Aren't I?

[Lib]

'Ain't' doesn't exist Ronbee (at least not in any ESL book). Read tdol's first post in this thread ... he / she explains it perfectly. 'Are I' is not correct, it's only used in the negative - 'arent' I'. If the tag is positive, then it's a simple 'am I?' - I'm not shouting, am I?
What about this one? - I'm annoying you, aren't I?

1. After a check-up with the doctor- the doctor looking grimfaced but trying to hide the fact:

I'm very sick, aren't I?

2 . A child has repeated a naughty action:

Mum to Child: I'm going to angry in a minute, aren't I'


Absolutely correct BE.

[RonBee]

Originally Posted by Lib

'Ain't' doesn't exist Ronbee (at least not in any ESL book). Read tdol's first post in this thread ... he / she explains it perfectly.

I prefer ain't I over aren't I. That's because ain't is a contraction for am not. Aren't is a contraction for are not. If ain't is not used in BE then it is a victory for the prescriptivists, and it is a hollow victory indeed. If ain't is considered "improper" that is because it was arbitrarily stigmatized. Grammatically speaking, it makes as much sense to use ain't for am not as it does to use isn't for is not.

'Are I' is not correct, it's only used in the negative - 'arent' I'.

I agree that "are I" is not correct. :wink:

If the tag is positive, then it's a simple 'am I?' - I'm not shouting, am I?

No, you're not shouting. :wink:

What about this one? - I'm annoying you, aren't I?

Only a little. :wink:

8)

[RonBee]

Originally Posted by cutecanute

1. After a check-up with the doctor- the doctor looking grimfaced but trying to hide the fact:

I'm very sick, aren't I?

2 . A child has repeated a naughty action:

Mum to Child: I'm going to angry in a minute, aren't I'


Absolutely correct BE.

BE it must be. I don't think "to angry" is even a verb in AE.

8)

[RonBee]

"Yet another foreign language--that of America."
--George Bernard Shaw


"We and the Americans have much in common, but there is always the language barrier."
--Oscar Wilde


"We are divided by a common language."
--Winston Churchhill


"The first week I was in America I was in a luncheonette and I heard one of the countermen tell the other "to burn the English." All I could think of was I hope they don't think I'm English."
--Philip Young, Belfast Maine, who came to the United States from Scotland


--from Dickson's Word Treasury, pp. 50-51


:)

Originally Posted by Sue Jorgenson

I believe the following is grammatically incorrect because the verb and subject don't agree. Yet it sounds okay. Is it incorrect or is there some exception for this usage?

"I am happy, aren't I?"

Should it be:

"I am happy, am I not?"

I was doing a question tag exercise in class, changing statements into questions and this came up. Please help.

"I am happy, aren't I" - That is correct. There is nothing wrong with it. It is quite illogical, but it is used and it is considered correct not just in British English, but in American English as well.

aren't I and ain't are related. Here is the story.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/63/A0156300.html

ain't (ānt)
Nonstandard.
Contraction of am not.
Used also as a contraction for are not, is not, has not, and have not.
USAGE NOTE Ain't has a long history of controversy. It first appeared in 1778, evolving from an earlier an't, which arose almost a century earlier as a contraction of are not and am not. In fact, ain't arose at the tail end of an era that saw the introduction of a number of our most common contractions, including don't and won't. But while don't and won't eventually became accepted at all levels of speech and writing, ain't was to receive a barrage of criticism in the 19th century for having no set sequence of words from which it can be contracted and for being a “vulgarism,” that is, a term used by the lower classes, although an't at least had been originally used by the upper classes as well. At the same time ain't's uses were multiplying to include has not, have not, and is not, by influence of forms like ha'n't and i'n't. It may be that these extended uses helped fuel the negative reaction. Whatever the case, criticism of ain't by usage commentators and teachers has not subsided, and the use of ain't is often regarded as a sign of ignorance.•But despite all the attempts to ban it, ain't continues to enjoy extensive use in speech. Even educated and upper-class speakers see no substitute in folksy expressions such as Say it ain't so and You ain't seen nothin' yet.•The stigmatization of ain't leaves us with no happy alternative for use in first-person questions. The widely used aren't I? though illogical, was found acceptable for use in speech by a majority of the Usage Panel in an earlier survey, but in writing there is no acceptable substitute for the stilted am I not?

Originally Posted by RonBee

BE it must be. I don't think "to angry" is even a verb in AE.

8)

The topic here is "aren't I".


to angry - This is obviously a typographical error.

8)

[RonBee]

to angry - This is obviously a typographical error.

Sorry, but it is not obvious. How do I know it is not used in BE?

8)

[Lib]

Damn, hope this works this time. As I was saying before I got some sort of INVALID notice ... CitySpeak - interesting about 'ain't', thanks for the information. And a question for everyone: does anyone out there who is not American actually use 'ain't' in their everyday speech?

Originally Posted by Lib

Damn, hope this works this time. As I was saying before I got some sort of INVALID notice ... CitySpeak - interesting about 'ain't', thanks for the information. And a question for everyone: does anyone out there who is not American actually use 'ain't' in their everyday speech?

I wouldn't associate "ain't" with American English alone. It is part of English in general. It is not considered correct, but nevertheless it is part of English and not just American English. All English.