# Ebonics: a bad idea becomes a horrible reality **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 18, 2005, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062 "2005-07-18T23:15:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 25
**Author:** ![Euthanasiast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Euthanasiast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euthanasiast)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2005, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/481 "2005-07-27T17:53:16Z")
> [@vtynos](#): > > AAVE is “lazy,” **Euthanasiast**? I think lazy better describes your powers of reading comprehension. Did you read this thread? Did you read the continual debunking of the myth that AAVE is lazy, the debunking that is repeated on nearly every page? And if you actually did read it and still disagreed, don’t you think it might have been smarter to approach the arguments used to debunk that myth, rather than simply leap in with your opinion? > > Indeed, your post was so lazy that you wrote it on the assumption that someone was actually proposing to teach AAVE in class. I’m going to bold this so that even if you are feeling lazy, you’ll still be able to read it: **No one is proposing teaching AAVE in class.** This has been said non-stop, throughout this thread. > > I have a suggestion for you. If you read threads, you can comment intelligently on them. > > I also have a question for you: > Would you learn to speak the German of Bavaria, or the German of the northern areas of Germany? Let’s say you moved to Bavaria, learnt the Bavarian version of German, and then moved out of Bavaria. Would you stick with your Bavarian German, or would you change? How about when you were talking to Bavarians? I have a suggestion for you as well, but best to leave it to the wind. 😉 If I knew I had to speak German, I’d probably start by picking up a book titled, **Learn to speak German** , then I’d worry about any gaps when I got over there. Pretty much the same for people coming to my country, I suppose. I wouldn’t get so caught up in dialect that I’d soil myself if my parents decided to slightly alter the geographical location at the last minute. I’d adapt. ---
**Author:** ![dps\_reality](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/258eb7/32.png) [@dps\_reality](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dps_reality)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2005, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/482 "2005-07-27T20:26:14Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I am truly baffled by the need some people feel to take “wrong” off the table. We established earlier (even as recently as a few posts back) that kids can be wrong. Indeed, we did. I don’t see why you’re bringing back that strawman. DMC was pretty specific about \*\*why \*\*the kids in question are not wrong **in this circumstance.** > [@magellan01](#): > > And please reread even this last page of the thread. It should explain much, including the answer to the question in this post. I took this advice and all I could find was post 411, where you argued that SAE has more utility than AAVE in American Society. Everyone agrees, but that doesn’t make SAE “correct” in a general sense. You acknowledged that in your post. > [@magellan01](#): > > A quick analogy:\*\* if I asked you, what is better a wrench or a scewdriver, the question wouldn’t make any sense \*\*. They both have equal potential value. But if I told you to build me a house using only wood and screws, one of those tools is clearly better. It’s a semantic issue, but in your example the screwdriver is still not a better tool than the wrench. It is the tool best suited to the task. If I show up to your carpentry class with a wrench you would be perfectly justified in saying I brought the wrong tool, but only with the understanding that you are referring specifically to the context of the class (and the skillset that the class is trying to teach). If you dont explain to me the difference between a screw and a nut, I might be inclined to ask “What’s wrong with a wrench?” ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/483 "2005-07-28T00:02:44Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I am truly baffled by the need some people feel to take “wrong” off the table. We established earlier (even as recently as a few posts back) that kids can be wrong. So why this overdriving compulsion to strike the word from the teacher’s vocabulary? This is not about striking the word “wrong” from teaching vocabulary. This is about helping kids learn by not alienating them and by not making the teachers lose all credibility. For example, the child says “I be broke” and the teacher says “That’s just wrong, young Billy, simply wrong.” And the kid will think… “well, my entire family talks like this, and my entire block talks like this… in fact everybody I’ve ever met talks like this. Obviously this guy is out of touch, and I can’t trust anything he says.” It undermines the teacher’s credibility. It seems like you are suffering from the common malady of railing against the woeful disappearance of objective truth. There are places where it’s appropriate to fight that fight, but language education is not one of them. In language education, it’s only important to teach the target language. It is absolutely unimportant and unhelpful to unequivocally tell the kids that their native language is “wrong”, it just serves no useful purpose whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/484 "2005-07-28T06:54:41Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > That in the case of AAVE, they are not wrong. Have you really followed this thread? Yes I have. And if you read it over you will see that people that I have debating with have held both: 1. speakers of AAVE can’t be wrong–the language is continually evolving and expands as people speak it. 2. speakers of AAVE can, of course, be wrong. AAVE has rules just like any language, and rules, can by definition, be broken. > [@](#): > > I haven’t seen a single poster here posit that students can’t be wrong, nor that they shouldn’t be told that they are wrong. What’s been argued throughout this thread is that a student who speaks AAVE is not wrong, and therefore shouldn’t be told that they are. Much like switching between octal and decimal, both of which are correct, the goal is to teach the child SAE as a real world skill, including when to use it, but without telling him that his current language/dialect is wrong, as it isn’t. You skirt the issue. The question you avoid is CAN speakers of AAVE be wrong? (see above) > [@](#): > > Do you consider AAVE to be wrong, invalid, or lazy? Have you read the read? Please review just the past day’s posts. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/485 "2005-07-28T07:01:09Z")
> [@Stonebow](#): > > …At what point do we acknowledge that our current teaching methods for SAE leave something to be desired? I agree with your entire post. This last point raises an important point. Is the failure restricted to teaching these kids AAVE, or is the failure more general. I mean, they aren’t doing well across the board. But even if we restrict it to SAE, we can agree that something different needs to be done. That doesn’t necessarily mean being more embracing of AAVE. I think that one thing that we can ALL agree on is that theachers should be more familiar with AAVE, so they can understand where their students are coming from. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/486 "2005-07-28T07:09:14Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > The problem you seem to be having is trying to compare something writing in stone, with something that isn’t as static. Language is fluid. Yes we have rules of grammar and of usage, but those rules have evolved and are still evolving. Yes, but at any given point in time certain rules apply. Wouldn’t you agree. If not, then SAE is evolving just as AAVE is evolving. The linguists earlier in the thread stated that for something to be a language that it had to have rules. And they presented cites that showed these rules. It follows, that if there are rules, that they can be followed or not followed. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/487 "2005-07-28T07:15:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yes I have. And if you read it over you will see that people that I have debating with have held both: > > 1. speakers of AAVE can’t be wrong–the language is continually evolving and expands as people speak it. Please point out the post where someone said this. I don’t recall anyone here saying that no speaker of AAVE could be wrong - that would be the same as saying AAVE has no rules at all, which would make it mere coincidence that all AAVE speakers seem to use some of the same constructions. > [@](#): > > Yes, but at any given point in time certain rules apply. Wouldn’t you agree. If not, then SAE is evolving just as AAVE is evolving. I may be wrong on this, but I believe “SAE” refers to a fixed set of rules–a snapshot of a certain dialect spoken by certain people at a certain time–and thus it can’t change, by definition. That doesn’t mean the English language as spoken by average Americans isn’t evolving, though, and it’s conceivable that in a few decades, some of the rules of SAE will be ignored by nearly everyone in the country, rendering SAE as we know it obsolete. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/488 "2005-07-28T07:26:37Z")
> [@dps reality](#): > > I notice that earlier in your post you use the term “AAVE vernacular” but in your classroom example we’re back to calling it playground speech. There is no mention of Ebonics/AAVE as a distinct dialect with its own set of rules. I was merely alluding to the speech that the kids we’re talking about would speak while on the playground. It was not a judgemental statement. > [@](#): > > Do you believe that AAVE does not exist? Or is it just that young students should not be made aware of its existance lest they lose focus on learning SAE? Yes, it exists. The question I think you’re asking is where does it fit on the continuum does it fit: is it closer to “slang” or more of a formal “language”. The second part of your question is, for me, the important part and renders the first part moot.You stated in it exactly what I thiink the danger is. Thanks for the well crafted question. > [@](#): > > I You can only get so far with “because I’m the teacher and I said so!” And I don’t think that we get you very far at all. That would jsut be bad teaching, regardless of the subject matter. Thanks for the corrections. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/489 "2005-07-28T07:40:32Z")
> [@dps reality](#): > > Do you believe that AAVE does not exist? Or is it just that young students should not be made aware of its existance lest they lose focus on learning SAE? > [@magellan01](#): > > The second part of your question is, for me, the important part and renders the first part moot.You stated in it exactly what I thiink the danger is. How bizarre. To me, that seems like a world history teacher worrying that his kids will lose focus on other countries if they become aware that they already live in a country with history. “You remember what I was telling you last week about Britain? Turns out they’re not really a country either. Huh. Anyway, class, open your books to the chapter about Mexico…” ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/490 "2005-07-28T07:41:02Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yes I have. And if you read it over you will see that people that I have debating with have held both: > > 1. speakers of AAVE can’t be wrong–the language is continually evolving and expands as people speak it. Cite? > [@](#): > > 1. speakers of AAVE can, of course, be wrong. AAVE has rules just like any language, and rules, can by definition, be broken. While I think language is slightly more fluid than this statement posits, I don’t have a major problem with the heart of this stance. > [@](#): > > You skirt the issue. The question you avoid is CAN speakers of AAVE be wrong? (see above) I’m not skirting anything. Of course they can be wrong. Hell, some of the opponents of the proposal in this very thread have horribly mangled AAVE in their attempts at inserting examples into their posts. > [@](#): > > Have you read the read? Please review just the past day’s posts. It seems like it would have been a lot easier for you to just answer “Yes” or “No” in response to my question, but since you didn’t, yes I did read the thread. Here is the entire text of every post you made to this thread yesterday: > [@magellan01's posts on 07/27/2005](#): > > You’re right. I think I was fixated on it because some people earlier were actually took the other opinion. I’ll be glad to not bring it up again. > > I have focused on practical reasons–check even the last few threads. But if I’m fixating on it I am doing so only to the extent that others insist that it is OFF the table. In my view, in the course of a class it might be used, it might not. And even were it to be used, I don’t see it being used in some mean-spiritted, dictatorial manner. For me it’s the same as in math class. If a kid says that 3 x 5 = 17, I see nothing wrong with saying he’s wrong. The teach may express himself that way one time, and another way another time. I used to tutor math and I would often say things like “that’s not right”, “you made a mistake here”, “you might want to recheck what you did over here”, “you’re using the wrong equation”, “you’re wrong in your multiplication”. What is the big deal? I know that there is a school of thought (no pun intended, I promise) that says you should never say “no” to a child, to only accentuate the positive with reward, and I think that is just utter nonsense. (We can start another thread if you’d like.) > > As I’ve statee much earlier, I do not think that there is anything wrong with making teachers more aware of AAVE vernacular. In fact, it can only be helpful. The question is to what degree, and in what manner should they use AAVE in speaking in the classroom. I’m thinking it’s more a matter of tone. My teacher’s used “ain’t” to explaiin that it was an incorrect or slang form of “isn’t”. But they didn’t use it as if it were accepted speech when referring to some other topic. > > How this question is expressed seems a little awkward, but I think I get your meaning. I would say that you get them to express the idea, e.g. “If Johnny and Susie were with you in your home, and the ledt to go someplace else, and then someone asked you “Where are Johnny and Susie?”, what would you say?” When they come up with the answer “They be gone.” you then explain something to the effect, “That may be how you would express it when speaking with your friends, but that wouldn’y be proper English. How would you communicate that thought…” I think you get the idea. I just woldn’t want improper speech coming out of the mouths of a teacher without the acknowlegement that it is incorrect speech. The “ain’t” example above I think is a good one. > > Perhaps a better way to make the point I’ve made several times throughout this thread is to aks you a hypothetical: If a kid is in an English class and spells “learn” “l-i-r-m”, is that wrong? If it is, what would be so bad with sharing with the kid a fact: that “lirm” is the wrong way to spell “learn”. > > To use your example, what if the kid in math class gave an answer that was incorrect in every known base system, type of math, etc, so that his answer was unequivocally wrong, would it then be okay to utter the taboo “wrong”? > > I’m just trying to establish a baseline here. Are you arguing that kids shouldn’t be told they are “wrong”? Or that in the case of AAVE, they are not (or may not) be wrong? Or both. > > I am truly baffled by the need some people feel to take “wrong” off the table. We established earlier (even as recently as a few posts back) that kids can be wrong. So why this overdriving compulsion to strike the word from the teacher’s vocabulary. My guess is that it’s precisely what you claim it is not: “some touch-feely approach that is over-coddling and over-protective of children.” > > Now we can have an honest debate as to whether kids should be so protected, but let’s do in another thread. > > And please reread even this last page of the thread. It should explain much, including the answer to the question in this post. I don’t see you answering the question in that text, so I’ll ask it yet again. This time, feel free to either answer or to point out specifically where you already did answer the question explicitly. **Do you consider AAVE to be wrong, invalid, or lazy?** ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/491 "2005-07-28T07:47:16Z")
> [@dps reality](#): > > I took this advice and all I could find was post 411, where you argued that SAE has more utility than AAVE in American Society. Everyone agrees, but that doesn’t make SAE “correct” in a general sense. You acknowledged that in your post. I’m sorry. I’m gettint lost in the thread. Can you please refresh my memory as to what your question was? Thanks. > [@](#): > > It’s a semantic issue, but in your example the screwdriver is still not a better tool than the wrench. It is the tool best suited to the task. If I show up to your carpentry class with a wrench you would be perfectly justified in saying I brought the wrong tool, but only with the understanding that you are referring specifically to the context of the class (and the skillset that the class is trying to teach). If you dont explain to me the difference between a screw and a nut, I might be inclined to ask “What’s wrong with a wrench?” Yes, that’s why it’s important to clarify up front. “You are here to learn proper English” (or SAE, whichever terminology you prefer.) ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/492 "2005-07-28T07:54:20Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Please point out the post where someone said this. I don’t recall anyone here saying that no speaker of AAVE could be wrong - that would be the same as saying AAVE has no rules at all, which would make it mere coincidence that all AAVE speakers seem to use some of the same constructions. And that was exactly my frustration. I don’t have the concentration to go find it now, but it was near when liberal3701(?) joined the debate. I’ll try to find it tomorrow iof I have time. > [@](#): > > I may be wrong on this, but I believe “SAE” refers to a fixed set of rules–a snapshot of a certain dialect spoken by certain people at a certain time–and thus it can’t change, by definition. That doesn’t mean the English language as spoken by average Americans isn’t evolving, though, and it’s conceivable that in a few decades, some of the rules of SAE will be ignored by nearly everyone in the country, rendering SAE as we know it obsolete. Absolutely. But I’s say that SAE changes more slowly than its many dialects. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/493 "2005-07-28T08:02:31Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > Cite?] Somneone else asked for this (see a post or two north). I’ll try to find it tomorrow. (It might have been ascenray (sp?) or Kimstu, or liberal 3701. > [@](#): > > \*\*Do you consider AAVE to be wrong, invalid, or lazy?[/b ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/494 "2005-07-28T08:12:11Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > **Do you consider AAVE to be wrong, invalid, or lazy?** (Sorry, I hit submit by accident. and my reference may have been the day before.) Regardlesss: Wrong? Yes, in the practical sense. All languages are equally valid in the absolute sense, as tools that facilitate communication between people in a society. Invalid? See sentence above. Lazy? Some of it is. I would say that most dialects, which tend to be more colloquial than the language from which they are derived, take short cuts. They are primarily oral languages and often default to what is easier on th mouth. Also, as I stated days ago, most people’s speech is often lazy. For instance, “gonna” and “wanna”. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/495 "2005-07-28T08:31:41Z")
> [@](#): > > **magellan01** : Is the failure restricted to teaching these kids AAVE, or is the failure more general. I mean, they aren’t doing well across the board. There is no failure to teach AAVE because students are not taught AAVE. It will be helpful in this thread to keep that in mind. Some students who began life speaking AAVE actually have done reasonably well “across the board.” Don’t be fooled into misjudging a person’s intelligence and potential by the way she speaks when she’s young. I knew a student when I was first teaching that would have ruined your stereotype. You would know her too. Not all success stories are quite so stunning, but they are common. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/496 "2005-07-28T11:22:14Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Lazy? Some of it is. I would say that most dialects, which tend to be more colloquial than the language from which they are derived, take short cuts. They are primarily oral languages and often default to what is easier on th mouth. Also, as I stated days ago, most people’s speech is often lazy. For instance, “gonna” and “wanna”. Please be so kind as to post some linguistic research that shows: [ol][li]A particular dialect is lazy.[/li][li]That a particular dialect is “more colloquial” than another dialect.[/li][li]That speech defaults to "whatever’s easier on the mouth.[/li][li]That the current phonetic inventory, along with its phonotactic rules, is “easier on the mouth” than the current phonetic inventory, along with its phonotactic rules, of the current prestige dialect of American English.[/ol][/li] I suppose you should also post a definition of “lazy speech” first, and provide some linguistic research to back that up. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/497 "2005-07-28T11:28:14Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yes, but at any given point in time certain rules apply. Wouldn’t you agree. If not, then SAE is evolving just as AAVE is evolving. The linguists earlier in the thread stated that for something to be a language that it had to have rules. And they presented cites that showed these rules. It follows, that if there are rules, that they can be followed or not followed. The rules they have, are rules that each language has to itself, not to each other and certainly not to the spelling of words. You keep applying rules such as spelling, which don’t translate into speech and question why if spelling cement as SEEment is wrong, shouldn’t saying that way be too. Further the rules you keep trying to apply, are based on SAE being right. In every example you give, you gear the the choice to making SAE the right answer and AAVE the wrong one, as opposed to being which one is best suited for the task at hand. To modify your tool example. Say I walk by my deck and see a raised nail. Within my reach are a hammer, a wrench, a large screwdriver and a good-sized rock. According to what you have posted, the hammer is the correct tool to use and if I use anyother tool, I need to be corrected. Why? All I want to do is drive the nail back into the wood, ANY of those objects will serve that purpose. What you need to tell me, is why I should use the hammer. You don’t do that by telling me the hammer’s the correct tool, to drive a nail when I just used a rock, the wrench or the handle of a large screwdriver to do just that. Hell, what if I have 1/2 dozen different types of hammers, all which can drive a nail, but were designed for different purposes and may either become damage or do damage if I were to use them? Do you just point to the standard claw hammer and tell me ‘just use that’ or do you explain why and when each hammer should be used? ---
**Author:** ![Askia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/96bed5/32.png) [@Askia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askia)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/498 "2005-07-28T11:37:38Z")
\*\*Monty. \*\* I personally can’t be bothered to look up research of what my obervations and experiences tell me is true. 1. You’re misunderstanding his point. He’s characterizing diction in some dialects as being “lazy,” i.e., not as precise as the parent language. 2. You misunderstand again. **magellan01** is saying dialects tend to be more colloquial than their parent language. 3. Speech does tend to default to whatever’s easier on the mouth. Happens all the time to axioms and colloquial sayings – The Britishism, “Spirit and Image” morphed to “Spittin’ image” in American Southerner’s mouths. All tongue twisters observes that principle – trying saying “The sixth sick sheik’s sixth sheep’s sick” aloud. Try saying “toy boat” as fast as you can four times. 4. Again: diction and dialect are two completely separate things. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/499 "2005-07-28T11:51:02Z")
I don’t buy that speech defaults to whatever’s easier. For one thing, that would invalidate the cycles observed that languages tend to follow. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062/500 "2005-07-28T11:53:35Z")
{I forgot to type the second point before hitting the submit button.} For another, if speech defaults to whatever’s easier on the mouth, then all languages will have the identical phonetic inventory and phonotactic rules. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ebonics-a-bad-idea-becomes-a-horrible-reality/313062.md?page=26)