Great video on The Linguistics of African American vernacular.

[nixkid]

So that means that there are no grammatical rules to follow?

Yes, there are rules to follow within the dialect. AAVE has grammatical rules and they are internally consistent but they are different than Standard American English. That doesn't make it improper English though (it is improper Standard American English but its proper AAVE).

 

[dontsnitch]

Yes, there are rules to follow within the dialect. AAVE has grammatical rules and they are internally consistent but they are different than Standard American English. That doesn't make it improper English though (it is improper Standard American English but its proper AAVE).

That's fair.

 

[Rod1]

I don't doubt there have been variations of what has passed as acceptable, but as Zankou already noted when you start chaining assertions together to form longer lines of reasoning the added 'noise' of double negatives becomes problematic, and unwieldy.

Like an unsimplified math equation. The simplified version is clearly better at conveying the meaning it is intended to convey and if you keep plugging in unsimplified equations into larger equations the problem makes itself readily apparent.

And as I said, there very well be a place for such things from an artistic perspective, but from a purely mechanical perspective (which tends to be the perspective used when developing frameworks) it's clearly a flaw.

They become problematic in english, they remain perfectly logical in spanish and other romance languages.

Its hard for you to understand since you are monolingual so you only know one reality.

And the problematic can simply arise from having conflictive systems merged into one, which may arise from english being a mixture of romance and germanic language. Similar to how a base 12 system is completely unwieldly with only 10 digits in existence.

 

[IDL]

They become problematic in english, they remain perfectly logical in spanish and other romance languages.

Its hard for you to understand since you are monolingual so you only know one reality.

And the problematic can simply arise from having conflictive systems merged into one, which may arise from english being a mixture of romance and germanic language. Similar to how a base 12 system is completely unwieldly with only 10 digits in existence.

You can chain together massive amounts of double negatives and still remain logical.

I didn't not go nowhere = I went nowhere

Both are logical, but one is simpler than the other.

In the case of "I didn't do nothing" it would logically translate to "I did something" so that is illogical from the get go, because the meaning (as intended) is inverted. Hideous

I'm not sure we're on the same page in regards to how this concept translates to French or Spanish, but granted I don't have much expertise in those languages.

 

[2GunTommy]

6 pages I have read.
Impressed I am.
English professors you must be.
(Yoda voice)

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Is the US different than Canada? Don't they teach grammar in primary school or something?

grammar rules are the same regardless of whether you're from canada, england, australia, US, tec.....barring adding U to worlds like 'colour' or 'honour', it's almost exactly the same. have no clue what that guy is trying to argue

 

[Frontschwein]

bix nood

 

[Rod1]

You can chain together massive amounts of double negatives and still remain logical.

I didn't not go nowhere = I went nowhere

Both are logical, but one is simpler than the other.

In the case of "I didn't do nothing" it would logically translate to "I did something" so that is illogical from the get go, because the meaning is inverted. Hideous

I'm not sure we're on the same page in regards to how this concept translates to French or Spanish, but granted I don't have much expertise in those languages.

I understand that for someone who is supposedly the only enlightened guy in a world full of sheep you have a hard time thinking outside the box.

We know that machines cant follow illogical commands right? they cant divide by zero for example.

So how does this even works

Why is a setting of 0 used to mean infinity? it makes absolutely no-sense whatsoever.

 

[These Two Hands]

6 pages I have read.
Impressed I am.
English professors you must be.
(Yoda voice)

While he's not a professor (he only went as far as his Masters) you reminded me a friend of mine studied English. I must remember to email him the video link as I'd be interested to hear what he has to say about it.

Thanks for bringing it to mind!

 

[dontsnitch]

grammar rules are the same regardless of whether you're from canada, england, australia, US, tec.....barring adding U to worlds like 'colour' or 'honour', it's almost exactly the same. have no clue what that guy is trying to argue

There are some slight variations, but the foundation is the same, I agree.

They are arguing that this particular dialect while different, still follows some sort of rules. It does seem like apples and oranges, but I don't know. Many seem to agree.

 

[IDL]

I understand that for someone who is supposedly the only enlightened guy in a world full of sheep you have a hard time thinking outside the box.

We know that machines cant follow illogical commands right? they cant divide by zero for example.

So how does this even works

Why is a setting of 0 used to mean infinity? it makes absolutely no-sense whatsoever.

Sorry I don't follow your point as it relates to what I said.

I'm aware of the limitations of pure logic (although outside of the box isn't typically illogical, it just involves taking shortcuts). I'm also aware of its strength.

 

[Rod1]

As to the logic you tout.

I went nowhere doesnt makes sense in a strict literal sense, since nowhere is not a place and thus you cant go there.

I did nothing, is also wrong because nothing doesnt exists so you cant do nothing, you do things that exist.

So in a system where the answer to did you went, was i didnt went, and did you do, is i didnt do yet we dont have an specific activity or place to negate the correct logical form would be

"I didnt do everything" and "i didnt went everywhere".

You could argue that anywhere and anything could work, but those words can mean something different things.

You could argue that

"I didnt do anything" or "i didnt went anywhere" could work as placeholders for everything, but that doesnt works if anything could be a place holder for a non-specific action.

And thats even problematic since "i didnt do everything" can also mean you did part of it.

 

[Rod1]

Sorry I don't follow your point as it relates to what I said.

I'm aware of the limitations of pure logic (although outside of the box isn't typically illogical, it just involves taking shortcuts). I'm also aware of it's strength.

Again, the fact that you think that all other languages are illogical or complex just because just baffles me. Do you think God thinks in english?

At this point is like someone arguing that base10 is the only valid concept because its logical to have a base10 system when we cant possibly have more than 10 digits.

 

[IDL]

Again, the fact that you think that all other languages are illogical or complex just because just baffles me. Do you think God thinks in english?

bold: I don't know where you got this idea from. I think it is a result of miscommunication if this is what you have got from our dialogue.

If God thinks, no he wouldn't think in man made languages. Unless he picked some of them up and is practicing

 

[Rod1]

bold: I don't know where you got this idea from. I think it is a result of miscommunication if this is what you have got from our dialogue.

If God thinks, no he wouldn't think in man made languages. Unless he picked some of them up and is practicing

The fact that you think that a concept like double negative in language is inherently illogical because in math we assume that 2 negatives together without a sign means multiplication.

We could had easily implied that 2 digits with no sign means addition, or we can assume that -10-10 means -10 - 10 and not -10 x -10.

The way we write those abstract ideas like match those are social conventions.

Math as an abstract concept can look like this or can look like

1 + 1 = 2

or can look like

http://www.blogodisea.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/codice-dresde-venus-mayas-calendario-2.jpg

 

[IDL]

As to the logic you tout.

I went nowhere doesnt makes sense in a strict literal sense, since nowhere is not a place and thus you cant go there.

I did nothing, is also wrong because nothing doesnt exists so you cant do nothing, you do things that exist.

So in a system where the answer to did you went, was i didnt went, and did you do, is i didnt do yet we dont have an specific activity or place to negate the correct logical form would be

"I didnt do everything" and "i didnt went everywhere".

You could argue that anywhere and anything could work, but those words can mean something different things.

You could argue that

"I didnt do anything" or "i didnt went anywhere" could work as placeholders for everything, but that doesnt works if anything could be a place holder for a non-specific action.

And thats even problematic since "i didnt do everything" can also mean you did part of it.

Sure you could argue the meaning of phrases, and come up with more precise ones.

That's beside the point I was making about double negatives and complexity though. There are no rules against overly complicated sentence structure, but in terms of conveying meaning in an efficient manner there are better ways and poorer ways to go about it.

The "I didn't do nothing" example I think does break any rational ruleset.

 

[IDL]

The fact that you think that a concept like double negative in language is inherently illogical because in math we assume that 2 negatives together without a sign means multiplication.

We could had easily implied that 2 digits with no sign means addition, or we can assume that -10-10 means -10 - 10 and not -10 x -10.

The way we write those abstract ideas like match those are social conventions.

Math as an abstract concept can look like this or can look like

1 + 1 = 2

or can look like

http://www.blogodisea.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/codice-dresde-venus-mayas-calendario-2.jpg

Did I not address this when I stated

You can chain together massive amounts of double negatives and still remain logical.

I didn't not go nowhere = I went nowhere

Both are logical, but one is simpler than the other.

I would say though, that "I didn't do nothing" is illogical because of its inverted meaning.

 

[panamaican]

Sorry I don't follow your point as it relates to what I said.

I'm aware of the limitations of pure logic (although outside of the box isn't typically illogical, it just involves taking shortcuts). I'm also aware of its strength.

You're completely overlooking the idea of emphasizing the negative. A double negative to emphasize the negative isn't any less simple than using the variety of emphasizers already present in English. Which was the point presented in the video - that 2 negatives emphasize the negative.

 

[IDL]

You're completely overlooking the idea of emphasizing the negative. A double negative to emphasize the negative isn't any less simple than using the variety of emphasizers already present in English. Which was the point presented in the video - that 2 negatives emphasize the negative.

Depends on context, yes. I already acknowledged that there is a place for such things. I'm all for artistic license when it comes to creative expression. I'm also for mechanics though and core principals.

edit: I will add that the type of double negative (the illogical kind) is a dangerous weapon and must be used sparingly for the sake of mankind

 

[MicroBrew]

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.

A subculture can create its own grammatical rules. Old English has different syntax to modern English. So modern English speakers are not following 'proper' English then??