The Ledge Usage Guide

[BTFLCHLD]

Originally Posted by amber

I say sammich too, for fun. It makes the sandwich seem more light, carefree, and flirtatious.

Bet you say that to all the hobos!

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by amber

uh...are you for or against it? I just call it bad grammar, but at the same time I also recognize it's cultural significance,(sp) etc. etc. all the pc stuff. I learned that stuff, I just still think of it as bad grammar. Except the made up words that have no real relation to English words (I can't think of any at the moment, but I'm sure there are some). I just think of those as made up words, which is cool.

well, here's the thing. "standard" english is just a dialect of english, and so is black vernacular english; they're equally valid. it's all about power: who has power in our society? white people. so black english is deemed less valid because it follows a different set of rules than "standard" english.

and what really makes a grammar legit is consistency, and if you analyze BVE discourse, you find that their rules of phonology and syntax are consistent and predictable, just different from standard english.

unfortunately, speaking perfect BVE doesn't really get you anywhere, so we need to come up with some system of instruction to teach standard english to inner city kids as a second language. a couple programs have been enacted in the oakland and la school districts with very little success because of limited funding and participation of the involved teachers. it's a shame because similar studies have been done in sweden & norway with great success because of better planning and methodology.

so to answer your question, i'm neither for it nor against it, but i respect it as a valid dialect.

i really wish my school offered more linguistics classes because this **** is TOTALLY my passion.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by amber

Hey Stew - When you sing to OSOTM, does it sound like this? "When you cry wooof! Waance to often, when you cry woof!, noI, won't come knocking, when you cry woof! I won't heah you, anymore."

Actually, when I'm singing a song with the word "wolf" in it ("Straight Back," "Cry Wolf," Heart's "The Wolf," and so forth), I sing the word correctly. I just can't say it correctly when speaking. Go figure.

[amber]

Originally Posted by carrie721

. so black english is deemed less valid because it follows a different set of rules than "standard" english.

I think English should be standard, the same set of rules. Unless it is a totally different language - I thought ebonics was not a different language?
It's not just ebonics or black people that we try to make follow the standards. It's everyone.
And to that end, I agree with you that it is a shame the methods that worked well in Norway and Sweden didn't work here. Most education doesn't, if your school/area is poor.
I didn't realize exactly that the rules of phonology and syntax are consistent. I also don't know what that sounds like, I wish I could see some examples. But is that what makes it technically a language? What other factors made it be classified....uh, however it is classified (as a language? I don't quite understand). In theory, I could make up a whole nonsense language that was nevertheless consistent within itself.
And is the point of the classification so that people won't call it bad grammar? What is the point? Does that mean we could start studying it in school as we do traditional foreign languages?
(I really don't know the answer to these questions, though maybe you did).

Interesting topic.

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by amber

I think English should be standard, the same set of rules. Unless it is a totally different language - I thought ebonics was not a different language?
It's not just ebonics or black people that we try to make follow the standards. It's everyone.
And to that end, I agree with you that it is a shame the methods that worked well in Norway and Sweden didn't work here. Most education doesn't, if your school/area is poor.
I didn't realize exactly that the rules of phonology and syntax are consistent. I also don't know what that sounds like, I wish I could see some examples. But is that what makes it technically a language? What other factors made it be classified....uh, however it is classified (as a language? I don't quite understand). In theory, I could make up a whole nonsense language that was nevertheless consistent within itself.
And is the point of the classification so that people won't call it bad grammar? What is the point? Does that mean we could start studying it in school as we do traditional foreign languages?
(I really don't know the answer to these questions, though maybe you did).

Interesting topic.

what constitutes a "language" is actually a topic under intense debate, but it's really a useless argument. really, whether ebonics is a different "language" vs. just a dialect is a purely political debate. in linguistic terms, its rules of syntax consistently differ so much from "standard" english that it can be considered its own entity.

the thing about BVE is that it didn't originate from "bad" grammar; its roots go all the way back to the slave trade. it actually began as a pidgin (makeshift language used for commerce & trade) that was eventually creolized; many similarities can be seen between the syntax of BVE and several west african languages. i can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but i can provide some if you want; i just have to dig through my books.

it's important to be aware that BVE isn't just bad grammar because children who grow up speaking BVE in the home & in their culture are placed in classrooms where instruction takes place in standard english, and the differences really are so vast that the kids can't learn. and right now, the most common and accepted form of correction is to just fix mistakes as kids make them instead of showing them the correlations between the two dialects (ok, i know i'm totally rambling right now, but i hope that makes sense ...) in a broader context.

ok, well, an example of a consistent rule of pronunciation in BVE is how they pronounce "th." when it comes at the beginning of a word, it's always pronounced as a "d," and when it comes at the end of a word, it's always "f." always. also, most final consonants are dropped. an example of syntax ... well, in standard english we use "-ed" to indicate past tense, but in BVE the "-ed" is omitted and verb tense is inferred from context. much more important in BVE is the aspect of the verb - that is, whether an action is habitual or not. in BVE, the verb "be" indicates that an action is habitual, so "he be tired" means he is always tired, whereas "he tired" means he's tired right now. this is a great example of the differences between standard english grammar and BVE grammar because it has no parallel verb structure in standard english.

so yes, these differences are part of what make it a separate, legit entity from standard english. also very important is the fact that it came not from lazy english but from a mix of several languages, of which english is just one.

you could study BVE as a foreign language (in fact, a large portion of my linguistics class from last fall was dedicated to this). and when standard english is taught to BVE-speaking kids as foreign languages are taught in HS and college, results are remarkably positive. this is the direction we should be moving in, but there is very little support to recognize BVE as a valid dialect or language or whatever you want to call it.

you really could make up a new vocabulary, grammar, and phonology and call it a language. it would be meaningless unless you taught it to someone else, of course ... but yeah. cool, huh?

now it's time for me to go back to reading my book about mormons. ever read under the banner of heaven by jon krakauer?

[elie]

I have a question
Is it the same to say -for example- "the farmer's daughter" and "the daughter of the farmer"?
Is the latter perhaps more formal somehow? Are there cases where you just have to use the genitive?

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by JazmenFlowers

y'all (I say this a lot)

"Y'all" is a good word, it's a shame it's considered an "incorrect" regional dialect. Most other languages have a proper "y'all," there's no reason for English not to have one either.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by carrie721

you really could make up a new vocabulary, grammar, and phonology and call it a language. it would be meaningless unless you taught it to someone else, of course ... but yeah. cool, huh?

Sci fi and fantacy nerds have been doing it for years! Elvish and Klingon are both "real" languages.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

. . . Elvish and Klingon are both "real" languages.

Thank you!!!!

And, please, let's not forget the dark language of Mordor, which I suppose is a form of Elvish!

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Thank you!!!!

And, please, let's not forget the dark language of Mordor, which I suppose is a form of Elvish!

But of course. I meant not to be so remiss!

I bet more people in the world these days have a functional knowledge of Elvish or Klingon (and maybe both) than Esperanto.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

But of course. I meant not to be so remiss!

I bet more people in the world these days have a functional knowledge of Elvish or Klingon (and maybe both) than Esperanto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto

"it has enjoyed continuous usage by a community estimated at between 100,000 and 2 million speakers"

In other words: "We got no idea, folks."

[skcin]

Originally Posted by amber

Except the made up words that have no real relation to English words (I can't think of any at the moment, but I'm sure there are some). I just think of those as made up words, which is cool.

Fo shizzle my nizzle.

[skcin]

Originally Posted by elie

I have a question
Is it the same to say -for example- "the farmer's daughter" and "the daughter of the farmer"?
Is the latter perhaps more formal somehow? Are there cases where you just have to use the genitive?

It is the same, but the former is used much more than the latter in the U.S.

Newpaper articles are about the only instance I can think of, actually. "Sara Smith, the daughter of the farmer, tells us that he loved his farm dearly..." But you don't usually hear someone saying it that way in conversation.

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by carrie721

what constitutes a "language" is actually a topic under intense debate, but it's really a useless argument. really, whether ebonics is a different "language" vs. just a dialect is a purely political debate. in linguistic terms, its rules of syntax consistently differ so much from "standard" english that it can be considered its own entity.

the thing about BVE is that it didn't originate from "bad" grammar; its roots go all the way back to the slave trade. it actually began as a pidgin (makeshift language used for commerce & trade) that was eventually creolized; many similarities can be seen between the syntax of BVE and several west african languages. i can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but i can provide some if you want; i just have to dig through my books.

it's important to be aware that BVE isn't just bad grammar because children who grow up speaking BVE in the home & in their culture are placed in classrooms where instruction takes place in standard english, and the differences really are so vast that the kids can't learn. and right now, the most common and accepted form of correction is to just fix mistakes as kids make them instead of showing them the correlations between the two dialects (ok, i know i'm totally rambling right now, but i hope that makes sense ...) in a broader context.

ok, well, an example of a consistent rule of pronunciation in BVE is how they pronounce "th." when it comes at the beginning of a word, it's always pronounced as a "d," and when it comes at the end of a word, it's always "f." always. also, most final consonants are dropped. an example of syntax ... well, in standard english we use "-ed" to indicate past tense, but in BVE the "-ed" is omitted and verb tense is inferred from context. much more important in BVE is the aspect of the verb - that is, whether an action is habitual or not. in BVE, the verb "be" indicates that an action is habitual, so "he be tired" means he is always tired, whereas "he tired" means he's tired right now. this is a great example of the differences between standard english grammar and BVE grammar because it has no parallel verb structure in standard english.

so yes, these differences are part of what make it a separate, legit entity from standard english. also very important is the fact that it came not from lazy english but from a mix of several languages, of which english is just one.

you could study BVE as a foreign language (in fact, a large portion of my linguistics class from last fall was dedicated to this). and when standard english is taught to BVE-speaking kids as foreign languages are taught in HS and college, results are remarkably positive. this is the direction we should be moving in, but there is very little support to recognize BVE as a valid dialect or language or whatever you want to call it.

you really could make up a new vocabulary, grammar, and phonology and call it a language. it would be meaningless unless you taught it to someone else, of course ... but yeah. cool, huh?

now it's time for me to go back to reading my book about mormons. ever read under the banner of heaven by jon krakauer?

Thanks for the Sociolinguistics 101 rundown. Very succinct and oh so "linguisticky."

Seriously, great synopsis !