And no, it’s da sah side.
Like it’s da nor-side. (For years as a child, I never new it was the NORTH Side. I thought it was a place called Norside. I swear)
dahntahn
up air
ahrn
cahr
warsh
dem stillers
jeez-a-man, get outta tahn!
I’ve enjoyed reading everyone’s opinion on this and I’ve learned a lot. Loved the Philly talk lessons too. 
Personally,I didn’t take the op’s question as racial at all. I figured he or she just really wondered about it. Everything and everyone doesn’t have to be racist just because they raise the “B” word. How in the heck are we all going to live together if we can’t ask and find out about each other??? I’m glad the question was asked because hopefully we all learned something from it.
Thanks for the clarifications, chula and Wendell Wagner. I actually couldn’t find any sites about who came up with the term “ebonics” but it doesn’t appear to be the Oakland School Board. I was pretty sure no linguist coined it.
-fh
Unfortunately for your opinion, it has been demonstrated in several posts preceding yours that such an opinion is simply wrong. There is nothing “lazy” about differing pronunciations and syntax and “stupidity” has nothing to do with it (although a failure to recognize the distinctions that linguists have been publicizing for over thirty years may be a sign of true ignorance).
As to your apparent problem with various names, I would point out that they at least show more imagination than naming every third or fourth girl Madison or Ashley and every other boy Jacob.
Although Gullah takes most of its words from English, it retains enough African and Caribbean tribal creole influences for it to be classed not as a dialect, but as a language all its own. From the linked page, which includes the two tongues’ distinct versions of Virginia Mixson Geraty’s poem “Thank God for Charleston” (accompanied by the caveat that Gullah was never intended to be a written language, and thus has no true orthography):
Contrary to the belief still held by some, Gullah is not poor, or broken English. It is not a dialect of any other language, neither is it Black English. Gullah possesses every element necessary for it to qualify as a language in its own right. It has its own grammar, phonological systems, idiomatic expressions, and an extensive vocabulary.
More at
Mammie, I don’t think the OP was racist. I do think the conception of Black English as broken or lazy English does have definite racist overtones, however. As I said earlier, many features of Black English are markers of laziness and low intelligence to the ears of Standard English speakers. Yet the same features when they appear in British English dialects are seen as charming or a sign of high intellect. Knowing that all English dialects are equal in terms of logic, consistency and fitness, what other conclusion can be drawn but that there are social judgements taking place, and they aren’t pretty?
I tend to react strongly to threads such as these because A. I expect a lot from Dopers who are generally very interested in language and B. I have found that if I don’t take a hard line, people assume I’m coming from a position of cultural relativism (all dialects are equal, let’s hold hands) which is not true at all. I’m not taking this position because it’s fair or just. It’s proven by science. The grammaticality and fitness of Black English is totally beyond dispute in the field of linguistics.
So I read the OP as having a total absence of malice. rostfrei’s position on the other hand is a lot harder to justify as being merely curious.
-fh
Oh? You have a problem with Hochdeutsch? You racist!!!
Something that has been touched on here, but not expored, is the WHY factor.
Why do people switch between one dialect and another? And also, why do people find it so annoying/disrespectful/etc. when someone does NOT switch to the ‘appropriate’ dialect?
And that leads me to my master’s thesis.
Code-switching is the fundamental process involved. We’ve established (thanks to some very well-written work by Lamia) that there are valid dialects involved.
People use language codes that include the dialect, word choice, topic choice, and accent (even without the general dialect).
Code choice is determined by the person’s perception of their identity and role within the setting (including location, members of the group, reason for being there, etc.).
So, when talking to business people, the admins speak business english. Their role includes that they are business people, and does not include their identity as Urban African-american. When they speak on the phone to a friend, who also identifies as Urban African-american, they use the codes that say ‘I am in the same category as you’. Language choice, dialect choice, accent, topic, word choice switch to match the identity and role within that context.
Effective code-switching is commonly associated with business success. This, to my mind was why ebonics was being introduced. Poorly done, but that is still the issue - being able to use another set of codes when appropriate, and valuing the ‘home/core-identity’ code set as equal was part of that process.
Examples of me, code-switching. Not talking about the details of breastfeeding with work clients, unless the group has sub-selected into a bunch of working mothers with small children, in which case, the group identity as ‘working mothers with small children’ includes the topic choice as an appropriate option. Picking up the accent of someone I need to work closely with, but not doing so intentionally. Not using jargon when talking with a mixed group of people both inside and outside my profession.
When someone fails to fully code-switch, it does set them apart. It annoys us because they are proclaiming their differentness, their NON-membership in the group.
Sometimes, that lack of code-switching is intentional. A person may choose to retain their identity as, say, profoundly religious, by mentioning their faith (topic choice) during work conversations. It makes others uncomfortable when it happens, because you are suddenly faced with not being identified as members of the same group. You are different, and they have said so by their code use.
But sometimes, especially with accent and pronunciation when moving between languages and dialects, it is not intentional. They just don’t have clear distinctions between the two code sets for certain sounds, or lack the verbal (physical) skills to make the switch complete. This is where my brother-in-law comes in. He’s a speech pathologist who specializes in accent remediation. He works with people who cannot seem to lose the accent or pronunciation enough to fully switch into their business/professional identity. They may still ‘identify’ accidentally as Russian immigrants, or Southern, or Urban Black. And that gets in the way of their business life. Effective code-switching is very useful for business success. Doesn’t mean they feel less like Russian immigrants or Southern or Urban Black inside, or at home, or with their friends. But they want to simply identify as ‘professional’ when at work. And doing so requires extra work on the skill at times.
Code-switching is a social skill. People who do not do so effectively are considered socially awkward by many people. Like the guy at the dinner party who can’t stop speaking ‘geek’… he isn’t switching to match the group identity/role-as-guest. Or the guy who drops references to money/status/education/class into a conversation - he is specifying his role/identity as superior, which is poor code-switching (or intentional lack thereof).
My thesis, by the way, looked at individual identification of place as a basis of code-switching decisions. We know that people do switch based on location - say, the difference in content of conversations in front of the elevator at work vs. standing in the executive conference room… even with the same people, what you choose to discuss will differ. As a geographer, I looked at what the linguists called a black box (location/sense of place), and determined that you could definitely identify the boundaries of a location that was related to sense of identity.
Anyway, hope that clarifies some why it is frustrating/annoying/offensive when someone doesn’t code switch - we tend to think they do it on purpose, actively are identifying themselves as ‘not members of this group’, but often it is just a lack of skill, or incomplete switching.
Sternvogel writes:
> Although Gullah takes most of its words from English, it retains
> enough African and Caribbean tribal creole influences for it to
> be classed not as a dialect, but as a language all its own.
The boundary between what is a dialect and what is a language is more of a political matter than a linguistic one. The definition of a dialect is a variety of a language that’s close enough to the other varieties that it’s mutually comprehensible. But there’s a whole spectrum possible in the closeness of varieties of language, from ones that are so close that only an expert could tell them apart, to ones that are just barely far enough apart that they are no longer mutually comprehensible. There are also cases of continuums of dialects in which dialect A is mutually comprehensible with dialect B, dialect B is mutually comprehensible with dialect C, dialect C is mutually comprehensible with dialect D, dialect D is mutually comprehensible with dialect E, but dialect A is not mutually comprehensible with dialect E.
Because of this, this distinction between a dialect and a language is not rigorously kept in the standard naming of languages and dialects. There are cases where two varieties are usually considered different languages even though they are mutually comprehensible, while there are other cases where a variety is considered just a dialect even though it is no longer mutually comprehensible with the standard dialect. There is thus no easy answer to the question of whether Gullah is a separate language or just a dialect.
Average white Canadian guy here…
Almost every day my five year old daughter will come up and say… “Let me axe you sumtin” because she’s inquisitive and needs to know stuff.
I understand that it’s easier for her to say “axe” than ask and the “sumtin” probably comes from her dad (me) who has to conciously has to say “something” rather than “sumthin”. That whole “ing” at the end of words has always been a challenge for me. Doin, goin, havin, lovin, runnin, … etc.
“So how arre yewe doin?”
That’s how I sound and it is due to the influences I had when I was developing my own ability to speak. People think I do a pretty good Scottish or Irish imitation but it’s because it’s not really an imitation but rather my ability to lapse into a more comfortable mode of speech. I got hassled for it when I was in school and did spend a lot of time working on making my speech more mainstream… now I just don’t care.
I worked with a woman who had nearly perfected code switching. Coming from the Maritimes she encountered a lot of prejudice just because people thought she was inferior due to her accent. She worked extremely hard to eliminate every vestige of her eastern dialect so that she could pass unnoticed. Unnoticed by everyone but me apparently.
After I nailed her as being a Maritimer and whenever we would get together she would relax and speak as the good lord intended, by rolling those r’s, softening those vowels, and adjusting her speaking rythym. She had a lovely accent.
So I guess there can be many reasons why people switch channels when they are speaking, some may not be able to or others may recognize that their particular dialect sets them apart from the mainstream and draws prejudice or conversely, identifies them as belonging to a specific group. Teenagers have their own “speak” that can sometimes sound like a completely different language.
I simply enjoy listening and know one should not judge another for the peculiarities of the way they speak.
Nearly everyone has at least two “dialects,” which are more correctly called “codes.” We all learn at least one formal code, which is the manner in which we are expected to speak to adults when we are little, in school and church, at work, etc. This code is fuller, presented with a lot more flourish. Formal code contains a lot of extra words that really aren’t needed to communicate the meaning of what is being said.
Then there is informal code, which we speak with our siblings and friends. This is our relaxed dialect, in which we can use slang, “incorrect” terms and pronunciations, a lot of body language and facial signals, and incomplete sentences. The message gets across just fine, thanks!
And there is a reality here that is often overlooked by Anglos: white folks often “mispronunciate” words, use double negatives, and flat-out use poor grammar. I’m less likely to notice this from someone who was raised in the same state I was (Indiana) or from the same neighborhood. When someone from outside my neighborhood uses their own informal code, however, I’m much more likely to notice it because that person’s code is different from mine.
feynn, I have that “ing” problem too and I’m a long way from Canada. When I strive to speak correctly and add the ings, then I sound fake like I’m puttin on the dog or something. What’s a poor ol redneck woman to do? 
I enjoy listening to different styles of speech and dialect, but some more than others. There are some that are musical and others that really grate on me.
You’re right, LadyLion and I’ll bet hearing these mistakes and different codes didn’t make you feel any less for the people doing it. Just made your ears perk up noticed it and maybe wondered about it. That’s exactly how most people would react. I don’t rank curiosity and racism in the same catagory. There’s always going to be some who will turn up their noses if everyone and everything isn’t the same as their little world.
So that’s unlike who exactly??? Most English speakers weren’t taught English, they just ‘picked it up’. That includes me, and I suspect, you.
Or am I forgetting those English language classes I had aged 14 months?
What you are describing is exactly how all languages and dialects develop. There’s nothing incorrect or mispronounced about any of it. You pronounce it one way, I pronounce it another, and they do it another way again. That’s what makes any language a living language.
Why is this thread in GQ when it contains such a parade of uninformed supposition and unthinking prejudice?
That may be true, but check the dictionary. I trust they are right.
I simply must quote from David Foster Wallace’s Harper’s Magazine article “Tense Present” of April 2001. It’s a review of Bryan Garner’s “A Dictionary of Modern American Usage”; the full text is available as a PDF file here
Brazilian Portuguese pronounces syllable-final l that way: Brasil sounds like Bkhazeew.
(Oh, and pronouncing r like kh is another Brazilian thing. Sounds bizarre, but even French prounounces être as etkh.)
Polish “barred l” as in Wojtyla is also pronounced w.
The “dark l” (syllable-final l when it follows a back vowel) also changed to a w or u sound in French. Compare Italian albergo and French auberge. Italian has kept the “clear l” in all positions, but English has the dark l when it’s syllable-final. This is what turned into w in your examples.
Classical Arabic/Standard Arabic has the interdental phonemes [symbol]q[/symbol] (“th”) and [symbol]d[/symbol] (“dh”), but one is hard put to find a single Arabic vernacular dialect that has them — the only one I know of is Iraqi.
The English digraph “th” represents two different phonemes, you know, not just one. The unvoiced interdental as in “breath” and the voiced interdental as in “breathe.” It’s amazing the number of native English speakers who don’t recognize that they’re two different sounds, two different phonemes. Spanish and Modern Greek have both sounds.
Fijian and Tamil have only the voiced interdental [symbol]d[/symbol], not the unvoiced.
Old Norse had both sounds, and I think Icelandic still does, or at least they still write with the runes þ (thorn) and ð (edh). (Modern Icelandic pronunciation is very gnarly and complicated, and does not closely correspond to spelling, so I can’t say for sure.)
The name of the Norse god Thor begins with the rune thorn. But I was surprised when Thor Heyerdahl died, the radio announcers all pronounced his name as “Tor.” And all these years I had þought it was Þor.
On another message board (Salon Table Talk), a Frenchwoman complained of the difficulty of learning English, in particular the “th” which vexed her so much, she seemed to take it as a personal affront that English would require her to frame such an atrocious sound. (Two sounds, actually.) But physically, I don’t see what’s so hard about sticking the tip of your tongue between your teeth. Subliminal fear of biting it?
Getting back to the OP, I looked again at the word history in the OED under “ask.” It reveals that “aks” (spelled, at various times and places, as “ax,” “acs,” “ahs,” “ox,” etc.) was actually the more commonly recorded form in Old English and Middle English. Even Beowulf and Geoffrey Chaucer used “aks.” The form ask was not fixed in standard London English until the time of Caxton, who blended different English dialects and introduced a lot of northern usages that hadn’t been used in London dialect before.
“Aks” had been the usual southern form, while “ask” was northern. The Proto-Germanic form they both come from is *aiskoianan, from Proto-Indo-European *ais- or *is- ‘to wish, desire’ (with suffixed -sk-). Related to Sanskrit icchati ‘seek, desire’ and Old Slavic iskati ‘to seek’.
So the form ask is the older variant, but in Old English aks was much more frequent. The letters seemed to have flipped once and then flipped back again.
The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology says: “ax was an accepted literary form until about 1600.”
hedra, thank you very much for that very elegant explanation. You’ve assisted me in my code switching, since I’ve never known that expression and I’ve always had to describe verbosely my code switching when explaining it.