Talk:Ebonics (word)/Archive 2

Merge and redirect?

If you'd like to discuss this suggestion, please do so here.

Split?

Perhaps this should be split to Ebonics (Pan-African) (covering the original meaning) and African American language politics (covering all political and social conflicts).--Pharos 17:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your proposal. Do you mean that Ebonics would become a disambig for

1. Ebonics (Pan-African)
2. African American language politics (the so-called "Ebonics debates", etc.)
3. African American Vernacular English (a dispassionate description of the lect)

?

If so, there's something to be said for this. But it would hardly be a split of this article; rather, it would be a split of African American Vernacular English, as this now has the second and third of these three.

Anyway, I think it might be better to have

1. Ebonics (Pan-African)
2. African American Vernacular English and pedagogy (the so-called "Ebonics debates", etc. -- or at least their educational components -- included; but also apolitical material)
3. African American Vernacular English (a dispassionate description of the lect)

The first might not be the best title; we could think about it. The second is certainly a long title and again might not be the best. I'd prefer it to "African American language politics" because the latter might imply that all talk of "Ebonics" at school was (has been?) "mere politics", an implication that would I think be unfair and anyway is a point of view. (Williams, Smith and others were/are political, but they were/are primarily concerned with promoting literacy. And their opponents may have been wrongheaded but plenty of them, too may well have shared the same main aim.)

The disadvantage of this reordering compared with your suggestion is that there'd be no obvious place for an account of popular, uninformed pedagogy-irrelevant commentary about AAVE (as "bad English", "ungrammatical", etc [yawn]), and it would presumably have to go back in African American Vernacular English.

Other comments would be welcome. Let's not rush a reclassification, or be dissuaded by the delay from adding worthwhile material to the articles as they (rather uncomfortably) exist now. -- Hoary 23:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. I don't think the term language politics implies "mere politics" really (it's a sociological term I think). Perhaps the language politics article could be a parent to your African American Vernacular English in education article (is "pedagogy" really necessary?) or the even broader Dialect in American education [1]. I really do think details of the "ungrammatical" stuff (about which a lot has been written and definitely deserves coverage somewhere) should stay out of the main AAVE article. On a more specific level, the Oakland controversy likely deserves an article all by itself; anyway, it's very hard to imagine that if it had occurred in 2006 rather than 1996 it wouldn't have an article already.--Pharos 05:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the term "language politics" (which certainly doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or even that it's a minor term). The article Language politics is little more than a list. Much of its content is related to what I thought was called "status planning" within "language policy" or "language planning" (or "language policy and planning", "language planning and policy", or "LPP"). Meanwhile, the Language policy is now very narrow in its coverage. This really isn't my area (though I'm willing to read and think). Is there a sociolinguist in the house? -- Hoary 11:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've been reflecting and reading on this a bit, and I think I might have been attacking it from the wrong angle. It seems the most relevant sociolinguistic concept to the "ungrammatical" nonsense is prestige, i.e. the classification of dialects into high prestige and low prestige. A format like Prestige of African American Vernacular English could be adapted to other dialects. (Of course, there is a problem here that the term "prestige", by itself, usually means "high prestige", but I don't think there's any way out of this ambiguity.) It would still be necessary, I think, to have another article on education. Of course like you, Hoary, I would be interested if a sociolinguist chimed in.--Pharos 03:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only is Ebonics low prestive but it's also very unsophisticated. It's a dialect that basically uses English as a starting point and then devolves into something less sophisticated. For instance my point that AAVE has no original polysyllabic words. That's a huge blow supporting it's lack of sophistication. English has come far from Old English, It has developed thousands of novel words and has increased in sophistication. AAVE? How far has it came from English? Seems like more of a devolution of a language than an evolution.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

How many "original polysyllabic words" does Brooklynese have, on say, atomic theory? This is a ridiculous standard and totally WP:OR. AAVE is not a consciously designed "replacement" for English, it's a vernacular used in certain circumstances. AAVE speakers use the same terms as other English speakers when they discuss academic topics, and these words are not "foreign" to them. There is no reason why AAVE should have to "invent" new words.--Pharos 04:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly "Atomic theory" isn't a language but a scientific theory. Secondly, I've never heard people using polysyllabic words in Ebonics. Have you? That would sound awfully out of place..."Yo, Hommie..Wat u be confabulating herr wit all dat irrationality? Dat shizz be preposterous dawg!" Oh yes...Real common place!Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dude Man! Wakey wakey! Let's flip "on" the brain's on/off switch! AAVE is bristling with original polysyllabic words. They're listed in, for example, Smitherman's Black Talk. (As for the notion of "devolving" from English, it's clear that you still haven't got around to digesting a book about AAVE syntax, morphology and phonology. But should I explain the last two of those in simple, "unsophisticated" words?) Do us all a favor, Dude Man: run off and buy a copy of Black Talk and digest it. Surely your level of "sophistication" (clearly one of your favorite words) is up to the tasks of buying books and reading them (even if it can't quite manage to get the spelling of "prestige" and "its" quite right). -- Hoary 04:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Name one.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Take five: alleyball, neo-slavery, signify, testify, (kick the) ballistics. Now do run off to the library. Or somewhere. Indeed, anywhere. Because, deliberately or otherwise, you are wasting people's time. Come back when you can name one single book about the subject that you have read and digested. -- Hoary 06:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

When I said "Polysyllabic" I didn't mean words with 3 or 4 sylables. I meant words with atleast 5 syllables. Try again.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude Man, AAVE is in the domain of linguistics. In linguistics, "polysyllabic" is a term that's used in contradistinction to "monosyllabic". [Don't take my word for this; check either of David Crystal's works An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Language and Languages or Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics [both published by Blackwell and of course available from Blackwell]; I think you should use the former and study a little before you buy the latter.) Ergo, even a disyllabic word is polysyllabic. I understand that (despite knowing enough linguists) you're weak in linguistics, and I took you to mean the everyday sense of the word in standard English (in which it's usually used for three, four or more syllables): this is why I gave trisyllabic words. When I'm told that by "polysyllabic" you mean words with at least five syllables, I wonder whether (a) my understanding of the word in standard English (backed up by the dictionaries I've looked at) is wrong, (b) your dialect is nonstandard here, or (c) you simply misunderstand the word "polysyllabic". Could you explain? -- Hoary 11:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I never said "polysyllabic" couldn't be words with less than 5 syllables. What I said was when I asked for a polysyllabic Ebonics word I meant words with over 5 syllables. Secondly, I asked for words that are novel to Ebonics and aren't shared with English. "Testify" and "Signify" and "ballistics" wouldn't apply.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude Man, please get your story straight. You, earlier: When I said "Polysyllabic" I didn't mean words with 3 or 4 sylables. I meant words with atleast 5 syllables. "At least five" means five or more, Dude Man. You, later: What I said was when I asked for a polysyllabic Ebonics word I meant words with over 5 syllables. "Over five" means six or more, Dude Man. Just how many syllables did/do you want? However many you wanted at the start, why didn't you just say you wanted words of that number of syllables, and then stick to that one number? ¶ Being a (low level) linguist, I thought at first that by "polysyllabic" you meant two syllables or more; but I quickly remembered that in everyday use the word generally refers to words of three or more syllables. Here is what you wrote: I've never heard people using polysyllabic words in Ebonics. Have you? I'll take "Ebonics" to mean "AAVE". Answer: yes I have. I've already given you some. Another is (surprise!) "Ebonics", three syllables. ¶ I open a book about the subject Have you managed to find, read and digest even half of a single worthwhile book on this yet, Dude Man? namely Smitherman's Talkin that Talk [I'll give you bibliographical info if you promise to use it, whether at a bookstore or a library] and open it at random, which happens to be p128. On this page, we see the transcript of a tape of spontaneous AAVE speech recorded by an eighth-grade student. He's giving a first-hand account of a fatal shooting; chances are, he was pretty agitated when he spoke. The transcript is very roughly a hundred words long (no, I'm not going to count). Despite his probable agitation, the very first word is "everybody", four syllables (or possibly even five). We also read "policemen", etc. ¶ But you don't appear to be interested in polysyllabic words in AAVE. Rather, you seem to want AAVE-specific vocabulary. I've already given you AAVE-specific extensions of trisyllabic words. Don't these interest you? Just what do you want? (To parade your obstinacy and ignorance, perhaps? To waste people's time?) -- Hoary 08:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

5 syllables will do. Give me a few novel ebonics words with 5 syllables. Can you do that? Stop evading the issues.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude Man, you've got me. I can't think of a novel AAVE word with five syllables. ¶ Now let's backtrack a little. You write above: Not only is Ebonics low prestive [sic] but it's also very unsophisticated. It's a dialect that basically uses English as a starting point and then devolves into something less sophisticated. For instance my point that AAVE has no original polysyllabic words. That's a huge blow supporting it's [sic] lack of sophistication. I'm unaccustomed to conversing with somebody who values "sophistication" and polysyllabic coinages so highly but whose "sophistication" is such that (i) he can't sort out "its" and "it's" (not a fluke typo here but instead demonstrated in many of his comments), (ii) he doesn't know the technical or everyday meaning of "polysyllabic" when choosing to write about it (see above), (iii) he confuses five and six, and (iv) most tellingly he pontificates about dialect while knowing zilch about linguistics. Still, amaze me and the other readers of this talk page: pray tell us how the lack of original five-syllable words in AAVE is "a huge blow supporting [a claim that it has a] lack of sophistication". ¶ "Sophistication" is not a word that I much like, not because it has five syllables but because to me it's somehow redolent of advertising campaigns for "prestigious" perfume and suchlike commodities aimed at the socially insecure. Yet I think I know what you mean by it. I had thought that "sophistication" in vocabulary came from using the most effective words for the job, e.g. from saying "five-syllable" rather than "polysyllabic" when you mean five-syllable, and saying "presumptuous" (or "arrogant" or whatever) rather than "pretentious" when you mean the former. ¶ Alternatively, simply admit that you didn't know what you were talking about. No obsequious apology is needed, just a little note; if you present it, I promise that I for one will treat this admission with respect and will look forward to your return to this subject-area of WP after you have done some reading and have educated yourself. -- Hoary 03:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You've admitted that you can't think of a novel Ebonics word with 5 syllables and then you descend into attacking me personally, attacking minor grammar mistakes. Oh and BTW, Since you're so apt on attacking minor mistakes people make instead of addressing their arguments...The word I used here [[2]] was "pretentious" not "presumptuous". You posted "saying "presumptuous" (or "arrogant" or whatever) rather than "pretentious" when you mean the former." when that isn't true at all. It's actually the other way around, and no..I meant to use "pretentious" as I did.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A very reliable source [3] points to "idontevenmuchknow" as the longest word in Ebonics. That's six syllables. Things are looking bad for Brooklynese, I tell ya– the best I could find is "fugheddaboudit" at five syllables.--Pharos 04:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

For one, That's not even a reliable source it's a message board. For two, "idontevenmuchknow" is not a single word, it's 5 words combined. I'm only commenting in case what you said isn't a joke. Which I assume it is.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"I don't even much know" is a phrase-word that is recognized as significant in African American speech (google it, you'd be surprised). It's at least as legitimate as the better-recognized (and syllabically lacking) "forget about it", which only goes to show that white Brooklynites have a lot to learn about sophisticated speech from their black Brooklynite neighbors. Unless you can name some "novel Brooklynese word" of six of more syllables.--Pharos 04:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, how does neo-slavery sound? Hoary gave you that one just above. How about emancipation - what, not African-American enough for you? But let's filp this around a bit. You assume, wrongly, that polysyllabic words are more "sophisticated" or "complex" than monosyllabic ones - I don't buy for an instant that you meant only words of 5 or more syllables, but let's pretend. How are you with words of older English origin, words like "gorm", "fardles", "feck" and many more? Can you define them? Are they unsophisticated? and, if so, because they have only one or two syllables? Define "love" for us now. That's surely an easy word: it has merely one syllable. I have come to see you can't read a book on the subject, but you can maybe read this page. Pinkville 04:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"Neo-Slavery" is more of a 'phrase' than a single word. Also "neo" and "slavery" are both English words or at least words used in the English language which would disqualify them. "emancipation" is also a word used in the english language and isn't a 'novel ebonics word' I.E. a word created within ebonics that isn't used in english. I can name hundreds of english words with 5 sylables or more that aren't also used in old english, Why can't you do the same for ebonics? As for the definition of "love" the dictionary defines it as "a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person."Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude Man, your iggernance is showing. "Neo" is only tenuously a "word"; it's a prefix or morpheme. It combines with other words to form new words. (See the section on derivational morphology in any introductory linguistics text.) Tell you what, why don't you run off and create User:Wikidudeman/Hundreds of English words with 5 syllables or more that aren't also used in Old English. That'll keep you occupied for a little time, arguably to the benefit of various talk pages that you frequent. -- Hoary 04:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, A prefix is a word. Secondly, Still no 5 syllable novel Ebonics words?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude Man, do you agree with neo? Do you neo anything? Does anything neo you? Are your shoes neo? Can you run neo? Is your computer neo your table? Can we agree to be friends neo separate? Is that neo computer? To me, it doesn't seem to be a noun, a verb, an adjective, an adverb, a preposition, a conjunction, or (risking technicality here) a determiner. How then is it a word? Hang on! Wait! Don't answer -- please read a linguistics book instead. If it is a word (and of course there are different understandings of "word"), then it's only peripherally a word. ¶ No, still no five-syllable AAVE coinages, Dude Man. Still no reasoning for why you're interested? -- Hoary 04:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, No. You're using "neo" as verbs or adjectives etc. "Neo" is a prefix and prefixes are words. Secondly. Stop telling me not to answer your questions. If you don't want me to answer your questions then stop asking them. Seems pretty simple.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Pharos, Using a word that is actually 5 words won't work with me. Just because people who speak ebonics use those 5 words quickly and make it seem like a single word, doesn't mean it's a single word. That would be like me claiming 'thatwordisnotactuallyawordbutisfivewords' is a single word just because I jumble it all together.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW,I did google "idontevenmuchknow" and all I got was five websites, two of which come from a yahoo screen name and one from the site you posted. The other comes from some blog which won't load.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"I don't even know much much know" turns up in a few places, almost all clearly African American (including a piece of fiction in African American Review). Whether to separate the words out in writing is a choice, but many words have originated from compounded idioms. I still don't see you addressing any of the evidence for the relative primitivism of Brooklynese.--Pharos 05:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In this case, Wikidudeman, Wikipedia can easily show you to be wrong. Neo- is a prefix, a prefix is an affix, an affix is a bound morpheme, a bound morpheme is not a word. If you'd like to continue asserting that a bound morpheme is a word then you at odds with Wikipedia and every book on the subject.

Also, I don't know where you're coming from but you really gotta explain this statement: "...are both English words or at least words used in the English language which would disqualify them". There is absolutely nothing that states that AAVE does not share words with English. Where did you get that idea? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Pharos.."I don't even know much" does turn up a lot more than "idontevenmuchknow". Probably because they're two different things! "I don't even know much" is actually a combination of 5 different words used as 5 different words. "idontevenmuchknow" is a combination of 5 different words used as 1 single word. When you split it into 5 words you get over 600 results. That's because that's the correct way to use it (even if the sentence itself isn't perfect English) but combining them into 1 word as isn't the correct way to do it and that only renders 5 results on google. Moreover, I'm not concerned with "brooklynese" right now. I'm discussing ebonics. Stop trying to change the subject.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, I mistyped: it's "I don't even much know" of course. You will see almost all references are clearly African American. I am staying very much on topic with Ebonics, but one can only discuss such levels of sophistication in relation to other (by this method demonstrably even more primitive) dialects.--Pharos 05:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Now it's "I don't even much know"? Well I googled that too and there are only 25 results. And how did you conclude that most of those 25 are 'african americans'?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Using wikipedia as a reference for wikipedia is circular reasoning, aeusoes1. The dictionary provides a clear answer to our question of whether a "prefix" is considered a 'word'. One of the definitions provided is "a syllable or syllables put at the beginning of another word to change its meaning". It says "another word" which implies a 'prefix' is considered a word.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't circular reasoning, Dude Man; but it is dangerous reasoning, as is obvious when one considers the number of stupid contributions made by people who are utterly ignorant of what they are writing about. (Far be it from me to name any names.) You write of "the dictionary"; which dictionary might this be? -- Hoary 05:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

An example of how that's wrong would be when it states "In linguistics, a prefix is a type of affix that precedes the morphemes to which it can attach. Prefixes are bound morphemes (they cannot occur as independent words)." However the word "multi" can be used both as a prefix or an adjective. [[4]]Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude Man! Edjicate yourself! The existence of "multi" as an adjective says nothing about its status as a prefix, just as the existence of "bear" to mean "put up with" says nothing about the status of "bear" as a noun for something that will root through your garbage. Likewise, if (for example) some band decides that "Neo" would be a good name for itself, this does not alter the fact that "neo" in "neo-Hegelian" is a bound morpheme. -- Hoary 05:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You aren't paying attention. The fact that "multi" can be an adjective negates the assertion that prefixes can't be words since I doubt you're claiming adjectives aren't words...Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

And you aren't looking up words. Multi as an adjective means "multicolored." It's different in meaning than multi- the prefix. According to the American Heritage dictionary, a prefix is defined as "an affix placed before a base or another prefix." Wordnet says "an affix that is added in front of the word" and in the context of your dictionary definition (Kernerman?), it means that the prefix of one word is adding an affix to another word. So the prefix of uninterested is adding "un" to another word (interested).

- :::But anyway where are you coming from with the statement "...are both English words or at least words used in the English language which would disqualify them"? It sounds like you're saying that AAVE consists only of words that are not used in standard English and that is horribly incorrect. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. That was my point with emancipation, which is as AAVE as jazz. And on that note, Wikidudeman, go ahead and demonstrate the rudimentary, unsophisticated and uncomplex properties of the monosyllable, jazz. When you do, make sure you don't leave anything out, like you did with love (Elizabeth Barrett Browning would have been quite unimpressed with your lazy definition... though I see that you did manage to crack open a book [or maybe just an online version of one]!). Pinkville 13:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, is there something ironic in the fact that your user name is entirely associated with AAVE? Pinkville 13:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

My screen name is gibberish.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I fail to see the AAVE connection too. So tell me, Wikidudeman, why do you say that AAVE consists only of words that are not used in Standard English? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]}

It's disingenuous to claim that your username is gibberish. Entirely beside the point, but "dude", although originally probably Irish (or possibly German) and meaning dandy, was used with irony in Black American English, ultimately attaining the sense we now most commonly understand the word, i.e. "guy". "Man", of course, has its own AAVE associations, as in "the Man" and "hey, man", i.e. "brother", etc. "Wiki" we understand without complication, but "Wikidudeman" suggests (probably unintentionally) "wicked dude man"... in which case, "wicked" again alludes to the AAVE sense of the term: "cool", etc. I'd rather you answered any of the other questions on this page, though. Pinkville 01:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You would? I have what I think is a much better idea. See immediately below. -- Hoary 04:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Wiki"=Wikipedia. "Dude+Man"=redundant. Combination=gibberish.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Redistribution of content?

We seem to be enjoying a pleasant break from -- well, from what has absorbed this talk page in the last few days. In view of this, I'd like to re-raise the question Pharos raised at the start of the preceding section.

I don't fully agree with Pharos. I don't have a completely clear idea myself (although my thoughts are clear on some aspects of this). I hope that we can have an amicable and well-informed discussion and thereby reach a sensible conclusion.

Please take a look at Pharos's question and if possible the dialogue between Pharos and myself above, down to and not including the off-the-wall comment Not only is Ebonics low prestive [sic] but it's also very unsophisticated or what follows that. And then comment here. Any mind open to persuasion is welcome. Thank you. -- Hoary 04:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

While we all pretty much disagree with Wikidudeman's (who I believe means nonsensical rather than gibberish) proposal of putting Cosby in the AAVE page, some of us have expressed agreement that mention of prominant and/or scholarly commentary on AAVE usage can have a place there. I believe you (Hoary) disagree with this second notion, but would you find it more agreeable in an AAVE & Pedagogy page? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 13:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to set out what I think must be covered somewhere:

• Grammar (in the wide sense) of AAVE (syntax, morphology, phonology)
• Lexicon of AAVE
• Degree of use of AAVE, the variation within AAVE and, if AAVE is considered a basilect, a discussion of the corresponding mesolect(s), of Black Canadian English, etc etc
• Discourse features of AAVE (signifying, etc)
• History/origins of AAVE

I'll break for a comment. The part of the list that's above is too much for one article but in the short term it could all be in one article, and that article would be called African American Vernacular English. Much of what's now in this Ebonics article could go in the last item above, but I think it's better kept separate. And now let's continue:

• "Ebonics" (When the term refers to more than what AAVE refers to. For Ebonics as a near-synonym of AAVE, readers should read about AAVE, as the latter is the term that's much more widely accepted both by linguists and by such non-specialist but intelligent sources as the American Heritage dictionary.)
• AAVE in US schools. It's this that would include the Oakland resolution and the "Ebonics debates". The part of these debates that I'm sure is worth consideration is that about the extent to which AAVE should be recognized, accepted, encouraged, used, etc. in an effort to teach reading or improve other first-language English skills. These debates would have taken place among people who realized that AAVE is just as good a language as standard English.

Break for another comment. Some of the participants in the "Ebonics debates" might not have realized that AAVE is as good as any other lect, and presumably over-eager (senescent?) comedians were joined by AM radio bloviators and the more obtuse and smug newspaper columnists in laying into AAVE itself. Indeed, the introduction to Baugh's "Ebonics" book quotes one columnist at length. But if this silly notion is so widely held or was so publicized as to be worth discussing (and for the moment I'm neutral on this), then it shouldn't be discussed together with pedagogy: It's an argument (?) about the language itself, not about its use in schools; and if it's worth a brief note anywhere that note should be with the description of the language itself. ¶ I've got seven bullet points here. This does not mean I think there should be seven articles; in the short term, I think three or four would be good. ¶ What do you think. -- Hoary 14:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Three sounds like enough. I think that it shouldn't be too difficult to mention that people who view ebonics/aave as inferior have criticized it without actually quoting them. Quoting what they said would likely go too far into seeming like an endorsement of that POV and (what you and I know to be) connected truthy "facts."

I wouldn't be too quick to segregate people who view aave as equal and people who view it as substandard. Raymond Govero, for instance, shows here that although he may view it as inferior, his arguments against acknowledging it/incorporating it in education are more about the social ramifications rather than the intrinsic deficiencies he views it to have. I could be misreading it, but if I am then I could say that hypothetically if that's what he said that his arguments still have validity (don't throw the baby out with the bathwater). I'd also like to point out that Cosby criticized exclusive AAVE usage and can possibly fit (again, sans quote) into arguments about or discussion of bidialectalism. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Though not a linguist, I would like to point out that there are MANY who consider the use of the word "ebonics" tantamount to saying you are a racist - i.e. a pure linguistic approach to the definition is not enough - connotation is just as powerful as denotation (and I would argue at times far greater). Ergo I would push that prior to a discussion of AAVE there really needs to be a discussion of why some/many/all linguists prefer to use AAVE. And, indeed if AAVE is what ALL linguists prefer to use, then keep Ebonics as a small entry explaining why it is not used, etc. with a link to African American Vernacular English. Personally, I see this simplifying the goal of providing a definition, correcting the reader that this is NOT what is used by linguists, and explaining where the "correct" info can be found. Lloydsargent 18:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I only hazily understand your gripe with the article(s), Lloydsargent. Do you mean that there are many people who consider that a speaker's use of the term "Ebonics" for "AAVE" tantamount to an admission that the speaker is a racist? If so, I don't know if it's true, but if it is I'm not particularly surprised. (Americans seem depressingly eager to diagnose racism, sexism, etc. etc. in linguistic shibboleths -- perhaps more eager than to diagnose it in these words are used -- but I digress.) [P]rior to a discussion of AAVE there really needs to be a discussion of why some/many/all linguists prefer to use AAVE. "AAVE" is by no means the choice of all linguists, but virtually all linguists prefer to use either "AAVE" or a very similar term ("African American English", etc.) to "Ebonics". And why is this? I thought that this would be pretty obvious from this very article ("Ebonics"): The term "Ebonics" comes with intellectual baggage that most linguists find irrelevant to their purposes, wrongheaded, or even embarrassing. As for the pointer to "AAVE", this too is pretty conspicuous in the "Ebonics" article as it stands (starting at the very top, in italics), isn't it? -- Hoary 00:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Destructive revisions"

Attn Hoary Please stop the destructive revisions without constructivew comment. I am attempting to improve flaws int eh article, adn no matter what I edit, you revert with no helpful comment. Please explain. 24.149.23.119 13:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, your "improvement" is spelled about as badly as your comment here. Secondly, it doesn't seem to be an improvement.

How do you judge "flaws in the article", Mr/Ms IP? How knowledgable are you -- What linguistics books have you read? -- Hoary 14:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)