Two more out the door at Geagua Lake?
Lord Gonchar said:But the idea that language (and speech) evolves is too strong for me to ignore.
Ignore? Heck, I absolutely embrace the evolution of language. It's actually one of the very few ways that change occurs without frightening me... ;)
Yinz gon dahntahn ta watch the Stillers an at? What about the Parts? They got discahnt tickets at Johnt Iggle!
Rob Ascough said:
they just make one sound ignorant. Having an accent is one thing but talking in close to something that's a different language is just silly.
This is completely ridiculous, and borderline racist. People who speak in different dialects mostly do so because that's what the people around them speak. You don't just "pick" a dialect when you're growing up. It's learned behavior based on the language you hear around you.
If you're really going to claim someone "sounds ignorant" based on something as superficial as how they speak, I think that says more about yourself then whomever you're talking.
Language is constantly changing and evolving, ever since language existed. Personally to me saying someone "sounds ignorant" because they have a dialect generally attributed to poor, rural southerners is just as bad as saying someone "sounds ignorant" because they speak Spanish. The folks speaking redneck-ese in Alabama did not pick what culture they were born into any more then someone who didn't learn English as their first language.
Coasterkid200 said:
You guys are good at staying on topic
Good conversation, like language, evolves. :)
Sure, you don't pick a dialect when you grow up, but just because you fall into a dialect doesn't mean that it's right. Supposedly Michael Vick grew up in an environment where dog fighting is part of the culture? Are you seriously going to suggest that dog fighting is okay becaue of that? What if there was a culture where slaughtering little children is common? Is that going to be okay by you?
Read a book and you'll see what the English language is supposed to be. What's printed in this country is- for the most part- representative of what is commonly accepted as the English language. I don't see many publications written in ebonics or rural south aside from inserts for rap and country CDs, so there's no way most people accept those things as legitimate offshoots of the English language. Go ahead and consider it slang, but don't try to pass it off as anything legitimate. Comparing ebonics or rural south to an established language like Spanish, Italian, German or Japanese is just absurd. Those dialects are no different from internet/chat shorthand, and most websites such as this one frown upon that sort of thing for a reason- because it's slang.
or ma-b we shud konsidr tis 2 b A reel langwag az wel???!!!!???
*** Edited 9/14/2007 7:54:49 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***
I said the statement was borderline racist. Sure, white folks can speak in Ebonics and black folks can speak in patterns usually attributed to southern, rural white people but when you say "Ebonics" I think it's somewhat naive to not immediately associate that with African Americans. I get more into that later.
"Are you seriously going to suggest that dog fighting is okay becaue of that? What if there was a culture where slaughtering little children is common? Is that going to be okay by you?"
I'm not a cultural relativist, so no, I don't think dog fighting is permissible even when taking into consideration that sort of thing. However, that crosses a pretty big line - associating dog fighting and slaughtering kids with not speaking in a manner that you personally approve of.
"Read a book and you'll see what the English language is supposed to be."
I don't really need this suggestion, because I read books pretty often. I even read some in classes dedicated to the science of linguistics. This isn't to imply that my opinions by default are superior to yours just because I've taken a couple of classes but I do know a little bit about what I'm talking about. A lot of what I'm saying is based on real study and science. A lot of what you're saying sounds like it's based on simple prejudice.
"What's printed in this country is- for the most part- representative of what is commonly accepted as the English language. I don't see many publications written in ebonics or rural south aside from inserts for rap and country CDs, so there's no way most people accept those things as legitimate offshoots of the English language."
This is a totally invalid point and one reason why I think taking a linguistics class would really be helpful to you, Rob. The written word and spoken language are two completely separate things in many ways. No matter what dialect you speak, the way the written word is applied changes for everybody depending on context. In other words - nobody writes exactly how they speak. If you were to make transcriptions of how most people actually have conversations in the real world, it wouldn't work as writing at all. It's a totally different argument.
"Go ahead and consider it slang, but don't try to pass it off as anything legitimate."
Slang, dialect, and language are 3 completely different concepts. As it stands though, there is no such thing as "legitimate" language. Language is what we use to describe the world around us. As that world changes, so does our language.
"Comparing ebonics or rural south to an established language like Spanish, Italian, German or Japanese is just absurd."
Actually, it's not. These different English dialects didn't just invent themselves, they developed, slowly over time - actually, just like their mother languages. Just because you personally don't approve of how one sounds, or what personal negative connotations you associate with a given dialect doesn't indicate the true level of worth of the person speaking it.
There's a long and storied history of people being discriminated against in Great Britain based on what their dialect is. Accents differ, too, of course, but there are very strong quantifiable differences between how certain groups in Great Britain have talked over the years - the words they use, the sentence structures, word order, etc.
Surely you couldn't say this discrimination is justified because certain groups talked certain ways? That's pretty awful, if so. But even if you wouldn't approve of that you've already labeled people who speak certain specific American dialects as sounding "moronic." Bit harsh, no?
I mean what about people who stutter? If you transcribe the way they talk it certainly isn't perfect, prescriptive English, but do they sound "ignorant?" Sure, a stutter is psychological and a dialect is cultural, but like I already said, nobody chooses either one.
"or ma-b we shud konsidr tis 2 b A reel langwag az wel???!!!!???"
Well, see, that's the thing, you have a very narrow, stilted concept of what language is. I guess if you want to decide which forms of language are "Rob approved" and label the people who speak them negatively that's your choice, but I again will postulate that you're getting into some really sticky territory. Certain forms of language are very much unique to certain groups based on economic class, race, ethnicity, geography, nationality, and even age.
Like I said earlier, there will always be exceptions to the patterns but the patterns that exist are very strong. No matter how you twist and turn this when you refer to people who speak in redneck-ese negatively you're mostly describing white people from the rural south who may be relatively poor. You can do this for pretty much any American dialect, Ebonics included.
Just to keep the thread going at least a little bit on topic, I'll try to leave it at that. *** Edited 9/14/2007 8:40:15 PM UTC by matt.*** *** Edited 9/14/2007 9:31:31 PM UTC by matt.***
This has nothing to do with what I accept or approve- it has to do with what society accepts and approves. I have the utmost respect for you and what you've learned as you studied this (something I'll admit to having never done), but the truth is there is a standard that the primary language in this country is based upon. I didn't create that standard, nor did anyone else that's alive today, but it's still there and impossible to ignore. You have ten people in a row- all from different parts of the country- and eight of them sound reasonably similar while two seem to be reading off a different page... how is it impossible to not consider that action a little ignorant? The same resources are available to everyone in this country- it's not like in the rural south or a New York City suburb are being taught something completely different. I believe that dialect is partially a conscious decision, unlike stuttering (as you suggested). Therefore there is a difference.
Just for the record, I'm not saying everyone should sound the same. I'm all for personal independence, but I'm not for being different for the sole sake of being different, and that's what some dialects seem to be- an excuse to be different.
Rob A:
This has nothing to do with what I accept or approve- it has to do with what society accepts and approves.
But it is that approval itself that evolves. The language only evolves when a new form becomes accepted.
The fact that we have a term or classification for that style of speech indicates approval to me. It's clearly accepted as a variation or dialect of American English.
(in fact, the word 'ebonics' itself is a bit slangy - what we're calling ebonics is technically "African American Vernacular English")
Rob Ascough said:
and that's what some dialects seem to be- an excuse to be different.
Drive to West Virginia. Find a 6 year old (hell, an 18 year old or an 80 year old) who speaks in the way you seem to have such a problem with.
And then look them in the eye and tell them "You only talk the way you do because you're trying to be different for the sake of being different." Nevermind that that's how their parents speak, that's how the rest of their family speaks, that's how their friends speak, and that's how their neighbors speak.
How can you possibly accuse someone of being different just for the sake of being different when really they're learning how to talk from everybody around them?
Isnt't that the exact polar opposite of trying to be different? That's how we learn language! It's not like there are 2 year olds in Boston who just start speaking their first words in a Southern California drawl unless that's how somebody else around them talks!
http://www.englishfirst.org/ebonics/oakorig.htm
Read the full link for all the details. But some of the more interesting stuff...
Whereas, numerous validated scholarly studies demonstrate that African-American students as part of their culture and history an African people possess and utilize a language described in various scholarly approaches as "Ebonics'' (literally Black sounds) or Pan-African Communication Behaviors or African Language Systems; and
- Whereas, these studies have also demonstrated that African Language Systems are genetically based and not a dialect of English
- Be it further resolved that the superintendent in conjunction with her staff shall immediately devise and implement the best possible academic program for imparting instruction to African-American students in their primary language for the combined purposes of maintaining the legitimacy and richness of such language whether it is known as "Ebonics,'' "African Language Systems,'' "Pan African Communication Behaviors,'' or other description and to facilitate their acquisition and mastery of English-language skills; and
We've got educational institutions in this country fully recognizing ebonics as a language of an unto its own. Why would anybody consider a discussion about or utilizing ebonics racist?
This topic has become way too serious. It wuz nuttin' mo' than uh humorous discussion o' “fitty” versus “fiddy.” For some, dere iz pimp-tight humor ta be found in ebonic disagreement. This would be true nahh matter da color.
beast... Are ya saying dat da elected Oakland School Board via 1996 did not know what dey wuz jivin' about? Either way, dis here seriousness o' dis here discussion iz beyond muh ma control. I’ve nahh desire ta promote or defend ebonix. Seems yo' beef iz political.
For da record…are ya uh “fiddy” or uh “fitty” guy? :)
beast7369 said:
If ebonics was gentically based then please explain why some African Americans can talk normal perfect Americanized English and others cant?
For the same reason that there are Italian Americans that don't speak Italian. It's a mix of both heredity and environment.
You can try to paint it as a black and white issue if you want, but there are many factors involved.
EDIT: No pun intended with the black and white comment :) , nor any racial implications. C'mon. You know what I meant.
*** Edited 9/15/2007 12:55:33 AM UTC by kpjb***
Hi
Anyhow, you can see how language does evolve. It used to be that mainstream society made fun of ebonics as something the could not understand (and still do). Now, as the Urban Dictionary indicates, we've got cliques within the ebonic-literate community who call others morons for saying "fiddy." This is something they themselves do not understand.
I find the whole situation ironic and hilarious. I've lost my edge with ebonics since college. I used it a little at Up In Smoke (2001?)...yep I still have the most diverse musical tastes of anybody I know (which means I listen to everything)...I was trying to fit in...but the game had clearly passed me by. But given my four year education, I was still able to determine that "fiddy" was whack!
Bolliger/Mabillard for President in '08 NOT Dinn/Summers
Could it be that some are simply going nuts over the fact that next year,in all likelyhood they're gonna have to travel to Va. & Michigan to ride their favorite GL coasters? who knows.
Closed topic.
