Wait, what? Being black makes one an expert in AAVE but being a linguist doesn’t? What the fuck?
Are you somehow startled by the suggestion that a native speaker knows more about his own language than someone who paid $50,000 to study it out of a book for a few semesters? I know it horrifies academic linguistics, but I think it happens to be true.
Are you somehow under the impression that being black automatically makes one an expert on everything related to African Americans? Or that someone with a PhD in linguistics knows less than a random native speaker of whatever language they specialize in just because they didn’t grow up learning it?
Why would you assume that pizzabrat is a “native speaker” of AAVE? Not all blacks speak AAVE around the house, or anywhere else for that matter.
Not all blacks speak AAVE natively or at all. I have known a few. Mind you, from his rant, I did get the impression that pizzabrat does, although, I did not realize he is black. I still have this picture of him as this one red haired pizza faced sim, which is silly and stupid shows I have been playing sims 2 way too much.
And thanks for the clarification. I saw that in America and wondered if my understanding of the be construction was incomplete, but no, it was just someone tying to be funny and missing.
I mean only what I said. Regarding AAVE, I consider the opinion of a lifelong native speaker more authoritative than someone who has a PhD in linguistics. I would it the height of arrogance for a non-speaker to tell someone that they’re speaking their own language incorrectly, or to dispute someone else’s direct observations.
I don’t know or speculate as to the identity of the OP… I did say “black” earlier in following other posters on this thread, but I was thinking of lifelong native speakers of AAVE. In this case I would argue that their prescriptive definition may not be 100% encompassing or subject to some regionalism, because I and other posters have had experience that suggests this is the cse.
pizzabrat, Biggirl, Aesiron. Maybe y’all can help me with something.
I’m currently writing a comic book script I’ve had to put down twice now because of a writing stumbling block.
Anyway. My character, Peter, mumbles rhythmically; runs his words together like garbled computer code, a mix of West Coast slang (which admittedly needs work), AAV southern patios and outrageous threats. For KING OF THE HILL fans, imagine listening to a slightly more articulate angry black Boomhauer. It all sounds very interesting to me, but I’m concerned that most my readers will find it very hard to read.
So when Peter first talks, to establish that he’s speaking an even more …uh… unique form of ebonics, I mostly have him echoing other characters, especially the Head Thug In Charge, who has an unconscious tendency to hld court like a violent minister, to preach the gospel of the streets with Peter playing the part of the choir on stage, maybe even an reflective Greek Chorus. To wit:
Hopefully this sets up a transition “teaching” the reader how Peter talks, so when Peter talks without echoing someone, the reader can read and ultimately “hear” his voice mostly unassisted:
So… is it readable? Am I right to put it down? Thoughts. (You know, misogyny and violence aside.)
Of course, black comedians are always 100% accurate when they talk like a redneck. :dubious:
No direct response to this, since it has nothing to do with anything, but I wanted to make clear that by putting “comedians” in quotes, I meant it sarcastically to cover not just professional standup guys, but any guy thinking he’s funny by speaking “ebonics”, such as wacky website authors, comic strip editors, messageboard posters, etc.
Oh, goodie! Does that mean I can stop correcting my son every time he calls a “bagel” a “roll” or not twitch when my brother confuses “who” and “whom”? People make gramatical and semantic mistakes in their native dialects all the time. There’s the way the rule works on paper and the way it works in colloquial speech. These are difficulties, as pedantic linguists and mothers, up with which we must put!
One of the things which makes AAVE a dialect instead of simply “poor grammatical English” is the fact that it **does **have such rules which are internalized by a majority of the speakers and used consistently. That doesn’t mean they’re used exclusively, any more than many of us get “he and I” and “he and me” right 100% of the time. But the “rule” is still valid, even in it’s breaking.
It’s these rules that are noted and codified and writen down in textbooks by linguists. They’re not making the rules up - the speakers are doing that. They’re simply writing them down. Which does mean, sooner or later, they’ll be out of date. If not, we’d all still be speaking Middle English. Perhaps the better question (and Great Debate territory) is if AAVE is changing so rapidly that the “be + verb = continous state of being” rule is becomeing outdated already. Perhaps it’s already going the way of the “never end a sentance with a preposition” rule or the “ain’t ain’t a word” rule. The only people who would be able to tell us that are the linguists, who can get a much larger and wider sample selection than any one AAVE speaker can possibly hear in a day. Any smaller variations can be attributed to regionalisms, not a true dialect shift or grammatical evolution.
(Askia, I know you didn’t ask me, but I had to slow WAY down in my reading speed and mentally translate each word Peter says in the second selection. “annottase” still has me stumped. It would make me skip a lot of his dialogue in the book.)
I guess the bastardization of a language has finally come full circle when the bastardization has its own purists.
I’m sorry, but while the discussion is interesting, I am having a very difficult time accepting the premise.
Have you and I “bastardized” Queen Elizabeth’s English, or has it simply moved on and evolved within our dialect? There’s some folks in the Ozarks who are still speaking something pretty close to Queen Lizzie who might be quite upset at our “bastardization.” Who decides? Ultimately, the linguists have come up with some definitions to help us decide.
A dialect is any spoken variation on a language with internally consistent rules and grammar that still permits communication between speaker of it and a different dialect. I can understand and communicate quite well with an AAVE speaker, although it may take me a few moments to work some phrases out in my head. When I work a Rennaisance Fair, I can speak in an Elizabethan dialect and a SAE (Standard American English) speaker can understand me, although they may need to think about phrases like “How stands the hour, mistress?” (What time is it, ma’am?) before they get it.
By that linguistic definition, AAVE is indeed a dialect, not a bastardization.
This reminds me of the Kid & Play movie where the one is teaching the other to speak black.
Kid: So, if I’m on an airplane, “I be fly”?
Play: I don’t know. What are you wearing?
WhyNot: I am particularly pleased by “annotase,” but disappointed you couldn’t parse it. Sigh.
I throroughly appreciate any feedback, though I shouldn’t have highjacked this thread to do it. (Sorry, pizzabrat.) It’s a reason why I’ve stopped writing this particular script. Peter’s way of talking reminds me a lot of that one gangster’s brogue in Garth Ennis’ DICKS or Arseface’s mumbling in PREACHER, or if you’ve read any, Noel Chandler Harris’ Bruh Rabbit Stories. Reading any kind of dialect is hard for people not accustomed to it.
I think I may have to fall back on my “echoing” technique more, maybe using other ways of translating, or else shorten Peter’s mumbling considerably.
No, it has everything to do with your OP. Why flame people for not using the exact dialect in imitating black people, when the same is true for any imitation of any ethnic group. What the hell do you mean, it has “nothing to do with anything?”
Now that has nothing to do with anything.
Well, first and foremost, you can stop making analogies comparing black people to children whose “incorrect” AAVE needs correcting.
Alternately, we could allow the possibility that the rules originally written were incomplete or incorrect. Actually I prefer to say that the rules were “captured” because “written” implies original authorship, which is not the case.
It has nothing to do with anything because my rant has everything to do with the “be” thing and how wannabe comedians get it consistently wrong, and nothing to do with redneck speak. I don’t know anything about that, so if you have a problem with that, why don’t you rant about it?
It’s readable but I have to slow down to read it and much like WhyNot, I still can’t translate annotase. Why’re you asking me, though? Do you think I’m black? If so, I take it as a great compliment coming from you, but I’m Italian, Irish, and Cherokee and, as you can see, not the least bit black.
I had no problem with it, assuming “annottase” == “and not taste the”, but I had heavy exposure to AAVE when I was very young, as my school system had a legally-mandated desegration program that bussed white kids (like yours truly) to predominantly black neighborhoods in order to even out the racial percentages in the system. Because of that, I am comfortable both in my local variant of SAE and the local variant of AAVE. And I didn’t even really have to slow down to read your text, just had to say “annottase” out loud once before it hit me.
When I’m with other speakers of AAVE (at work, for instance), I slip into without too much effort, and then will switch back mid-conversation if one of the non-speakers interrupts or needs to understand what I’m saying. It’s kinda neat, and it always surprises the AAVE-speaking new hires.
Oh, BTW? pizzabrat is 100% correct. “She be lying.” == “She’s a habitual liar.” For SAE “She’s lying”, I’d use either “She a lie.” or “She lying.” in AAVE.
“annotase” = “and not taste the”
I think.