Use of Ebonics

They have published a lot of books.

 

You mean the one they used to teach in school.

 

My young kids are approaching school age. I’m not even sure yet how to put them through school and ensure the kids are sane when they are done with it.

 

Yes, that one.

 

It was not my intention to imply anything about you. I just asked those questions to prove a point that I will make in the following.

All those are myths. We learn from our parents, our peers and in school this thing called "grammar", and we never ask why it is the way it is. Or why it's necessary. I can tell you right now, it's not!

Noam Chomsky, who is considered "The Father of Linguistics" proved that there is only one grammar. It's universal and everybody in the world uses it perfectly. And it comes with everybody when they are born.

The universal grammar we are born with is complex, but a basic form is

A subject, a verb (with a time) and a predicate.

John is hungry
John tiene hambre
John hat Hunger
John ana njaa
John be hungry
....
"Standard" English, Spanish, German, Swahili, Ebonics ... and you can use any language or any dialect, they all have a person or object, an action or condition, and some piece of information abut the subject. You don't learn this. It's embedded in your brain before you are born. All grammar is innate in all human beings. Regardless of ethnic group, social status, language, education level or IQ. They all follow this simple rule.

But we are taught that "I am hungry" is (quote unquote) "correct" but "I is hungry" is not. Have you ever asked yourself why? What makes one correct and the other incorrect? They both communicate the same idea just fine. There is no logic that tells you that "am" is correct while "is" is not. There is not even a consistent rule that we can apply through all the language. If the first phrase is correct, but not the second, why are both "We are hungry" and "They are hungry" correct?

It's just a convention that adds nothing to the communication. And the only reason we consider one "right", but not the other, is that we were taught to disparage others for not using this arbitrary convention.

People who speak ebonics communicate just fine among themselves. Not one iota less than people who speak any other dialect of English. They just use a different arbitrary convention than the one we use. But they are both arbitrary. I don't know what "low vocabulary" means. If you mean less words.. they beat us! The can communicate just as well as you and me, but need less words to do it. Languages have as many words as they need in order to communicate. Not more, not less. And if the need arises for another word, no problem..... they borrow it from another dialect or another language. As for sounding "stupid"... With all due respect, but that is bigoted. I don't mean you are... just what you said. It sounds perfectly fine to them. You shouldn't judge people from the perspective of your own personal reality.

The purpose of language is to communicate. Not to disparage anybody. The most important part is that you have something of substance to communicate. And if you manage to communicate that "something", you're golden. I don't care how you do it. If you start disparaging people because of the way they communicate, you are negating the very purpose of language which is to communicate.

 

English doesn’t make a lot of sense on the surface, but I like it because it’s very technical. I prefer to do math in my head in English instead of russian or Ukrainian.
You shouldn’t really question the rules of any language as they all evolved over time and each language has a ton of exceptions to each rule.

Just like when you agreed in your “race is a social construct” thread from the past that when someone says “race” everyone knows what the conversation is about, you should agree with the fact that when someone says “proper English” everyone understands exactly what the conversation is about.

 

There is no such thing as "proper English". If you want to participate in any activity, you learn the dialect of that activity. It's "proper" for that activity. The same goes for individual activities. If you want to participate in international trade, you should learn "Standard" English. If you want to participate in "High Cuisine" you should learn French. If you want to be successful in professional international soccer, you're better off if you know "Standard" Spanish. If it's American Cuisine, learning Creole will get you a long way.

That doesn't mean that any of them are open-ended "proper". Just proper for that particular activity.

In reality the more languages and dialects you know, the more possibilities for success you'll have. The main factor is the vocabulary you use. And that it's understood by more people in that particular activity. But not the grammar.

And they will understand the grammar of Ebonics also with very little effort. They will understand "I is hungry" just as well as "I am hungry". It will be no problem for them. The vocabulary is a different matter, but the real grammar is universal.

Only to show other English speakers that you are part of an "elite" that obtained a higher education degree in which an arbitrary set of grammatical rules are taught. Even though those rules do not improve communication or are derived from any logical consistency or fulfill any need in the communication whatsoever. What is critical in any activity is that you have something to say. How you say it is irrelevant other than to appear "educated" in certain environments. But from a linguistic point of view, one is not more "proper" than another.

It has perfect grammatical rules. A subject (She) a verb (bin had) and a predicate (dat han'-made dress). The particular form in which those rules are applied may be different from what you are used to. But from a linguistic point of view, they are not more "proper" or in any way "better" than the ones you use. They transmit the same information, just in a different dialect.

Complete nonsense. If you are anybody, and don't encourage others to learn many languages and dialects, you are doing them a great harm. That doesn't mean you have to "unlearn" what you already know. It certainly doesn't mean that you have to disparage the way they communicate. Doing that would be racist bigotry. And it would negate the purpose of language which is to communicate. Not to disparage anybody.

I encourage you to learn German, Spanish (the many many dialects), Swahili, Inuit, ... Ebonics! Some may or may not come in handy. But the more languages and dialects you know, the more possibilities you open. I would not encourage you to un-learn any that you know now. That would be taking a step back.

As I said, the difference is the vocabulary. Not the grammar. And there is no reason to conclude that the way you said it is in any way more "proper" or "better" than the former. In fact, it expresses the same idea quicker and using less words. I find that extremely elegant. Don't you?

 

These people all know what you mean- they just haven't matured to the point of being able to support adult attitudes.
Still think it's cool to be rebellious about whatever.

Being "different" is somehow like having an identity- and most have no idea who in hell they really are or what they stand for; they grasp at whatever straw is handy at the moment.

 

Are you aware of the danger of someone who cannot communicate properly in a standardized language? I don't care what language, but if it isn't standardized, then that person becomes a danger, potentially lethal.

One person, who communicates in a standardized language, is driving a fork lift. Another person, who does not communicate in a standardized language, attempts to warn the first person of an oncoming truck.

Does the inability to communicate in a standardized language endanger other people? Yes.

I don't care what they speak with other people who speak the same as they do, in this particular case Ebonics. But if one cannot communicate concisely in a standardized language, they are a hazard to the public.

 

Not superior. Just more proper. Why inject things that weren't said.

 

It takes much more than talking like Morgan Freeman to sound like Morgan Freeman.

Morgan Freeman could sit there an read the phonebook, and make it seem interesting.

I don't speak Ebonics. The fact that I myself, and the people I typically write to understand one dialect and not another doesn't make mine either "better" or more "proper".

If a University professor gave you an F purely because of how you wrote your report, ignoring the fact that you showed and communicated complete knowledge of the matter, that teacher should not be teaching. You would have all the arguments in the world to appeal. It's obvious you have never taught in higher education, have you?

In the scenario discussed you would have a higher chance of getting an F in Elementary School than you would at any University.

 

"Published books"? Is that your standard? If it's in a "book" then it must be true?

I'm afraid you have wasted your money. If you want to learn about Linguistics, buy books written by linguists. Not by some Elementary School English teacher who doesn't know what they're talking about....

 

I'm sorry but I believe it's you that doesn't understand what I'm talking about.

 

Any language allows communication among those who understand it. We could speak pig latin but would lose a critical number of our audience. "I is talk" just means your vocal cords work, not that you are going to be able to communicate your thoughts to the large percentage of the populace.

 

Quite aptly stated, that is what the current generation of Americans and their parents are, people who depend on popular culture to define them, how very, very sad. A few generations back, kids barely out of high school were fighting a war in Europe against a monstrous evil. They were the definition of America and the embodiment of it. Now the twenty somethings are engaged in riots, looting and murder in support of the same sort of evil. The extreme left, the useful idiots of the global elitists has convinced them that America is evil. Imagine the intellectual vacancy that had to be created to make that illusion work and all of the connivances and abetting it takes to maintain it. America will not end in an apocalypse, it will devolve into a wasteland of ineducable, infantile, babbling cretins.

 

Yet another example of a racist post where right-wingers can gather to snicker, giggle and hate on that dumb black race. You seem to spend an inordinate amount of time comparing black culture to the superior gold standard white race and black culture always comes out looking bad. Ever wonder why that is? I think it is insecurity and fear, but that's a whole other can of worms.

Every region of the US and culture uses non-standard English when in non-formal or non-professional situations. It also varies by education. The less educated the further from standard English. All of that should be common knowledge, but y'all seem to be beaucoup obsessed with them blacks.

 

Yes. Because the rules are arbitrary, they have no intrinsic logic and add nothing to the communication. Calling something "proper" just because you follow certain arbitrary useless rules, and disparaging others because they use different arbitrary useless rules, is absurd.

I'm sorry to say that I (and people who understand a bit about linguistics. As well as many who don't) understand it to be about white supremacy. And nothing more. Especially when it's in reference to something like Ebonics. Even you felt the need to start the OP clarifying that you didn't want to offend anybody. There might be less confusion if somebody talks about "standard English" or more adequately "standard American English". But when you say that one form of English is "proper", you are implying that there are others that are "improper". And the question "what makes them improper?" is inevitable. Some form of veiled racism being in many cases (maybe not all, but the large majority) the only possible explanation. And in all cases a distinct elitist mentality.

The only "proper" English is the one that communicates what the orator needs communicated. If it accomplishes that it has been communicated properly,. But it's the communication, not the language used, what is "proper".

Exception is, of course, what is considered "proper" legal language or "proper" Academic language... and all similar "proper" technical language.. Which is still elitist, but necessary to account for the shortcomings of written language as compared to spoken language.

 

Same issue applies to virtually anyone who does not speak a clear concise version of the regional language, regardless of their race.

Your automatic assumption that only Blacks were being referred to, is rather telling. Yes, Ebonics is a predominately Black slang. Do they speak it in Europe?

In Germany, different regions speak different dialects. If you travel from one region to another, they may or may not understand you. Do you believe that if someone lives in a place that a particular langue is spoken, that the individual should speak the predominant lanuage?

 

No. What is this "danger" you speak of? And, in any case, what gives you the idea that people can't communicate in Ebonics with other people who use it regularly, and in "standard" English with those who don't?

Oh God! What is this "lethal danger" that speaking Ebonics or any dialect in any language makes an individual dangerous?

What? Was that it? That's ridiculous!

If you put people who need to communicate together who don't speak the same language it will be dangerous! But, first of all, what does that have to do with Ebonics? But the boss who put them together is the one who is putting them in jeopardy. Not the language

And again: what does that have to do with this thread, which is about Ebonics?

So... you didn't even bother to give an example to illustrate this particular nonsense.

But if you're advocating for everybody in the world to speak the same language, what is your argument that this language should be "standard" American English?

 

What is the difference?

 

“If you can't say it simply and clearly, keep quiet, and keep working on it till you can.”
-Karl Popper​

 

I did give an example, which you dismissed.

You also ignored the fact that outside of interaction with people who do NOT speak Ebonics, I really don't care what people speak, English, Ebonics or otherwise.

You have obviously never worked with someone who has spoken a foreign language, or a slang that other people don't understand, in a work environment. Until then, you will continue to refuse to understand the impact communication has on other people.

No, I do not advocate that everyone speak English. You obviously waltzed past my statement regarding dialects. Selective responses, how... limiting.

 

Of course you will lose your audience. Because the most important rule in any communication is that you have something to communicate. "I is talk" does not communicate anything. "I is hungry" (which is my example) does. If you are talking to an audience, what you say must not just communicate something. But something that is of interest to that audience. But your example doesn't even pass the most basic requirement.

Using a meaningless example to prove that you can come up with a meaningless example is ridiculous.

BTW, you did not address a single point of the ones I mad on the post you quote. Why quote it if you're not going to address it?

 

Great! Neither do I. And that's the topic of this thread.

If you want to discuss a different topic, like work security and stupid bosses, you are more than welcome to open a new thread.

 

Uh, my automatic assumption that only Blacks were being referred to, is rather telling because that is what the OP is about. What did you think it was about? Careful it could be "telling".