English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

This question already has an answer here:

I contend the word ain’t is a useful contraction of am not. Ain’t I correct in thinking that in the early 1800s, Bostonians thought of ain’t as an acceptable word without stigmatization?

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by tchrist, Kris, kiamlaluno, aedia λ, cornbread ninja 麵包忍者 Mar 16 '13 at 21:20

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

This was recently addressed on ell.SE. Until about the middle of the 19th century it was an ordinary colloquialism (usually spelled an't or en't) in all levels of society, though not used in formal writing (except of course in dramatic or fictional dialogue). – StoneyB Mar 8 '13 at 17:44

Per nohat's very thorough answer to a previous question, the Online Etymology Dictionary has the following to say about "ain't":

1706, originally a contraction of am not, and in proper use with that sense until it began to be used as a generic contraction for are not, is not, etc., in early 19c. Cockney dialect of London; popularized by representations of this in Dickens, etc., which led to the word being banished from correct English.

In other words, yes, ain't used to be the proper contraction for "am not", but because certain lower-class dialects began to use this word for pretty much any contraction of [be] or [has] with [not], it acquired a bad reputation.

share|improve this answer

This is still a very common colloquialism in the UK.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgUf9hlTnnU

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.