A good point about "ain't". It seems to have supplanted
several older negatives. Here are some attested but
"non-standard" developments:
have not/has not > ha'n't (Walker 1775 wrote it rhymed with
<aunt>; in America it would rhyme with <can't>)
is not > i'n't/en't (late 17th century)
am not > a'n't (in non-rhotic English homophonous with
<aren't>, hence "I'm clever, aren't I?")
are not > /a:nt/ with the loss of /r/ so early that the
negative managed to be affected by the Great Vowel Shift >
/E:nt/ > /eint/
So a whole family of phonetically similar negatives --
/a:nt/ ~ /Ent/, /int/ ~ /ent/, /eint/ (perhaps even
<won't>) -- eventually merged into a single form spelt
<ain't>.
I ain't got no money (= I ain't rich).
There ain't gonna be no dinner.
She's cute, ain't she?
It just ain't right.
Etc.
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rex H. McTyeire" <rexbo@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 2:40 PM
Subject: RE: [tied] English.
> You're right, Piotr..but the "ain't" is broader, and still
very much in use.
> Even if it began as simply "have not"; it is used as:
>
> have not (I ain't been watching.)
> will not (I ain't!)
> am not (I ain't going.)
>
> I'm trying to come up with a "do not" : Cain't. "Ain't
care" doesn't work,
> you must add -ing, = Am not caring, or Ain't a care
(have not) ..No "do
> not' anywhere :-)
>