7 ms·

In Finnish, "not" is an auxiliary verb, so "do" + "not" and similar combinations are just one word: "I do not" => "En" "(It) does not" => "Ei" etc. https://e

In Finnish, "not" is an auxiliary verb, so "do" + "not" and similar combinations are just one word: "I do not" => "En" "(It) does not" => "Ei" etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_verb#Finnish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_verb#Finnish

horsawlarway 4y ago
That's interesting - since basically every auxiliary verb I can think of for english (Am, is, are, was, were, will, have, has, had, may, might, can, could, shall, should, must, ought to, would) has a contraction form with "not" (although some are fairly colloquial, or considered out of date): (amn't, isn't, aren't, wasn't, weren't, willn't, haven't, hasn't, hadn't, mayn't, can't, couldn't, shalln't, shouldn't, mustn't, oughtn't to, wouldn't)
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > amn't Amn't is neither standard nor historically supported; the word naturally developed into the modern word ain't, which is stigmatized. Standard English essentially requires "I'm not" instead. Where avoiding the inflectional form is impossible, the standard awkwardly provides first-person aren't. > willn't Not sure what you were thinking here; there is a negative form of will, but it's won't. > shalln't And this is shan't.
  - spullara 4y ago
    My daughter invented amn't when she was 3 based on the rules that she understood.
  - blix 4y ago
    There ain't no such thing as 'Standard English.'
    - simonh 4y ago
      I don’t think that a supportable position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_English
      - hjkl0 4y ago
        > Although standard English is usually associated with official communications and settings, it is diverse in registers (stylistic levels), such as those for journalism (print, television, internet) and for academic publishing (monographs, academic papers, internet). This diversity in registers also exists between the spoken and the written forms of SE, which are characterised by degrees of formality; therefore, Standard English is distinct from formal English, because it features stylistic variations, ranging from casual to formal If there is such a thing as Standard English, then it would allow phrases like “amn’t”, according to this definition anyway, as a casual style or register. Evidently, it is usable to all speakers - you can come up with it yourself for the first time ever, and still be perfectly understood by every other speaker who hears it for the first time.
      - blix 4y ago
        > There are substantial differences among the language varieties that countries of the Anglosphere identify as "standard English" There is no One True Standard.
  - zbird 4y ago
    I willn't take any of this no more. I amn't fond of your ostentatiousness.
  - xor99 4y ago
    The negative-interrogative for the first-person singular present indicative or "amn't" is historically supported and is evidenced in Scots and Hiberno english.
    - macleginn 4y ago
      The reason for this is, probably, that in Irish the cluster -mn- became disallowed at some point and was obligatorily split by a schwa. As a result speakers of Hiberno English likely didn't have to simplify "amn't" because they pronounced it "ament" from the start.
      - dorchadas 4y ago
        The - mn - cluster is legal in Irish -- the plural of bean (woman) is mná even. It occurs a few other places too, though some dialects have gone away (though any Cn has become Cr unless it's sn, so not just mn) from it.
        macleginn 4y ago
        AFAIK, mná is never actually pronounced in this way, it’s either [mena] with an epenthetic schwa or [mra].
        dorchadas 4y ago
        At least in Kerry, there's a tendency for /mna:/ (Ó Sé Gaeilge Chorca Dhuibhne, 33) and he explicitly states (32) that both /mn/ and /m'n'/ are legal consonant clusters at the beginning of words, no epenthesis (he gives 'don mbeannacht' as an example for the other, where the vowel is dropped). I'd suspect the rest of Munster to be the same.
        macleginn 4y ago
        Cool, thanks! But word-final -mnt is a slightly different thing anyway.
- ruined 4y ago
  the contraction for "am not" is "ain't", not "amn't", which isn't a word
  - duairc 4y ago
    amn't is absolutely a word. It's the standard contraction of "am not" in Hiberno-English. Wiktionary says it's used in Scotland as well: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amn't https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amn't
  - xor99 4y ago
    In Scottish and Hiberno-English the negative-interrogative for the first-person singular present indicative or "amn't" is perfectly correct. Ain't is the common term everywhere else.
- jononomo 4y ago
  It is not "shalln't", it is "shan't" -- https://www.dictionary.com/browse/shant https://www.dictionary.com/browse/shant Also, you can abbreviate "it is" as "it's" and "is not" as "isn't", but what do you abbreviate "it is not" as?
  - solarengineer 4y ago
    It isn’t ?
  - dls2016 4y ago
    ‘tis not
    - jononomo 4y ago
      maybe t'isn't?
  - slater 4y ago
    s'not
  - pram 4y ago
    Seems like it’sn’t :V
    - jononomo 4y ago
      I think it's t'isn't.
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    It's actually both - Shalln't is considered the archaic form, but it was used. You're right that shan't is much more common. But hey - if Stargate uses it (and they do - S09E04) then I'm willing to count it :)
- tedd4u 4y ago
  Isn’t is it “won’t” for “will not”? (Not “willn’t”)

horsawlarway 4y ago

That's interesting - since basically every auxiliary verb I can think of for english (Am, is, are, was, were, will, have, has, had, may, might, can, could, shall, should, must, ought to, would) has a contraction form with "not" (although some are fairly colloquial, or considered out of date): (amn't, isn't, aren't, wasn't, weren't, willn't, haven't, hasn't, hadn't, mayn't, can't, couldn't, shalln't, shouldn't, mustn't, oughtn't to, wouldn't)

thaumasiotes 4y ago
> amn't Amn't is neither standard nor historically supported; the word naturally developed into the modern word ain't, which is stigmatized. Standard English essentially requires "I'm not" instead. Where avoiding the inflectional form is impossible, the standard awkwardly provides first-person aren't. > willn't Not sure what you were thinking here; there is a negative form of will, but it's won't. > shalln't And this is shan't.
- spullara 4y ago
  My daughter invented amn't when she was 3 based on the rules that she understood.
- blix 4y ago
  There ain't no such thing as 'Standard English.'
  - simonh 4y ago
    I don’t think that a supportable position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_English
    - hjkl0 4y ago
      > Although standard English is usually associated with official communications and settings, it is diverse in registers (stylistic levels), such as those for journalism (print, television, internet) and for academic publishing (monographs, academic papers, internet). This diversity in registers also exists between the spoken and the written forms of SE, which are characterised by degrees of formality; therefore, Standard English is distinct from formal English, because it features stylistic variations, ranging from casual to formal If there is such a thing as Standard English, then it would allow phrases like “amn’t”, according to this definition anyway, as a casual style or register. Evidently, it is usable to all speakers - you can come up with it yourself for the first time ever, and still be perfectly understood by every other speaker who hears it for the first time.
    - blix 4y ago
      > There are substantial differences among the language varieties that countries of the Anglosphere identify as "standard English" There is no One True Standard.
- zbird 4y ago
  I willn't take any of this no more. I amn't fond of your ostentatiousness.
- xor99 4y ago
  The negative-interrogative for the first-person singular present indicative or "amn't" is historically supported and is evidenced in Scots and Hiberno english.
  - macleginn 4y ago
    The reason for this is, probably, that in Irish the cluster -mn- became disallowed at some point and was obligatorily split by a schwa. As a result speakers of Hiberno English likely didn't have to simplify "amn't" because they pronounced it "ament" from the start.
    - dorchadas 4y ago
      The - mn - cluster is legal in Irish -- the plural of bean (woman) is mná even. It occurs a few other places too, though some dialects have gone away (though any Cn has become Cr unless it's sn, so not just mn) from it.
      - macleginn 4y ago
        AFAIK, mná is never actually pronounced in this way, it’s either [mena] with an epenthetic schwa or [mra].
        dorchadas 4y ago
        At least in Kerry, there's a tendency for /mna:/ (Ó Sé Gaeilge Chorca Dhuibhne, 33) and he explicitly states (32) that both /mn/ and /m'n'/ are legal consonant clusters at the beginning of words, no epenthesis (he gives 'don mbeannacht' as an example for the other, where the vowel is dropped). I'd suspect the rest of Munster to be the same.
        macleginn 4y ago
        Cool, thanks! But word-final -mnt is a slightly different thing anyway.
ruined 4y ago
the contraction for "am not" is "ain't", not "amn't", which isn't a word
- duairc 4y ago
  amn't is absolutely a word. It's the standard contraction of "am not" in Hiberno-English. Wiktionary says it's used in Scotland as well: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amn't https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amn't
- xor99 4y ago
  In Scottish and Hiberno-English the negative-interrogative for the first-person singular present indicative or "amn't" is perfectly correct. Ain't is the common term everywhere else.
jononomo 4y ago
It is not "shalln't", it is "shan't" -- https://www.dictionary.com/browse/shant https://www.dictionary.com/browse/shant Also, you can abbreviate "it is" as "it's" and "is not" as "isn't", but what do you abbreviate "it is not" as?
- solarengineer 4y ago
  It isn’t ?
- dls2016 4y ago
  ‘tis not
  - jononomo 4y ago
    maybe t'isn't?
- slater 4y ago
  s'not
- pram 4y ago
  Seems like it’sn’t :V
  - jononomo 4y ago
    I think it's t'isn't.
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  It's actually both - Shalln't is considered the archaic form, but it was used. You're right that shan't is much more common. But hey - if Stargate uses it (and they do - S09E04) then I'm willing to count it :)
tedd4u 4y ago
Isn’t is it “won’t” for “will not”? (Not “willn’t”)