Are you favourably disposed to any, so called, stigmatised forms, and do you use them in your written and/or spoken English fairly regularly? If so, which forms are you favourably disposed to and in which contexts do you use them?
Favourable stigmatised forms
"Ain't" and double negatives are quite stigmatized, but they are relatively widespread in the spoken language.
<"Ain't" and double negatives are quite stigmatized, but they are relatively widespread in the spoken language. >
Yes, I know that, but my question was this:
Are YOU favourably disposed to any, so called, stigmatised forms, and do you use them in your written and/or spoken English fairly regularly?
Yes, I know that, but my question was this:
Are YOU favourably disposed to any, so called, stigmatised forms, and do you use them in your written and/or spoken English fairly regularly?
<<Yes, I know that, but my question was this:
Are YOU favourably disposed to any, so called, stigmatised forms, and do you use them in your written and/or spoken English fairly regularly? >>
We are in fact very much unfavorably disposed to the stigmatized forms, which is why they are stigmatized in the first place and we therefore don't use them. "We" being the more educated and erudite. Some unwashed, untutored heathens may use them but then again, those people are also stigmatized because of their speech.
If, in a hundred years, these currently stigmatized forms become favored and are no longer stigmatized then we (meaning the normal people) would use them in written and spoken English fairly regularly. Others on the forum will be more knowledgable than I am but I believe that some forms that are stigmatized today have at various periods in history gone in and out of favor. Words and structures that today engender disgust may become the posh language of tomorrow and vice versa. George Orwell talks about the word "bloody" in this context. At some periods of history the word has been extremely vulgar while currently the word is a much milder adjective. In the future the speech of American negroes may be completely acceptable and the PM of the UK may speak cockney.
Are YOU favourably disposed to any, so called, stigmatised forms, and do you use them in your written and/or spoken English fairly regularly? >>
We are in fact very much unfavorably disposed to the stigmatized forms, which is why they are stigmatized in the first place and we therefore don't use them. "We" being the more educated and erudite. Some unwashed, untutored heathens may use them but then again, those people are also stigmatized because of their speech.
If, in a hundred years, these currently stigmatized forms become favored and are no longer stigmatized then we (meaning the normal people) would use them in written and spoken English fairly regularly. Others on the forum will be more knowledgable than I am but I believe that some forms that are stigmatized today have at various periods in history gone in and out of favor. Words and structures that today engender disgust may become the posh language of tomorrow and vice versa. George Orwell talks about the word "bloody" in this context. At some periods of history the word has been extremely vulgar while currently the word is a much milder adjective. In the future the speech of American negroes may be completely acceptable and the PM of the UK may speak cockney.
!!We are in fact very much unfavorably disposed to the stigmatized forms, which is why they are stigmatized in the first place and we therefore don't use them.!!
Who's is we, Johnny?
Who's is we, Johnny?
I get the feeling that Johnny and MrP are one and the same. Both seem miserable f*ckers.
<<Others on the forum will be more knowledgable than I am >>
Now that's for sure.
Now that's for sure.
I'm Johnny, and JohnnyC is someone else (even though the nick he chose is very similar to mine, hmm). And I'm obviously not MrP either. In fact, I'm just a non-native speaker who sometimes posts here.
As for your question:
<<Are you favourably disposed to any, so called, stigmatised forms, and do you use them in your written and/or spoken English fairly regularly?>>
Stigmatized forms don't bother me at all. I actually like some of them, and I like different ways of speaking. I sometimes use double negatives for emphasis... Example: "I don't have no double identities in no fucking forum, you motherfucker". (or "I don't got... I ain't got... etc."). For emphasis, when I get angry, etc.
And stigmatized forms are only stigmatized by the ones who want to stigmatize them. AAVE is not stigmatized in the hip-hop culture, it's the standard. People stigmatize what they don't like and what they are not used to, so what is stigmatized varies. Jamaican patois is not stigmatized in Jamaica. Or at least really I hope it's not, LOL.
As for your question:
<<Are you favourably disposed to any, so called, stigmatised forms, and do you use them in your written and/or spoken English fairly regularly?>>
Stigmatized forms don't bother me at all. I actually like some of them, and I like different ways of speaking. I sometimes use double negatives for emphasis... Example: "I don't have no double identities in no fucking forum, you motherfucker". (or "I don't got... I ain't got... etc."). For emphasis, when I get angry, etc.
And stigmatized forms are only stigmatized by the ones who want to stigmatize them. AAVE is not stigmatized in the hip-hop culture, it's the standard. People stigmatize what they don't like and what they are not used to, so what is stigmatized varies. Jamaican patois is not stigmatized in Jamaica. Or at least really I hope it's not, LOL.
<And stigmatized forms are only stigmatized by the ones who want to stigmatize them.>
Not always. Many who use stigmatised forms are fully aware that they are so and will often agree that such forms are stigmatised. Many who do agree still go on using them though, which is interesting in itself. A form of covert prestige, no doubt.
Not always. Many who use stigmatised forms are fully aware that they are so and will often agree that such forms are stigmatised. Many who do agree still go on using them though, which is interesting in itself. A form of covert prestige, no doubt.
I'm favorable to writing -It's me- in an essay but my teacher says it is incorrect, it should be -It is I-. I don't want a B.
<<Who's is we, Johnny?>>
Just you and me, bro.
<<I get the feeling that Johnny and MrP are one and the same. Both seem miserable f*ckers.>>
Not true. We are separate, individual miserable fuckers.
<<A form of covert prestige, no doubt>>
Uh... *prestige*? Hardly. More like inability to learn real English. Wake up to real English! You people that think there's some kind of prestige in speaking pigeon English are living in a dream world. The rest of the normal English speakers think of you as illiterates. Why don't you write your posts in your silly pigeon?
Just you and me, bro.
<<I get the feeling that Johnny and MrP are one and the same. Both seem miserable f*ckers.>>
Not true. We are separate, individual miserable fuckers.
<<A form of covert prestige, no doubt>>
Uh... *prestige*? Hardly. More like inability to learn real English. Wake up to real English! You people that think there's some kind of prestige in speaking pigeon English are living in a dream world. The rest of the normal English speakers think of you as illiterates. Why don't you write your posts in your silly pigeon?
<<<<Others on the forum will be more knowledgable than I am >>
**Now that's for sure.**
You dig me cowgirl. I can tell.
**Now that's for sure.**
You dig me cowgirl. I can tell.
<<You people that think there's some kind of prestige in speaking pigeon English are living in a dream world. The rest of the normal English speakers think of you as illiterates.>>
Here here JohnnyC! I can completely and utterly agree!
As to the stigmatized form issue, I am not partial to any because they make me look...uneducated. I and all other English speakers worked hard to speak it flunetly (Even the natives such as my self had to learn it as a child, and I can say with all honesty it took many years of school to learn English) so after all these years of learning I want to show my mastery of the language by using intelligent words in my conversations.
And most of the stigmatized words are just words used by people to lazy to say a full word or throw in a few extra syllables. Such as "ain't" and "y'all" I honestly don't care if "Ain't" is in the dictionary. It's not proper English and is for lazy people who lack the capacity to use real words.
Ex A: I ain't got no money
as opposed to the correct
Ex B: I don't have any money
So for the people that take the time to add the extra syllables, congratulations! Your speech will not be ostracized by the rest of the world. And if you reread it the person saying Ex B: will get more respect and will sound more educated AND will be viewed more highly and literate than the illiterate, unread, and uneducated person saying Ex A: So all in all if you think about all that people take in from your speech you would WANT to NOT use those kinds of words. So that is why I don't use them and do not favor any of them!
((I view and judge speech from the "proper" more "acceptable" form of english, therefore all my opions have my version of "proper" as the standard.))
Here here JohnnyC! I can completely and utterly agree!
As to the stigmatized form issue, I am not partial to any because they make me look...uneducated. I and all other English speakers worked hard to speak it flunetly (Even the natives such as my self had to learn it as a child, and I can say with all honesty it took many years of school to learn English) so after all these years of learning I want to show my mastery of the language by using intelligent words in my conversations.
And most of the stigmatized words are just words used by people to lazy to say a full word or throw in a few extra syllables. Such as "ain't" and "y'all" I honestly don't care if "Ain't" is in the dictionary. It's not proper English and is for lazy people who lack the capacity to use real words.
Ex A: I ain't got no money
as opposed to the correct
Ex B: I don't have any money
So for the people that take the time to add the extra syllables, congratulations! Your speech will not be ostracized by the rest of the world. And if you reread it the person saying Ex B: will get more respect and will sound more educated AND will be viewed more highly and literate than the illiterate, unread, and uneducated person saying Ex A: So all in all if you think about all that people take in from your speech you would WANT to NOT use those kinds of words. So that is why I don't use them and do not favor any of them!
((I view and judge speech from the "proper" more "acceptable" form of english, therefore all my opions have my version of "proper" as the standard.))
You may sound educated but that doesn't make you educated. I'd rather speak like an illiterate and actually BE smart, than speak like a pretentious wannabe erudite who doesn't actually know a thing.
I recently met a top scientist who spoke with a strong southern accent and used a lot of southern constructions. He was unaffected and much more pleasant to be around than the retards who try to sound smart to compensate for the substance their scientific work lacks.
I recently met a top scientist who spoke with a strong southern accent and used a lot of southern constructions. He was unaffected and much more pleasant to be around than the retards who try to sound smart to compensate for the substance their scientific work lacks.