|
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.
|