Obviously using our internet brain6 extensions we can all readily find the linguistic roots of the contraction. It is etymologically more similar to "Am not" (and the modern spellings thereof) than, for instance, "won't" is to "will not". I fail to quite understand the linguistic objection to its usage as that particular contraction, as "amn't" is extremely archaic and unused.
However, while I do understand the objections when it's used in other places, such as a replacement for "are not" or "is not" especially, "shall not" or even more painfully for "do not" and "did not" (fortunately, I've never seen it attempted for "can not"...guess there is a line after all.) I, frankly, find the notion of such a versatile usage for a contraction intriguing.
In terms of clarity, obviously the aforementioned "can not" presents an example where it's completely nonfunctional, but for most of the other examples does it not work just fine? For instance "I ain't do anything2", given the context it's clear that you meant you either did not or do not do anything. Similarly, "I ain't a robot" clearly you are saying that you are not (I am not) a robot3.
So what if English-speakers of the world5 rent the stigma asunder and simply embraced "ain't" as the long-lost member of our contraction family? Indeed, what if instead of discouraging the convenient expansion of its role in English syntax that we embrace, facilitate, and systematized it into a means of formally categorizing contractions for simplified use?
If anyone has an argument why this would somehow be to the detriment of the English language by all means. And if anyone wants to nit-pick the grammar, sentence structure, and spelling of my post by all means AH GOTS TA LERN RITE??
- 1 No I did not mean faux pas they're slightly different this one fits better don't worry your sexy little hea