- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 6/30/20 at 10:29 pm to IAmNERD
quote:
"he sleep" vs " he is sleeping
I did. This is called a copula deletion.
More specifically, this is one of the rules I described in my post, where AAVE favors deletion of a word where SE allows for a contraction.
This post was edited on 6/30/20 at 10:31 pm
Posted on 6/30/20 at 10:39 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
This is called a copula deletion
quote:
In grammar, zero copula refers to the absence of an explicit auxiliary verb (usually a form of the verb be) in certain constructions where it is customarily found in standard English. Also called copula deletion or understood copula.Jul
So, not really English?
Posted on 6/30/20 at 10:54 pm to IAmNERD
quote:
So, not really English?
If you hold other examples of copula deletion to be "not English" either, then sure. I mean, if you are a linguistic prescriptivist, I guess it would make sense to hold a simple case of an "assumed" word as an argument that a specific dialect isn't actually a dialect, but linguistic prescriptivism is nonsensical, as the formal grammar rules, which vary between dialects (as they do between American and British English) are based on how the language was used. The distinction then becomes when those rules were explicitly or implicitly codified. For example, in English you aren't supposed to split infinitives, which is a holdover from Latin, where splitting infinitives were impossible. Other rules based on Latin origins are things like not ending sentence in a preposition. The fact that doublets developed, due to the Norman conquest, influences a significant degree to which we favor words of Latinate origin rather than Anglo-Saxon, effectively ensuring there will be a series of meaningless linguistic distinctions based not on how words are used, but on merely the perception of using those words.
This post was edited on 6/30/20 at 10:56 pm
Posted on 6/30/20 at 11:02 pm to Big_Slim
quote:It don't be presidential dats fo sho.
Which means absolutely nothing. Ebonics is trash speak.
Posted on 6/30/20 at 11:13 pm to crazy4lsu
I mean you can keep bringing up ancient language examples, but you and I both know, it's a bastardized version of the American English language. I don't really care if you speak "proper American English" that we were all taught in school for 12 years. Just don't try and tell me "axe=ask" and "sleep=asleep". Because frankly, it doesn't.
This post was edited on 6/30/20 at 11:14 pm
Posted on 6/30/20 at 11:25 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
linguistic prescriptivist
shite like this lets me know you don't really have much to say outside of what you've Googled before forming your argument.
Posted on 6/30/20 at 11:31 pm to IAmNERD
quote:
I mean you can keep bringing up ancient language examples
I brought up one, which was relevant to my point about linguistic prescriptivism.
quote:
you and I both know, it's a bastardized version of the American English language.
American English itself is a bastardized version of British English. American Standard English is an extremely recent invention, and like I said before, is based on a very specific regional dialect to the exclusion of other dialects.
Your view is fairly myopic in terms of how and why dialects develop. AAVE has formal patterns, and is as much a dialect of English as Nova Scotian is, or any English dialect.
quote:
Just don't try and tell me "axe=ask"
You understand that this distinction predates modern English, as it developed from middle English. Chaucer has a line in The Canterbury Tales which where ask=axe. AAVE probably got this from traditional American Southern English. Given the regional variation of swallowing certain sounds, (as each region has its own examples, like y'all in the South), why some of these swallowed sounds are allowed and others are not is curious to me, because the distinction is arbitrary.
Posted on 6/30/20 at 11:32 pm to Gaston
quote:
The NO mayor sounds a dumb frick.
She is dumb as frick so.
Posted on 6/30/20 at 11:32 pm to Gaston
It don't always be like it is but it do
Posted on 6/30/20 at 11:34 pm to IAmNERD
quote:
shite like this lets me know you don't really have much to say outside of what you've Googled before forming your argument.
What do you mean? You are taking a prescriptivist position. And saying AAVE isn't a legitimate dialect of English without any supporting statements of why or understanding that it has formal rules, of which you seemed unaware, indicates you don't have very much background in this.
Posted on 7/1/20 at 12:39 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
What do you mean?
I've made it pretty clear what I mean. I'm not talking about "British English". I've made it clear that the standard is "American English" that we all were taught in school. Iveade it clear that any and all, and especially AAVE or "ebonics" as OP stated are bastardized versions of what we were all taught. If you can't follow those rules, especially in writing, I don't really have the time or energy to try and decipher what the frick you're trying to say.
So, have a wonderful evening trying to legitimize something that is not the standard that every American has been taught for several generations...
Posted on 7/1/20 at 12:50 am to Gaston
I think it's called Black English these days and is a recognized dialect of American English.
English is one language that doesn't like to follow rules anyway. Record yourself or someone else having a candid conversation.
One could argue that by leaving out words and getting the same message across Black English is more efficient.
The natural evolution of languages is to drop hard sounds and extra words.
Many of these English "rules" were pulled out of thin air by some guys in white wigs in the 18th century. The same people that decided, despite having roots in German and Latin languages, English should have a similar structure to Hebrew.
English is one language that doesn't like to follow rules anyway. Record yourself or someone else having a candid conversation.
One could argue that by leaving out words and getting the same message across Black English is more efficient.
The natural evolution of languages is to drop hard sounds and extra words.
Many of these English "rules" were pulled out of thin air by some guys in white wigs in the 18th century. The same people that decided, despite having roots in German and Latin languages, English should have a similar structure to Hebrew.
This post was edited on 7/1/20 at 1:03 am
Posted on 7/1/20 at 4:18 am to Gaston
Oh fricking please. Listen to redneck speak and report back!
Posted on 7/1/20 at 4:23 am to Gaston
The usage and not use of the letter “S” in a specific community is a complete anomaly. Plurals are not a difficult concept, yet I hear attorneys unable to formulate sentences that make sense.
I had a supervisor that used “sunt” as the past-tense of “send”. Example: “I sunt you that document. Did you get the one I sunt you?”
I had a supervisor that used “sunt” as the past-tense of “send”. Example: “I sunt you that document. Did you get the one I sunt you?”
Posted on 7/1/20 at 6:20 am to TDcline
As bad as Baws and muh
Posted on 7/1/20 at 7:14 am to The Pirate King
quote:
That makes you racist these days.
No it doesn't. It makes idiots call you a racist.
Big difference.
Posted on 7/1/20 at 8:02 am to IAmNERD
quote:
I've made it pretty clear what I mean.
You haven't been clear at all. You started with a weird description of what you thought American English was (while ignoring the actual history), then you were unaware of the formal rules of AAVE, then you were offended (I guess?) by my use of linguistic prescriptivism, and now you saying that "AAVE is a bastardized version of what we are all taught," a notion which isn't technically true. AAVE will survive regardless of whether you want it to or not, because it is a vernacular, and represents how people actually speak, not how you think they should speak (hence why I said you were making a prescriptivist argument). AAVE isn't a bastardized form of standard American English, because standard American English is newer than AAVE, as AAVE well before standard American English became codified. You certainly aren't obligated to like the dialect, but AAVE is a legitimate dialect of American English (as are all the ways people speak on the continent, including dialects that are specifically Canadian and Caribbean).
Regardless, you aren't familiar with any of the terms and issues, and you don't seem to be understanding my arguments at all. You've meandered through this thread like an utter moron. If you want to become educated, Walt Wolfram has written lots of books on AAVE, and I suggest that might be a place to start. The book 'The Politics of American English' also goes over standardization projects from the colonial period to just before the Civil War, which helps put into context why American English had such a late standardization project.
Posted on 7/1/20 at 8:12 am to Harry Caray
quote:
Saying you'd appreciate more grammatical integrity from those in leadership positions is not racist and a reasonable statement. It was however OP's choice to use the word "ebonics" so yeah I'm comfortable calling him racist.
You should call Oakland and voice your outrage.
Posted on 7/1/20 at 8:15 am to Harry Caray
quote:
The context for the OP is that "using ebonics" = dumb as frick
He used it in an single anecdotal situation speaking only of the mayor.
I guess you're trying to extrapolate his anecdote to an entire population.
Have fun.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News