The Debate Over Ain't

"Ain't ain't a word and you don't know how to spell it." 
 I remember that taunt from playground days.  I don't remember why I said it. I might have been demonstrating my superiority with the English language over or maybe just goofing off with friends.  I don't remember getting into any fights over the word, but I know that I would have insisted until just a few minutes ago that ain't ain't a word and no one can no how to spell it.  How can you spell a word that doesn't even exist?

Several years ago (2005),  I watched a PBS report that discussed a heated debate between linguists.   If you believe that full contact mixed martial arts are brutal you should see what happens when grammarians get together to discuss the role of dictionaries in modern society.  What is left at the end of that debate is not pretty and the bruises linger for decades and sometimes centuries.  At least in MMA the bruises heal shortly after the fight.

For the grammarians and the linguists you really have two camps.  In one corner you have the prescriptivists.  In the opposite corner sit the descriptivists.  Here is the basic question, Do dictionaries set down or prescribe the rules of grammar, syntax and vocabulary or do they describe the rules of language we actually use to communicate with clarity?

Only a moron would try to show that ain't was a word that belongs in a dictionary.  Ain't violates the recognized rules of contractions.  While the n't an appropriate contraction, there is no justification under the rules of English that allows a contraction of is and/or am to ai.  It is wrong.  Even the ai shows up with an underlined red, proving the rule are violation.

For those passionate about language this violation is just one example of how language is being ruined.  What's worse?  Almost all, if not all, dictionaries now include ain't as a word.  Some try to maintain their purity by pointing out that the word is not standard and  improper.  But really, is anyone fooled by this distinction.  The destruction of the English language is at our gate when we let dictionaries describe the way we speak.

There are apologists who will proclaim that a dictionary that includes words and grammar rules that are used by the less educated and simpleton population is the most accurate because it describes better the world in which we live and communicate.

But who would actually choose a dictionary that merely described the world in which you live especially when the descriptions violated the basic tenets of true language?  I think we can all agree that we need a prescriptive dictionary so we know what is right and can avoid the mistakes of the less learned?

If you think you disagree that's OK?  But there ain't gonna be any badmouthin' or argyuan about what's right on this page, 'cause ain't aint a word.

http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/correct/prescriptivism/