View Full Version : Slang, result of ignorance or acceptable dialect?
i love them to death becuz im bisexual so ya screw off anybody who hate bisexuals or lezbions
realese them tatu fans should be able to see there videos unless there is soemthign you are hiding
:lol:
I almost got blind from those gruesome visions of butchered English.
ebonics isn't butchered english.
ebonics isn't butchered english.Yes it is.
it is arguably a dialect. the british may speak proper english, but that doesn't matter. it is a valid means of communication that evolved from english, so it is not a butchered version. bring that argument here and see how far you go with it. by here, i mean where most of the population isn't white and where some places are only inhabited by black people who speak ebonics.
it is arguably a dialect.I don't consider ebonics to be a dialect, and certainly not a language, but that's another debate.
bring that argument here and see how far you go with it.I have no doubt that i would get beaten up and killed, you don't need to warn me.
you wouldn't get beat up. don't stereotype. you would be laughed at.
Oh come on Lux!!! "Soemthign" is total laziness. It is butchered English.
I don't think Amber would be beaten up or laughed at. But I have to agree with Amber and Rach that "Soemthign" is butchered English. And so is "whaddu yooz talkin bout". :bum:
seomthign is spelled wrong. that's all. but speaking in a certain way that completely ignores grammatical rules DOES include ebonics. simply put. i.e. you be the man yo dawg forget troubles we got cho back if shit go down tanight
you be the man yo dawg forget troubles we got cho back if shit go down tanight
And that's not butchered english? That's absolutely awful. Ebonics is not a dialect, it's a rudimentary slang with no proper grammar and syntax, it's terrible to read and hear.
And in my opinion it's not doing any good to make black children believe that their slang is an actual language because it gives them the false impression that they don't have to learn correct english in school, and it also fuels the prejudiced idea that correct english is too difficult for black children, that they are not intelligent enough to learn a full language and that a vulgar slang with no grammar and limited vocabulary is enough for them. It's a way to keep poor people in their underdeveloped state.
In all developed countries you can find people who speak slangs in the poor suburbs of big cities, but it certainly doesn't mean that you can tell those people that their slangs are actual 'dialects', it's just slang and children must be taught the correct form of the language at school so they have a chance to access higher education or simply integrate mainstream society.
madeldoe
24-01-2006, 06:53
ebonics IS a language. if you actually did some research, you would know that ebonics HAS grammar elements and rules, just like any language.
"you be the man yo dawg forget troubles we got cho back if shit go down tanight"
some negro didn't just decide to start speaking this way. although its precise origins are still debatable, it is of no doubt that ebonics is deeply rooted in the African language. So the sentence above is simply a modernized version of the ebonics spoken during the slave era, where the language originated. So to deny ebonics of its legitimacy is to deny the whole African American dialect.
as far as ebonics being taught in schools, the program is designed to cultivate and embrace the African culture, so its not just a language class. Who do we learn our first concept of language from? Our family or closest environment. Before black kids even step into Preschool, they already have a defined set of dialect instilled in them. The SEP (Standard English Proficiency) program resembled that of any standard ESL programs, where English was taught as a second language and the original language was the backdrop. The purpose of the SEP program was NOT to say that American English need not be learned, but the goal was to teach a second language not "fix the home language you bring to school" You wouldnt try to "fix" spanish in order to fit into the rules of American English.
btw. if you havent noticed yet..ebonics is at the pinacle of mainstream society. so maybe you need to take some ebonics classes ;)
catmincenz
24-01-2006, 07:15
I don't think Amber would be beaten up or laughed at. But I have to agree with Amber and Rach that "Soemthign" is butchered English. And so is "whaddu yooz talkin bout". :bum:
I also agree, talk about murdering the English language:bum:
But what's wrong with * i love them to death , i love him to bits!* ?
I always say that ....:(
ebonics IS a language. if you actually did some research, you would know that ebonics HAS grammar elements and rules, just like any language.Ebonics is not a language, it can be debated that it's a dialect, but certainly not a language. And yes, all slangs have their own internal logic, but their grammar and syntax is extremely rudimentary and lacks the complexity, precision, and finesse of an actual language. That's the point of a slang, it's a very simplified version of a language that uneducated people speak because they were never taught the correct form of the language.
it is of no doubt that ebonics is deeply rooted in the African language.Though some features of Ebonics like the absence of copula at the present tense can be traced back to some African languages (but Russian or Japanese don't have a copula either and they are obviously not African at all), the African influence in Ebonics is rather faint except in the area of pronunciation (for obvious reasons), but the general morphology of Ebonics remains very much Anglo-Saxon and 99% of the lexicon is of Anglo-Saxon origin, so the African origin of Ebonics is extremely debatable indeed.
Ebonics actually exhibits more resemblance with the slang of the English working class of the 17th century, i personally agree with the theory that African slaves who spoke many different African dialects and needed a way to communicate with their masters and between themselves picked words from the slang of the white working class and that the influence of their native African languages was minimal (except for pronunciation) in the construction of Ebonics because they didn't share a common African language to begin with and therefore their native lexicon was not kept within Ebonics.
as far as ebonics being taught in schools, the program is designed to cultivate and embrace the African cultureHow do you embrace the African culture by clinging to a slang derived from an Anglo-Saxon language belonging to the Germanic branch of the Indo-European family of languages, all of that having no relation at all with Africa.
If people want to embrace the African culture through a language, they should learn an actual *African* language, there are many interesting African languages they can choose from.
The purpose of the SEP program was NOT to say that American English need not be learnedAnd that's the mistake, those children should be taught correct English instead of their slang, this problem should have been fixed decades ago.
My grand-parents only spoke the Norman dialect (and yes, that was an actual dialect, directly derived from Latin with some Old Norse influence from the Viking settlers), they grew up in the 1900s at a time when school was rudimentary and they were never really taught French, they only spoke the dialect that had been spoken in the area for centuries.
It was different for my parents, they grew up in the 1940s and school was compulsory everywhere for everyone at the time, they picked the Norman dialect from their parents of course but they were only taught correct French at school.
And now me, i know almost nothing of the Norman dialect and i could barely understand my grand-parents, i was only taught French.
With proper education, it only takes 3 generations to shift a population to the correct language.
You wouldnt try to "fix" spanish in order to fit into the rules of American English.The difference is that Spanish is an actual language, not an English slang.
if you havent noticed yet..ebonics is at the pinacle of mainstream society.Well, i do not live in the US so i wouldn't know, but if it's true that's really sad, it's never a sign of progress when 'mainstream society' loses the ability to speak the correct form of a language
so maybe you need to take some ebonics classesI'd rather not, i haven't spent all those years learning how to speak English as correctly as possible to ruin it with vulgar slang, incoherent grammar, and dubious spelling.
KillaQueen
24-01-2006, 18:51
ebonics is a jargon, nothing more. and it won't ever be a language or even a dialect per se, because it clearly is just 'something' derived from english. screwed up or not.
Oooh I've been living in a lie all these years... I'm a lezbion! :eek:
KillaQueen
24-01-2006, 19:22
Oooh I've been living in a lie all these years... I'm a lezbion! :eek:
L-M-A-O!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Gramatically challenged homosexuals for the win, eh KQ?
KillaQueen
24-01-2006, 19:37
tru dat. cuz we is definitly lezbionz. :none:
tru dat. cuz we is definitly lezbionz. :none:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
so wut we doin next, fellow lezbion?
KillaQueen
24-01-2006, 20:31
so wut we doin next, fellow lezbion?
we ain't doin nuthin cuz we is rockin dis place neway. lezbionz foreva, sistah! lol.
My mom just asked why I'm giggling my ass off. I'm blaming you. :lol:
SkandinaviskFan
24-01-2006, 20:54
i like dialect of German in switzerland ;)
KillaQueen
24-01-2006, 21:00
why is you usin normal english? dat's like SO borin. i ain't gonna use nuthin else in dis thred xept dis phat ass shit. straight on. no pun intended.
Amber, don't cha wanna use it too? you is a lezbion. *sings* you must stickwitus foreva...
Amber, don't cha wanna use it too?
Haha. :gigi: I honestly have no idea how to speak like that, seeing words butchered like that actually churns my stomach, i am quite the purist when it comes to languages. :D
Of course languages evolve all the time and i am open to some spelling reforms to reflect changes in pronunciation or some regularization to correct some grammar anomalies, but the kind of massacre you see in slangs are unacceptable to me, just like SMS spelling, ewww, what an abomination. :dead:
coolasfcuk
24-01-2006, 23:06
oh my, you guys! KQ, you aren't really doing ebonics thouogh :heh: not that i know ebonics that well, but for one thing i wouldnt think it's "nuthin" but something like 'nuttin' ... either way, it looks BAD ....
every language has dialecs, i am sorry, but not all brits speak 'proper' English - the dialect people speak in Yorkshire is just :eek:
ebonics.....oh boy :D
people tried to push ebonics into schools here in the South, and teach it as some kind of second language, but that idea failed thankfully.
It's more than just slang, or maybe it's really intricate slang, i don't know, but I hear it everyday around here and it's acceptable speech. Plus it's so popular in hip hop music and culture. But again, you wouldn't bust out in Ebonics in a college essay or speaking with the president or something :p
As for the African roots....learning a real African language or culture is better than just street slang, right? I think the African connection is just reaching for straws to make it sound more intellectual.
People can speak and butcher a language however they want, I don't see the problem with Ebonics as long as people know how to speak better English too.
My grand-parents only spoke the Norman dialect (and yes, that was an actual dialect, directly derived from Latin with some Old Norse influence from the Viking settlers), they grew up in the 1900s at a time when school was rudimentary and they were never really taught French, they only spoke the dialect that had been spoken in the area for centuries.
It was different for my parents, they grew up in the 1940s and school was compulsory everywhere for everyone at the time, they picked the Norman dialect from their parents of course but they were only taught correct French at school.
And now me, i know almost nothing of the Norman dialect and i could barely understand my grand-parents, i was only taught French.
With proper education, it only takes 3 generations to shift a population to the correct language.
Although you seem to be proud of this develepoment, I consider such kind of shift "to the correct language" as a negative act. Don't you think that dialects add richness to the language? This shift "to a proper language" can be named also as a "killing of a dialect".
QueenBee
25-01-2006, 00:34
so wut we doin next, fellow lezbion?
we ain't doin nuthin cuz we is rockin dis place neway. lezbionz foreva, sistah! lol.
This thread makes me cry.
Anything that sounds like stuff in rap songs makes me wanna shoot myself. :bum:
catmincenz
25-01-2006, 02:24
LOL ^^^ I think that sums it up for most people.
KillaQueen
25-01-2006, 02:25
This thread makes me cry.
:laugh: *pats your shoulder* don't you worry. you're still my fave straight girl. and for our ebonics speakers: "don't cha sweat dis. u still my fave ho." :lol:
omg, i'm mad. someone get me out of this addictive ebonics stage. :none:
Although you seem to be proud of this develepoment, I consider such kind of shift "to the correct language" as a negative act. Don't you think that dialects add richness to the language? This shift "to a proper language" can be named also as a "killing of a dialect".Well, nothing was really lost, all French dialects had evolved from the same source: vulgar Latin, they were all different but also similar, not different enough to become separate languages, but not similar enough to allow easy communication between French people. In the Middle Ages, French dialects had diverged so much that communication between French people had become quite difficult, people from Normandy could barely understand people from Aquitaine or from Burgundy, the irony being that a few centuries earlier those regions could perfectly communicate because all those people spoke the same vulgar Latin. Actually throughout the Middle Ages, educated people, the clergy, and the aristocracy often reverted to classical Latin to communicate with each other because of the understanding problems between the many French dialects.
The first purpose of a language is to allow communication between people, when that language has split into so many variants that communication is no longer possible, there is a problem.
So yes, at some point, French kings decided that it was no longer practical to continue to use classical Latin to communicate within the elite while the people spoke various French dialects and did not understand a word of Latin. It was decided that the French dialect spoken by the aristocracy in Paris would become the official French and be taught to the entire population so communication on a national level would become easy and efficient.
But again, i don't think that anything was lost because all French dialects were variations of the same theme.
Things would have been different if Norman had come from Old Norse, the language of the Vikings. From the 10th century, Vikings were the new rulers of Normandy (hence the name of the region) and thousands of Vikings settled in Normandy, but for some reason, instead of keeping Old Norse and imposing it on the local Gaulish populations, they did the opposite, Vikings abandoned Old Norse and learned the local French dialect.
If Norman had derived from Old Norse, it would have survived, just like Breton survived in Brittany, or Alsatian in Alsace, because they were non-Latin dialects and therefore significantly different and worth keeping.
But actually, the Norman dialect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_language) has not completely disappeared yet, it's still spoken by a few thousand people in Normandy and the Channel Islands of Jersey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerriais) and Guernsey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dgernesiais) (the Channel Islands used to be part of the Duchy of Normandy, they were forgotten in the cession act between England and France), but just like Norman was replaced by French in Normandy, it's being replaced by English in the Channel Islands, it will probably disappear with the death of the people who currently speak it.
You can see an example of Norman on this sign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jersey_airport_signage_in_Jerriais.jpg) at Jersey airport.
You can see an example of Norman on this sign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jersey_airport_signage_in_Jerriais.jpg) at Jersey airport.Oooh my parents were there last year :gigi:
Anything that sounds like stuff in rap songs makes me wanna shoot myself. :bum:
*keeps a-doing it, then*
if language and culture go hand in hand, as ebonics does with african american culture, then these comments are racist. you are degrading how a certain group communicates. that is pathetic. and also, who is african american here? no one. so yeah, laugh all you want.
*keeps a-doing it, then*Nice to know you want me dead :rolleyes:
PowerPuff Grrl
25-01-2006, 04:34
if language and culture go hand in hand, as ebonics does with african american culture, then these comments are racist. you are degrading how a certain group communicates. that is pathetic. and also, who is african american here? no one. so yeah, laugh all you want.
I'm not American, but yeah I'm fucking offended.
It is quite possible to have a serious discussion about a culture with degrading it, I know it is hard for some of you guys but the least you could do is try.
Ebonics a dialect, just the same as Cockney. I can't understand Cockney for the life of me but I'm not going to say that the people who speak it are lazy, Jesus Christ! You cannot possibly ask for people to speak proper English because that differs from country to country. AND it difffers from time to time. What the hell is "proper English," anyhow! No country can claim they speak it properly.
There's no such thing as "proper English." English is butchered one way or another.
if language and culture go hand in handThat's the case of all dialects in the world, have you ever seen a dialect that is not connected to a culture?
then these comments are racist.Nothing racist was said in this thread, give me a break.
Wishing that a specific group of underprivileged children would be taught the correct way to speak a language is not racism, that's called "education".
For any other children, teaching them correct English, proper grammar and spelling is considered normal education, of course you teach kids how to speak correctly, nobody questions that, but if it's black kids… Ooh no, normal for everyone but not black kids, black kids can't learn correct English, they can only speak slang and nothing else can be taught to them. To me, this is where racism is, not the other way around.
who is african american here?Yeah, we know your strict opinion on that, if you're not gay, you can't participate to a gay-related topic, if you're not female, you can't participate to a female-related topic, and now if you're not black, you can't participate to a black-related topic.
If we followed your rules, we wouldn't have any discussion at all because you can always find a reason why someone should not be allowed to give their opinion.
Anyway, this thread is about linguistics, and anyone interested (whatever the color of their skin) is free to answer.
Ebonics a dialect, just the same as Cockney. I can't understand Cockney for the life of me but I'm not going to say that the people who speak it are lazy.I'm originally from Essex, which is right next to London (so I think I can talk about this, right?!) and the cockney talk IS lazy. Fortunately most people don't talk like that anymore, that kind of talk died out years ago. Probably because people are taught proper English in schools. I expect the only experience you have of it is over-exaggerated TV shows :rolleyes:
I rest my case. :rolleyes:
PowerPuff Grrl
25-01-2006, 04:52
Wishing that a specific group of underprivileged children would be taught the correct way to speak a language is not racism, that's called "education".
But why should they be taught how to speak casually with friends and family?
I think Lux is totally right in demanding if anybody actually knew what they hell they were talking about because so far, nobody here does.
Fortunately most people don't talk like that anymore, that kind of talk died out years ago. Probably because people are taught proper English in schools. I expect the only experience you have of it is over-exaggerated TV shows
I rest my case.
Shame that it died out.
There's a difference from writing a term paper in Cockney/Ebonics and speaking to a neighbour in standard English (whichever standard that is). If both parties conversing with each other understand each other and prefer to speak in some dialect, then they have every reason do so!
What do you want? The language police to come over and give them a fine?
And by over-exaggerated TV shows, you mean Coronation Street. One, I can't watch it (I tried!) because I can't understand what they are saying. And two, in Ottawa, all I hear is the Posh accent from British immigrants, which I am quite frankly getting sick of.
There's no such thing as "proper English."Yes, there is. it's the English that is taught in schools in all English-speaking countries and also as a second language in many non-English-speaking countries, the differences are minimal, the spelling, the grammar, the syntax are essentially the same, there are only a few marginal particularities.
...the differences are minimal, the spelling, the grammar, the syntax are essentially the same, there are only a few marginal particularities.Such as "color" and "colour". Also "favourite" and "favorite". :coctail: That's the only acceptable kinda stuff...
British English looks better in my opinion, but ignore that as it's just my misguided opinion :p
PowerPuff Grrl
25-01-2006, 05:17
Yes, there is. it's the English that is taught in schools in all English-speaking countries and also as a second language in many non-English-speaking countries, the differences are minimal, the spelling, the grammar, the syntax are essentially the same, there are only a few marginal particularities.
The fact that there are differences blatantly implies that there is no single authority that can dictate which English is right and which is wrong, (paedophile or pedofile?). This is why there are certain groups that can just make up a word and not get that much flack over it. No standard, no deviation.
E.g. American corporate culture made up the word "proactive."
Lexicons like these are created everywhere and anywhere which can further complicate things. Moreover these are used in casual and professional settings.
Words like these, IMHO, are changing the English language spoken here.
Where's the outrage in this?!
Ebonics is simply shared in a casual manner. Where you got the idea that it was taught in schools is simply ridiculous. Your linking the usage of Ebonics with the deterioration of the public education system is laughable; oh no! It can't possibly be becasue of the effects of Property Taxes and redistricting of communities and rise of private schools with the re-emergence of segregation.
No no, it had to be Fiddy Cent!
The fact that there are differences blatantly implies that there is no single authority that can dictate which English is right and which is wrongWell, maybe there should be, seriously, English-speaking countries should think about it, otherwise it will happen to English what happened to Latin and in a century or two from now, English may have diverged into a dozen different languages and people will no longer be able to understand each other.
Like i said in a previous post, the first purpose of a language is communication, and when a language splits into mutually unintelligible dialects, that's not good.
Lexicons like these are created everywhere and anywhere which can further complicate things. Moreover these are used in casual and professional settings.
Words like these, IMHO, are changing the English language spoken here. Well, there is a difference between creating new words, or even simplifying the spelling (and i've said several times that i do think that English could very much use a spelling reform), and completely diverging from the commonly accepted grammar with expression like 'he my brother' (absence of verb), 'he be talkin' (incorrect conjugation of verbs), or 'he done fought' (past participle directly following a personal pronoun without the use of an auxiliary verb and followed by a past tense, which makes absolutely no grammatical sense whatsoever and not just in English but in any European language).
PowerPuff Grrl
25-01-2006, 07:11
Well, maybe there should be, seriously, English-speaking countries should think about it, otherwise it will happen to English what happened to Latin and in a century or two from now, English may have diverged into a dozen different languages and people will no longer be able to understand each other.
Like i said in a previous post, the first purpose of a language is communication, and when a language splits into mutually unintelligible dialects, that's not good.
Latin died out because it was spread out across three continents without any mode of modern communication and transportation to keep up.
The English language has the luxury of existing in the time of telephone, internet and easy travelling so it is virtually impossible for it to have the same fate of Latin. The only hindrance I see to it lasting is the accent, but it has already been a bit over a hundred years and we're doing alright, thank you.
And perhaps it's my Canadian mentality but I would rather much prefer a democratization of the language by the people who use it. Not some Orwellian rule of language. As long as we understand each other, I don't see what the problem is.
I think what this boils down to really is taste. You can justify it anyway you like but there are several other dialects in the States alone, why you point out Ebonics is beyond me. It is a dialect, bringing up the concern of grammar is a moot point because avoiding proper grammar is part of what a dialect is all about.
Why you point out something that isn't even part of the American standard, that is spoken by and only by a small minority of people, is beyond me.
KillaQueen
25-01-2006, 07:41
sorry, powerpuff, but i think it's far from being a dialect. it's pure jargon. it uses english words spelled and pronounced differently and defies the rules of grammar in an obnoxious way. it's what most black people in america do in order to differentiate themselves from white people. and this ebonics thing was 'developed' by people with little or no education at all. you just need to hear it or see it spelled to know that. i do agree with cirrus. it can be tolerated (for fun, kicks, laughs), but just as long as people know how to speak proper english as well. or let's say international english. the accent doesn't bother me. i dont consider you butcher english if you have this or that accent. this depends on the sounds you've been taught and used to, and even on physical features (the shape of your oral cavity). but really, i don't think we should grant extra rights to uneducated people, such as this ebonics being taught in school (the idea just makes my skin crawl). and that and only that would make it a dialect. it being recognized officially as that by linguists. and it won't be, trust me. it lacks logical grammatical structure, among other things. plus, again, i don't think uneducated people should have the right to raise their jargon at the level of dialect or, God forbid, language. there's enough stupidity in the world as it is.
Doan dis me 'bout how ma gums be flappin' , I bust a cap in yo ass.
'Sides it ain ma fault, I done got dat ebonic plague.
KillaQueen
25-01-2006, 07:58
marina, :lol: :lol: :lol:
as far as ebonics being taught in schools, the program is designed to cultivate and embrace the African culture
It is taught in schools? :bum:
maybe you need to take some ebonics classes
Or listen to rap songs. :laugh:
There's no such thing as "proper English."
Yes, there is. It is so annoying when some people say "you is" instead of "you are" which is a proper English.
it is definitely not slang. slang is supposedly understand by many but ebonics is not when people here don't even understand it. also, when masses of people communicate via ebonics, it goes beyond just being slang.
dont see whats wrong with talking not proper language. u should know it, but speak it :confused: only in official occasions.
id die of laughter if i spoke proper croatian with my friends or family.
QueenBee
25-01-2006, 14:21
the differences are minimal, the spelling, the grammar, the syntax are essentially the same, there are only a few marginal particularities.
I'm not quite sure if I'm right here, but I've noticed that in the American English it's perfectly okay to write "people that are..." while my teacher (well, old teacher) wouldn't accept that as the British English uses "people who are..."
British English looks better in my opinion, but ignore that as it's just my misguided opinion
Lol, I sort of think it looks better aswell but I mostly use American English for some reason...
The only reason to why I dislike such slang is because it reminds me of rap, and, as Rachel said, makes me want to shoot myself.
I'm not quite sure if I'm right here, but I've noticed that in the American English it's perfectly okay to write "people that are..." while my teacher (well, old teacher) wouldn't accept that as the British English uses "people who are..."
In an essay, teachers/professors would much prefer if students write "people who are.." sentence instead of "people that are."
QueenBee
25-01-2006, 15:14
zelda05, I can sort of see where they're coming from :yes: But my teacher said we shouldn't even *speak* like that, so that's where I got confused.
Nice to know you want me dead :rolleyes:
Not dead, just think ebonics is a lousy reason to bring a gun to your mouth. :bum:
I'm sure you'll find another reason to get it there. :rolleyes:
*checks self to still be self, under armpits, under shirt, in pants*
Nope, I'm still not Mossopp. Miss her that much? :(
No, but I'm sure you do.
And by over-exaggerated TV shows, you mean Coronation Street. One, I can't watch it (I tried!) because I can't understand what they are saying.Sorry, I missed this post. Coronation Street?!! I thought we were talking about Cockney?!! Coronation Street is supposed to be up-north! What bits don't you understand? Surely it's just an accent, they don't have their own little language where they change a few letters in each word to make themselves sound tough :rolleyes:
On a second thought, why do I even bother? Next thing you come off with will be even lamer, and I'm not in the mood to start discussing with a world reknown forum whore.
I don't think there is a need for me to say anything else when you post stuff like that. :rolleyes: You've already made a %"&(%$ of yourself enough times. :rolleyes:
tainted_chick
25-01-2006, 17:51
bit late on the topic here, what do you mean by "butchered english"
QueenBee
25-01-2006, 17:54
http://www.dogmacatma.com/images/050805_17.jpg
tainted_chick
25-01-2006, 18:19
http://www.dogmacatma.com/images/050805_17.jpg
I need some of them.. work is stressful today
spyretto
25-01-2006, 19:34
English is a stupid language anyway, what other language would make a clear distinction between beach and bitch for example...so I don't mind if it's a bit incomed...I mean butchered
why you point out Ebonics is beyond me.I didn't especially point out Ebonics at first, all i did was made a random comment about bad grammar and bad spelling, to which someone replied that i shouldn't say anything because it was "Ebonics", which apparently gives poor grammar and spelling some kind of special untouchable status.
Well, i didn't know it was Ebonics, to me it was (and still is) just bad grammar and spelling, and i'm not the one who decided to call that "Ebonics".
But i'm not especially targeting Ebonics, i could say the same things about Cajun French which is quite horrendous (but i've read that Quebec has been sending teachers to Cajun land to teach what they call European French to the younger generation of Cajun people, so there is hope) or Haitian "French" which has actually become totally unintelligible to French people and can no longer be called French.
bringing up the concern of grammar is a moot point because avoiding proper grammar is part of what a dialect is all about.Hmm, no, that's not what dialects are all about. Dialects don't especially have a degraded grammar compared to the main language they are related to, some dialects have even retained a more conservative grammar and lexicon than the main language.
That's why i personally make the difference between a slang and a dialect. A slang is a class phenomenon, it develops in an underprivileged population because of a lack of proper education, the general structure of the language gets heavily degraded not because of a normal process of evolution, but simply because of the ignorance of proper rules. Spelling and grammar become incoherent and the lexicon loses many words because those populations were actually never taught the language and the basic grammatical and syntax rules.
This generally happens when an underprivileged class is totally isolated from the educated elite.
Dialects are something totally different, there are not a class phenomenon, but a regional one, dialects develop through the entire population of a given territory, from the ruling elite to the working class, everybody speaks that dialect. Dialects are not the result of a lack of education, they are the result of a regional isolation that allows the language to follow a specific evolution, but since the educated elite also speaks that dialect, the general grammatical structure keeps its coherence and complexity, and the lexicon keeps its richness.
KillaQueen
25-01-2006, 21:31
it is definitely not slang. slang is supposedly understand by many but ebonics is not when people here don't even understand it. also, when masses of people communicate via ebonics, it goes beyond just being slang.
Lux, slang/jargon IS NOT supposed to be understood by many. that's its whole purpose. thieves use their slang, jailbirds use their slang and so on with the sole purpose of NOT being understood by others. it's sort of like code 'language', if you will. it consists in made up and/or changed words or words assigned a new meaning. and i repeat, for it to be considered a dialect, it would have to have its own LOGICAL grammatical structure, vocabulary and pronounciation, all put down on paper, analyzed and 'disected' by professional linguists, not some drop out hip-hopper. killing a language with the purpose of being cool, tough, special or whatever will never ever result in a dialect, much less a proper, whole new language.
and i absolutely agree with my fellow lezbion Amber :yes:
a world reknown forum whore.
All hail to the post/forum whore. :gigi:
English is a stupid language anyway
yet, you are speaking it. :rolleyes:
oh god here we go again.
dictionary.com: slang:
1. A kind of language occurring chiefly in casual and playful speech, made up typically of short-lived coinages and figures of speech that are deliberately used in place of standard terms for added raciness, humor, irreverence, or other effect.
2. Language peculiar to a group; argot or jargon: thieves' slang.
ebonics is not the first. it is the second, but so are many things.
PowerPuff Grrl
26-01-2006, 06:56
for it to be considered a dialect, it would have to have its own LOGICAL grammatical structure, vocabulary and pronounciation, all put down on paper, analyzed and 'disected' by professional linguists, not some drop out hip-hopper. killing a language with the purpose of being cool, tough, special or whatever will never ever result in a dialect, much less a proper, whole new language.
I don't see how Ebonics is killing the language. The standard English used in the States is still relatively the same. Ebonics hasn't crept into business, politics, or universities. Nobody else is using it other than those that have already been specified. The only threat to standard English are some Bushisms here and there (e.g. misunderestimate, nucular) and that isn't saying much.
The level of hysteria over ebonics in this thread is extremely disproportionate to the reality of its usage. Even if you were to encounter a person who frequently uses it, that person would be speaking the standard English of the US to you.
Dialect:
Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dialect)
di·a·lect
n.
1.
a) A regional or social variety of a language distinguished by pronunciation, grammar, or vocabulary, especially a variety of speech differing from the standard literary language or speech pattern of the culture in which it exists: Cockney is a dialect of English.
b) A variety of language that with other varieties constitutes a single language of which no single variety is standard: the dialects of Ancient Greek.
2.
The language peculiar to the members of a group, especially in an occupation; jargon: the dialect of science.
3.
The manner or style of expressing oneself in language or the arts.
4.
A language considered as part of a larger family of languages or a linguistic branch. Not in scientific use: Spanish and French are Romance dialects.
Britannica.com (http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=dialect&query=dialect)
1.
a) a regional variety of language distinguished by features of vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation from other regional varieties and constituting together with them a single language <the Doric dialect of ancient Greek>
b) one of two or more cognate languages <French and Italian are Romance dialects>
c) a variety of a language used by the members of a group <such dialects as politics and advertising -- Philip Howard>
d) a variety of language whose identity is fixed by a factor other than geography (as social class) <spoke a rough peasant dialect>
e) REGISTER 4c
f) a version of a computer programming language
2. manner or means of expressing oneself : PHRASEOLOGY
Cambridge Dictionary (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=21464&dict=CALD)
dialect
noun [C or U]
a form of a language that people speak in a particular part of a country, containing some different words and grammar, etc:
a regional dialect
The poem is written in northern dialect.
"Different" or "distinguished" are the operative words here; dialects cannot conform to the standard English grammatically, vocubulary-wise, or whatever. Whether it "degrades" the accepted standard English or not is a matter of taste, not a matter of whether it is a dialect or not.
I think we have just about exhausted the topic here, neither of us are going to convince anybody otherwise. I have no intention of ending the topic prematurely but let's just agree to disagree.
And uh,... I just wanna holla out cha, it's been a plejah conversatin' wid y'all, bitches!
Fer real, yah heard!
ypsidan04
26-01-2006, 19:23
I have this audio on my Mp3 player:
http://www.theflasharchive.com/f/f-85.htm :D
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/8828/wordndahood2vn.jpg
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/733/cracka8fj.jpg
Honestly, I think it's just born out of laziness, because not all black people talk that way. Bill Cosby, Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, they don't talk like that.
It's interesting how "proper", literary versions of langauges have become so idolized in time. I'm not saying that proper language isn't important, since it serves as a great tool of unification and is essencial in the survival of a language (that goes especually for endangered languages). But on the other hand it's good to realize that official versions of languages which would be considered as proper literaly ones are nothing but one of many dialects that was (for one reason or another - usually cause first literary works or grammar books were written in it) chosen to unify the language as a whole. It's nothing but a dialect which was chosen to be the official representative of the language. Lets not forget that Portugese, Romanian, Italian Spanish and French were nothing but dialects of vulgaric latin at the beginning and as they evolved into languages their linguistic entities got unified by taking a syntax and adapting most grammar rules according to ONE of the many dialects spoken in the region. Dialects by themselves are very fascinating and show fluency in language changes... they fill the holes that appear among languages of one family and even bridge the gaps between different language families. And furthermore dialects are a celebration of diversity - a living story of historical influences that shaped a certain language. I think they're absolutely fascinating and definitely not worth less than any formal and mutualy accepted dialect that represents the literal language.
Lets not forget that Portugese, Romanian, Italian Spanish and French were nothing but dialects of vulgaric latin at the beginning and as they evolved into languagesAbsolutely, and that's why what happened to Vulgar Latin (or Western Romance as linguists call it nowadays) should always be a reminder of what happens to a language when the general population is not properly educated. Up to the 5th century AD, everybody in the Western Roman Empire still spoke more or less the same language and could understand each other, it's only in the following centuries, after the fall of the Empire that things totally went wrong and dialects diverged too much to the point of no longer being mutually intelligible, and that was a great loss. It would be much better if Italy, France, Spain and Portugal were still sharing the same language, it would be a great cultural asset. I guess it would be called Modern Romance and would probably resemble Occitan since this language is somewhat intermediary between Italian, French and Spanish… Yeah, it would have been much better.
It'd debatable whether it'd be such a good thing if all those nations still spoke Vulgaric Latin - except for translation costs within the EU. :p One must not forget that lack of education wasn't the only thing that led to the split of the common Latin spoken throughout. There were a bunch of other things. It was a natural evolution of a dialect into a language. Same way that pretty much every language in existance started out: it's not like latin itself was any different back in the day. It's just an italic dialect spoken on the Apeninian peninsula that just so happened became extremely popular. That doens't mean that other languages which evolved from it are simply impure versions of latin caused strictly by lack of education. All those provinces were far away from the Roman empire, so there was reluctance to speak Latin in the first place, dialects got influenced by langauges spoken by ancient indigenous people that lived there since before Roman occupation... it was a completely natural evolution. And I think it's great that it happened. I recognize the need for a lingua franca like Latin or French were in history or like English is now. But that doesn't mean dialect which would in time naturally evolve into langauges are impure by default. I think dialects enrich a langauge (and culture in general), rather than do damage to it. They are a living testiment of great diversity and differences in people, yet those differences ultimately just show how similar we all are.
With your unifying philosophy where does it stop really? All former Roman provinces speaking a unified descendent of latin? But in that case why stop there? Wouldn't it be better if all germanic tribes spoke unified proto-germanic? Or all slavics unified proto-slavic? Or to go even further... wouldn't it be absolutely brilliant if the whole European continent spoke a common version of Proto-IndoEuropean from which all European languages stem from?
With your unifying philosophy where does it stop really? All former Roman provinces speaking a unified descendent of latin? But in that case why stop there? Wouldn't it be better if all germanic tribes spoke unified proto-germanic? Or all slavics unified proto-slavic? Or to go even further... wouldn't it be absolutely brilliant if the whole European continent spoke a common version of Proto-IndoEuropean from which all European languages stem from?Actually yeah, i think that would have been brilliant indeed. Being able to understand each other from Moscow to Lisbon, i can see only positive things in that, i think that would have been a great asset for Europe, the more people understand each other the better.
That doesn't mean that i am against evolution or a conservative, far from it, lol. Proto-Indo-European was an extremely complicated language with many declensions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language#Noun) (8 cases, 3 numbers, 3 genders) and a rich verbal system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language#Verb). Proto-Indo-European was also a very synthetic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_language) language, a characteristic that all Indo-European languages will progressively abandon to become less and less synthetic and more and more analytic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_language), which is a fascinating process (the extreme case being English itself which has become much more analytic than synthetic, some linguists think that English may very well become fully analytic - like Chinese - in a future evolution).
So Proto-Indo-European was much more complicated than any of its daughter languages and i certainly don't wish that it had remained that way until modern days, Proto-Indo-European was complicated because it had developed during prehistorical times and was the result of a more archaic stage of human development. The apparition of civilization and of more complex thoughts will cause the language to evolve and become more efficient, less complicated in form and more sophisticated in substance.
Evolution is a natural process and languages evolve all the time, but what i am wary of is not evolution, it's division. A language doesn't have to split to evolve, Latin for example evolved a great deal between Classical Latin in the 2nd century BC and Vulgar Latin in the 5th century AD, to such a point that people from the 5th century (unless they were educated scholars) could no longer understand written Classical Latin, but Vulgar Latin was still a single language, there were regional dialects but they were still mutually intelligible, and if the Western Roman Empire had kept its political unity, it would have remained that way.
And sometimes a dialect can acquire certain awkward features that are not good innovations, it generally happens during troubled periods when there is a lack of an educated elite that can maintain certain proper guidelines for the language. I'll take an example in French (because i know it quite well and hopefully i won't be called a racist if i criticize my own language).
Northern French dialects have acquired a unique and not so good feature among Romance languages. In Latin and all Romance languages (including Southern French dialects called Occitan), the use of personal pronouns is optional because verbs are highly inflected and have different verbal endings for all persons and all tenses, the verb inflection carrying all the information needed, personal pronouns are unnecessary and are only used for emphasis.
Northern French dialects however have undergone a severe change in pronunciation compared to Latin, and many verbal endings became identical because of that change (not always in spelling, but totally identical in pronunciation). At the present tense for example, 4 out of 6 verbal endings are pronounced the same in French whereas they are all different in all other Romance languages. Because of the confusion caused by those identical verbal endings, people started to use personal pronouns systematically, Northen French dialects are the only ones where that happened and this is not a good evolution.
It would have been good if verbal endings had become totally identical inside a given tense, if you use personal pronouns systematically, you no longer need verbal endings other than to indicate the tense, just like you don't need personal pronouns if you have different verbal endings for each person.
But Northen French dialects got stuck somewhere in the middle, not enough verbal endings to allow personal pronouns to remain optional, but the systematic use of personal pronouns did not cause verbal endings to completely drop either. It's redundant and inelegant, and certainly not an improvement compared to previous forms of the language, the French verbal system is typically for me a good example of an evolution gone bad.
And actually, when in the Middle Ages the French kings decided to pick one dialect to make it the official French language, scholars of the time recommended to choose a Southern dialect of the Occitan branch, because Occitan was much closer to Latin and much purer. But the fact that the political center was in Northern France obviously favored Northern dialects, which was obviously a mistake in my opinion, Occitan would have indeed been a much better choice.
intervolkov
28-01-2006, 19:18
oi vita oi vita mia
oi core e chist mmore
si stat o prim ammore
o prim e lultim saraj p meeeeeeee!!!!!!
It's my dialect!!!
italian is beautiful. :dead:
KillaQueen
29-01-2006, 01:00
umm, i see you changed the name of the topic. i just wanted to add this: back in the day, dialects were formed because people barely had ways of communication (thus 'main' languages tended to change into dialects according to the area in which people were living, their social level and so on). diachronically speaking, slangs and dialects were/are prolific, but synchronically it's another story. see, the thing is like this: we're living in the age of communication, for goodness sakes! the majority of people have access to institutionalized education and technically speaking they should be able to learn at least their own language. the fact that people tend to consider ebonics a sign of diversity and enrichment of the english language scares me. we have our own version of butchered language in romania. gypsy music with lyrics having a lot of grammatical errors (the most 'popular' being plural noun followed by verb in singular form; e.g. 'they is'). with all due respect, i find it shocking that people tend to 'sugar coat' the fruit of the uneducated. and by that i mean calling it dialect, despite of the fact that it isn't. dialect is something that technically should not exist in the civilized world, because language is so well spread through communication and education. however, we have slangs due to people's 'occupations', so to speak. but they CANNOT be called dialects. period.
umm, i see you changed the name of the topic.The topic was expanded to languages (and their dialects/slangs) in general to avoid focusing on just the one (as requested by some posters), but the topic is still basically the same, i.e. how slangs which are the result of the lack of education of an underprivileged population (grammatical rules are not respected simply because they are not known) can't be considered on the same level as a regional dialect which has developed because of geographic isolation (grammatical rules may have evolved, but they are still respected and coherent).
And i totally agree with what you said, your example is a typical one, the use of a singular verbal form with a plural subject, that's not a dialectal feature, that's simply the sign of an uneducated person who doesn't know how to conjugate properly.
In a true dialect, verbal endings may evolve compared to the original language, change in pronunciation are common, but they won't get 'mixed up' like that. Romance languages are a good example of that since they all have different verbal endings, but if compared to Latin, the relation person to person and tense to tense is still obvious, those verbal endings have evolved, they have not been mixed up.
On the other hand, the fact that Romanian has postposed definite articles whereas all Western Romance languages have preposed ones is a typical dialectal evolution. Classical Latin did not have definite articles at all, but they appeared at some point in Vulgar Latin before the split into Romance dialects, and in Eastern Romance dialects, the definite articles became postposed.
slang, dialect, and language is vastly different and probably should be separated into different threads. language is official and dialect is usually a phonetic derivate of an official language. slang is ...refer to dictionary.com or any such source for a definition. i'm not sure what this thread is about really. are we comparing all three? are we talking about ebonics as a dialect? no idea now.
Why would dialect be a product of lack of education? And furthermore... why should the language artificially be held together through a unitarian political regime? Doesn't it make much more sense for language to evolve depending on what the people who lived on certain teritories experienced? Isn't it completely normal that former citizens of the Roman empire who lived on the terriroty of today's portugal would have totally different experiences/influences compared to those who lived on the territory of what is today Italy? Forcing a formal language down people's throats will only make it unpopular and rigid. Like I said: it's not that the formal language per se is redundant - it's vital. But then so are all it's dialects and slangs.They make it richer and more diverse rather than endanger it. No modern language in existance that has at least 1 milion active native speakers and has clear grammar rules can be considered as threatened in the first place, let alone threatened by dialects. All the various slangs and accents that stem from the basic english language are just a testiment of how popular and accepted the language is.
intervolkov
29-01-2006, 15:03
But the Italian's dialect are very different respect of Portugal's dialect because The Napoletan or the Milanes were Influenced by the Spanish or German language!!
KillaQueen
29-01-2006, 18:24
[dialects and slangs] make it richer and more diverse rather than endanger it. No modern language in existance that has at least 1 milion active native speakers and has clear grammar rules can be considered as threatened in the first place, let alone threatened by dialects. All the various slangs and accents that stem from the basic english language are just a testiment of how popular and accepted the language is.
no one said they endanger it. but dialects and slangs are two different things. dialects are almost impossible to be formed today, precisely because main languages are so well spread and accepted. slangs, on the other hand, are ignorant versions of the main language for the most part. i don't see them enriching the language in ANY way. neologisms enrich it, new morphological derivates enrich it, but not slangs such as ebonics, ffs! and, again, it's not a matter of endagering the english language (except to maybe those poor black children who are being taught to speak only ebonics by their ignorant drop out parents). it's a matter of a whole country - and i'm referring here to usa - praising this sort of butchered language (which is nothing more than the result of the lack of education). it only takes looking at the american music charts: 50 cent and all his 'homies' rule them. it's outrageous. and to think that music is considered to be art. mumbling grammatically incorrect english over the same rhythmic beats is very far from art. but it's not poor 50 cent's fault. he only does what he knows and what he was taught. it's the people's fault for buying his cd's and praising ignorance. and this in the age when human intelligence is supposed to be at its peak, what with the access to information and education. still, we're singing praises to forms of sheer stupidity. nice. and don't think i'm only referring to hip hop and americans. we have the same phenomenon here: the afore mentioned so-called gypsy 'music' (with the language errors it entails) is the most popular. i fail to understand why.
Why would dialect be a product of lack of education?Not always, like i said, a dialect can develop in a specific region with many changes to pronunciation and general morphology without the grammar being butchered.
Things like 'woddya' for 'what do you' are the result of lack of education, no educated person would merge an interrogative pronoun with an auxiliary verb and a personal pronoun because that makes absolutely no grammatical sense. Words with different grammatical functions have to remain seperate for a sentence to keep its grammatical coherence, you can't go merging things anyway you want just because in speech it sounds that way, people who do that were never taught proper grammar.
I could also give a French example of butchered grammar: 'oukilé ?' for 'où est-ce qu'il est ?' in correct French (or 'où est-il ?' in formal French), 'where is he?' in English. The slang form 'oukilé' is a grammatical abomination.
slang, dialect, and language is vastly different and probably should be separated into different threads. language is official and dialect is usually a phonetic derivate of an official language. slang is ...refer to dictionary.com or any such source for a definition. i'm not sure what this thread is about really. are we comparing all three? are we talking about ebonics as a dialect? no idea now.I changed the thread title because some people were complaining that it focused only on Ebonics, but now some people are complaining that it no longer focuses on Ebonics. Some people are never happy.
Ok, the thread title has been changed to 'Slang, result of ignorance or acceptable dialect?', i hope the topic will now be clear enough for everybody.
KillaQueen
29-01-2006, 19:12
let it be noted that people working in more educated areas (medicine, aviation etc) use their jargon. an example of such slang would be the terms "roger" instead of "i understand what you said/i received your message" (the latter being too long and often misleading in low quality transmissions) and "negative" instead of the simple "no" which was too short and could have easily not been heard or distinguished in bad transmissions.
yet this is not a form of ignorance or a result of poor education. such slangs were used so as to make life easier and more efficient, more productive for people working in the respective fields. which is more than i can say for ebonics or gypsy butchered language.
well then again, you have to define what you mean by "education." some people who go to higher institutions aren't necessarily educated.
Things like 'woddya' for 'what do you' are the result of lack of education, no educated person would merge an interrogative pronoun with an auxiliary verb and a personal pronoun because that makes absolutely no grammatical sense. Words with different grammatical functions have to remain seperate for a sentence to keep its grammatical coherence, you can't go merging things anyway you want just because in speech it sounds that way, people who do that were never taught proper grammar.
Isn't that just speculation, though? How do you know what the reason was for this and other changes? From our point of view it's all relative. It makes no grammatical sense in common british english, but wouldn't you say vulgaric latin had some traits that would be completely innapropriate for classical latin? Lets not even talk about comparison of descendants of vulgaric latin in comparison with classical version - I'd pretty much figure a Roman citized from 100AD would be absolutely horrified listening to Italian or Romanian. He'd probably think he's hearing totally butchered latin. Or lets go even further back for that matter... which one of it's derivatives today would still make any grammatical sense in proto indo-european? I guess the closest thing you'd get to it's original form are the Baltic languages (Lithuanian, Latvian). So by that reasoning... were Baltic people the most educated of teh bunch to retain most ancient grammatical structure of the original language?
Given a natural development (which in this day and age is impossible, since languages are pretty much cemented in their formal form, due to modern advances) dialects and even slang would develop into a proper language of it's own in a few centuries, given the right conditions (political, geographic, social). A language with it's own grammar rules and nothing would seem odd anymore.
xlesslikeyou
30-01-2006, 20:55
the way that people talk isn't on a lack of education... i talk like that all the time if im talking to my friends or if im at home with my family i would never talk that way to a teacher or my boss ... i think that most americans (like myself) who talk like that just do it because you can relax and me lazy when your talking to your friends unless the conversation is a dire one. i only talk my "gangster" talk if i ever get harassed by them because they have an issue on how i dress.. to them im a "goth'...that pisses me off so whenever they say sh*t to me i flip out right back at them in teir own slang so they step off... so basically that story was a point of if you ever get in a tight situation like that its good to know how to talk like that....
You think the way you talk is your self defence?! :spy:
That pretty much proves it isn't a dialect...it's just people trying to sound "hard" :rolleyes:
i disagree. when it is collective and very much part of a group culture as defensive to outside attacks, it is a dialect. speaking in a such a way also distinguishes the group from other groups.
xlesslikeyou
31-01-2006, 15:35
its not my self defence and im not trying to sound "hard" or tough its just the way we talk its is concidered around here a dialect its like a second language...but not, because at sertain times people have to speak it just like if ...lets say you went to mexico... wouldnt it be helpful if you knew spanish? im not really trying to be like "no your wrong and you dont know anything blahh blahh blahh" i really dont care, if people are really bent out of shape about this because they have enough time to sit here and make it a bigger deal than it really is then.. i think you should step out into the world and see that a lot of people from different cultures do it as well and that we dont live in a world that is extremely forcful about how someone talks, the way someone talks expresses who they are and how they feel but if they talked all the same it would be boring and all the same,and no indifference from everyone
lets say you went to mexico... wouldnt it be helpful if you knew spanish?The difference is that Spanish is an actual language and the official language of Mexico as well as of many other countries, Ebonics is not the official language of any state as far as i know.
You see, this is where the problem lies, people always compare Ebonics to the official languages of other countries, they are putting a vulgar slang on the same level as litterary languages. The American obssession with the rap 'culture' has transformed a slang into the 'pinnacle of mainstream society' like someone here said, not being able to make a single correct sentence and departing as far as possible from standard English has become the goal to achieve, ignorance is validated and even glorified.
i think you should step out into the world and see that a lot of people from different cultures do it as wellMany people who posted in this thread to criticize Ebonics are European, a continent half the size of North America with over 50 official languages, it only takes a few hours (even a few minutes for some of us) to go to a neighboring country where people speak a different language, in the EU parliament the deputies can speak in 20 different languages, so i think we are quite aware of and open to cultural differences.
However, nowhere else have i seen a vulgar slang being considered the *pinnacle* of society and the finest form of a language, everywhere else a popular slang is just that, a popular slang, an incorrect form of the language that you use in limited circumstances and would never be taught in schools as a valid 'dialect'.
oh please. that is a load of shit. the US is far more diverse than europe. in terms of different races and cultures. most of the people in europe are WHITE and while they speak different languages, they mostly derivefrom the latin alphabet. eastern europe languages are more similar to each other, and then romance languages on the western side of europe are similar to each other. yes there are more languages and people live close together, but the US is far more diverse. only when it comes to different RACES. chinese culture is very different from latino culture, which is very different from creole culture. they are more different from each other than french is to british or german.
at least, germans, french, and british are all "white." that is, the same race. their cultures are different YES, i'm not saying they're not, but the difference is BIGGER when it comes to non white races.
and yes, europe isn't the world. it is the western world. try an underdeveloped country sometime. or come to brooklyn sometime. or harlem. try it out. it'd make a good case study.
Originally Posted by xlesslikeyou
i think you should step out into the world and see that a lot of people from different cultures do it as well
completely agree.
The American obssession with the rap 'culture' has transformed a slang into the 'pinnacle of mainstream society' like someone here said, not being able to make a single correct sentence and departing as far as possible from standard English has become the goal to achieve, ignorance is validated and even glorified.
that's funny. mainstream American culture doesn't accept rap. the media, of course, loves rap. it is far from the pinnacle of mainstream society when rappers and black people are stereotyped in a negative way. it is all bloody apparent when the style and attitude of being thugged out/urban separates people by a very clear line. that is hardly the pinnacle, of anything. it is NOT the goal to achieve. in the business world, nobody speaks that way. neither do people in any other professional area. it is not what people try to speak in most schools, offices, or anywhere else.
it's not some glorified aspect of american culture. i think one state or a group of people tried to get Eminem censored or banned and many were furious when certain "rap" albums came out. how can it be when most of the people who speak that way, aren't middle class. they're not upper class either so how can that be an ideal? most of america is middle class. both upper and middle class americans look down on that kind of culture, much less way of speaking. let's see. is it not an ideal when most of the people who speak that way come from lower class or poor backgrounds. i think new york city is a great example [and no, this isn't some half assed point of pride. this city is very diverse and that is a fact. it is by no means original insight, before someone out there decides to piss on how much i like it] of this, as it is a very diverse city. the differences in status and culture are glaringly apparent on a day to day basis. on the subway, the people who dress neatly and look professionaly stand apart from those who wear caps, baggy jeans, and timbs. also, nobody talks that way professionally. it is a culture, a street phenomenon, and far from ideal. what you're saying is a complete and utter stretch. not to mention blowing the subject out of context and out of proportion.
most of american is conservative. around 70% of america is white, the rest is minority. and in terms of religion, there is also quite a range.
i think this thread is blowing out of proportion what is simply a culture phenomenon. ebonics is not a language, obviously. it is also not a vulgar butchery of proper english. americans don't speak proper english to begin with so if you're going to piss on one particular group, piss on the bigger group, the group that encompasses what a smaller group does. the one that doesn't speak proper english to begin with. so if americans don't speak proper english, and african americans are american, then ebonics is a specific derivative of non-proper american english. singling out a narrower kind of english and labeling it as slang is not fair and certainly not accurate. it is not slang. it is the way a certain group speaks. and it evolves very rapidly, as does american english. in a non biased perspective, ebonics is an evolutionary occurence, that's all. it is closely tied with culture, as language and culture go hand and hand. black people have been here from nearly the beginning of this country's history and from there, a dialect or manner of speaking evolved over the course of a few hundred years. ebonics didn't appear overnight, and it is not something that americans marvel and idealize when african americans in this country are treated unequally and often treated unfairly, despite how american they are. so to state that ebonics is a vulgar distortion is also implying that african american culture is also something not to look up to. if they speak something that is so vulgar? how can their culture be held up high? makes no sense. and it is untrue.
further more (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3761/is_199909/ai_n8872409)
xlesslikeyou
01-02-2006, 20:19
mainstream American culture doesn't accept rap.
so very true. In my school they make kids take off rap singer hoodies because it image thats shown by them
I fail to see how American English wouldn't be considered "proper" English", since it only really differerntiates from it's british counterparts in dialects and some minor grammatical changes. It's still the same language. And no less proper. If anything American accent is closer to the English the way it was spoken originally in the 17th century in England. So it's more british than british itself, which went through a number of changes later on which weren't followed by the colonies - just like french spoken in Quebec resembles ancient french spoken in villages around big cities. To be honest American english is slowly taking over the mantle of the official english from it's British counterparts - which can clearly be witnessed by such things as British english adopting American words and let it's own fade into obscurity (the word "truck" is a good example, where the british word "lorry" not being used as often, even in British english.)
This whole discussion about what is proper or even what deserves to be proper and what doesn't is skewed imo. We need both: we need formal languages to standardize it into a common form and make it mutually understandable, but at the same time we shouldn't put formal langauges on a piedestal, rating them higher than dialects and slang versions of it. Formal langauges are just a tool to be used, nothing more. A useful tool, of course, but still just a tool. Slang versions and numerous dialects on the other hand are a mark of time, history, cultural and political changes. They give a langauge it's real appeal and staying power.
it's not improper english, it is simply not proper. the phonetics are different. slang is drastically different. even if it's a slight deviation from the original language, it is not proper.
PowerPuff Grrl
03-02-2006, 11:29
You see, this is where the problem lies, people always compare Ebonics to the official languages of other countries, they are putting a vulgar slang on the same level as litterary languages.
The problem is that people on this thread think their tastes are the arbitrates of all things language, dialect, and slang.
Many people who posted in this thread to criticize Ebonics are European, a continent half the size of North America with over 50 official languages, it only takes a few hours (even a few minutes for some of us) to go to a neighboring country where people speak a different language, in the EU parliament the deputies can speak in 20 different languages, so i think we are quite aware of and open to cultural differences.
It helps of course that you have coexisted with these other cultures for thousands of years, though not entirely peacefully. The second somebody outside of Europe comes in, it becomes a very different picture.
Things like 'woddya' for 'what do you' are the result of lack of education, no educated person would merge an interrogative pronoun with an auxiliary verb and a personal pronoun because that makes absolutely no grammatical sense. Words with different grammatical functions have to remain seperate for a sentence to keep its grammatical coherence, you can't go merging things anyway you want just because in speech it sounds that way, people who do that were never taught proper grammar.
That isn't a lack of education, that is an accent not limited to Black people.
Or the sound of a person who had too much to drink.
no one said they endanger it. but dialects and slangs are two different things. dialects are almost impossible to be formed today, precisely because main languages are so well spread and accepted.
Dialects are formed when a language is split between two groups. Considering the segregation of the US and how strong it is I would gather that yeah, it is still possible to have dialects these days.
slangs, on the other hand, are ignorant versions of the main language for the most part. i don't see them enriching the language in ANY way. neologisms enrich it, new morphological derivates enrich it, but not slangs such as ebonics, ffs!
Slang these days in North America are usually formed through pop culture. Though Ebonics is not slang, it is easy to get the two mixed up seeing that Blacks have contributed to 70% of American Pop Culture.
and, again, it's not a matter of endagering the english language (except to maybe those poor black children who are being taught to speak only ebonics by their ignorant drop out parents). it's a matter of a whole country
It is a matter of the whole country; deterioration of the public education system that is, not Ebonics. About 40% of high school students cannot point out the US in a world map, that is the total population, not just Black people who make up about 13% of the US population. Ebonics is not the result of a lack of education. The sudden exposure to Ebonics is attributed to the fact that people, all people, are not being sufficiently taught the Standard English in schools among other things. Whether black people learn Standard English or not, Ebonics will still survive among Black people so long as segregation is still in the US.
With the level of outrage of the "miseducation" of Black people through Ebonics, I'm surprised nobody has even touched upon segregation. If you guys really did care about the Black people in the States where's your outrage over this?
it only takes looking at the american music charts: 50 cent and all his 'homies' rule them. it's outrageous. and to think that music is considered to be art. mumbling grammatically incorrect english over the same rhythmic beats is very far from art. but it's not poor 50 cent's fault. he only does what he knows and what he was taught. it's the people's fault for buying his cd's and praising ignorance. and this in the age when human intelligence is supposed to be at its peak, what with the access to information and education. still, we're singing praises to forms of sheer stupidity. nice. and don't think i'm only referring to hip hop and americans. we have the same phenomenon here: the afore mentioned so-called gypsy 'music' (with the language errors it entails) is the most popular. i fail to understand why.
Ok, so now we're talking about Hip-Hop? Pointing to 50 Cent as proof Rap sucks is just about the equivalent of me pointing to Ashley Simpson and proving the Rock 'n Roll in its entirety sucks. People like Ashley Simpson, Good Charlotte, Simple Plan and their ilk ruined R'n R becuase their songs are fluff. Rappers like 50 Cent and his ilk ruined Hip Hop ever since they started glorifying violence, misogyny, and homophobia; not because of their use of Ebonics. I think its safe to assume that even if Hip-Hop artists rapped in the Standard English (which they once did) you still wouldn't considered it art.
Ebonics is a dialect that has a grammatical system based in Creole (which is the fixed hybrid of two or more languages). Furthermore the grammatical stucture is similar to the grammatical stucture found in West African languages (Wolof, Twi, Hausa, Yoruba, Dogon, Akan, Kimbundu, Bambara, etc):
1. Present progressive: He runnin (=Standard English "He is running" or "He's running")
2. Present habitual progressive: He be runnin (=SE "He is usually running")
3. Present intensive habitual progressive: He be steady runnin (=SE"He is usually running in an intensive, sustained manner."
4. Present perfect progressive: He bin runnin (=SE "He has been running")
5. Present perfect progressive with remote inception: He BIN runnin (=SE "He has been running for a long time, and still is")
"bogus" from Hausa boko, meaning deceit or fraud.
"cat" from the Wolof suffix -kat, which denotes a person.
"dig" from Wolof dëgg or dëgga, meaning "to understand/appreciate".
"hip" from Wolof hipi, meaning "to be aware of what is going on".
"honky", a derogatory term for a white person, may come from Wolof xonq, meaning red or pink.
For more examples you can check it out here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAVE#Aspect_marking).
PS: Not to be a bother but I really don't like the title of this thread. Though I don't like Ebonics being the centre of attention (because really, it seems that anything Black people do is scandalous) clearly it is but this isn't the issue. Saying "Slang, result of ignorance or dialect" is implying that Ebonics is slang and that to say it is a dialect is to be arguing on the fringe. As well, giving the option of stating it is a result of ignorance grossly tips the balance, giving more credit to the argument that it isn't a dialect. So the people arguing for Ebonics have to argue against two things now.
I think we were better off with the first title; "Ebonics: Slang or Dialect."
yes. applause.
Many people who posted in this thread to criticize Ebonics are European, a continent half the size of North America with over 50 official languages, it only takes a few hours (even a few minutes for some of us) to go to a neighboring country where people speak a different language, in the EU parliament the deputies can speak in 20 different languages, so i think we are quite aware of and open to cultural differences.
the origin of africans in this country is an unnatural one. the first americans brought them over out of desire to make profit. most were brought against their will or tricked to be used as living tools in a foreign land that could be discarded. they weren't treated as human beings (and far from it). the nature of african americans and the way they speak has alot to do wtih slavery because of a few things. the africans who first came over differed in culture and language. there was a diverse range of them, as they came from different tribes and areas in africa. since they did not speak the same language, they had to come up with a common way of speaking so they can communicate. because they spoke different things, they derived a common linguistic medium for communication by deriving it from english, the only thing spoken around them. culturally, what emerged had much influence from the different cultures and peoples speaking it.
on a larger spectrum, with language on one end and slang on the other, dialect falls somewhere in the middle. language has an official written form, while dialect is not. neither is slang. but take cantonese for example. it is a dialect, despite its complexities. it is derived from chinese and is spoken by a large group of people. ebonics is similar but not quite as established because people confuse it with slang specific to a culture. also, since is it is looked down on, it lacks legitimacy that would otherwise solidify it as an actual dialect.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.