# Tag question - amn't I? - aren't I? - ain't I? - am I not?



## Rupert J. Walker

In an English grammar textbook the following appears:
Verbs am, are and is
                                        Negatives
Full Form                 Short Form                   Questions
I am not late           I'm not late                  Aren't I late?

My belief is that the question should be "Am I not late". Which is correct?.
Rupert J. Walker


----------



## el alabamiano

Rupert J. Walker said:
			
		

> In an English grammar textbook the following appears:
> Verbs am, are and is
> Negatives
> Full Form Short Form Questions
> I am not late I'm not late Aren't I late?
> 
> My belief is that the question should be "Am I not late". Which is correct?.
> Rupert J. Walker


'am not' is normally contracted to 'aren't' only in questions. 

Aren't I late?
I'm not late, aren't I?


----------



## jacinta

I have to disagree with alabamiano.  I have never heard nor read "I'm not late, aren't I?"  No, no.  It should be "I'm not late, am I?"
I am not late.
Am I not late?
Aren't I late? is also correct, but I would use "Am I late? Yes, you are".


----------



## el alabamiano

jacinta said:
			
		

> I have to disagree with alabamiano. I have never heard nor read "I'm not late, aren't I?" No, no. It should be "I'm not late, am I?"
> I am not late.
> Am I not late?
> Aren't I late? is also correct, but I would use "Am I late? Yes, you are".


I did a double-take after reading your message and realizing my mistake.  Whatever I was thinking of at the moment, it certainly wasn't English.  Thanks for pointing it out!


----------



## lasirena

maybe you were thinking, "I'm late, aren't I?"  I've said that before, even if it's incorrect.  Is it supposed to be "I'm late, am I not?"?


----------



## coc

Well, you can always say "Amn´t I late?". "Amn´t" is not so widely spread nowadays, but still correct. "Aren´t I" has a certain percentage of acceptance, but the correct for is "amn´t I...?"
Coc


----------



## jacinta

Well, I suppose we should lay this to rest, but I just had to write once more.  Amn't I??
Maybe somewhere long ago this was correct, but not now.  Here's a more clear picture of this structure. When you are questioning yourself, you use opposite structures:  negative + postive = I'm not late, am I?
                 positive + negative = I'm late, aren't I? 

And yes, you could say I'm late, am I not? but this is formal and not usual in everyday speech.
Okeedoke?


----------



## Mary Solari

I'm late, am I not? sounds like Mary Poppins. In fact, I think she uses it in the film.

I'm late, aren't I? is the common formula, the same as Aren't I late?


----------



## coc

Well, the person asking for help did not specify if he is talking about written or colloquial language. Of course if you say "I'm late, am I not?" you tend to sound like Mary Poppins, but in written language you are certainly going to find such things.
I´ve heard only "aren´t I" from English speaking colleagues, and also when I lived in Ireland, but, even though "amn´t I" does not turn up any longer in spoken English, the Heritage dictionary still considers it correct, and actually "amn´t" was still available somewhere in my brain.
Reread the original message, the question is not about the construction "I am not late, am I?" (negative followed by positive and positive by negative). He is asking wether "am I not" or "aren´t I" is the correct one. 
Coc


----------



## webmagnets

This page indicates that "amn't" is used commonly in english speaking countries other than the US.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/library/drlang003.html

Kinda weird.


----------



## elroy

The correct form is "am I not."  The verb needs to agree with the subject, so "aren't I" is certainly incorrect.  Because "amn't I" sounds awkward, the best choice is "am I not," which is less awkward.  It's basically the best of three evils.


----------



## Delirium

I agree with Jacinta and Mary.  "Aren't I" is not incorrect, in the sense that it is widely used.   I raised this question (well, the question arose within someone else's question) in a translation website, and many native English speakers pointed out that the common form is "Aren't I".  "Am I not" is correct, but not used in a less formal context. (Of course, it IS correct, and it IS used formally, or in a more academic context, perhaps?)

I have never seen "Amn't I?"  (I'm not saying it does not exist, I just have never seen it), and it does seem very awkward to me to pronounce.  Then again, English is not my native language 

~*Tess*~


----------



## Delirium

webmagnets said:
			
		

> This page indicates that "amn't" is used commonly in english speaking countries other than the US.
> 
> http://www.yourdictionary.com/library/drlang003.html
> 
> Kinda weird.



Thankee-sai!  

That is a VERY interesting read!!


----------



## coc

> I have never seen "Amn't I?"



You can see it in any dictionary. 
Awkward to pronounce? It´s very plain and straightforward to pronounce!
Coc


----------



## Delirium

coc said:
			
		

> You can see it in any dictionary.
> Awkward to pronounce? It´s very plain and straightforward to pronounce!
> Coc



1) Like I said:  English is not my first language.
2) But even if it were, here's a quote from the article mentioned above:

_English doesn't like two nasal consonants like "m" and "n" together_

If I pronounce it "am not I", I'm not making any contraction at all, I'm just spelling the words out, so to speak.  

As for it being on any dictionary: it's not in my Larousse, neither in my Oxford's nor in my Merriam-Webster's A Pronouncing Dictionary of American English.

English is a language of _sounds_, to be _heard_, rather than _symbols_, to be _seen_, as opposed to Spanish.  At least that's what my Linguistics professor used to tell us.

*sigh*  ...but what do I know?  

~*Tess*~


----------



## coc

> 1) Like I said: English is not my first language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, cool it down pal, it´s nothing personal. English isn´t my first language either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) But even if it were, here's a quote from the article mentioned above:
> 
> English doesn't like two nasal consonants like "m" and "n" together
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sad enough, but "amn´t I" is part of the language, and that´s all I wanted to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I pronounce it "am not I", I'm not making any contraction at all, I'm just spelling the words out, so to speak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, but if you pronounce "amn´t I" you are indeed contracting. And by using the contraction you are not saying "am not I?" but "Am I not?" instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for it being on any dictionary: it's not in my Larousse, neither in my Oxford's nor in my Merriam-Webster's A Pronouncing Dictionary of American English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might try the Heritage Dictionary of the English language, I found some notes for "usage" under "ain´t". You first look up the contraction "aren´t", which is indeed included in the dictionary, and it will send you to "ain´t", where you are going to find: usage of "aren´t", "ain´t" *and "amn´t"*, with the corresponding percentages of acceptance according to each speech situation. It just takes a little more investigation than just looking up "amn´t" straight away. So, and according to this, English seems to accept two nasal consonants together, like in "amnesia" for instance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> English is a language of sounds, to be heard, rather than symbols, to be seen, as opposed to Spanish. At least that's what my Linguistics professor used to tell us.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ]*sigh* ...but what do I know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I honestly do not know what your teacher means, since spoken Spanish is a language of sounds, like any other. Could you explain a little bit what he means?
> What do you do now? I honestly don´t know. I´d say you take it easy, this is a just a conversation topic, nothing personal.
> Coc
Click to expand...


----------



## Marcela

Hey hispanos, why don't we simplify matters and adopt:

I'm not late, no?
I'm late, no?
We aren't ...., no?

Nice idea, no?

Marcela


----------



## adremd

Just a question wondering if anyone knows why this is the way it is....

Ok, so we can say, "I am lucky!" or even "Am I not lucky"?  But how is it possible to say, "Aren't I lucky"?  or is this just flat out wrong.  Is it an ellipsis of some sort?  Is the contraction of am + not --> aren't, too?


----------



## Tabac

adremd said:
			
		

> Just a question wondering if anyone knows why this is the way it is....
> 
> Ok, so we can say, "I am lucky!" or even "Am I not lucky"? But how is it possible to say, "Aren't I lucky"? or is this just flat out wrong. Is it an ellipsis of some sort? Is the contraction of am + not --> aren't, too?


I have no idea how it came to be, but it is perfectly accepted in AE.


----------



## TrentinaNE

I suspect it's because _amn't I_ is difficult to spit out.  In effect, _aren't_ has become the contraction of _am not_ as well as_ are not._

Here is Dr. Language's take on the matter.

Elizabeth


----------



## adremd

TrentinaNE said:
			
		

> I suspect it's because _amn't I_ is difficult to spit out.  In effect, _aren't_ has become the contraction of _am not_ as well as_ are not._
> 
> Here is Dr. Language's take on the matter.
> 
> Elizabeth


Wow, great link, trentina!!  I can't believe they say "amn't" in Scotland/Ireland. LOL.


----------



## John Woodrow

'Aren't I lucky?' is totally acceptable to me. If you were to put an inflection on the word 'lucky' then I would feel invited to give an opinion, but if you were not to use the inflection and say the phrase in a more confident manner then I would presume that you were making a statement by way of a rhetorical question.


----------



## adremd

John Woodrow said:
			
		

> 'Aren't I lucky?' is totally acceptable to me. If you were to put an inflection on the word 'lucky' then I would feel invited to give an opinion, but if you were not to use the inflection and say the phrase in a more confident manner then I would presume that you were making a statement by way of a rhetorical question.


Yeah, you're right, John.  It could be question or exclamation.

But it's like you can say:
"Are you not lucky"!? and "Aren't you lucky"?!
"Is s/he not lucky"?! and "Isn't s/he lucky"!?

"Am I not lucky"?!!? but you can only say "Aren't I lucky"?!?!


But the link clears all that up... it just disappeared over time it seems.


----------



## panjandrum

adremd said:
			
		

> Wow, great link, trentina!! I can't believe they say "amn't" in Scotland/Ireland. LOL.


~chuckle~
Sure isn't it great to be the last bastion of common sense.
Would you say "I are"?
Hell no.
So why doesn't it hurt your brain to say "I aren't"?

*Amn't I* is a perfectly logical and useful addition for those who feel the need to add tag questions to their sentences.


----------



## majlo

Is _amn't _really used in Ireland, panjandrum? If so, to what extent?


----------



## panjandrum

*Amn't I* is used a lot, but it marks the speaker as someone who has not yet found out that this usage is not accepted in writing and is considered eccentric or illiterate by many.


----------



## mimi2

Please tell me which is correct?
1. I'm not late, aren't I ?
2. I'm not late, are I ?
3. I'm late, aren't I ?


----------



## systema encephale

mimi2 said:
			
		

> Please tell me which is correct?
> 1. I'm not late, aren't I ?
> 2. I'm not late, are I ?
> 3. I'm late, aren't I ?


 I'd say 1. and 2. are wrong, the correct form is

_I'm not late, am I?_

Regarding form n. 3. I don't know, you'd better wait for a native.


----------



## maxiogee

I agree with systema encephale that 1 and 2 are wrong, and that I would say "I'm not late, am I?"
I would use "I'm late, amn't I?" but would have heard "I'm late, aren't I?" often enough to not know which is 'correct', but I'm not going to change! At 55 I'm too old, amn't I!


----------



## cas29

N.3 is correct.

I wouldn't have been able to tell you why, except that you can not say contract "am not" and aren't I is what you hear... however, I found this expert to back up my gut feeling:

Michael Swan: "Practical English Usage" Second Edition
"'Am not' is normally only contracted in questions, to 'aren't'"
"The question tag for 'I am' is 'aren't I'?: 'I'm late, aren't I?'"



(I've never heard "amn't I" -- perhaps that is Irish usage?)


----------



## joeinsa

Hi everybody !

 Well,I Would like to know if this sentence is correct, and why , if it so.                                                                                                                "I'm still here aren't I " , why " aren't " in the end, I Know it souds good saying it but I was told that is used " I'm still here am I not. 

   I don't get it


----------



## sbaustin

That sentence sounds fine either way.  If you remove the contraction (aren't I) you would say exactly what you wrote, "I'm still here am I not" or "I am still here am I not."  though I would say, "I'm still here" as the second part is kind of redundant but could be used for emphasis.

Not sure if I answered your question.


----------



## Joelline

I know it sounds peculiar, but "aren't I" is a correct and natural tag-question in spoken English! The expression "am I not" is also acceptable, but quite formal and probably used more in written than in spoken English.

By the way, There is usually a comma before a tag question: "I'm still here, aren't I?"  "He isn't going, is he?" etc.


----------



## danielfranco

And I think this very topic has been discussed before. If you wish, you can search the forums with the tool on the top bar.
Good hunting!

erm... after noticing that I couldn't find "aren't I?" readily, I searched for "tag question" and found this. Hope it helps.


----------



## petereid

oops am I wrong?
I write "an't I"  sometimes "ain't I"


----------



## panjandrum

There have been several relevant threads in English Only:

tag question 

aren't 

which is the odd one out: is, am, are 

yes ? versus question tag

Aren't I? Sit an exam? Timetable? 

English Grammar 

I'll throw in a (pot-stirring) view as well.
Are I not, shortened to aren't I, although clearly grammatically incorrect, is now so much used in some parts of the world that opposing it is a lost cause.
For a discussion of the correct short form, amn't I, please see the threads above.


----------



## maxiogee

In Hiberno-English we would say "*amn't I?*"
(I don't think I've ever used "aren't I?")


----------



## moodywop

Isn't joeinsa's _I'm still here, aren't I?_ an example of the "antagonistic tag question" discussed in a previous thread?

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=98857&highlight=tag


----------



## Brioche

As a well-educated, native speaker of English (BE) I can assure you that _aren't I_ is perfectly normal BE.

The question tag for _I am _is _aren't I_?: I'm late, aren't I?

This site agrees with me:
http://www.english-zone.com/grammar/tags01.html

I cannot recall seeing _*amn't I*_ written in any recently published book, magazine or newspaper, and I have never heard anyone say it.

Back in 1947 Eric Partridge in _Usage and Abusage_ suggested *a'm't I*, but that is the only place I have seen it.


----------



## vince

I've never heard "amn't" in spoken English here in Canada.


Just say "aren't I", it may not logically make sense, but people say it. It is accepted, and therefore "correct".


----------



## river

"Aren't I": Don't try to make sense of this last construction. It is acceptable. In _very_ formal text, you might write “am I not” instead. “Ain't” is not regarded as acceptable except in text attempting to duplicate substandard speech. (_Tag Questions with "To Be")_ http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/to_be.htm


----------



## boonognog

Although _ain't_ is now regarded as non-standard, this is a result of an antagonistic attitude toward this word that developed during the 19th century.  From the American Heritage Dictionary:



> 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.



Complete Usage Note is available at the above link.


----------



## herrkeinname

We can say:

I'm rigt, ain't I/am I not/aren't I?
There is a small difference between all the options, but they are all correct for certain.


----------



## timpeac

Forms such as "aren't I" aren't so surprising. It's only relatively recently with the high levels of literacy and immediacy of communication that we see such conformity of usage on what is "right" and what is "wrong". We only find "aren't I" surprising because "I am" is the accepted positive form.

I have heard something that sounds to me like "amt I" from our northern English cousins.


----------



## maxiogee

timpeac, if you listen very closely next time you'll hear the 'n' in there, it's "amn't I" —> pronounced ahmen-tie - and short for "am not I".


----------



## Brioche

herrkeinname said:
			
		

> We can say:
> 
> I'm right, ain't I/am I not/aren't I?
> There is a small difference between all the options, but they are all correct for certain.


 
*Ain't* is *not *Standard English.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Hi,
I've heard many Scottish kids saying "I amn't" :

Are "I amn't" instead of "I'm not"  and  "amn't I?" instead of "aren't I?" correct in standard English or are they just typically Scottish and maybe Irish ?


----------



## Kelly B

I've never heard that in the US except from very young children trying to figure out the rules of grammar. 

Ain't sounds pretty similar, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if the origin were the same.


----------



## panjandrum

Amn't I? is regularly heard here.

A very good previous thread, Aren't I ?  included further discussion on this form, and even more links. 
It also discusses ain't I.

Surely *aren't I* can't be correct?
I are right, aren't I? 
I am right, amn't I?
Take your pick, and explain


----------



## Paulfromitaly

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Amn't I? is regularly heard here.
> 
> A very good previous thread, Aren't I ?  included further discussion on this form, and even more links.
> It also discusses ain't I.
> 
> Surely *aren't I* can't be correct?
> I are right, aren't I?
> I am right, amn't I?
> Take your pick, and explain



Thanks a lot Panjandrum, I've actually made a search before posting, but I must have written the wrong word...


----------



## drei_lengua

Hello everyone,

Why do you say "I am going to be here a long time, aren't I?"  You would never say "I are" or "I are not".

However, we say "I am going to be here a long time, am I not?"

But we don't say "I am going to be here a long time, amn't I?".

Thanks,
Drei


----------



## JAI GURU DEVA OM

who says that? :S


----------



## Sabelotodo

I don't say, "aren't I."   That would be incorrect.  I say, "am I not."

Some people might say, "aren't I."  Lot's of people make grammatical mistakes every day.


----------



## cyberpedant

I think it's a pedant's reformulation used to avoid the "totally unacceptable" "Ain't I."


----------



## JamesM

Nevertheless, "aren't I" is a very common phrase, at least in American English.  I'd say it is much more common to hear "aren't I" than "am I not", which is admittedly the correct way to say it.  I don't often hear "is she not" or "are they not", or "are we not" in everyday spoken English.  It sounds very stiff and pretentious.  It's much more common to hear the contracted forms - "isn't she", "aren't they", "aren't we".

The use of "aren't I", I believe, has to do with conflicting desires, to tell you the truth, or conflicting fears.  "Ain't I" is villified by every English teacher in the nation so it's avoided like the plague, but people want to avoid the stiff sound of "am I not" and use a contraction in its place.  They fall back on the most common contraction for "to be" in any other person - "aren't" ("aren't you", "aren't we", "aren't they".)

Up until a few years ago, I was one of the "ain't-haters",  but reading of its history and evolution from "amn't I" gave it a different status in my mind.  It serves a purpose and it's logical to have a first person singular contraction for "to be" in the present - what do we talk about more often than ourselves and what we are doing right now?


----------



## mgarizona

JamesM said:


> Up until a few years ago, I was one of the "ain't-haters",  but reading of its history and evolution from "amn't I" gave it a different status in my mind. It serves a purpose and it's logical to have a first person singular contraction for "to be" in the present - what do we talk about more often than ourselves and what we are doing right now?


 
Well James, since you know can you share with the rest of us, what ever happened to 'amn't I?' ??? I've always wondered.


----------



## Mick

If you're from the Black Country in England, you can use "Aye I", which is much tidier


----------



## JamesM

mgarizona said:


> Well James, since you know can you share with the rest of us, what ever happened to 'amn't I?' ??? I've always wondered.


 
From what I understand, it's still in use in parts of Scotland.  The "amn't" was difficult to pronounce, so it got glossed over into the "ain't" sound. If you try to pronounce all the letters in "amn't" without adding a vowel in there somewhere, I think you'll agree that it's an awkward word.

I'll see if I can dig up a source for this.


----------



## mgarizona

JamesM said:


> From what I understand, it's still in use in parts of Scotland.  The "amn't" was difficult to pronounce, so it got glossed over into the "ain't" sound. If you try to pronounce all the letters in "amn't" without adding a vowel in there somewhere, I think you'll agree that it's an awkward word.
> 
> I'll see if I can dig up a source for this.


 
I would think one would pronounce it "emmen I" in much the same way "aren't I" is usually pronounced 'aren I' (where I come from anyway).

Oh well, guess it's too late to bring it back now. If you dig up the source I'd love to see it.


----------



## Isotta

A brief word onhttp://www.grammarerrors.com/grammar.html "aren't I" and "am I not."


----------



## TrentinaNE

This topic comes around every few months, it seems.   

Elisabetta


----------



## panjandrum

Thank you Elisabetta.

On behalf of my compatriots, let me say again, as I have said many times before.

There is nothing wrong with, or unusual about, or difficulty in pronouncing
*... amn't I ...*

... but it is not often written down and would not be accepted in formal contexts.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

panjandrum said:


> Thank you Elisabetta.
> 
> On behalf of my compatriots, let me say again, as I have said many times before.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with, or unusual about, or difficulty in pronouncing
> *... amn't I ...*
> 
> ... but it is not often written down and would not be accepted in formal contexts.



On the contrary, 'amn't I' sounds downright bizarre to most British ears, at least in England and Wales. I've never heard it once in my whole life. And contrary to what the link above says, there's nothing 'atrocious' about 'aren't I' -- it's normal, standard spoken British English, used in all contexts, except more formal ones where a question tag of this sort might be considered egocentric and impolite. Whether someone likes it or not is a different matter altogether.


----------



## majlo

Sabelotodo said:


> I don't say, "aren't I."   That would be incorrect.  I say, "am I not."
> 
> Some people might say, "aren't I."  Lot's of people make grammatical mistakes every day.



_Aren't I _is absolutely correct; at least as far as English grammar is concerned.

_Aren't I _is the version I was taught and I stick to. 

I also agree that there is no difficulty in pronouncing _amn't I_; even without a vowel. You'd simply insert schwa sound automatically. Anyway, I'd never use it because it looks and sounds absolutely bizarre.


----------



## Outsider

Some languages have special verb conjugations for making questions. I wonder if this was the case with Old English...


----------



## JamesM

> _Aren't I _is absolutely correct; at least as far as English grammar is concerned.



How would you break it down grammatically, majlo?  "Are I not?"  "Are" is ?what? in relation to I?

I agree that it's common spoken American English (as well as British English, apparently), but grammatically I don't see how it can be defended.  It's the wrong conjugation of "to be" for "I".


----------



## majlo

Outsider said:


> Some languages have special verb conjugations for making questions. I wonder if this was the case with Old English...



What languages for example? And what are those "special verb conjugations"?


----------



## modus.irrealis

I'm also surprised to hear that "aren't I" is an error, since I've never heard otherwise. I checked some dictionaries and the only one that mentioned anything odd was this one, which also has an alternate explanation for where "aren't I" comes from -- I had only come across JamesM's theory before. The Concise Oxford English dictionary even says


> _(USAGE *Aren't* is used to mean ‘am not’ in questions, as in I'm right, aren't I? Outside questions, *aren't* used to mean ‘am not’ (e.g. I aren't going) is wrong.)_


 which suggests to me that "Aren't I" is not wrong. And from the usage guides I checked, Pocket Fowler says


> _Aren't_, used for _am not_ in the question form _aren't I_ as well as _are you_ / _they not_, is irregular; _ain't_ is irregular and widely deplored


 and the _Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style says
_


> _Aren't I_, though illogical, is the standard contraction corresponding to _am I not. Amn't_ is dialectal and substandard usage.


----------



## majlo

JamesM said:


> How would you break it down grammatically, majlo?  "Are I not?"  "Are" is ?what? in relation to I?
> 
> I agree that it's common spoken American English (as well as British English, apparently), but grammatically I don't see how it can be defended.  It's the wrong conjugation of "to be" for "I".



Indeed. But that's what your grammar says. Why would I need to break it down? It's not I that make English grammar 

Apparently, _amn't I _wasn't acceptable for some reasons, either pronunciation or spelling. I don't know, but I agree with it. I by far prefer _aren't I_.


----------



## JamesM

> I by far prefer _aren't I_.


 
So do I.   But "preference" and "grammatically correct English" are two very different animals.  

Where does "my grammar" say that it's "aren't I", by the way?


----------



## majlo

JamesM said:


> Where does "my grammar" say that it's "aren't I", by the way?



For instance, _Practical English Usage _by Michael Swan. ->> an interesting interview 



			
				modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> I'm also surprised to hear that "aren't I" is an error, since I've never heard otherwise. I checked some dictionaries and the only one that mentioned anything odd was this one, which also has an alternate explanation for where "aren't I" comes from -- I had only come across JamesM's theory before. The Concise Oxford English dictionary even says
> Quote:
> _(USAGE *Aren't* is used to mean ‘am not’ in questions, as in I'm right, aren't I? Outside questions, *aren't* used to mean ‘am not’ (e.g. I aren't going) is wrong.)_
> which suggests to me that "Aren't I" is not wrong. And from the usage guides I checked, Pocket Fowler says
> Quote:
> _Aren't_, used for _am not_ in the question form _aren't I_ as well as _are you_ / _they not_, is irregular; _ain't_ is irregular and widely deplored
> and the _Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style says
> _     Quote:
> _Aren't I_, though illogical, is the standard contraction corresponding to _am I not. Amn't_ is dialectal and substandard usage.



A very good post


----------



## JamesM

I think this gets into that "descriptive vs. prescriptive" thing that Panjandrum is always talking about. It seems like the only distinction the Pocket Fowler entry makes between "Aren't I" and "Ain't I" is merely that "Ain't I" is irregular and _deplored_ while "Aren't I" is  just irregular.   I'd love to know what their definition of "irregular" is.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

JamesM said:


> How would you break it down grammatically, majlo?  "Are I not?"  "Are" is ?what? in relation to I?
> 
> I agree that it's common spoken American English (as well as British English, apparently), but grammatically I don't see how it can be defended.  It's the wrong conjugation of "to be" for "I".




You're confusing 'wrong' and 'odd'; in language and linguistics there's often a big difference! It doesn't have to be defended; it's just the way things are. You don't have to like it, or use it, but you'll never stop millions of other native English speakers from treating it as perfectly natural and normal.

Besides, there are plenty of other anomalies in the verb 'be', which no doubt even you are happy to use (be/was/am coming from different verbs historically, for example).


----------



## Giordano Bruno

Sometime ago, I heard a theory that "amn't I" became further abbreviated to "a'n't I" and that that was the source of the confusion.


----------



## JamesM

> You're confusing 'wrong' and 'odd'; in language and linguistics there's often a big difference! It doesn't have to be defended; it's just the way things are. You don't have to like it, or use it, but you'll never stop millions of other native English speakers from treating it as perfectly natural and normal.


 
*I* treat it as perfectly natural and normal. I'm not trying to get on a high horse here about "proper English." I'm simply saying that the following conjugation chart would be wrong, in my opinion:

I am / You are / He, She is / We are / You are / They are
Are I not / Are you not / Is he, she not / Are we not / Are you not / Are they not

The fact that the contraction "aren't I" is acceptable but that "are I not" would grate on a lot of people's ears who would happily use "aren't I" is an indication to me that, while it is acceptable, it is certainly not the form of the verb associated with "I". It's not that "I are" or "are I" are used, now, are it?  I mean, it's simply this one anomaly that's allowed, for whatever reason. 

I propose, though, that even those who embrace "aren't I" would not say, "are I not" or "are I" or "I are". They would consider those wrong, I'll wager.  If the uncontracted form is wrong, then I don't see how the contracted form can be called "correct English" even if it is common, widespread, and totally acceptable in spoken conversation.


----------



## Dimcl

Just another example of the evolution of this wonderful language!


----------



## mplsray

JamesM said:


> The fact that the contraction "aren't I" is acceptable but that "are I not" would grate on a lot of people's ears who would happily use "aren't I" is an indication to me that, while it is acceptable, it is certainly not the form of the verb associated with "I". It's not that "I are" or "are I" are used, now, are it?  I mean, it's simply this one anomaly that's allowed, for whatever reason.
> 
> I propose, though, that even those who embrace "aren't I" would not say, "are I not" or "are I" or "I are". They would consider those wrong, I'll wager. If the uncontracted form is wrong, then I don't see how the contracted form can be called "correct English" even if it is common, widespread, and totally acceptable in spoken conversation.


 

Any usage which is "common, widespread, and totally acceptable in spoken conversation" among _educated speakers, _which is the case with _aren't I,_ is a standard usage. Defining _correct English _so that it excludes standard usage is, as far as I can see, entirely pointless.


----------



## JamesM

> Any usage which is "common, widespread, and totally acceptable in spoken conversation" among _educated speakers, _which is the case with _aren't I,_ is a standard usage. Defining _correct English _so that it excludes standard usage is, as far as I can see, entirely pointless.


 
But this doesn't recognize that there is a difference between spoken and written English. Many of the same people who would say, "Aren't I?" would not write it in business correspondance, term papers, or other important documents. Granted, languages evolve, but as long as there is a distinction between the standard spoken language and the standard written language, I would venture to say that the discrepancies are often where "incorrect" language has been adopted in the spoken realm but not yet accepted in the written word as "correct."   In other words, there is a distinction between standard spoken English and correct written English in some areas.

Would you disagree?


----------



## Trina

A thought: Language is constantly changing and what was considered gramatically correct in Chaucer's day or in Shakespeare's day is not necessarily correct today.
Also, look at the differences between English-speaking countries.  Americans and English spell differently from each other. Vocabulary and definitions of words change dramatically from one country to another. (eg. "pants". In some countries these might mean slacks or trousers, while elsewhere they mean underpants!)


----------



## chesty

Hello.

 What a lot of words written about an expression which is essentially verbal.


 What an alarming number of people griping about the formality of an expression which is essentially informal.


 Why not relax a bit? Languages are replete with irregularities. 
Take French for example, where a whole book is devoted to "les verbes irreguliers". 
 Page after page of exceptional verbal forms which have neither rhyme nor raison d'etre; how could they, they're irregular?
 To be in with so much as an outside chance of a claim at mastery, one must know the book backwards, and yet no one is suggesting it be burnt.

One the principal strengths of English is it's flexibility - it's ability to bend around foreign forms and assimilate them. But a language can only be as flexible as those who speak it. Surely we can tolerate a little irregularity here and there - caren't we?


----------



## panjandrum

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> On the contrary, 'amn't I' sounds downright bizarre to most British ears, at least in England and Wales. I've never heard it once in my whole life. And contrary to what the link above says, there's nothing 'atrocious' about 'aren't I' -- it's normal, standard spoken British English, used in all contexts, except more formal ones where a question tag of this sort might be considered egocentric and impolite. Whether someone likes it or not is a different matter altogether.


No doubt *amn't I* sounds bizarre to anyone who has been raised entirely on *aren't I*.  
For those of us who live in an amn't I zone, it sounds entirely normal and is of course entirely logical. Like aren't I, it would not be accepted in formal contexts.


----------



## Mick

JamesM said:


> *I* treat it as perfectly natural and normal. I'm not trying to get on a high horse here about "proper English." I'm simply saying that the following conjugation chart would be wrong, in my opinion:
> 
> I am / You are / He, She is / We are / You are / They are
> Are I not / Are you not / Is he, she not / Are we not / Are you not / Are they not



As I hinted at before, if we all adopt Black Country dialect, it's far easier:

I am/ yow am/ he, she am/ we am/ yow am/ they am
Aye I/ aye ya/ aye he, she/ aye we/ aye yow/ aye they

Aye rhymes with hay (not eye).

Sorry for drifting off topic


----------



## Brioche

JamesM said:


> But this doesn't recognize that there is a difference between spoken and written English. Many of the same people who would say, "Aren't I?" would not write it in business correspondance, term papers, or other important documents.
> Would you disagree?


 
I cannot imagine where one would have cause to add the question tags such as _aren't I?_ [or _am I not?_], _isn't she?,_ _aren't we?_ &c. in business correspond*e*nce, term papers or the like.


----------



## Outsider

JamesM said:


> How would you break it down grammatically, majlo?  "Are I not?"


Why, "Aren't I = Are not I?", of course!



majlo said:


> What languages for example? And what are those "special verb conjugations"?


Celtic languages like Welsh. Here's the verb _bod_ (to be) conjugated in the afirmative, the interrogative, and the negative. Three different forms.
Did Old Germanic have interrogative conjugations, or could this be due to an influence of Celtic languages on English?



modus.irrealis said:


> I checked some dictionaries and the only one that mentioned anything odd was this one, which also has an alternate explanation for where "aren't I" comes from [...]


Or it could be that, an analogy with other forms such as "Aren't you?", "Aren't we?", and "Aren't they?"



Giordano Bruno said:


> Sometime ago, I heard a theory that "amn't I" became further abbreviated to "a'n't I" and that that was the source of the confusion.


That makes sense, too!

Amn't I? --> An't I? [As it still sounds today, when pronounced fast!] --> then reanalysed as "A*re*n't I?"



JamesM said:


> I'm simply saying that the following conjugation chart would be wrong, in my opinion:
> 
> I am / You are / He, She is / We are / You are / They are
> Are I not / Are you not / Is he, she not / Are we not / Are you not / Are they not
> 
> The fact that the contraction "aren't I" is acceptable but that "are I not" would grate on a lot of people's ears who would happily use "aren't I" is an indication to me that, while it is acceptable, it is certainly not the form of the verb associated with "I". It's not that "I are" or "are I" are used, now, are it?


You make a good point, there. 



JamesM said:


> I mean, it's simply this one anomaly that's allowed, for whatever reason.


Euphony, like the way the indefinite article "a" changes to "an" before words that start with a vowel?


----------



## mplsray

JamesM said:


> But this doesn't recognize that there is a difference between spoken and written English. Many of the same people who would say, "Aren't I?" would not write it in business correspondance, term papers, or other important documents. Granted, languages evolve, but as long as there is a distinction between the standard spoken language and the standard written language, I would venture to say that the discrepancies are often where "incorrect" language has been adopted in the spoken realm but not yet accepted in the written word as "correct." In other words, there is a distinction between standard spoken English and correct written English in some areas.
> 
> Would you disagree?


 

I would strongly disagree with any definition of _correct English _which would exclude either the spoken form or the informal written form of a standard English dialect, yes.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

panjandrum said:


> No doubt *amn't I* sounds bizarre to anyone who has been raised entirely on *aren't I*.
> For those of us who live in an amn't I zone, it sounds entirely normal and is of course entirely logical. Like aren't I, it would not be accepted in formal contexts.




I was careful not to count Ireland in my generalisation, as I have no direct experience. On the other hand, your 'amn't I' would raise eyebrows almost wherever you went throughout Wales and England.

But what do you mean, it 'would not be accepted in formal contexts'? I would stand in court and say 'aren't I', as there's no alternative in standard English/Welsh English without sounding pompous. What would they do -- throw away the key?!


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

Brioche said:


> I cannot imagine where one would have cause to add the question tags such as _aren't I?_ [or _am I not?_], _isn't she?,_ _aren't we?_ &c. in business correspond*e*nce, term papers or the like.



Precisely (and an important point I mentioned earlier)


----------



## modus.irrealis

JamesM said:


> It seems like the only distinction the Pocket Fowler entry makes between "Aren't I" and "Ain't I" is merely that "Ain't I" is irregular and _deplored_ while "Aren't I" is  just irregular.   I'd love to know what their definition of "irregular" is.



Same here. I think that "irregular" is a way to avoid saying whether it's right or wrong, since it could be interpreted either way. My pro-"aren't I" stance leads me to seeing it simply as "unpredictable," just as so many of the forms of "be" are irregular.



JamesM said:


> But this doesn't recognize that there is a difference between spoken and written English. Many of the same people who would say, "Aren't I?" would not write it in business correspondance, term papers, or other important documents.



But wouldn't that make any contraction wrong? I was taught to avoid "isn't", e.g., in more formal writing (in fact, I was told it was wrong to use it).


----------



## 50something

I agree with JamesM, "...two... different animals...". Barbara mentioned meaning and usage as contrasting issues. That is what happens here. Idioms, "dialectal and substandard usage" are parte of our daily life. So if we try to explain things from both perspectives, we are all better off.


----------



## Giordano Bruno

Surely the solution is simple.  If we say the expression, we are not writing it and it could be interpreted as "a'n't I?"  This is grammatically correct.  As previously noted, we would not write it in a formal context.

That leaves only the problem of reported speech.  I think in this case, the written form should be changed.


----------



## JamesM

mplsray said:


> I would strongly disagree with any definition of _correct English _which would exclude either the spoken form or the informal written form of a standard English dialect, yes.


 
So, a standard Midwestern U.S. dialect uses "might could" for "might be able to". In other words, they conjugate the "be able to" portion of the phrase.  I cannot imagine this passing in any English Grammar class as grammatically correct.

But "might could" is grammatically correct English, in your definition, because a large population of American Midwesterners use it? If so, what makes anything grammatically incorrect, in your definition - simply some lack of a critical mass of people I can point to who use it which would then make it "standard", therfore "correct"? 

These are not rhetorical questions. I'm sincerely interested in the answer. It seems like you're saying that there is no such thing as grammatically incorrect English as long as you have a sufficient number of people who use the word in that way. If so, what is that sufficient number?


----------



## mplsray

Giordano Bruno said:


> Surely the solution is simple. If we say the expression, we are not writing it and it could be interpreted as "a'n't I?" This is grammatically correct. As previously noted, we would not write it in a formal context.
> 
> That leaves only the problem of reported speech. I think in this case, the written form should be changed.


 

This would not work with those American accents which are rhotic--the majority of them. The _are _in _Aren't I? _could not be interpreted as any other form of the verb_ be_ than _are._


----------



## Giordano Bruno

mplsray said:


> This would not work with those American accents which are rhotic--the majority of them. The _are _in _Aren't I? _could not be interpreted as any other form of the verb_ be_ than _are._


 
Well!  If we just leave aside half the English speaking world then - I've solved the problem.


----------



## mplsray

JamesM said:


> So, a standard Midwestern U.S. dialect uses "might could" for "might be able to". In other words, they conjugate the "be able to" portion of the phrase. I cannot imagine this passing in any English Grammar class as grammatically correct.
> 
> But "might could" is grammatically correct English, in your definition, because a large population of American Midwesterners use it? If so, what makes anything grammatically incorrect, in your definition - simply some lack of a critical mass of people I can point to who use it which would then make it "standard", therfore "correct"?
> 
> These are not rhetorical questions. I'm sincerely interested in the answer. It seems like you're saying that there is no such thing as grammatically incorrect English as long as you have a sufficient number of people who use the word in that way. If so, what is that sufficient number?


 

I'm not using _standard_ to refer to the usual form in just any dialect. The word has on occasion been used in that sense, but usually it has the more restricted sense of being a usage in the dialect represented by the speech of educated people. So when I referred to "the spoken form or the informal written form of a standard English dialect" I had in mind the speech and writing of standard speakers _who were intending their speech and writing to represent that of a standard speaker._

There is such a thing as "code-switching," in which a person can go from one dialect to another, including from a nonstandard dialect to a standard one, but that was not what I was referring to.

As a result, I question whether _might could_ can actually be considered to be part of "a standard Midwestern U.S. dialect." I think research would show it to be nonstandard, that is, not used by educated people. There is still, nevertheless, the possibility that it is a regional standard usage with which I am unaware. When I was growing up in Central Illinois, the term _mango_ with the meaning "bell pepper" was a standard usage, that is, one which would be used by educated speakers in both speech and writing.

"Critical mass" doesn't seem to be useful when speaking of a usage becoming accepted as standard. What is standard is what is recognized as standard: It's a loop. And changes from time to time result in usages becoming standard which were previously not recognized as such. _How many houses are being built in this village_ would not have been recognized as standard usage at the beginning of the 19th century.

(It's not just standard dialects which are defined by such a loop. In nonstandard dialects as well, what is acceptable usage is that which is considered to be acceptable.)


----------



## Tabac

*Sometimes the best answer to a question beginning with "why" is:  "because".   *


----------



## panjandrum

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> [...] But what do you mean, it 'would not be accepted in formal contexts'? I would stand in court and say 'aren't I', as there's no alternative in standard English/Welsh English without sounding pompous. What would they do -- throw away the key?!


 Answered, slightly indirectly, by gwrthgymdeithasol


> Originally Posted by *Brioche*
> I cannot imagine where one would have cause to add the question tags such as _aren't I?_ [or _am I not?_], _isn't she?,_ _aren't we?_ &c. in business correspond*e*nce, term papers or the like.





			
				gwrthgymdeithasol said:
			
		

> Precisely (and an important point I mentioned earlier)


 
As a subjective impression, question tags seem to be used less frequently here than in England. Or rather, they are as often used with genuine intent but less often as a conversational convention.


----------



## Thomas1

drei_lengua said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> Why do you say "I am going to be here a long time, aren't I?" You would never say "I are" or "I are not".
> 
> However, we say "I am going to be here a long time, am I not?"
> 
> But we don't say "I am going to be here a long time, amn't I?".
> 
> Thanks,
> Drei


Originally, _amn’t*_ was used in the past and is still in usage in Ireland and Scotland.

People also used _ain’t _that evolved from _an’t_ which was a contraction for _am not_ and was in use for around a century since sixteenth century; I think _an’t_ in turn evolved from _amn’t*_ as the consonant cluster makes it difficult to be pronounced and people started to use _an’t_ which still was hard to pronounce, hence, the addition of _i_. In c. 19th century people began to use _ain’t_ as a contraction for _are not, is not, have not_, etc. this was probably due to its formation—since people couldn’t see the base words. IMHO these uses of _ain’t_ were the reason of banning it from the correct English and considering as an erroneous usage.

_Aren’t_ occupied the niche left by _ain’t_ when used as a contradiction for _I_, although, illogical it seems to prevail nowadays. The reason why it is so, I think, lies in the fact that the verb _to be _is the only one that has different form for the first person singular from the rest verbs with which the matter is quite simple. Thus, people in want of simplifying and follwing their instinct usage of the same forms applied _aren't_ for the question tag (or rethorical ones). This contraction, however, didn't make it to become a part of full paradigm. Most standard English dialects has a gap in the negative contraction paradigm for _am not_. 


Courious, would the people who use _amn't_ in interrogatives use it also in negatives?

Tom

*It may also be the case that people used _an't _and _amn't_ simultaneously in different regions of the English speaking world (which could explain its still existence in some areas).


----------



## panjandrum

Thomas1 said:


> [...] Curious, would the people who use _amn't_ in interrogatives use it also in negatives? [...]


I should perhaps explain that I am an observer of the amn't I phenomenon, not myself a user.

Amn't I is used as a tag question at the end of statements.
*I can't paint the walls tonight, I'm going to English class, amn't I.*
Or in rhetorical questions.
*I can't paint the walls tonight. Amn't I going to English class!*
Or in direct questions, usually requesting confirmation 
*Amn't I going to stay at Maisie's tonight?*

I rather suspect I haven't answered the question


----------



## maxiogee

She: Do you love me?
He: Of course I love you, I'm xyzing you, amn't I?


----------



## Thomas1

panjandrum said:


> I should perhaps explain that I am an observer of the amn't I phenomenon, not myself a user.
> 
> Amn't I is used as a tag question at the end of statements.
> *I can't paint the walls tonight, I'm going to English class, amn't I.*
> Or in rhetorical questions.
> *I can't paint the walls tonight. Amn't I going to English class!*
> Or in direct questions, usually requesting confirmation
> *Amn't I going to stay at Maisie's tonight?*
> 
> I rather suspect I haven't answered the question


Maybe I expressed myself using too obscure vocabulary (although you pointed out another thing that I didn't think of--which is also of value, thank you ). What I meant is if _amn't_ users employ it in pure negative statements too, let me give you an example:
*I can paint the walls tonight, I amn't going to English class.*
*I amn't going to stay at Maisie's tonight.*
*I amn't staying at my granny's tonight, I have to come back home.*

Did you spot such usage of _amn't_, please? This seems to be logical contraction of _am + not_ but what seems logical and correct from a grammatical (and not only) point of view is not so in practice.


---------------------------



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> She: Do you love me?
> He: Of course I love you, I'm xyzing you, amn't I?


I'm trying to figure out the purpose of 2 s does this sound dangerous when talking to your partner (is it like doubting that you are xyxing someone, and by the same token that you love them or I'm on the wrong track?)


Tom


----------



## maxiogee

Thomas1 said:


> I'm trying to figure out the purpose of 2 s


 You need to replace that _xyz_ with the filthy expression of your choice - the one usually used over here begins with F and rhymes with honeymoonstruck!


----------



## Thomas1

I was wondering if children who learn speaking make _amn't_ on a basis of formulating a logical contraction. Did any of you notice something like that, please?


----------



## panjandrum

> *I can paint the walls tonight, I amn't going to English class.
> I amn't going to stay at Maisie's tonight.*
> *I amn't staying at my granny's tonight, I have to come back home.*
> 
> Did you spot such usage of _amn't_, please? This seems to be logical contraction of _am + not_ but what seems logical and correct from a grammatical (and not only) point of view is not so in practice.


Ah, I missed the point.
I have never heard amn't used in this context, not ever.
It only appears as amn't I - the tag question.

In the examples you give, instead of I amn't I'd hear I'm not - presumably the same as most of the rest of you.


----------



## Giordano Bruno

Thomas1 said:


> I was wondering if children who learn speaking make _amn't_ on a basis of formulating a logical contraction. Did any of you notice something like that, please?


 
That's an interesting thought.  I've never noticed it, but I have never listened for it either.  I suspect that by the time they start with the tag question, they are imitating their parents use without thinking of the component parts of the expression.


----------



## Jim 89

I'm certainly right when I use "aren't I", aren't I? Of course, I am. One might complain that "aren't I" makes no sense, but try saying "amn't" and you'll get an odd look unless you're in Ireland.​


----------



## Thomas1

Giordano Bruno said:


> That's an interesting thought. I've never noticed it, but I have never listened for it either. I suspect that by the time they start with the tag question, they are imitating their parents use without thinking of the component parts of the expression.


Well, I was rather thinking that they could use it as a contraction of _am + not_ in pure negatives.


----------



## Blackleaf

Sabelotodo said:


> I don't say, "aren't I." That would be incorrect. I say, "am I not."
> 
> Some people might say, "aren't I." Lot's of people make grammatical mistakes every day.


 


Why did you get the idea that "aren't I?" is wrong?  Saying "aren't I?" is perfectly good English.

The reason we say "aren't I?" even though we also say "I am" rather than "I are" is probably because "Amn't I?" is difficult to say.


----------



## Fox30News

> The reason we say "aren't I?" even though we also say "I am" rather than "I are" is probably because "Amn't I?" is difficult to say.



That's exactly right.


----------



## Iona

I was extremely surprised to hear of the other variants (apart from the colloquial 'ain't I' )you live and learn ..BUT ... 'Aren't I' is perfectly correct in my part of the world (south of England)   interesting point though .. like the myself / himself discussion.


----------



## g_fatehi

Rupert J. Walker said:


> In an English grammar textbook the following appears:
> Verbs am, are and is
> Negatives
> Full Form Short Form Questions
> I am not late I'm not late Aren't I late?
> 
> My belief is that the question should be "Am I not late". Which is correct?.
> Rupert J. Walker


----------



## g_fatehi

Amn,t i late is the correct answer.


----------



## yodired

Marcela said:


> Hey hispanos, why don't we simplify matters and adopt:
> 
> I'm not late, no?
> I'm late, no?
> We aren't ...., no?
> 
> Nice idea, no?
> 
> Marcela


 
Because we can't change english grammar to make it alike spanish's, can we?

I supposed I wasn't late for this thread, was I?

And, also, I only have 4 years speaking english but I have never seen or read "amn't". I suppose this is wrong.

I am late, ain't I is the correct form, but I don't kknow if it is also the formal one...


----------



## The Slippery Slide

My school teacher once told me that "am I not" used to be shortened to "a'nt I", but because it sounded identical to "aren't I" (which was a different thing), the spelling of the latter gradually came to be used for both.

Mind you, he did also claim that his house was haunted by an eighteenth century dog.


----------



## Raftery

Speaking as a native English speaker from Ireland, the only construction I would ever use is 'amn't'. 'Ain't' to me sounds very Southern American, and 'aren't', in addition to sounding absolutely incorrect, smacks of English idiom. 

So 'I amn't' isn't just an archaism. Although I have heard it said that Irish English is more like Victorian English English than modern English English is. 

Lots of Englishes there...


----------



## Raftery

I have to object to panjandrum's comment above - I absolutely accept its usage in writing, and those who consider it illiterate are misguided. 'Amn't' was in fact archaic English English usage as well, much in the same way that the English, for a brief spell, used 'Aluminum' before changing to 'Aluminium'. The only situation I wouldn't use it in writing would be in a setting so formal that I would avoid any contractions, e.g. using 'would not' instead of 'wouldn't'.

As far as its eccentricity goes, maybe among the English and Americans it's eccentric, but here in Ireland, it's perfectly normal - in fact, the only normal construction in the circumstances. 

Maybe the cause of panandrum's comments is an Irish inferiority complex, and a sycophantic attitude towards the grammatical whims of the English populace.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Of course, if you are of a formal disposition, there's always _'Am I not?_'  I sometimes say it, in case anyone thinks it went out before the Dark Ages.  Perhaps that's not conclusive evidence.


----------



## panjandrum

Raftery said:


> I have to object to panjandrum's comment above - I absolutely accept its usage in writing, and those who consider it illiterate are misguided. 'Amn't' was in fact archaic English English usage as well, much in the same way that the English, for a brief spell, used 'Aluminum' before changing to 'Aluminium'. The only situation I wouldn't use it in writing would be in a setting so formal that I would avoid any contractions, e.g. using 'would not' instead of 'wouldn't'.
> 
> As far as its eccentricity goes, maybe among the English and Americans it's eccentric, but here in Ireland, it's perfectly normal - in fact, the only normal construction in the circumstances.
> 
> Maybe the cause of panandrum's comments is an Irish inferiority complex, and a sycophantic attitude towards the grammatical whims of the English populace.


There's no need to be insulting.
I simply pointed out that "... this usage is not accepted in writing and is considered eccentric or illiterate by many."
I don't propose to mount a campaign for the acceptance of amn't ... outside of this forum 

For convenience, the forum threads on amn't, etc, have been glued together.


----------



## cuchuflete

panjandrum said:


> *I can paint the walls tonight, I amn't going to English class.
> I amn't going to stay at Maisie's tonight.*
> *I amn't staying at my granny's tonight, I have to come back home.*
> 
> Did you spot such usage of _amn't_, please?
> 
> 
> 
> I have never heard amn't used in this context, not ever.
> It only appears as amn't I - the tag question.
> 
> In the examples you give, instead of I amn't I'd hear I'm not - presumably the same as most of the rest of you.
Click to expand...




Raftery said:


> I have to object to panjandrum's comment above - I absolutely accept its usage in writing, and those who consider it illiterate are misguided. 'Amn't' was in fact archaic English English usage as well, much in the same way that the English, for a brief spell, used 'Aluminum' before changing to 'Aluminium'. The only situation I wouldn't use it in writing would be in a setting so formal that I would avoid any contractions, e.g. using 'would not' instead of 'wouldn't'.
> 
> As far as its eccentricity goes, maybe among the English and Americans it's eccentric, but here in Ireland, it's perfectly normal - in fact, the only normal construction in the circumstances.
> 
> _* Maybe the cause of panandrum's comments is an Irish inferiority complex, and a sycophantic attitude towards the grammatical whims of the English populace.*_



Maybe the off-topic, ungracious speculation, which has no basis in fact, reflects on some non-linguistic baggage brought to a discussion of the use of a term.  The "amn't I" bit was introduced into this conversation in July of 2004 by a non-native English speaker.  It was described as something like "no longer used in spoken English".  That appears to be true for most varieties of spoken English.  

If it is still used in speech in a given place, there is no reason not to bring that to our attention.  There is no reason to do so with insults towards those who have mentioned, in a non-polemical, non-prescriptivist, matter-of-fact manner that they do not use it or hear it spoken.


----------



## Raftery

Oh dear, I seem to have incurred a great deal of odium with what was only intended as a light-hearted jibe. Also, because all of the 'amn't' pages were merged, the comment that I was referring to is no longer adjacent to my comment - I was actually referring to panjandrum's suggestion that it was informal, rustic, incorrect and so on. 

I do apologise, though, my sense of humour seems to be grossly overdeveloped. 

_<read the above as if it were spoken in a mock-apologetic, good-humoured tone>_

Cuchuflete, you seem to be a seasoned traveller in these fora - even moreso than panjandrum, whose post-count is indeed venerable - I'm sure he can defend himself.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Aside from the above disagreement, it is true to say that _amn't_ is widely used in Hiberno-English and conveys no associations other than what it is, a contraction of am not. 
I regard it as perfectly acceptable to be used in both formal and informal writings and do so myself.

Other varieties of English (indeed other varieties of people) may, and do, differ.

Edit: Both forms - _I amn't and amn't I?_ - are used in Hiberno-English.


----------



## panjandrum

My response to being diagnosed with an inferiority complex and  labelled sycophantic on grounds of a selective quotation from what I said about amn't was mostly due to the unfairness of the comments.  

The use of amn't varies by geography, and there is a fair amount of geography within Ireland that we need to take account of.  My observations reflect the prevailing usage in my bit of geography, but a careful reader would notice a distinct lack of knuckling under.  In addition to the quote that Raftery took exception to:*Amn't I* is a perfectly logical and useful addition for those who feel the need to add tag questions to their sentences.​Are I not, shortened to *aren't I*, although clearly grammatically incorrect, is now so much used in some parts of the world that opposing it is a lost cause.  For a discussion of the correct short form, *amn't I*, please see the threads above.​*Amn't* I? is regularly heard here.
Surely *aren't I* can't be correct?
I are right, aren't I?
I am right, amn't I?
Take your pick, and explain ​On behalf of my compatriots, let me say again, as I have said many times before.
There is nothing wrong with, or unusual about, or difficulty in pronouncing
*... amn't I ...*
... but it is not often written down and would not be accepted in formal contexts.​No doubt *amn't I* sounds bizarre to anyone who has been raised entirely on *aren't I*.  
For those of us who live in an *amn't I* zone, it sounds entirely normal and is of course entirely logical. Like *aren't I*, it would not be accepted in formal contexts.​Pedro's and Raftery's experience of the acceptability of the form varies from mine, but then everyone else's experience of the acceptability of aren't I also varies from mine.


----------



## mplsray

Thomas1 said:


> Well, I was rather thinking that they could use [amn't] as a contraction of _am + not_ in pure negatives.



I found in Google Books the following, from page 226 of Human Development: A Life-span Approach‎ (1988) by Karen L. Freiberg (I couldn't see the actual book page, the following appeared in the search results page):

"sheeps seed or sawed amn't foots goed"

So your speculation that children might use _amn't_ appears to be correct. Note that in this sort of error, children learn the (normal) irregular forms first, due to simple imitation, and convert some of them to regular forms at a later stage of their learning.


----------



## Jocaste

It's interesting to note that people in Ireland do, on the whole, seem to prefer amn't I to aren't I, and certainly in informal contexts.
I don't understand how some people could say that there's a difficulty in pronouncing it - it's very easy: am-ent I.

Aside from the fact that it's indisputably correct, unlike the bizarre _aren't I_, amn't also aids in making sentences shorter.

I'm not going out tonight. 
I amn't going out tonight.


----------



## JamesM

Jocaste said:


> I don't understand how some people could say that there's a difficulty in pronouncing it - it's very easy: am-ent I.


 
Can you list another word in English that has an "mn" combination pronounced "men"? I can't.  I think most people see "amn't" and think that somehow you must pronounce the "m" and "n" with no intervening vowel, which would indeed be difficult.


----------



## mgarizona

One manages to pronounce 'damned' as a single syllable easily enough. I would think that "amn't" would sound rather like 'amped,' only with an 'n' in lieu of the 'p.'

(Here of course we see a vowel but we don't pronounce one.)


----------



## JamesM

mgarizona said:


> One manages to pronounce 'damned' as a single syllable easily enough.


 
I don't know about others, but I manage it by dropping the "n" entirely. "Dammed" and "damned" sound identical when I pronounce them. 

I was just responding to a native speaker who actually uses "amn't" and says that it is pronounced "am-ent" (see above) and couldn't understand how the pronunciation of "amn't" could cause anyone a problem. I certainly wouldn't pronounce "damned" as "dam-end" so I wouldn't assume "amn't" was "ament". I can see how "amp'd" would work but that's what an actual user reports as the pronunciation.



			
				Jocaste said:
			
		

> ...amn't also aids in making sentences shorter.
> 
> I'm not going out tonight.
> I amn't going out tonight.


 
I don't see how this makes it shorter.  It's the same number of syllables and the same number of letters.


----------



## Jocaste

JamesM said:


> I was just responding to a native speaker who actually uses "amn't" and says that it is pronounced "am-ent" (see above) and couldn't understand how the pronunciation of "amn't" could cause anyone a problem. I certainly wouldn't pronounce "damned" as "dam-end" so I wouldn't assume "amn't" was "ament". I can see how "amp'd" would work but that's what an actual user reports as the pronunciation.


 
I'm not a native speaker but rest assured, that is how the Irish pronounce it.



JamesM said:


> I don't see how this makes it shorter.  It's the same number of syllables and the same number of letters.



The comment was made in jest, which the graphic below was supposed, but obviously failed, to indicate.


----------



## JamesM

Jocaste said:


> I'm not a native speaker but rest assured, that is how the Irish pronounce it.


 
I believe you.


----------



## mplsray

Jocaste said:


> It's interesting to note that people in Ireland do, on the whole, seem to prefer amn't I to aren't I, and certainly in informal contexts.
> I don't understand how some people could say that there's a difficulty in pronouncing it - it's very easy: am-ent I.
> 
> Aside from the fact that it's indisputably correct, unlike the bizarre _aren't I_, amn't also aids in making sentences shorter.
> 
> I'm not going out tonight.
> I amn't going out tonight.



I certainly dispute that _amn't_ is "indisputably correct." In some dialects it is correct, but in most dialects, including most standard dialects, it cannot be considered acceptable. Just because an abbreviation is possible does not make it standard: Consider _'tis,_ which was once part of standard speech, but no longer is.

_Amn't I?_ just sounds goofy to speakers of standard American English--and likely to speakers of most nonstandard American dialects. There is, of course, nothing that makes it _inherently_ goofy, as can clearly be seen by the fact that it is used in some dialects of English. It's merely a question of usage, which also explains why _aren't I?_ is standard--even if some standard speakers don't care for it.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

mplsray said:


> I certainly dispute that _amn't_ is "indisputably correct." In some dialects it is correct, but in most dialects, including most standard dialects, it cannot be considered acceptable.



And just what makes it ''unacceptable''? It might not be used in AE, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it's a perfectly logical, and correct, alternative to aren't I.
Indeed, how could one consider aren't I - are I not - ''correct'' but not amn't I?!



mplsray said:


> _Amn't I?_ just sounds goofy to speakers of standard American English--and likely to speakers of most nonstandard American dialects.



Strange how something could sound ''goofy'' to American speakers if it's never used.
But I digress, I'll take your word, as representative of some 300 million AE speakers, that amn't does indeed sound ''goofy''.

As for people here, we'll continue to use the quite logical, correct, and perfectly normal sounding amn't.


----------



## mplsray

Pedro y La Torre said:


> And just what makes it ''unacceptable''? It might not be used in AE, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it's a perfectly logical, and correct, alternative to aren't I.
> Indeed, how could one consider aren't I - are I not - ''correct'' but not amn't I?!



Because _usage _determines correctness in language.

Whether something sounds goofy is a side-effect of usage--what sorts of forms and phonetics are used in a given dialect--and whether the item in question is actually used in any dialect or not is a separate matter. Even though they may not think of it in quite those terms, some comedians who invent words for comic effect are masters of inventing "English" (and other) words that sound goofy.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

mplsray said:


> Because _usage _determines correctness in language.



Hence, that which is established in AE but not in other dialects can now confidently be termed ''incorrect'' instead of just regional usage?

Good luck to sidewalk, aluminum, acclimate, and baby carriage then. Being that they're not used here, I can happily inform those Americans I know that the terms they use are, in fact, wrong.


----------



## timpeac

If you wrote "amn't I" in an Irish school would a teacher mark it as wrong? I think that's what mplsray's getting at - there is nothing inherent in any usage that makes it right or wrong, just what your contemporaries - and in particular your pedagogues - consider right or wrong. I'm sure that there are (in fact I know there are) lots of standard AE expressions that would get you laughed at in a BE context  (and vice versa I'm sure).


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

If you wrote amn't I in any given context in Ireland then it would be accepted. Of course there are probably people who would mark it as wrong or substandard, just like there are people who would mark aren't I as wrong or substandard.

I refer back to an earlier post for the general Irish position:



Raftery said:


> 'Amn't' was in fact archaic English English usage as well, much in the same way that the English, for a brief spell, used 'Aluminum' before changing to 'Aluminium'. The only situation I wouldn't use it in writing would be in a setting so formal that I would avoid any contractions, e.g. using 'would not' instead of 'wouldn't'.
> 
> As far as its eccentricity goes, maybe among the English and Americans it's eccentric, but here in Ireland, it's perfectly normal - in fact, the only normal construction in the circumstances.


----------



## mnolan90

mplsray said:


> I certainly dispute that _amn't_ is "indisputably correct." In some dialects it is correct, but in most dialects, including most standard dialects, it cannot be considered acceptable. Just because an abbreviation is possible does not make it standard: Consider _'tis,_ which was once part of standard speech, but no longer is.
> 
> _Amn't I?_ just sounds goofy to speakers of standard American English--and likely to speakers of most nonstandard American dialects. There is, of course, nothing that makes it _inherently_ goofy, as can clearly be seen by the fact that it is used in some dialects of English. It's merely a question of usage, which also explains why _aren't I?_ is standard--even if some standard speakers don't care for it.



"not acceptable" - incidentally, in Ireland I would very rarely hear anyone using "aren´t I" at the end of a sentence - in fact, to me it sounds quite pompous! similarly, "ain´t I" (rightly or wrongly) to me sounds a bit uneducated. In any case, it´s just a case of differing dialects.

Regarding pronunciation, if I was to write "amn´t I" before reading this thread I would have written it as "amen´t I"!
Trust me, it doesn´t sound half as strange to me as "aren´t I" or "ain´t I"....


----------



## djmc

"amn't I"sounds archaic or dialectal to me. I imagine a country bumpkin with a strong Devon? accent saying something like this.


----------



## mgarizona

JamesM said:


> I don't know about others, but I manage it by dropping the "n" entirely. "Dammed" and "damned" sound identical when I pronounce them.
> 
> I was just responding to a native speaker who actually uses "amn't" and says that it is pronounced "am-ent" (see above) and couldn't understand how the pronunciation of "amn't" could cause anyone a problem. I certainly wouldn't pronounce "damned" as "dam-end" so I wouldn't assume "amn't" was "ament". I can see how "amp'd" would work but that's what an actual user reports as the pronunciation.



Sorry, a thread so long gets tangled.

Compare it then to didn't. I suspect most people pronounce that 'dident,' making use of a vowel that isn't there. Whereby 'ament' seems entirely reasonable.

Some of course collapse didn't into a single syllable, as in 'dintcha?' for "didn't you?' That same process would leave us with ... whaddaya know? ... a'nt.  A sound which could easily move either toward ain't or ar(e)n't, depending on how a's are handled in one's dialect.

Interesting. Perhaps ain't isn't a contracted 'am I not' but rather a dialectic pronunciation of a'nt. And maybe "aren't I' has nothing to do with "aren't you" or aren't we" and is just another dialectic pronunciation--- arnt--- fixed up erroneously to look like a word. (On the other hand, maybe all the "aren'ts" moved people to insert the 'r' sound into a'nt, the way the 'n' sound in "mine" finds its way dialectically into "yourn, hisn, hern, ourn, theirn.")

OK, a flight of imagination I know. But a viable one, seems to me.


----------



## timpeac

Pedro y La Torre said:


> If you wrote amn't I in any given context in Ireland then it would be accepted. Of course there are probably people who would mark it as wrong or substandard


 I don't see how this answers my question. Would "amn't I" be marked as incorrect by the average teacher in Ireland? ,





Pedro y La Torre said:


> just like there are people who would mark aren't I as wrong or substandard.


Not in England (which is the variety I can speak for). No one here would think twice about "aren't I" as being substandard - I don't think it would cross the vast majority of people's minds that it was even irregular (it hadn't mine before this thread).

The point I'm trying to make - no one is saying that one form is in any way "better", just that one (aren't I) is accepted as standard in many varieties of English, and asking if "amn't I" enjoys the same acceptance in some dialects. From the fact that people from Ireland commenting in this thread haven't been sure how it should standardly be written I can only presume not.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

timpeac said:


> I don't see how this answers my question.



I believe *any given context* speaks for itself, but my apologies, let me be clear:



timpeac said:


> Would "amn't I" be marked as incorrect by the average teacher in Ireland?



No.
And if it was, then the teacher needs to find a new job.



timpeac said:


> Not in England (which is the variety I can speak for). No one here would think twice about "aren't I" as being substandard here - I don't think it would cross the vast majority of people's minds that it was even irregular (it hadn't mine before this thread).



I don't believe I ever made reference to England. I was speaking from my own personal experience, and in my own personal experience there are people who regard aren't I as substandard (see panjandrum's posts), and those who feel the same way about amn't.

The vast majority of people don't care one way or the other. Most people in Ireland, as previous posts have demonstrated, use amn't.



timpeac said:


> From the fact that people from Ireland commenting in this thread haven't been sure how it should standardly be written I can only presume not.



One person wrote that.
Other Irish foreros have clearly stated that amn't is the norm here. Let me again repeat what another Irish poster said: ''As far as its eccentricity goes, maybe among the English and Americans it's eccentric, but here in Ireland, it's perfectly normal - in fact, the *only normal construction in the circumstances*.''


----------



## timpeac

Pedro y La Torre said:


> No.
> And if it was, then the teacher needs to find a new job.


Thanks - that then answers my question. I do nonetheless find the uncertainty of spelling perplexing in that case - it doesn't seem to mirror _in its Irish context_ the acceptance of "aren't I" in English English (and apparently from this thread American English) which is uncriticised, even by the worst pedant.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

timpeac said:


> Thanks - that then answers my question. I do nonetheless find the uncertainty of spelling perplexing in that case - it doesn't seem to mirror _in its Irish context_ the acceptance of "aren't I" in English English (and apparently from this thread American English) which is uncriticised, even by the worst pedant.



I'm not sure I understand. There is no "uncertainty" of spelling.


----------



## timpeac

Pedro y La Torre said:


> I'm not sure I understand. There is no "uncertainty" of spelling.


I was referring to post 135.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

timpeac said:


> I was referring to post 135.



I would repeat, that is one person. Perhaps that person would not find themselves often in the situation of writing amn't/aren't I or perhaps that person has trouble spelling. I have no idea.

However the way to spell amn't is very clear. There is no more or less uncertainty over it than there is over aren't.


----------



## mplsray

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Hence, that which is established in AE but not in other dialects can now confidently be termed ''incorrect'' instead of just regional usage?
> 
> Good luck to sidewalk, aluminum, acclimate, and baby carriage then. Being that they're not used here, I can happily inform those Americans I know that the terms they use are, in fact, wrong.



I made a point about American usage because I am quite aware of what is and is not acceptable in that branch of the language. On a question such as "Does 'Amn't I?' sound idiomatic, or even so strange as to be amusing?" I can answer confidently from my American perspective, while what British or Australian or even Canadian speakers might think I could not say.

On the question of the correctness of the contraction _amn't_, I would further point out that _-n't_ is used to negate only a limited number of verbs in every dialect of English. In American English, _am_ is not one of those verbs.

Again, this is a question of usage. I would point out, furthermore, that this applies to nonstandard dialects of English as well. _Ain't I?_ is grammatically correct in some nonstandard American dialects--perhaps all of them, although in some of them it would be pronounced without the /t/--while _Amn't I?_ is, to the best of my knowledge, grammatically incorrect in all American nonstandard dialects.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

mplsray said:


> On the question of the correctness of the contraction _amn't_, I would further point out that _-n't_ is used to negate only a limited number of verbs in every dialect of English. In American English, _am_ is not one of those verbs.



In Irish, and formerly British (though it remains in use in Scotland), English it is.

Terming it ''incorrect'' rather than just regional usage leads to all kinds of confusion, for it seems to presuppose that Irish usage is somehow ''substandard'' - it isn't.

An analogous situation can be found in relation to gotten, formerly used in England but now fallen out of favour. I don't think even the most fervent BE speaker would term it as ''wrong'', simply as archaic, I hold that the same is true for amn't.

It is not incorrect. And even if it were, what of _aren't I_?


----------



## mplsray

Pedro y La Torre said:


> In Irish, and formerly British (though it remains in use in Scotland), English it is.
> 
> Terming it ''incorrect'' rather than just regional usage leads to all kinds of confusion, for it seems to presuppose that Irish usage is somehow ''substandard'' - it isn't.
> 
> An analogous situation can be found in relation to gotten, formerly used in England but now fallen out of favour. I don't think even the most fervent BE speaker would term it as ''wrong'', simply as archaic, I hold that the same is true for amn't.
> 
> It is not incorrect. And even if it were, what of _aren't I_?



I myself have quite often objected to terms such as "correct" and "proper" in regard to language, which are too often used instead of "standard" to imply that there is something intrinsically wrong with a nonstandard usage. Note, however, that I was responding to a claim that _amn't_ was "indisputably correct." The term "grammatically incorrect"--which "correct" seems to have meant in that assessment--is really a neutral term. A usage either conforms to the grammar of a given dialect--whether a standard or a nonstandard one--or it does not, and _amn't,_ to the best of my knowledge, does not conform to the grammar of any American dialect, which proves the claim false.

"Aren't I?" _is_ grammatically incorrect, but that is irrelevant to the argument of whether it is acceptable--in either standard or nonstandard dialects--because it is an idiom.


----------



## Raftery

So, to bring an end to this discussion, after 146 posts:

"Amn't" is non-standard usage in most varieties of English, but in Scottish English and Irish English it is standard, in both formal and informal circumstances, except in circumstances so formal that all contractions are unacceptable.

"Aren't I", despite seeming to be grammatically incorrect, is in fact standard in many parts of the world, and is therefore definitely acceptable, except in Scottish and Irish English.

Nothing in English should be described as "unacceptable" or "improper", since every *established dialect* of English is equally valid, and to insinuate otherwise will cause cultural friction. Until we have an Academie Anglaise, there is no such thing as "correct" English.

Agreed?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Raftery said:


> [...]
> 
> Nothing in English should be described as "unacceptable" or "improper", since every form of English is equally valid, and to insinuate otherwise will cause cultural friction. Until we have an Academie Anglaise, there is no such thing as "correct" English.
> 
> Agreed?


Of course not.  If what you say were true, there would be no point in this forum.


----------



## bluegiraffe

Raftery said:


> Nothing in English should be described as "unacceptable" or "improper", since every form of English is equally valid, and to insinuate otherwise will cause cultural friction. Until we have an Academie Anglaise, there is no such thing as "correct" English.
> 
> Agreed?


 
Not in the slightest!  This means that anyone can say anything in any kind of grammar and we have to accept it so as not to cause cultural friction.  Granted, different English-speaking nations have different forms of grammar and even different areas within those nations have some, however this doesn't make all forms of English valid and *plenty* in English should be described as unacceptable and improper.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Hello, panjandrum. Namaskar.
Sorry to revive this pretty old thread but after a decade of your last post in this thread, are you still for *amn't I, *or have you started using/accepting* aren't I*? Which of the two given options (amn't/aren't) would you choose to complete the following sentence on an English exam? _I am a native English speaker, --------I?
_
Which of the two contractions would you use while writing a dialogue to be included in a schoolbook?

Many thanks.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

In an English exam, "amn't" is not appropriate (I'd argue that it _should _be, but that's another day's work).

Amn't is widely used in Ireland and Scotland but it is "regional" usage only. It should not be employed by learners, particularly in formal settings.


----------



## ShadyKay

Rupert J. Walker said:


> In an English grammar textbook the following appears:
> Verbs am, are and is
> Negatives
> Full Form                 Short Form                   Questions
> I am not late           I'm not late                  Aren't I late?
> 
> My belief is that the question should be "Am I not late". Which is correct?.
> Rupert J. Walker




I am looking at my OED Second Edition.  Here is the entry for "aren't":

"colloq. form of _are not_ and _am not _(chiefly in standard interrogative use:  _aren't I?_ = 'am not I?'.  Cf. AN'T"

If it's good enough for the OED, it's good enough for me.


----------



## JamesM

Well, it's good enough to be labeled *colloquial *by the OED.   Just because it appears in the definition doesn't bless it as standard English.


----------



## ShadyKay

JamesM said:


> Well, it's good enough to be labeled *colloquial *by the OED.   Just because it appears in the definition doesn't bless it as standard English.



'Colloquial' isn't a bad thing.  It means _conversational _or informal.   And please don't dismiss the "chiefly in standard interrogative use" bit.  I will continue to use "aren't I" without guilt, and will defend its usage.


----------



## JamesM

No, it's not a bad thing at all.  I might use it, too, from time to time, in a tag question.  I'm only saying that that it's not standard English.  Where standard English is expected or required it would not be advisable.  In casual conversation I don't think there's a problem with it.


----------



## PaulQ

The problem is the verb "to be" which is very irregular* and does not use the periphrastic "do" to form the negative. If you are in an oral exam or writing**, and if you *must *say or write "I am late, <tag question.>" use the full version "I am late, am I not?". Otherwise "I am late, aren’t I?"


* so irregular that one more irregularity isn't going to make much of a difference.
**and/or in Ireland or Scotland


----------



## NevenaT

I was taught that 'aren't I' is the correct form.
From what I've gathered here, 'am I not' is also acceptable, though it is unusal to pronounce the 'mn' cluster in the contraction.

No one addressed this question:
'I am late, aren't I?'
'I'm not late, are I/am I/aren't I?' - which one is correct here?


----------



## Loob

NevenaT said:


> No one addressed this question:
> 'I am late, aren't I?'
> 'I'm not late, are I/am I/aren't I?' - which one is correct here?


That's because it's covered in other threads - in Question tag, for example.


----------



## Luis.Olias

[This question and the following posts have been added to a lengthy but informative previous thread covering this topic.  DonnyB - moderator]
Hello, I am an English student.

I was watching a TV show and a person in it said: "I am allowed to smoke, aren't I?"

So, I was expecting: "Am I not?"

Are both correct?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Uncle Jack

"Aren't I?" is the usual tag question. "Am I not?" sounds very formal, and I don't recall ever having heard it (tag questions are not formal). As a main question, both are used, but "Aren't I" is almost certainly more common.


----------



## chasfh

Yes, both are correct.

There is no contraction for "am I not", so English settled on "aren't" instead.

"Ain't" has long been considered incorrect to use, but I ain't gonna hold it against you if you do. 😉


----------



## Luis.Olias

Thanks a lot for your help!


----------



## lingobingo

Since that’s a request for confirmation of what you assume to be the case, it would almost certainly be stressed: "I am allowed to smoke here, aren’t I?"


----------



## Andygc

chasfh said:


> There is no contraction for "am I not", so English settled on "aren't" instead.


There is (are). The one my Scottish father used - "amn't I?", and the uneducated "ain't I?"


----------



## suzi br

Andygc said:


> There is (are). The one my Scottish father used - "amn't I?", and the uneducated "ain't I?"


Interesting that you class your dad’s non-standard use as a regional variation and the other non-standard one as “uneducated”. 

I’m not a fan of “uneducated” as a label for language variations. People use the language of their own community.


----------



## Barque

Andygc said:


> The one my Scottish father used - "amn't I?"


I've heard this much more often than "aren't I" and it's the one I use.


----------



## Andygc

I don't classify my father's use as regional, but he was the only person I heard use it. Why do you classify it as "non-standard"? It was standard for him. His Scottish origin may or may not be relevant. You might not like "uneducated", but I've only heard "ain't I?" used by the uneducated or by people mimicking them.


----------



## natkretep

I also have an inkling that the uncontracted version is also more common in Scottish English. I'm not saying it's very common, only that it doesn't draw attention to itself. I can hear in my head:

He's coming, is he not?
I am needed, am I not?


----------



## suzi br

Andygc said:


> I don't classify my father's use as regional, but he was the only person I heard use it. Why do you classify it as "non-standard"? It was standard for him. His Scottish origin may or may not be relevant. You might not like "uneducated", but I've only heard "ain't I?" used by the uneducated or by people mimicking them.


Why do you classify aint as uneducated?

I say non-standard because that’s a well established linguistic shorthand for any type of variation, regional or social, which could then be classified in a number of ways.
I reject “uneducated” as a classification because it stigmatises a variety that’s no less valid than any other variant. I agree these variations are all “standard” for their users. I just disagree with the stigma inherent in choosing to call some of them uneducated and some of them Scottish.


----------



## Loob

(There are several previous threads about amn't.)


----------



## Andygc

suzi br said:


> Why do you classify aint as uneducated?


I don't. I was referring specifically to "ain't I?" One has only to read novels written in the 18th and 19th centuries to know that the drawling upper class used "ain't" as a contraction for "isn't". Is there a stigma in suggesting that something might be Scottish?


----------



## lingobingo

“Amn’t I” is new to me. I picked up a few great Scottishisms from my Edinburghian mother-in-law in the dim and distant past, but never this one. Is it regional even in Scotland, I wonder?


----------



## velisarius

elroy said:


> The correct form is "am I not."  The verb needs to agree with the subject, so "aren't I" is certainly incorrect.  Because "amn't I" sounds awkward, the best choice is "am I not," which is less awkward.  It's basically the best of three evils.



_I'm late, aren't I?_ 
_I thought I was late. Aren't I late after all? _

I thought everyone spoke like that nowadays. Evil? Incorrect? I don't think anyone I know would actually ask "Am I not?"


----------



## Andygc

"Amn't I?" isn't any more awkward to say than "aren't I?" and if the test for acceptability and lack of evil is awkwardness, then surely we should all be saying "ain't I?"



velisarius said:


> I don't think anyone I know would actually ask "Am I not?"


As we've only met virtually, I don't think I can say you know me, but if we meet I'll make a point of asking it. I would need to be in a bit of a dudgeon, though.


----------



## DonnyB

lingobingo said:


> “Amn’t I” is new to me. I picked up a few great Scottishisms from my Edinburghian mother-in-law in the dim and distant past, but never this one. Is it regional even in Scotland, I wonder?


It's a new one on me, too.  

According to Lexico (Oxford Dictionaries) the contraction itself, (although not necessarily the tag question) is Irish. I checked, just to see how on earth you would pronounce it: I'm now certain I've never heard anyone say it.


----------



## heypresto

I remember an old English teacher telling us that it should strictly be “amn’t I”, but more because it was an interesting or curious aside than any insistence that he or we should say it.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Andygc said:


> [...]
> As we've only met virtually, I don't think I can say you know me, but if we meet I'll make a point of asking it. I would need to be in a bit of a dudgeon, though.


I say it occasionally too, Andy, when I wish to sound a little formal.

In the British Corpus there are eight examples of its being used as a tag question, out of 54 examples generally.

Here are examples of each:

Mr. Wilson: _On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should you not suspend the sitting until there is someone on the Tory Benches who is capable of walking over and picking up the notes to the Minister? _
Mr. Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet): *Am*_ *I* *not* capable?  _Hansard

_ " Now then, put the toe of your wellington against t' other end and we' ave' em, " he said quietly. After that the injection of the litter was a matter of a few minutes. Mr Stokill didn't say, " Well, I'm teaching you a thing or two today, *am* *I* *not*? " There was no hint of triumph Or self-congratulation in the calm, old eyes.  _Vets might fly. James Herriot, London: Pan Books Ltd, 1977 

I don't regard it as an unusual way of talking at all, and James Herriot is not an author whose characters stand on ceremony, though coming mostly from Yorkshire they may be fond of orotund ways of expressing themselves.


----------



## Phil512

I am amazed by this very long thread. The solution is not only very common as said by a few contributors, but also crystal clear as indicated in the Cambridge Dictionary.
*As a question tag,* referring to the first person singular, the grammatical solution in 2022 is "*aren’t I? ----> *"I am late, aren’t I"
It is very weird, looks ungrammatical but so it is (amn’t I = too difficult to pronounce).
*If it’s not a question tag*, "*am I not*" is also grammatical. But "aren’t I" works also.
*If you’re an American, and you’re using very popular English, "ain’t I" *Is also a solution, although not considered as proper English in the UK.


----------



## Andygc

Phil512 said:


> I am amazed by this very long thread.


I wonder why you wanted to make it longer. If you read the thread, you will discover that _aren't I_, _amn't I_, _am I not_ and _ain't I_ have all been and still are used as tag questions. I also wonder what the problem is that needs a solution. Although I do not say _amn't I_, it is not difficult to pronounce - certainly my father seemed to have no problem with it. There is also this comment:


Pedro y La Torre said:


> Amn't is widely used in Ireland and Scotland but it is "regional" usage only. It should not be employed by learners, particularly in formal settings.


The OED notes the use of _amn't I_ as a regional variant in Scotland, Ireland, the West Midlands and Northern England continuing into the 20th century and beyond, and has examples of recent use as a tag question:


> 1990   R. Doyle _Snapper _(1993) 151   I'm gettin' very big, amn't I?
> 2003   C. Forde _Fat Boy Swim_ iii. 25   I'm good, amn't I?


As for _am I not_, the post immediately (and almost 2 years) before yours gives examples of its use as a tag question.


----------



## Forero

panjandrum said:


> Ah, I missed the point.
> I have never heard amn't used in this context, not ever.
> It only appears as amn't I - the tag question.
> 
> In the examples you give, instead of I amn't I'd hear I'm not - presumably the same as most of the rest of you.


Does _amn't_ have the _cat_ vowel, or something else?


----------



## Loob

Forero said:


> Does _amn't_ have the _cat_ vowel [...]?


Yes.


----------



## Phil512

To Andygc:

1. Because I have the right to try to clarify;
2. Because this very long thread goes in multiple directions instead of concentrating to a useful one;
3. Because a 4 page long thread doesn’t lead beginners anywhere - it only add doubts and alternatives, the credibility of which (= of some of them) is often far from being interesting or conclusive;
4. Because, as soon as someone comes with an interesting solution (yes, there needs to be a valid solution, or valid solutions) someone else relaunches a debate about amn’t, regional usage etc..
5. Because the most certain and general option is the weird but valid *aren’t* *I*;
6. Because regional usage might be interesting for advanced learners but definitely not for beginners, who rely on us to come to a conclusive piece of information about an expression they can use everywhere.
7. Because we are in 2022, as I underlined in my previous contribution. Not when our fathers where alive and kicking.

Those are my final words about all this.


----------



## Tegs

Phil512 said:


> amn’t I = too difficult to pronounce


This might well be the case for you - I see your native language is French. It isn't the case for native speakers of English. _Amn't I_ is alive and well in 2022. 


Phil512 said:


> regional usage might be interesting for advanced learners but definitely not for beginners


All sorts of members participate in this forum, including people with very advanced knowledge of English, and plenty of people are interested in regional usages, as this thread demonstrates.


----------



## anthox

The fact that anyone, anywhere, uses "Amn't I?" is news to me. I like it, because it should logically be the standard expression, but it isn't. I don't find it hard to pronounce at all, though.


----------



## Tegs

anthox said:


> I like it, because it should logically be the standard expression, but it isn't.


 I'm surprised Irish people haven't already introduced this in the US since so many of us are over there.


----------



## anthox

Tegs said:


> I'm surprised Irish people haven't already introduced this in the US since so many of us are over there.


Indeed, I too am one of you, but my ancestors came in the first quarter of the last century. I can't say I've ever heard my grandmother - raised by immigrants - use "amn't I," but alas, she's no longer around to ask.


----------



## Andygc

Phil512 said:


> Because regional usage might be interesting for advanced learners but definitely not for beginners,


This forum does not exist for beginners. It exists for people who have questions about meaning and usage. Those people include beginners. There is already advice for beginners 


Phil512 said:


> Because we are in 2022


So are the various usages discussed here.


Phil512 said:


> Because I have the right to try to clarify


You haven't clarified anything.


----------



## hanshotter

jacinta said:


> I have to disagree with alabamiano.  I have never heard nor read "I'm not late, aren't I?"  No, no.  It should be "I'm not late, am I?"
> I am not late.
> Am I not late?
> Aren't I late? is also correct, but I would use "Am I late? Yes, you are".


tana french irish writer uases the form "I amn't in one of her novels. it apparently survives in Dublin. James McWhorter, an American linquist references the form in one his books as an example of antiquated--i.e. Elizabethan usage lingers on in some regions. I have never seen nor heard it among Americans, not even my Irish American relatives



anthox said:


> Indeed, I too am one of you, but my ancestors came in the first quarter of the last century. I can't say I've ever heard my grandmother - raised by immigrants - use "amn't I," but alas, she's no longer around to ask.



ditto anthox...my irish cousins never use it in my presence...nor did my dublin born and raised irish teacher in New York ever say it near me, I will poll my Dublin cousins, an the others from from Clare and Mayo. Go raibh maith agat


----------



## LetsZoom

This is such a funny feature of AE at least-- "I'm coming with you, aren't I?" and yet, "I'm coming with you, am I not?"


----------



## hanshotter

hanshotter said:


> ditto anthox...my irish cousins never use it in my presence...nor did my dublin born and raised irish teacher in New York ever say it near me, I will poll my Dublin cousins, an the others from from Clare and Mayo. Go raibh maith agat



i am amazed this discussion has been going on since 2004, my cousin Ireland assured me last _I aimn't is used today in Erin's Isle._


----------



## RM1(SS)

anthox said:


> The fact that anyone, anywhere, uses "Amn't I?" is news to me.


I've seen it in books, but never heard anyone say it.


----------



## hanshotter

RM1(SS) said:


> I've seen it in books, but never heard anyone say it.



i have never heard only saw in books, and rely on cousin's word that it is used today in the Ould Sod


----------



## cidertree

hanshotter said:


> i have never heard only saw in books, and rely on cousin's word that it is used today in the Ould Sod


You can take my word on it too. It's not used in all regions though.


----------



## PaulQ

The New Fowler's Modern English Usage, (Burchfield) at the entry for “*be* _4 Paradigmatic forms_.” has a possible explanation for "Aren't I?"


> *It is possible (as a correspondent has pointed out to me) that, when followed by n't, am behaves exactly like can and shall, losing its final consonant and (in standard English) lengthening its vowel. The expected spelling would be an't, but in those forms of English which lose pre-consonantal r, the short form of am not merges with that of are not in both speech and spelling. *
> 
> < ---- >
> 
> 1 < ---- > Properly speaking, the last element in a tag-question of the type 'I am here, am I not?', if reduced, should be _amn't _I, as it is in many modes of speech in Scotland and Ireland. But standard English has opted instead for the puzzling _aren't I, _a stiffnecked Sassenach (= Saxon/English) use if ever there was one from the point of view of the Scots.



< Edited to comply with 4-sentence limit on quotation (Rule 4). Cagey, moderator >


----------



## natkretep

Very interesting explanation. So _aren't _could be an English respelling of _an't_. We could have gone for _carn't _instead of _can't _but didn't.

Those who use _amn't _pronounce it /ˈam(ə)nt/, I assume, but perhaps some might say /ant/?


----------



## Forero

I can't help but notice that _ain't_ rhymes with _cain't_ (dialect for _can't_) and _hain't_ (dialect for _haven't_). I've never heard "shain't", but it does seem related to dropping a consonant sound before _-n't_.


----------



## Tegs

natkretep said:


> Those who use _amn't _pronounce it /ˈam(ə)nt/, I assume, but perhaps some might say /ant/?


The first pronunciation, yes, not the second one though.


----------

