Zoe
I agree, as it would have been a loss if James Earl Jones spoke in any other way than his eloquent, Shakespearean manner.
It’s not an argument. Will you please remember the context of your own comments? I said that because you said I was arrogant and thought my knowledge exceeded mere mortals. If other people here are saying the same things I am, I think it’s obvious my point is not beyond normal comprehension. I think I’ve largely restated the points of others thus far, which is part of why I got into that “why am I bothering?” tangent.
In the post where you said you were amazed and disheartened.
:rolleyes: Notice how long I’ve been posting here? Please spare me the lecture. There is a clear difference in my mind between a disagreement and a failure to listen. You still don’t understand some points on linguistics that several people have brought up, and those are important in this topic. You can’t deal with this effectively by reducing it to some kind of well-worn debate about slang and “lowering school standards.”
I’m talking about the way you teach them. You could - I’m supposing here - be born in San Bernardino to Chinese parents and not speak any English. And if a kid is born in that situation, he needs to be taught English a certain way.
You know why he does these things? Do you possess psychic powers? If so, please explain them.
I’m kidding, but I think it’s absurd to project motives onto people like this.
And again, written and spoken English can be pretty different animals.
Right, we need black people to be more like everybody (white) else. That’ll fix everything.
Look: as somebody else said, it is not a “new” thing to “legitimize” this language. It has plainly existed for a long time and been studied for decades.
I think a lot of this argument has nothing at all to do with the program discussed in the original article. If that suggestion is bad, what is the correct way to teach kids to speak a more common form of English?
Well, reading this is fairly easily understood. But speaking that way aloud is a very specific dialect. Speaking Corporate American isn’t the same as African-American by a long shot, now is it? And can’t nobody even guarantee that bright future is gonna be there, the economy being what it is, so why the fuck should I sit here an’ subject myself, knowhatImsayin, to being clowned by my boys talking like some puta bitch? I’m saying, generally, you gots to give respect to get some. You? You can’t even acknowledge that Ebonics is a legitimate mother tongue to some. Aine no kid gonna sit in yo’ class listening to yo’ saditty ass talkin’ about how he don’t talk correct. He gon’ go out there and go for his.
F— you nigga, I’m outta here!
I guess you didn’t see him as Jack Johnson in THE GREAT WHITE HOPE.
I’m from the streets b----!
You know that’s not what I meant.
Likewise it pays to spend a few years INTERACTING with these kids before you start pecking out your outmoded pedagogy on your keys, baby.
That kid from San Bernadino has probably been disinterested in the educational system since sixth grade and if he isn’t already lost to the gangs, drug dealers, pimping and thuggery, he probably dreams about rapping, acting or playing ball. You might get him to adopt a more formal speech style playing to those interests but you won’t by screaming about his needing “proper English.” School is not going to be his primary influence – that’s the home. The school needs to get his attention for six hours a day – and it starts by understanding and appreciating his own mode of expression.
Actually, I was just checking. There are plenty of successful, smart, articulate black women and men who don’t fit the mode you describe.
Absolutely. I think maybe I have a slant for going against type. People look at me and expect me to probably barely speak English but I open my mouth and you think your watching the nightly news.
“you’re”, ugh it’s late. Can we just go to bed now?
(waving imperiously) You may sleep.
You mentioned that most people agree with you in an attempt to “prove” your position was correct and mine incorrect. I merely pointed out it was a weak tactic (not to mention a logical fallacy).
What makes you think I don’t comprehend your point. Isn’t it possible that I do, yet jsut do not agree with it.
Can you see how condescending that is?
No. Ill have to ask you again. Where in the post have I made it clear that I “don’t want to listen”?
Then you probably know that you should be able to substantiate your claim. So, I ask again: Where in the post have I made it clear that I “don’t want to listen”?
Great. The one time I refer back to one of the previous posts you keep bringing up, you have aproblem with that, too. Post #32:
"One key challenge educators face is that simply getting students to adopt Standard American English as something relevant. Doing so is often met with hostility, belligerent defiance and the dreaded accusation of “acting white.”
This is also accepted by anyone who looks at the problem. Feel free to ask others.
Excelent question. I’ll think on it as I hit the hay and get back to you tomorrow.
Ciao, Roma!
I’m not against anything… please don’t make incorrect assumptions based on a single post.
I happen to be one of those immigrants who learned English as a second language in an immersion program. I knew many of my fellow immigrants who went through the same process. Those that were effectively immersed in the new language picked it up fairly quickly. In fact we picked up two new languages simultaneously (English and French). Those that were “coddled” by a mix of new and mother tongue took longer and never quite reached the same level of mastery.
And leveling the wheelchair analogy at me is just unfair.
I’m not making any claims about AAVE not being a legitimate language/patois.
Not arrogance. Personal experience with having to learn a new language in a setting much like we are discussing here.
And thank you Askia and TomnDeb for your explanations.
No, I did not.
So, again, I was responding to the “arrogant” thing. Can we move on with our lives? I don’t feel like continually recapping a conversation you were in. Don’t believe me, if it makes you happy, and keep thinking I meant things that are just not there.
I don’t think it’s impossible you understand because you disagree, it’s because of the way you talk about language.
You keep asking the same question after I answer it, and I wonder if this in any way substantiates my point. I told you where I got that feeling.
In your post, I felt you were saying black kids learn to speak AAVE/ebonics because they refuse to learn ‘good’ English. You say they know how to speak it and just don’t. Askia is talking about hostility to learning it. If you meant the same thing he does, then nevermind. Although in that post you seem to refer mostly to written English, which is a separate thing.
If you are referring to the fact that the paragraphs are short – one or two sentences – then be assured it’s not a mistake. It is a common practice in American journalism to use paragraph breaks as visual elements to help break up “grey” blocks. In most newspapers, paragraphs are usually no more than a couple of sentences long. If a story needs to be stretched to fill a space, then a paragraph break might be used after every sentence.
I prefer terms such as "Black English Vernacular’ or “African-American Vernacular English” because they reflect at least an attempt to be descriptive and serious about the subject.
“Ebonics” sounds offensive to me, because, what the heck does “ebon” have to do with language? “Ebony” = dark-coloured substance => dark-skinned people’s language? Why name a language based on skin colour?
(Language, dialect, it’s really irrelevant for the purposes of this issue. You have to speak in a dialect to speak in any language, so we all speak some dialect, even if it is a standardised dialect.)
From uh linguist’s point o’ view, we’s can distinguish between current slang dat changes rapidly an’ longterm features o’ uh speech community dat gots persisted over tyme. The study o’ African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) focuses mo’ on da latter than da former. Don’t assume dat just cuz AAVE iz nonstandard English dat it’snecessarily all slang. The grammatical characteristics o’ AAVE gots been documented going back many years. with muh beeotch
I’m not too thrilled about this software’s claim to “Ebonify” my English. Plus it gratuitously added the final phrase about a “beeotch” without my input. That’s misogynist and I object to it.
<hijack> Yeah, but I typed in a french song lyric and got:
ROTFL! 
This might be the dumbest thing I’ve ever read on the SDMB. I had no idea that there are people out there willing to actually defend ebonics. Un-fucking-believable.