Talk:African-American English/Archive 3

message: This article seems to gloss over all controversy associated with AAVE/Ebonics in the US by merely saying "it happened." Is there a reference that can be included to detail this, as it is relatively important in public perception of the dialect. Gleffler 01:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the content of the "Educational issues" section insufficient? (Is there any other controversy?) -- Hoary 04:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: I removed the questionable claim that multiple negation “can be traced to West African languages”—indeed, I’m sure there are many West African languages that use double negatives (that ain’t my area of expertise) but many, many other other non-standard Englishes (to which the first American black speakers of English would have been exposed) also do. And don’t other dialects of English similarly use “to be” without conjugation?
:I ain’t heard from nobody on this, so I’m being bold. Wiki Wikardo 17:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't.  That's pidgin.  deeceevoice 22:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  West African origins 

message: This article seems to have a lot of controversy, so I just thought I'd explain my edits, so they don't seem malicious.
I changed the line on code switching, because it sounded like it was saying code switching is only using different dialects for different social groups.  Every time I've heard it used before, it was in reference to bilingual people switching back to their native language in a foreign country for convience (frequently in mid sentence)   This seems to be the more common usuage of the word. Altarbo 05:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes Explained 

message: According to this article, intervocalic  may also be dropped e.g. "story" realized as "sto'y" i.e. . Is that supposed to mean that the word is pronounced as if it were spelled "stoy"?
:I don't think so.  I get the impression that it keeps the number of syllables intact so it would be more like  AEuSoes1 06:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Story as "sto'y" 

message: Is there an AAVE Wikipedia?  If not can I make one?Cameron Nedland 20:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.Cameron Nedland 04:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mediawiki software is free. Get a server and you can make any wiki you want.Rlevse 15:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 

message: I just created an account to revert the page, I hope I'm following protocol. --Arglesnaf 02:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert due to defacement by [[User:I'm a sawk|I'm a sawk]] 

message: Are there other common examples of metathesis apart from ask becoming aks?  I ask because that particular example is not restricted at all the AAVE - it goes back to Old English.  If we're only talking about isolated examples like that, then it's probably wrong to include metathesis as a feature of AAVE specifically - all English speakers do (and have done) it from time to time. garik 23:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, garik, good point. I've heard aks is inherited from non-standard forms of English, and was part of prestige dialects as late as, like, the 18th century or something. In fact my first encounter with it was from a white kid. Accordingly, I'm excising that li'l tidbit. —Wiki Wikardo 20:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, as Garik correctly pointed out, aks is inherited from standard Anglo-Saxon.  If anything, ask is the metathesized form inherited from substandard dialects.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this article http://www.rehabmed.ualberta.ca/spa/phonology/features.htm "grasp" can also become "graps" in AAVE, hence an example of metathesis apart from "ask" becoming "aks". Klooge 22:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but if you check an etymological dictionary, you'll find that graps is Old English as well. Apparently that was originally the only form, though both were current in Middle English. Of course, many aspects of AAVE are shared with other dialects.  Maybe we could add something like 'retention of non-standard metathesised forms like...'  I know that technically the standard forms are the result of metathesis, but that may be unnecessarily pedantic for this article. garik 09:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *lol* I just think it’s funny you gonna use the word metathesis (I think I pronounced that right) then worry about being pedantic. As long as we’re making a technical explanation, why not strive for accuracy? Wiki Wikardo 11:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Dude. I know metathesis is a good fifty-cent word, but why include it if it ain’t? Wiki Wikardo 18:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it might be.  We don't know for sure that they're not examples of metathesis; just because they're in Old English doesn't mean they didn't arise anew in AAVE.  The other thing is that there must be other examples of non-standard archaisms retained in or borrowed into AAVE, and it's a bit weird to only have two examples that look like metathesis (besides, if it's not metathesis, it shouldn't be listed under phonology).  So we either keep 'metathesis' plus health warning or we stick them in with some other archisms (though not under the heading of Phonology).  For now, the first option seems best to me.  What we really need is data on whether these really are the only examples. garik 19:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this article, http://www.eng.umu.se/city/therese/Linguistics/phonological_features_examples.htm "wasp" can also become "waps", hence being another example besides "grasp" and "ask" becoming "graps" and "aks". I've starting an article about this phenominum at s-cluster metathesis. Feel free to edit it to improve the article. Voortle 20:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also common in Old English!  I'd love to know if these are inheritances or new metatheses! garik 22:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Peter Ackroyd's London: A Biography, Cockney dialect retained the metathesis of "ask" pronounced as "axe" into the 18th century, which suggests some link, as much of the Southern white population recently arrived from the UK would have used that pronunciation. It appears that African-American slaves would have picked that pronunciation up from whites raised in London. 72.87.129.78 03:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metathesis 

message: A template that I have just removed alleged that the text that followed contained weasel words. I saw no weasel word, no SGML comment saying that this or that word was a weasel, and no mention on this talk page of how this or that word was a weasel.
Anyone who wants to stick this template back in the article should say which word is, or words are, weasel. -- Hoary 10:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Weasel words"

message: I read (after markup-stripping):
:AAVE is often erroneously perceived by members of mainstream American society as indicative of low intelligence or limited education. Furthermore, as with many other non-standard dialects and especially creoles, AAVE sometimes has been called "lazy" or "bad" English by those unfamiliar with creolization, or the role of null phonemes, or by those who do not understand AAVE's use of aspect for tense in some cases. Such appraisals also may be due, in part, to racial or ethnic bias. However, among linguists there is no such controversy[citation needed]
It seems that the editor who put that  tag there wants evidence for the lack of a controversy.
Somewhere there may indeed be an authoritative book whose author credibly asserts that there is no controversy. But I don't think authors of related books would bother to say this. And they don't bother because they routinely, straightforwardly and convincingly demonstrate how AAVE is not "bad". Or anyway, it's easy to show people who are willing to read and consider the arguments presented in three pages or so of text. You'll find one example on pp 29-31 of the Morrow hardback (first) edition of Pinker's The Language Instinct. (The pagination of a paperback is probably different. Well, look near the start of chapter two.) In fact Pinker isn't even a linguist (he's a psychologist), but no linguist is likely to disagree with him here. 
If there is a controversy among actual, working, present-day linguists (as opposed to linguists of decades ago, or people from other specialties dipping their toes in linguistics, or the occasional prematurely senile linguist, etc.), where is it? Until this controversy is shown, I'm deleting this request for a citation. -- Hoary 10:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be surprised if there was a controversy, for the simple reason that the question whether a particular way of speaking is "bad" is not open to scientific investigation.  Any discussion presented in the language of morality ("bad English" vs. "good English") cannot reasonably be resolved by a rational argument, hence it's not something that scholars or scientists worry about.  One has to take one step back and ask whether people have certain attitudes about AAVE (which they certainly do) to be firmly within the realm of the behavioral sciences: describing which groups of a population hold the belief that AAVE is or isn't "good English" is a valid scientific endeavor; trying to determine authoritatively what is and isn't "good English" is not. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Crack open any introductory linguistics text, especially a sociolinguistics one, and they're bound to say very early on about how there is no good or bad language.  This can naturally be extended to AAVE and the burden of proof is on editors who wish to include a linguist-based controversy. Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 02:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation for assertion of non-existence

message: Of the last fifty edits, a third has been pure vandalism and another third reverts.  More and more I'm feeling like the editors monitoring this page are bogged down with needless vandalism that would be easily remedied if the page were blocked from editing by unregistered users.  This page has gotten more than random attention by bad faith editing for quite some time.  What do other people think?  Would such an act be a soft of sledgehammer for the cockaroch? Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 11:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: I just wanted to say to all who've contributed here that this is a really good, informative article.  Yes, it is a bit difficult for people not versed in all the terminology of linguistics to read (and I am one) but it manages to describe this difficult (and potentially controversial, I think) subject in an even-handed and encyclopedic way. And it's impossible to do that without using linguistics termonolgy. I looked it up because I was randomly thinking about some aspect of this dialect and my question was more than answered.  Good work! Dina 23:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: • Yes, I have to agree. Very interesting, though it might be better footnoted. Has anyone thought to suggest it as a Featured Article? Or at least have it reviewed. • I would not want to see the linguistic chart removed. • I also have, "never heard the theta to t shift (ie. thin to tin) in AAVE," and would more likely associate that with a caribbean dialect. • Having encountered a few persons on the South Carolina coast speaking Gullah, I find that an interesting language, and surprisingly difficult to follow. Darentig 16:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article

message: I think it would be better if this article were formatted more like some of the other "variety of English" pages. For example, an IPA chart showing the phonology of AAVE would be nice. The verb system could be described on its own without reference to English, ie. instead of saying " 'he done gone' is equivalent to Standard English 'he went'", we could just say that 'he done gone' is the past perfect form. I'm not adamant about this; if there are any objections I'd be glad to hear them. Makerowner 19:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 

message: I've never heard the theta to t shift (ie. thin to tin) in AAVE. This is a feature of Caribbean dialects. I also think that the phonological rules diagram is unnecessary and possibly confusing to those without linguistic training. I would like to rewrite this section without the diagram and with corrected rules, unless someone can find a source for the voiceless dental stopping. Makerowner 19:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the diagram is all right because it provides a technical explanation after a less technical one.  Check the sources that are on the page for the th->t thing. If none of them say anything, I can probably find a source.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the sources and they do mention the voiceless interdental stopping, but they also make it clear that it is rare. The page (and especially the diagram) present it like a regular rule that is always applied. Makerowner 04:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phonological features 

message: I'm pretty sure the AAVE word "bogus" comes from the Latin word "bogus" which is cognate with the English word "bogus". Either that or every word of AAVE is actually derrived from various Niger-Congo Group A language words which are both homonymous and synonymous with English by pure coincidence. Perhaps this is a situation that calls for Ockham's razor.
My Shorter OECD lists 'bogus' as 'unknown etymology'. I don't think there is a Latin word 'bogus'. I have no opinion about any Niger-Congo derivation. Makerowner 04:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just...no.    

message: Something in this article stinks of not following NPOV. Take the following example:
"Despite the clear linguistic evidence, the American public and policymakers remain divided over whether to even recognize AAVE as a legitimate dialect of English, perhaps due to unfounded feelings that AAVE is a degradation of the English (which may, in turn, be an indication of underlying racial determinism)."
I'm not entirely sure about calling the evidence "clear," though what concerns me more is the accusation of public feelings as being "unfounded." 67.9.36.176 16:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The evidence, at a bare minimum, is simply the linguistic definitions of accent, dialect, and language.  I suppose they are unfounded because there's really no evidence to indicate that it is a "degradation" of English any more than modern English is a degradation of Old English.  Do you have a better word than unfounded? Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: This article has a strange form of citations that I can't follow. The citations seem to be based on numbers which have no corresponding link. Wikipedia explains how to correctly cite sources here Wikipedia:Citing sources. It looks like whoever did it was trying to use Wikipedia:Harvard referencing but did it incorrectly. Whoever put those numbers in the aricle should cite the sources correctly.Wikidudeman 15:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your particular dissatisfaction here. A quick look at the article shows that (i) for the most part it uses the author–page system (a well-established version of the author–year–page system), but (ii) it adds a couple of footnotes for sourcing. This combination of (i) and (ii) is odd, and for this reason alone (and perhaps for other reasons too) something needs to be done. But what are these citations that "seem to be based on numbers which have no corresponding link"? I suspect that you're referring to (i); but if so, this is odd, as it's a well-established system. (True, it doesn't agree with WP:REF, but the latter is only a guideline, not a policy; and its recommended "Harvard referencing" is distinctly unhelpful when long papers or books are cited.) -- Hoary 08:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This criticism of yours is well founded. There's nothing wrong in principle with the method of citation, which is to page 2 of a work by Smitherman, but there's plenty wrong with all these citations of Smitherman's work, because, as you point out, it's not in the list of references. I'll try to go back through the history of the article (a dreary job, what with the number of times it has been edited unnecessarily) to find who mentioned Smitherman, and then write to that person. But I have to attend to a few other chores first. -- Hoary 04:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of your sources need to be formatted properly otherwise they are meaningless.Wikidudeman 05:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm puzzled by the word "your" in "your sources", but that very minor matter aside the sources seem pretty meaningful to me. The problem here is that Smitherman's work doesn't appear among the list of them. -- Hoary 06:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm assuming you're the one who put them there. Did you not?Wikidudeman 10:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No I did not, as the history of the page will show. -- Hoary 15:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect citations 

message: I removed  from the end of:
:Despite the clear linguistic evidence, the American public and policymakers remain divided over whether to even recognize AAVE as a legitimate dialect of English, perhaps due to unfounded feelings that AAVE is a degradation of the English (which may, in turn, be an indication of underlying racial determinism).
This is a complex sentence. Which proposition within it needs a reference? -- Hoary 05:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea of racial bias.  See the discussion above.  I'm putting the POV tag that you just took off back in.  I'm not sure what earlier discussion you point to in your edit summary but as far as I can tell the most recent discussion about bias does not ignore any earlier discussion on the page.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think so.  I believe the rest of that sentence has been discussed already and we've determined it's fine.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe the discussion that I directed to you above demonstrates how much I know.  It seems as though it's little pockets of bias like what has been pointed out and not necessarily the entire structure of the article.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed? 

message: This article gives undue weight to the contention that Ebonics should be accepted in everyday speech and is somehow equal in sophistication to proper English. This article contains no references or criticism of Ebonics in any shape or form. This article needs to contain information concerning criticism of use of Ebonics including facts that speakers of Ebonics are generally less educated than speakers of proper english. Some references could be Bill Cosbys "pounkcake speech". It's very shameful that this article does not even mention Cosby's criticism of Ebonics. [] All it seems to contain are a few authors who hold 1 specific viewpoint and the entire article is basically based on those few authors. Notably "Smitherman". Wikidudeman 10:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Undue weight according to which standard? And is Cosby a sociolinguist, sociologist, or linguist?  -- Hoary 15:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Undue weight according to wikipedia's standard. You're only presenting one opinion of Ebonics and only a few authors. Bill Cosby's opinion is very relevant because he is a famous African American professional who has publicly criticized Ebonics. Very relevant.Wikidudeman 09:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight and violation of NPOV 

message: Despite the previous debates over POV (whether AAVE is a valid form of communication or not), I think there is another POV problem with the article, though probably not a conscious one. The origin of AAVE is heavily debated in the linguistics community, yet the article only shows the creolist position. Although I am a support of the creole origin theory, I think the theory of AAVE as a preservation of White non-standard Englishes should be represented as well. Makerowner 04:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, this is something that I think I can help on.  Although I hope you don't mind that I use the "random" sociolinguistics textbook that I have at hand.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 09:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to recall reading about a group of American Blacks who moved to the Dominican Republic and whose speech was used as evidence to support the 'non-standard English' hypothesis. I can't think of the name of the group or where I read it. Any ideas? Makerowner 23:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The group is called Semana Blacks. There seem to be several pages on the subject listed on Google, but they're in Spanish. Anyone who can read Spanish, please summarise the information on the talk page so we can incorporate it into the article. Search Semana+AAVE. Makerowner 17:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The group is called the Samana Blacks.  You may get more results in English if you search for Samana + AAVE. Maimone 17:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The REAL POV issue: AAVE origin 

message: The controversy section is in a good place. Being right after "in schools" and right before grammatical features. Putting it at the end of the article would be out of context considering the previous part about the controversy in schools. I will likely be adding more to the controversy section soon.Wikidudeman 08:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of controversy section. 

message: Considering none of the editors to this article are willing to make any compromise in adding the Cosby quote to this article or any other relevant criticism I have no other choice but to request an official mediation WP:M which might be able to help resolve the disputes. All relevant parties must consent to the mediation before it can progress. If you are willing to mediate this topic to help solve the dispute then please say so here. Thank you.Wikidudeman 00:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page to agree or disagree is listed here.[] If you want to solve this dispute then please agree to the mediation.Wikidudeman 00:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it was rejected for a technicality.  I can see that it wouldn't have gone far in your favor anyway.  You can't go to WP:RFC the day before you go to RfM and consider it something you've tried.  RFC takes a few days (even a week).  Also, I don't see any evidence of your going to WP:AN/I.  Essentially you haven't tried anything other than discussing the issue and they don't like that at RfM.  We ought to wait a few days for the rfc to come along.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll wait a few days before filing another RFM.Wikidudeman 21:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting an official mediation to help resolve the dispute 

message: I only skimmed through the article, so I don't know, but is there a section on the pronunciation of numbers?  My friend (African-American) says "fiteen" instead of "fifteen".  Or is that already covered somewhere else in the article?  Thanks.  Knightskye 03:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an issue of how easy it is to understand the pronunciation section of the article.  I think once that's adjusted the pronunciation numbers will be clearer.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 05:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ebonic Pronunciation of Numbers? 

message: I saw that the article has a failed RfM. I would have thought that a RfC should be tried first and would bring along some new editors. My comments below are made as if in response to an RfC. I like the article and hope you can quickly come to an understanding about the point you are currently held up on. The referencing needs attention: that is obvious. The range of academic sources referred to seems good, though. I would suggest that, apart from referring briefly to where AAVE is spoken, when and by whom, the article should start with the linguistic aspects. I was interested in knowing more about the dispute between linguistics experts on the origins of AAVE and how much it shares with other dialects of English, how much is derived from African languages and how much is a result of language mixing. Then the article would come onto the sociolinguistics questions. In a section that could be headed "attitudes" commentators like Cosby could be mentioned. The notable point is of course not that Cosby, a non-expert, holds these views but that the media takes an interest in his views. "Schools" could be a sub-heading under "attitudes". The article could have a to-do list on the talk page, starting with the referencing. I'm not watching the page, but please post on my talk page if you want me to contribute further.Itsmejudith 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfM 

message: I'm about to remove/alter a pile of stuff.
*Bogus (tentatively said to come from Hausa): the OED tells us that this is A cant word of U.S., about the origin of which many guesses have been made, and 'bogus' derivations circumstantially given. Neither it nor any other source I've seen even mentions a Hausa origin.
*Jive. Neither OED nor DARE mentions a Zulu or any other etymology.
*Paddy, we're told in this article, is likely derived from paddyroller; DARE doesn't mention this and says that instead it's an extension of the meaning from that of "Irish".
*Roach-in-the-corner-killers seemed impossibly long-winded to me; DARE does list roach killers but doesn't mention the term as being in any way special to AAVE.
I'm aware that this section risks becoming very uninteresting, but etymologies should be backed up by specified, reputable works of etymology, rather than mere speculations or real but uncredited scholarship.
-- Hoary 06:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that seems reasonable. I've been suspicious of that section for a while now. I think it should probably be mostly taken out. There are distinctive lexical features in AAVE, but I don't have any sources on hand. I'll check at my university library if I can find anything, but I think you shoul delete these words. Makerowner 03:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cuts and changes within "Lexical features"

message: Ebonics was presented as a label for AAVE to prevent black children being told their speech was "defective" and to instill pride, and to make teachers understand that the student was not simply speaking English badly.  This reportedly led to efforts or plans in Oakton, CA to instruct children in Ebonics, which led to people making fun of it, with purported vocabulary lessons. I did not see reference to this backlash. Also it would be enlightening to let people hear how persons in West Africa with limited English experience pronounce English words. From George Mason University,  is a series of recordings and phonetic transcriptions demonstrating some of the sources of AAVE, mixed in against the speech samples from around the world.  You hear West Africans say "axe" for "ask" and "wif" for with when reading a standard paragraph with agood sample of English speech sounds. It might be a good addition to the article, but it has people from around the world as well, so the listener needs to know which languages are from where. Edison 04:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ebonics backlash, language samples

message: From a purely linguistic perspective, AAVE is no "better" or "worse" than any other dialect of English.  It is no less capable of conveying complex information, nor is it any independent indicator of intelligence.  It is as richly complex a dialect as "Standard American" and has no deficiencies whatsoever as a means of verbal communication.  And there is not a credible linguist who will tell you otherwise.
Any and all criticisms of AAVE rest squarely on dialectic bias and social assumption.  The lack of AAVE use in scientific journals or major publications is more a matter of author and audience rather than the capacity of the dialect to convey the same information discussed in Nature or Scientific American.  Furthermore, non-speakers of AAVE frequently have a great deal of trouble understanding it because of verb aspect difference with Standard American which precludes using it as a common medium of communication.
Overall, if this article adds any criticism of AAVE, it ought to be labeled clearly as "social criticisms" and must not be represented as linguistic criticism. UMassCowboy 14:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that all goes to show, mister pointy-heated east-coast university person [emoticon], that all "credible linguists" are incredible and biased. Bill Cosby (for example) just has to know much more about Ebonics than pointy-headed incredible linguists like Baugh and Rickford and Smitherman and Green, because he's black. Say what -- they're black too? Well, he's famouser than they are, and millions of US television viewers can't be wrong! -- RighteouslyIndignantEditor 01:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: Wikidudeman has once again decided that he knows more about sociolinguistics and AAVE in particular than the all the other editors of this article combined and all scientific researchers in the field. The To Do List has something about showing social criticism of AAVE, citing the Undue Weight policy. I would like to quote a relevant portion of the text: 
:::Articles...may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.
The idea that AAVE is somehow deserving of criticism from a linguistic viewpoint is equivalent to the idea that the Earth is flat, from the viewpoint of scientific acceptability. Can someone please remove this so some new editor doesn't mistake it for a decision reached by a consensus of the editors of this article? Makerowner 02:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cosby's opinions aren't "tiny tiny minority views". His views are represented by many people. Just because you don't like those people doesn't negate their opinions.Wikidudeman (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dude is half right. I can't quite figure out "represented", but Cosby's views are shared by many people, it seems. What negates their opinions is not my dislike of those people (actually I don't dislike them other than their cynical and professional mouthpieces) but the simply and clearly demonstrable ignorance of those opinions. Yes, Makerowner's main point is entirely right: The idea that AAVE is somehow deserving of criticism from a linguistic viewpoint is equivalent to the idea that the Earth is flat, from the viewpoint of scientific acceptability. -- Hoary 04:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You admit that many people share Cosby's viewpoints. This adheres to WP:Undue weight which clearly states "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;" which of course I can name. Since "many" people agree with Cosby and far from 'many' believe the earth is round, it is an absolutely  pointless comparison. Your current objection to the addition of the Cosby quotes and further criticism of AAVE is thus unfounded and does not adhere to WP policy.Wikidudeman (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do List 

message: Æµ§œš¹. After Cosby, Who else? Well firstly Cosby is enough. Secondly, When I added the Cosby piece I had another article which quoted Lee H. Walker criticizing the use of Ebonics. Thirdly, I could easily add other criticisms including Alberto Manguel, Raymond Govero or C. Mason Weaver.Wikidudeman (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already mentioned that Walker doesn't show that he knows what he is talking about regarding the Oakland affair (he erroneously states that they proposed that Ebonics would be taught). After googling the other three gentlemen, I couldn't find much on C. Mason Weaver and I doubt Alberto Manguel (an Argentinian translator) is qualified enough on the issue.  Raymond Govero is a maybe.  He demonstrates here knowledge of the issues regarding the Oakland decision.  Did you have specific books in mind for these three? Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 05:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we go again...You saying who is or isn't qualified to comment on the issue as some excuse as to why their criticism can't be mention in the article. That's not how "due weight" works on wikipedia. Just because you think someone who criticizes Ebonics isn't "qualified" enough for your taste really isn't an argument for their opinion not being presented in the article. It meets the criteria for being included.Wikidudeman (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry if I was unclear.  Yes, I was stating my opinion (which, btw, is based on five minutes of googling) but notice that I was asking for the book titles that those three gentlemen have put their comments in.  Work with me here.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikidudeman, perhaps you've failed to notice that there's someone trying to work with you here.  Can you please tell me if you had specific books in mind for the three gentlemen you cited above and what they were if you did?  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 17:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other criticism

message: Someone recently edited the section on negation to indicate that "ain't" can be used where GAm has "will not". I'm not sure if that is correct. I am not a native speaker of AAVE, but to me, "I will not (won't) go home," and "I ain't go home," are not equivalent. Can anyone either provide a source documenting this use or remove this from the article. Makerowner 14:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that edit and let it slide because I know that one can use ain't to indicate a future negation but then your comment made me think about it and I realized that it would only be in cases like "I ain't gonna" so I've removed it.  The anon editor who put it in could have made the same mistake I did.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure this page is the correct place to discuss issues directly arising from the article itself; judging from the discussions above this is actually the place to set one's bugbears loose on anyone who might do so. ;~) Pinkville 16:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negation 

message: As AAVE is clearly related to Southern English, I am wondering about the speech of historically Northern African American communities.  To what extent has this been studied, how different was it from AAVE, and does it still exist anywhere?--Pharos 19:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just reading about this today. According to the author (whose name I can't remember) the pre-Migration Black communities in the North spoke basically the same way as their White neighbours. Of course, it would be very difficult to tell because the vast majority of northern Blacks moved from the south around WWI, and there were few if any studies on AAVE before the Migration. There does seem to be a difference between modern northern AAVE and southern AAVE, but it is also based on the urban-rural differences as well (Blacks in the South are largely rural; in the North, urban). These differences are also diminishing over time, with city-centred features spreading to the surrounding countryside. I'll see if I can find the author's name for you. Makerowner 01:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some parts of the North had surprisingly large African American populations in the time of slavery– Kings County, New York was I think 1/3 African American in 1790.  I would be surprised if their speech was completely assimilated at such an early period.--Pharos 04:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That's the only source I've seen that claimed complete assimilation of northern Black speech, but it would make more sense linguistically. Even in areas of high Black population, the social dynamics were different in the North. Blacks in the North were often personal servants and were therefore in close contact with Whites; they were also in the minority in all their areas. In the South, large groups of Blacks lived together with little interaction with Whites (depending on the exact location). The southern Black population was augmented by importations from Africa and the Carribean, meaning that there was greater possibility of first-language interference in English learning. These processes were strongest in the South Carolina area where rice became one of the biggest crops, and Gullah developed as a result. I don't have any hard sources to back it up, but it makes sense that divergence from standard American English would have a correlation with African and Carribean (ie. Creole-speaking) influence and a negative correlation with White English influence. Gullah was most isolated, and diverged the most; AAVE speakers had much more contact and diverged much less; northern Blacks probably would have had more contact with Whites than other Blacks and would have diverged the least. This is all conjecture based on some of the historical settlement patterns, so I could very well be wrong. Makerowner 05:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antebellum Northern speech 

message: Wikipedia clearly states that articles should not have "Undueweight" towards one specific POV and should present ALL POV's equal. The only exception is if one POV is supported by such a tiny minority of people that it does not warrant inclusion I.E. people who believe in a flat earth represent such a tiny minority their views would not be represented in the "Earth" article. However people who are critical of Ebonics like Cosby and other authors I've mentioned do not represent such a small minority and warrant inclusion in this article. If this article mentions ANYTHING about the sociological aspects of Ebonics then it must mention those who criticize it. Jimbo Wales himself has stated...
* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
:Prominent adherents is something I can easily name. Not only that but the source I mention in no way go against WP:VERIFY. So far the ONLY arguments that have been brought up are evasive criticisms of the sources themsleves not their verifiability which is a big difference. Their criticism of the "factuality" of the opinions of Ebonics or the authority of those who hold them may be justified but their refusal to add them into the article is not. Wikipedia clearly states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." WP:V Their criticism does not coincide with wikipedia policy and they have no justification for their refusal to add criticism of Ebonics into the article. Right now I won't waste my time arguing back and forth in circles with those specific editors who believe this article deserves absolutely no mention of the pound cake day speech or any other criticism of AAVE. I will wait for the mediate process to go through before I make any more efforts with this matter.Wikidudeman (talk) 06:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I already argued that Cosby is not a verifiable source since he does not back up his statements with data.  Also, he is not a Reliable published source.  I should also point out that Cosby criticised exclusive AAVE usage, a distinction that I hope you realize since most AAVE speakers are bidialectal.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the mediation has been accepted I will comment on this. Nowhere in WP:VERIFY does it say that your source must 'back up their data'. Not only that but the source in question should not be Cosby himself. Bill Cosby is not my source. Cosby said what he said and no one questions that. The source in question if you are even questioning the source should be americanrhetoric.com which is where I quoted the speech from. The speech happened and americanrhetoric.com does qualify as a reliable published source. Criticism of the use of AAVE should not be presented in the article as if it's right or wrong. It should simply be presented as existing since it fits the criteria of WP:Undue weight.Wikidudeman (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the main policies of wikipedia is to let the facts speak for themselves. This means presenting all of the relevant facts in an article. It is a fact that Bill Cosby and others have criticized the use of Ebonics. No one questions this fact. This fact is very relevant and therefore must be presented in the article. In order to maintain neutrality. It does not matter if you think what Cosby said is 'wrong' or inaccurate. He said it and many others agree including myself. Adhering to WP:Undue weight it should be presented in a neutral tone as a fact that occurred. Nothing more. Since wikipedia says to let the facts speak for themselves we can allow the readers to judge whether Ebonics is indeed 'bad' to speak or not. However refusing to provide any mention of any criticism of the use of ebonics in any sort of a neutral tone is simply in violation of WP:NPOVWikidudeman (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Dude Man, it is a fact that ignoramuses such as Cosby have criticized the use of Ebonics. It's also a fact that well-intentioned people have done so; if you read a book about the issue you might find some. Cosby is not a significant commentator on AAVE as what he says is self-contradictory, blatantly ignorant, or asinine. Arguably there's a certain significance in the fact that people such as him can talk such tripe and not be met by instant ridicule, and it may well be that of demonstrating how little many people know about language (which is not troubling) and how much they think they know (which, to me, is). Any chance that you could read this piece by Geoff Pullum? -- Hoary 07:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that such a criticism exists and is well-documented does not automatically make it relevant. Actor David Duchovny is well documented in having criticized the weather in Vancouver while filming the X-Files there; does this mean that the article on Vancouver should include a section called "Social Criticisms of Vancouver". Bill Cosby is no more qualified to make this analysis of AAVE than David Duchovny is of Vancouver. As far as I can tell for Wikidudeman's posts, his sole qualification is being a "Black professional". Makerowner 17:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I was not linking to WP:VERIFY.  Check out WP:RS and tell me where you think Cosby fits the criterion of a reputable source.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 17:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cosby isn't the source. americanrhetoric.com is. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm telling you right now, putting all your eggs on just one source that is basically a candid speech will not get you nearly as far as multiple sources that have been published.  Are you sure you don't want to elaborate on Manguel, Govero, and Weaver?  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 04:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: MakeRowner,It's relevant because of the media attention it received. There is an article on the poundcake speech. There is no article on Duchonvy's criticism of Vancouver weather. If what Cosby said is relevant enough to have it's own wikipedia article [] then it's relevant enough to be mentioned in this article which is on the subject.Wikidudeman (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude Man: If what Cosby said is relevant enough to have it's [sic] own wikipedia article -- "Relevant" to what? Cosby's rant was sufficiently newsworthy (perhaps for its sheer bizarreness), or Cosby was of enough interest to some WP editors, for that rant to get its own article. The existence of that article says nothing about the importance of his rant to the matter of AAVE. -- Hoary 03:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Dude Man, in case you haven't realized, this article is titled "AAVE". But yes, Cosby's rant is relevant to AAVE (or, if you must, to Ebonics). So what? The straight-to-video nutball concoctionThe Clinton Chronicles verifiably exists, was written up in the New York Times and thus was verifiably newsworthy, has its own WP article, and is verifiably relevant to Bill Clinton. Yet it doesn't rate a mention, let alone a paragraph, in the Bill Clinton article. Should it? -- Hoary 04:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if "Clinton Chronicles" is on the same level of notability as the Pound Cake speech nor am I certain of whether comparing that to the Clinton article is fair either. The Clinton article is so large and contains so many offshoots that it's relevance to that article is really tiny compared to other controversies mentioned in that article which bring up basically the same stuff. You need to look at the notability of Bill Clinton compared to the notability of the "Clinton Chronicles" and the disparity is huge while the notability of AAVE compaired to Bill Cosby's criticism of AAVE is nowhere near the same. A simple google news search will show the disparity of notability [] 18,106 results for "Bill Clinton" 0 for "Clinton Chronicles" while there are 0 results for "African American Vernacular English" and 1 result for "Pound Cake speech".Wikidudeman (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We may be starting to get somewhere, Dude Man, in that you're starting to use your noddle. It's not transparently daft to argue that an analogy is inappropriate. The problem is your use of the newsworthiness metric. The fact is that AAVE is a dialect (or lect, or sociolect, or ethnolect, or conceivably even a language). Dialects (and languages) do change over time, whence the field of historical linguistics. But they change awfully slowly by news standards, and certainly no change presents as dramatic, quotable or potentially telegenic image as Bill Cosby publicly demonstrating that he's ignorant, that he's lost his marbles, that he got carried away with himself, or that he'll say anything for a cheap laugh. AAVE is no more newsworthy in itself than is the dialect that you or I happen to speak, and a news search engine is as odd a place to find out about AAVE as it is to find out about most other aspects of language, aspect itself being pretty typical. The place where we adults read up out about languages is books. I happen to have four relevant books with me, but as it happens none was published after Cosby's outburst so I can't directly compare the authors' coverage of Cosby with their coverage of AAVE as a whole. Can you name a "post-Pound-Cake" book on the subject? Even if nobody can locate a copy, Amazon's search facility may let us see how much space within it is allotted to Cosby. -- Hoary 05:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The only thing I got out of your post relevant to mine  is the assertion that somehow Cosby's speech does not matter since it isn't book. However wikipedia often cites speeches and news articles and the like, This is nothing new. Cosby's speech would thus qualify. If you want me to address any other points you might of made then sum them up for me.Wikidudeman (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Can you point out another part of Wikipedia where a speech is cited in regards to a language/dialect/register?  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can point out numerous cases where speeches are mentioned and referenced. Not sure about "language/dialect/register" though but I don't see how that matters.Wikidudeman (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Ah, I've got it: You can't and won't read. I'd thought that as somebody who perceives a lack of education and a "rudimentary" language in millions of your fellow-humans, you'd pride yourself on your ability to read or at least on your willingness to have a bash at this commonplace skill. But I was wrong, and thus amicable invitations to read even such short and easily digested pieces as Geoff Pullum's little essay on hypocrisy and ignorance in language sermonizing would thus be lost on you. -- Hoary 07:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More personal insults and evasions of my post. I read that post you made but I only addressed what was directly relevant to my post. Let me say it again... If you want me to address any other points you might of made then briefly sum them up for me.Wikidudeman (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of  "Undue Weight"... 

message: Just so that it doesn't get lost to evasions like so much of what I have said in the past has, I will restate your points and my rebuttals...
*You claimed that Cosby's speech IS relevant to AAVE but it should not be presented in the article anyway because a video called "Clinton Chronicles" isn't mentioned in the Clinton article.
*My rebuttal was that they are hardly comparable. The disparity of notability between Clinton and the "Clinton Chronicles" is evident from the fact that there are 18,106 results for "Bill Clinton" 0 for "Clinton Chronicles" while there are 0 results for "African American Vernacular English" and 1 result for "Pound Cake speech" Meaning that the comparison simply doesn't work.
*Your response was basically an evasion that didn't address my prior post and my response was all that I could get from your post to address. I asked you to Sum up anything else that I couldn't comprehend to actually address.
*Your abusive response was to say that I can't read.
As of yet no one has given a viable explanation for why criticism of aave and the Pound Cake speech can't be mentioned.
Wikidudeman (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Dude Man, no one has given an explanation that you have bothered to read and consider. ¶ On to your points: You claimed that Cosby's speech IS relevant to AAVE but it should not be presented in the article anyway because a video called "Clinton Chronicles" isn't mentioned in the Clinton article. Wrong. I presented that as a thought-provoking part-analogy. ¶ My rebuttal was that they are hardly comparable. The disparity of notability between Clinton and the "Clinton Chronicles" is evident from the fact that there are 18,106 results for "Bill Clinton" 0 for "Clinton Chronicles" while there are 0 results for "African American Vernacular English" and 1 result for "Pound Cake speech" Meaning that the comparison simply doesn't work. As I said, you're comparing newsworthiness, but language is not intrinsically newsworthy. ¶ Your response was basically an evasion that didn't address my prior post and my response was all that I could get from your post to address. So you couldn't read it. ¶ I asked you to Sum up anything else that I couldn't comprehend to actually address. I was writing that, but there was an edit conflict. ¶ Your abusive response was to say that I can't read. You may regard it as abusive; I regard it as a simple inference. ("You can't and won't read" is shorthand for "It appears that you can't and won't read and digest anything longer than a couple of sentences that disagree with your fixed beliefs.") This is something I've thought for several days, but I have until now tried hard to avoid saying this obvious truth. ¶ What are the points I want to put across? They're simple. Go away. Read some books. At least start to become the "automath" that you claim to be. The first twenty pages of any of dozens of good books about language will tell you that you are worse than completely uninformed about this subject, you are grievously misinformed about it. A very easily digestible book about language is Bauer, Homes and Warren's Language Matters. Though temporarily out of print in the US, it should be obtainable via a library. You'll find a detailed description and short review (though one aimed at teachers rather than likely readers) of the book here. When you've become a genuine automath on these matters, come back and edit! -- Hoary 07:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points restated 

message: This image of the United States filled with the Pan African Flag is used very liberally.
African Americans do not accept this flag as representing them. Why must African Americans be seperated from all other Americans?
It seems that this is a politically charged image to use, and by using it, we are advocating that African Americans accept a seperate nationhood to that of the United States.
I hope we will stop using this image and include African Americans with all Americans.
80.229.242.179 00:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  African American Portal - Pan African Flag