It’s not the poster, it’s the attitude that I’m pitting.
Wanna know who doesn’t strike this particular poster as having a brain?
people to say “you was” instead of “you were” or “ain’t” instead of “aren’t”?
Why that would be a large portion of the population of the United States of America and most black and Latinos.
Fuck off.
We’ve had three or four threads about this.
There seems to be this inexplicable, widspread belief - and it’s a very pesistent one - that the way your English teacher taought you to speak 20 years ago is the only acceptable way to speak English. That people in the good old days used slang we’ve never heard and pronounced things in the most astoundingly unphonetic ways is, apparently, a lost fact.
All this time, I thought you weren’t supposed to say aint,
because your momma will faint,
your daddy’ll fall in a bucket of paint,
Your sister will cry,
your brother’ll die,
and your dog will be arrested by the FBI.
That was really my only complaint about using it.
Bill Cosby said it best (and this applies for all races):
From the second link in the OP:
It’s annoying as fuck to listen to people speak in such a manner, especially if the speaker was born in this country and has been here for generations. You are free to speak as you please, but I sure as shit don’t have to like it.
Where you at? <----------- Current pet peeve.
I’ve got a degree in English literature, and I’ll tell y’all right now, there ain’t nothin’ wrong with the way I talk.
Fuckin’ prescriptivists. Didn’t nobody never tell them that the rules came after the language, and not before it? You don’t change the language to fit the rules, you change the rules to fit the language.
I tend to agree with him. Code-switching is an incredibly valuable skill, and I’m afraid that kids are simply not taught this any more. It’s not restricted to race either- my wife is certainly more ‘country’ around her family than she is at work. There’s just a place for informal and formal language. Not understanding the proper place for both is not a good indicator that you know what you are doing in other ways.
Three or four? In the past six months, maybe. This ranks up there with Bush, fat people, and bicyclists as a sure way to generate ten pages of partisan squabbling without anyone changing their opinion.
Personally, I’m more annoyed by message board users that use superfluous symbols in their posts than by people in every day life that use perfectly intelligible vernacular. “Is my” is both easier and quicker to type out than “<-----------” to anyone with more than a passing familiarity with a keyboard, not to mention considerably less annoying to read.
Exactly.
I still remember feeling somewhat appalled at how some former coworkers spoke, all the time. It was their “normal” way of speaking—“He done this.” “I done that.” It was “country” talk that would have seemed less jarring had it been in a different setting.
However, I don’t think it’s impossible for me to see past someone’s appalling (to me) grammar and see them for the bright, intelligent person that they are. (If they are.) You get so you don’t “hear” the grammatical errors from certain people so much anymore. (And I say this will full understanding that I’ve got my own fair share of “jarring” grammar.)
Wert you crunk mo’ pistalook chumble spuzz? Crocko? CROCKO!? Cuck cuck wisteria purple helmet jouster knockondoor we burning your dog oh say can you pee?
Rules are what give language meaning. Rules are what language consists of. It’s not as simple as “rules follow usage” or “usage follows rules” - the point is to enable comprehension, and the result is effectively a negotiated standard. The argument of what the rules should be isn’t pointless, it’s essential, and it’s constant.
That said, assuming someone is stupid because they speak a different dialect to you is just daft; they’ve just developed their own rules. But if language is developing such that comprehension is actually impeded, then that’s something that needs to be noted and acted upon, surely?
Did this:
make anyone else’s head hurt? That second clause is a nightmare; maybe she’d better work on her own grasp of the English language before she starts in on the majority’s.
By whom?
You’re right that comprehensible communication depends on mutually understood rules. The complicated part, I think, is recognizing that these rules originate and develop in an entirely organic fashion; there is no need for an external authority observing the interactions and setting down the current operational paradigm as some sort of model to which we must all aspire. By the time the grammarians figure out what’s going on and diagram the latest innovation, it’s already obsolete.
Is it bad for someone to try and make the language personal? I can’t speak for all people but I do know that in some cliques of friends many terms, phrases and words that would not be used in “business” speak are used in abandon.
Is that bad?
Everyone, ideally. My point is really that there exist different spheres of communication, and while I love dialectical weirdness, the working world needs a bit more standardisation. You don’t hear doctors saying “Yo, we be gettin’ up in this dude’s throat”, or “well, guv, it’s yer plates of meat, innit” (please excuse the dire attempts at regional impersonation). If someone can’t communicate in the professional sphere as well as with their friends, then they’re going to have trouble getting jobs. If this is the case, then there’s an educational problem. If, on the other hand, people just choose to talk colloquially, and are perfectly capable of communicating in a more professional manner as and when they need to, then there’s no problem whatsoever.
Oh, totally, but I didn’t specify the need for an “external authority”. I was just disagreeing with what I saw as Miller’s objection to the debate taking place at all, when I think it’s absolutely crucial. Organic need not mean unguided, and I think it’s important to talk about how things are changing. Like it or not, there’s a lot of rhyme and reason tied up in our language(s), and I don’t think it should be chucked out without at least a discussion.
Hang if ‘ain’t’ and ‘we was’ is correct or not. You may not personally like it but it’s just snobby and insulting to say that people who say those things are stupid. And wrong to.
Here’s an excellent example of this; a lot of black football players in the Canadian Football League come from the States. When they give interviews on tv, I can barely understand a word they’re saying. What worked fine where they are from makes them virtually incomprehensible in a different English-speaking country. Is this a bad thing? I don’t know - you’re free to speak any version of English that you choose - just remember that not everyone will understand you if you leave your locale.
Actually, I was just reacting to the idea that people who use certain dialects are demonstrating either a lack of intelligence or a lack of education. I don’t have a problem with grammar debates, and those that I don’t actively participate in I still follow avidly.
That said, I do think they’re pretty futile. They’re geek debates, like Star Wars versus Star Trek, or who Batman could beat up. A fun diversion, but nothing of real import. Language forges its own path. We just play catch-up.
At least I didn’t write “and wrong two”.
Are you seriously annoyed by that, or were you just making a point?
And there’s the rub. Someone who is using profoundly non-standard grammar is the auditory equivalent of someone who substitutes incorrect words when writing.
Saying “Me and Mikey, we was just minding our own businesses, ain’t that right, Mikey?” is just as ‘wrong’ as someone typing, “Their were too people on the bus when it went thru the tunnel”. Both are examples of usage that deviates from the accepted standards of the language.