Call the shots & Ain't

Dear native speakers,
1. What do you mean saying "call the shots". What are the shots? And why do you call them?
2. What is your personal opinion about " ain't "? Would you suggest not to use this form since you think it is incorrect?

1. "Calling the shots" mean giving the orders, directions, being in charge, being the boss, etc. I have no idea where it really cones from, but I always think of an artillery battery, where somebody gives targetting instructions for the cannons.

2. I'd suggest not using "ain't", "hain't", etc. in formal writings, resumes, etc.

A native speaker using 'ain't' gives the impression, rightly or wrongly, that they are uneducated. However I'm not sure what I would think if I heard a non-native speaker using it. It would be different because you would know they were making a conscious effort to use it, having learnt the correct forms first. I think I would assume they hung around native speakers who used it, and were trying to fit in. But it is not advisable to use it IMO.

<<A native speaker using 'ain't' gives the impression, rightly or wrongly, that they are uneducated.>>

Not always, it depends on the context. Sometimes "down to earth" (colloquial) terms are required in order to produce a certain effect, and would demand the use of 'ain't'--nothing else would work. This should never be thought of as uneducated (it is in fact extremely clever and intuitive...skills that cannot be merely learnt). ???. To suggest so seems very odd to me.

Now, if a non-native used 'ain't, it would strike me as odd and off-color. But still, not as uneducated.

strange...

<<A native speaker using 'ain't' gives the impression, rightly or wrongly, that they are uneducated.>>

In certain expressions, the use of "ain't" is pretty much required:

"You ain't [y'ain't] seen nuttin' yet"and xxxx sure ain't what it used to be", for example.

>>Sometimes "down to earth" (colloquial) terms are required in order to produce a certain effect, and would demand the use of 'ain't'--nothing else would work<<

I meant if someone uses it all the time. I agree in some instances it is different. It depends on the circumstance.

Poor old "ain't" remains the Rodney Dangerfield of English contractions: "it don't get no respect."

It's been around and in constant general use for hundreds of years but still raises eyebrows.

Compare it with "won't" which is no less convoluted as a contraction than "ain't." Yet "won't" gets into the best conversations.

Go figure. Such is language.