Ebonics is misunderstood

<<This entirely subjective (and false) statement is unworthy of a forum that professes to have an interest in language.>>

It's actually not subjevtive then, because the statement is indeed false. Something that is subjective has no right or wrong answer by definition.

"I appreciate Mxsmanic who calls them the way he sees them. We need more of that. It's time to cut through all the BS. There are standards. There is far too much silencing of people who speak unwelcome truths."

I dont appreciate it. Because "the way he sees them" betrays his complete ignorance on the subject. Yes, there are written standards which are generally uniform thruout the English-speaking world, but spoken varieties diverge considerably, and each variety has a historically linguistically valid reason for its existence.

Also, it's funny how the group which has historically been in power defines what's "standard," deeming other varieties to be divergent, when there is no one "pure" version of a language that all other varieties deviate from. This goes for any variety of any language as spoken by native speakers---there is simply no way to call certain natively spoken varieties as "substandard." All this is not artifical let's-all-feel-good PC BS, but actually linguistically sound facts, so please don't even pull the PC BS card, as that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. I base my arguments on solid linguistic fact, not the latest thought in political correctness. And solid linguistic fact does not support what Mxsmanic and friends are saying.

>>The comparison seems slightly ludicrous to me; I don't see Southerners writing "ah" or "sugah" or an RP speaker writing exactly as their delightfully formalized-sounding English is spoken.

I don't follow. What is the "speaking-writing" comparison that you're referring to, and what makes it ludicrous?

Cro Magnon, I agree with you. Linguistically speaking, I supposed every language, from Latin to Klingon, is completely valid and, therefore, cannot be substandard. Socially speaking, however, Ebonics is substandard and lacks professionalism. It can't be efficiently understood by the general population; therefore, it falls *below* the *standard*. Anyone who asks his boss, "We finna chill at tha top like wha?" can be sure a promotion won't be in his near future.

Bubbler, though, that is assuming that one is speaking the same dialect/register all the time, and has no ability to codeswitch between different forms, that what one speaks at home is necessarily what one speaks at work. Of course, such an assumption cannot necessarily be made. And thus, even if one has to speak some other form at work, that doesn't necessitate other speech forms they happen to use elsewhere.

Travis, I'm not making that assumption. In fact, I'm well aware that many people who speak generically at work still use Ebonics at home; however, it is often invariably less pervasive. In addition, as economic status increases, Ebonics inventually gives way to SAE, even if it takes a couple generations. My point is that on the grand social scale Ebonics is substandard because it cannot be as efficiently understood by the populace as SAE.

error: often invariably . . . often

Whoops, I meant to say "that doesn't necessitate replacing other speech forms they happen to use elsewhere".

Mind you lacking crossintelligiblity does not make something "substandard"; else, everything other than the majority language in a general area would be "substandard" by definition, which of course would be an idea that goes strongly against any minority languages that happen to exist places. Hence, I cannot support such a view of "substandardness", due to being a supporter of minority languages in general.

Then I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. If Ebonics were to become the majority language, would you still be so accommodating?

Well, my views on AAVE are not a matter of politics, the social position of those speaking it, or what portion of the population as a whole speak it; rather they are completely the opposite, and are against viewing things in such terms. And if the majority of the population spoke it, I'd just be like, "so?", besides that learning to actually understand such might turn out to be useful, but such is the case if you took any non-English dialect in any given context, and put it in the place that you're placing AAVE here. This is something that is not specific in any fashion to AAVE in particular.

If Ebonics were completely and utterly unrelated to English and hence totally incomprehensible to the general population in which it is spoken, then perceptions would be radically different, especially from those who are linguistically-challenged here. Many such people have trouble thinking outside the "box" to view Ebonics >OBJeCTiVeLy~ as a distinct dialect shared by a significant number of speakers.

Hypothetically, let's say Ebonics was a rare Chinese dialect understood and spoken by less than a few hundred thousand people in the US, then I'd imagine Mxsmanic, Steve K, Bubbler and the rest of the English speaking population would have nothing critical to say on this subject. They'd actually have nothing to contribute because they wouldn't be able to find any common ground between their native English language and such a dialect to make prejudicial inferences.

So, the problem is, Ebonics is too much like English for it not to interfere with one's legitimate understanding of this issue, from a linguistic standpoint.

>>else, everything other than the majority language in a general area would be "substandard" by definition, which of course would be an idea that goes strongly against any minority languages that happen to exist places.

Unfortunately, the world is a cruel and unfair place (or perhaps extremely fair, depending on perspective) where things that cannot compete eventually fade into oblivion. Efficiency is paramount, and this remains true for language as well. Many ancient languages have succumbed to their dominant counterparts, and many current languages will eventually do the same. It’s simply the natural order. Though I appreciate your sentiment, Travis, in wanting to preserve minority languages, it’s ultimately futile. Ebonics first developed on the plantations and was perpetuated because, for many generations, even if a black had been able to speak SAE, his chances for advancement were quite limited. Things have changed. Ebonics is socially perceived as substandard, and blacks are increasingly abandoning it as they climb the social/economic ladder. Even if they speak SAE at work and Ebonics at home, SAE eventually wins out over the generations because it’s the most widely accepted, hence the most efficient. Thus, it is only a matter of time before Ebonics completely fades away.

>>they wouldn't be able to find any common ground between their native English language and such a dialect to make prejudicial inferences.

Give me a break. Don't confuse my ability to see things as they are rather than what you'd like them to be to suggest I'm making prejudicial inferences.

>> "Give me a break. Don't confuse my ability to see things as they are rather than what you'd like them to be to suggest I'm making prejudicial inferences."

Is that how the Germans saw Yiddish in Germany?

Bob, I won't bother responding to your ridiculous comparison. Based on the intelligence of your post, you wouldn't have the capacity to understand it anyway.

Capacity to understand what? You didn't make a point at all. And I can't understand you if you're unable to articulate yourself.

As to what I wrote, the only difference is Yiddish was influenced by two languages: Hebrew and German. Ebonics (to my knowledge) is influenced by one: English.

Actually Yiddish was also influenced by other European languages, but to a much lesser extent.