From what I know, "ain't" works as a negation in any tense or form. However, it doesn't take the form of the (first/second/third) person or the tense and so the verb following it does. What I mean is:

  1. He didn't help me.
  2. He ain't helped me.
  3. He ain't help me.

In (1) "did" already takes the form of the correct tense and person (in this case the same for all persons) and the verb following it ("help") is infinitive.

In (2) "ain't" doesn't take the form of the person or tense and so the verb ("helped") does.

The alternative (3) would be for the verb to stay infinitive, but as far as I know that is incorrect. Also, in this case there's no way to determine the tense someone is using (other than from the context).

Now, am I correct or am I wrong? Or maybe in different dialects (or slang varieties) "ain't" behaves differently?

Edit: To clarify—I know what "ain't" means, I'm asking about how to use it correctly in a sentence.

  • 1
    Possible duplicate of What does "ain't" mean? It's also used for am not, is not, has not, have not., so example #2 above is okay in colloquial contexts. #3 is a very uneducated usage. – FumbleFingers Nov 14 '15 at 18:44
  • 1
    Ain’t is a contraction for [am/is/are] not. It can also be used for [have/has] not. “You ain’t seen nothing yet” - “You haven’t seen [anything(nothing)] yet.”. “I ain’t got it” - “I haven’t got it”. “I ain’t stupid.” - “I am not stupid”. “We ain’t there yet.”-”We aren’t there yet.” – Jim Nov 14 '15 at 18:48
  • Ain't is also used (perhaps more commonly) with an -ing form: (4) He ain't helping me. Generally ain't is used for a negative contraction of a be form, but occasionally it appears also for a negative contraction of a have form, as in (2). (3) is what (2) sounds like at normal speech rates, when /ent'hɛlptmi/ reduces to /en'ɛlpmi/ . – John Lawler Nov 14 '15 at 18:48
  • 1
    They used to say that "ain't ain't a word". Clearly demonstrating the falsity of the statement. I think you wanted he ain't helping me. – Elliott Frisch Nov 14 '15 at 18:48
  • 1
    The obvious answer to "How does 'ain't' work?" is "It don't." – Andreas Blass Nov 18 '15 at 21:09

I don't think "He ain't helped me" is a valid use of ain't.

You would simply say "He hasn't helped me."

  • That ain't so (isn't)
  • I ain't happy (am not)
  • Thou ain't happy (aren't)
  • You ain't happy (aren't)
  • He ain't happy (isn't)
  • She ain't happy (isn't)
  • That ain't happy (isn't)
  • They ain't happy (aren't)

Going back to your original phrase, you can get away with saying "He 'an't helped me," which is a further contraction (and not formal English) of hasn't.

You can say "He ain't helping me" as in "He isn't helping me (right now)."

| improve this answer | |
  • You changed it to be wrong @Nonnal, I've re-edited it back. Thanks for the formatting though. – Cephlin Nov 18 '15 at 17:20
  • Ah, good catch and my apologies. I had never encountered "'an't" before and assumed it was a typo. Thanks for contributing a good answer. – Nonnal Nov 18 '15 at 17:28
  • It's more of a dialect thing, in Britain we have so many dialects that you can argue for all different ways of saying a word and still be orally correct. – Cephlin Nov 18 '15 at 17:31

From the OED:

ain't /eint/ v.1 dial. and colloq.
[A contracted form of are not (see an't), used also for am not, is not, in the pop. dialect of London and elsewhere; hence in representations of Cockney speech in Dickens, etc, and subsequently in general informal use. The contraction is also found as a (somewhat outmoded) upper-class colloquialism. Cf. won't, don't, can't, shan't.]

ain't /eint/ v.2 dial. and vulg.
[var. hain't, have not, has not.]

Nowadays ain't is particularly useful as a substitute for the nonexistent contraction *amn't.
I would bet that some people hear it and use it as that naturally, and are only later told in "grammar school" that it's "bad grammar".

This is what always happens to any popular attempt to regularize grammar; ain't is unmarked for person or number -- it's a general-purpose present tense negative auxiliary verb, and it's useful not to hafta think about person or number agreement, while emphasizing negation.

Therefore, using ain't is a mark of "poor education", because it devalues the labor -- and therefore the superior social status -- of those who have mastered the "correct" conjugations of be and have, and know the official distinctions between the two auxiliary verbs.

Or at least that's how some people seem to feel.

| improve this answer | |
  • How does that answer my question? – NPS Nov 15 '15 at 0:03
  • 1
    If you want to know how to use ain't in speech, use it the way you hear native speakers using it. If you don't hear native speakers using it, don't use it. And don't use it in writing at all. It's stigmatized and the rules for its usage depend on individual speech communities, which vary. – John Lawler Nov 15 '15 at 0:27
  • Wow, I was completely unaware that this is something that British people say. I always thought it was a dialectical American word. – William Nov 18 '15 at 17:48
  • "amn't" is a contraction sometimes used in colloquial Scots e.g. "I'm good at writing comments, amn't I?" – Laconic Droid Feb 17 '17 at 1:54
  • Most Americans come up with _ amn't_ independently in childhood, but it isn't encouraged. – John Lawler Feb 17 '17 at 4:10

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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