Ebonics vs American English
Ed Stoudenmire
While I understand "ebonics" (or African-American Vernacular, as I
believe most Black leaders say today) is a readily understood language
among the black population in the US, a few questions do come to mind:
1) If Ebonics (and I will henceforth use this term, as it is
generally understood) is such a rich, varied and important language in
and of itself (this is culled from quotes by Blacks incensed over
treating Ebonics as "slang"), why is the dialectal writing of Mark
Twain in Huckleberry Finn so roundly castigated as racist and
demeaning? It is (more than many others) a true recording of a form
of speech in common usage 150 years ago.
2) Does anyone truly believe black kids do not watch TV or listen to
the radio? The announcers on BET use perfect English, as do the
performers on such programs as Family Matters and Moesha. And need I
point out Bill Cosby? To think black kids cannot understand correct
English is insulting.
3) If Ebonics is "genetic" (Oakland school board's word, not mine),
why do blacks in England sound like white Britons? Why do black
Germans sound like their white counterparts? Only in the US do blacks
have this abberant language, and only here does anyone attempt to
defend it as a legitimate language.
BLZ Bub
Ed Stoudenmire wrote:
> 3) If Ebonics is "genetic" (Oakland school board's word, not mine),
> why do blacks in England sound like white Britons? Why do black
> Germans sound like their white counterparts? Only in the US do blacks
> have this abberant language, and only here does anyone attempt to
> defend it as a legitimate language.
The reason why the Blacks here in the US have this (to use your own
term)"abberant language" is simple, the cultural influences that brought
it about just did not exist in Europe. Slavery was practiced by
Europeans for the most part HERE, not over THERE! The Blacks who live in
England are those who immigrated there, they were and still are British
subjects, they're citizens of present and former British Crown Colonies,
they aren't the descendents of slaves imported here. So, the reasons why
this "abberant language" exists here is clear.
Since the "mother tongue" of this country is English, why don't we speak
it like they do in Great Britain?
So, what are supposed to do? Just ignore the problem and it will go
away? The only things that go away when you ignore them are your teeth.
David Taylor
>While I understand "ebonics" (or African-American Vernacular, as I
>believe most Black leaders say today) is a readily understood language
>among the black population in the US, a few questions do come to mind:
>
>1) If Ebonics (and I will henceforth use this term, as it is
>generally understood) is such a rich, varied and important language in
>and of itself (this is culled from quotes by Blacks incensed over
>treating Ebonics as "slang"), why is the dialectal writing of Mark
>Twain in Huckleberry Finn so roundly castigated as racist and
>demeaning? It is (more than many others) a true recording of a form
>of speech in common usage 150 years ago.
>
>2) Does anyone truly believe black kids do not watch TV or listen to
>the radio? The announcers on BET use perfect English, as do the
>performers on such programs as Family Matters and Moesha. And need I
>point out Bill Cosby? To think black kids cannot understand correct
>English is insulting.
>
>3) If Ebonics is "genetic" (Oakland school board's word, not mine),
>why do blacks in England sound like white Britons? Why do black
>Germans sound like their white counterparts? Only in the US do blacks
>have this abberant language, and only here does anyone attempt to
>defend it as a legitimate language.
>
>
The March issue of Vanity Fair (North American edition) has a very
interesting article on Ebonics.
Well worth reading, IMHO in that it does make some good points.
dt
Ed Stoudenmire
On Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:41:04 -0800, in alt.language.ebonics you wrote:
>Ed Stoudenmire wrote:
>
>> 3) If Ebonics is "genetic" (Oakland school board's word, not mine),
>> why do blacks in England sound like white Britons? Why do black
>> Germans sound like their white counterparts? Only in the US do blacks
>> have this abberant language, and only here does anyone attempt to
>> defend it as a legitimate language.
>
>The reason why the Blacks here in the US have this (to use your own
>term)"abberant language" is simple, the cultural influences that brought
>it about just did not exist in Europe. Slavery was practiced by
>Europeans for the most part HERE, not over THERE!
Irrelevant to my main point. Three points:
1) A good percentage of Great Britain's black population are
descended from freed slaves from this country. They brought with them
(to England) the culture of American slaves - which is to say, a
pastiche of West African beliefs and a sort or Pan-Europeanism. They
assimilated into the surrounding population and adopted their language
perfectly.
2) Whatever else you can say, "genetic" means "inborn" - and language
is NOT inborn. The ability to learn any language is inborn, but not
the language.
3) You ignored the most important part of my post. Do you truly
believe blacks in the US cannot understand SAE? If so, then how can
they support the (literally hundreds of) black-oriented radio
stations? How can they support black-oriented television programming
(such as the programs I cited)
>The Blacks who live in
>England are those who immigrated there, they were and still are British
>subjects, they're citizens of present and former British Crown Colonies,
>they aren't the descendents of slaves imported here. So, the reasons why
>this "abberant language" exists here is clear.
>Since the "mother tongue" of this country is English, why don't we speak
>it like they do in Great Britain?
>
For more on that, see Bill Bryson's excellent book, "The Mother
Tongue: English and How It Got That Way." He answers you far better
than I could.
>So, what are supposed to do? Just ignore the problem and it will go
>away? The only things that go away when you ignore them are your teeth.
No. I never said that. Or perhaps I should invite you to show me
exactly where I made such a suggestion.
I'm simply saying the OSB's desire to elevate Ebonics to the status of
a legitimate language is part and parcel of the Afrocentric,
victimhood-oriented thinking that is so much a part of the black
community today. This kind of thinking today gives us Ebonics as an
equal to English, and teaching kids that Black Africans could fly
before White Europeans killed them off. What will it give us
tomorrow?
That's my objection.
BLZ Bub
Ed Stoudenmire wrote:
> 1) A good percentage of Great Britain's black population are
> descended from freed slaves from this country. They brought with them
> (to England) the culture of American slaves - which is to say, a
> pastiche of West African beliefs and a sort or Pan-Europeanism. They
> assimilated into the surrounding population and adopted their language
> perfectly.
The point that I was trying to make but did so poorly was, those blacks
who are living there came there of their own volition, and perhaps are
not as resentful as the blacks living here. I believe that
resentfullness is a prime factor in this.
> 2) Whatever else you can say, "genetic" means "inborn" - and language
> is NOT inborn. The ability to learn any language is inborn, but not
> the language.
Whoa! I wasn't the one who brought up any of that.
> 3) You ignored the most important part of my post. Do you truly
> believe blacks in the US cannot understand SAE? If so, then how can
> they support the (literally hundreds of) black-oriented radio
> stations? How can they support black-oriented television programming
> (such as the programs I cited)
The VERY young might have a marginal understanding of SAE, the older
kids, surely do.
> >Since the "mother tongue" of this country is English, why don't we speak
> >it like they do in Great Britain?
> >
>
> For more on that, see Bill Bryson's excellent book, "The Mother
> Tongue: English and How It Got That Way." He answers you far better
> than I could.
I shall put it on my list for when I go to the library. Thanks.
>
> >So, what are supposed to do? Just ignore the problem and it will go
> >away? The only things that go away when you ignore them are your teeth.
> No. I never said that. Or perhaps I should invite you to show me
> exactly where I made such a suggestion.
Didn't say that you did. I was merely asking you a question. Again, so
what are we supposed to do?
> I'm simply saying the OSB's desire to elevate Ebonics to the status of
> a legitimate language is part and parcel of the Afrocentric,
> victimhood-oriented thinking that is so much a part of the black
> community today. This kind of thinking today gives us Ebonics as an
> equal to English, and teaching kids that Black Africans could fly
> before White Europeans killed them off. What will it give us
> tomorrow?
>
> That's my objection.
It's a valid point. At least you're not saying that you're opposed
because it sounds "dumb".
BLZ Bub
Ed Stoudenmire wrote:
> I'm simply saying the OSB's desire to elevate Ebonics to the status of
> a legitimate language is part and parcel of the Afrocentric,
> victimhood-oriented thinking that is so much a part of the black
> community today. This kind of thinking today gives us Ebonics as an
> equal to English, and teaching kids that Black Africans could fly
> before White Europeans killed them off. What will it give us
> tomorrow?
This came as an afterthought to my previous reply.
Would you please care to define a "legitimate language" for me? Is Cajun
Creole a legitimate language? Is Yiddish a legitimate language?
Are you sure that your problem with this doesn't mainly lie with the
"Afrocentrism" aspect? Now, I'm NOT calling you a racist here, let's
just look at the "Afrocentrism" from a cultural POV, after all, there
are plenty of White people who come from Africa too.
BLZ Bub
Ed Stoudenmire wrote:
> And I understood you to be making that point. I just get hot about
> people basing entire philosophies around resentment and rage. I mean,
> get over it (not necessarily YOU). There isn't a soul alive in this
> country who was a slave, or who owned a slave. The oldest person in
> this country was born at least a decade after the Civil War ended.
I wholeheartedly agree with you there, it bothers me to no end too to be
made to shoulder the responsibilities of past crimes. I'm a Jew by
birth,
yet I don't harbor resentment against the German people of today for
what they did to my relatives over 50 years ago. This doesn't change the
fact that there are some who still do, as is the case with Black
Americans.
I figure it this way, I don't do anything to be discriminatory, so why
should I be the whipping boy for those who still carry a chip on their
shoulders? I don't know wny, but it happens.
>
> >The VERY young might have a marginal understanding of SAE, the older
> >kids, surely do.
> Again, that was my point. If they understand SAE, they can clearly
> speak it. And believe me, I work with some older black folks (I mean
> 50's-60's) who are in my chapter of Toastmasters. Older? Then
> therefore surely from a less progressive time in America, and hence
> likely reared in a less-than-sterling school system? Arguably. Yet,
> they have better diction than many young, kolij-ejukatid white kids.
I've often wondered why that is. Maybe with age comes wisdom?
> Oh, buy it, ya cheap-ass bastard ;) It's only $9.95 softcover. Also,
> "Made In America" - a history of English usage in America. The guy is
> amazing, and if you like language as a subject, you're guaranteed to
> love these books.
I've always had a fascination for language, silly as it seems, I used to
collect stamps, and I would try to read what was written on them. By
doing so, I found where some languages borrowed words from others and
such. I used to pride myself on how just by listening to a foreign
tongue, I could with some degree of accuracy determine which language it
was that was being spoken, not necessarily what was being said, but
which tongue it was. Last year, a nearby town had a street fair. At the
fair, the Mormon Church had a stand set up with 43 different
translations of the Book of Mormon. They had a contest where whoever
could successfully idnetify the most languages would win a hard copy of
their book. I was the ONLY one that day to identify all 43 correctly!
They were abslutely surprised at this, as no one had ever done that
there before.
> Let me know when you read them.
Shall do.
> As you have seen, and as much as admitted in your responses, young
> blacks DO understand SAE. There IS NO PROBLEM! Yes, teachers should
> spend as much time as necessary with ALL students (within reason) to
> ensure their success. But to suggest black kids are speaking a
> foreign language - and hence, do not understand the language of the
> "White oppressors" (or whatever the hell we are now) - is simply
> false. They DO understand the language, by and large.
> It's no different than parochial school teachers in New York teaching
> kids from the Bronx not to sound like idiots. Need I point out George
> Carlin as an example?
Or Colin Powell for that matter, he was raised in the South Bronx as was
I.
> The real problem, as I see it, is the complete lack of home support.
> That's why I volunteer for PLUS. A child who sees adults read will
> read. And an adult who reads - not CAN read, DOES read - can and will
> speak proper English. Well, at least, better than non-readers.
Nice talking to you Ed, a real eye opener.
BLZ Bub
Ed Stoudenmire wrote:
> I don't know if I can define "legitimate language" in a way that will
> agreee with all points of view. In fact, I KNOW I can't so I won't
> even try.
I've gone through that here before but strictly from my own POV, and was
promptly shown where I was wrong by some people who do have a far more
extensive knowledge of the subject than I do. Although I had a "gut
feeling" about what I was saying. I did not have the education and
therefore the intellectual experience to make a valid argument, at least
not amongst those who knew more about the subject than I do.
> However, I would say Ebonics is to SAE what Cockney is to the Queen's
> English. That is, it's the same language, it's just far enough off
> standard to be identifiable and confusing to the masses.
Exactly what I thought. I'm not so hard line in favor of one thing over
another here, as I'm still in the process of sorting this all out. In
other words, I'm open to reason here. At first, I was dead opposed to
this, but those who were alligned on that side made such inane arguments
compared to what the other side had to say that I had to re-evaluate my
stance. I stated that "I cannot spit in the face of reason." I still
can't, that would be denying all intellect. I still don't think that it
will do any harm, and being that all other means have been tried and
failed, there is no reason not to want to see if this "experiment" will
meet with any more success. Hell, more money has been wasted on more
ridiculous things. Since I don't pretend to have the answers to any of
this, who am I to say that it won't work?
> I am against ANY kind of -centrism. I'm an American. My
> ancestors are all Europeans. I do not consider myself Euro-centric,
> though.
>
> There is an Afrocentrism that is alive and well, and to that extent,
> yes, I am against the Afrocentric aspect of the OSB's position. There
> is such a self-pitying aspect to the whole thing.
I agree, I consider myself an American first and foremost. It's easy to
say "This is what has got to be done, now go and do it." but
implementing
it is quite another thing altogether. If it was only that easy.
Thank you for your reason.
Ed Stoudenmire
On Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:35:37 -0800, BLZ Bub <geo...@webspan.net>
wrote:
>This came as an afterthought to my previous reply.
>Would you please care to define a "legitimate language" for me? Is Cajun
>Creole a legitimate language? Is Yiddish a legitimate language?
>Are you sure that your problem with this doesn't mainly lie with the
>"Afrocentrism" aspect? Now, I'm NOT calling you a racist here, let's
>just look at the "Afrocentrism" from a cultural POV, after all, there
>are plenty of White people who come from Africa too.
>
I don't know if I can define "legitimate language" in a way that will
agreee with all points of view. In fact, I KNOW I can't so I won't
even try.
However, I would say Ebonics is to SAE what Cockney is to the Queen's
English. That is, it's the same language, it's just far enough off
standard to be identifiable and confusing to the masses.
And I am against ANY kind of -centrism. I'm an American. My
Ed Stoudenmire
On Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:58:45 -0800, BLZ Bub <geo...@webspan.net>
wrote:
>The point that I was trying to make but did so poorly was, those blacks
>who are living there came there of their own volition, and perhaps are
>not as resentful as the blacks living here. I believe that
>resentfullness is a prime factor in this.
>
And I understood you to be making that point. I just get hot about
people basing entire philosophies around resentment and rage. I mean,
get over it (not necessarily YOU). There isn't a soul alive in this
country who was a slave, or who owned a slave. The oldest person in
this country was born at least a decade after the Civil War ended.
>The VERY young might have a marginal understanding of SAE, the older
>kids, surely do.
>
Again, that was my point. If they understand SAE, they can clearly
speak it. And believe me, I work with some older black folks (I mean
50's-60's) who are in my chapter of Toastmasters. Older? Then
therefore surely from a less progressive time in America, and hence
likely reared in a less-than-sterling school system? Arguably. Yet,
they have better diction than many young, kolij-ejukatid white kids.
>
> For more on that, see Bill Bryson's excellent book, "The Mother
>> Tongue: English and How It Got That Way." He answers you far better
>> than I could.
>
>I shall put it on my list for when I go to the library. Thanks.
>
Oh, buy it, ya cheap-ass bastard ;) It's only $9.95 softcover. Also,
"Made In America" - a history of English usage in America. The guy is
amazing, and if you like language as a subject, you're guaranteed to
love these books.
Let me know when you read them.
>Didn't say that you did. I was merely asking you a question. Again, so
>what are we supposed to do?
>
As you have seen, and as much as admitted in your responses, young
blacks DO understand SAE. There IS NO PROBLEM! Yes, teachers should
spend as much time as necessary with ALL students (within reason) to
ensure their success. But to suggest black kids are speaking a
foreign language - and hence, do not understand the language of the
"White oppressors" (or whatever the hell we are now) - is simply
false. They DO understand the language, by and large.
It's no different than parochial school teachers in New York teaching
kids from the Bronx not to sound like idiots. Need I point out George
Carlin as an example?
The real problem, as I see it, is the complete lack of home support.
BLZ Bub
L.G. Smith wrote:
> But there are people still alive who's parents were beaten, arrested,
> lynched, killed, raped, burned out of house and home, etc simply because
> they were black. Hell, racism still persist in America, and
> slavery isn't the end all be all of it's realisation. Blacks are still
> subject to hatred because of the colour of their skin, but because no one
> owns them, they should accept it? Slavery was what brought them to
> America, but racism is what keeps them in the lower socioeconomic
> classes, and in jail.
I agree with you on all points except the very last one, Les. What keeps
them in jail are their actions. Criminals belong in jail, many of them
do not steal or mug, or deal drugs just to put food on their tables.
Although I cannot at this time give you the statistics on this, but I
have been led to believe that many do these things out of resentment and
to propagate that aberrant lifestyle. I doubt whether those dealing
drugs are doing that for any other reason but to support their own drug
habits, or to buy themselves the material goods that give them a false
sense of status.
Let's face it, no one with strong moral values would resort to those
things in any case. You simply cannot justify violent behaviour.
Althoug I do understand the frustrations involved with being
discriminated against, I can't condone the behaviour of those who do the
discriminating, but neither can I condone the behaviour of outright
criminals. There are far too many members of the minority community who
have been subjected to these same conditions, and the majority of them
have found more civilized ways of dealing with it.
> >>The VERY young might have a marginal understanding of SAE, the older
> >>kids, surely do.
>
> >Again, that was my point. If they understand SAE, they can clearly
> >speak it.
>
> NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!! You are just plain wrong! Competence vs.
> performance - heard of it? It means that one may be able to understand a
> language, but may not necessarily be able to produce that language. Just
> look at all the idiotic posts on here that are attempts to communicate in
> Ebonics - they are full of errors, and illustrate the comp vs perf
> argument perfectly.
You point, and a good one at that. That is one reason why I have come
around to your side of this argument. You've made some very valid
arguments here, ones that as far as I can see cannot be refudiated.
>
> >And believe me, I work with some older black folks (I mean
> >50's-60's) who are in my chapter of Toastmasters. Older? Then
> >therefore surely from a less progressive time in America, and hence
> >likely reared in a less-than-sterling school system? Arguably. Yet,
> >they have better diction than many young, kolij-ejukatid white kids.
>
> People all over the world learn the dominant language of their culture as
> they progress in years, because of the length of time that they've been
> exposed to that language. The point of the Ebonics program is to
> introduce these kids to SAE at an earlier stage so that they will be able
> to get jobs. Waiting around until they've learned it simply because of
> age won't help anyone.
I made that same argument here a little earlier. Yes, I believe that you
are correct in this.
> >As you have seen, and as much as admitted in your responses, young
> >blacks DO understand SAE. There IS NO PROBLEM!
>
> Not all young blacks do. And like I said above, understanding and
> producing are two very different things. If you like books on language
> so much, pick one up about linguistics, and look up competence vs.
> performance, and you'll soon realise how misinformed your above >statement is.
Breaking down the barriers of misinformation is one of the goals of this
newsgroup.
> >Yes, teachers should
> >spend as much time as necessary with ALL students (within reason) to
> >ensure their success. But to suggest black kids are speaking a
> >foreign language - and hence, do not understand the language of the
> >"White oppressors" (or whatever the hell we are now) - is simply
> >false. They DO understand the language, by and large.
>
> First off, speaking a foriegn language doesn't mean that they don't
> understand SAE. But again - comp vs perf. Why do you not believe that
> Ebonics is a foreign language? Give one good reason. Just one, that's
> all I'm asking for.
>
> >It's no different than parochial school teachers in New York teaching
> >kids from the Bronx not to sound like idiots.
>
> Well, here you've shown your true colours - those who don't sound like me
> are idiots. That's openminded! Learn to accept that not everyone speaks
> like everyone else, and that that has nothing to do with intelligence,
> and you'll be well on your way to being a better person.
What he said might have been poorly worded for your taste, but I hardly
think that that was what Ed was saying. Ed has shown himself to be far
more logical in his arguments here than many of the others who have
similar sentiments. At least he hasn't resorted to mockery. We might not
agree with all that he says, but that is no reason to put him down for
it, by doing so, it might just be a case of the kettle calling the
teapot black. The way I see it here is that he is not arguing out of
hatred nor is he speaking in totally ignorant terms. He has his reasons
for feeling the way he does, and at least he has been voicing them in a
totally respectful manner.
>
> >The real problem, as I see it, is the complete lack of home support.
> >That's why I volunteer for PLUS. A child who sees adults read will
> >read. And an adult who reads - not CAN read, DOES read - can and will
> >speak proper English. Well, at least, better than non-readers.
>
> Good point. But, in order to be able to read, one usually must have an
> education. Do you think that most of the inner city parents had a much
> better education than their kids are getting now? I doubt it.
Not at all, the tools available for education today are far superior to
those of a generation ago, but it still puzzles me as to why today we
still turn out people who are functionally illiterate, both black and
white. Just read some of the things people are writing on other groups,
it's apalling! I have young friends who are college students and they
write in a far less literate manner than I do, and I'm only a high
school graduate. (I did attend some college though) I think that our
educational system is failing our youth of all races.
BLZ Bub
Ed Stoudenmire wrote:
> The last part of your paragraph was just horseshit. Racism does not
> keep people in jail - committing crimes does that. Racism does not
> keep people in lower economic circumstances - lack of a work ethic
> does that. Racism arguably plays a role in keeping a lot of whites
> out of jail who might otherwise belong there, but that's an entirely
> different topic.
I agree with you for the most part Ed (I said so in my previous post in
respnse to Les), but as far as work ethic goes, that's not entirely
true. My wife works for a Fortune 500 company, there are many blacks who
have educations and who do speak in an acceptable fashion. They come to
work everyday and do their jobs in a a competant manner, but there is
not one, not a single one who holds a job with any sort of executive
authority in her entire company. NOT ONE! I'm sure that this is not a
unique situation in the business world. Let's face it, this sort of
thing does go on.
> I do not believe a child who has a perfect understanding of SAE at age
> 6 (needed to watch a program like "Family Matters") cannot, by the age
> of 13 or so, master SAE. You're entirely wrong.
There are plenty of white kids at that age (or even older) who cannot
master SAE, just read these newsgroups and you'll see for yourself.
PLEASE, both of you, let's not resort to ad hominem. I got over it here,
let's not start that up again, this discussion has been progressing so
finely as of late. Let's not let our perceptions of each other cloud the
issues.
I really like this group, and I for one don't want to see it degenerate
back into what it was before we decided to talk nice to each other. OK?
We all have valid points, so let's start listening to each other again.
Ed Stoudenmire
On 28 Feb 1997 17:45:28 -0500, smi...@muss.cis.McMaster.CA (L.G.
Smith) wrote:
>But there are people still alive who's parents were beaten, arrested,
>lynched, killed, raped, burned out of house and home, etc simply because
>they were black. Hell, racism still persist in America, and
>slavery isn't the end all be all of it's realisation. Blacks are still
>subject to hatred because of the colour of their skin, but because no one
>owns them, they should accept it? Slavery was what brought them to
>America, but racism is what keeps them in the lower socioeconomic
>classes, and in jail.
>
Yes, and there are white people who have never raised a finger against
anyone in violence, who have had the hell beaten out of them by blacks
because they were white. I should know. I'm one of them.
The last part of your paragraph was just horseshit. Racism does not
keep people in jail - committing crimes does that. Racism does not
keep people in lower economic circumstances - lack of a work ethic
does that. Racism arguably plays a role in keeping a lot of whites
out of jail who might otherwise belong there, but that's an entirely
different topic.
>NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!! You are just plain wrong! Competence vs.
>performance - heard of it? It means that one may be able to understand a
>language, but may not necessarily be able to produce that language. Just
>look at all the idiotic posts on here that are attempts to communicate in
>Ebonics - they are full of errors, and illustrate the comp vs perf
>argument perfectly.
>
I do not believe a child who has a perfect understanding of SAE at age
6 (needed to watch a program like "Family Matters") cannot, by the age
of 13 or so, master SAE. You're entirely wrong.
>People all over the world learn the dominant language of their culture as
>they progress in years, because of the length of time that they've been
>exposed to that language. The point of the Ebonics program is to
>introduce these kids to SAE at an earlier stage so that they will be able
>to get jobs. Waiting around until they've learned it simply because of
>age won't help anyone.
>
This is such crap. Ebonics is NOT A FOREIGN LANGUAGE! It is SLOPPY
AMERICAN ENGLISH! Why do you insist on having white Americans who
understand that fact feel guilty about it?
>Not all young blacks do. And like I said above, understanding and
>producing are two very different things. If you like books on language
>so much, pick one up about linguistics, and look up competence vs.
>performance, and you'll soon realise how misinformed your above statement is.
>
I did, and it refers to ADULTS who learn a foreign language.
>First off, speaking a foriegn language doesn't mean that they don't
>understand SAE. But again - comp vs perf. Why do you not believe that
>Ebonics is a foreign language? Give one good reason. Just one, that's
>all I'm asking for.
>
For the same reason no one in England considers Cockney or
Liverpudlian a foreign language.
>Well, here you've shown your true colours - those who don't sound like me
>are idiots. That's openminded! Learn to accept that not everyone speaks
>like everyone else, and that that has nothing to do with intelligence,
>and you'll be well on your way to being a better person.
>
What a dickhead. I never said that, stupid! Quit putting words in my
mouth!
You clearly do not know how much abuse is heaped on the heads of those
with black accents, Southern accents, Bronx/Brooklyn accents, and any
of a number of others. George Carlin overcame a strong NooYawk accent
to become one of our most popular humorists. THAT'S what I was
referring to.
Only blacks- and not all of them - try to justify their accents and
their fractured language English by glorifying it as a "valid
language."
>Good point. But, in order to be able to read, one usually must have an
>education. Do you think that most of the inner city parents had a much
>better education than their kids are getting now? I doubt it.
>
And when they are willing to tear up the schools and terrorize those
few who want to learn, what then? American taxpayers are flushing
enormous amounts of money into schools where teachers are forbidden to
maintain control, and then held accountable for their lack of results;
and kids are allowed to come to school with guns, and school
officials cannot search them because of the 4th Amendment. Now,
that's not the fault of us evil nasty white honky devil bigots. It's
the kids' own fault! They have the opportunity, if they would take
advantage of it.
I doubt very much you are from this country. I strongly suggest you
find out more before you interject your uninformed opinion again.
L.G. Smith
In article <3317855...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
Ed Stoudenmire <stoud...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>The last part of your paragraph was just horseshit. Racism does not
>keep people in jail - committing crimes does that.
Not to belabour a point that I've made over and over again in this
newsgroup, I'll just say that when you can't get educated, you can't get
a job, which means you can't support your family, which SOMETIMES (for
you Geoff ;-)) means that crime is your only option. And when the reason
for not getting a good education is because it is not provided in an
accessible fashion to blacks, that is RACISM.
>Racism does not
>keep people in lower economic circumstances - lack of a work ethic
>does that.
So, all blacks that are in a lower socioeconomic class are there simply
because they lack a proper work ethic? Not because when they went for
the job, they didn't get it due to their skin colour? To deny that
racism still exists in America is the same as denying that Donovan Bailey
is the fastest man in the world ;-) (Just something for the thin skinned)
>>NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!! You are just plain wrong! Competence vs.
>>performance - heard of it? It means that one may be able to understand a
>>language, but may not necessarily be able to produce that language. Just
>>look at all the idiotic posts on here that are attempts to communicate in
>>Ebonics - they are full of errors, and illustrate the comp vs perf
>>argument perfectly.
>I do not believe a child who has a perfect understanding of SAE at age
>6 (needed to watch a program like "Family Matters") cannot, by the age
>of 13 or so, master SAE. You're entirely wrong.
First, one does not need a perfect understanding of SAE to watch a TV
program in SAE. When I lived in Japan, I watch plenty of TV that was in
perfect Japanese, but I was far from being a speaker of perfect
Japanese. BTW, I didn't make up the competence vs performance thing, it
is a commonly accepted fact in the linguistics community.
>This is such crap. Ebonics is NOT A FOREIGN LANGUAGE!
Granted. It is not foreign to you inasmuch as it is spoken in America,
BUT it has a different genetic background than SAE, and thus is a
different language.
>It is SLOPPY AMERICAN ENGLISH! Why do you insist on having white
>Americans who understand that fact feel guilty about it?
It seems sloppy to you because you seemingly do not understand the
complexities involved in the birth of a pidgin language. Simply because
it doesn't use the same sort of grammar that SAE does, it doesn't follow
that it is sloppy. I'm not trying to make anyone feel guilty about
anything, but if you insist on the misinformed opinion that Ebonics is
sloppy SAE, then you should feel guilty about not educating yourself
about pidgins and creoles first before speaking about them here. But I
won't insist that you feel guilty.
>>Why do you not believe that Ebonics is a foreign language? Give one good
>>reason. Just one, that's all I'm asking for.
>For the same reason no one in England considers Cockney or
>Liverpudlian a foreign language.
Those two dialects are gentically related to British English, whereas
Ebonics isn't genetically related to SAE. BTW, Cockney is nothing more
than encoded British English, done so to allow its speakers to
communicate without everyone else around them understanding the content
of their conversation. Cockney speaker can, for the most part, speak SBE
when they want to, and that is the difference between it and Ebonics. A
vast majority of Ebonics speaking children cannot perform in SAE.
>What a dickhead. I never said that, stupid! Quit putting words in my
>mouth!
You said that people from Brooklyn or whereever it was sound like idiots
- I didn't put those words in your mouth. Perhaps you didn't mean for it
to come out like that, but it did. BTW, name calling isn't going to lend
credibility to you argument, and trust me, you need all the help you can
get when you're defending something you don't know much about.
>You clearly do not know how much abuse is heaped on the heads of those
>with black accents, Southern accents, Bronx/Brooklyn accents, and any
>of a number of others. George Carlin overcame a strong NooYawk accent
>to become one of our most popular humorists. THAT'S what I was
>referring to.
Oh, I know about the abuse heaped on people for speaking with an accent,
but you seemed to be one of the heapers in your previous post. But, you
did say that that wasn't what you meant so I'll leave it. Have you heard
of the experiments performed by Lambert et al (1960)? Using the 'matched
guise' technique, she had people listen to recordings of two different
dialects (one being the standard) and describe the speaker solely on the
basis of their voice/accent. None of the listeners knew that the
recordings were both done by the same person. The person who had the
non-standard accent was always seen as being less intelligent, less
employable, less likable, and even shorter and uglier. This experiment
has been repeated the world over, and the results are always the same.
The results go to show that people in general favour hearing the standard
dialect vs a non-standard (even if that non-standard is their own). But
the results also show how mistaken people can be if they judge someone
solely on the basis of their accent, and that accent is hardly an
indication of intelligence. So, yes, I am FULLY aware of the crap people
with non-standard accents have to put up with.
>Only blacks- and not all of them - try to justify their accents and
>their fractured language English by glorifying it as a "valid
>language."
Blacks may argue for their speech variety being a valid language, but
they are fully supported by tthe linguistic community. And Ebonics is
hardly fractured. Give one example of why you think so.
>I doubt very much you are from this country. I strongly suggest you
>find out more before you interject your uninformed opinion again.
I am proud to say that I am Canadian. Being so gives me a much needed
objectivity that being American wouldn't. What prey tell do you strongly
suggest I find out more about? I am a linguistics student, fully aware
of the language situation in American inner cities. I may not have first
hand experience of living in the US, but I have visited, have many
American friends, and we have a huge amount of American television shown
up here, not to mention magazines and journals, and newspapers. Having
said that, I would posit that by my linguistics education alone, I am
perhaps more informed about the topic of Ebonics than you, and so my
opinion is hardly "uninformed".
les
BLZ Bub
Jill Cristi Young wrote:
> [ In my opinion, it is a matter of historical revisionism rearing its "ugly
> head." It is the result of intellectual dishonesty on the part of the
> purveyors of "Political Correctness" and a kind of reverse oppression.
> "Let's stick it to those evil, old, white men of European descent who
> dominated us for so long and give 'em a taste...no, A MOUTHFUL of their own
> medicine!" In my opinion, such an attitude and practice is EQUALLY as
> vile as that which was originally perpetrated by the perceived oppressors.
An interesting POV.
> [ I was a black kid, once <G>, and I watched a good 21 to 35 hours of
> television per week until I was 8 or 9 years of age. At that point, I
> became enamored with BOOKS! Guess what? ALL of them were printed in
> ENGLISH! ]
But, do you consider yourself the exception or the rule? Just what was
it that turned your attention to reading?
> [ Again, I must say that I AM a BLACK WOMAN and I still find it extremely
> difficult to comprehend what so-called "native speakers" of EBONICS are
> trying to say! In my line of work, clear, concise, correct and cordial
> Standard American English is an ABSOLUTE NECESSITY. If I were going to
> hire an employee, I WOULD NOT HIRE SOMEONE WHO SPEAKS "EBONICS" as his or
> her PRIMARY language. I need employees that can speak, read and write
> grammatically correct, concise, CLEAR, cordial, Standard American English.
> And no one can tell me that a young black American, walking into a business
> operated by a Caucasian American, cannot understand the plain speech of
> that business operator when making a purchase! The overwhelming majority
> of language used in the commercial television media is SAE, not EBONICS!
> NO one can sell me on the idea that language is somehow "genetic"; if
> that were so, why do we not innately know how to pronounce the languages of
> our ancestors with or without actually KNOWING the languages?]
You would have to take that up with the OSB, after all they are the ones
who came up with the term "genetic" to describe this. When I read that
post, I shuddered as well, the implications are too easily misconstrued.
> I have some of the same questions. When I wake up in the morning, the
> face that I see looking back at me from the mirror is that of a 32-year
> old, black woman. I do not now, nor have I ever spoken (much less
> understood) this so-called language that SOME modern educators and
> linguists refer to as "Ebonics." I was born in Los Angeles, California to
> English speaking parents--my father, born and raised in South Central Los
> Angeles, and a speaker of perfect, Standard American English despite being
> raised in a family and community where education was not a high priority,
> and my mother, a speaker of British English, who was born to West Indian
> parents.
So, I would assume that you got your values from your parents, true? If
so, you have every reason to be proud of them for bring you up in a
respectable manner. But what influences made them place such a high
regard for education, especially as you said, you weren't brought up in
a community the placed a high regard for quality education?
>
> I take tremendous offense at the idea that somehow, because I am a
> member of the Negro race and am an American by birth, that it should be
> assumed or "expected" that I would automatically approve of and support
> the concept that, what seems to me to amounts to little more than bad
> grammar and a collective refusal to pay attention one's lessons in school
> (at worst) or what is merely "pidgin" English (at best), should be
> regarded as a natural and legitimate "language?"
Nobody here is saying that you should.
> If my father, who attended the same inner city schools that his
> brothers and sisters attended, read the same, out-dated, "hand-me-down"
> textbooks thrown out by schools in "white" neighborhoods that they read,
> went to the same woefully understocked and inefficient school libraries (if
> any) that they more often than not failed to avail themselves of the use,
> and yet he still managed to learn to speak UNACCENTED, Standard American
> English, unlike his brothers and sisters, who speak what sounds like the
> forerunner of "Ebonics," then why should not any inner-city, American-born
> black be able to do the same? Why must I be expected to reach for less, or
> my children expected to strive for less because of some misbegotten notion
> foisted on the public by arrogant, self-righteous, patronizing,
> paternalistic, academic elitists?
Again, what was it that made your father different?
> I personally find the concept that because I am born in a black
> ghetto, that I am somehow less capable of learning to speak, read and write
> CORRECT, Standard American English in the same way that ALL American
> Children and Youth across this magnificent country of ours, regardless of
> race, ethnicity or cultural experience, are expected to learn the common
> language. I find the whole proposition utterly humiliating, demoralizing
> and insulting to my intelligence!
> As I mentioned before, my father did not have access to that which was
> available to Caucasian children of his era, yet he still managed to learn
> from what WAS available to him and to learn well and succeed and make not
> only a better life for himself, but provide better opportunities for his
> children, especially by teaching us to reach HIGHER, not lower, and fight
> the good fight on the battlefront of the mind and to cherish education
> above all.
Well, I asked for a perspective on this from a Black person'e POV, and I
got it. So far, it has been unanimous (as far as Black people here go)
that Ebonics as such is an insult to them. Thanks for sharing that.
Please stick around here, we need all the intelligent input we can get.
Pythoness
> >As you have seen, and as much as admitted in your responses, young
> >blacks DO understand SAE. There IS NO PROBLEM!
>
However, a lot of people (any color/race) with a substandard education
(for whatever reason) have an unbelievably (to well-educated people) low
competence in SAE.
I graduated from the same system from which a lot of people who can't
punctuate a sentence also graduated; I have a good vocabulary and English
skills, and, when I worked in an area that was largely populated by
undereducated innercity people, *I* had trouble understanding *them,* and
*they* were utterly hornswoggled by *me.*
Being able to follow the gist of a TV program is not the same as
proficiency in English.
zg
To email me, remove antispam from my address
zi...@teleport.com
Zi...@aol.com
Ziggy Blum
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
He who has rejected his demons badgers us to death with his angels.
Henri Michaux
Jill Cristi Young
Ed Stoudenmire <stoud...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<33158367...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
: While I understand "ebonics" (or African-American Vernacular, as I
: believe most Black leaders say today) is a readily understood language
: among the black population in the US, a few questions do come to mind:
:
: 1) If Ebonics (and I will henceforth use this term, as it is
: generally understood) is such a rich, varied and important language in
: and of itself (this is culled from quotes by Blacks incensed over
: treating Ebonics as "slang"), why is the dialectal writing of Mark
: Twain in Huckleberry Finn so roundly castigated as racist and
: demeaning? It is (more than many others) a true recording of a form
: of speech in common usage 150 years ago.
[ In my opinion, it is a matter of historical revisionism rearing its "ugly
head." It is the result of intellectual dishonesty on the part of the
purveyors of "Political Correctness" and a kind of reverse oppression.
"Let's stick it to those evil, old, white men of European descent who
dominated us for so long and give 'em a taste...no, A MOUTHFUL of their own
medicine!" In my opinion, such an attitude and practice is EQUALLY as
vile as that which was originally perpetrated by the perceived oppressors.
]
:
: 2) Does anyone truly believe black kids do not watch TV or listen to
: the radio? The announcers on BET use perfect English, as do the
: performers on such programs as Family Matters and Moesha. And need I
: point out Bill Cosby? To think black kids cannot understand correct
: English is insulting.
[ I was a black kid, once <G>, and I watched a good 21 to 35 hours of
television per week until I was 8 or 9 years of age. At that point, I
became enamored with BOOKS! Guess what? ALL of them were printed in
ENGLISH! ]
: 3) If Ebonics is "genetic" (Oakland school board's word, not mine),
: why do blacks in England sound like white Britons? Why do black
: Germans sound like their white counterparts? Only in the US do blacks
: have this abberant language, and only here does anyone attempt to
: defend it as a legitimate language.
:
[ Again, I must say that I AM a BLACK WOMAN and I still find it extremely
difficult to comprehend what so-called "native speakers" of EBONICS are
trying to say! In my line of work, clear, concise, correct and cordial
Standard American English is an ABSOLUTE NECESSITY. If I were going to
hire an employee, I WOULD NOT HIRE SOMEONE WHO SPEAKS "EBONICS" as his or
her PRIMARY language. I need employees that can speak, read and write
grammatically correct, concise, CLEAR, cordial, Standard American English.
And no one can tell me that a young black American, walking into a business
operated by a Caucasian American, cannot understand the plain speech of
that business operator when making a purchase! The overwhelming majority
of language used in the commercial television media is SAE, not EBONICS!
NO one can sell me on the idea that language is somehow "genetic"; if
that were so, why do we not innately know how to pronounce the languages of
our ancestors with or without actually KNOWING the languages?]
I have some of the same questions. When I wake up in the morning, the
face that I see looking back at me from the mirror is that of a 32-year
old, black woman. I do not now, nor have I ever spoken (much less
understood) this so-called language that SOME modern educators and
linguists refer to as "Ebonics." I was born in Los Angeles, California to
English speaking parents--my father, born and raised in South Central Los
Angeles, and a speaker of perfect, Standard American English despite being
raised in a family and community where education was not a high priority,
and my mother, a speaker of British English, who was born to West Indian
parents.
I take tremendous offense at the idea that somehow, because I am a
member of the Negro race and am an American by birth, that it should be
assumed or "expected" that I would automatically approve of and support
the concept that, what seems to me to amounts to little more than bad
grammar and a collective refusal to pay attention one's lessons in school
(at worst) or what is merely "pidgin" English (at best), should be
regarded as a natural and legitimate "language?"
If my father, who attended the same inner city schools that his
brothers and sisters attended, read the same, out-dated, "hand-me-down"
textbooks thrown out by schools in "white" neighborhoods that they read,
went to the same woefully understocked and inefficient school libraries (if
any) that they more often than not failed to avail themselves of the use,
and yet he still managed to learn to speak UNACCENTED, Standard American
English, unlike his brothers and sisters, who speak what sounds like the
forerunner of "Ebonics," then why should not any inner-city, American-born
black be able to do the same? Why must I be expected to reach for less, or
my children expected to strive for less because of some misbegotten notion
foisted on the public by arrogant, self-righteous, patronizing,
paternalistic, academic elitists?
I personally find the concept that because I am born in a black
ghetto, that I am somehow less capable of learning to speak, read and write
CORRECT, Standard American English in the same way that ALL American
Children and Youth across this magnificent country of ours, regardless of
race, ethnicity or cultural experience, are expected to learn the common
language. I find the whole proposition utterly humiliating, demoralizing
and insulting to my intelligence!
As I mentioned before, my father did not have access to that which was
available to Caucasian children of his era, yet he still managed to learn
from what WAS available to him and to learn well and succeed and make not
only a better life for himself, but provide better opportunities for his
children, especially by teaching us to reach HIGHER, not lower, and fight
the good fight on the battlefront of the mind and to cherish education
above all.
Jill Young
Native Speaker of Standard American English
(and Still as Black as the day she was born!)
BLZ Bub
L.G. Smith wrote:
> Not to belabour a point that I've made over and over again in this
> newsgroup, I'll just say that when you can't get educated, you can't get
> a job, which means you can't support your family, which SOMETIMES (for
> you Geoff ;-)) means that crime is your only option. And when the reason
> for not getting a good education is because it is not provided in an
> accessible fashion to blacks, that is RACISM.
Les, being that I have lived in the inner cities (NYC, New Brunswick NJ,
Boston Ma, Oakland Ca.) I feel that I can comment on this. For the most
part, violent crime, drug dealing and the like are mostly perpetuated by
the male segment of the minority population (in the ghettos, that is).
Babydoc can probably give you a more accurate statistical analysis of
this than I can. Much of the violent crime is in someway drug related.
(There are obviously exceptions to that, we all know it) People with
drug habits will do whatever is necessary to get their next fix. That is
the truth, I know firsthand about this, we don't have to go into that,
but please take my word for it here. A junkie or crack addict (the two
most common forms of abuse in the ghetto community) is NOT concerned
about putting food on his family's plate, he is interested in fulfilling
his ever consuming need to "get fixed". Now, I may sound a bit
prejudiced here, but many black males are not what you might call
"family men" in the sense of the term. Many Black women have children
out of wedlock and the fathers of those children do nothing to support
those children, those women and children fall into the "welfare trap",
WE have to support them. Many of those women turn to prostitution as the
only means that they know of to put food on the tables of their
families. I don't consider prostitution to be a crime per se, as I don't
feel that a woman who willingly uses her body to make a living is a
criminal. The criminal in that case is the pimp or the "john" who uses
that person. Now, I'm NOT saying that ALL Black women in that situation
do that, nor am I saying that Black women make up the largest percentage
of welfare recipients. The fact in that matter is that White single
mothers make up the largest segment of the population that is on the
welfare roles. Now, some Black women DO deal drugs and resort to violent
crimes, but not nearly as many as there are Black men who do that. I
believe that I can say with some conviction that most violent criminals
do not do it for the good of their families.
> >Racism does not
> >keep people in lower economic circumstances - lack of a work ethic
> >does that.
>
> So, all blacks that are in a lower socioeconomic class are there simply
> because they lack a proper work ethic? Not because when they went for
> the job, they didn't get it due to their skin colour? To deny that
> racism still exists in America is the same as denying that Donovan Bailey
> is the fastest man in the world ;-) (Just something for the thin skinned)
Touche'! You are right on the money with that!
> Those two dialects are gentically related to British English, whereas
> Ebonics isn't genetically related to SAE. BTW, Cockney is nothing more
> than encoded British English, done so to allow its speakers to
> communicate without everyone else around them understanding the content
> of their conversation. Cockney speaker can, for the most part, speak SBE
Perhaps to the layman here, the two are indistinguishable (Ebonics to
SAE and Cockney to SBE). It appears to many (and many Blacks who have
voiced an opinion here) that Ebonics is used much the same way that
Cockney is, and for much the same reasons.
> Oh, I know about the abuse heaped on people for speaking with an accent,
> but you seemed to be one of the heapers in your previous post. But, you
> did say that that wasn't what you meant so I'll leave it. Have you heard
> of the experiments performed by Lambert et al (1960)? Using the 'matched
> guise' technique, she had people listen to recordings of two different
> dialects (one being the standard) and describe the speaker solely on the
> basis of their voice/accent. None of the listeners knew that the
> recordings were both done by the same person. The person who had the
> non-standard accent was always seen as being less intelligent, less
> employable, less likable, and even shorter and uglier. This experiment
> has been repeated the world over, and the results are always the same.
> The results go to show that people in general favour hearing the standard
> dialect vs a non-standard (even if that non-standard is their own). But
> the results also show how mistaken people can be if they judge someone
> solely on the basis of their accent, and that accent is hardly an
> indication of intelligence. So, yes, I am FULLY aware of the crap people
> with non-standard accents have to put up with.
Again, TOUCHE'! Good point!
The whole problem here is that to us Americans, the Ebonics issue has a
very emotional impact. Some if not most of us cannot put aside our gut
feelings when it comes to this. You as a linguistics student have the
advantage of seeing this from a purely accadenmic standpoint, I doubt
whether anyone else here can match your book learning on the subject, I
would have to defer to your superiority in this aspect. But, WE have to
live with this. WE have to put up with people calling people like myself
"apologists" for saying that the white community has a "debt to pay". I
don't buy that at all.
>From what I've seen here and elsewhere on the Net, the Black people are
not in favor of this either. (Not that I'm not) Look, your motives are
good, so are mine, so are Ed's, but it does not seem to appear that way
to the Black people who have voiced an opinion about this. Now, nobody
has come out and said that my motives are racist in nature, nor yours,
but there is the explicit implication that perhaps we are being "duped".
In any case, I will continue to hold to my position on the grounds that
I want to see something constructive done to bridge the "class gap". It
is to everyone's advantage that this be done.
Ed Stoudenmire
On 1 Mar 1997 14:51:42 -0500, smi...@muss.cis.McMaster.CA (L.G.
Smith) wrote:
>Not to belabour a point that I've made over and over again in this
>newsgroup, I'll just say that when you can't get educated, you can't get
>a job, which means you can't support your family, which SOMETIMES (for
>you Geoff ;-)) means that crime is your only option. And when the reason
>for not getting a good education is because it is not provided in an
>accessible fashion to blacks, that is RACISM.
>
Amazing. Well, that is NOT so in the US. I went to school in an
integrated school system, and the blacks were, in general, less
interested than the whites in participating in learning. We were in
the same school, supported by the same tax dollars. They COULD get
educated - they simply chose not to. Social pressure, peer
pressure, lack of family interest - these I will accept. But not lack
of availability. You're simply showing your ignorance.
>So, all blacks that are in a lower socioeconomic class are there simply
>because they lack a proper work ethic? Not because when they went for
>the job, they didn't get it due to their skin colour? To deny that
>racism still exists in America is the same as denying that Donovan Bailey
>is the fastest man in the world ;-) (Just something for the thin skinned)
>
Well, there you go again, proving how ignorant YOU are. Show me where
I said anything like that. If you can't then get the hell off my
back.
Racism has NOTHING to do with a person's decision not to work, or to
put a gun in someone's face, or to do anything else. I'm talking
about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY - something you clearly do not believe
in.
>First, one does not need a perfect understanding of SAE to watch a TV
>program in SAE. When I lived in Japan, I watch plenty of TV that was in
>perfect Japanese, but I was far from being a speaker of perfect
>Japanese. BTW, I didn't make up the competence vs performance thing, it
>is a commonly accepted fact in the linguistics community.
>
Fine. What I'm saying is, a child who speaks black English and
watches SAE programming on TV can most certainly understand what is
going on. After 7-10 years of exposure, they can understand AND
perform perfectly. Your argument is a straw man.
>Granted. It is not foreign to you inasmuch as it is spoken in America,
>BUT it has a different genetic background than SAE, and thus is a
>different language.
>
HAHAHAHA! What the HELL does THAT mean? Blacks are genetically
different in their linguistic abilities? Wow, sounds like a pretty
racist statement to me.
>It seems sloppy to you because you seemingly do not understand the
>complexities involved in the birth of a pidgin language. Simply because
>it doesn't use the same sort of grammar that SAE does, it doesn't follow
>that it is sloppy. I'm not trying to make anyone feel guilty about
>anything, but if you insist on the misinformed opinion that Ebonics is
>sloppy SAE, then you should feel guilty about not educating yourself
>about pidgins and creoles first before speaking about them here. But I
>won't insist that you feel guilty.
>
God, what a self absorbed prick. You should back off with the "I'm an
expert so bow down to me" attitude. No *serious* linguist treats
black English as a legitimate language.
>Those two dialects are gentically related to British English, whereas
>Ebonics isn't genetically related to SAE. BTW, Cockney is nothing more
>than encoded British English, done so to allow its speakers to
>communicate without everyone else around them understanding the content
>of their conversation. Cockney speaker can, for the most part, speak SBE
>when they want to, and that is the difference between it and Ebonics. A
>vast majority of Ebonics speaking children cannot perform in SAE.
Well, again, you're just wrong. They can. It's just not encouraged
in the home.
I wonder - do you really understand English at all? If so, why do you
insist on using the word "genetic" in such an incorrect way?
>You said that people from Brooklyn or whereever it was sound like idiots
>- I didn't put those words in your mouth. Perhaps you didn't mean for it
>to come out like that, but it did. BTW, name calling isn't going to lend
>credibility to you argument, and trust me, you need all the help you can
>get when you're defending something you don't know much about.
>
Again, you missed the entire point. Figures.
And as for name-calling - when you claim I said blacks are inferior
or there is no racism, well, that's on the same level. So, you get
what you give.
>Oh, I know about the abuse heaped on people for speaking with an accent,
>but you seemed to be one of the heapers in your previous post. But, you
>did say that that wasn't what you meant so I'll leave it. Have you heard
>of the experiments performed by Lambert et al (1960)? Using the 'matched
>guise' technique, she had people listen to recordings of two different
>dialects (one being the standard) and describe the speaker solely on the
>basis of their voice/accent. None of the listeners knew that the
>recordings were both done by the same person. The person who had the
>non-standard accent was always seen as being less intelligent, less
>employable, less likable, and even shorter and uglier. This experiment
>has been repeated the world over, and the results are always the same.
>The results go to show that people in general favour hearing the standard
>dialect vs a non-standard (even if that non-standard is their own). But
>the results also show how mistaken people can be if they judge someone
>solely on the basis of their accent, and that accent is hardly an
>indication of intelligence. So, yes, I am FULLY aware of the crap people
>with non-standard accents have to put up with.
>
Finally, you're making some sense. Well, I believe kids should be
given every opportunity to succeed. I just get torqued up about
treating black English as a valid language, when it simply is not. If
it was, black leaders would not treat Huckleberry Finn as such a
masterwork of racist thought.
As it is, that book contains a recorded version of AUTHENTIC Ebonics,
as spoken by the originators of the language (well, at least arguably
so). Yet, they cry out with one voice in their condemnation of the
dialect as "racist". Well, if Ebonics is so beautiful and valid, then
why are they so upset? And don't give me this "racist context" crap -
Twain was trying to expose the horrors of slavery, not mock the
slaves.
>Blacks may argue for their speech variety being a valid language, but
>they are fully supported by tthe linguistic community. And Ebonics is
>hardly fractured. Give one example of why you think so.
>
I will, once you cite evidence for your claim that the linguistic
community supports the claim of Ebonics as a valid language.
>I am proud to say that I am Canadian. Being so gives me a much needed
>objectivity that being American wouldn't. What prey tell do you strongly
>suggest I find out more about? I am a linguistics student, fully aware
>of the language situation in American inner cities. I may not have first
>hand experience of living in the US, but I have visited, have many
>American friends, and we have a huge amount of American television shown
>up here, not to mention magazines and journals, and newspapers. Having
>said that, I would posit that by my linguistics education alone, I am
>perhaps more informed about the topic of Ebonics than you, and so my
>opinion is hardly "uninformed".
Well, when you put words in people's mouths, and make all manner of
accusations, you're not garnering any credibility for yourself in this
conversation. You're very high-handed. I doubt you realize just how
you sound.
Unknown
smi...@muss.cis.McMaster.CA (L.G. Smith) wrote:
^^^^^^^
That is an entirely racist comment. Hitler would have loved it.
>different language.
>>It is SLOPPY AMERICAN ENGLISH! Why do you insist on having white
>>Americans who understand that fact feel guilty about it?
>
>It seems sloppy to you because you seemingly do not understand the
>complexities involved in the birth of a pidgin language. Simply because
>it doesn't use the same sort of grammar that SAE does, it doesn't follow
>that it is sloppy. I'm not trying to make anyone feel guilty about
>anything, but if you insist on the misinformed opinion that Ebonics is
>sloppy SAE, then you should feel guilty about not educating yourself
>about pidgins and creoles first before speaking about them here. But I
>won't insist that you feel guilty.
>
Ebonics is nothing more than a very thick accent. So is Southern
English. Saying it's not is nothing more than an attempt to make
Blacks "different". Blacks say they want equal rights, wrong -->
they want special rights, different rights and exceptions.
If Southern Whites argued for the same thing they'd get called
racist bigots or "Bubbas." Would it be fair to call a Black
a racist bigot or "Willie?" Why the double standard? If Blacks
want equality on all fronts they must judge themselves by the
same standards they attempt to establish for everyone else.
>>I doubt very much you are from this country. I strongly suggest you
>>find out more before you interject your uninformed opinion again.
>
>I am proud to say that I am Canadian. Being so gives me a much needed
>objectivity that being American wouldn't. What prey tell do you strongly
>suggest I find out more about? I am a linguistics student, fully aware
>of the language situation in American inner cities. I may not have first
>hand experience of living in the US, but I have visited, have many
>American friends, and we have a huge amount of American television shown
>up here, not to mention magazines and journals, and newspapers. Having
>said that, I would posit that by my linguistics education alone, I am
>perhaps more informed about the topic of Ebonics than you, and so my
>opinion is hardly "uninformed".
>
Ebonics is not a topic, it's an excuse.
-Ken, 1967 Ford F100, 390FE V8 - Fordnatic
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Do NOT add my address to any mailing list without my express written |
| permission. Unsolicited commercial email will be proofread at my |
| consulting rate of: $75/hour, 4 hour min. If you wish to correspond |
| (non-commercial only) please send email to: kpa...@mindspring.com |
| Due to a bug in my mailer any junk email received will automatically |
| subscribe the sender to the majordomo lists. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Cole's Law: Thinly Sliced Cabbage |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Goose
> If my father, who attended the same inner city schools that his
> brothers and sisters attended, read the same, out-dated, "hand-me-down"
> textbooks thrown out by schools in "white" neighborhoods that they read,
> went to the same woefully understocked and inefficient school libraries (if
> any) that they more often than not failed to avail themselves of the use,
> and yet he still managed to learn to speak UNACCENTED, Standard American
> English, unlike his brothers and sisters, who speak what sounds like the
> forerunner of "Ebonics," then why should not any inner-city, American-born
> black be able to do the same? Why must I be expected to reach for less, or
> my children expected to strive for less because of some misbegotten notion
> foisted on the public by arrogant, self-righteous, patronizing,
> paternalistic, academic elitists?
The point behind the program is to make it so that inner-city kids can
learn SAE without having to work HARDER than their counterparts in
suburbia. It's great that your father worked his way through school and
came out with perfect Standard English, and I agree that any inner-city,
American-born black could do the same, but it is unfair to expect
inner-city black kids to work harder than whites to reach the same point
in their education. Not everyone is as hard-working as you and your
family were, and it is much easier for white kids to slide through school
with minimum effort and still come out with good Standard English. I, for
example, had a really strong background in English at home, so I was able
to coast through school with very little effort. That doesn't mean I'm
smarter than the people I was going to school with, it just means I had an
advantage fromt the start. The proposal will just try to even out the
disadvantage that a lot of kids have.
--Goose
L.G. Smith
>> NO one can sell me on the idea that language is somehow "genetic"; if
>> that were so, why do we not innately know how to pronounce the languages of
>> our ancestors with or without actually KNOWING the languages?]
>You would have to take that up with the OSB, after all they are the ones
>who came up with the term "genetic" to describe this. When I read that
>post, I shuddered as well, the implications are too easily misconstrued.
People have misunderstood the use of genetic in regards to language.
Languages have genetic relations to other languages, not to the speakers.
It is understood by all concerned that not all Blacks speak Ebonics.
People usually speak the same language as their mothers, including all
errors that they may make. I for instance said "pacific" for "specific"
for the longest time, as that is an error that my mother commonly makes.
That's about as genetic a relationship a language has to it speaker.
>> I take tremendous offense at the idea that somehow, because I am a
>> member of the Negro race and am an American by birth, that it should be
>> assumed or "expected" that I would automatically approve of and support
>> the concept that, what seems to me to amounts to little more than bad
>> grammar and a collective refusal to pay attention one's lessons in school
>> (at worst) or what is merely "pidgin" English (at best), should be
>> regarded as a natural and legitimate "language?"
>Nobody here is saying that you should.
Sorry Geoff, I may have said something along those lines. What I meant
by it was that Black Americans, who have a far better understanding of the
struggles of their past, would be more likely to understand how such a
language could and did develop. And that Black Americans are more likely
to have encountered Ebonics in a real life situation than were Whites. I
obviously didn't present it as clearly as I should have, and for that I
apologise.
>Well, I asked for a perspective on this from a Black person'e POV, and I
>got it. So far, it has been unanimous (as far as Black people here go)
>that Ebonics as such is an insult to them. Thanks for sharing that.
>Please stick around here, we need all the intelligent input we can get.
I would venture to say that most people on the internet are not from the
ghetto, and that this may have some effect on the apparently unanimous
opinion that Ebonics is an insult. Agreed?
les
L.G. Smith
In article <jfe1-02039...@skr3.resnet.cornell.edu>,
Goose <jf...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>The point behind the program is to make it so that inner-city kids can
>learn SAE without having to work HARDER than their counterparts in
>suburbia.
This is bang-on! No one is incapable of learning SAE, but when Blacks
are disadvantaged from the start, by having to work harder, it only
follows that the percentage of Blacks who do well in school will
represent that.
>It's great that your father worked his way through school and
>came out with perfect Standard English, and I agree that any inner-city,
>American-born black could do the same, but it is unfair to expect
>inner-city black kids to work harder than whites to reach the same point
>in their education. Not everyone is as hard-working as you and your
>family were, and it is much easier for white kids to slide through school
>with minimum effort and still come out with good Standard English.
Beautifully stated, Goose. All the OSB is trying to do is even out the
playing field.
>I, for example, had a really strong background in English at home, so I
>was able to coast through school with very little effort. That doesn't
>mean I'm smarter than the people I was going to school with, it just
>means I had an advantage fromt the start. The proposal will just try to
>even out the disadvantage that a lot of kids have.
Now, here's a post that says all the things I been incapable of saying
with many posts. Goose, where've you been all my life?
les
BLZ Bub
Ed Stoudenmire wrote:
> >Just as an aside: When America was developing into a country, it was
> >proposed that German be the official language.
> Wrong. Check Bill Bryson's "Made in America" - he debunks this as a
> myth.
I haven't read that book, so I can't say whether or not Mr. Bryson is
full of it or not, but I have a good friend who is a school teacher nad
is very well read (he has a mind like a dumpster, in other words, he is
a wealth of verifiable information...I've seldom been able to debunk
anything that he says), and he informs me that it was Dutch that was
originally proposed to be the "official language" According to him,
English was adopted by a SINGLE vote in the Continental Congress as the
language that the government here would use. I could look this up, or
ask him to point me to the source of his information if you'd like. I'm
not saying that this is gospel, but my friend is seldom wrong in these
matters.
BLZ Bub
Bosse Dominique wrote:
>
> BLZ Bub <geo...@webspan.net> writes:
>
> >Not at all, the tools available for education today are far superior to
> >those of a generation ago, but it still puzzles me as to why today we
> >still turn out people who are functionally illiterate, both black and
> >white.
>
> affairs, but perhaps the single most important one is the simple fact
> that grade school teachers used to be for the most part the brightest women
> in society, when few careers were open to women at large. Now, education
> attracts mostly those who couldn't make it in any other field.
I'm not so sure of that. Teachers today have a harder time getting the
certification necessary to obtain a license to teach. (at least here in
NJ they do) I have a friend who is a teacher (unfortunately, he doesn't
have an I-net account, but perhaps the next time he is over here I can
persuade him to write and tell you what is necessary) and he has gone
through all kinds of hell to get certified. This fellow BTW, is a PhD
candidate in environmental science.
> Then the not-so-bright who made it to tenure in education faculties had
> to publish. So they had to come up with all kinds of revolutionary ideas,
> just to do something. Revolution and lack of insight together...
I don't feel that I'm qualified to comment on that, we'll have to wait
until someone who has some experience in this shows up.
Bosse Dominique
BLZ Bub <geo...@webspan.net> writes:
>Not at all, the tools available for education today are far superior to
>those of a generation ago, but it still puzzles me as to why today we
>still turn out people who are functionally illiterate, both black and
>white.
There is of course a combination of several reasons for this state of
affairs, but perhaps the single most important one is the simple fact
that grade school teachers used to be for the most part the brightest women
in society, when few careers were open to women at large. Now, education
attracts mostly those who couldn't make it in any other field.
Then the not-so-bright who made it to tenure in education faculties had
to publish. So they had to come up with all kinds of revolutionary ideas,
just to do something. Revolution and lack of insight together...
--
L.G. Smith
In article <3318e8dd...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
Ed Stoudenmire <stoud...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On 1 Mar 1997 14:51:42 -0500, smi...@muss.cis.McMaster.CA (L.G.
>Smith) wrote:
>Amazing. Well, that is NOT so in the US. I went to school in an
>integrated school system, and the blacks were, in general, less
>interested than the whites in participating in learning. We were in
>the same school, supported by the same tax dollars. They COULD get
>educated - they simply chose not to. Social pressure, peer
>pressure, lack of family interest - these I will accept. But not lack
>of availability. You're simply showing your ignorance.
By lack of availability I was (I thought this was obvious) refering to
the fact that education is delivered in a speech variety (language or
dialect - I'm sick of arguing this point) that is not the first language
of many of the inner city blacks who attend school. Simply because
someone is in the classroom with you doesn't mean that they are getting
the same thing out of the instruction given, regardless of skin colour.
>>So, all blacks that are in a lower socioeconomic class are there simply
>>because they lack a proper work ethic? Not because when they went for
>>the job, they didn't get it due to their skin colour? To deny that
>>racism still exists in America is the same as denying that Donovan Bailey
>>is the fastest man in the world ;-) (Just something for the thin skinned)
>Well, there you go again, proving how ignorant YOU are. Show me where
>I said anything like that. If you can't then get the hell off my
>back.
As I haven't the foggiest how to use the DejaNews service, I can't
provide a quote for you, but I do remember you saying that blacks were
lazy, or lacked a proper work ethic or something like that. Perhaps
someone can quote that part of your post back here if you don't believe
me. And perhaps you didn't deny that racism still exists in America in
so many words, but your message lead me to believe that that was what you
thought. If this is not the case, than I apologise. As for getting off
your back, when you stop defending your positions with statements like,
(paraphrasing here) 'It's just not so', and 'you're just wrong' without
providing any proof to support your view, THEN I will get off your back.
>Racism has NOTHING to do with a person's decision not to work, or to
>put a gun in someone's face, or to do anything else. I'm talking
>about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY - something you clearly do not believe
>in.
I'm not saying that criminal activities are excusable, just that they are
understandable for the most part. And like I said before about deciding
not to work, perhaps that decision wasn't made by them, perhaps they were
victims of racism, and not given the job simply because of the colour of
their skin.
>>First, one does not need a perfect understanding of SAE to watch a TV
>>program in SAE. When I lived in Japan, I watch plenty of TV that was in
>>perfect Japanese, but I was far from being a speaker of perfect
>>Japanese. BTW, I didn't make up the competence vs performance thing, it
>>is a commonly accepted fact in the linguistics community.
>Fine. What I'm saying is, a child who speaks black English and
>watches SAE programming on TV can most certainly understand what is
>going on. After 7-10 years of exposure, they can understand AND
>perform perfectly. Your argument is a straw man.
How do you know this? Have you researched this? Are you a closet
linguist? You know that simply because you speak a language, it doesn't
follow that you have some intricate knowledge of how language works as a
general rule. Learning to speak a langauge does take input, granted.
(the TV) BUT, and this is the important part, learning a language also
involves modifying output until it is correct. TV cannot modify
someone's output. That's where education comes in, but when the teacher
misunderstands that output, s/he isn't able to properly correct it. Take
math as an example: No teacher expects a child to be able to perform
perfect math without correcting that child every once in a while. But
before the teacher just goes and gives the kid the answer, s/he will want
to see the entire process the child used to arrive at the incorrect
answer. By doing so, the teacher can pinpoint the exact spot where the
child went wrong. Ebonics training for teachers will provide them with
the tools needed to understand where the Black child faulted in his/her
attempt to speak SAE.
>>Granted. It is not foreign to you inasmuch as it is spoken in America,
>>BUT it has a different genetic background than SAE, and thus is a
>>different language.
>HAHAHAHA! What the HELL does THAT mean? Blacks are genetically
>different in their linguistic abilities? Wow, sounds like a pretty
>racist statement to me.
Languages are genetically related to one another if they derive from the
same mother language. English and German are genetically related to each
other as they are both members of the Germanic FAMILY of languages.
Ebonics isn't a member of the Germanic family of languages, although it
appears to be on the surface, to the lay person. Ebonics is a member of
the Niger-Kordofanian/Congo family of languages. Therefore, SAE and
Ebonics have different genetic backgrounds, and are, as a direct result,
different langauges. Doesn't sound racist to me.
>>It seems sloppy to you because you seemingly do not understand the
>>complexities involved in the birth of a pidgin language. Simply because
>>it doesn't use the same sort of grammar that SAE does, it doesn't follow
>>that it is sloppy. I'm not trying to make anyone feel guilty about
>>anything, but if you insist on the misinformed opinion that Ebonics is
>>sloppy SAE, then you should feel guilty about not educating yourself
>>about pidgins and creoles first before speaking about them here. But I
>>won't insist that you feel guilty.
>God, what a self absorbed prick. You should back off with the "I'm an
>expert so bow down to me" attitude. No *serious* linguist treats
>black English as a legitimate language.
You don't have to bow down to me, but I am more of an expert on
linguistics than you appear to be. And how many linguists do you know?
I am in contact with linguistics PhDs every day of the week, and they are
all in agreement that Ebonics is a language in its own right. Also, the
American Linguistics Society showed its support for the project in a
recent press release that was quoted on this newsgroup. So, it seems to
me, that there are *serious* linguists who treat Ebonics as a legitimate
language.
>>Those two dialects are gentically related to British English, whereas
>>Ebonics isn't genetically related to SAE. BTW, Cockney is nothing more
>>than encoded British English, done so to allow its speakers to
>>communicate without everyone else around them understanding the content
>>of their conversation. Cockney speaker can, for the most part, speak SBE
>>when they want to, and that is the difference between it and Ebonics. A
>>vast majority of Ebonics speaking children cannot perform in SAE.
>Well, again, you're just wrong. They can. It's just not encouraged
>in the home.
How do you know this? Apparently, people in the OSB would disagree with
you, as would many linguists. And even if it were the case that these
kids can speak perfect SAE and jsut refuse to do so, why should it be
encourged in the home. For Ebonics speakers, Ebonics is the primary
language of communication in the home - who are you to say what language
people should use when they are at home? If you are proposing that
learning SAE be encouraged, well then, that's a different story.
Just as an aside: When America was developing into a country, it was
proposed that German be the official language.
>I wonder - do you really understand English at all? If so, why do you
>insist on using the word "genetic" in such an incorrect way?
I do understand English pretty well thank you. "Genetic" is a common
linguistics term, and its meaning varies slightly from what you may be
used to; see above.
>And as for name-calling - when you claim I said blacks are inferior
>or there is no racism, well, that's on the same level. So, you get
>what you give.
Pointing out errors in someone's argument is hardly the same as
name-calling, now is it?
>Finally, you're making some sense. Well, I believe kids should be
>given every opportunity to succeed. I just get torqued up about
>treating black English as a valid language, when it simply is not.
Why do you insist that it is not a language? What distinguishes a
language from a dialect for you?
>If it was, black leaders would not treat Huckleberry Finn as such a
>masterwork of racist thought.
As I don't know anything about this topic, I will refrain from
responding. I know my limitations.
>As it is, that book contains a recorded version of AUTHENTIC Ebonics,
>as spoken by the originators of the language (well, at least arguably
>so).
Why would you call it a "language" if you are so obsessed with it being a
dialect? A little slip?
>>Blacks may argue for their speech variety being a valid language, but
>>they are fully supported by tthe linguistic community. And Ebonics is
>>hardly fractured. Give one example of why you think so.
>I will, once you cite evidence for your claim that the linguistic
>community supports the claim of Ebonics as a valid language.
The American Linguistics Society supports the OSB program, and has
declared Ebonics a valid language. Proof Enough?
>>I am proud to say that I am Canadian. Being so gives me a much needed
>>objectivity that being American wouldn't. What prey tell do you strongly
>>suggest I find out more about? I am a linguistics student, fully aware
>>of the language situation in American inner cities. I may not have first
>>hand experience of living in the US, but I have visited, have many
>>American friends, and we have a huge amount of American television shown
>>up here, not to mention magazines and journals, and newspapers. Having
>>said that, I would posit that by my linguistics education alone, I am
>>perhaps more informed about the topic of Ebonics than you, and so my
>>opinion is hardly "uninformed".
>Well, when you put words in people's mouths, and make all manner of
>accusations, you're not garnering any credibility for yourself in this
>conversation. You're very high-handed. I doubt you realize just how
>you sound.
But you calling me names, lends credibility to yours? I see.
les
BLZ Bub
L.G. Smith wrote:
>
> People have misunderstood the use of genetic in regards to language.
> Languages have genetic relations to other languages, not to the speakers.
I understood the meaning of the term in the context that you used it in,
what I meant was that the word itself lends to some people the ignorant
views that they have on this subject. You know how some people are, they
latch onto a single word in a sentence and run with it, twisting the
meaning all out of proportion. That's why a dictionary usually has more
than one definition for a particular word, I always give all the
definitions when asked, not just the ones that support my argument.
> It is understood by all concerned that not all Blacks speak Ebonics.
> People usually speak the same language as their mothers, including all
> errors that they may make. I for instance said "pacific" for "specific"
> for the longest time, as that is an error that my mother commonly makes.
> That's about as genetic a relationship a language has to it speaker.
> >Well, I asked for a perspective on this from a Black person'e POV, and I
> >got it. So far, it has been unanimous (as far as Black people here go)
> >that Ebonics as such is an insult to them. Thanks for sharing that.
> >Please stick around here, we need all the intelligent input we can get.
>
> I would venture to say that most people on the internet are not from the
> ghetto, and that this may have some effect on the apparently unanimous
> opinion that Ebonics is an insult. Agreed?
My gut reaction to that is "yes", but I really don't know for sure here.
I ran a BBS for the longest time, I live nearby to an inner city
environment, many of my users were Blacks, and by the addresses they
gave me in my information questionnaire, about 1/2 of them lived in the
inner city. Now, of course I didn't ask for race in the questionnaire,
but in conversations with my users, racial/ethnic topics did come up
from time to time, so I had a fair idea about who was on the other side
of the monitor.
Ed Stoudenmire
On 2 Mar 1997 19:27:54 -0500, smi...@muss.cis.McMaster.CA (L.G.
Smith) wrote:
>As I haven't the foggiest how to use the DejaNews service, I can't
>provide a quote for you, but I do remember you saying that blacks were
>lazy, or lacked a proper work ethic or something like that.
Well, that's not what I said. Apology accepted.
>Perhaps
>someone can quote that part of your post back here if you don't believe
>me.
I believe you. I just don't believe you read. Well, at least.
>And perhaps you didn't deny that racism still exists in America in
>so many words, but your message lead me to believe that that was what you
>thought. If this is not the case, than I apologise.
Finally.
>As for getting off
>your back, when you stop defending your positions with statements like,
>(paraphrasing here) 'It's just not so', and 'you're just wrong' without
>providing any proof to support your view, THEN I will get off your back.
>
When you put an end to your "Oh, so you're saying white people are
perfect" form of putting words in my mouth, I'll do so. Until then,
get off my back.
>I'm not saying that criminal activities are excusable, just that they are
>understandable for the most part. And like I said before about deciding
>not to work, perhaps that decision wasn't made by them, perhaps they were
>victims of racism, and not given the job simply because of the colour of
>their skin.
>
And maybe not. Too bad you don't know about Ruben Greenberg and other
black leaders who agree wholeheartedly that far too many young blacks
have learned from their parents (the first generation of the Great
Society, by the way) that they should sit on their posteriors rather
than working. Note to the weak minded: Not All Of Them. That means
(for the even weaker-minded) They Don't All Act Like That, It's Just
Some Of Them.
>How do you know this? Have you researched this? Are you a closet
>linguist?
Yes.
>You know that simply because you speak a language, it doesn't
>follow that you have some intricate knowledge of how language works as a
>general rule.
Not what I said at all.
> Learning to speak a langauge does take input, granted.
>(the TV) BUT, and this is the important part, learning a language also
>involves modifying output until it is correct.
Well, now I'll play your role. So You're saying, these kids do not
speak to ANYONE ELSE other than the TV. (I didn't really think you
said that. I'm just giving you a taste of your own technique)
> TV cannot modify
>someone's output. That's where education comes in, but when the teacher
>misunderstands that output, s/he isn't able to properly correct it. Take
>math as an example: No teacher expects a child to be able to perform
>perfect math without correcting that child every once in a while. But
>before the teacher just goes and gives the kid the answer, s/he will want
>to see the entire process the child used to arrive at the incorrect
>answer. By doing so, the teacher can pinpoint the exact spot where the
>child went wrong. Ebonics training for teachers will provide them with
>the tools needed to understand where the Black child faulted in his/her
>attempt to speak SAE.
>
If Ebonics was a true foreign language, I could understand your point.
But it isn't, so you're constructing another straw man.
>Languages are genetically related to one another if they derive from the
>same mother language. English and German are genetically related to each
>other as they are both members of the Germanic FAMILY of languages.
Genetics refers to inheritable traits. And you study linguistics?
>Ebonics isn't a member of the Germanic family of languages, although it
>appears to be on the surface, to the lay person. Ebonics is a member of
>the Niger-Kordofanian/Congo family of languages. Therefore, SAE and
>Ebonics have different genetic backgrounds, and are, as a direct result,
>different langauges. Doesn't sound racist to me.
Me either. Just sounds stupid. It's all bullshit. Anyone with any
sense knows that in the 400 years of living in dirty nasty white
rasict honky devil bigot America, anyone should be able to learn a
language. You're just feeling a case of White guilt. Your choice.
>You don't have to bow down to me, but I am more of an expert on
>linguistics than you appear to be.
Of course. You're self-annointed.
>And how many linguists do you know?
7. Well, six. One died three years ago.
>I am in contact with linguistics PhDs every day of the week, and they are
>all in agreement that Ebonics is a language in its own right. Also, the
>American Linguistics Society showed its support for the project in a
>recent press release that was quoted on this newsgroup. So, it seems to
>me, that there are *serious* linguists who treat Ebonics as a legitimate
>language.
Seems to you. Well, bow down. That's a far cry from your original
claim that all legitimate linguists accept ebonics as a legitimate
language. Backpeddling, are we?
>How do you know this? Apparently, people in the OSB would disagree with
>you, as would many linguists.
Of course. It's in their interest to want federal dollars.
>And even if it were the case that these
>kids can speak perfect SAE and jsut refuse to do so, why should it be
>encourged in the home.
Because the society requires it. Just like society rejects strong
Southern speech, or an authentic Brooklyn accent, we reject ebonics as
unacceptable as a standard.
>For Ebonics speakers, Ebonics is the primary
>language of communication in the home - who are you to say what language
>people should use when they are at home?
Never said anything like that. See? Putting words in someone else's
mouth - it should be your major, since you're so good at it.
> If you are proposing that
>learning SAE be encouraged, well then, that's a different story.
Amazing. That's all I ever said. What a good example of a bad
example.
>
>Just as an aside: When America was developing into a country, it was
>proposed that German be the official language.
>
Wrong. Check Bill Bryson's "Made in America" - he debunks this as a
myth.
>Pointing out errors in someone's argument is hardly the same as
>name-calling, now is it?
>
The way you do it? Yes. "Oh, so YOU think..." is damned
self-important.
>As I don't know anything about this topic, I will refrain from
>responding. I know my limitations.
>
No you don't. Your pervious posts are proof.
>>As it is, that book contains a recorded version of AUTHENTIC Ebonics,
>>as spoken by the originators of the language (well, at least arguably
>>so).
>
>Why would you call it a "language" if you are so obsessed with it being a
>dialect? A little slip?
>
No. I just forgot the quotes.
>The American Linguistics Society supports the OSB program, and has
>declared Ebonics a valid language. Proof Enough?
>
In what publication? I wanted something verifiable.
>But you calling me names, lends credibility to yours? I see.
>
Again, putting words in other people's mouths. You're so good. Bow
down.
Ed Stoudenmire
On Sun, 02 Mar 1997 21:39:25 -0800, BLZ Bub <geo...@webspan.net>
wrote:
>Ed Stoudenmire wrote:
>
>I haven't read that book, so I can't say whether or not Mr. Bryson is
>full of it or not, but I have a good friend who is a school teacher nad
>is very well read (he has a mind like a dumpster, in other words, he is
>a wealth of verifiable information...I've seldom been able to debunk
>anything that he says), and he informs me that it was Dutch that was
>originally proposed to be the "official language" According to him,
>English was adopted by a SINGLE vote in the Continental Congress as the
>language that the government here would use. I could look this up, or
>ask him to point me to the source of his information if you'd like. I'm
>not saying that this is gospel, but my friend is seldom wrong in these
>matters.
>
Bryson gives solid documentation to back up his claim. I've been
readin his work for years. I've found him to be wrong about 0.0001%
of the time. I strongly urge you to check it out.
I mentioned this book to you before.
Goose
In article <3318e8dd...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
stoud...@worldnet.att.net (Ed Stoudenmire) wrote:
> God, what a self absorbed prick. You should back off with the "I'm an
> expert so bow down to me" attitude. No *serious* linguist treats
> black English as a legitimate language.
This just isn't true. There are plenty of serious linguists who consider
ebonics a legitimate language. It's a difficult issue to make a
conclusive decision about, though, because there are variations within
ebonics so that some speakers will speak something that is extremely close
to (and mutually intelligible with) SAE, whereas other speakers speak a
version that is more removed. It's similar in a way to "Singlish"
(Singapore English). Singlish speakers will often speak a very different
version of the language with other Singlish speakers than they will with
those who only speak standard English. The thing is, though, that with
less education in the standard language, it becomes harder to express
yourself in a way that is intelligible to someone who only speaks the
standard dialect.
Goose
In article <5fa1ce$7...@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA>, smi...@muss.cis.McMaster.CA
(L.G. Smith) wrote:
> Those two dialects are gentically related to British English, whereas
> Ebonics isn't genetically related to SAE. BTW, Cockney is nothing more
> than encoded British English, done so to allow its speakers to
> communicate without everyone else around them understanding the content
> of their conversation. Cockney speaker can, for the most part, speak SBE
> when they want to, and that is the difference between it and Ebonics. A
> vast majority of Ebonics speaking children cannot perform in SAE.
I think you may have over-generalized your statement here-- I would argue
that the number of Ebonics speakers without SAE skills is still a
minority. If the majority of ebonics speakers were living in the
inner-city receiving an inadequate education, that might be different, but
I don't think you can afford to assume that inner-city kids make up the
majority of ebonics speakers.
L.G. Smith
In article <331a2fb9...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
Ed Stoudenmire <stoud...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On 2 Mar 1997 19:27:54 -0500, smi...@muss.cis.McMaster.CA (L.G.
>Smith) wrote:
>>As I haven't the foggiest how to use the DejaNews service, I can't
>>provide a quote for you, but I do remember you saying that blacks were
>>lazy, or lacked a proper work ethic or something like that.
>Well, that's not what I said. Apology accepted.
It wasn't an apology.
>>Perhaps someone can quote that part of your post back here if you don't
>>believe me.
>I believe you. I just don't believe you read. Well, at least.
You're right, I'll illiterate and I have someone act out what it written
here. Funny thing, when a post from you comes up, my interpretor is
always making a shoveling motion.
>>And perhaps you didn't deny that racism still exists in America in
>>so many words, but your message lead me to believe that that was what you
>>thought. If this is not the case, than I apologise.
>Finally.
Communication is a three part process - speaker, message, and listener.
If a miscommunicaiton happens, it is never solely the fault of one of the
participants. The speaker must take some responsibility for
miscommunications, as it was s/he who originated the message. So, while
I'll accept some of the responsibility for this ALLEDGED
miscommunication, you must also shoulder some of the fault.
>>I'm not saying that criminal activities are excusable, just that they are
>>understandable for the most part. And like I said before about deciding
>>not to work, perhaps that decision wasn't made by them, perhaps they were
>>victims of racism, and not given the job simply because of the colour of
>>their skin.
>And maybe not. Too bad you don't know about Ruben Greenberg and other
>black leaders who agree wholeheartedly that far too many young blacks
>have learned from their parents (the first generation of the Great
>Society, by the way) that they should sit on their posteriors rather
>than working. Note to the weak minded: Not All Of Them. That means
>(for the even weaker-minded) They Don't All Act Like That, It's Just
>Some Of Them.
Perhaps, PERHAPS, it was because those parents were themselves turned
down for jobs because of their skin-colour. If you've tried something,
and hit the wall in doing so, would you push your kids to do it? This is
just a "perhaps" though, but it seems logical to me, at least more
logical than saying that it is due to some lack of desire to work
persisting in the black community. AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOU SAID
THAT! You know, not everything I say is a response to something you've
said.
>>How do you know this? Have you researched this? Are you a closet
>>linguist?
>Yes.
Yes to research, or yes to being in the closet?
>>You know that simply because you speak a language, it doesn't
>>follow that you have some intricate knowledge of how language works as a
>>general rule.
>Not what I said at all.
Never said you said it. A lot of people do however under estimate the
science of linguistics, and feel that because they have experience with
language that somehow they are linguists. Some people, not you, ok.
>> TV cannot modify
>>someone's output. That's where education comes in, but when the teacher
>>misunderstands that output, s/he isn't able to properly correct it. Take
>>math as an example: No teacher expects a child to be able to perform
>>perfect math without correcting that child every once in a while. But
>>before the teacher just goes and gives the kid the answer, s/he will want
>>to see the entire process the child used to arrive at the incorrect
>>answer. By doing so, the teacher can pinpoint the exact spot where the
>>child went wrong. Ebonics training for teachers will provide them with
>>the tools needed to understand where the Black child faulted in his/her
>>attempt to speak SAE.
>If Ebonics was a true foreign language, I could understand your point.
>But it isn't, so you're constructing another straw man.
Well, that's your closet linguist opinion, which BTW just happens to fly
in the face of all reason, and modern thought about what constitutes a
language. What criteria are you using to determine that Ebonics isn't a
foreign language? Have you seen Bell's 7 criteria for distinguishing
between languages and dialects? It is the most widely accepted of all
such theories, and application of those criteria to Ebonics clearly
demonstrates that Ebonics is a language and not a dialect. But, if you
are using another set of linguistic criteria, I'd love to hear about it.
>>Languages are genetically related to one another if they derive from the
>>same mother language. English and German are genetically related to each
>>other as they are both members of the Germanic FAMILY of languages.
>Genetics refers to inheritable traits. And you study linguistics?
Maybe it's not used by that one author you keep quoting, but it is widely
used in linguistic textbooks, journal articles, and research papers.
What word do closet linguists use for the type of relationship that
exists between languages of the same origin?
>>Ebonics isn't a member of the Germanic family of languages, although it
>>appears to be on the surface, to the lay person. Ebonics is a member of
>>the Niger-Kordofanian/Congo family of languages. Therefore, SAE and
>>Ebonics have different genetic backgrounds, and are, as a direct result,
>>different langauges. Doesn't sound racist to me.
>Me either. Just sounds stupid. It's all bullshit. Anyone with any
>sense knows that in the 400 years of living in dirty nasty white
>rasict honky devil bigot America, anyone should be able to learn a
>language. You're just feeling a case of White guilt. Your choice.
I have nothing to feel guilty about. Sounds stupid? All bullshit?
Those are good retorts. What part of it sounds stupid? It makes perfect
sense - well at least to those of us who have linguistics training, and
aren't just closet linguists. In fact, not only does it make sense -
it's fact! Look up pidgin and creole languages in whatever book it is
you use to get your twisted linguistic knowledge from, and you'll soon
discover that not one thing I said above is bullshit. Creole languages
belong not to the family of the language from which the lexicon is taken,
but remain GENETICALLY related to the other language(s) involved. ie the
language Korean Bamboo English (a pidgin that briefly existed during the
Korean War) was never part of the Germanic family of languages, but
remained part of the Altaic family.
>>You don't have to bow down to me, but I am more of an expert on
>>linguistics than you appear to be.
>Of course. You're self-annointed.
I wish. I've been paying McMaster University thousands of dollars in
tuition for the past three years. I don't mark my own papers, and I
certainly don't mark my own exams - the results of both BTW have given me
the A average that I currently enjoy. What linguistics training do you
have? If the answer is none, then my point is made, I am more of an
expert than you. If you have more linguistics training than me, then I
will admit that my above statement is wrong. However, that would not be
an admission that anything I've said here is by any means less worthy of
consideration.
>>And how many linguists do you know?
>7. Well, six. One died three years ago.
How do you know these people?
>>I am in contact with linguistics PhDs every day of the week, and they are
>>all in agreement that Ebonics is a language in its own right. Also, the
>>American Linguistics Society showed its support for the project in a
>>recent press release that was quoted on this newsgroup. So, it seems to
>>me, that there are *serious* linguists who treat Ebonics as a legitimate
>>language.
>Seems to you. Well, bow down. That's a far cry from your original
>claim that all legitimate linguists accept ebonics as a legitimate
>language. Backpeddling, are we?
Not ALL, but all the one's I've talked to, or heard from. Not
backpeddling at all, you can fall off your bike that way!
>>How do you know this? Apparently, people in the OSB would disagree with
>>you, as would many linguists.
>Of course. It's in their interest to want federal dollars.
It's in their interest to want federal dollars? I think I see what you
mean, but remember what I said about communication being a three part
process. It's also in their interest to see that all their students get
a proper education.
>>And even if it were the case that these
>>kids can speak perfect SAE and jsut refuse to do so, why should it be
>>encourged in the home.
>Because the society requires it. Just like society rejects strong
>Southern speech, or an authentic Brooklyn accent, we reject ebonics as
>unacceptable as a standard.
>
>>For Ebonics speakers, Ebonics is the primary
>>language of communication in the home - who are you to say what language
>>people should use when they are at home?
>
>Never said anything like that. See? Putting words in someone else's
>mouth - it should be your major, since you're so good at it.
You said that SAE isn't encouraged in the home - did you not? My
question was why should it be? It should be encouraged in school, and in
the workplace, in fact it should be demanded in the workplace. But in
the home, people have the right to speak however they wish. Would you agree?
>> If you are proposing that
>>learning SAE be encouraged, well then, that's a different story.
>Amazing. That's all I ever said. What a good example of a bad
>example.
Again - a three part process!
>>Just as an aside: When America was developing into a country, it was
>>proposed that German be the official language.
>Wrong. Check Bill Bryson's "Made in America" - he debunks this as a
>myth.
This Bryson guy has all the answers doesn't he? I mean if Bryson said it
wasn't the case (even thought lots of people say otherwise) we should BOW
DOWN!
>>Pointing out errors in someone's argument is hardly the same as
>>name-calling, now is it?
>The way you do it? Yes. "Oh, so YOU think..." is damned
>self-important.
Huh? Reiterating your argument, or clarifying it, or showing you how I
interpreted it is that same as name-calling? I'm afraid you're wrong.
Perhaps you feel that by intelligently arguing for my side of the issue,
and at times proving you wrong, I'm calling you names. Sorry, but I'm not
here to coddle you.
>>As I don't know anything about this topic, I will refrain from
>>responding. I know my limitations.
>No you don't. Your pervious posts are proof.
I've only posted about things I have a decent knowledge of. You should
learn to quote properly, as to show what I was responding to. I said I
have no knowledge of the Mark Twain book to which you were referring.
Perhaps you should follow my example, and not speak when it comes to
topics of linguistics - oh wait - you're a closet linguist, I forgot.
>>>As it is, that book contains a recorded version of AUTHENTIC Ebonics,
>>>as spoken by the originators of the language (well, at least arguably
>>>so).
>>Why would you call it a "language" if you are so obsessed with it being a
>>dialect? A little slip?
>No. I just forgot the quotes.
It would seem to me that if you felt as strongly about the issue as you
appear to that you would ensure that you use the word dialect in
reference to Ebonics. But it could be a typo.
>>The American Linguistics Society supports the OSB program, and has
>>declared Ebonics a valid language. Proof Enough?
>In what publication? I wanted something verifiable.
Like your "It's all bullshit" statement? Look it up in DejaNews. I
believe is was some sort of press release.
>>But you calling me names, lends credibility to yours? I see.
>Again, putting words in other people's mouths. You're so good. Bow
>down.
You're denying having called me names? Ok. Whatever. I don't know
about this fascination you have with bowing down to me, but I could get
used to it.
les
L.G. Smith
In article <jfe1-03039...@skr3.resnet.cornell.edu>,
Goose <jf...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>> A vast majority of Ebonics speaking children cannot perform in SAE.
>I think you may have over-generalized your statement here-- I would argue
>that the number of Ebonics speakers without SAE skills is still a
>minority.
I may have misused the word "vast", but I think that my point stills
stands the tes.
>If the majority of ebonics speakers were living in the
>inner-city receiving an inadequate education, that might be different, but
>I don't think you can afford to assume that inner-city kids make up the
>majority of ebonics speakers.
Ebonics is the language of the black inner-cities for the most part.
Those blacks who live outside of the inner-cities, I would imagine, have
a command of SAE, and are more likely to use that than Ebonics. If it's
not the case that the majority of Ebonics speakers live in the
inner-city, then were do they live?
les
Bosse Dominique
smi...@muss.cis.McMaster.CA (L.G. Smith) writes:
>Languages are genetically related to one another if they derive from the
>same mother language. English and German are genetically related to each
>other as they are both members of the Germanic FAMILY of languages.
>Ebonics isn't a member of the Germanic family of languages, although it
>appears to be on the surface, to the lay person. Ebonics is a member of
>the Niger-Kordofanian/Congo family of languages. Therefore, SAE and
>Ebonics have different genetic backgrounds, and are, as a direct result,
>different langauges. Doesn't sound racist to me.
Your definition of "genetically related" is correct, but your statement that
Ebonics is a member of the NIger-Kordofanian family is way way way off the
track. Ebonics does not share anything with those languages. You might
want to consult Joseph Greenberg's _The Languages of Africa_ (Indiana U.,
1966) or W.E. Welmers' _African Language Structures_ (U. of Californian
Press, 1973) or more recent references to get an idea of what
Niger-Kordofanian languages share as common features and vocabulary.
Ebonics is a dialect of English, with no traces whatsoever of African
language remnants.
Dominique Bosse'
--
BLZ Bub
Bosse Dominique wrote:
> Your definition of "genetically related" is correct, but your statement that
> Ebonics is a member of the NIger-Kordofanian family is way way way off the
> track. Ebonics does not share anything with those languages. You might
> want to consult Joseph Greenberg's _The Languages of Africa_ (Indiana U.,
> 1966) or W.E. Welmers' _African Language Structures_ (U. of Californian
> Press, 1973) or more recent references to get an idea of what
> Niger-Kordofanian languages share as common features and vocabulary.
> Ebonics is a dialect of English, with no traces whatsoever of African
> language remnants.
You very well may be correct in the above, but are you sure that there
are no words in the Ebonics lexicon that are direct carryovers from the
African tongues? Not being a speaker of Ebonics myself, I can't say with
any certainty that that is not the case, but I do know that when I hear
it spoken, I have little if any problem understanding what the speaker
is talking about. It does sound primarily like English to me.
I will also say that when I worked in the inner city of Plainfield NJ
for a while and hung out with friends that I made there, my manner of
speech did change a bit as to pick up those particular patterns. It
didn't take all that long either.
When I was much younger, I traveled about this country by foot
(actually, I hitched rides) and settled for about a year in Arizona.
People out there speak with a sort of western "twang", not quite a
drawl. When I returned here to NJ, my father was so offended by the
"accent" that I picked up from living there, that he sometimes would get
violently angry when I spoke to him.
Ed Stoudenmire
On 3 Mar 1997 05:22:20 -0500, smi...@muss.cis.McMaster.CA (L.G.
Smith) wrote:
>
>>>As I haven't the foggiest how to use the DejaNews service, I can't
>>>provide a quote for you, but I do remember you saying that blacks were
>>>lazy, or lacked a proper work ethic or something like that.
>
No, I did not. Another lie from a foreigner who imagines himself
savior of the world.
>It wasn't an apology.
>
No kidding. No asshole would apoligise for a statement like you made.
>You're right, I'll illiterate and I have someone act out what it written
>here. Funny thing, when a post from you comes up, my interpretor is
>always making a shoveling motion.
>
And your splcheicker is on the frits. That translates into, "Your
spell checker is not working correctly." Asshole.
>Communication is a three part process - speaker, message, and listener.
>If a miscommunicaiton happens, it is never solely the fault of one of the
>participants. The speaker must take some responsibility for
>miscommunications, as it was s/he who originated the message. So, while
>I'll accept some of the responsibility for this ALLEDGED
>miscommunication, you must also shoulder some of the fault.
>
No. If you half-aqss listen to someone, it is YOUR FAULT when you do
not understand. You paid no attention to what I was saying, and
disagreed with it anyway. Asshole.
>Perhaps, PERHAPS, it was because those parents were themselves turned
>down for jobs because of their skin-colour. If you've tried something,
>and hit the wall in doing so, would you push your kids to do it? This is
>just a "perhaps" though, but it seems logical to me, at least more
>logical than saying that it is due to some lack of desire to work
>persisting in the black community. AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOU SAID
>THAT! You know, not everything I say is a response to something you've
>said.
>
Bullshit. I say it is, and so (according to your logic), what I say
you said is exactly what you said. Asshole.
>Never said you said it. A lot of people do however under estimate the
>science of linguistics, and feel that because they have experience with
>language that somehow they are linguists. Some people, not you, ok.
>
No, not ok. You said you know everything there is to know about
language and linguistics, and you speak every language in the world.
Well, I reply: "Liar!" You asshole.
>Well, that's your closet linguist opinion, which BTW just happens to fly
>in the face of all reason, and modern thought about what constitutes a
>language. What criteria are you using to determine that Ebonics isn't a
>foreign language? Have you seen Bell's 7 criteria for distinguishing
>between languages and dialects? It is the most widely accepted of all
>such theories, and application of those criteria to Ebonics clearly
>demonstrates that Ebonics is a language and not a dialect. But, if you
>are using another set of linguistic criteria, I'd love to hear about it.
>
I'm using reality. All the black folks who comprise the set of
non-white friends of mine (understand, asshole?) agree you are a
hand-wringing liberal who wants to save the world via your enlightened
view. They want to wring your enlightened neck, as well.
>>Genetics refers to inheritable traits. And you study linguistics?
>
>Maybe it's not used by that one author you keep quoting, but it is widely
>used in linguistic textbooks, journal articles, and research papers.
>What word do closet linguists use for the type of relationship that
>exists between languages of the same origin?
>
I don't know. You tell me, since you're clearly a closet linguist (as
opposed to a real one).
>>>Ebonics isn't a member of the Germanic family of languages, although it
>>>appears to be on the surface, to the lay person.
Didn't say it was, asshole.
Ebonics is a member of
>>>the Niger-Kordofanian/Congo family of languages.
Only according to idiots who take the claim of "genetic linguistics"
seriously. Like you, asshole.
Therefore, SAE and
>>>Ebonics have different genetic backgrounds, and are, as a direct result,
>>>different langauges. Doesn't sound racist to me.
Does to all linguists who know what they're talking about, asshole.
>I have nothing to feel guilty about. Sounds stupid? All bullshit?
>Those are good retorts. What part of it sounds stupid?
All of it.
It makes perfect
>sense - well at least to those of us who have linguistics training, and
>aren't just closet linguists.
What a self-absorbed asshole.
In fact, not only does it make sense -
>it's fact! Look up pidgin and creole languages in whatever book it is
>you use to get your twisted linguistic knowledge from, and you'll soon
>discover that not one thing I said above is bullshit. Creole languages
>belong not to the family of the language from which the lexicon is taken,
>but remain GENETICALLY related to the other language(s) involved. ie the
>language Korean Bamboo English (a pidgin that briefly existed during the
>Korean War) was never part of the Germanic family of languages, but
>remained part of the Altaic family.
>
Zzzzzzz.... Oh, well... bullshit.
>
>I wish. I've been paying McMaster University thousands of dollars in
>tuition for the past three years
A waste of money, it seems.
I don't mark my own papers, and I
>certainly don't mark my own exams - the results of both BTW have given me
>the A average that I currently enjoy.
HAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lying asshole.
What linguistics training do you
>have? If the answer is none, then my point is made, I am more of an
>expert than you. If you have more linguistics training than me, then I
>will admit that my above statement is wrong. However, that would not be
>an admission that anything I've said here is by any means less worthy of
>consideration.
>
Except that the black folks to whom I have shown your post universally
call you an intellectual asshole, as they do not enjoy being called
stupid because of a language their ancestors **MAY** have spoken.
>>>And how many linguists do you know?
>
>>7. Well, six. One died three years ago.
>
>How do you know these people?
>
I studied - uh - oh, yeah, LANGUAGES with them. Asshole.
>>>I am in contact with linguistics PhDs every day of the week, and they are
>>>all in agreement that Ebonics is a language in its own right
Lying piece of shit.
Also, the
>>>American Linguistics Society showed its support for the project in a
>>>recent press release that was quoted on this newsgroup. So, it seems to
>>>me, that there are *serious* linguists who treat Ebonics as a legitimate
>>>language.
>
I asked you for written documentation for this, and you have YET to
produce it. He's LYING, everyone.
>Not ALL, but all the one's I've talked to, or heard from. Not
>backpeddling at all, you can fall off your bike that way!
>
But you did. Asshole.
>It's in their interest to want federal dollars? I think I see what you
>mean, but remember what I said about communication being a three part
>process. It's also in their interest to see that all their students get
>a proper education.
>
Yes, but you interrupted a private conversation to stick your Canuck
nose in where is wasn't needed, and made claims you cannot back up.
Next time, shut the fuck up. Asshole.
>This Bryson guy has all the answers doesn't he? I mean if Bryson said it
>wasn't the case (even thought lots of people say otherwise) we should BOW
>DOWN!
>
You don't even know who he is. Asshole.
>
>I've only posted about things I have a decent knowledge of.
Horseshit! You jumped in where you were not welcome, and began
asserting yourself as Lord and Master because YOU were in a
LINGUISTICS program. You're a self-absorbed ASSHOLE.
You should
>learn to quote properly, as to show what I was responding to.
Yet you can put words in people's mouths, and you're ok?
ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!!
I said I
>have no knowledge of the Mark Twain book to which you were referring.
>Perhaps you should follow my example, and not speak when it comes to
>topics of linguistics - oh wait - you're a closet linguist, I forgot.
>
Lying asshole. You never said any such thing.
>It would seem to me that if you felt as strongly about the issue as you
>appear to that you would ensure that you use the word dialect in
>reference to Ebonics. But it could be a typo.
Forgive me, asshole, I have slipped up.
>Like your "It's all bullshit" statement? Look it up in DejaNews. I
>believe is was some sort of press release.
Then QUOTE THE FUCKING THING OR SHUT UP!!!!
>You're denying having called me names? Ok. Whatever. I don't know
>about this fascination you have with bowing down to me, but I could get
>used to it.
It's called sarcasm, asshole. Read your dictionary - if you can read
- and then tell me what I mean.
Bottom line -
Ebonics is slang, not a separate language. You claim it is, and
you're wrong. Get used to it.
Unless you plan to move to the US (please, God, not that), shut up and
leave the problem of Ebonics to those of us who actually have to deal
with the shit daily.
L.G. Smith
If ever there was a post not worth responding to, this is it.
thanks for the great laugh,
les
BLZ Bub
Ed, on 03/01 you wrote:
Subject: Re: Ebonics vs American English
From: stoud...@worldnet.att.net (Ed Stoudenmire)
Date: 1997/03/01
Message-Id: <3317855...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: alt.language.ebonics
Yes, and there are white people who have never raised a finger against
anyone in violence, who have had the hell beaten out of them by blacks
because they were white. I should know. I'm one of them.
The last part of your paragraph was just horseshit. Racism does not
keep people in jail - committing crimes does that. Racism does not
keep people in lower economic circumstances - lack of a work ethic
does that. Racism arguably plays a role in keeping a lot of whites
out of jail who might otherwise belong there, but that's an entirely
different topic.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you did not come right out and say that Blacks have a lack of work
ethics.
All I can say about your exchange with Les, is that name calling and ad
hominen attacks do not lend any dignity to your argument. I for one
would be more open to listen to you if you kept to the point and quit
the harsh rhetoric. I know these things piss you off, they piss me off
too.
Tor Slettnes
>>>>> "ES" == Ed Stoudenmire <stoud...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>>>> "LGS" == smi...@muss.cis.McMaster.CA (L.G. Smith) wrote:
LGS> It wasn't an apology.
Ed, I hope you don't mind me taking the liberty of extracting the
essence out of your valuable reply to this imbecile canuck, to make it
more clear for people to get the point. Once and for all.
ES> No kidding. No asshole would apoligise for a statement like
ES> you made.
[...]
ES> "Your spell checker is not working correctly." Asshole.
[...]
ES> and disagreed with it anyway. Asshole.
[...]
ES> Bullshit. I say it is, and so (according to your logic), what
ES> I say you said is exactly what you said. Asshole.
[...]
ES> in the world. Well, I reply: "Liar!" You asshole.
[...]
ES> I'm using reality. All the black folks who comprise the set
ES> of non-white friends of mine (understand, asshole?) agree you
ES> are a hand-wringing liberal who wants to save the world via
ES> your enlightened view. They want to wring your enlightened
ES> neck, as well.
[...]
ES> Didn't say it was, asshole.
[...]
ES> Only according to idiots who take the claim of "genetic
ES> linguistics" seriously. Like you, asshole.
[...]
ES> Does to all linguists who know what they're talking about,
ES> asshole.
[...]
ES> What a self-absorbed asshole.
[...]
ES> Zzzzzzz.... Oh, well... bullshit.
[...]
ES> HAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lying asshole.
[...]
ES> I studied - uh - oh, yeah, LANGUAGES with them. Asshole.
[...]
ES> Lying piece of shit.
[...]
ES> But you did. Asshole.
[...]
ES> Yes, but you interrupted a private conversation to stick your
ES> Canuck nose in where is wasn't needed, and made claims you
ES> cannot back up. Next time, shut the fuck up. Asshole.
[...]
ES> You don't even know who he is. Asshole.
[...]
ES> Horseshit! You jumped in where you were not welcome, and
ES> began asserting yourself as Lord and Master because YOU were
ES> in a LINGUISTICS program. You're a self-absorbed ASSHOLE.
[...]
ES> ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!!
[...]
ES> Lying asshole. You never said any such thing.
[...]
ES> Forgive me, asshole, I have slipped up.
[...]
ES> Then QUOTE THE FUCKING THING OR SHUT UP!!!!
[...]
ES> It's called sarcasm, asshole.
[...]
ES> Unless you plan to move to the US (please, God, not that),
ES> shut up and leave the problem of Ebonics to those of us who
ES> actually have to deal with the shit daily.
Yeah! This terrible Ebonics is simply not articulate enough as a
language, countrary of course to your own shining example of rock
solid English the way it was meant to be.
More power to 'ya!
-tor
