Might be nice, innit?

“Innit” began as a shorter form of “isn’t it”, and at first it was presumably used in exactly the same way as its source. I don’t know when its usage diverged from “isn’t it”, but it now serves for other “tag questions” as well - it’s not only flexible in number and gender, but also able to stand for verbs other than be: “These have handles, innit”.

(I can’t tell if it works when the statement before the tag is negative. Does its usage permit “He can’t go out, innit”?)

It’s obviously nice to have a convenient all-purpose tag like that, that doesn’t require any grammatical markers. German (in general usage, not just informally) has more than one of them, including “nicht wahr?” (lit. “not true?”), which can follow just about any statement; I’m sure some other languages do too.

It also makes me wonder if there other words in English that are a contraction of a contraction. (I’m not sure if the originators of “innit” were qualified for that job - maybe they should have hired a contractor. :upside_down_face:)

Is the word too low-register and regional and new and unstable (and maybe ephemeral?) to have an entry or mention in etymonline?

You predicted the last word of this post.

I think “innit” is “high-register” enough to deserve it’s own entry. In my experience, people generally think of this word as it’s own thing, and that’s probably as good a standard as any for judging if a term should be treated.

I will say, the first example you shared does not sound right to my ear. I would need to be convinced that “innit” really is flexible enough to be used for plural cases.

I think if you found some early examples of the term in print, as well as examples showing the flexible usage you claim, that would be a good start toward having “innnit” added to Etymonline.