Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that you are missing the point -- in fact, whether theoreticians like it or not, there is indeed a correct grammar, a correct vocabulary, and a correct usage if the goal is to function in an advanced civilization in real life.
To illustrate the point by using an extreme example, consider writing a set of patent claims. Every single word in a claim has a precise meaning that has been determined through litigation to be standard usage with a precise meaning. An ignoramus who speaks and writes with his own linguistic twist simply cannot write patent claims -- a trial judge will give him no quarter during litigation regardless of the consistency of the language used by the ignoramus.
Further about real life: in fact there is a very strong correlation between ignorance and the improper use of language. The improper use of language is a strong indicator that the speaker does not have much education. To return to the peculiarities of Baltimore, its inner-city dwellers with seemingly ignorant speech patters are in fact quite ignorant as a group, and perhaps one of the most ignorant subcultures in the United States.
Moreover, I believe that it is completely wrong to insinuate that all cultures are equally good. Consider, for example, the choice between living in Norway versus living in Sudan. Norwegian culture is clearly far superior to Sudanese, and only a donkey would be unable to recognize this. One of the great plagues of modern American culture is the indoctrination of young people to disrespect advance Western culture, and their failure to make distinctions of virtue.
Pish posh. This is a good example. You cannot make a plausible claim that Kissinger, King, and Carter functioned at the same level of ignorance as the typical inner-city Baltimorean. Rather than read some silly academic's work on linguistics, perhaps you should read Aristotle's Ethics.
Please note that I have not said anything at all about intelligence here; the discussion is about ignorance.
It isn't just a good example, it is the perfect example. Because you see competence, you overlook dialect. When you don't see competence, either because it isn't there, or you have prejudged, you call dialects "ignorant and lazy."
And calling linguistics "silly" in a conversation about......linguistics..........is probably a sign you are posting in the wrong thread, cause linguistics is what this conversation is about. If you don't know the topic at an academic level, you are speaking out of ignorance, even with your more standard dialect.
We have a difference of attitudes here. I think that your's boils down to nothing more than cultural nihilism. In my view, this is sad, given the blood, sweat, and tears that it took to get us to this point, and the absolutely magnificent benefits that we all enjoy from it.
But really, would you deny that there is a strong correlation between BEV and ignorance? Is the typical inner-city Baltimorean on par with the typical graduate of Johns Hopkins, for example? Do you believe that the only difference between the two is that the JHU graduate has the favor of some power establishment? Does his mastery of, say, math and physics, or history and literature, not count for anything except in my subjective judgment? Is there no objective way to distinguish between an ignorant person and a knowledgeable, educated person?
Regarding my thoughts being scientifically incorrect -- linguists are looking only at internal consistency, and I am willing to believe that what they claim is correct in that narrow space. If you are looking only for internal consistence, then all dialects may well be equal. But if you are looking for eudaimonia in an advanced Western culture, then they are most assuredly not equal. Think of a mathematical analogy, wherein an academic postulates a nonsensical and meaningless but internally consistent system of symbols and operations . . . (by the way, I have literally heard the "she be gots to do" phrase mentioned above).
Last edited by Hamish Forbes; 10-21-2014 at 04:42 PM..
We have a difference of attitudes here. I think that your's boils down to nothing more than cultural nihilism. In my view, this is sad, given the blood, sweat, and tears that it took to get us to this point, and the absolutely magnificent benefits that we all enjoy from it.
But really, would you deny that there is a strong correlation between BEV and ignorance? Is the typical inner-city Baltimorean on par with the typical graduate of Johns Hopkins, for example? Do you believe that the only difference between the two is that the JHU graduate has the favor of some power establishment? Does his mastery of, say, math and physics, or history and literature, not count for anything except in my subjective judgment? Is there no objective way to distinguish between an ignorant person and a knowledgeable, educated person?
Regarding my thoughts being scientifically incorrect -- the linguists are looking only at internal consistency, and I am willing to believe that what they claim is correct in that narrow space. If you are looking only for internal consistence, then all dialects may well be equal. But if you are looking for eudaimonia in an advanced Western culture, then they are most assuredly not equal. Think of a mathematical analogy, wherein someone postulates a nonsensical but internally consistent system of symbols and operations . . . (by the way, I have literally heard the "she be gots to do" phrase mentioned above).
Cultural nihilism? Give me a break. We (at least I am) talking about a very well established field of scientific study. Trying to expand it out into another reason why black Baltimore sucks is beyond the scope of the conversation.
If black folks in Baltimore are ignorant and lazy people, it isn't because of how they speak. Again, you judge the dialect based your opinion of the people, which isn't scientific, it is a cultural judgment based on a lack of education in the field, something you seem to have no interest in addressing.
So you think "our dialect" is somehow inherently better because educated people contributing to the world speak it? Why do we conjugate verbs like this
I speak
you speak
he speaks
Why the "s." it serves zero purpose. We inflect the 3rd person singular with an "s"........because we inflect the 3rd person singular with a "s" not because doing this adds anything to the common or intellectual good.
Why do:
I ride in a car today, but rode in a car yesterday
but
I bide my time now, but didn't bode my time yesterday?
Same verb form, yet in one case we use the "strong" past tense, and in the other use the "weak" past tense. It makes no sense logically to speak this way, nor makes us philsophers, it just how we do it.
I call B.S on the ""she be gots to do" phrase. You more likely heard, "she gots to do" which is an overcorrection from a speaker trying to conjugate a verb in the standard form, but is unaware, that "got" doesn't get the "s" added in the 3rd person singular like most other verbs. Why? No reason again, it is just the way it is. You could have also hear "she be doing that" which is a correct conjugation of "to be" in BEV. Or maybe "she be doing what she got(s) to be doing." which is correct again in that dialect.
But, I will ask any BEV speakers here if "she be gots to do" is a correct form or not in that dialect.
If black folks in Baltimore are ignorant and lazy people, it isn't because of how they speak.
This is not the thought behind the question of correlation. Of course ignorant speech doesn't cause ignorance and laziness; rather, the two go together -- they are correlated. Actually, if you remember, the allegation here was the other way around -- they speak improperly because they are ignorant and lazy.
Quote:
Again, you judge the dialect based your opinion of the people, which isn't scientific, it is a cultural judgment based on a lack of education in the field, something you seem to have no interest in addressing.
No. My judgment is based on my observation of outcomes -- crime, poverty, ignorance, illegitimacy, morbid obesity, drug abuse, and so forth. A culture in a death spiral.
Quote:
So you think "our dialect" is somehow inherently better because educated people contributing to the world speak it? Why do we conjugate verbs like this . . .
It makes no sense logically to speak this way, nor makes us philsophers, it just how we do it.
It makes perfect sense -- the results speak for themselves. Yes. that's how we do it. Moreover, most languages have irregularities. Some languages (and cultures) are unable to deal with quantities greater than three -- are they equal to, say, the French language and culture? Or is it just my subjective opinion that they are not?
Quote:
I call B.S on the ""she be gots to do" phrase.
But, I will ask any BEV speakers here if "she be gots to do" is a correct form or not in that dialect.
No, it was exactly as I have stated. Why would you presume that it was correct in any dialect? How would you determine whether it is correct or not? Does the University of Chicago publish a grammar or style guide on BEV?
This is not the thought behind the question of correlation. Of course ignorant speech doesn't cause ignorance and laziness; rather, the two go together -- they are correlated. Actually, if you remember, the allegation here was the other way around -- they speak improperly because they are ignorant and lazy.
No. My judgment is based on my observation of outcomes -- crime, poverty, ignorance, illegitimacy, morbid obesity, drug abuse, and so forth. A culture in a death spiral.
It makes perfect sense -- the results speak for themselves. Yes. that's how we do it. Moreover, most languages have irregularities. Some languages (and cultures) are unable to deal with quantities greater than three -- are they equal to, say, the French language and culture? Or is it just my subjective opinion that they are not?
No, it was exactly as I have stated. Why would you presume that it was correct in any dialect? How would you determine whether it is correct or not? Does the University of Chicago publish a grammar or style guide on BEV?
I know what correlation means, it isn't causation, so it is just a cultural marker, a cheap way to listen to how someone speaks so you can assign stereotypes to them. Of course, the stereotype isn't going to be true in all cases, which is why linguistic correlations are weak and a horrific way to judge people. Again, Linguistics is an observational science at its root, down to measuring speech in megahertz for quantitative comparison. Correlation doesn't cut it. I am talking about a scientific discipline I have some formal education in, and much more informal interest. You are talking about:
Quote:
No. My judgment is based on my observation of outcomes -- crime, poverty, ignorance, illegitimacy, morbid obesity, drug abuse, and so forth. A culture in a death spiral.
as per usual. Sometimes I think you present some much needed observations and do a good job of holding people accountable for not knowing history, or mistaking soft sciences like sociological theories on race relations for fact. In this case you are out of your depth, big time.
Quote:
Moreover, most languages have irregularities.
This statement pretty much clinches it in my book. No spoken human language is logical in its form to the level of the formalized study there of. EVERY single spoken language has non-intuitive rules, special exceptions to rules that only native, or very experienced, speakers know, and vesitigal forms (like the 's" in 3rd person singular in English) The French you speak so highly of has double negatives. Je ne sais pas? Illogical!
A double negative is a positive, are the French that stupid, says the tribesman who can only count to 3, but whose language needs only one negative to negate a verb
PS. for rules on BEV verb usage, read Labov. Until you are willing to even do a cursory glace at the scientific evidence that counters your opinion, you will continue to be unable to discuss dialect and Linguistics on their merits, hence your need to try and expand the conversation into other areas, something you will fail at when talking to me.
The French you speak so highly of has double negatives. Je ne sais pas? Illogical!
A double negative is a positive, are the French that stupid, says the tribesman who can only count to 3, but whose language needs only one negative to negate a verb
So you believe that the double negative is on par with the deficiency in expressing quantities greater than three? On one hand, we have a linguist quirk. On the other, we have the inability to do anything quantitative. Perhaps the results speak for themselves -- life in Paris vs life in the jungle . . .
Are languages that lack a written form on par with English, German, French, or Italian? After all, Attic Greek had a well defined written form . . .
Last edited by Hamish Forbes; 10-21-2014 at 06:34 PM..
So you believe that the double negative is on par with the deficiency in expressing quantities greater than three? On one hand, we have a linguist quirk. On the other, we have the inability to do anything quantitative. Perhaps the results speak for themselves -- life in Paris vs life in the jungle . . .
Again, you betray your ignorance. Tribal languages that have no need for counting numbers, don't have words for them. When exposed to outsiders, some of these same people express a desire to learn, and at least among the youth do have the ability to pick up the concept and learn words to describe them. So the language they speak is suited just fine for the needs of the community. When new needs arise, the people have the ability to integrate the new linguistic concepts into their lexicon for use.
So, it isn't a "deficiency" that causes the difference between French and some indigenous languages, but rather the reality of what these people need to function in their world. When the needs change, the language changes.
Apply this same concept to BEV and it is very clear that when individuals who speak this dialect need to learn standard dialect to achieve their professional career goals, many can and do. But those who have no need, have no reason to start speaking like you and me. Their dialect is internally consistent and suited to the realities they face.
The question becomes does Joe from West Baltimore need to speak more standard American English before you stop assuming he is acting lazy and ignorant (or in the alternative, assume his inherent laziness and ignorance is the reason he speaks that way?) Or can Joe operate just fine in most jobs and in most social settings speaking BEV, unless he is being judged by you for how he speaks? Because when folks like you carry the attitude that your own dialect is the language of philosophers and Kings, and that makes you inherently better than Joe, who speaks the "devolved" dialect of the poor, you make Joe's attempts to get ANY form of meaningful education, employment, or opportunity to grow that much harder.
So you believe that the double negative is on par with the deficiency in expressing quantities greater than three? On one hand, we have a linguist quirk. On the other, we have the inability to do anything quantitative. Perhaps the results speak for themselves -- life in Paris vs life in the jungle . . .
Are languages that lack a written form on par with English, German, French, or Italian? After all, Attic Greek had a well defined written form . . .
They absolutely are all on par within the world in which the language operates. The written transcription of language and spoken language are not the same thing. Writing is a secondary level of symbolism meant to express and more easily transmit the true language, that which is spoken and learned in the cradle.
Cultures that have written language can be said to be more advanced, but it isn't because of anything inherent in their language. At first, the horse of cultural improvement drives the cart of innovation in writing down what was previous only spoken.
From there cultures can explode into new realms of abstract thinking, but again it has little or nothing to do with the worth of the language itself, but rather the transformative power of turning oral language, which is auditory, created on demand, and fleeting, into something which is visual, affixed and permanent.
Read Walter J. Ong's Orality to Literacy for a very good treatment of this subject.
Tribal languages that have no need for counting numbers, don't have words for them. When exposed to outsiders, some of these same people express a desire to learn, and at least among the youth do have the ability to pick up the concept and learn words to describe them. So the language they speak is suited just fine for the needs of the community. When new needs arise, the people have the ability to integrate the new linguistic concepts into their lexicon for use.So, it isn't a "deficiency" that causes the difference between French and some indigenous languages, but rather the reality of what these people need to function in their world. When the needs change, the language changes.
Ah, yes, the myth of the noble savage. But it's incorrect. You are saying that they have no need to advance beyond the primitive stage of development. They do have such a need, very much so, as you can see from observing the sorry state of their current existence. Science and technology depend heavily on quantitative reasoning. By the benefit of science and the use of technology, the French (for example) were able to colonize and exploit such people, rather than the other way around.
Quote:
Apply this same concept to BEV and it is very clear that when individuals who speak this dialect need to learn standard dialect to achieve their professional career goals, many can and do. But those who have no need, have no reason to start speaking like you and me. Their dialect is internally consistent and suited to the realities they face.
OK, but didn't you just say that these things were "hard wired" earlier in the thread? I accept that the dialect may be internally consistent, but believe that internal consistency has nothing to do with whether the speaker is ignorant or not (note again that nobody here, except you, has made any link between speech and intelligence).
Quote:
The question becomes does Joe from West Baltimore need to speak more standard American English before you stop assuming he is acting lazy and ignorant (or in the alternative, assume his inherent laziness and ignorance is the reason he speaks that way?) Or can Joe operate just fine in most jobs and in most social settings speaking BEV, unless he is being judged by you for how he speaks? Because when folks like you carry the attitude that your own dialect is the language of philosophers and Kings, and that makes you inherently better than Joe, who speaks the "devolved" dialect of the poor, you make Joe's attempts to get ANY form of meaningful education, employment, or opportunity to grow that much harder.
Facts can be awfully hard on theory. In fact, Joe from West Baltimore is abysmally ignorant (statistically speaking). He lives in one of the most ignorant communities in the United States, and the consequences of his ignorance speak for themselves every day. My way of doing things (so to speak ), including the use of language, is clearly better than Joe's (again, statistically speaking), as is painfully evident to any observer who looks at our respective outcomes and ways of life. Moreover, properly constructed language is indeed and in fact the language of philosophers and kings (hence the term King's English), and also of scientists, academics, educators, lawyers, doctors, accountants, architects, and so forth. These are simply the facts of real life.
Bottom line: Agent 77 is right about this one, and pretending that he is not doesn't help anyone better himself or his circumstances.
Ah, yes, the myth of the noble savage. But it's incorrect. You are saying that they have no need to advance beyond the primitive stage of development. They do have such a need, very much so, as you can see from observing the sorry state of their current existence. Science and technology depend heavily on quantitative reasoning. By the benefit of science and the use of technology, the French (for example) were able to colonize and exploit such people, rather than the other way around.
More judgments passed on people, with little to no knowledge about language being shown. As needs change, language changes. The current state of a hunter-gather language is a reflection of their life style. The system they use is very well suited to what they need to accomplish to succeed in their environment. Their language with its more simple phonemic system and ability to be understood in whistles is an innovation suited to their life that French lacks. Again, the native would laugh at French people using their language to communicate while hunting. When needs change, the language adopts new features, like numbers. This is likely a stage of development that took place in all languages as their speakers changed life styles. As the last hunter-gathers enter modern society, their languages adopt numeric systems as they are now needed.
Quote:
OK, but didn't you just say that these things were "hard wired" earlier in the thread? I accept that the dialect may be internally consistent, but believe that internal consistency has nothing to do with whether the speaker is ignorant or not (note again that nobody here, except you, has made any link between speech and intelligence).
Well, that's progress. You can speak the Queen's English and be a raving idiot, or a genius who speaks Gullah. Yes, dialect is hardwired, which is why good linguists can peg the dialect of even the most self-assured individual who claims that they are dialect neutral. Within this reality are a range of ability, tied to language acquisition ability, not intelligence. I am 1%er on standardized tests, 2 standard deviations from the norm on IQ tests...........and stink at learning foreign language, and try as I might can't change the vowel mergers I acquired as a child. My MIL has been in America for 36 years, and still has a thick Greek accent, makes mistakes with strong vs. weak verbs, and butchers idioms. She will never cease to sound like she got off a boat.
On the other hand, I have a friend who speaks somewhere between 6-12 languages fluently, including Hungarian, Swedish, Spanish, German, Finnish, Chinese, depending on the definition. But, guess what language he couldn't learn? Dutch! Why? Because his cradle tongues were English and PA Dutch. He learned standard German easily, he speaks it with an accent, but native German speakers simply assume he is a native Low German speaker who is adopting the standard, which he is. But Dutch is so close to PA Deutch that it scrambles those hard wires I was talking about and he can't keep it straight from either his High German, or his cradle tongue.
So, long story short, some people have a greater ability than others to change the way they speak later in life, and pick up new languages and dialect than others, but this skill is tied to more to language exposure early in life than to raw intelligence. So judging people's level of ignorance, intelligence, insert character trait here, based on language is flawed. What you are really measuring is a combination of innate language ability + language exposure as a child + need/desire/opportunity to learn different dialects now. Hardly a clean metric for judging anything other than.......language.
Quote:
Facts can be awfully hard on theory. In fact, Joe from West Baltimore is abysmally ignorant (statistically speaking). He lives in one of the most ignorant communities in the United States, and the consequences of his ignorance speak for themselves every day. My way of doing things (so to speak ), including the use of language, is clearly better than Joe's (again, statistically speaking), as is painfully evident to any observer who looks at our respective outcomes and ways of life. Moreover, properly constructed language is indeed and in fact the language of philosophers and kings (hence the term King's English), and also of scientists, academics, educators, lawyers, doctors, accountants, architects, and so forth. These are simply the facts of real life.
Bottom line: Agent 77 is right about this one, and pretending that he is not doesn't help anyone better himself or his circumstances.
That just about says it all. You can't even talk about Joe without assuming he is already abysmally ignorant and inferior to you. Why? Because I said he was from West Baltimore? Because he speaks BEV? Your hemline is showing Mr. Forbes. You can't talk about Linguistics, so you must assume and apply all of these other value judgements on Joe. Do you have the ability (or desire) to discuss Joe from West Baltimore on the level of his language alone? If so, let's continue. If not, look for easier quarry. You ARE getting killed here, and other people are noticing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), including the use of language, is clearly better than Joe's (again, statistically speaking), as is painfully evident to any observer who looks at our respective outcomes and ways of life. Moreover, properly constructed language is indeed and in fact the language of philosophers and kings (hence the term King's English), and also of scientists, academics, educators, lawyers, doctors, accountants, architects, and so forth. These are simply the facts of real life.
