Great video on The Linguistics of African American vernacular.

[dontsnitch]

You can certainly speak a language wrong, but a sufficient number of people speak it wrong, then it becomes right.

Sure, that makes sense. It's still wrong in the interim. Unless we want to say that it's proper English to say "I be in the WR too much".

 

[dontsnitch]

Pretty much, yes. Living languages mostly aren't guided in their evolution. Certain things are "wrong" at one point in time, but if people in a speech community persistently and consistently use it in a certain way, it's not wrong.

English is a bizarre bastard of a language. If we applied a prescriptivist mindset to it, then we'd have to claim the early speakers of Middle English were all "wrong," since they were flagrantly violating the way Old English was spoken. And then of course early Modern English was quite different from Middle English, so all those people were wrong. And contemporary English is quite different from Middle English, so we're all wrong. Etc.

Until the rules change, violating them is just that, a violation. I understand the future may very well accept "I be working" as grammatically correct, but as it stands, it's wrong. An English teacher is not going to say that it's right because it's a way to express yourself.

 

[Rod1]

Sure, that makes sense. It's still wrong in the interim. Unless we want to say that it's proper English to say "I be in the WR too much".

Proper american english you mean.

 

[Bukowski82]

No, dude, you're wrong. Prescriptivism has no place in the English language. We have no language-regulating academy like Spanish or French. That's part of why English is so dynamic.

AAVE is actually quite complex and not a lesser form of English. It just developed on a different track from the other mainstream forms of American English. It's like saying Scottish English is improper English. If an entire speech community uses language the same way--black Americans in this case--it's not wrong, it's just different. It's essentially a dialect at that point.

This is really all that needs to be said on the subject.

 

[Rod1]

Until the rules change, violating them is just that, a violation. I understand the future may very well accept "I be working" as grammatically correct, but as it stands, it's wrong. An English teacher is not going to say that it's right because it's a way to express yourself.

The issue is that nobody actually sets those rules, so who is going to change the rules?

Popularity dictates the rules.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

He lost me when he tried to say that Grammar is relative, and that "he be working" can be proper. Syntax It's a set of rules. You either follow it or you don't.

He be wrong.

Thou hast spoken in error.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Until the rules change, violating them is just that, a violation. I understand the future may very well accept "I be working" as grammatically correct, but as it stands, it's wrong. An English teacher is not going to say that it's right because it's a way to express yourself.

What rules are those? What governing body has codified them?

The rules exist in our heads, quite literally. They are arbitrary and vary by speech community. AAVE is one speech community and it has its own complex set of rules. General American is another speech community (though perhaps an artificial one). There is no reason for you to enforce the "rules"--which once again, aren't codified anywhere, they're just patterns we have become accustomed to--of one language/dialect/what have you onto another.

 

[dontsnitch]

Well, if everyone disagrees with me, I have to concede to a certain degree.

From now on, I expect to not see any of you correcting grammar in the WR.

 

[Zankou]

Until the rules change, violating them is just that, a violation. I understand the future may very well accept "I be working" as grammatically correct, but as it stands, it's wrong. An English teacher is not going to say that it's right because it's a way to express yourself.

This is because an English teacher is teaching fluency in a different dialect. It's technically correct to say that an AAVE speaker is speaking incorrectly in that context, because an English teacher will teach a common high-level literary dialect, not a specialized ethnic dialect. This isn't because the AAVE speaker is speaking incorrect English, however, it's because they aren't speaking the correct *kind* of English in this context, they aren't following its rules correctly.

Hanging over this is the political idea that it's oppressive and judgmental to require AAVE speakers to learn proficiency in a different dialect of English. And on that front, I have no sympathy--people should be learning completely different languages if possible. Learning a common literate dialect, a much easier and socially vital task, is in no way some tragic imposition. The reverse, it is incredibly provincial and patronizing not to require it.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

If say me thing so like, "no-right" yes-truth.

If I say things like that ^, then it's right to say it's "wrong" because no one would understand me. If an entire community of people began speaking like that over time, however, meaning they could all understand it perfectly and produce sentences following whatever patterns one could tease out from that mess, it's "right."

 

[IDL]

You can certainly speak a language wrong, but a sufficient number of people speak it wrong, then it becomes right.

What if it breaks a mechanic of the language, and introduces an inconsistency?

It could still get the job done, like when someone says they "Didn't do nothing" usually based on context the meaning of "Didn't do anything" can be determined, but the mechanics are broken and a double negative is introduced.

 

[Rod1]

Well, if everyone disagrees with me, I have to concede to a certain degree.

From now on, I expect to not see any of you correcting grammar in the WR.

Actually we will correct that grammar, since we are speaking in general english, you may defend yourself by claiming your grammar mistakes represent a new dialect, but we will mock you nonetheless.

 

[dontsnitch]

What rules are those? What governing body has codified them?

The rules exist in our heads, quite literally. They are arbitrary and vary by speech community. AAVE is one speech community and it has its own complex set of rules. General American is another speech community (though perhaps an artificial one). There is no reason for you to enforce the "rules"--which once again, aren't codified anywhere, they're just patterns we have become accustomed to--of one language/dialect/what have you onto another.

Arbitrary-- yes, absolutely. So what, though? My only problem is suggesting there can be no wrong, and it's just a freedom of expression.

 

[Rod1]

What if it breaks a mechanic of the language, and introduces an inconsistency?

It could still get the job done, like when someone says they "Didn't do nothing" usually based on context the meaning of "Didn't do anything" can be determined, but the mechanics are broken and a double negative is introduced.

Did you watch the video?

 

[These Two Hands]

Bah, speak english man!

Like this:

ac ymb ane niht eft gefremede
morðbeala mare, ond no mearn fore,
fæhðe ond fyrene; wæs to fæst on þam.
Þa wæs eaðfynde þe him elles hwær
gerumlicor ræste sohte,
bed æfter burum, ða him gebeacnod wæs,
gesægd soðlice sweotolan tacne
healðegnes hete; heold hyne syðþan
fyr ond fæstor se þæm feonde ætwand.
Swa rixode ond wið rihte wan,
ana wið eallum, oð þæt idel stod
husa selest. Wæs seo hwil micel;
twelf wintra tid torn geþolode
wine Scyldinga, weana gehwelcne,
sidra sorga; forðam secgum wearð
ylda bearnum, undyrne cuð
gyddum geomore, þætte Grendel wan
hwile wið Hroþgar, heteniðas wæg,
fyrene ond fæhðefela missera,
singale sæce; sibbe ne wolde
wið manna hwone mægenes Deniga,
feorhbealo feorran, fea þingian,
ne þær nænig witena wenan þorfte
beorhtre bote to banan folmum;

(Beowulf, Old English)

or this

æuric rice man his castles makede and agænes him heolden; and fylden þe land ful of castles. Hi suencten suyðe þe uurecce men of þe land mid castelweorces; þa þe castles uuaren maked, þa fylden hi mid deoules and yuele men. Þa namen hi þa men þe hi wendan ðat ani god hefden, bathe be nihtes and be dæies, carlmen and wimmen, and diden heom in prisun and pined heom efter gold and syluer untellendlice pining; for ne uuaeren naeure nan martyrs swa pined alse hi waeron

(Peterborough chronicle excerpt, late period Old English)

Or this

The quene thanketh the king with al hir might,
And after this thus spak she to the knight,
Whan that she saugh hir tyme, up-on a day:
'Thou standest yet,' quod she, 'in swich array,
That of thy lyf yet hastow no suretee.
I grante thee lyf, if thou canst tellen me
What thing is it that wommen most desyren?
Be war, and keep thy nekke-boon from yren.
And if thou canst nat tellen it anon,
Yet wol I yeve thee leve for to gon
A twelf-month and a day, to seche and lere
An answere suffisant in this matere.
And suretee wol I han, er that thou pace,
Thy body for to yelden in this place.'

(Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, Middle English)

Or how about this;

Confined together
In the same fashion as you gave in charge,
Just as you left them; all prisoners, sir,
In the line-grove which weather-fends your cell;
They cannot budge till your release. The king,
His brother and yours, abide all three distracted
And the remainder mourning over them,
Brimful of sorrow and dismay; but chiefly
Him that you term'd, sir, 'The good old lord Gonzalo;'
His tears run down his beard, like winter's drops
From eaves of reeds. Your charm so strongly works 'em
That if you now beheld them, your affections
Would become tender.

(The Tempest, Early Modern English)

 

[Awesomesauce]

Is there a difference between this and Jive? I spent some of my teen years around guys who spoke Jive, this seems to be a milder form of that.

I have never really had a problem with accepting Jive as a legitimate language. The purpose of language is communication, so long as that purpose is fulfilled effectively then why wouldn't it be legitimate? I do have a problem with the expectations of some that this language should somehow be considered defacto acceptable in business or academic settings.

If I am a professor I wouldn't accept a paper written in this language any more then I would accept one written in French, Spanish, or Russian. It may be a legitimate language but its not the language of the classroom or boardroom.

 

[IDL]

Did you watch the video?

Nope, if that was already address by the video I'm speaking too soon.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Well, if everyone disagrees with me, I have to concede to a certain degree.

From now on, I expect to not see any of you correcting grammar in the WR.

It depends. If you can tell the person is speaking in standard American English and they say, "I goed to the store yesterday to buy some food" instead of "I went to the store yesterday to buy some food," a correction is in order. If someone says, "I'm finna slay dis ratchet ho," it's pretty clear they're not speaking standard American English and there's no need to tell them to completely rewrite the sentence as "I am going to have sex with a lady of loose morals."

 

[dontsnitch]

This is because an English teacher is teaching fluency in a different dialect. It's technically correct to say that an AAVE speaker is speaking incorrectly in that context, because an English teacher will teach a common high-level literary dialect, not a specialized ethnic dialect. This isn't because the AAVE speaker is speaking incorrect English, however, it's because they aren't speaking the correct *kind* of English in this context, they aren't following its rules correctly.

Hanging over this is the political idea that it's oppressive and judgmental to require AAVE speakers to learn proficiency in a different dialect of English. And on that front, I have no sympathy--people should be learning completely different languages if possible. Learning a common literate dialect, a much easier and socially vital task, is in no way some tragic imposition. The reverse, it is incredibly provincial and patronizing not to require it.

Okay, this is agreeable.

 

[Rod1]

Nope, if that was already address by the video I'm speaking too soon.

Double negative was a middle-english standard.

Double negatives are usually associated with regional and ethnical dialects such as Southern American English, African American Vernacular English, and various British regional dialects. Indeed, they were used in Middle English. Historically, Chaucer made extensive use of double, triple, and even quadruple negatives in his Canterbury Tales. About the Friar, he writes "Ther nas no man no wher so vertuous" ("There never was no man nowhere so virtuous"). About the Knight, "He nevere yet no vileynye ne sayde / In all his lyf unto no maner wight" ("He never yet no vileness didn't say / In all his life to no manner of man").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative