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

[txrandom]

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.

Are we talking about German now?

 

[Agentbolt]

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.

Old English is a seperate language. Modern English may have morphed from it, but it's not a dialect of Old English like Ebonics is from Modern English.

The shift from Old to Modern English wasn't as accidental as you seem to think it was. It happened when the many various anglo-germanic dialects gradually disappeared because of the printing press and the more uniform language (middle english and then modern english) a lot of printed stuff was written in.

FWIW I don't particularly think Ebonics is evil, although I probably didn't indicate that very well. Stuff like "jive" and "bling" came from that vernacular and I don't think the English language is worse off for it.

What I DO have an issue with is the increased cursing and swearing that seems to go along with Ebonics. Bitch, *****, fuck, shit, it does seem like people speaking in AAVE use those words more often. I've never seen a study to prove or disprove that either way, however, and if anyone has a link to a study that does so I'd love to see it.

edit: crazy, we can swear in here now but we still can't drop the n-bomb, eh? Interesting.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

here's a phrase that is pretty much constant thru all forms of english.

Shut the fuck up.

 

[residualsquare]

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

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.

But then, one must wonder why certain people would continue speaking in a way that, such as in your example, can be attributed to the lower/uneducated class. Granted in Rome perhaps they couldn't help the way they spoke due to exclusive educational regulations, but in today's society (specifically in the United States) everybody has access to a universally accepted standard, if you will, of speech. If English continues down the road of ancient Rome, wouldn't we see more and more discrimination not only by skin color but by the way people speak? Furthermore wouldn't this discrimination affect primarily the very same people who constantly bemoan discriminatory practices as things are?

 

[Saint Michael]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

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.

Old English is a seperate language. Modern English may have morphed from it, but it's not a dialect of Old English like Ebonics is from Modern English.

The shift from Old to Modern English wasn't as accidental as you seem to think it was. It happened when the many various anglo-germanic dialects gradually disappeared because of the printing press and the more uniform language (middle english and then modern english) a lot of printed stuff was written in.

FWIW I don't particularly think Ebonics is evil, although I probably didn't indicate that very well. Stuff like "jive" and "bling" came from that vernacular and I don't think the English language is worse off for it.

What I DO have an issue with is the increased cursing and swearing that seems to go along with Ebonics. Bitch, *****, fuck, shit, it does seem like people speaking in AAVE use those words more often. I've never seen a study to prove or disprove that either way, however, and if anyone has a link to a study that does so I'd love to see it.

edit: crazy, we can swear in here now but we still can't drop the n-bomb, eh? Interesting.

I know I'm just saying the same thing, but it bears repeating. Old English and Modern English are of the same language, they are not separate. English is a generic linguistic term that refers to the English language in all its various stages of development. The shift from Old English to Middle English undoubtedly had little to do with the printing press, as the printing press wasn't introduced until after that shift had already taken place. Furthermore, that shift cannot be attributed to any one cause. When I say "accidental" I mean that the shift from Old English to Middle English, or the shift from Middle to Modern, was not decisively, deliberately caused by any one person or group of people. It happened due to a range of diverse factors, and happened very gradually. The shift from Old to Middle, or Middle to Modern, is comparable to the shift from Modern to Ebonics. Ebonics was not deliberately created, nor can its genesis be linked to any specific point in time or single cause. It sprung forth from Modern English due to a wide variety of factors, and is therefore just as organic and accidental as Modern English itself.

 

[mugs]

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.

:thumbsup: There's nothing wrong with speaking that way informally, but if you want a good job you really need to speak properly. And even if you have a crappy job at Popeye's Chicken, you should present yourself in a professional way. That includes using proper English. A key part of what you posted is this: "characteristically spoken by working-class U.S. African Americans, within their community, at occasions calling for intimacy or informality."

 

[FeuerFrei]

What's amazing is how much more respect you get if you speak the language correctly.

If I hear a black individual speaking proper English, I find myself forgetting that he is black. He gets a totally different assessment. It is then that you realize that skin color has very little to do with racial incompatibilities. I doubt many people are truly discriminated against simply because of their skin color. It's deeper than that.

 

[Saint Michael]

Originally posted by: residualsquare
But then, one must wonder why certain people would continue speaking in a way that, such as in your example, can be attributed to the lower/uneducated class. Granted in Rome perhaps they couldn't help the way they spoke due to exclusive educational regulations, but in today's society (specifically in the United States) everybody has access to a universally accepted standard, if you will, of speech. If English continues down the road of ancient Rome, wouldn't we see more and more discrimination not only by skin color but by the way people speak? Furthermore wouldn't this discrimination affect primarily the very same people who constantly bemoan discriminatory practices as things are?

It wasn't due simply to education. Kids grow up speaking the language of their parents and peers. Upper class children in Rome did not speak the way they did because they were taught to by tutors. They imitated their parents first and their peers second. The same applies to all classes of people in Ancient Rome (not to mention all people). Granted, tutors can enforce certain affectations and various grammatical habits, but cannot decide what sort of language any given person is most comfortable speaking. Black people who grow up speaking Ebonics are almost certainly most comfortable speaking Ebonics. It is not due to any deliberate attempt by themselves or anyone else.

Also, many people who grow up speaking Ebonics are aware that speaking in a more "educated" or professional register is necessary in appropriate situations. Whether they decide to or not may determine their fortunes, but it can't change their mother tongue.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

edit: crazy, we can swear in here now but we still can't drop the n-bomb, eh? Interesting.

That is interesting. I have never seen that word used here except illustratively like you attempted to use it. And obviously there is no harm in that. I think if a person wants to use that word AT should let them - and if they use it inappropriately they'll get a tongue lashing from the community followed by a ban by the mods. Bigotry should be exposed, not hidden.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
What's amazing is how much more respect you get if you speak the language correctly.

If I hear a black individual speaking proper English, I find myself forgetting that he is black. He gets a totally different assessment. It is then that you realize that skin color has very little to do with racial incompatibilities. I doubt many people are truly discriminated against simply because of their skin color. It's deeper than that.

So what you're saying is that they're discriminated against not because they ARE black, but because they ACT black? Not a bad theory. But you also have people who assume that because a person IS black they will also ACT black.

 

[Agentbolt]

I know I'm just saying the same thing, but it bears repeating. Old English and Modern English are of the same language, they are not separate. English is a generic linguistic term that refers to the English language in all its various stages of development. The shift from Old English to Middle English undoubtedly had little to do with the printing press, as the printing press wasn't introduced until after that shift had already taken place. Furthermore, that shift cannot be attributed to any one cause. When I say "accidental" I mean that the shift from Old English to Middle English, or the shift from Middle to Modern, was not decisively, deliberately caused by any one person or group of people. It happened due to a range of diverse factors, and happened very gradually.

I've researched it a bit further and you're right. I was wrong, I apologize.

I still don't believe Ebonics can be compared to the switch from Old-Middle-Modern english, however. It's spoken by a small group of people who, to be completely frank, most people do not care about, and certainly very people purposely emulate. In 500 years we're not all going to be dropping "to be" and having our presidential candidates call each other jive suckas in political debates.