We use short forms for verb + not like isn't, aren't, hasn't, won't, wasn't etc. But I haven't seen any short form used for am+not. So, I want to know if any short form exists for am not.

Note: In one book I had seen that aren't can be used for am+not. Is this right?

  • Aren't for am not has its own special rule: it's only possible with inversion. Aren't I is perfectly grammatical, but *I aren't is ungrammatical.
    – user230
    Nov 1, 2015 at 4:28
  • "Amn't" is used only Scotland. Sep 6, 2016 at 10:34

1 Answer 1


If you're using very informal language you can use ain't.

I ain't happy about this.

But even native speakers wouldn't necessarily say that, as it's a colloquialism that not everyone uses. I would say:

I'm not happy about this.

  • 1
    To add, I've seen the form "aren't" following a statement, like "I am trying to be useful today, aren't I?" Aug 20, 2015 at 13:04
  • 3
    "Ain't" is grammatical, but it carries more cultural associations than most contractions: it can suggest the speaker is uneducated, rural, or low-class (or a combination of those). People sometimes avoid it for this reason alone, and either avoid a contraction entirely, or use a not-quite-correct substitution like "aren't" (as Victor Bazarov notes). If a novelist writes dialog with the word "ain't" they are almost certainly trying to convey something about the speaker's demeanor or background. I have seen the contraction "amn't" used instead of "ain't" but I don't think it is widely accepted.
    – Wim Lewis
    Aug 20, 2015 at 18:36

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .