It's amazing what some people do to the language...

Sep 3, 2007
96
0
0
Having had a rather longstanding interest in linguistics (despite a deplorably limited background in the subject), I've lately been wondering about the origins of the curious mutation of the English language employed primarily by, well, black people (not all, but quite a lot of them). To be honest, I find it absolutely infuriating that these people are not able to use the language properly like everybody else and continue to consciously propagate their undeniably poor public perception by speaking in a manner that immediately identifies them as, quite frankly, uneducated. On many occasions I am even unable to decipher a single word of what is being said in certain overheard conversations.

I realize this may be treading in somewhat dangerous waters, and would like to just point out that some of my most respected and articulate professors back at Harvard were black (albeit native Africans, not African Americans).

---

You did not have to post your bigotry to prove just how deplorably limited your background in the subject is. Another post like this will be your last on our forums.

Harvey
Senior AnandTech Moderator
 

AgaBoogaBoo

Lifer
Feb 16, 2003
26,107
4
81
Who says the way they speak is poor? It's just different, and the word poor in this case is being used in a relative sense.

If the whole world says something should be said one way instead of another, why are they wrong? Language belongs to the people, not an organization or committee that can vote on changes.
 
Sep 3, 2007
96
0
0
Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
Who says the way they speak is poor? It's just different, and the word poor in this case is being used in a relative sense.

If the whole world says something should be said one way instead of another, why are they wrong? Language belongs to the people, not an organization or committee that can vote on changes.

To the contrary, I would say that the way they speak is indeed poor, in that it involves liberally strewing profanities throughout everything that is said. It also tends to be spoken rather loudly and obnoxiously.
 

AgaBoogaBoo

Lifer
Feb 16, 2003
26,107
4
81
Originally posted by: residualsquare
Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
Who says the way they speak is poor? It's just different, and the word poor in this case is being used in a relative sense.

If the whole world says something should be said one way instead of another, why are they wrong? Language belongs to the people, not an organization or committee that can vote on changes.
To the contrary, I would say that the way they speak is indeed poor, in that it involves liberally strewing profanities throughout everything that is said. It also tends to be spoken rather loudly and obnoxiously.
If the whole world says something should be said one way instead of another, why are they wrong? Language belongs to the people, not an organization or committee that can vote on changes.

Basically, who are we to say the way a certain group chooses to use the language is wrong? It belongs to the people.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,113
925
126
It's a widely accepted cultural thing (in their culture), which is known as ebonics. Are you referring to ebonics?
 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,345
3
71
Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
Who says the way they speak is poor? It's just different, and the word poor in this case is being used in a relative sense.

If the whole world says something should be said one way instead of another, why are they wrong? Language belongs to the people, not an organization or committee that can vote on changes.

Societal norms say that its poor. Its intent is not generalized communication. This alone makes it "poor."
 
Sep 3, 2007
96
0
0
Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
Originally posted by: residualsquare
Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
Who says the way they speak is poor? It's just different, and the word poor in this case is being used in a relative sense.

If the whole world says something should be said one way instead of another, why are they wrong? Language belongs to the people, not an organization or committee that can vote on changes.
To the contrary, I would say that the way they speak is indeed poor, in that it involves liberally strewing profanities throughout everything that is said. It also tends to be spoken rather loudly and obnoxiously.
If the whole world says something should be said one way instead of another, why are they wrong? Language belongs to the people, not an organization or committee that can vote on changes.

Basically, who are we to say the way a certain group chooses to use the language is wrong? It belongs to the people.

I daresay I'm not by any means the only one to harbor such resentment, as I have met many people who feel the same way as myself. If a substantial number of people take offense to the way a language is being used, I would argue that their offense must be at least somewhat merited. You don't see the same reaction to different dialects being spoken of the same language.
 

Agentbolt

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2004
3,340
1
0
Hillbillies can get together and say their use of the English language is just fine too, doesn't mean it's true.

Ebonics is a horrible injury done to the English language. You can't say it's "another version" of the English language. You have to either consider it a seperate language (which no self-respecting person, black or white, really does) or consider it really, really bad English.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,113
925
126
There's a web page on the subject here.


One reason linguists don't use the term "Ebonics" very happily is that it is very vague, and so such questions are hard to answer. We generally use the term "African American Vernacular English", or AAVE, instead to mean the kinds of speech characteristically spoken by working-class U.S. African Americans, within their community, at occasions calling for intimacy or informality.
Linguists know very well that there are African Americans who cannot speak this dialect with native fluency; that there are some non-African Americans who can (though very few); and that almost all African Americans have some command of other forms of English, including Standard American English. In fact, there are characteristically African American ways of speaking the latter - which means there is a Standard African American English, too. A very large number of African American adults are perfectly at home with both AAVE and Standard American English, and are skilled at using each in the appropriate circumstances.
It seems sensible, then, to speak of a generalized family of dialects - AAE, or African American English - which includes all the various ways of speaking characteristic of African Americans: standard and vernacular, working- and middle-class, in settings formal and professional or informal and intimate. It is sensible, also, to use the term AAVE for a particular branch of AAE. When people say "Ebonics," they often refer to this system, which linguists have studied the most.

That's an interesting take on it all.
 

Saint Michael

Golden Member
Aug 4, 2007
1,878
1
0
Language is in constant flux. The fact that we say I walk, you walk, we walk, they walk, instead of using the "proper" conjugational suffixes of Old English is in and of itself due to improper use of the language, and that's only one very small example of a widespread phenomenon of language simplification present in English. But that's why we call our language "Modern English" and that language "Old English". Languages change, it's the way of things. Of course, frowning on particular dialects as "poor" is also the way of things, but intellectually Ebonics is no more of a blight on the English language than it is a boon. It simply is.
 

Syringer

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
19,333
2
71
OP went to Harvard. By definition he's a pretentious bastard.

Now is it pronounced Har-vard, or Haawww-vard?
 
Sep 3, 2007
96
0
0
Originally posted by: Saint Michael
Language is in constant flux. The fact that we say I walk, you walk, we walk, they walk, instead of using the "proper" conjugational suffixes of Old English is in and of itself due to improper use of the language, and that's only one very small example of a widespread phenomenon of language simplification present in English. But that's why we call our language "Modern English" and that language "Old English". Languages change, it's the way of things. Of course, frowning on particular dialects as "poor" is also the way of things, but intellectually Ebonics is no more of a blight on the English language than it is a boon. It simply is.

There is a distinction between modernization and ruthless destruction of a language. All languages evolve for the simple purpose of easing communication. Ebonics is a step in the opposite direction, or devolution.
 

Agentbolt

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2004
3,340
1
0
But that's why we call our language "Modern English" and that language "Old English"

They are two seperate languages. What we say in modern English doesn't reflect upon Old English. Ebonics is NOT a seperate language, it's just bad English.
 

Saint Michael

Golden Member
Aug 4, 2007
1,878
1
0
Originally posted by: residualsquare
Originally posted by: Saint Michael
Language is in constant flux. The fact that we say I walk, you walk, we walk, they walk, instead of using the "proper" conjugational suffixes of Old English is in and of itself due to improper use of the language, and that's only one very small example of a widespread phenomenon of language simplification present in English. But that's why we call our language "Modern English" and that language "Old English". Languages change, it's the way of things. Of course, frowning on particular dialects as "poor" is also the way of things, but intellectually Ebonics is no more of a blight on the English language than it is a boon. It simply is.

There is a distinction between modernization and ruthless destruction of a language. All languages evolve for the simple purpose of easing communication. Ebonics is a step in the opposite direction, or devolution.

Nobody is trying to destroy the language, at least no significantly large group of people. There is no difference between the change from Old English to Modern English or the microcosmic shift from Modern English to Ebonics, besides the time frame. The only thing that remains to be seen is what long-term effect Ebonics will have on Modern English as a whole.
 
Sep 3, 2007
96
0
0
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
There's a web page on the subject here.


One reason linguists don't use the term "Ebonics" very happily is that it is very vague, and so such questions are hard to answer. We generally use the term "African American Vernacular English", or AAVE, instead to mean the kinds of speech characteristically spoken by working-class U.S. African Americans, within their community, at occasions calling for intimacy or informality.
Linguists know very well that there are African Americans who cannot speak this dialect with native fluency; that there are some non-African Americans who can (though very few); and that almost all African Americans have some command of other forms of English, including Standard American English. In fact, there are characteristically African American ways of speaking the latter - which means there is a Standard African American English, too. A very large number of African American adults are perfectly at home with both AAVE and Standard American English, and are skilled at using each in the appropriate circumstances.
It seems sensible, then, to speak of a generalized family of dialects - AAE, or African American English - which includes all the various ways of speaking characteristic of African Americans: standard and vernacular, working- and middle-class, in settings formal and professional or informal and intimate. It is sensible, also, to use the term AAVE for a particular branch of AAE. When people say "Ebonics," they often refer to this system, which linguists have studied the most.

That's an interesting take on it all.

Thanks for the link; I'm curious how many linguists really categorize AAVE as a legitimate dialect of English, since in many ways it does not function the same way as other dialects.
 
Sep 3, 2007
96
0
0
Originally posted by: Syringer
OP went to Harvard. By definition he's a pretentious bastard.

Now is it pronounced Har-vard, or Haawww-vard?

The former by those that go there, the latter by horses I suppose.

Originally posted by: mundane
You created a second account just to post that?

This is my primary account.
 

Agentbolt

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2004
3,340
1
0
There is no difference between the change from Old English to Modern English or the microcosmic shift from Modern English to Ebonics,

The language changed to Modern English because everybody started speaking that way. Not everyone speaks Ebonics, most people who do are poor, uneducated black people. Not exactly a political force to be reckoned with. The people who could effect any change on our language, those with power and influence, are generally disgusted by Ebonics. Stop comparing the switch from Old to Modern English and the switch from Modern English to Ebonics. They're not comparable.
 

Saint Michael

Golden Member
Aug 4, 2007
1,878
1
0
Originally posted by: Agentbolt
But that's why we call our language "Modern English" and that language "Old English"

They are two seperate languages. What we say in modern English doesn't reflect upon Old English. Ebonics is NOT a seperate language, it's just bad English.

Ebonics is not a separate language, that is true, but then neither is Old English. Old English and Modern English are two different phases of the same language. There is a wide divide between Old and Modern English, so perhaps I should put this a different way.

Take Latin. The written Latin that has come down to us today is not how Latin was spoken in the Ciceronian period, or in any period, for that matter. Rather it is a grammatically hyper-correct version of the language which was then modeled on Attic Greek archetypes. The actual spoken language varied quite a bit based on region and social class. The upper classes spoke a version of Vulgar Latin, the general term for the Latin vernacular. The middle classes also spoke their own version, along with the lower classes, and the slaves. We know from texts that have come down to us that Latin grammarians saw as they felt a plague of grammatical errors amongst many of the lower classes of their time. We actually see evidence of these errors in the languages descended from Vulgar Latin. The loss of heavy inflection and the rise of importance in sentence word order is the most obvious effect these widespread errors had on the Romance languages.

Ebonics is a distinct vernacular of English, just as any vernacular in Ancient Rome was of Vulgar Latin. Ebonics is unlikely to affect English all by itself, but taken with all other forms of English vernacular it is slowly but surely contributing to the evolution of the language. That's not deplorable to me, nor is it beautiful or desirable. I don't really have any feelings about it one way or another, that's just how language works.
 

Saint Michael

Golden Member
Aug 4, 2007
1,878
1
0
Originally posted by: Agentbolt
There is no difference between the change from Old English to Modern English or the microcosmic shift from Modern English to Ebonics,

The language changed to Modern English because everybody started speaking that way. Not everyone speaks Ebonics, most people who do are poor, uneducated black people. Not exactly a political force to be reckoned with. The people who could effect any change on our language, those with power and influence, are generally disgusted by Ebonics. Stop comparing the switch from Old to Modern English and the switch from Modern English to Ebonics. They're not comparable.

It's not about politics or power. The flow of language is largely accidental, it cannot easily be controlled or predicted. The shift from Old to Modern English is comparable to the shift from Modern English to Ebonics. They are both just as accidental as the other.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,599
19
81
Every region has its own dialect. Look up Pittsburg-ese.

I've heard the plural of "you" to be "yous" or "y'all" elsewhere. In Pittsburg, it's pronounced "yins."

The verb "to be" is alos done away with many times.

"This needs to be cleaned" is changed to "This needs cleaned." I have to admit, it does seem rather efficient. It does away with two words while still getting across the intended message, which is how language changes. Someone says something that accomplishes the task of language - communicating ideas - but they do so in a way that is shorter than the "correct" way. Colour? No, color.


Giving the language a dose of profanities though, I don't consider that to be linguistic progress at all. It seems to have turned into a variant of "uh" or "like."
 

Gneisenau

Senior member
May 30, 2007
264
0
0
Originally posted by: residualsquare
Having had a rather longstanding interest in linguistics (despite a deplorably limited background in the subject), I've lately been wondering about the origins of the curious mutation of the English language employed primarily by, well, black people (not all, but quite a lot of them). To be honest, I find it absolutely infuriating that these people are not able to use the language properly like everybody else and continue to consciously propagate their undeniably poor public perception by speaking in a manner that immediately identifies them as, quite frankly, uneducated. On many occasions I am even unable to decipher a single word of what is being said in certain overheard conversations.

I realize this may be treading in somewhat dangerous waters, and would like to just point out that some of my most respected and articulate professors back at Harvard were black (albeit native Africans, not African Americans).


I don't care how people speak among themselves and their friends. How they speak to people they don't know is a different matter. It's rude to speak around people in a language they don't understand or have difficulty understanding. (In general terms.)
If I went into a district where everyone spoke one way, I wouldn't think anything of it. (If I go to Mississippi and hear a southern drawl, I don't think twice.) However, if I were interviewing for a job position, and they spoke in poor english or were difficult to understand, I wouldn't hire them. Not when I can fill the positon with someone who does speak well.
Honestly, I have seen applications in the past for my company where some of the words were in leet. I've seen business e-mails using both leet and emoticons. I've had people come and ask me what those words/symbols mean. Onyone who ends a buisness e-mail with "cya l8rz" is going to catch hell from me.

As it stands now, English is the language of power in this country. It's much more difficult to elevate your lifestyle much if you speak only poor english.