Talk:African-American English/Archive 7

Heqwm's edits
Addressing my edits, and Aeusoes1's response: 1. Neither "Where you at?" nor "Where're you at?" are proper SAE. In seems to me that we should translate AAVE into formal English, not into slang English. 2. From the diffs, Aeusoesl seems to have deleted a paragraph, then replaced it with the exact same paragraph. I'm not sure what's up with that. 3. The use of the word "clarified" implies that we accept their explanation. First of, the statement as written is false. "Genetically" IS a biological term. Perhaps what was meant is "it was not intended to be taken as a biological term", but such a claim is obvious mendacity. No one in their right mind would use the term "genetically" in that context unless they were intentionally stirring up controversy. What if I were to call AAVE "degenerate", then claim that I meant in in the Physics sense? 4. Speaking of "acknowledgement" that AAVE is not a substandard version implicitly states that it indeed not a substandard version, which is POV. 5. Again, the wording implicitly states that they are not errors, and clearly they are. 6. I've placed my discussion of "unfounded" in the section above. 7. What's with "that's more than a grammar edit"? I made two edits, and I referred to only one as a grammar edit. Is there anything in there that isn't an issue of grammar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heqwm (talk • contribs) 17:46, August 25, 2007 (UTC)


 * Part of what is being illustrated in that paragraph is that copula be is deleted in AAVE only when Standard English contracts it. If "where're" is not "Standard English" as you define it then we've probably got a looser definition than you do.
 * I don't know what happened there. Looks like a difference of a colon.  Not important.
 * In linguistics, "genetic" can mean "Of or relating to the relationship between or among languages that are descendants of the same protolanguage." Perhaps better wording would be "Supporters of the resolution later clarified that "genetically" was meant in the linguistic sense."  You're probably right that they should have been clearer initially, but that's politics, eh?
 * The rest of your edits gave undue weight to the uninformed opinion that AAVE is degenerate speech. While it is arguable that this opinion is representable in the page since a significant portion of the population has it, it is no more appropriate to weasel the wording to suggest both opinions are right than to say "The Earth is presumably round." Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  20:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A comment above: Neither "Where you at?" nor "Where're you at?" are [sic] proper SAE. In seems to me that we should translate AAVE into formal English, not into slang English. This use of the term "slang" is very odd: for sentences, the distinction is not between "formal" and "slang", but "formal" and "informal". Though I don't speak SAE, I think that "Where're you at?" (pronounced "Where you at?") is idiomatic in informal SAE.


 * Another comment above: "Genetically" IS a biological term. Perhaps what was meant is "it was not intended to be taken as a biological term", but such a claim is obvious mendacity.  No one in their right mind would use the term "genetically" in that context unless they were intentionally stirring up controversy. Yes, "genetically" is a biological term. (So's "morphology".) The fact that "genetics" is a biological term doesn't prevent it from being a philological term as well. (Ditto for "morphology", now a full-fledged field of linguistics.) What if I were to call AAVE "degenerate", then claim that I meant [it] in the Physics sense? That would be strange indeed. But (i) "degenerate" is known to be a pejorative term whereas "genetically" is not; and (ii) physics seems irrelevant to language whereas philology is not. The phrasing might have shown naive optimism about the vocabulary of potential readers or their willingness to use a dictionary, but "obvious mendacity" is quite a stretch. -- Hoary 00:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If the intent of the contraction is to highlight that feature of AAVE, then that is reasonable. But I see a distinction between formal, informal, and slang. Contractions, especially "where're", are informal. Adding superfluous prepositions, as in "Where are you at?" is slang. And what's with the "sic"? Is the suggestion that "is" should be used instead of "are"?

As the Oakland proposal was not presented to a linguist audience, the idea that the confusion wasn't intentional strikes me as preposterous. Furthermore, according to the definition presented, their use of the term is nonsensical. Look what happens when we replace "genetically-based" with the linguistic definition: "Whereas, these studies have also demonstrated that African Language Systems are of or relating to the relationship between or among languages that are descendants of the same protolanguage..." That doesn't "clarify" it, it causes it to make even less sense.

The comparison to the shape of the Earth is flawed, as the shape of the Earth can be objectively determined. It's a bit bizarre to call it "undue weight" to not contradict an opinion.

In response to Hoary: look at the original claim. The statement that I edited was: Supporters of the resolution later clarified that "genetically" was not a racial or biological term but a linguistic one. That is patently false. "Genetically" IS a biological term. I introduced the fact that it is a biological term to contradict the claim that it is not a biological term; not, as you suggest, to contradict the claim that it is a philological term. While it can be a philological term, that use is sufficiently obscure that it requires a specific context to be valid, a context which was absent from the resolution. In this context, "genetically" clearly had a pejorative meaning. And the idea that one can expect one's readers, when encountering a word with an established meaning, to consult a dictionary simply on the off chance that there may be some recondite meaning that doesn't even make any sense, is blatently absurd. I see no viable explanation for their actions other than that they were deliberately provoking controversy.Heqwm 21:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * All right, so what we've got here is the need for a rewording of the sentence "Supporters of the resolution later clarified that "genetically" was not a racial or biological term but a linguistic one". Here's what I suggest:
 * Supporters of the resolution later clarified that "genetically" was meant in the linguistic sense.
 * This way, we remain neutral as to whether they were trying to stir up controversy, whether they expected people to understand such a meaning, whether they were competent, etc. I don't have a copy of Coulmas, so I'm not sure if the wording can be clearer. I do agree that, in the phrase "AAVE is genetically based, not a dialect of English", that if we interpret genetically in the linguistic sense that it becomes sort of vague and nonsensical, so the "clarification" is not much of one but it still is a clarification.  We could also elaborate on just what people found objectionable to the phrase "African Language Systems are genetically-based" so that the clarification can be put into better context.Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  22:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Adding superfluous prepositions, as in "Where are you at?" is slang. This surprises me. Which (socio)linguistics book uses "slang" in this way?
 * And what's with the "sic"? Is the suggestion that "is" should be used instead of "are"? Yes.
 * Look what happens when we replace "genetically-based" with the linguistic definition: "Whereas, these studies have also demonstrated that African Language Systems are of or relating to the relationship between or among languages that are descendants of the same protolanguage..." Yes, horrible, isn't it. But it's hardly surprising that sticking a dictionary definition in the place of a word results in something horrible. (I haven't had enough bodily condition such as that which normally recurs for several hours each night, in which nervous system is inactive, etc etc. "Enough condition": wtf does that mean? Well, I just thought I'd tell you that I hadn't had enough sleep, but was giving you sleep as explained in the small dictionary [COD, 6th ed] that came closest to hand.) Change that to something like these studies have also demonstrated that African Language Systems are interrelated because descendants of the same protolanguage and it makes sense as English. (It's dud historical linguistics, but that's a different matter.)
 * The comparison to the shape of the Earth is flawed, as the shape of the Earth can be objectively determined. It's a bit bizarre to call it "undue weight" to not contradict an opinion. And the "opinion" you have in mind seems to be that AAVE is indeed not a substandard version of English. For an encyclopedia to present this as an opinion would imply that it's an opinion among linguists. If it's an opinion among linguists, then you'll find linguists advocating the opposite opinion. Can you give an example? Please specify the linguistics book, and the page. (NB a real linguistics book from the last couple of decades, published by a university press or equivalent -- Blackwell, Benjamins, etc. -- and written by a real university teacher of linguistics.)
 * The statement that I edited was: Supporters of the resolution later clarified that "genetically" was not a racial or biological term but a linguistic one. That is patently false. It's obviously shorthand for "genetically" was here used not as a racial or biological term but as a linguistic one. And the context is supplied by the subject: language. -- Hoary 23:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

1. I don't what the official lignuitic term is, but clearly there is a difference betwee informal and ungrammatical.

2. Both are not SAE. There's two of them, therefore they take a plural subject.

3. The point is, languages aren't genetically-based in the linguistic sense. The similarities between languages can be genetically-based, but not the languages themselves. The only way a language can be genetically-based in is the biological sense.

4. "If it's an opinion among linguists, then you'll find linguists advocating the opposite opinion." That simply does not follow. And the linguistic context is inappropriate.

5. The context was not linguistics, but pedagogy. Heqwm 00:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't what the official lignuitic term is, but clearly there is a difference betwee informal and ungrammatical. Yes there is. But I see nothing ungrammatical here.
 * Both are not SAE. There's two of them, therefore they take a plural subject. I don't quite follow you here. But in my own lect of English, the phrase "neither [singular] nor [singular]" is itself singular.
 * The idea that languages are "genetically based" is indeed odd. More likely, though, this is just poor phrasing. For languages can be genetically interrelated. This is standard terminology in linguistics. (It contrasts with typological relation.)
 * "If it's an opinion among linguists, then you'll find linguists advocating the opposite opinion." That simply does not follow.  And the linguistic context is inappropriate. I don't understand what you're saying.
 * The context was not linguistics, but pedagogy. The context of the resolution taken as a whole was indeed pedagogy rather than linguistics. But here's the odd phrase in its original context: Whereas, numerous validated scholarly studies demonstrate that African American students as part of their culture and history as African people possess and utilize a language described in various scholarly approaches as Ebonics (literally Black sounds) or Pan African Communication Behaviors or African Language Systems; and / Whereas, these studies have also demonstrated that African Language Systems are genetically-based and not a dialect of English.... The context here is not pedagogy but linguistics. (Immediately afterward, it switches to pedagogy.) -- Hoary 03:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"Where" means "at what place". "Where are you at?" therefore means "At what place are you at?". You honestly don't see the grammatical problem? What if I were to say "I'm at here"? As for the context, an interlude of linguistic discussion is widely insufficient to induce such a strong linguistic context that words with well established everyday meanings can be reasonably expected to be interpreted according to obscure, specialized meanings.Heqwm 22:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how this is gearing towards improving the article. If you're trying to make suggestions towards changes in the article, then cut to the chase.  If you're just trying to argue with another editor, then move it to their talk page.  Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  04:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Consider Where have you come from? Sounds idiomatic to me, but if Heqwm's generalization that "Where" means "at what place" were correct without exception, it would mean *At what place have you come from?


 * I might guess that in SAE where means either what place or at what place; and that in AAVE (or this version of it), its meaning is restricted to what place.


 * Then again, there's not always anything so terribly wrong with superfluity. Heqwm's means of Heqwm; and in the same way prenominal your and predicative yours mean of you. So how about I read the comment of yours? It's seemingly a double possessive, analogous to the impossible *I read your's comment; yet it's idiomatic. Apparent superfluities are common in natural language.


 * Shall I look up these little issues in a good grammar book? (For standard English and AAVE, I know of no superior alternatives to Huddleston and Pullum's Cambridge UP reference grammar and Lisa Green's book respectively. Would these be OK?)


 * Heqwm writes: As for the context, an interlude of linguistic discussion is widely insufficient to induce such a strong linguistic context that words with well established everyday meanings can be reasonably expected to be interpreted according to obscure, specialized meanings. I had trouble understanding that (and I'm still mystified by "widely"). Whatever it means, it's Heqwm's opinion. He'll need evidence for a claim that the wording in soporific legalese such as that of the Board is intended to be read "with well established everyday meanings" (I'd thought that legalese was notorious for its lexical oddity.) But anyway, in the context of the relatedness of different languages, genetic in its philological/linguistics meaning is not "obscure": there's even an (indifferent) WP article on it. -- Hoary 06:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "wildly", not "widely". This discussion of context is a bit of a misdirection. Context allows a reader to resolve an ambiguity. It does not allow a reader to recognize that an ambiguity exists in the first place. If your audience knows only one meaning for a word, then it is absurd to say "well, the context suggests that you should have interpreted it according to this other meaning, which you had no way of knowing." And it wasn't even used correctly; they should have said "the languages are genetically related", not "genetically based". Making up new meanings for words, then pretending that it's the audience's fault for not knowing that these new meanings were the ones intended, is exactly the sort of behavior that earns one a reputation of being an arrogant, elitist, ivory tower intellectual. As for "where are you at", given that one form is definitely grammatical, and one is questionably so, shouldn't we go for the definite one? And "I read your's comment" is not analogous to "I read that comment of yours". Pronouns cannot be made possesive through apostrophe s, and "yours" does not mean "of you". Unlike "your", "yours" functions as a noun, not an adjective.Heqwm 21:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that anybody has argued that this resolution was well-written. I'd say it's poorly written. But I don't see how the Board thought up a new meaning for genetically. I suppose what they meant was:

Whereas, these studies have also demonstrated that African Language Systems are genetically interrelated and not a dialect of English''
 * . . . as part of their culture and history as African people, African American students possess and use a language described in some scholars' models as Ebonics'' (literally Black sounds) or Pan African Communication Behaviors or African Language Systems; and


 * This makes sense to me. (My immediate, incredulous response would be "Oh really? Which studies?" But this is another matter.)


 * Making up new meanings for words, then pretending that it's the audience's fault for not knowing that these new meanings were the ones intended, is exactly the sort of behavior that earns one a reputation of being an arrogant, elitist, ivory tower intellectual. Nobody has made up a new meaning for any word here. I'll forgo commenting on the degree of redundancy within your epithet.


 * Your doesn't function like an adjective and isn't one:


 * Can I borrow a digital camera?
 * * Can I borrow a your camera?
 * Can I borrow your camera?
 * * Can I borrow digital camera?


 * Yours doesn't function like a noun and isn't one:


 * Can I borrow a camera?
 * * Can I borrow a yours?
 * Can I borrow yours?
 * * Can I borrow camera?


 * The terminology varies, but they're both usually called determiners. (Incidentally, what WP says about determiners is a real mess.)


 * Et cetera. Heqwm, please crack open a linguistics book. -- Hoary 06:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, I specifically chose the wording "functions as" rather than "is" to preempt this sort of pedantry. Adjectives moidify nouns.  "Your" modifies nouns.  Therefore, it functions as an adjective.  By that, I do not mean that is exactly the same as an adjective.  There are differences, and it isn't an adjective.  Apparently, your argument is that because there is ONE MANNER in which in differs from normal adjectives, it is completely inaccurate to say that it functions like an adjective.  But you don't even have the decency to actually explicitly present your argument.  Furthermore, all of this is a distraction from my actual point, which is that your and yours do not act in the same grammatical manner.  Please try harder to avoid a condescending tone.  And linguists have made up a new meaning for the word "genetic".Heqwm 20:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your "main point": your and yours do not act in the same grammatical manner. Right, because a prenominal determiner doesn't act in the same grammatical way as a predicative determiner. They're both determiners. (Offhand, I can't think of any analogous pairs of adjectives. For non-pairs, consider prenominal mock and predicative askew: they don't act in the same grammatical manner &mdash; and of course they have different meanings &mdash; but they're both adjectives.) If you want more reasons why determiners are neither nouns or adjectives, any descriptive grammar of the last two decades will provide them for you. Do please look in one.


 * And your other one: And linguists have made up a new meaning for the word "genetic". Not really. They (or rather philologists) chose to apply a preexisting word to language. They did so in 1860, says the second edition of the OED (s.v. genetic, A.1.a). That was only one year after Darwin had been the first to apply the word in what is now by far its commonest context (ibid., genetic, A.1.b). Darwin came well after the first known use of the word: "Our theories and genetic Histories of Poetry should henceforth cease" (1831). -- Hoary 09:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

defense of reverts
I think that some defense of the reverts is warranted.

1. "not a substandard version". Huh? It quite clearly is a substandard version of English. SAE is the standard, AAVE fails to comply with that standard, therefore it is substandard. I guess the problem is that "substandard" sounds judgmental, even though it's merely a statement of fact. I thought that I managed to more clearly express what you people actually mean without making reference to linguistic mumbo-jumbo. Why was it rejected?

2. "legitimate speech variety". What, exactly, does that mean? Were AAVE's parents married at the time of its birth? Come on, people, let's not muddle the article up with emotion-laden terms that have no real meaning.

3. Scare quotes around "errors". Sorry, using AAVE in a classroom is a straight up error. If I'm in French class, and I give "reloj" as the word for clock, that's an error. The fact that "reloj" is the word for clock in a grammatically distinct Romance language (Spanish) is entirely irrelevant. Using AAVE when one is clearly being evaluated on one's grasp of SAE is nothing short of an ERROR, and any dispute of that fact is blatant doubletalk.

4. "perhaps due to unfounded beliefs that AAVE is a degradation". Speculation which does nothing but denigrate a group has no place in Wikipedia. This is just a strawman that's being knocked down to villify your opponents. Ya'll keep talking about how AAVE being a degradation of English, within the conceptual framework of linguistics, is a completely unsupported idea. But come on. If anyone makes a comment about AAVE being a degradation of English, they almost certainly mean in the everyday sense of "degradation". Who has ever claimed that AAVE is a degradation of Englsih, within the conceptual framework of linguistics? If you have an actual cite for that, present it. But don't try to ignore the Wiki principle of verifiability by employing such weasel words as "perhaps". Wikipedia is for articles on what is, not what perhaps is.

If you're going to keep reverting my edits, you really need to address these points.Heqwm 01:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Different is not the same as substandard.  Spanish is not substandard French and American English is not substandard British English.  Granted, we do have a "standard English" and AAVE does not fit into that standard, but the distinction being made in the article is that this difference doesn't mean that AAVE is less than the standard; the criterion for selecting the standard is completely arbitrary anyway.  I reverted your change here partly because I know it was motivated by your belief that AAVE is substandard and partly because it was in a paragraph summarizing a position on an issue that I'm fairly certain you haven't done any reading on.
 * 2. You don't seriously believe that legitimate has that meaning any more than you would believe that I left my money by a river if I said "I put my money in the bank." The context makes it clear.
 * 3. Again, you're making changes based on doing no research on the matter. In this particular case, I would have recommended that you check out the corresponding book (Coulmas) but I don't know what the exact book is (see above).  You can also look at many of the sociolinguistic texts listed at the bottom of the article.  That might help you out.
 * 4. I believe that particular statement was first added as "due to AAVE being a degradation of English." Then someone altered it to more neutral terms, so it's not exactly a straw man. It is technically unsourced speculation and on second thought it probably is better to remove it.  However, there is no "linguistic" meaning of degradation and no meaning of the word that would be considered accurate in linguistic circles.  Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  02:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Of course the standard is arbitrary. That mean that it can be ignored at leisure.  Can you explain precisely what your point about Spanish and French here is?  Your point seems to be that Spanish people are not trying to speak French.  Which is what I tried to edit the article to say: AAVE speakers are not trying to speak SAE.  Why do you have a problem with that? You've given two reasons for your revert:
 * A. "it was motivated by your belief that AAVE is substandard". My motives are irrelevant.  And your edits are motivated by a desire knock down a strawman.  Here's a simple exercise: deliminate what, exactly, you are trying to say.  Is there anything that you would consider substandard?  Why is the source of the error relevant?  Is the exact same sentence somehow of a different character depending on whether it's said by a speaker of AAVE versus a white toddler who has not yet mastered English?
 * B. "it was in a paragraph summarizing a position on an issue that I'm fairly certain you haven't done any reading on". Again, rather irrelevant.  What matters is not the paragraph it is in, but the phrase itself.  And the amount of reading is the not the meat of the issue; the important issue is whether what I'm saying is wrong.  Is it wrong?  If so, can you explain how?
 * 2. Of course I don't think that "legitimate" has that meaning.  So what meaning does it have?  Why did you complain about my rhetoric, and utterly fail to answer my question?  Since I clearly said that the context doesn't make it clear, saying that it does make it clear was a lapse in compliance with AGF.
 * 3. Okay, now you're really treading on thin ice as far as civility is concerned. The whole point of Wikipedia is for YOU to do research on the matter, and then explain it here.  "Verifiable" does NOT mean "after you get a degree in linguistics, you'll agree with me, until then, you don't get to challenge my claims".  Using AAVE in a classroom setting is an error.  All the condescension in the world won't change that fact.  And denying obvious facts doesn’t do anything but piss people off.
 * 4. It first said “due to unfounded beliefs that AAVE…” I deleted the “unfounded” part, then it was reverted.Heqwm 20:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Aeusoes1 has replied well, and there's no point repeating what he has said. Just a couple of questions, and a comment.


 * Heqwm says:
 * SAE is the standard, AAVE fails to comply with that standard, therefore it is substandard. I guess the problem is that "substandard" sounds judgmental, even though it's merely a statement of fact.
 * I think the term you are groping for is nonstandard. If I'm wrong and nonstandard is inadequate, please explain how it is inadequate.


 * Heqwm further says:
 * Who has ever claimed that AAVE is a degradation of Englsih, "within the conceptual framework of linguistics"?
 * (in which I've changed italics to quotes). If somebody were to say that AAVE was "substandard English", that would, I think, be a statement about language and therefore a matter of linguistics. Is it something other than linguistics, and if so, what?


 * Of course I "assume good faith". I also start by assuming a certain degree of knowledge, but this assumption is of course something I test as I go along. Heqwm, I increasingly get the impression (e.g. from what you wrote above about your and yours) that you haven't done any reading in linguistics. I hope that I am very wrong. (Perhaps you'd like to name one or two relevant linguistics books that you have read.) Do remember that when editing articles about language, the insights provided by linguistics aren't trumped by mere truthiness. -- Hoary 06:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How am ‘’I’’ groping for a term? I’m not the one who insists on including a discussion of whether it’s substandard.


 * It’s truly a sign of the insularity of linguistics that they are unable to distinguish between language and linguistics. Just because I’m not an expert in linguistics doesn’t mean that I’m not an expert on language.


 * The use of the term “truthiness” is offensive.Heqwm 20:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's like that battle with wikidudeman all over again... Heqwm, look through the archives: everything you're saying was said a few months ago by another user and refuted by a dozen other editors. Makerowner 20:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If it's been refuted, why are the citations not in the article? Denying and refuting are not the same thing.Heqwm 20:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That you haven't read anything on the subject is not "irrelevant;" it is actually fundamental to the problem. What you consider "obvious facts" are shown clearly in the texts in question to be flat out wrong or, in the very least, baseless opinion.
 * To come here with the attitude that, without cracking open a single text on the subject, you know more than those who are actually well versed in it is rather insulting. You're not an expert on the subject of language (which linguistics is the study of); you're not even knowledgable in it.
 * Also, since I'm here, I suggest that you not make edits like this without clearing it with editors in the talk page first. Wrong or right, you've got to do some convincing before your contentious edits are allowed and editing without agreement just to be strongheaded will not fly.Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  22:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Heqwm says: "Just because I’m not an expert in linguistics doesn’t mean that I’m not an expert on language." In fact, that's exactly what that means. Linguistics is the scientific study of language; any other knowledge of language, no matter how broad or profound, is by definition unscientific (and I've seen no evidence of breadth or profundity of knowledge in your statements). I read a lot of books about dinosaurs as a kid, and I like to think that I know a lot about them, but I would never say something like "Just because I'm not an expert in paleontology doesn't mean that I'm not an expert on dinosaurs." Your situation is essentially the same: that of a layman commenting on a scientific issue and claiming to have the same authority as the entire scientific community (except in this case, you've given no sign that you know anything about language other than what the linguistic prejudices of society have taught you).
 * Heqwm says: "Why is the source of the error relevant? Is the exact same sentence somehow of a different character depending on whether it's said by a speaker of AAVE versus a white toddler who has not yet mastered English?" This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The idea that AAVE is equivalent to the speech of toddlers is a myth that has been debunked conclusively by linguists and is not a matter of debate (in the same way that the roundness of the Earth is not a matter of debate). If you had bothered to read the article or the external links, you would have seen that AAVE adds complexity to some constructions when compared to SAE, eg. habitual BE vs. zero-copula constructions. Makerowner 00:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How much I've read is irrelevant to whether what I'm saying is true. I guess you people were so busy learning how to be pretentious jackasses to learn what an ad hominem fallacy is.  One more time, "VERIFIABLE" DOES NOT MEAN "GO READ SOME BOOKS".  Unless you can explain HERE, not in some books, HERE, how what you're saying is true, it doesn't belong here.  The very fact that you find it "insulting" that I dare comment on the subject without learning your mumbo-jumbo shows just how unwilling you are to act with even a shred of civility.  I don't need a degree in linguistics to know that you're full of crap, any more than I need a degree in aeronautics to know that two planes crashed into the WTC.  Hey, you know what?  I have a degree in logic.  Do you?  Because if not, then by your own logic, I can make whatever claims that I want to regarding logical arguments, and you don't get to dispute them.  Makerowner, your analogy is inapt.  It's more like if I had spent my entire life around dinosaurs, and someone comes along and says that the T. Rex can fly, and I say they can't, and the other person replies that they have a degree in paleontology, therefore they get to make whatever claims they want.  I am not commenting on a scientific issue.  Whether putting the wrong answer down on a test is an error is not a scientific issue, it's an issue of "Are you a complete moron?"  And I'm not claiming to have the same authority as the entire scientific community.  That's just plain dishonest misrepresentation.  I've made no effort to base my claims on my own authority.  I've based my claims on the fact that DOING THE WRONG THING IS AN ERROR!  How anyone can have their head so far up their ass that they consider it a "prejudice" to think that speaking incorrectly is an error is beyond me.  I've been patient.  I've tried again and again to have a reasonable discussion.  But all I get in return is you people telling me that you are just so freakin' SPECIAL that you have no need to defend yourself to mere mortals like me.  I notice that yet again you refuse to answer my question, instead shifting the discussion to the lie that I have said that AAVE is equivalent to the speech of toddlers.Heqwm 04:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're excited as you seem to be, you should probably take a break to calm down.


 * You say (after removal of typographical exuberance) I've based my claims on the fact that doing the wrong thing is an error. I fully agree with this fact. Indeed, it's very often an understatement. Driving on the left in the US isn't just an "error", it's homicidal. Getting the green/yellow- and the brown-sheathed wires the wrong way around as you wire a plug in Britain is potentially lethal too. Right then. What about AAVE or any other lect is "the wrong thing"?


 * Can we move away from language or potentially lethal acts for a moment? ISO 732:2000 defines what are commonly referred to (but are actually quite a bit less than) 6&times;4.5, 6&times;6 and 6&times;9 cm use of 120 film. I'm fairly certain that it does not define 6&times;7 use, but am not fully sure and don't want to pay the money to find out. It definitely does not define 6&times;8. Further, this format (like 6&times;7) isn't provided for by the numbering on the backing paper of 120 film. It's not standard. You are of course free to say that by this token it (like 6&times;12 format) is substandard. If you're lucky, people will infer that you made some sort of slip of the tongue for nonstandard; if you're unlucky, they'll take it as literally meant and laughable.


 * You demand: Unless you can explain HERE, not in some books, HERE, how what you're saying is true, it doesn't belong here.


 * Nonstandard lects are neither defective nor inferior. This is something made plain in books about language: not only linguistics books, but also books by linguists marketed for intelligent lay readers, books with titles such as Language Myths. If you don't have sufficient time or interest to read one or two, I wonder how you have sufficient time or interest to add to the truthiness of this article. But anyway, click this. Thank you. -- Hoary 07:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you're versed in logic, I'll try to break this down logically. Granted, I'll probably overlook something but I hope I'll get you to understand the problems here.
 * There is a body of knowledge that one is reasonably expected to have about a range of topics. For instance (going with the airplane example), everyone is expected to know that airplanes can fly.  What we can call "expertise" comes with more sophisticated studies of aerodynamics, engineering, etc.  General knowledge, then, points with greater and greater sophistication toward understandings of airplanes.
 * There are, however, things that are popularly accepted that, with greater expertise, are shown to be false or oversimplistic. Going with the dinosaurs example, many people believe that pterodactyls are dinosaurs; with a greater amount of expertise one finds that they are actually not dinosuars but flying reptiles.  Now, if one with enough expertise on dinosaurs to know this were confronted with the statement that pterodactyls were dinosaurs, they would be right in wanting to correct that statement.
 * Likewise, when it comes to language, there are many popularly accepted attitudes that conflict with the findings and conclusions made by linguists. Linguists are those with "expertise" in language.  You have said on this discussion page, and have attempted to make the article reflect, that AAVE is "substandard" but this conflicts with the position of experts who steer clear of calling any speech variety better or worse than another.  The term of choice here, because it is one that makes no judgement on quality, is "nonstandard." Thus, AAVE is a nonstandard form of English.
 * We have asked you to read up on the subject because you are demonstrating understandings that those with even a small amount of "expertise" know to be false. Familiarizing yourself with the subject will put you in a much better position to make constructive decisions regarding how the page should be edited.  If it seems like we're being elitist, it is perhaps because we are having difficulty separating your anti-AAVE bias with your arguments.
 * If I am correct, what you are arguing is that because classrooms teach in and for SAE, that a child who uses anything but SAE is in error. This is not an unreasonable position.  Your comparison of Spanish and French classrooms is an apt one.  The problem, however, is that you are making this argument to justify changing a paragraph that summarizes another's words.  I'll try to make an adequate comparison:
 * Let's say in the article on God, it says somewhere "Nietzche (1882) has argued that God is dead." To alter the sentence to say "Nietzche (1882) has argued that God might be dead." is not creating neutrality, it is misrepresenting someone else's words.
 * I'm explaining this to you because I believe you are having difficulty with the distinction as seen by this edit which was then reverted with the edit summary "'according to the argument' is key here".
 * Turning to this article, the paragraph in question is a summary of the Oakland board's position. Teachers were told not to interpret use of AAVE as errors in speaking SAE but rather as use of another dialect.  Before you say that it's still an error, remember, this is a summary of another's words.  You might disagree with the words, but you can't disagree that they someone it.
 * Now, you might argue that the phrase "encouraged to recognize" assumes that what comes after it is true. Well, let's look at what teachers are asked to accept:
 * using AAVE is not the result of lack of intelligence
 * using AAVE is not the result of lack of effort
 * using AAVE is not an error
 * AAVE is a grammatically distinct form of English
 * 1, 2, and 4 are unquestionably correct. To back this up, I'll quote from An Introduction to Sociolinguistics: Fourth Edition by Wardhaugh (2002)

There has been widespread misunderstanding in the United States of AAVE, both of its characteristics and of how it is used (see Mufwene et al., 1998). This misunderstanding has had a number of unfortunate consequences. Many educators regard the various distinguishing characteristics of AAVE as deficiencies: black children were deficient in language ability because their language did not have certain features of the standard, and the consequence of that deficiency was cognitive deficiency... In the late 1960s, this view led to certain proposals to teach black children the standard variety of the language... In this view, black children suffered from 'verbal deprivation' or 'had no language,' and it was the duty and responsibility of educators to supply them with one... That such children need 'compensatory education' for their lack of linguistic ability is a complete misinterpretation of the facts. (pp. 343-4)


 * I believe that you can agree that 1, 2, and 4 are indeed correct, but what about 3? Is not AAVE use an error in the classroom?  It is when the classroom only allows SAE.  The point of the Oakland resolution was to get teachers to accept AAVE usage in the classroom based on the understanding that it could be used to more easily get students to learn SAE.  Is this pedagogically sound?  That's arguable.  If you'd like to argue with it, I'm sure there are some sources somewhere that both understand the resolution and disagree with its methods (the former is rare, but the latter is common).
 * Finally, on a tangential note, tagging the page with for what is an issue of minor wording is improper.  Wikipedia has a range of tag templates and, in this case,  or  is more appropriate.  See Category:Dispute templates to educate yourself on the options available.  If you still feel there is a dispute, I ask you to change the tag to a more appropriate one.  Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  07:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonstandard lects are neither defective nor inferior. You people seem to want to take complex issues and reduce them down to simple dichotomies. "Is it inferior? Yes or no." There are senses in which that is true, and senses in which it is not true. AAVE hampers communication, and suggests disrespect towards the audience. In that it is inferior. You can argue all you want about how a peso isn’t inherently inferior to a dollar, and the values assigned to them are arbitrary, but none of that is going to get a store owner to take that peso. Also, language acts as a marker. Peacocks grow large tails to show their health. If you see a peacock with a large tail, you know that it’s he is healthy enough to grow a large tail. If you go to a doctor with a medical degree, you know he has studied medicine. And when you hear someone speaking SAE, you know he educated. A peacock with a small tail isn’t necessarily sick, a person could know a lot about medicine without being a doctor, and some people are educated yet speak in AAVE, but it still is logical to prefer large tails, medical licenses, and SAE because that way you know that they are healthy, competent, and educated, respectively.

If you don't have sufficient time or interest to read one or two, I wonder how you have sufficient time or interest to add to the truthiness of this article. Again, the whole point of wikipedia is for there to be a place to get information on the internet. If you think it’s so important, why don’t you add it to the article, rather than simply asserting that it exists? And again, the term “truthiness” is quite rude.

But anyway, click this. I had already read that. And I already determined it’s full of problems. Quotes from the link:

“An editorial in The New York Times a few days after the first news report said the Oakland School Board had 'declared that black slang is a distinct language.'  We can get that myth out of the way right at the start.” That’s not a myth. Pullum’s argument is that he is defining slang in a way that excludes AAVE. Well, NYT is not a linguistic journal. It is a mainstream paper using a word with its mainstream meaning. When someone has a definition that differs from you, that is not a “myth”, that is a nomenclature disagreement. Pullum should try harder to avoid using words like “myth” that he clearly doesn’t know the meaning of.

“There is a difference between making grammatical blunders in Standard English and speaking correctly in a different variety of the language, one that has a slightly different grammar. And that's the case here.” Well, yes, I suppose that’s true. But that doesn’t change the fact that the latter is a subset of the former.

“When they should say 'He is laughing', and that's treated as one of the many amusing pieces of evidence that they don't speak English correctly. It's not true.” Yes, it is true. (And since it’s a transcript, I won’t blame Pullum for the punctuation errors). “He be laughin’ ” is incorrect English. The fact that it’s correct AAVE is irrelevant to the fact that it’s incorrect English.

Notice the hypocrisy. Linguists, self-appointed experts on language, have declared that “slang” means a particular thing, and the mainstream use of it is “wrong”. Not “inconsistent with the linguistic meaning”, not “nonstandard”, not a “variety”, just flatout wrong. But flagrantly violating English grammar? That’s not wrong at all.

“Well, those words do indeed get left out, but there is nothing careless about this; there is a grammatical rule here, and it's rather complex to state.” Just because there are rules to it doesn’t mean that it’s not careless. If I run through red lights, but only in precisely delimitated cases, I am still breaking the law.

“3. It mustn't begin the sentence. You never leave out the 'is' in a question like 'Is dat right?' “ And yet I have heard people leave the word off the beginning of a sentence. Which brings us to complications in our study of AAVE. Are there varieties of AAVE? Are there standard AAVE forms and nonstandard AAVE forms (which are thus standard nonstandard English and nonstandard nonstandard English)? How deep does this go? Are there standard nonstandard nonstandard English and nonstandard nonstandard nonstandard English?

“For example, it has what linguists call Negative Concord,” No, SAE has a negative concord. AAVE has a double negative.

“The auxiliary 'ain't' is first, it's negative, and in a negative clause the way you say 'anybody' is 'nobody'. There's only one negation, but it's marked at two places, the 'aint' and the 'no'.“ No, in a negative clause, the way you say “anybody” is “anybody”. Let’s take a look at some SAE sentences: Somebody is home. There isn’t anybody home.

The second sentence is the negative of the first. “Not” is added to express negation, and “somebody” is changed to “anybody” as part of the negative concord. “Nobody” isn’t the negatively marked version of “anybody”; “anybody” is already negatively marked. “Nobody” is a negation. “There isn’t nobody home” is not a doubly marked negation, it’s a double negative. Contrary to Pullum’s claim, there isn’t just one negation, there are two.

“There isn’t nobody home” is a perfectly valid construction in SAE, if one wishes to express that somebody is home. It gives a different emphasis, and there are cases where a double negative would be the best way to express what one means, if it weren’t for the fact that AAVE speakers keep using double negatives to mean the opposite of what they’re supposed to mean. And this is where AAVE gets really annoying. If black people went around speaking Swahili, we wouldn’t understand them, but at least we would know that we aren’t understanding them. Because AAVE appropriates English words rather than having its own, we have to figure out whether or not someone is speaking SAE. If someone uses a double negative, are they using it in the grammatically correct manner, to mean a positive, or ungrammatically to mean a negative? Because no one can use a double negative without risking that their audience will think it’s a regular negative, AAVE has robbed us of a useful construction. Not only does AAVE make it harder to understand black people, it also makes it harder to understand white people.

Now, to anticipate a likely response: you’ll probably defend his claim that “in a negative clause the way you say 'anybody' is 'nobody'” by saying that he is not saying that in SAE, the negatively marked version of “anybody” is “nobody”, but rather, he is saying that in AAVE, the negatively marked version of “anybody” is “nobody”. But that would require that “anybody” be used in AAVE the way “somebody” is used in SAE. (I don’t know, maybe it is. But if so, that’s yet another example of AAVE muddying the waters). Furthermore, his wording obscures the fact that AAVE is not simply adding structure to SAE, it is changing existing structure to mean something completely different from what it normally means. SAE already has a perfectly reasonable double concord. But for some reason that’s not good enough for AAVE. So AAVE ignores the standard marked form (“anybody”), then steals the negative form ("nobody") and crams it into the negatively marked role. In the context of SAE’s dominant position, this is incredibly disruptive. It’s as if a car manufacturer were to put the gas on the left and the brake on the right, then respond to complaints by saying “Well, pedal placement is arbitrary anyway, and there’s no objective reason why the gas should be on the right”. Sure, there’s no objective reason, but that’s the way we do it, and any other method is going to make people conclude you’re an idiot.

“Right-wing commentator George Wills called it 'the patois of America's meanest streets', as if this dialect was so depraved it could only be spoken in slums.” While it’s possible that Will (again, I’ll assume the spelling error did not originate with Pullum) meant that, it’s hardly the most reasonable interpretation. Just because it is spoken in slums doesn’t mean it’s only spoken in slums. Also, “mean” is a synonym for “vulgar”. Do we know that Will didn’t mean it in that sense, rather than “cruel”?

“There is educational research showing that it does work better to introduce children to schooling through a dialect they understand. It works better for rural Norwegian kids being introduced to Standard Norwegian; it works better for black American schoolchildren.” The analogy isn’t quite apt. Norwegian kids don’t understand SAE. Do black children have difficulty understanding SAE?

Æµ§œš¹ says:  Going with the dinosaurs example, many people believe that pterodactyls are dinosaurs; with a greater amount of expertise one finds that they are actually not dinosuars but flying reptiles. A perfect example of the distinction that you are not getting. Saying that pterodactyls are not dinosaurs is not a statement about dinosaurs but about paleontology. It tells you nothing about either pterodactyls or dinosaurs, but instead tells you about the words “pterodactyls” and “dinosaur”. Furthermore, a more accurate statement would be “paleontologists do not classify pterodactyls as dinosaurs”. Even better would be an explanation of how exactly they are different.

Likewise, when it comes to language, there are many popularly accepted attitudes that conflict with the findings and conclusions made by linguists. Except that many of those “findings and conclusions” are not, in fact, findings, but declarations. For example, look about at my first quote of Pullum. That “slang” does not include nonstandard grammar is not a finding, it is declaration. To use Hume's terminology, it is a analytic rather than synthetic statement. It is not a statement about slang itself, it is a statement about the 'word'' “slang”. It was not decided empirically, but rather linguistics decided to define “slang” that way. And this is where linguists start pissing people off. It’s all well and good to say “You’re not using that word in a manner in a way that’s consistent with the way we use it”. It is quite another to pretend that your redefinitions of words somehow reflect absolute truth, and those that use words differently are ignorant.

Linguists are those with "expertise" in language. No, linguists are those with expertise in linguistics. While learning about linguistics usually entails learning a lot about language, if you fail to recognize the distinction, you will never be able to communicate anything but contempt to laypeople.

You have said on this discussion page, and have attempted to make the article reflect, that AAVE is "substandard" but this conflicts with the position of experts who steer clear of calling any speech variety better or worse than another. See, that’s not a finding. That’s a declaration. Can you present a definition of “substandard” which is meaningful, and which AAVE objectively does not satisfy? If it’s not a meaningful term, why go out of your way to say that AAVE is not substandard? What’s wrong with saying something like “There is no objective standard for ‘substandard’, therefore linguistics prefer the term ‘nonstandard’ when discussing AAVE”?

We have asked you to read up on the subject because you are demonstrating understandings that those with even a small amount of "expertise" know to be false. See, the thing is, disagreeing with your declarations isn’t “false”. And when you refuse to explain why you disagree with me, I am rather unlikely to change my mind.

If it seems like we're being elitist, it is perhaps because we are having difficulty separating your anti-AAVE bias with your arguments. I take it you mean “from my arguments”? My anti-AAVE bias cannot be separated from my arguments, any more than my dislike of viruses can be separated from the fact that they cause diseases. A bias and a prejudice are not the same thing. A bias is simply an inclination against something, and the connotation of this inclination not being based on logic and evidence is not part of the actual definition. And I don't see how any of this has anything to do with you seeming elitist.

If I am correct, what you are arguing is that because classrooms teach in and for SAE, that a child who uses anything but SAE is in error. I suppose it’s a bit juvenile of me to harp on your language, but isn’t that second “that” superfluous?

I'll try to make an adequate comparison: Well, I don’t think that you succeeded. My edits didn’t change the meaning. Furthermore, my ORIGINAL edit said: “Teachers were encouraged to accept the idea that the errors in Standard American English…”, which you reverted. Which calls into question how carefully you read edits before reverting them. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_American_Vernacular_English&diff=next&oldid=153505195

''I'm explaining this to you because I believe you are having difficulty with the distinction as seen by this edit which was then reverted with the edit summary "'according to the argument' is key here". '' I didn’t see the original as making it clear that “According to…” carried over to the entire sentence, rather than just the next clause.

 1, 2, and 4 are unquestionably correct. Having AAVE as one’s native dialect is not a result of a lack of intelligence or effort. So if you were to say that AAVE speakers aren’t necessarily less intelligent or hardworking than SAE speakers, that would be valid. But seeing as how anyone with normal mental abilities who makes a serious effort to learn SAE will succeed, I don’t see how you can make this claim.

''Is not AAVE use an error in the classroom? It is when the classroom only allows SAE. The point of the Oakland resolution was to get teachers to accept AAVE usage in the classroom based on the understanding that it could be used to more easily get students to learn SAE.'' It is an error regardless of whether it’s accepted. The issue is whether teachers should focus on other issues first.

Finally, on a tangential note, tagging the page with for what is an issue of minor wording is improper.  I don’t consider this to be a “minor” wording issue. None of the tags quite express my position, but in the spirit of compromise I’ll switch to the section one.Heqwm 03:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * AAVE hampers communication, and suggests disrespect towards the audience. In that it is inferior. Yes, the use of any nonstandard lect is likely to make communication more difficult with people who aren't familiar with that lect. I don't understand how that makes the lect "inferior". Languages aren't usually used to address audiences, in the prototypical uses of "audience"; whether I take "audience" here to mean interlocutor or prototypical audience, I don't see how AAVE suggests disrespect, let alone how it is inferior.


 * “An editorial in The New York Times a few days after the first news report said the Oakland School Board had 'declared that black slang is a distinct language.' We can get that myth out of the way right at the start.” That’s not a myth. It's a myth. Slang denotes vocabulary. That's not to deny that some people may use it to mean "informal speech". Possibly some dictionaries recognize this use. I don't have any new dictionaries within reach now; do you?


 * Well, NYT is not a linguistic journal. It is a mainstream paper using a word with its mainstream meaning. No, it's using a word with a meaning that's peripheral at best.


 * “There is a difference between making grammatical blunders in Standard English and speaking correctly in a different variety of the language, one that has a slightly different grammar. And that's the case here.” Well, yes, I suppose that’s true. But that doesn’t change the fact that the latter is a subset of the former. Factually untrue. AAVE grammar is not a subset of AAVE grammar. It's distinct. This is something that's explained even in the AAVE article as it now stands (or as it was when I last examined it).


 * Notice the hypocrisy. Linguists, self-appointed experts on language, have declared that “slang” means a particular thing, and the mainstream use of it is “wrong”. Not “inconsistent with the linguistic meaning”, not “nonstandard”, not a “variety”, just flatout wrong. But flagrantly violating English grammar? That’s not wrong at all. No, linguists are following the accepted meaning of slang. Where SAE is the target language, certain features of AAVE are wrong. Likewise, where SAE is the target language, certain features of Newfoundland English, Boston English, etc. etc. are wrong; and where AAVE or Newfoundland English or whatever is the target language, certain features of SAE are wrong. Yes. So?


 * “Well, those words do indeed get left out, but there is nothing careless about this; there is a grammatical rule here, and it's rather complex to state.” Just because there are rules to it doesn’t mean that it’s not careless. What is this "it" you talk about? You've omitted to specify the referent. Ergo, you've been careless. Just because you may expect that the referent is pragmatically inferrable doesn't excuse this. Er, no, just kidding. Look, Heqwm, your obvious indignation and your energy in expressing it clearly haven't left you any time to study language. Now, most people have no need to study language. But the huge majority of these people have no great urge to pontificate on language to a mass audience. You might actually enjoy such study: within the twaddle that you write about double negatives, I think I discern some actual linguistic curiosity. (Tip: words such as anybody are termed polarity items).


 * “There isn’t nobody home” is a perfectly valid construction in SAE, if one wishes to express that somebody is home. Yes perhaps, Heqwm, in Planet Schoolmarm English. In SBrE (close to a lect in which I'm fluent), what I think you're trying to say would be expressed by There is somebody home. While I'm not a native speaker (or even an L2 speaker) of SAE, I venture to guess that There is somebody home is idiomatic there too; and that, used to express the same meaning, There isn’t nobody home is merely the kind of sentence that's tried out by playful ten-year-olds and perhaps also inflicted by the crustiest and dimmest of English teachers.


 * And this is where AAVE gets really annoying. If black people went around speaking Swahili, we wouldn’t understand them, but at least we would know that we aren’t understanding them. Because AAVE appropriates English words rather than having its own, we have to figure out whether or not someone is speaking SAE. If someone uses a double negative, are they using it in the grammatically correct manner, to mean a positive, or ungrammatically to mean a negative? Because no one can use a double negative without risking that their audience will think it’s a regular negative, AAVE has robbed us of a useful construction. Not only does AAVE make it harder to understand black people, it also makes it harder to understand white people. "Them, "us": this is superb stuff, Heqwm. It's complete bunk in terms of the history of English. But that's just the start. Yes, I think that AAVE may indeed make it harder to understand some white people, at least when AAVE has worked up those white people into such a tizzy that they seriously propose that There isn’t nobody home was unambiguously close in meaning to There's somebody home till those careless blacks messed it up for "us".


 * Now, all the bizarre double negatives and "us" and "them" and talk of how communication with whites is threatened by AAVE has been entertaining, in a sense, but a little exhausting. I regret that I have to stop reading your diatribe at that point, fearing that I might fall off my typing chair on encountering your next howler. I've been looking through some textbooks on language. This one seems good: up to date, neither superficial nor dismayingly large (or expensive), and well rounded. May I humbly suggest that you obtain, read and digest a copy? All of us whites and honorary whites -- and [horror-struck intake of breath] nonwhites and AAVE speakers -- would greatly appreciate its likely impact on your contributions. -- Hoary 05:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We all have busy lives and have made reasonable attempts to address your line of inquiry but now it's time for you to leave the thread and refer to one of the many linguistics texts (again, linguistics is the study of language and a linguist studies language) cited at the bottom of the article or to the links that Hoary has graciously offered to you. If you continue with your approach of badgering and insulting editors who provide answers you disagree with, we will be proactive in dealing with such malicious behavior.  Thank you.  Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  06:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Languages aren't usually used to address audiences, in the prototypical uses of "audience"; whether I take "audience" here to mean interlocutor or prototypical audience, I don't see how AAVE suggests disrespect, let alone how it is inferior. Huh? Perhaps you meant to say that languages aren't used to express an attitude to audiences? Baby talk, saracsm, and AAVE are all examples of registers that express attitudes. And if you can't see how not being as good means inferior, what are you doing editing a language article?

''It's a myth. Slang denotes vocabulary. That's not to deny that some people may use it to mean "informal speech". Possibly some dictionaries recognize this use. I don't have any new dictionaries within reach now; do you?'' No, it's not a myth. Apparently you just ignored by point about how "myth" applies to synthetic, rather than analytic, statements. And according to Google, "slang" means "informal speech".

''Factually untrue. AAVE grammar is not a subset of AAVE grammar.'' I didn't say it was. Perhaps you might read my statements before responding to them?

What is this "it" you talk about? It's a free variable. My statement is true for all "it".

Yes perhaps, Heqwm, in Planet Schoolmarm English. Again you show your contempt and peeremptory dismissal of my position.

 at least when AAVE has worked up those white people into such a tizzy that they seriously propose that There isn’t nobody home was unambiguously close in meaning to There's somebody home till those careless blacks messed it up for "us". It is unambiguous. And I didn't say black people, I said AAVE. Yes, a precise statement would be that the incorrect use of double negatives, of which AAVE is the most prominent example, has ruined this construction. But do I really have to be that nitpicky to avoid you making childish insinuations of racism?

We all have busy lives and have made reasonable attempts to address your line of inquiry No, you've been decidely unreasonable, consistently ducking my question.

If you continue with your approach of badgering and insulting editors who provide answers you disagree with, we will be proactive in dealing with such malicious behavior. You are the one who has been acting with a lack of civility. I have gone out of my way to be reasonable, and all I get is ridiculous acccusations of malice.Heqwm 00:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Though I'm loath to step back into this pool... The impression I have, Heqwm, of your position (having read most, though not all, of the above discussion in which you are involved) is that you seek to consign AAVE to a linguistic status on a par with slang, or sarcasm, or babytalk, which phenomena you term registers, and I'm guessing you think of AAVE as a collection of expressions and words exclusively intended and used to inflame discussions and circumstances. And, if I understand you correctly, your assessment of linguists is that they have nothing meaningful to say about language(s) because, essentially, they spend their time navel-gazing - studying their discipline without reference to the ostensible subject of their discipline. If that is indeed your position (correct me if I'm wrong) then you could not be more at odds with what is legitimately known - and yes, hypothesised - about AAVE, slang, language, and the study of language. I'm not sure that you have successfully managed to topple the edifice of several hundred years of linguistic study (I'm pretty sure that comparing AAVE with baby talk won't help you in that pursuit). Like it or not, AAVE is a language, and greater familiarity with it should make that fact clear. This means that it can and does perform all of the functions of any other language; slang, sarcasm, and baby talk do not fall into that category. As for linguists, their specialised knowledge is based on real investigations, lending their findings (the correct word for knowledge uncovered after systematic research and study) a value and credibility far greater than any speculations, hunches, received wisdom, hearsay, and stereotypes you or I may offer after years of watching TV, listening to dad, or searching Google. My suggestion to you - advice I myself follow for this article - is to leave substantive editing to those who know the subject and who have read authoritative texts on it, and confine your edits to copyediting for punctuation, typos, and writing style. If you would like to make a greater contribution to the article, read some scholarly works about linguistics and AAVE and become familiar with the concepts and issues involved. Pinkville 12:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Oakland Ebonics controversy
Now that Oakland Ebonics controversy has its own article, I suggest that mention of it is reduced in this article. -- Hoary 23:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes perfect sense. Pinkville 10:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Harvard
I changed a lot of the citations to Harvard referencing. A couple of the works listed in the references section (namely Baratz (1969), Cosby (1997), McWhorter (1998), Morgan (2002), and Mufwene (1998)) are not cited in the article. Should we move them to a new "further reading" section? Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  02:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I recommend turning "References" into a list of works cited: removing anything that's not actually cited, and moving in any web pages that are cited. Anything not cited needn't be mentioned in the article at all. If you think that clear references (complete with URLs, ISBNs or whatever) to some items not cited might be useful for edits in the future, put these into a separate list and plonk them on this talk page. -- Hoary 04:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already pulled some out and am putting them in the section below. Please feel free to continue. -- Hoary 04:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention that a number of references don't have adequate page citation and if you or anyone can help that'd be great. Did you remove Baugh because he's cited in the notes section already?  Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  04:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Baugh removal: No, just carelessness, sorry. -- Hoary 05:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article cites Baugh dismissively citing the dread Cosby. I therefore stuck Cosby back in. Although I'm familiar with the author-date citation system (what a waste of screenfuls!), I'm not familiar with this ghastly template that's been used in this article. I looked it up, and was told it was deprecated in favor of this one. I therefore tried the latter. It's a crock, and that's why I didn't bother to use it. -- Hoary 06:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"References" removed from the article because not cited

 * Mufwene, Salikoko et al. (1998). African-American English: Structure, history and use. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-11732-1.
 * Mufwene, Salikoko et al. (1998). African-American English: Structure, history and use. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-11732-1.
 * Mufwene, Salikoko et al. (1998). African-American English: Structure, history and use. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-11732-1.
 * Mufwene, Salikoko et al. (1998). African-American English: Structure, history and use. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-11732-1.

More additions to "References" quickly deleted
This edit added a number of "references". One I know. Two others are by a highly respected scholar and I know of them. Others come from first-rate publishers. They'd all be excellent additions to a general bibliography or list of further reading. However, the list is titled "References" and is of stuff (mostly good, but some quite outstandingly bad) that's actually referred to. Which is why I reverted the edit, well-intentioned though it obviously was.

If one or more of these books helps you add worthwhile content to the article, by all means add that content, cite the book, and create the item in the list of references -- for then it really will be a reference. Hoary 06:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Secondary citations
[Æµ§œš¹. this edit of yours has removed the information that no editor of the article claims to have seen the original source, unless of course you're implying by the edit that you have just seen it. What am I missing here? -- Hoary 07:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have seen it. I haven't given it a good read, though.  Would you like me to email you a pdf of it?  Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  04:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No thanks (at least for now). That's OK then. -- Hoary 00:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

African American culture
The way that AAVE is mentioned in this article leaves a lot to be desired. Can one of the experts who has worked on this article have a look and see if you think it makes sense? This article is the "Improvement drive" article for this week so a little of you time would be greatly appreciated as we work towards brining this article to feature article status. futurebird 14:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Brothers and Sisters
What's the origin and history of calling people "Brother" or "Sister" -- it's from the church, right? When did the terms acquire a racial connotation? Are there any sources that talk about this and where would it best fit into the wikipedia? futurebird 18:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know the facts and I'm not going to guess. (I get the impression that an awful lot of twaddle is written about word histories by well-meaning people who depend on "common knowledge" and "common sense".) I'd start by looking in the Dictionary of American Regional English. -- Hoary 01:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Before I pass out tonight
I don’t have time to skim the entire talk page and see if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but in the to-do list, someone mentioned mad as “a lot,” but that seems less to me to be AAVE than New York (hip-hop?) slang. I can’t imagine anyone over 50 saying that unselfconsciously. In Oakland, you’ll rarely hear native AAVE-speakers use “mad” in that context (unless they’re real Wu-Tang fans or something) —My eyes hurt 10:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Jive
As the anon user mentioned, jive isn't mentioned once in this page even though the jive disambiguation page offers a redirect to here. In addition, a number of people perceive that jive and AAVE are synonymous; while this may be incorrect, this article is the best place to correct that misconception. I'm under the impression that jive and aave are related so that we can mention jive at least somewhere here. Thoughts? Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  18:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Jive" is generally a synonym for African American slang, which is a subset only of AAVE. Note that the concept of slang is distinct from that of dialect (to put it very simply, your mother teaches you dialect and your friends teach you slang).--Pharos (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny, African American slang redirects here. So where's the best place mentiong slang/jive? Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  01:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It deserves a section here I guess, and probably its own article as well. But note that it's a sub-topic.--Pharos (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Finna
Maybe I didn't look close enough, but shouldn't "finna" be mentioned in here, as a shortening of "fixing to"?Cameron Nedland 23:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's there. Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  23:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits...
I added a reference that rigorously explores the question as to the roots of AAVE to Africa and discusses this topic from many angles, specifically, that AAVE is a African linguistic SYSTEM with roots that can be linked to West African origins. Part of their argument is that by even calling it English presupposes Germanic roots, yet the STRUCTURE of the language is much closer to languages of Niger and Congo. The citation I added lays bare any qualms people might have tracing AAVE to west africa, yet within hours, despite my posting of this reference, the citation needed I updated was replaced. Whoever did this, I would like to know what you thought of this article and why you were not convinced by its authors that AAVE can not be traced by to West Africa, or least post a reference that rebukes this hypothesis.

I guess I am mostly frustrated, especially as a new contributor. The paper I posted is the citation that was needed. Why bother requesting it again. Have you read this Smith and Crozier paper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomayborma (talk • contribs) 06:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, perhaps I'm a bit guilty of WP:BITE. I only had time to take a brief look at Smith and Crozier and it seemed that you were substantiating only part of that statement but this is perhaps then not the best situation to edit.  While Smith and Crozier aren't linguists and I can find a number of procedural and logical errors (why use dictionaries from the 1970s?), they do indeed analyze the situation in a scholarly way and upon a closer read I see now that the assertion that I readded the fact request is answered on page 113.  So I apologize and will remove my fact request.  Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  07:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)