Korean Job Discussion Forums

Omkara · Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Location: USA

We can say:

"You are studying English, aren't you?"

But, how would you teach the contration for I? Would you just not teach it? How do you say it?

ex: 1) "I am a nice guy, am I not?"
2)"I'm a nice guy, ain't I?"
3)"I'm a nice guy, aren't I?"

Number one is correct; two is commonly used, is fine in spoken and informal language, but is grammatically incorrect; but what about the third? On its face, it seems incorrect. But, I think that we use it often. Maybe I use it because I'm a hick.

some waygug-in · Joined: 25 Jan 2003

Number 3 is correct.

Number 2...is now called a colloquialism, but I am told that it was once considered correct.

Omkara · Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Location: USA

Can anyone explain how #3 is correct?

I am a nice guy, aren't I?

The verbs disagree.

Are there historical reasons for this? Or just an agreement?

Zaria32 · Joined: 04 Dec 2007

I don't believe ain't is correct under any circumstances, with the possible exception of joking use. And I would not agree that it is "fine in spoken language." I think it labels the speaker as functionally uneducated.

Aren't I is certainly commonly used, but not correct.

Omkara · Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Location: USA

Where I come from, ain't is used by both the educated and the undereducated. The only difference is, the educated use it by choice of style and manner.

I happen to love the informal feel of the word.

I'd even choose to use it in written language, provided its usage agreed with the tone I intended to set.

Nevertheless, this may be a geographical thing. I'm from the mountains of Northern California--quite rural.

JustJohn · Joined: 18 Oct 2007 Location: Your computer screen

The correct contraction is emmen't.

Example:

- I'm a nice guy, emmen't I?
- You're a jerk.
- No I emmen't!

Omkara · Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Location: USA

I think the best answer is that it is incorrect, but widely used. It's like this: When a man or woman does something, they. . .

People use it, but it is wrong.

I do think, then, that "ain't" is more correct, strictly speaking. It is probably rooted in the contraction "am not." But this is just speculation.

Thiuda

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

When I teach tag questions, I teach the ' ...aren't I?' as an exception to the usual rule of subject-verb agreement.

I seldom even mention '...am I not?' because it is stilted, overly formal and rarely used. It has an 'angry challenging' feel to it.

'Ain't' is uneducated speech so I don't teach it until a student asks about it. I do tell them that sometimes they may hear someone use it in a joking manner, but that until they are fully fluent they should never ever use it.

TBirdMG · Joined: 09 Dec 2006 Location: SF, CA, USA

'Aint is simply wrong. As we are talking grammar, phonology, and contractions, 'Aint has no place in the language, aside from recognized colloquialisms and formal Tennesee speech patterns.

Aren't is used, to the best of my knowledge, for one simple reason: Amn't is not phonologically acceptable in the English language.

You will not find what is referred to as a VCCC string (vowel consonant consonant consonant) that terminates in 2 consecutive bilabials and a stop. It's just impossible. Ick. It hurts my lips, and doesn't exist elsewhere in spoken English.

So the best and nearest option is 'aren't', which although grammatically "challenging," to use with the first person singular "I," manages to satisfy the phonological rule.

My 2 cents from a snooty amateur linguist.

Easter Clark · Joined: 18 Nov 2007 Location: Hiding from Yie Eun-woong

bacasper · Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Thiuda · Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 6:33 pm Post subject:

Thiuda · Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:01 pm Post subject:

daskalos · Joined: 19 May 2006 Location: The Road to Ithaca

Fine. "Ain't," to put it delicately, in the here and now of where the language stands in its ongoing evolution, is non-standard, and used unironically only by the uneducated and by the educated only ironically, unless of course you subscribe to the total free-for-all descriptivist philosophy, under which no utterance of any native speaker can be said to be wrong. To such people I have to little to say, and I would appreciate the same consideration in return.

"Aren't I" is likewise non-standard, but it is common. Who knows but that 200 years ago it didn't accrue as much scorn as "ain't" does today, but it has passed the time-test of no longer marking one as functionally illiterate, fairly or not.

It is not at all difficult to say "am I not," but it does mark one as an effete asshole in certain circles, just as surely as "ain't" marks one as a hick or as imitating a hick.

For the sake of subject/verb agreement, perhaps it would have been better to go with "amn't." We could have pronounced it "ament" much like we say "dident," but that's not how it worked out. Oh well. English is famous for not following its own rules.

As to "their" being used for singular possession, I hate it, too, but I've recently become aware that it's not just some recent attempt to avoid gender specificity. It has a several-hundred-year-old history, and though I avoid it at all costs, I can no longer attribute it to mere PC sycophancy and can no longer judge a person's soul purely on the basis of this usage alone.

To any of you pure descriptivists out there who'd like to take me to task for my inconsistencies, I request that you first tongue my hole. There, I've made a verb out of a noun. Satisfied?