This question was closed without grading. Reason: Answer found elsewhere
Aug 23, 2023 09:03
9 mos ago
52 viewers *
English term
Poland
"A bit of talcum is always walcum."
Native in: Polish 
Works in: English to Polish, Polish to English
re: ain't
Non-PRO
English
Art/Literary
General / Conversation / Greetings / Letters
about past tenses with no context
Is - ain't - used in/with the past tenses?
If yes, examples will be very much appreciated.
Thank you very much!
If not, thank you very much again!
If yes, examples will be very much appreciated.
Thank you very much!
If not, thank you very much again!
Responses
| 5 +2 | No, it isn't. |
kmtext
|
| 4 +2 | Yes is is - and no, it ain't |
Jennifer Levey
|
References
| Further information |
Helena Chavarria
|
Change log
Aug 23, 2023 12:29: writeaway changed "Field" from "Art/Literary" to "Other"
Aug 23, 2023 13:34: AllegroTrans changed "Field" from "Other" to "Art/Literary" , "Field (write-in)" from "about past tenses in the question context " to "about past tenses with no context"
Responses
+2
15 mins
No, it isn't.
Ain't is only used in the present tense. It's a contraction of "are not" or "am not". The past tense equivalents would be wasn't or weren't
Note from asker:
| Thank you very much, kmtext! No context since I asked for the grammar rules. Reason: be like Anglo-Saxon :) |
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Yvonne Gallagher
: Asker gives no context or reason for asking so this answer is fine
1 hr
|
| agree |
Clauwolf
4 hrs
|
| agree |
philgoddard
6 hrs
|
| disagree |
Cilian O'Tuama
: Disagree with CL5 "only". You ain't seen nothing yet. You ain't been around. In US especially, is also meant as "haven't", past tense, not always present, colloquially. Just throwing that in. :-) Can be used in present too, of course. I ain't going nowher
19 hrs
|
+2
5 hrs
Jennifer Levey
Chile
Chile
Native in English
&
English
Chile
Human-scale Globalization
Native in: English (Variant: British)
Works in: Spanish to English, French to English, English to Spanish, and 2 more.
Related KudoZ points
:
27
English term (edited):
ain't
Yes is is - and no, it ain't
Asker's question is: Is - ain't - used in/with the past tenses?
The answer depends on what Asker means by in/with the past tenses.
ain't is, first and foremost, a vernacular form of the grammatically correct 'am not/is not/are not'.
However, 'am/is/are' are all present tense forms of the verb 'to be', and this is an auxiliary verb that can be (and very often is) followed by a present participle to convey a progressive or continuous action that starts in the past, in the present, or in the future.
In appropriate contexts the vernacular form ain't may appear in any circumstances in which the formal forms would normally be found - including situations where it serves as an auxiliary verb to denote continuous/progressive past/future actions.
Also, being a vernacular form, ain't is not bound to adhere to the rules of 'correct' grammar. Thus, although derived initially from the verb 'to be', it can also appear as a substitute for certain forms of the verb 'to have' (another auxiliary verb), presumably because many of those who resort to the vernacular don't know/care which auxiliary verb is considered 'correct' by grammarians.
Examples:
Are you ready to go out? - No, I ain't. (ain't --> 'am not' = present)
You ain't seen nothing yet! (ain't --> 'have not' = present perfect progressive = a past tense)
He ain't gonna buy that car. (ain't --> will not = future)
The answer depends on what Asker means by in/with the past tenses.
ain't is, first and foremost, a vernacular form of the grammatically correct 'am not/is not/are not'.
However, 'am/is/are' are all present tense forms of the verb 'to be', and this is an auxiliary verb that can be (and very often is) followed by a present participle to convey a progressive or continuous action that starts in the past, in the present, or in the future.
In appropriate contexts the vernacular form ain't may appear in any circumstances in which the formal forms would normally be found - including situations where it serves as an auxiliary verb to denote continuous/progressive past/future actions.
Also, being a vernacular form, ain't is not bound to adhere to the rules of 'correct' grammar. Thus, although derived initially from the verb 'to be', it can also appear as a substitute for certain forms of the verb 'to have' (another auxiliary verb), presumably because many of those who resort to the vernacular don't know/care which auxiliary verb is considered 'correct' by grammarians.
Examples:
Are you ready to go out? - No, I ain't. (ain't --> 'am not' = present)
You ain't seen nothing yet! (ain't --> 'have not' = present perfect progressive = a past tense)
He ain't gonna buy that car. (ain't --> will not = future)
Note from asker:
| You are fantastic as always! Thank you very much for your laborious contribution! |
Peer comment(s):
| neutral |
Yvonne Gallagher
: "ain't gonna" is not a "will" future but present cont. for near future "is not going to"
41 mins
|
| neutral |
philgoddard
: I agree with Yvonne, and I also don't see how the *present* perfect progressive is a past tense.
1 hr
|
| agree |
Cilian O'Tuama
: Yes, it's pretty versatile. Not just "'am not/is not/are not", but also have/has not.
14 hrs
|
| agree |
Christopher Schröder
21 hrs
|
Reference comments
30 mins
Helena Chavarria
Spain
Spain
Native in English
&
English
Specializes in field
Spain
Striving for excellence
Native in: English (Variant: British) 
Works in: Spanish to English, Catalan to English
Related KudoZ points
:
12
Reference:
Further information
am not/is not/are not
'Things ain't what they used to be.'
has not/have not
'I ain't got no money.'
'You ain't seen nothing yet.'
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis...
The word "ain't" is a contraction for am not, is not, are not, has not, and have not in the common English language vernacular. In some dialects, ain't is also used as a contraction of do not, does not, and did not. The development of ain't for the various forms of to be not, to have not, and to do not occurred independently, at different times. The usage of ain't for the forms of to be not was established by the mid-18th century and for the forms of to have not by the early 19th century.
The usage of ain't is a continuing subject of controversy in English. Ain't is commonly used by many speakers in oral and informal settings, especially in certain regions and dialects. Its usage is often highly stigmatized and it can be used by the general public as a marker of low socio-economic or regional status or education level. Its use is generally considered non-standard by dictionaries and style guides except when used for rhetorical effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain't
'Things ain't what they used to be.'
has not/have not
'I ain't got no money.'
'You ain't seen nothing yet.'
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis...
The word "ain't" is a contraction for am not, is not, are not, has not, and have not in the common English language vernacular. In some dialects, ain't is also used as a contraction of do not, does not, and did not. The development of ain't for the various forms of to be not, to have not, and to do not occurred independently, at different times. The usage of ain't for the forms of to be not was established by the mid-18th century and for the forms of to have not by the early 19th century.
The usage of ain't is a continuing subject of controversy in English. Ain't is commonly used by many speakers in oral and informal settings, especially in certain regions and dialects. Its usage is often highly stigmatized and it can be used by the general public as a marker of low socio-economic or regional status or education level. Its use is generally considered non-standard by dictionaries and style guides except when used for rhetorical effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain't
Note from asker:
| Very interesting, thank you! And I can assure you that there are serious reasons I am not able to take advantage of googling so smoothly myself. You're very kind, others are not, thanks again! |
Peer comments on this reference comment:
| agree |
Yvonne Gallagher
: Of course Helena, but Asker could Google this themselves//well, you have a higher tolerance level for spoonfeeding answers to beginner-level questions when no reason given for asking all these questions in the first place.
1 hr
|
|
I know this isn't a language-teaching forum but I'm usually willing to explain simple features of English. Twenty years ago I tried to find all the definitions of 'got' because I was tired of students asking me. I gave up after four pages!
|
|
| agree |
Cilian O'Tuama
: Nice contribution
19 hrs
|
|
Cilian, thank you :-)
|
Discussion
Anyway, bearing in mind Hellena's contribution, it was worth being punished with the reminder.
I will not take advantage of the help from the Proz EN-EN native translators, only the Internet - as they advised me here.
Thus the answer was found elsewhere, on the Internet, under kind advice.
No next time is foreseen.
Peace?
Mr. Phil says here that he's from the USA.
I wanted to correct a "madame", but I thought you wouldn't notice it.
Shame, being French is very cool.
You have effectively discouraged me from visiting the EN/EN pair.
Well really now! That has really escalated! I get insulted because I ask for explanations? Thanks for giving a reason though it still doesn't explain much so why would I be "happy"?
Presumably you have some workarounds using Braille and text-to-speech software. You're clearly able to type and post videos and uncalled-for insults. And want to argue about what form of football Phil is referring to (clearly no-hands soccer as he's English).
Yes, American, Gaelic, and Australian Rules football all use hands and feet but also have those tags in front to distinguish them from each other
I am not French so not "Madame"
Depends, what kind of ball do you play - football/soccer or handball.
And the moderator agrees with us - is he being "unfriendly and aggressive" too, or simply enforcing the rules?
I expected native help for my curiosity about the language of Shakespeare, but I meet some unfriendly, aggressive people here pretending to be linguistic profesionals.
This wasn't the case many years ago, but maybe we've all grown old.
Thank you kmtext and Jennifer for your valuable contributions!
Imagine we're playing football and I keep picking up the ball in my hands. You could ignore this, or you could tell me that you don't like what I'm doing.
Which would you do?
What is your "serious reason" for not being able to Google? And why ask all these questions about grammar without explaining why you are doing so?
I am not being "unkind" as you seem to believe but we are all supposedly language professionals here so it would be nice to see evidence of that.
2.9 Guidelines:
"Help" KudoZ should be used for requesting terms help after having searched the KudoZ term search and other resources. When asking a question, sufficient context should be provided. Even when there is no other context, the subject area and type of document should be indicated. It can be helpful to enter sentences or paragraphs where the term in question occurs. See a more detailed description here.
2.9 Guidelines:
"Help" KudoZ should be used for requesting terms help after having searched the KudoZ term search and other resources. When asking a question, sufficient context should be provided. Even when there is no other context, the subject area and type of document should be indicated. It can be helpful to enter sentences or paragraphs where the term in question occurs. See a more detailed description here.
Is there any special context, not to mention reason, needed in order to explain grammar rules?
Thank you!