triple negative...

Posted Feb 2, 2026 8:58 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
In reply to: triple negative... by felixfix
Parent article: Open source for phones: postmarketOS

> I wonder why "aint" is accepted without the contraction's apostrophe.

Because it isn't a contraction? (technically, it can't be, because it contains an 'a')

But also maybe just because it's an irregular verb?

Mine, yours, its ...

And here I was about to say "amn't, aren't, aint" ... and suddenly realised "hey, maybe aint is just the irregular negative conjugation of the irregular verb 'to be'". After all, that's the way it's normally used ...

Cheers,
Wol

to post comments

triple negative...

Posted Feb 2, 2026 11:27 UTC (Mon) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link] (1 responses)

Why does "a" ban a contraction? I have heard shan't ("shall not", perhaps should be "sha'n't" :P ), what'll (verbal at least, could be a colloquialism), what'd (again, verbal…might not be spelled this way). I also remember surprising a teacher in high school that "it'll" is in the dictionary.

triple negative...

Posted Feb 2, 2026 11:46 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

> Why does "a" ban a contraction?

Because "isn't" doesn't contain an a? It can't lose an a if it hasn't got one to lose :-)

That's what made me think it's an irregular form, not a contraction.

Cheers,
Wol