Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
and my charges are true, I havn't heard one valid reason as to why ebonics is a slang.
I suppose its not slang. However it is a dialect of english rather than a real language of its own. Many people don't discriminate between extreme variants of a langauge and slang.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaosit's not a dialect, because dialect would mean that ebonics is confined to certain geographical areas. Which is not true. Ebonics is an ethnolect.
I suppose its not slang. However it is a dialect of english rather than a real language of its own. Many people don't discriminate between extreme variants of a langauge and slang.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I suppose its not slang. However it is a dialect of english rather than a real language of its own. Many people don't discriminate between extreme variants of a langauge and slang.
It's an ethnolect of english with west african phonolgy, and has roots in jive talk, southern english, creole, pidgin, and etc.
Originally posted by Strangelove
a) Wikipedia has been proven to be just as reliable as 'official' encyclopædias
b) you didn't even give your two reasons
c) it's not a dialect
It is a dialect.
You have later posted:
'it's not a dialect, because dialect would mean that ebonics is confined to certain geographical areas. Which is not true. Ebonics is an ethnolect.'
That's very untrue. Dialect doesn't imply a confinement to geographical areas, at all.
Further, all of these silly 'ethnolect' substratums are types of dialect.
Nebulous though they are, to the extent that they are anything, they are types of dialect.
What do you hope to add to your point by calling it an 'ethnolect' rather than a dialect anyway, rather than slightly less pedal wear on the reverse?
Originally posted by Victor Von Doompeople using the word 'dialect' as an infinitely broad term perturbs me. Indeed, any term that people use over-broadly annoys me. You're probably right that 'ethnolect' is a type of dialect. But why call it a dialect if there's a more specific term?
It is a dialect.You have later posted:
'it's not a dialect, because dialect would mean that ebonics is confined to certain geographical areas. Which is not true. Ebonics is an ethnolect.'
That's very untrue. Dialect doesn't imply a confinement to geographical areas, at all.
Further, all of these silly 'ethnolect' substratums are types of dialect.
Nebulous though they are, to the extent that they are anything, they are types of dialect.
What do you hope to add to your point by calling it an 'ethnolect' rather than a dialect anyway, rather than slightly less pedal wear on the reverse?
You still haven't mentioned those 'two reasons' why information from Wikipedia is 'shaky'
Originally posted by Strangelove
people using the word 'dialect' as an infinitely broad term perturbs me. Indeed, any term that people use over-broadly annoys me. You're probably right that 'ethnolect' is a type of dialect. But why call it a dialect if there's a more specific term?
Well, regardless, saying 'it's not a dialect' is like saying a BMW isn't a car because there is a more specific term.
Originally posted by Strangelove
You still haven't mentioned those 'two reasons' why information from Wikipedia is 'shaky'
There was one- it is edited by anyone. Admittedly that could be a PhD, but it could also be debbiejo.
The other reason related not to Wiki, but to starting a post within an ongoing debate with the words 'I have just looked it up, and...'.
Originally posted by Victor Von DoomI only used 'it is not a dialect' at the beginning, when I was going off of conviction rather than information. If you noticed, I changed my argument after I looked it up
Well, regardless, saying 'it's not a dialect' is like saying a BMW isn't a car because there is a more specific term.
There was one- it is edited by anyone. Admittedly that could be a PhD, but it could also be debbiejo.Sure, anyone can edit it, and that's generally a good thing. The majority of editors of the articles want to help rather than hurt. And there a re very meticulous screeners of the edits at that site. I've had run-ins with them before because what I edited wasn't 'precisely correct'The other reason related not to Wiki, but to starting a post within an ongoing debate with the words 'I have just looked it up, and...'.
And I realize that I probably should have looked it up before I even got into the discussion, but I had very strong feelings on the subject
Originally posted by Strangelove
I only used 'it is not a dialect' at the beginning, when I was going off of conviction rather than information. If you noticed, I changed my argument after I looked it up
You said it just before this exchange began.
Originally posted by Strangelove
Sure, anyone can edit it, and that's generally a good thing. The majority of editors of the articles want to help rather than hurt. And there a re very meticulous screeners of the edits at that site. I've had run-ins with them before because what I edited wasn't 'precisely correct'And I realize that I probably should have looked it up before I even got into the discussion, but I had very strong feelings on the subject
It is generally good for a grounding. Not so good for authority, though. Especially without other backing.
Although it's not really that relevant to the thread.
Originally posted by Victor Von DoomTrue. I apologize.
You said it just before this exchange began.It is generally good for a grounding. Not so good for authority, though. Especially without other backing.
Although it's not really that relevant to the thread.
well, what is any encylopædia for except a grounding? Wikipedia is actually more detailed than most encycloædias
Originally posted by Strangelove
True. I apologize.well, what is any encylopædia for except a grounding? Wikipedia is actually more detailed than most encycloædias
Encyclopaedias tend to have credibility as official sources.
Anyway- can we shut up about Wikipedia?
Good for introductory info, sometimes good for more detailed research, but not usually credible in more official situations because of the manner in which it comes about.
I believe we both agree on that.
Originally posted by Victor Von DoomYou say 'can we shut up about Wikipedia' as if we've been talking about it for pages on end. You're a little irritable, you know that?
Encyclopaedias tend to have credibility as official sources.Anyway- can we shut up about Wikipedia?
Good for introductory info, sometimes good for more detailed research, but not usually credible in more official situations because of the manner in which it comes about.
I believe we both agree on that.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Based on what, because I've actually given a valid reason versus your ranting?
Once again, your understanding of the english language has failed you. If you can't decipher between ranting and sharing a valid opinion, then I leave you to your "ebonics".
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
No, it is not, I know many people who speak perfect english and ebonics. Stop generalizing people with your Elitist western world conformist views FFS. Bottomline is you haven't given any valid reason as to why ebonics is not a dialect. If you don't like it, I don't care. Just post a reason why it's not a dialect.
I'm not generalizing at all. You are. You'd know that if you read my last post and understood it. I don't care about people who get together and speak spanish or klingon or german, much less ebonics. But my point is that conformity to a certain reality is not dismissive. Your idea that Ebonics is a legitimate way to communicate is not.
I haven't argued that it's not a dialect, I've argued that it has no legitimate place in the speaking world.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
That post alone just verifyed my point, stop generalizing.
See above.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
1)WTF is wrong with expressing your cultural heritage?
2)Ebonics, pigin, creole, all exsist because of the social rift that was created in the past. Hell, that's how languages usually form.Because the need to communicate.
There's nothing wrong with expressing your cultural heritage. There is something wrong with confusing "cultural heritage with modern and willful stupidity. The need to communicate has nothing to do with setting yourself apart from other people with which you need to communicate! Creole is an amalgamation of different cultures and languages that were foced together in colonial times. There is no need for ebonics based on todays culture. There's a luxury for it, but no need.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I call you an elitist, because your critquing something you have no knowledge of and calling it a bastard english. You haven't given a single valid argument so far in this post.
I also don't know how to speak Klingon. And you are actually of the opinion that I need to give a valid argument for Ebonics? Are you kidding? You're the one who's arguing for the legitimacy of Ebonics!
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
My friend, klingon is a language created in a fictional program. it has no basis in real world history Ebonics does. So, you anology is not only weak but moot.
And how is that "real world" basis any more relevant than the intentionally "seperate but equal" world created by a "dialect" like Ebonics?
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Ebonics predates rap by a mile, I already elabrated on how people tend to mix up stupid phrases they here in a music video with ebonics.Get out of your head that just because you hear a few words doesn't equate to knowlege of a dialect.
Yeah, I don't recall arguing rap as though it were the basis for my opinion of the situation, but you keep on with that if you like. I'm not the one arguing what I "here" in a rap video as though it were Ebonics. I don't have to hear every instance of a 'dialect' to know it's ridiculous. See, that's because I can speak English...you know, the bastardized language on which ebonics was based? I don't hear a lot of African Ebonics to support your claim. And I'm not saying those who "speak" Ebonics can't speak English, I'm saying they won't. And you'd understand that's my issue, not the existence of Ebonics in the first place.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Once again, your understanding of the english language has failed you. If you can't decipher between ranting and sharing a valid opinion, then I leave you to your "ebonics".
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I'm not generalizing at all. You are. You'd know that if you read my last post and understood it. I don't care about people who get together and speak spanish or klingon or german, much less ebonics. But my point is that conformity to a certain reality is not dismissive. Your idea that Ebonics is a legitimate way to communicate is not.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I haven't argued that it's not a dialect, I've argued that it has no legitimate place in the speaking world.
Because you don't like it, and it doesn't fit your elitist views. You've shown that quite well.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
There's nothing wrong with expressing your cultural heritage. There is something wrong with confusing "cultural heritage with modern and willful stupidity. The need to communicate has nothing to do with setting yourself apart from other people with which you need to communicate! Creole is an amalgamation of different cultures and languages that were foced together in colonial times. There is no need for ebonics based on todays culture. There's a luxury for it, but no need.
No, one did any of the above, the origin of ebonics again is in pidgin and other dialects that west african slaves created in order to communicate with each other. Ebonics is similar to creole because they are both based on pidgin and use west african phonology.Yeah, now a days the dialect isn't needed, but it's part of there culture, just likle christmas isn't needed, but is celebrated.
Again, your just an elitist, that forcing your narrow minded conforist ways down peoples throat. You keep calling ebonics ignorance, when you don't know squat about it's origin. Then you use a weak analogy, and compare it to klingon.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I also don't know how to speak Klingon. And you are actually of the opinion that I need to give a valid argument for Ebonics? Are you kidding? [B]You're the one who's arguing for the legitimacy of Ebonics! [/B]
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
And how is that "real world" basis any more relevant than the intentionally "seperate but equal" world created by a "dialect" like Ebonics?
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Yeah, I don't recall arguing rap as though it were the basis for my opinion of the situation, but you keep on with that if you like. I'm not the one arguing what I "here" in a rap video as though it were Ebonics. I don't have to hear every instance of a 'dialect' to know it's ridiculous. See, that's because I can speak English...you know, the bastardized language on which ebonics was based? I don't hear a lot of African Ebonics to support your claim. And I'm not saying those who "speak" Ebonics can't speak English, I'm saying they won't. And you'd understand that's my issue, not the existence of Ebonics in the first place.
Of course your not going to here about it from africans, eboics, pidgin, creol were all crafted by afro-americans,FFS.
I base my argument because you obviously don't know jack abour ebonics, yet, claim it's bastardized english. So, far with no proof and nothing but your own narrow minded perspective.
"An African Writer Looks at Ebonics" by Tarty TehI don't know much about ebonics, but I know a good deal about Grebo, my native dialect. I have heard ebonics spoken and I have confused it with bad English. I have spent a good deal of my academic life trying hard to separate my native Grebo dialect from the English language when I write or speak the latter. And while I do not expect applause whenever I complete a sentence in English without a serious breach of grammar, I must admit that I admire the genius of those who have skipped the hard task of mastering English by applying for a patent on ignorance.
If I quit English, I can return to my native tribe where another form of speech exists. There hardly is a stranger in my village, so I run no real risk of being misunderstood. But even in the village, the Grebo dialect exists in both good and bad forms.
The Grebo I grew up speaking is not a written language; yet even in its spoken form there are rules for forming sentences and about agreements among elements of a sentence. There also are conflicts about which experienced speakers of the language warn. The warnings, the demand for consistency over time—all this constitutes conventions or rules of grammar.
It was in my village of Borti that at the age of 12 I began to learn English as both an academic subject and as the medium of instruction for all other disciplines.
My attitude toward my native Grebo language was shaped by my father, who demanded that I think critically about how I spoke. It was by thinking harder that I became aware of the conceptual conflicts that are the basis of bad grammar.
Because English is a written language, any usage in written communication—good or bad—is presumed to be the writer's best effort. Therefore if it is bad, the writer can be judged as lacking the most basic discipline in thought processing. But the criticism often is applied too broadly
Exponents of ebonics say there are rules of grammar governing it. Maybe so, but I almost am certain that the assumptions upon which a usage is based can be put forth as justification for its existence and perhaps acceptance—if enough people subscribe. But often there are wrong assumptions.
Before I started school, nearly every time my mother had an occasion to use the word "twins," my father screamed his objection to her usage. Of course neither parent spoke English. The debate was not about English; it was about, and was carried on in, Grebo.
I don't believe my mother ever figured out why my father thought she was wrong. It was much plainer to my father that for the construction "My niece has given birth to two twins" to stand, there must be four babies. And my father would explain that it was as simple as adding two and two. " Twins' accounts for two babies, can't you understand? With two of those you have four babies!"
But there are less obvious notional conflicts that may trip even the most studious grammarian. I have seen my own American-born children struggle with complex notions even as they try to obey—and at times derive—the rules of grammar.
Late one night I had the pleasure of knowing that my middle child Jahtay—then four—had fallen asleep unusually early, which allowed me to finish a book. Well, not quite. He came to the study with a baseball bat about an hour later claiming that his 6-year-old brother Tyee, then fast asleep, had hit him with it earlier.
I must have betrayed incredulity by my look because Jahtay volunteered a revision of his claim without letting me render a judgment: "Daddy, first he hit me with it softly and then he hit me hardly."
Now I could not hide the smile, which prompted him to ask, "Daddy, you don't believe me?" To which I gladly and truthfully replied, "Yes, Jahtay, I believe he hardly hit you." And that pleased him greatly. (I also promised him I would talk with Tyee in the morning; after all, brandishing a baseball bat was a sufficient safety breach to justify at least a warning.)
While the true meaning of the word "hardly" is too complex for a 4-year-old, the context in which my son used the word suggests a connotation that is not in violation of sound reasoning. It can be called cute or, in fact, clever, but it still is not standard English. He cannot be allowed to maintain his own system of logic in the use of the language, even if there are valid rules by which he arrived at his own usage.
There well may be rules of ebonics grammar that make sense, but making sense is not the sole criterion for standards in language. Some deviations from the standard may seem to make more sense than the accepted practice. When Tyee was 3, his name for the day just past was "lasterday." I corrected him a couple of times, but I relented a bit when he argued that "last night" was the prompter for "lasterday." Strong stuff! But we are talking about being understood, not about deepening our understanding of some recondite subject.
Ebonics allows those who speak it to fashion rules of grammar to justify current usage. But after the pioneers of ebonics have determined that the language's malleability has peaked, good old learning once again will creep in and govern what once may have been someone's loose or lazy talk.