Talk:African-American English/Archive 1

message: Now that deeceevoice has created a beautiful summary of the sociological aspects of AAVE, let's see if we can address the phonological differences.  We do need to note that not all differences are universal to all variants of AAVE - but that many are common, and considered distinctive to the dialect by SAE speakers.  I also think, for consistency's sake, we should use SAMPA transcription, since it's accessible on a US-english keyboard.
Main differences (note that "_" stands for "any vowel" and "#" is "word boundary"):
* SAE /#T_/ --> AAVE [#t_]; SAE /_T_/ --> AAVE [_f_]; and SAE /_T#/ --> AAVE [_f#] (sometimes [_t#] ) 
* SAE /#D_/ --> AAVE [#d_]; SAE /_D_/ --> AAVE [_v_]; and SAE /_D#/ --> AAVE [_v#] 
* SAE /r_/ --> AAVE [r_]; SAE /r/ --> deleted elsewhere
* SAE /aj/ --> AAVE [a:] and SAE [ej] (phonemically /e/) --> AAVE /e:/
* Question : is the /Q/ vs. /A/ distinction preserved, or is it merged as in Midwestern US dialects of English?  EG: /nQt/ "naught" vs. /nAt/ "not".
That's a start, at any rate.  If I get a chance, I may do some research via google.  pgdudda 15:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Phonology (pronunciation)

message: How is the simple past and simple future tenses formed? -- Beland 13:12, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple tenses 

message: A section on pronunciation.  Mention of the use of "axe" instead of "ask" (also rooted in W. Africa?).  And observation of the subversion of language to redefine negatives; language as weapon/tool.  Andd a section on vocabulary -- because there is, indeed, a separate vocabulary in the African-American community for any number of things, that most white folks don't have a clue about.  For info on pronunciation and vocabulary, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:African_American_Vernacular_English&action=edit  deeceevoice 05:43, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops.  Dunno how that happened.  Will hunt up the link when I have more time.deeceevoice 22:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: For my money, "ask" > "axe" is more likely to be of anglophone than African origin -- the variation in this word goes back to Anglo-Saxon, when the word (usually ascian) could also be found as axian. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 20:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Note on necessary additions

message: Important, I think, because AAVE has contributed so many slang expressions to American English.  Also, if one clicks the "slang" link on the AAVE page, one is directed to a "slang" page, but which has nothing terribly specific on African American slang -- just an "African American slang" link at the bottom of the page which -- guess what? -- directs one right back to AAVE.  Slang expressions traceable to Africa:  cool, hip, hep, hep cat, dig, etc. deeceevoice 22:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A Section on Slang

message: e.g.:  banjo, tote, okra, goober, gumbo, hip/hep, dig, cat/hepcat, etc.
e.g.:  kicks, diss, kitchen, buckra, honky, axe, grip, roach-in-the-corner killers, etc. deeceevoice 14:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A Section on Africanisms from AAVE in mainstream usage, a section on AAVE vocabulary

message: Is it true that multiple negation (beyond simple double negation) can be (is often?) used for emphasis in AAVE?  A la the stereotyped "Don't nobody know nuthin'"...  Don't want to insert this into the article if it isn't true.  pgdudda 01:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this emphasis or just ordinary 'negation agreement'? --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 20:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about negation

message: *" African-American creoles that have undergone the least interference over the last few centuries (e.g., Saramaccan) show evidence of Portuguese features and vocabulary."
I'm certainly no authority on this, but it was always my understanding that Saramaccan was spoken in the Caribbean and South America (which is why I added "portions of the New World").  If my understanding is correct (and it very well may not be), then I think it's misleading to characterize it as an "African-American creole." deeceevoice 21:30, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted (tentatively) reference to Saramaccan and added a sentence about a AAVE separate vocabulary to "Lexicon"

message: :Realization of final ng [ŋ], the velar nasal, as the alveolar nasal [n] in function morphemes like -ing, e.g. "tripping" as "trippin". This change does not occur in content morphemes, that is sing is sing [sɪŋ] and not sin [sɪn], but singing is singin [sɪŋɪn].
I am not aware of any dialect of English where this phenomenon cannot be observed in casual conversation. I don't think it's particular to AAVE. — Ливай | ☺ 22:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "-ing" to "-in"

message: Maybe I overlooked it in the article, but I didn't see mention of -ing to -ang, as in: thing> thang; singin>sangin; ring>rang; and so on. Also, what about adding more slang words most often used in AAVE: yack (>cognac); hoodrat; ghettobird; and so on. Decius 10:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  -Ing ---> -Ang 

message: Is there really such a thing as "Ivonics" that is commonly regarded as the opposite of Ebonics?  Google suggests that there isn't.  I'm going to remove this, but I'd like to hear objections. --Andy M. 06:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, but if you're from New Jersey, some italians have their own way of talking, which I'm sure you're aware of from The Sporanos []. Roodog2k 18:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ivonics?

message: The purpose of the study was to determine whether there was a correlation between speaking, or not speaking, "black vernacular" and test scores. No correlation was discovered. is uncited, and I have been unable to find any information via google. I was wondering if I could get more info on the study. While the statement may be true, I have heard otherwise, and find it hard to believe that ebonics doe not effect standardized test scores, since every standardized test I have taken has contained an "english" portion. I noticed that the quote doesn't mention if the tests were standardized, or what they covered, and was curious. IreverentReverend 13:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources? 

message: Hello. I don't understand this at all. Is there some sort of place where all the people who do speak this stuff, learn the proper structure of it? Or do they all just speak it differently? Is there even structure? I don't get it. The article does really go over this at all.
:The rules and structure of AAVE are learned by children simply by listening to adults, the way all children acquire their first language. Since AAVE does not have a standardized formal written variety, there isn't anything to learn other than the vernacular spoken form, which is learned without explicit instruction. Believe it or not, people don't have to go to school to learn how to communicate fluently in their own language. Nohat 02:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cultural expression is what it is; there is no correct or incorrect culture.  Is AAVE Standard English?  No.  Is it entirely appropriate and "correct" (in that sense) in certain contexts?  Absolutely.  Is it inappropriate and, therefore, incorrect in others?  Absolutely.  You can rant all you want about AAVE.  It remains a legitimate dialect -- and it ain't goin' nowhere no time soon. deeceevoice 06:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Learning & correctness 

message: Just a note, that wasnt a double RV, kept receiving errors and not saving. Then it double saved.  ∞Who?¿? 23:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rv's

message: Just looking at the "Educational issues" section, I see that this article is a bit one sided pertaining to the issue of Ebonics is school. That section only presents proponent views, and states that the controvery is "unfortunate". At UCI, I've spoke to a few professors who oppose this. There are quite a few educators who oppose teaching ebonics for a variety of reasons, and this isn't covered in the article. Instead, all I'm seeing are claims of racism and bias when one even tries to bring up opposing view points. {{added by 207.0.53.2)
:Those are good points.  You are welcome to add to or edit the article to be more NPOV if you like. It's always good to cite sources too, if you have any.  ∞Who?¿? 00:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: One Side Article?

message: Looks more like a persuasive arguement than an informative article. I also don't like how a lot of this is going. 
Playing the race card so that only the view point you support is an insult to proponents and opponents of this issue alike ( and there are differing views in each race - even in the African American community ).
===Ebonics and Socioeconomic Status===
The arguements for and against ebonics in schools reveals the gap between an upper middle class black layer and impoverished minority youth.
Helen Haylard makes the point:
"Blacks do not speak a separate language in the United States. Of course there are particular expressions that are used in a black or for that matter, any white, Hispanic or immigrant community. There are also traditions stemming from long years of racial oppression. The speech patterns of every section of modern day American society are the product of social and historical factors and are bound up with the development of the United States itself. There are many different components that determine how people speak. Wave upon wave of immigrations, for example, of poor Southern blacks as well as whites to the industrial north, have played a part. So too have geography, technology and, crucially, class divisions. The very poor English spoken in all impoverished neighborhoods, black, white or Hispanic, is a product of social decay. It is not the language of blacks, but that of oppression. The black nationalists have seized upon the misuse of grammar to be found in more impoverished neighborhoods in order to invent a new language that they claim is racially determined."
There are also many sources I've been reading that describe how the Oakland school board has been undercutting it's working staff, but has been beefing up the pay for their administration.
The main fight going on right now is not over ebonic's existance in itself, but rather in the differences in the educational funding for impoverished students that many people are IGNORING, and thus turn to Ebonics as the "answer". This in itself can be its own article.
Many people are against Ebonics in school, not because of an intolerance for Ebonics in itself, but one must recognize that this isn't about African-Americans and Language - it's about poverty and perpetuation of poverty and underfunding schools.
When we think of Ebonics we don't think of Middle and Upper class black folk. It's the ones in poverty we're thinking about, and they're being undercut.
:Haylard sees what she wants to see.  There are clear African roots AAVE and, as a result, there are features AAVE shares with other pidgins/creole languages in the African diaspora.  Her "analysis" conveniently completely disregards these facts.  She's a hack.
:Further, black people across the socioeconomic spectrum speak AAVE.  It's easy for white people mistakenly to assume that only disadvantaged blacks speak AAVE, because -- again -- we code switch.  That AAVE is localized only among the poor is patently false.  Haylard's attribution of AAVE to "social decay" -- particularly given the very specialized circumstances under which the dialect developed in the first place -- is a gross misrepresentation/failuire to understand the very "social and historical factors" to which she alludes.  Quite the contrary, AAVE is an example of the vibrancy and persistence of African-American culture under often hostile circumstances, in enemy territory.  The tragedy/disadvantage is when AAVE is the only language capable of being spoken, because SAE is the lingua franca of scholarly discourse, business, etc., and because of the narrow-mindedness of those who would attach racist presumptions about inferiority, inherent or circumstantial, not only to those who cannot, or do not, speak SAE, but particularly who those who speak AAVE.  Obviously, there is absolutely nothing wrong with AAVE -- any more than with Euro Jewish-influenced Yiddish-English, with the hooked g's and inverted sentence structure.  But, hey, when a speaker is fluent in both AAVE and SAE -- 's a beautiful thang. :p deeceevoice 01:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Educational Issues section is a persuasive arguement section.

message: The arguements for and against ebonics in schools reveals the gap between an upper middle class black layer and impoverished minority youth.
Helen Haylard makes the point:
"Blacks do not speak a separate language in the United States. Of course there are particular expressions that are used in a black or for that matter, any white, Hispanic or immigrant community. There are also traditions stemming from long years of racial oppression. The speech patterns of every section of modern day American society are the product of social and historical factors and are bound up with the development of the United States itself. There are many different components that determine how people speak. Wave upon wave of immigrations, for example, of poor Southern blacks as well as whites to the industrial north, have played a part. So too have geography, technology and, crucially, class divisions. The very poor English spoken in all impoverished neighborhoods, black, white or Hispanic, is a product of social decay. It is not the language of blacks, but that of oppression. The black nationalists have seized upon the misuse of grammar to be found in more impoverished neighborhoods in order to invent a new language that they claim is racially determined."
There are also many sources I've been reading that describe how the Oakland school board has been undercutting it's working staff, but has been beefing up the pay for their administration.
The main fight going on right now is not over ebonic's existance in itself, but rather in the differences in the educational funding for impoverished students that many people are IGNORING, and thus turn to Ebonics as the "answer". This in itself can be its own article.
Many people are against Ebonics in school, not because of an intolerance for Ebonics in itself, but one must recognize that this isn't about African-Americans and Language - it's about poverty and perpetuation of poverty and underfunding schools.
When we think of Ebonics we don't think of Middle and Upper class black folk. It's the ones in poverty we're thinking about, and they're being undercut.
:Haylard sees what she wants to see.  There are clear African roots AAVE and, as a result, there are features AAVE shares with other pidgins/creole languages in the African diaspora.  Her "analysis" conveniently completely disregards these facts.  She's a hack.
:Further, black people across the socioeconomic spectrum speak AAVE.  It's easy for white people mistakenly to assume that only disadvantaged blacks speak AAVE, because -- again -- we code switch.  That AAVE is localized only among the poor is patently false.  Haylard's attribution of AAVE to "social decay" -- particularly given the very specialized circumstances under which the dialect developed in the first place -- is a gross misrepresentation/failuire to understand the very "social and historical factors" to which she alludes.  Quite the contrary, AAVE is an example of the vibrancy and persistence of African-American culture under often hostile circumstances, in enemy territory.  The tragedy/disadvantage is when AAVE is the only language capable of being spoken, because SAE is the lingua franca of scholarly discourse, business, etc., and because of the narrow-mindedness of those who would attach racist presumptions about inferiority, inherent or circumstantial, not only to those who cannot, or do not, speak SAE, but particularly who those who speak AAVE.  Obviously, there is absolutely nothing wrong with AAVE -- any more than with Euro Jewish-influenced Yiddish-English, with the hooked g's and inverted sentence structure.  But, hey, when a speaker is fluent in both AAVE and SAE -- 's a beautiful thang. :p deeceevoice 01:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ebonics and Socioeconomic Status

message: I wonder about quoted phrases like he workin'.  Is this actually how AAVE would be written by a native speaker, or would it be written he workin?  In my limited experience, punctuation is dropped when it becomes the norm.  For instance, the SAE phrase Hope everything is okay. no longer requires a leading apostrophe to denote the unstated I (I think).
: "No longer"?  Did it ever?  I omit the subject (especially first person singular) when the conjugation of the verb implies it.  I had always thought this usage was proper and inherited from Latin, in which this practice is common.  Am I incorrect? Dbmercer 17:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was mentioned earlier, but AAVE is a spoken vernacular dialect that doesn't have a formally standardized grammar or othography.  What is known of its structure and phonetics comes from field descriptions of the way people actually speak.  So there is not necessarily one "correct" AAVE way that a native speaker would write a sentence like, "He workin'".  In fact, since most AAVE speakers are also fluent in SAE, that is quite likely to be the way an AAVE speaker would write it.  Alternately, we could transcribe it in IPA (and perhaps should, for those who aren't used to the orthographic conventions of American English dialect representation), but that's harder to read for most users and shouldn't completely replace the SAE transcription.  --Skoosh 00:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gratuitous punctuation? 

message: :I was walkin[g] home, and I had worked all day.
this actually strikes me as correct Queen's English (except for the -in' ) -- the had is properly used only in the first sentence, since it refers to to a time before the action narrated took place. dab (ᛏ) 17:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: pluperfect

message: * "Ebonics translator" (Humorous)
Recommend the above link for deletion.  This link is defamatory and has no relevance to the sociolinguistic debate on "AAVE"  Rus 03:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: moved from article ∞Who?¿? 03:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  defammatory links