why she stubbornly refused to give up saying "ain't," despite approbation from parents, teachers, peers, and even her own husband and children. Which led me to wonder exactly why "ain't" isn't considered a "real" word. I mean, you can say it, right? And you can write it. I figure, a "non-real" word would be one you can't spell or pronounce. A real Schrodinger's cat of a word--the moment you give an example, it ceases to be one.

( The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition) has this to say on the subject: )
Hm, interesting. I can see "an't," the way an upper class British accent would elide the r in "aren't." And I suppose I could see how that could slide into "ain't." But I don't consider "aren't I?" illogical; it's simply subjunctive, in the same way as "if I were..." And I do occasionally use "am I not?" but only if I'm being deliberately snooty in my language. :)

Aaron's favorite example of similar contractions is "won't" as a contraction of "will not." After all, why not "win't?" I explained this away by saying that the "wo" part comes from the German "wollen," which means "to want" or "to will" something. This really begs the question, though, of why German should continue to influence English in such a late era. By the 18th century, we're well past Chaucer.

The purist's point of view is that "ain't" would have to be a contraction of "ai" and "not." Thus, I've come to the conclusion that the only correct usage of "ain't" is when you are trying to state that something is not artificial intelligence.

"That there's a mighty smart robot!"

"AIn't!"