My wife pointed out that in answer to a question, "who made this mess?", the reply "I" is odd, and most people would say me. So there seems to be an aversion to I in some positions.
Or one might say "I did." I can't imagine saying "me" in that case. But that's just I.
Better still, blame it on Tom.
And yes, speaking and writing are two different communication channels, each with its own sets of conventions for different audiences. We're lucky we don't have to contend with the apparently vast and numerous differences between spoken and written Finnish (hearsay only; I'm utterly ignorant on both counts).
Language isn't logical. It does weird things. If that's what the speech community uses, that's how it works.
Agreed, but we’re not part of the same speech community all the time. A woman may find herself in one speech community when she’s at home with her husband and children, in a different speech community when she’s chatting to her fellow employees while they’re waiting for the lift, and in a third one when the same employees are sitting round a conference table with their boss. And that’s just for spoken English. There’s a corresponding, but separate, range of communities for written English.
That'll be why I've mentioned register about umpteen times.
... *I see grammatical rules as rather like rules of physics - Newton's laws of motion don't tell planets how to move; they describe how planets actually do move. And inasmuch as they don't, quite, move how Newton predicted, we do not insist the planets are wrong, but we refine the rules, for example by introducing special and general relativity.
Meanwhile, as a child, it was instilled in to me that where it was 'someone' and 'oneself' whether 'oneself' was I or me, you were always supposed to put yourself second. That wasn't a rule of grammar. It was a matter of polite modesty. It showed respect for others. Putting yourself first in speech was like pushing yourself forward in life, arrogant, conceited, bad mannered and uncouth.
Following that principle, though, will often help one to get the grammar right.
I agree though with what's been said about 'me' being the unmarked form rather than the accusative case. From recollection 'moi' works rather the same. 'C'est moi' not 'C'est je'.
The French is interesting. French has a set of stressed and unstressed pronouns; for some (e.g. nous, vous) they are identical in form, but differ in function.
Moi, j'aime le vin, mais vous, vous aimez l'eau. I understand one cannot simply stress je and a single nous. Although different non form from the simple object pronouns me, te, moi and toi are historically their stressed forms; Latin unstressed e becomes French e, but stressed e became oi.
I honestly do not understand how "He and I are going to have a falling out" sounds the least bit formal, unless being in accord with standard English is regarded as formal. Yes, I do understand that dialect stretches beyond mere vocabulary, but this is hardly akin to the above discussed "whomst". I don't expect an explanation. Correct pronouns and subject-verb agreement are not whomstian.
I see grammatical rules as rather like rules of physics - Newton's laws of motion don't tell planets how to move; they describe how planets actually do move. And inasmuch as they don't, quite, move how Newton predicted, we do not insist the planets are wrong, but we refine the rules, for example by introducing special and general relativity.
I was just in Germany and occasionally attempted to speak German. Should accounts of German grammatical rules be refined to take into account how I actually did speak?
Asteroids do not in general react to comets with either welcome or contempt on realising that the comet is following the laws of Newtonian motion in a way other than asteroids do.
Nor do they overcorrect because they're worried that their behaviour isn't conforming to Newtonian rules.
Grammatical rules are unlike Newton's laws of motion inherently normative - even on the most descriptivist account. The idea that grammatical rules describe how people actually do speak has to take into account the fact that people react to what they take to be breaches of what they take to be grammatical rules.
For example:
I doubt even the most doctrinaire descriptivist could describe what e e cummings or Gerard Manley Hopkins are doing without noting that there are things going on that most standard English speakers of their respective idiolects would regard as breaches of conventional usage;
People generally react to speech usages typical of young children in different ways depending on whether they think the speaker is a young child;
People take speech usages typical of foreigners in different ways depending on whether they think the speaker is a foreigner;
People react to speech usages that they think mark disfavoured groups or favoured groups according to their attitude to the favoured or disfavoured group - most soi-disant descriptivists do not merely describe this behaviour without judgement.
The idea that grammatical rules should cover everything that people do doesn't cover everything that people do.
Sounds like it was a joke. It's not in the print OED, nor in the Merriam-Webster online Unabridged, so I'm going to guess it was slang, and never gained the currency it requires to be listed in the dictionary, and then was resuscitated (or coined anew) in the internet age. In other words, it's not part of some honest-to-gosh dialect, but is a barbarism rightly denounced.
Its use in the Uncle Remus stories, where it is put in the mouth of Uncle Remus, suggests at least three possibilities:
That “whomst” did occur in some 19th C African-American dialect, as heard in Georgia by Joel Chandler Harris;
That Harris thought it was an accurate reflection of dialect he had heard when in fact it was not; or
That Harris knew it wasn’t a real usage, but used it anyway for humorous effect.
I could of course be wrong, but from what I know of Harris and his use of eye dialect, and fully aware of the legitimate controversies about Harris and Uncle Remus, the first option seems most consistent with his intent and the last option least consistent.
But who knows?
And I am disappointed, @mousethief, that you have forgotten this. Barbarism, you say? Faugh!, say I.
Aaaand . . . once again, for those who may have missed this:
Dialects (and possibly related/similar--or not--items such as regionalisms, creoles, pidgins, etc.-- I am not a linguist) generally refer to SPOKEN ENGLISH(ES). Most, if not all, of the comments I've been making (I don't speak for others) apply to WRITTEN ENGLISH in an ACADEMIC CONTEXT.
Speakers of English adjust the usage, vocab, intent, emotive context, and content of their speech constantly (and generally unconsciously) according to their perceptions of and relationships to those they're speaking to based on on-the-fly feedback received from listener(s). Informal, colloquial communication among intimates of long duration gets conducted differently than communication between a burger-flipper hired a week ago and the owner of the franchise where s/he has just started work. The "standards" here are mostly about understandability, appropriate levels of the right forms of social deference between participants, etc. The "grammatical rules" in each of these situations, as long as those involved maintain mutual intelligibility, are (A) different and (B) fine. If you're a member of a discourse community where "me and Tom" is standard but "Tom and I" sounds like you're putting on airs, then "me and Tom" is what to go with.
When you undertake graduate study in social work, however, you will acquire another discourse community of fellow students, mentors, advisors, and professors. Depending on where you attend school and with whom and in what branch of social work, "me and Tom" may still be fine in conversation. It may also get you excluded from the "in-group."
It will never, never fly in the written work you submit to your profs.
Aaaand . . . once again, for those who may have missed this:
Dialects (and possibly related/similar--or not--items such as regionalisms, creoles, pidgins, etc.-- I am not a linguist) generally refer to SPOKEN ENGLISH(ES). Most, if not all, of the comments I've been making (I don't speak for others) apply to WRITTEN ENGLISH in an ACADEMIC CONTEXT.
Speakers of English adjust the usage, vocab, intent, emotive context, and content of their speech constantly (and generally unconsciously) according to their perceptions of and relationships to those they're speaking to based on on-the-fly feedback received from listener(s). Informal, colloquial communication among intimates of long duration gets conducted differently than communication between a burger-flipper hired a week ago and the owner of the franchise where s/he has just started work. The "standards" here are mostly about understandability, appropriate levels of the right forms of social deference between participants, etc. The "grammatical rules" in each of these situations, as long as those involved maintain mutual intelligibility, are (A) different and (B) fine. If you're a member of a discourse community where "me and Tom" is standard but "Tom and I" sounds like you're putting on airs, then "me and Tom" is what to go with.
When you undertake graduate study in social work, however, you will acquire another discourse community of fellow students, mentors, advisors, and professors. Depending on where you attend school and with whom and in what branch of social work, "me and Tom" may still be fine in conversation. It may also get you excluded from the "in-group."
It will never, never fly in the written work you submit to your profs.
The idea that grammatical rules should cover everything that people do doesn't cover everything that people do.
Did somebody say they should?
Karl said grammatical rules should be like the laws of physics. If the laws of physics don't cover everything that happens then we adjust them e.g. by adding special and general relativity.
I may have misunderstood Karl's intention in the comparison, but that is what I took the point of the comparison to be.
The idea that grammatical rules should cover everything that people do doesn't cover everything that people do.
Did somebody say they should?
Karl said grammatical rules should be like the laws of physics. If the laws of physics don't cover everything that happens then we adjust them e.g. by adding special and general relativity.
I may have misunderstood Karl's intention in the comparison, but that is what I took the point of the comparison to be.
Well, it wasn't a forensically accurate analogy. More a metaphor; don't stretch it.
Yes, I remember the upheaval caused by feminist writings in the 80s and 90s, which smashed up the rules, well, some of them. It had a radical, not to say devastating, effect on me as an author, as the split between the academic and the personal was overcome. I can see that this doesn't apply to all academic texts.
I've been corrected in editing for "Tom and I". Me and Tom is perfectly acceptable English in both spoken and written forms.
Unless this is a pond difference or you're recalling objective uses of the construction, you may have been misled. I can think of two situations in which the "me and Tom" construction is acceptable as the subject (it's fine as the object) of a sentence in formal written English:
1. A fictional character utters this in dialogue: "Me and my husband visit Mum every Sunday."
2. A reporter quotes someone interviewed for a story: "Me and my wife were asleep when the fire broke out."
Of course, professional proofreaders are gods who never err, so of course "we leave it to them." As you provide no information about the specific instance in which this correction occurred, there's no way for readers here to evaluate the result.
With the ink barely dry on an undergraduate degree, I spent roughly 8 months proofing at a major US publishing house. I moved on the instant I landed a promotion which actually paid enough to live on. It may be different in the UK, but proofing tends to be entry-level work this side of the pond.
I would certainly never say Tom and I, it sounds ridiculous to me. Just wondering what I would write, probably rephrase it, in an academic text, less academic, me and Tom.
As an example of less academic there is the New Nature Writing, which is more personal than old school. But I learned from feminists, and the new confessional writing. Thus, in a book on films, I curse and swear, crack jokes, talk about myself, and try not to be formal.
With the ink barely dry on an undergraduate degree, I spent roughly 8 months proofing at a major US publishing house. I moved on the instant I landed a promotion which actually paid enough to live on. It may be different in the UK, but proofing tends to be entry-level work this side of the pond.
Presumably your employer supplied you with a style manual, setting out house rules on capitalisation, punctuation, the use of abbreviations, and so on. If so, I can readily imagine there must have been something in it about the [mis]use of "I" and "me".
Doc Tor - Without giving away any identifying information, which genre your piece, its intended audience, etc.? Was it in a quotation, deliberately in idiom, or your own speech?
"Me and Tom" as subject sounds to me, to use Quezalcoatl's word, ridiculous. And Q and I, though separated by geography, are not so separated by class, which makes me think that this question of usage is one of 'intersectionality'.
Yes, I remember the upheaval caused by feminist writings in the 80s and 90s, which smashed up the rules, well, some of them. It had a radical, not to say devastating, effect on me as an author, as the split between the academic and the personal was overcome. I can see that this doesn't apply to all academic texts.
I forgot to add (apologies for the double post)... I remember that linguistic revolution well. Some of it was justifiable, with which I had no problem. There were, however, acts of almost wilful stupidity. I remember one particular professor who argued, with a straight face, that 'history' was literally and in fact "his+story", and that any account including women should be "herstory". When I pointed out that "history" had nothing to do with the masculine possessive pronoun "his", but from Greek for someone wise, or to judge, she was having none of it. For her, the etymology was purely English, and she was therefore correct.
Proofreading, an entry-level job? Well, I suppose so, in the sense in which adjunct instructorships are entry-level jobs for those hoping to make it in academia. They still require a high level of skills not existing in the general public. You can't simply walk in off the street and get yourself a job as a proofreader unless they're VERY desperate, very foolish, or you have incredible credentials.
Unless this is a pond difference or you're recalling objective uses of the construction, you may have been misled. I can think of two situations in which the "me and Tom" construction is acceptable as the subject (it's fine as the object) of a sentence in formal written English:
1. A fictional character utters this in dialogue: "Me and my husband visit Mum every Sunday."
2. A reporter quotes someone interviewed for a story: "Me and my wife were asleep when the fire broke out."
Doc Tor - Without giving away any identifying information, which genre your piece, its intended audience, etc.? Was it in a quotation, deliberately in idiom, or your own speech?
I'd much rather give full identifying information and an ISBN, but that would fall foul of Ship's policy...
I'm a relatively fast learner, so having been corrected,
I've not used "Tom and I" for years. It was probably one of my early novels. Call it 8 years ago, sf, and published both sides of the Atlantic.
To reiterate, proofreaders have saved my bacon on several occasions, and I always made sure I send a note of thanks back with the edited ms.
Yes, I didn't mean that. Feminists showed me how to write in a personal slangy way. I had been academic writer, so burst the banks.
You do realize that I said John and I is ridiculous?
Yes, it was quite clear. In your post your wrote I would certainly never say Tom and I, it sounds ridiculous to me.
I responded "Me and Tom" as subject sounds to me, to use Quezalcoatl's word, ridiculous. I think that I realised full well what you found ridiculous: Tom and I. I responded by saying that your default, "Me and Tom" (I assume, by what you've said, that that is your default - am I wrong?) is ridiculous. If Tom's absent, would you say "Me is/am going to the pub"?
You find my usage "ridiculous" and I find yours "ridiculous" - I think that you and I are at an impasse.
*** *** ***
That all said, there is a strange usage in English that is common, mostly (at least implicitly) accepted, and to my mind inexplicable. You might say, "Am I not clever?" but in a contraction it becomes "Aren't I clever?" It should be "Amn't I clever?" I can honestly say that the only time I can recall seeing that is in the Buntus Cainte series of books of dialogues for teaching Irish, and "amn't" is used in the facing English translation. I was quite jarred the first time I saw that (I was 19), paused, and thought, Of course. Decades on, and I haven't heard anyone use "amn't" yet.
I've certainly seen "amn't" in print, though only very occasionally, and (from memory) in a Scottish context, I think. Possibly someone like Robert Louis Stevenson, for instance.
I've been corrected in editing for "Tom and I". Me and Tom is perfectly acceptable English in both spoken and written forms.
Where? In what universe? I have never heard "me and Tom," or its equivalent, from anyone beyond about a first grade level. It's too simple. Would you say "Me am going to the pub"? No, you'd say, "I'm going to the pub." And rightly so.
I often find it difficult to tell whether you're taking the piss...
I've heard it used with I, he, she, it, and they. As a contraction, it would seem to be an all-purpose negation.
@mousethief is not taking the piss on this one; or at least if he is, scholars I’ve read are taking the same piss. Ain’t (or an’t) is indeed, as I understand it, the contraction of am not. Historically, this meant I ain’t, you aren’t, he/she/it isn’t, they aren’t.
But aren’t and ain’t/an’t are close enough that you/they ain’t also began to be used. From there it wasn’t a long trip to he/she/it ain’t, though the later may also have been influenced by alternate forms of isn’t like in’t or en’t. At least, that’s what I was taught.
Like the double negative, there’s a long history of usage of ain’t by prominent writers and across English dialects before some decided it shouldn’t be used.
And yes, I’ll admit I use the word all the time—not in formal/professional speaking or in writing, but in casual conversation with family and friends. Ain’t nothin’ wrong with that.
That all said, there is a strange usage in English that is common, mostly (at least implicitly) accepted, and to my mind inexplicable. You might say, "Am I not clever?" but in a contraction it becomes "Aren't I clever?" It should be "Amn't I clever?" I can honestly say that the only time I can recall seeing that is in the Buntus Cainte series of books of dialogues for teaching Irish, and "amn't" is used in the facing English translation. I was quite jarred the first time I saw that (I was 19), paused, and thought, Of course. Decades on, and I haven't heard anyone use "amn't" yet.
Merriam Webster says “aren’t I” was considered an error by some American style guides through the mid-20th century, and speculates that speakers use it in preference to the deprecated “ain’t I” and the awkward “amn’t I”.
"Dasn't" (alphaDictionary). Quotes Mark Twain, as some other sites do. (I hadn't heard of this site before; but, per the "About" section, the main guy is a linguistics prof.)
"Dasn't" (alphaDictionary). Quotes Mark Twain, as some other sites do. (I hadn't heard of this site before; but, per the "About" section, the main guy is a linguistics prof.)
Ah, that might explain it. I’ve tried many times to read Mark Twain, but I just can’t. I’ve never made it more than 20 pages into Huckleberry Finn. I finally decided that if I’d lived 50 years without reading it, I could live the rest of my life similarly untainted.
And sorry if I wasn’t clear—I wasn’t doubting you. Just saying I’d never encountered it. But contrary to what Hollywood would have us believe, there are lots of Southern dialects.
Wiki says that the contraction ‘ain’t’ has a number of antecedents and that appears to be borne out by the entries for “ain’t” in the full Oxford English Dictionary.
Wiki says that the contraction ‘ain’t’ has a number of antecedents and that appears to be borne out by the entries for “ain’t” in the full Oxford English Dictionary.
I think 'ain't' is found in Cockerney, and other dialects. Any Cockneys here? "That ain't a good a word as circumwented, Sammy, said Mr Weller gravely". (The Pickwick Club, shows Dickens using the v/w switch, now disappeared, I think).
Comments
Better still, blame it on Tom.
And yes, speaking and writing are two different communication channels, each with its own sets of conventions for different audiences. We're lucky we don't have to contend with the apparently vast and numerous differences between spoken and written Finnish (hearsay only; I'm utterly ignorant on both counts).
That'll be why I've mentioned register about umpteen times.
Meanwhile, as a child, it was instilled in to me that where it was 'someone' and 'oneself' whether 'oneself' was I or me, you were always supposed to put yourself second. That wasn't a rule of grammar. It was a matter of polite modesty. It showed respect for others. Putting yourself first in speech was like pushing yourself forward in life, arrogant, conceited, bad mannered and uncouth.
Following that principle, though, will often help one to get the grammar right.
I agree though with what's been said about 'me' being the unmarked form rather than the accusative case. From recollection 'moi' works rather the same. 'C'est moi' not 'C'est je'.
What's really odd is that grammar threads in Heaven usually end with blood on the sand, while this one in Hell is being conducted politely.
Moi, j'aime le vin, mais vous, vous aimez l'eau. I understand one cannot simply stress je and a single nous. Although different non form from the simple object pronouns me, te, moi and toi are historically their stressed forms; Latin unstressed e becomes French e, but stressed e became oi.
I digress once more.
I neither.
Asteroids do not in general react to comets with either welcome or contempt on realising that the comet is following the laws of Newtonian motion in a way other than asteroids do.
Nor do they overcorrect because they're worried that their behaviour isn't conforming to Newtonian rules.
Grammatical rules are unlike Newton's laws of motion inherently normative - even on the most descriptivist account. The idea that grammatical rules describe how people actually do speak has to take into account the fact that people react to what they take to be breaches of what they take to be grammatical rules.
For example:
I doubt even the most doctrinaire descriptivist could describe what e e cummings or Gerard Manley Hopkins are doing without noting that there are things going on that most standard English speakers of their respective idiolects would regard as breaches of conventional usage;
People generally react to speech usages typical of young children in different ways depending on whether they think the speaker is a young child;
People take speech usages typical of foreigners in different ways depending on whether they think the speaker is a foreigner;
People react to speech usages that they think mark disfavoured groups or favoured groups according to their attitude to the favoured or disfavoured group - most soi-disant descriptivists do not merely describe this behaviour without judgement.
The idea that grammatical rules should cover everything that people do doesn't cover everything that people do.
- That “whomst” did occur in some 19th C African-American dialect, as heard in Georgia by Joel Chandler Harris;
- That Harris thought it was an accurate reflection of dialect he had heard when in fact it was not; or
- That Harris knew it wasn’t a real usage, but used it anyway for humorous effect.
I could of course be wrong, but from what I know of Harris and his use of eye dialect, and fully aware of the legitimate controversies about Harris and Uncle Remus, the first option seems most consistent with his intent and the last option least consistent.But who knows?
And I am disappointed, @mousethief, that you have forgotten this. Barbarism, you say? Faugh!, say I.
Dialects (and possibly related/similar--or not--items such as regionalisms, creoles, pidgins, etc.-- I am not a linguist) generally refer to SPOKEN ENGLISH(ES). Most, if not all, of the comments I've been making (I don't speak for others) apply to WRITTEN ENGLISH in an ACADEMIC CONTEXT.
Speakers of English adjust the usage, vocab, intent, emotive context, and content of their speech constantly (and generally unconsciously) according to their perceptions of and relationships to those they're speaking to based on on-the-fly feedback received from listener(s). Informal, colloquial communication among intimates of long duration gets conducted differently than communication between a burger-flipper hired a week ago and the owner of the franchise where s/he has just started work. The "standards" here are mostly about understandability, appropriate levels of the right forms of social deference between participants, etc. The "grammatical rules" in each of these situations, as long as those involved maintain mutual intelligibility, are (A) different and (B) fine. If you're a member of a discourse community where "me and Tom" is standard but "Tom and I" sounds like you're putting on airs, then "me and Tom" is what to go with.
When you undertake graduate study in social work, however, you will acquire another discourse community of fellow students, mentors, advisors, and professors. Depending on where you attend school and with whom and in what branch of social work, "me and Tom" may still be fine in conversation. It may also get you excluded from the "in-group."
It will never, never fly in the written work you submit to your profs.
Did somebody say they should?
Again, I refer back to my comments on register.
I may have misunderstood Karl's intention in the comparison, but that is what I took the point of the comparison to be.
Well, it wasn't a forensically accurate analogy. More a metaphor; don't stretch it.
Unless this is a pond difference or you're recalling objective uses of the construction, you may have been misled. I can think of two situations in which the "me and Tom" construction is acceptable as the subject (it's fine as the object) of a sentence in formal written English:
1. A fictional character utters this in dialogue: "Me and my husband visit Mum every Sunday."
2. A reporter quotes someone interviewed for a story: "Me and my wife were asleep when the fire broke out."
I mean, sure, but I'm happy to leave it to them. My background is in science, not literature.
With the ink barely dry on an undergraduate degree, I spent roughly 8 months proofing at a major US publishing house. I moved on the instant I landed a promotion which actually paid enough to live on. It may be different in the UK, but proofing tends to be entry-level work this side of the pond.
Tom and I was what I was taught as a child. It's now considered in the circles I move in as pretentious. Me and Tom does just fine.
"Me and Tom" as subject sounds to me, to use Quezalcoatl's word, ridiculous. And Q and I, though separated by geography, are not so separated by class, which makes me think that this question of usage is one of 'intersectionality'.
I forgot to add (apologies for the double post)... I remember that linguistic revolution well. Some of it was justifiable, with which I had no problem. There were, however, acts of almost wilful stupidity. I remember one particular professor who argued, with a straight face, that 'history' was literally and in fact "his+story", and that any account including women should be "herstory". When I pointed out that "history" had nothing to do with the masculine possessive pronoun "his", but from Greek for someone wise, or to judge, she was having none of it. For her, the etymology was purely English, and she was therefore correct.
You do realize that I said John and I is ridiculous?
This has a severe use/mention problem.
I'd much rather give full identifying information and an ISBN, but that would fall foul of Ship's policy...
I'm a relatively fast learner, so having been corrected,
I've not used "Tom and I" for years. It was probably one of my early novels. Call it 8 years ago, sf, and published both sides of the Atlantic.
To reiterate, proofreaders have saved my bacon on several occasions, and I always made sure I send a note of thanks back with the edited ms.
Yes, it was quite clear. In your post your wrote I would certainly never say Tom and I, it sounds ridiculous to me.
I responded "Me and Tom" as subject sounds to me, to use Quezalcoatl's word, ridiculous. I think that I realised full well what you found ridiculous: Tom and I. I responded by saying that your default, "Me and Tom" (I assume, by what you've said, that that is your default - am I wrong?) is ridiculous. If Tom's absent, would you say "Me is/am going to the pub"?
You find my usage "ridiculous" and I find yours "ridiculous" - I think that you and I are at an impasse.
*** *** ***
That all said, there is a strange usage in English that is common, mostly (at least implicitly) accepted, and to my mind inexplicable. You might say, "Am I not clever?" but in a contraction it becomes "Aren't I clever?" It should be "Amn't I clever?" I can honestly say that the only time I can recall seeing that is in the Buntus Cainte series of books of dialogues for teaching Irish, and "amn't" is used in the facing English translation. I was quite jarred the first time I saw that (I was 19), paused, and thought, Of course. Decades on, and I haven't heard anyone use "amn't" yet.
I often find it difficult to tell whether you're taking the piss...
I've heard it used with I, he, she, it, and they. As a contraction, it would seem to be an all-purpose negation.
Where? In what universe? I have never heard "me and Tom," or its equivalent, from anyone beyond about a first grade level. It's too simple. Would you say "Me am going to the pub"? No, you'd say, "I'm going to the pub." And rightly so.
Behold.
@mousethief is not taking the piss on this one; or at least if he is, scholars I’ve read are taking the same piss. Ain’t (or an’t) is indeed, as I understand it, the contraction of am not. Historically, this meant I ain’t, you aren’t, he/she/it isn’t, they aren’t.
But aren’t and ain’t/an’t are close enough that you/they ain’t also began to be used. From there it wasn’t a long trip to he/she/it ain’t, though the later may also have been influenced by alternate forms of isn’t like in’t or en’t. At least, that’s what I was taught.
Like the double negative, there’s a long history of usage of ain’t by prominent writers and across English dialects before some decided it shouldn’t be used.
And yes, I’ll admit I use the word all the time—not in formal/professional speaking or in writing, but in casual conversation with family and friends. Ain’t nothin’ wrong with that.
ETA: cross-posted with mousethief.
Re "dasn't":
"Dasn't" (alphaDictionary). Quotes Mark Twain, as some other sites do. (I hadn't heard of this site before; but, per the "About" section, the main guy is a linguistics prof.)
And sorry if I wasn’t clear—I wasn’t doubting you. Just saying I’d never encountered it. But contrary to what Hollywood would have us believe, there are lots of Southern dialects.
Well ain't that the beatinest thing.
(Bolding mine)
Yes, it's simple. Doesn't mean it's wrong. And yes, this universe.
"Me and Tom caught a train" sounds wrong to me. Tom caught a train. I caught a train. Tom and I caught a train.
Timothy gave the letters to me and Tom. Timothy gave the letters to Tom and me. Timothy gave the letters to Tom and I.
"Who caught the train at 2pm?" said Timothy.
"Oh just me and Tom," I replied.
"Oh just Tom and me," I replied
"Oh just Tom and I," I replied.
I'm not good at grammar, but some of those sound more natural than the others.