II. — Notes on Certain Negative Verb Contractions in the 



Present 



BY LOUISE POUND 



For some time lexicographers have recorded in standard dic- 

 tionaries the colloquial and vulgar forms ain't and hain't, and 

 their predecessors an't and han't. Ain't especially is now in so 

 widespread usage as to deserve notation in the completer gram- 

 mars also, though Dr. Sweet seems to be the only one yet to give 

 it place. He notes, with his usual tolerance for the idiomatic or 

 colloquial (A'ezv Eng. Gr., 1900, § 1491) : 



"The negative forms [of to be] in the pres. are generally sup- 

 plied by (eint) in familiar speech, which is, however, felt to be 

 a vulgarism, and is avoided by many educated speakers, who say 

 (aim not) instead of (ai eint), (aa ju not) instead of (eint 

 ju)." 



It was natural (i) that there should be confusion between 

 ain't and hain't, and (2) that these forms should occur in all 

 persons ; the first because of the light quality and frequent insta- 

 bility of English initial h, the second because distinction in per- 

 son and numljer is not usually observed in negative contractions. 

 So the familiar don't for does not, dost not, as well as do not. 

 So occasionally with aren't, especially in the speech of children. 

 "Aren't I a good brother to you?" George Eliot, Mill on the 

 Floss, v; "I'm no reader, I aren't," lb., iv; "I'm a pretty con- 

 siderable favorite with the ladies — arn't I?" Captain Borough- 

 cliffe, dramatization of Cooper's Pilot (1825), II, ii; "I'm a 

 sort of a kind of a nonentity — arn't I ?" It. 



The vowel sound (e, ei) of ain't and hain't seems, however, 

 less expected. Obviously the normal contractions of the nega- 

 tive present of to be should be, ist sg. is?i't (am not), 3rd sg. 

 in't (is not), plur. dn't (are not). Similarly /fa;?i't (Eng. 



223 



