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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

*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]

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 correspondence, term papers or the like.

 

[Outsider]

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

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

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?

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?"

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 "Aren't I?"

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.

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]

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]

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]

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 correspondence, term papers or the like.

Precisely (and an important point I mentioned earlier)

 

[modus.irrealis]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[...] 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 correspondence, term papers or the like.

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]

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]

[...] 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]

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.


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

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