This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'm not a linguist, so I'm not certain where this should be placed -- in a separate section called "Pronunciation"? In AAVE, there is no "th" sound -- which is also a carryover from various West African languages. Instead, the "th" is replaced by a "d": e.g., "duh" instead of "the"; a "v" sound, "muvvah" instead of "mother"; or, an "f," as in "birfday," instead of "birthday."

Some mention also may be made of the substitution of "er" at the end of words with an "uh" sound -- which, as far as I know, is simply a shared characteristic of AAVE with rural, southern speech -- e.g., "yonduh," instead of "yonder," or "bruvva" instad of "brother." deeceevoice 21:17, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I certainly agree a section on pronunciation is warranted. However, I believe the assertion that these differences are a carryover from West African languages is disputed. Cockney English, fore example, exhibits many of the same sound changes and has no relation to effects from foreign languages. Nohat 21:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To attribute these speech and language patterns is definititely right on target. Any linguist worth his or her salt would certainly do so -- and such has been done repeatedly in several scholarly examinations of this subject. Why is it that lay white folks (certainly, in my experience, white Americans) are so blind to, or obtuse in conceding, our African roots? I've actually had someone go behind me and attempt to edit out references to Africa in sections on jazz, and have had to make a point to insert such references to Africa in other Wikipedia articles treating various aspects of African-American culture. The African influence should be obvious. This article itself makes reference to the commonalities among AAVE and pidgin English and patois in different parts of the U.S. and throughout the Caribbean. What is the common, unifying ingredient? West African origins. It should be a no-brainer. Where white southerners got their accents and speech patterns is something else again. deeceevoice 07:05, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think this adequately addresses the issue that nearly all of the phonological differences of AAVE from SAE also occur in other, completely unrelated dialects. I'm not going to argue that there is nothing "African" about AAVE, but it seems facile to ascribe a feature like final consonant cluster simplification to the African roots of AAVE, when plenty of other dialects exhibit the same phenomenon. I don't think there is anything uniquely "West African" about cluster reduction and saying that there is would be disingenuous. The same holds for the /ð/>/d/ merger. Nohat 00:55, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not anywhere near an expert on AAVE, having only discussed it briefly in a couple of linguistics classes. However, IIRC, there are a few major features commonly associated with AAVE pronunciation. A non-exhaustive listing, not all found in all AAVE variants:

• The change of θ to t/f and δ to d/v.
• Monopthongization of vowels: /a:/ instead of /aj/.
• Deletion of non-prevocalic /r/: [δe:] or [de:] instead of [δer]/ ("there"); [ka:t] instead of [kart] ("cart"), but /rid/ (reed) is the same in both AAVE and SAE.

There are probably others I'm either forgetting or completey ignorant of. All of these exist in other dialects of English, but the consensus among linguists seems to be that the strongest originating influence for these features is West African languages.

pgdudda 01:27, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

amen 70.112.34.179 11:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

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)

Note to self: investigate this site to see if it's useful for this. pgdudda 19:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

the section on be done says

Be done is used as a tense marker to indicate the conditional perfect, a future in the hypothetical past. Example: Soon, he be done fixing the leak (="Soon, he will have fixed the leak")

It seems to me that, rather than being a "future in the hypothetical past", what is really meant is a "past in a predicted/expected future" - however, living in england, I have very little experience of AAVE and so, as far as I know, the example could be wrong instead.

Gingekerr 20:31, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also I think the proper name for this sort of tense is "future anterior." — Casey J. Morris June 30, 2005 03:26 (UTC)

I think you're right. Tuf-Kat 23:44, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

---

Yes, the article is correct that the verb "to be" -- as in some West African languages -- is used to indicate something habitual. "He be's [or "be"] there most Tuesdays."

But in this particular instance, Gingekerr, the verb form is simply a swallowed, contracted "will," which through time customarily simply has been left off completely, and is more along the lines of the kind of thing that happens in a lot of southern speech with the ends of words. "I'll be done fixin' this in a minute," becomes, "I be done fixin' this in a minute." The dropping or swallowing of the contracted "will" -- "'ll" -- is facilitated by the typically southern pronunciation of "I." A reminder that the phrase is not, phonetically, "I'll be"/"I be," but "Ah 'll be"/"Ah be." When examined in this light, the ease of simply swallowing/dropping the verb (which is implied) becomes more obvious. This phenomenon is not a distinct grammatical structure, but a pronunciational phenomenon -- no different from a white southerner saying, "Well, ah be damned!" deeceevoice 06:54, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Further, I think it's important to trace many of these language and speech patterns to their common source, West Africa. deeceevoice 06:56, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removed the business about "future in the hypothetical past" in light of my earlier comments, because this apparent truth is actually pronunciation-based, rather than a different structure grammatically. deeceevoice

Shouldn't there perhaps be some mention of the full phrasing "BÍN DONE" here, as in "I BÍN DONE went to the market" and "he BÍN DONE cut the grass"? As an AAVE/SAE speaker of the east coast (codeswitcher) it seems to me that its inclusion would be necessary, no? Or is this simply a phrasing peculiar to the Jersey/PA area? [Dione C.]

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)

Oops. Dunno how that happened. Will hunt up the link when I have more time. deeceevoice 22:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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)

Ebonics does not have African origins. This is a case of convergent evolution. The African connection could be made though, if the language was carried by 2 African Swallows flying at the same air speed velocities....

Odd that someone obviously ignorant on a sujbect in some position of "authority" on Wikipedia would challenge an obviously widely held opinion/common knowledge, calling it NPOV, remove it TWICE -- and then tell the person writing from a knowledge base that they have to prove the obvious. But here ya go. Just a minute or two on the Internet yielded this:

"...West African languages often lack th sounds and final consonant clusters (e.g. past), and that replacing or simplifying these occurs both in US Ebonics and in West African English varieties spoken in Nigeria and Ghana. Moreover, they argue that the distinction made between completed actions ("He done walked") and habitual actions ("We be walkin") in the Ebonics tense-aspect system reflects their prevalence in West African language systems and that this applies to other aspects of Ebonics sentence structure."

"... similarities between Ebonics and Caribbean Creole English varieties, for instance, the fact that both frequently drop is and are , and that both permit dropping word initial d, b, and g in tense-aspect markers (Caribbean examples include habitual/progressive (d)a, past tense (b)en, and future (g)on). These traits suggest that some varieties of American Ebonics might have undergone the kinds of simplification and mixture associated with Creole formation in the Caribbean and elsewhere. They might also suggest that American Ebonics was shaped by the high proportions of Creole-speaking slaves that were imported from the Caribbean in the earliest settlement periods of the thirteen original colonies."

Here's just a partial bibliography of the many, many, MANY scholarly works on the subject. These specifically discuss (in the affirmative) the AFRICAN origins of AAVE:

http://members.tripod.com/ALWT/socio3.html.

Curious how folks will automatically agree that certain language characteristics of Americans who are the progeny of Eastern European Jews -- hooking g's, reversal of verb and subject sequence, questions asked in the form of statements but with an inquisitive inflection -- are Yiddish in origin. No one would question that the cadence and certain characteristics of Italian-Amercan speech are obviously from Italy/Italian -- and on an on. But when it comes to diasporic Africans, all of a sudden, our speech and language patterns are somehow created, out of whole cloth, in the New World. This is really galling. Not only does this NOT make any sense, it reminds me of the old lies and racist assumptions about blacks not having any culture before they came in contact with Europeans. How is it that virtually every OTHER ethnic group in America has speech and language patterns traceable to their homelands BUT black folks? White rejection of and contempt for AAVE is so tied up with white rejection of and contempt for black people that many of them are unable or unwilling to see the truth about either -- in defiance of all logic and proof to the contrary. Someone in the article wrote that slavemasters considered AAVE a mark of inferior intelligence -- like that's not STILL widely the case in this nation today? Such denial and intellectual dishonesty are enough to turn one's stomach. The passage related to African origins is reverted back to the original language. The validity of AAVE as a dialect with clearly West African origins had been established for DECADES -- long before the "Eubonics" debate which began in California became a political football and an opportunity for every reactionary, racist, neocon radio pundit and hack columnist to weigh in on the matter with their usual ill-informed, but highly opinionated, rhetoric to the contrary. deeceevoice 15:02, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Look, I think you're being just a little inflammatory about this. There's no argument that there are African influences on AAVE. However, as you yourself say, there is substantial evidence of creolisation too, and creoles include simplification of phonology as well as grammar. In terms of grammar, Hawaiian Creole, Bislama and Tok Pisin all show the "be"-habitual you refer to,and this sort of construct is almost universal amongst creoles. Too, very few languages have the th sounds, and it wouldn't surprise me if they were dropped first. All we're saying is that some features of AAVE cannot be traced back to African roots, and some of those African roots are indirect, coming through the Caribbean creoles (which also owe a certain amount to the native languages of the region, which you haven't even mentioned yet). To take one of your examples, New York Italians have a distinct way of speaking that only has a small amount to do with direct Italian influence. And the interrogative inflection you refer to in New York Jewish speech is also not limited to that area; it happens a lot in Australia too. On your comments below this one, gesturing and relative distance between people during conversation are also typical of Hispanic and Italian communities - and in no way are they limited to just those three. I just think you're reading far too much into the comments of the others who have commented previously. Not every white person is a black-hating bigot. thefamouseccles 01:02, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And here's one more link about the winner of the Before Columbus Foundation's 2000 American Book Award: http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Linguistics/JohnBook.html#go deeceevoice 15:15, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Further, beyond the spoken word, there are obvious ties between the "spoken soul" of diasporic Africans and Africans on the continent -- the way sisters suck their teeth when they're ticked off, "reading [people] out loud," gesturing, the relative distance between people enaged in conversation -- that haven't BEGUN to be touched on in this conversation. deeceevoice 15:15, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(See also my comment above). I have no intention of debating that there are African influences on AAVE. I only take issue with the assertion that the phonological characteristics of AAVE are African in origin. Nohat 00:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can't imagine you've done any serious reading on the subject to come to such a conclusion. And when it comes to professionals in the field who study linguistics, after almost 40 years of research on the subject, I'd say you're in the distinct minority. French, for instance, doesn't have a "th" sound, either. And, no, that does not mean all people who share that characteristic in their spoken language do so because of an association with France or French-speaking people. But when those same clusters of people -- from indigenous Africans to New World Africans -- from the same points of origin, with shared and distinct grammatical patterns and shared source words from the same ethnic groups and who also, (in the case of African Americans) by virtue of historical and social circumstances (slavery, segregation and separation), have maintained distinct cultural characteristics and affectations which are markedly distinct from the majority culture, there's pretty damned good evidence that the shared linguistic characteristics (grammar AND pronunciation) come from a common source. And that common source is WEST AFRICA. deeceevoice 07:59, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I note with interest that you exclude the portion of the the source you cite that makes it quite plain that there is no agreement among linguists about the origins of AAVE. The quotation is from the Linguistic Society of America FAQ [1].

"Where did Ebonics come from?

"On this point, linguists are quite divided. Some emphasize its English origins, pointing to the fact that most of the vocabulary of Ebonics is from English and that much of its pronunciation (e.g. pronouncing final th as f) and grammar (e.g. double negatives, "I don't want none") could have come from the nonstandard dialects of English indentured servants and other workers with whom African slaves interacted.

"Others emphasize Ebonics' African origins, noting that West African languages often lack th sounds and final consonant clusters (e.g. past), and that replacing or simplifying these occurs both in US Ebonics and in West African English varieties spoken in Nigeria and Ghana. Moreover, they argue that the distinction made between completed actions ("He done walked") and habitual actions ("We be walkin") in the Ebonics tense-aspect system reflects their prevalence in West African language systems and that this applies to other aspects of Ebonics sentence structure."

Indeed the page goes out of its way to demonstrate that there are two competing theories. Why then do you insist on representing only one of the two theories here on Wikipedia? The whole point of NPOV is that where there is disagreement, we don't take a side, but we represent both sides of the issue and not make assertions.

You are correct in the assumtion that I haven't done extensive reading on the topic; however, I have done some reading on the topic, and not just in the "lay press": I have read scholarly articles that were directly about AAVE as well as articles that touched on it in some other linguistic context. I did, however, read enough to know that the topic is not an area of universal agreement or even widespread agreement, particularly with regards to theories about the origins of linguistics features of AAVE, as the quotation above from the Linguistic Society of America makes clear. Personally, I find the argument about most of the syntactic features having origin in West African languages to be convincing—they are unique enough to AAVE that one can convincingly (to me) make claims about the origins being rooted in the distinctive origins of the dialects' speakers, namely west Africans. However, based on my knowledge about how phonological change works, I find similar assertions about the phonology of AAVE to less persuasive. No one knows exactly why sound changes occur—they occur spontaneously and unpredictably. Sound changes occur in every dialect, and I don't see any reason to believe that the sound changes that occurred in AAVE are any different from the sound changes of any other dialect, particularly given the fact that the AAVE-distinct phonological changes aren't in any way unique to AAVE. Final cluster reduction occurs in many dialects of English. Why is it that final cluster reduction in AAVE is necessarily of African origin, when the cluster reduction in the other dialects occurred spontaneously? /θ/ and /ð/ have merged to /f/ and /v/ in Cockney English, not as a result of the influence of any particular language, but simply spontaneously. Why is it that the /ð/ > /d/ merger in AAVE is necessarily of African origin, when a similar change occurred spontaneously in a different dialect? What is the specific evidence that these changes occurred as a result of the African origins of AAVE and not spontaneously, as sound changes have occurred in every other dialect? The fact that completely convicing and satisfactory answers to these questions have not been presented is the crux of the dispute. Certainly AAVE arose under the conditions you describe, but I have yet to see evidence that there is some common set of phonological features of West African languages that clearly explain the phonology of AAVE in any convincing way.

But my personal take on the matter is mostly beside the point. The fact is that linguists do not agree upon the origins of AAVE and this fact should be represented in the article. We violate NPOV if we assert that all these features have African origins when in fact there are plenty of people with perfectly valid reasons to not believe that. That is why I changed the assertion to an assertion about a claim. That is the essence of NPOV. Nohat 09:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My understanding of "NPOV" is "new point of view," meaning it is unique to the writer. The information I presented clearly is not some quirky, half-baked notion that I came up with and is most certainly not "new." But you are correct that there is debate on the pronuciational aspects of the origin of AAVE. I have reworded my earlier contribution to reflect the pronunciational commonalities between West African languages and AAVE and have stated nothing conclusory regarding pronunciational origins. For now, it is enough to reinstate the important info on the West African grammatical origins of AAVE. :-p deeceevoice 10:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View Nohat 17:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the direction/clarification. deeceevoice 20:07, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No problem at all. Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope we are in agreement now at least about the approach we should take. (Also I hope I have made it apparent that my edits were not motivated by racism.) :-) Nohat 21:07, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the racism crap and assume you're trying to be funny. deeceevoice 01:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It seemed to me when you said "it reminds me of the old lies and racist assumptions about blacks not having any culture before they came in contact with Europeans" that you were obliquely accusing me of racism. What I meant by the comment above is that I hope that in my more elaborated explanation of the reasoning behind my edits that I made it clear the only motivation behind them was NPOV and my own understanding about linguistic processes, and not a desire to cast AAVE in a negative light. In fact, I think AAVE should be considered just as valid and esteemable a form of English as any other dialect, like Australian, or New England, or South African. My intent was not humor; it was merely an attempt to make a friendly conciliation. However, by your condescending and vaguely threatening tone I can only surmise you have already made your judgments. Nohat 05:32, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wrong again. If/when I think you're being racist, I'll let you know. And since when did "giving someone the benefit of the doubt" become a threat? Get a grip. Understand that your assumption that I (or any black person, for that matter) am so hypersensitive in matters of race that I am incapable of distinguishing what is and what is not racism is in itself an insult. Quite the contrary. If, in your opinion, you're not being racist, then fine an' dandy. There's no need to tell me when you stopped beating your wife. (Damn.) We're cool. deeceevoice 11:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I feel like this conversation is essentially over--there are no more important issues at hand, but I wanted to point out that there is a big difference between "giving someone the benefit of the doubt" and "telling someone you're giving them the benefit of the doubt". Nohat 19:56, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh. Like not being racist and actually saying you're not being racist? LOL *slappin' sides* :-D deeceevoice 00:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A Section on Slang

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)

What's you're source for those words? "Cool" in particular seems like it might have nothing at all to do with africa.

I agree with the poster above. Those slang words don't have anything to do with Africa. A lot of them come from Boehemian sources.

A Section on Africanisms from AAVE in mainstream usage, a section on AAVE vocabulary

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)

I highly disagree that there are any African connections, especially from West Africa. West Africans would take offense to these links acctually. Ebonics is a product of the Southern American states mainly.

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)

Is this emphasis or just ordinary 'negation agreement'? -- Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 20:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"I ain't got no money" is a case of simple double negation. "Ain't nobody leavin' this house 'til I say so!" is a case of double negation used for emphasis. In instances where the double negative is included in an emphatic sentence, the verb precedes the subject. So, to my way of thinking, the operational element of the sentence w/regard to emphasis is not the double negative (which is common, regardless of the tone of the sentence), but the repositioning of the subject and verb. deeceevoice 17:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"While it is true that AAVE eschews much of the inflectional morphology of SAE, that in and of itself is insufficient to demonstrate inferiority, as Modern English has a drastically simplified morphology compared with Old English."

"... insufficient to demonstrate inferiority to what?" SAE? "And by what/whose measure?" There's no context for this observation, so this statement of what evidence does not exist to indicate what AAVE is not sheds no real light on the subject. Negatives -- just confounding. Is this some outmoded, ethnocentric linguistic jargon? What? Explain -- or out it goes. deeceevoice 08:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Apparently, the answer to the "use of mulitple negation for emphasis" question in the preceding section is "no". I must've been remembering an old textbook chapter incorrectly. *shrug*

I can't speak for the author of the quote above, but I'm going to guess that the author meant that "some speakers of SAE percieve AAVE to be an inferior language because of its grammatical differences". (I.e., some people take AAVE to be proof of its speakers' racial inferiority. Never mind that the differences are dialectal and as systematic as any language change.) It all comes back to the old assumption that "if they don't speak my language/dialect, they must be stupid". Dates back to before the Greeks, who coined the term " barbarian".

Certainly, upon re-reading, the quote is unclear as it stands, and either needs to be re-written or deleted. IMHO, anyway. pgdudda 19:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, since writing this I did some checking on the Internet for the use of "inferior(ity)" in connection with linguistics -- and it's the usual ethnocentric/racist bull that apparently long has been a part of linguistic studies. The person who wrote it did not preface the comment with any kind of explanatory text to make it useful, and I've already mentioned about race bias w/regard to AAVE earlier. I think I'm just going to go ahead and delete it. Looks like we're of one accord on this one, Pgd. deeceevoice 20:11, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

However, might it be beneficial to be really clear on the concept that AAVE is, from a pure linguistic point of view, just as valid a language/dialect as SAE? And somehow touch on the notion that the association of AAVE with racial inferiority is incorrect; it's like assuming that someone who speaks with a Spanish accent is an idiot just because English (meaning SAE here) isn't their first language... Or perhaps an entire section on the sociolinguistics of AAVE - as an in-group identifier (cultural membership), as an out-group excluder (not readily understood beyond a basic level by those outside the culture), and how it is perceived by various social groups/strata (rich vs. poor; SAE speakers; various ethnic groups)? Just spouting out ideas, since I'm hardly qualified to write any such section. (Besides, I don't want to get stomped on again by dcv. :P ) pgdudda 05:26, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've borrowed some of my verbiage on the history of AAVE from African American culture; changed the "History" subhead somewhat; and edited ( augmented and reordered) other information to make the points about the integrity of AAVE as a dialect (actually, much of the article as a whole, in its examination of the unique features of AAVE, does that) and about racist attitudes. I think that's sufficient. I took the reference to "controversy" out of the lead paragraph; because the strongest, clearest definition of something is achieved by stating positives (what something is, rather than what it isn't). The lead paragraph shouldn't be reactionary, but assertive. (Besides, the issue was addressed later, anyway). Besides, I'm really weary of the constant need to repeatedly state, "We are not ... (add any negative adjective that comes to mind!" when writing about such matters. Although rampant racism sort of necessitates such an approach, that such issues be addressed head on in some form or fashion, I refuse to dignify such bullshyt presumptions first thing.

Oh, and Pgd, keep in mind you didn't "stomped on" for honestly trying to address a subject. You were "stomped on" for a completely useless and extraneous rant about black youth, immigrants and education in an article on African Americans. Leave it be. deeceevoice 12:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

hehe -- yeah, but getting stomped is still getting stomped. Even if I deserved it.  :-) pgdudda 15:26, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Some of the distinctive modern aspects of AAVE didn't develop until later in the evolution of the pidgin, giving evidence to the contrary of their "African roots". For instance, the habitual be was not seen recorded until 1800. The precise meaning appears to have emerged at the same time as the grammatical construction; there is little evidence of the use of be in a non-habitual aspect.

The lack of any (white) record of the grammatical form does not mean it did not exist prior to 1800. Every appraisal I've read on the subject traces this characteristic to Africa, where it is in evidence still today in several languages. To my knowledge, a similar use of "be" to indicate some habitual or constant act or state appears in no other known U.S. dialect. deeceevoice 03:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Newfoundland English and Hawai'ian pidgin both exhibit habitual 'be.' Neither was influenced by West African languages. Please do not make broad linguistic claims until you have researched them. It detracts from your argument in unnecessary ways. Selective reading of linguistic papers on the matter does not service the debate--as noted above, it's been illustrated in a source you cited yourself that the issue is far from settled in the linguistics community, despite your repeated assertions that this is all obvious and a given. There is evidence for varying degrees of West African influence and I suspect that the grammatical feature is in fact more attributal to West African origins than to the influence of SAE English, but no firm statement on the matter can yet be made without further evidence.

Additionally, I deleted the garbage about the bullshyt theories based on physical differences and racism. I found it offensively worded and incalculably wearisome. IMO, it is completely unnecessary to refute every, single, idiotic, racist notion ever propounded about black folks -- in essence, having to state, "No. Black people are not inherently inferior; are not dirty, smelly, stupid or depraved." The facts about AAVE have been established by the article, and that is sufficient.

Also deleted a long, pretentiously dense section that essentially repeated a lot of what already had been noted. The problem is the contributor is using Wikipedia as a blank slate for a school project -- something for which it is not particularly well suited for. Wikipedia is meant to be accessible and informative -- not ponderous. deeceevoice 03:35, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, my school project. Keep in mind that the agreement with my professor was to finish the Wikipedia articles, understanding that it is an encyclopedia. I'm not simply using it as a word processor for a traditional essay. I'm familiar with the values of Wikipedia and I respect them, and that includes my work on this page.

While I appreciate your liberal attitude toward refactoring and condensing articles, I'm not sure deleting an entire section, backed up by a well-researched essay by Rickford (1999), was warranted. The section was about diffusion of the dialect, and the various causes for differences between the language of whites and blacks in similar contexts. Your comments are correct about the first paragraph; that was meant to reduce the problem to more serious evidence, to put prejudice aside. Deleting that on the grounds that it is redundant is understandable. Regarding the rest, it's hard to communicate the breadth of this study without linking it to the specific case as Rickford did, but I'm pretty sure your "improvement" doesn't help communicate it.

I'm arguing that what I stated didn't "essentially repeat[] a lot of what already had been noted", and that it actually introduced a real issue. If you disagree, please back it up. A reminder: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Luqui 03:59, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Quill, an apology. I deleted your earlier wording about "tertiary" this and that, promising a relevant entry here -- and then didn't deliver. I see you restored it. I got sidetracked by other changes and didn't realize my oversight. Your wording bothered me because the article already stated that some AA's do and some don't speak AAVE. Your comment, which sought to refine that point, spoke specificially to a generational distinction w/regard to higher education. I felt it was too specific and, as a result, possibly misleading. I think my change/additional clarification is more accurate. Perhaps you'll find it satisfactory. deeceevoice 13:56, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not convinced that the sentence that begins 'Most African Americans, regardless of....' is true, but I'll leave it at this. Quill 21:45, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wrote it that way, because even the most learned/highly educated, affluent of African Americans I've known, who grew up speaking only SAE (as I did) use AAVE outside the boardroom -- even if intragroup and solely for emphasis. To be AA and not use it at all, you'd have to really have a stick up your butt/be seriously up-tight. (Of course, my experience.) deeceevoice 21:30, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I know one African American girl who grew up in a household where use of AAVE was forbidden, and as a result she was completely incompetent in its use. As a result, she feels very uncomfortable around other African Americans, who expect her to use AAVE, and because she can't, she goes out of her way to avoid their company. I don't know how common this situation is, but since you yourself are African American, it seems likely that your perception of the number of people who are in this situation may be skewed, of course, because they would be avoiding your company under the assumption that you would expect them to talk to you using AAVE. My data point is singular, so I don't think any general conclusions can be made from it, but I think my friend makes for an interesting case, no? Nohat 19:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I had an African American friend in college who claimed exactly the same experience. She said her complete inability even to "code-switch" between SAE and AAVE marked her as "whitewashed" to some other African Americans, and this made her feel uncomfortable in their presence. Hence she just avoided their company. Babajobu 10:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's funny. That's sad. Poor dears -- seriously. I hope when they have kids, they take the opportunity to screw up their children the way their parents have traumatized them. :-p (If some parents put as much emphasis on self-knowledge as speaking SAE, then perhaps their children wouldn't be so insecure about who they are. The same folks probably still carry their watermelons home from the supermarket in brown paper bags -- or are so terrified of being caught with one, they never, ever eat them. Bananas, too. And they'd rather die than wear bright red. lol

I grew up speaking SAE, but my playmates through third grade did not, so I picked up certain elements of AAVE -- but still didn't speak it (as a matter of habit). It wasn't forbidden in my household (though my parents -- especially Mom -- probably would have had a fit had I done so.) But I wasn't razzed by my peers about speaking SAE. (But those were different times; it was back in the Dark Ages.) Spent the rest of my youth in the burbs, in a rather affluent, white school system. It wasn't until I went away to an HBCU that I really started using "Black English," and when I came home, my mother (a public school teacher/administrator) was mortified: "I didn't teach you to talk like that!" Yeah, that sort of thing is fairly common in a lot of black households where one or both parents have a college education.

But even so, I'll bet your friends speak AAVE in some form, even if it is extremely limited. Many people mistake current slang for AAVE, and kids are teased for not bein' hip enough. But every black person I know who comes to mind -- including college professors, high-powered attorneys, educators and CEO's -- everyone in a "down" moment will lapse into an AAVE form, in disgust, in jest, for emphasis, as a put-on -- you name it. (Yep, even my proper-talkin' Mom.) It may not be pervasive throughout their vocabulary; it may occcur only rarely -- but every black person I know code switches: a double negative here, an "ain't" there, a "d" used in place of "th" there (Joking: "Now, you know you ain't right!" or, "That's a ba-aad jacket!" or, "I'mma te-ell!") Sometimes it's simply more about mannerisms and gestures, inflection and cadence (things not really examined in the article and difficult, at least for me, to write about) than specific syntax; maybe a black vocabulary word here or there. But the vast majority of black folks do AAVE sometime. And that's all the text says. deeceevoice 20:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's probably true. "Pure" AAVE (with all the grammatical features), from my observation, is mostly only used in lower-class black areas. Elsewhere, it's more of a mix of SAE and AAVE. This stuff must give linguistic folks headaches.

Can't agree. That is not all the text says, and even if it were, I'm still not convinced it's corect. Regardless of their colour, people who use the occasional 'ain't' or say that something is 'baaad' or that they're 'down' with something aren't necessarily speaking AAVE--or, they're speaking AAVE in the same way that the majority culture does--a few words or expressions, sometimes. But that's because that is in the nature of English, particularly American English. If an educated Jew who speaks standard English says 'So, how's by you?' for effect, does that mean they speak Yiddish English? What if an AA New Yorker says the same thing, for the same reason? Does s/he suddenly speak Yiddish English as well? Quill 23:36, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not only a matter of degree here, but whether such things are contrivances/affectations or a natural part of one's culture. AAVE is an enduring part of the culture that, having survived for centuries, survives still as an intrinsic part of African-American cultural expression. The majority of African-Americans currently living outside the Deep South are likely only two generations removed from that place. "Cut eye, suck teeth," "reading people out loud," that neck action (:-p), cadence, inflection, gesticulation, that booming aspiration; and then beyond speech, cornrows, polyrhythmic expression, religious expression (including shouts, call and response, full-immersion baptism and river imagery, spiritualism/metaphysics), "anarchy"/familiarity in formal interpersonal contexts, extended families, communalism, blue notes, the cool aesthetic in art and dress and music and dance and on and on and on -- all those things survive from our African past. A few scant generations of higher education and going to school with white folks hasn't stripped us of AAVE. And to the unnamed contributor, I don't know anyone whose speech incorporates all the elements of AAVE mentioned in the article. It's summa this, summa that. deeceevoice 00:01, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's a completely different set of arguments. This article is about a dialect. I still maintain that a word or an expression here and there does not mean that people can speak a language. Quill 21:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's where you and I differ. I see the cultural affectations of black folks as part of a whole. And as I said before, for me it's not a matter of how much people speak it, but whether they do or not as an integral part of their culture. It is not the same as me or a white Christian using the word "kvetch" or "yenta" from time to time in speech. It's all about whether words, expressions, gestures, cadence, etc., are something intrinsic to their cultural heritage and things that are part of the way they express themselves effortlessly, almost instinctually. And in that sense, yes, in my experience most African-Americans by far, regardless of their socioeconomic status, speak AAVE. deeceevoice 01:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that AAVE is as tied to African-American (hereafter AA) culture as you say it is. If that's the case, is it even possible (by your definition) for someone who isn't AA to speak AAVE, assuming they wanted to? Your argument seems to say that if I (who am not AA) chose to speak in AAVE constructions, no matter how perfectly I used them, I wouldn't be speaking AAVE because it isn't an "integral part" of my culture, whatever that means -- I'd just be on the "kvetch-yenta" level of usage. Is that an accurate summary of your viewpoint? If not, then please disregard the next paragraph and tell me where I went wrong.

If that summary is accurate, however, I find this view ridiculous and offensive. If AAVE is a well-formed, consistent language on a par with French or Japanese -- which I think you and I both believe it is -- then why should anyone need to belong to a particular culture to speak it? If I wish to learn Japanese, I don't need to become culturally Japanese to do it, and once I achieve a certain level of proficiency, no reasonable person would deny that I'm speaking Japanese and that my cultural baggage is irrelevant. (Yes, Japanese, like AAVE and most other languages, embeds a certain amount of cultural assumption in the language, but I don't have to become part of the culture to know how to deal with that).

So why isn't the same thing true of AAVE? Certainly use of AAVE is part of AA culture, but that's not the same thing as saying that the presence of AA culture is necessary for the "real" presence of AAVE. In fact, I would argue that the presence or absence of an AA cultural context is completely irrelevant in determining who speaks AAVE. Just like French or Japanese: if I understand the rules of the language and can use them to generate and interpret correct constructions, I speak and understand the language. If not, I don't. End of story. -- Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 16:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Day-um. That's not what I said at all. I simply said that the vast majority of African-Americans speak AAVE, and they do so because it is an integral part of their culture. It's not like me borrowing a word here and there from Yiddish and inserting it into my speech. Further, again, AAVE is more than following a set of grammatical rules; it is also oftnetimes a different vocabulary -- one most folks outside the culture would not understand without explanation -- and all the other elements that go along with speech: aspiration and resonance -- particularly noticeable if you're a male -- inflection, cadance, gesticulation and other nonverbal communication, the distance one stands from another while speaking, etc. Jamie Kennedy made an admirable effort in "Malibu's Most Wanted," which is what made the film so hilarious. But if I turned my back to the screen, there still would have been no question that he was a white man trying to sound like a black one. It was still about AAVE as a second language. Such is most certainly not the case with most African Americans -- and with none with whom I am personally acquainted. So, "Don't be hatin'!" :-p deeceevoice 18:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm an American Jew. Like most American Jews, I insert occasional Yiddish words into my speech, and I can often tell the difference when non-Jews try to do the same. But that doesn't mean that non-Jews can't speak more or less perfect "JAVE", if there is such a thing; in fact, I know a few who do. Similarly, I'm sure that not all non-AA speakers of AAVE would come across as non-AA if you couldn't see the color of their skin. What I'm getting at is that just as it is possible (difficult, but possible) for a non-Frenchman to learn to speak French like a native, the same must certainly be true for AAVE.

I also take some issue with this statement:

Further, again, AAVE is more than following a set of grammatical rules; it is also oftnetimes a different vocabulary -- one most folks outside the culture would not understand without explanation -- and all the other elements that go along with speech: aspiration and resonance -- particularly noticeable if you're a male -- inflection, cadance, gesticulation and other nonverbal communication, the distance one stands from another while speaking, etc.

Let's take these assertions in turn.

• Further, again, AAVE is more than following a set of grammatical rules; it is also oftnetimes a different vocabulary -- one most folks outside the culture would not understand without explanation ---- Certainly. Any language contains unique grammatical and lexical elements. The process of language learning should cover both of these, and that's just as true for an English speaker learning a different dialect of English as it is for (say) a Chinese speaker learning Russian. Nothing unusual here.
• all the other elements that go along with speech: aspiration and resonance -- particularly noticeable if you're a male -- inflection, cadance, ---- Intonation patterns are likewise part of language and should be taught along with grammar and vocabulary if they are semantically significant. Again, true for both the SAE→AAVE and Chinese→Russian cases. Nothing unusual here either.
• gesticulation and other nonverbal communication, the distance one stands from another while speaking, etc. ---- Here we begin to leave the realm of language and enter the realm of cultural knowledge. Although it would be useful for a visitor to Russia to know about Russian customs, those customs are not part of the Russian language and properly belong to a different study. Likewise for a visitor to an AA community -- although it's important to learn the customs, properly speaking these are not part of AAVE at all; rather, they are part of AA culture, which is a different thing. Language and culture are certainly interdependent to a point, but that doesn't mean that they're the same thing.

Finally, I don't hate you or AAVE. I don't know if "Don't be hatin'" has a different meaning than what would be apparent to SAE speakers (because I don't speak AAVE!); if it does, please translate. This is not a personal attack; I'm just trying to explain why I think AAVE is no more or less culturally unique than any other language, and why extralinguistic aspects don't really belong in a linguistic discussion. -- Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 18:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me, but you've got me crackin' up here in DeeCee! :-D "Don't be hatin'" is an expression -- one used a lot by the white actor in the movie "Malibu's Most Wanted." (You had to be there, I guess....) Anyway, people generally don't "teach" AAVE. And white folks generally (because of certain physical limitations) don't have the equipment to sound like black folks when they speak -- especially men. (It's a function of resonance.) But all this is getting into stuff that really is an aside. My central point was that most black folks speak AAVE as an integral part of our culture, which is what I wanted to make clear to Quill. Under discussion was whether or not it could correctly be said that most African-Americans speak AAVE. And my point is that it most definitely could be. And the only nonblacks I've ever heard to speak AAVE and actually sound authentic (even if not necessarily "black," ethnically) were those who grew up around black folks; they grew up speaking AAVE. Cadence and inflection seem difficult for others to mimic -- though, as I said, Jamie Kennedy did a passable job -- passable enough to be funny as hell. Comedian Robin Williams, on the other hand, does a truly miserable job. Every time he tries to mimic a black person, I wanna just haul off and slap 'im. It's the worst. deeceevoice 19:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you've got to direct me to some legitimate sources here. A lot of them. Deecee, if anyone had the temerity, stupidity-- what can I say--the unmitigated gall to state in my presence that an African-American could not, e.g. recite Shakespeare, dance ballet, sing opera, comprehend higher mathematics or speak ancient Greek because black "folks generally (because of certain physical limitations) don't have the equipment to ... like [white] folks when they ... -- especially men. (It's a function of ....)" my ire would know no bounds. Unless you've got some serious scientific backup, please do not make such statements--at all--ever. We've got enough racists ready to pounce without giving them such obvious openings.

In my opinion Marnen Laibow-Koser is quite right on all counts.

Quill 22:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You completely misconstrue (twist?) my comments. What I said was that white people generally cannot/do not sound like black folks when they speak because they have certain physical limitations. This is not related to the grammar and syntax of AAVE -- nor is it related to the other, more subtle aspects of AAVE that are cultural in nature. I simply happened to mention that most black folks can quite accurately discern who is and who is not black by hearing them speak or sing -- affectations of speech aside, vocal techniques/song stylings aside -- which can be misleading. I certainly can, and the same is true of my black friends, particularly when the speaker is male. Ask any of your black friends if they can, and they'll tell you, yes, in most cases they certainly can. It's simply a matter of resonance. Ask anyone who teaches voice, anyone who knows about what makes violins sound different. What gives a violin resonance? Its structure -- the sound board and the aperture. Same thing with the human voice: the nasal cavity and sinuses. In blacks, generally, the structures are different; they are broader and wider. The result is what music coaches call "head-voice resonance." And, yes, as I've already stated by using qualifications such as "generally," there are exceptions in sound quality. Michael McDonald does a far better job mimicking black vocal styles than, say, Michael Bolton or Janice Joplin (whose voice I despise; she croaks and screams like a cat with its tail caught in a door). No one white I've ever heard has had a voice with the particular combination or quality of resonance and power of, say, Gladys Knight, or Etta James, or Big Maybelle, or Bobby Bland, or Howlin' Wolf, or -- you name 'em. And with all the singers out here mimicking/adapting/adopting black vocal stylings, from Mick Jagger to Joe Cocker to Celine Dione to Christina Aguilera (who has an impressive set of pipes and does a more than decent job with what she's got -- and, no, I'm not a fan), did you ever ask yourself why? The simple answer is head-voice resonance. Now, I hesitated when I used the word "limitations," because it is in some way value-laden and I knew could be construed to mean "less than" or "inferior to," when such is not the case -- unless one applies a subjective standard of particular personal taste. (White folks get extremely touchy when it comes to stuff like this!) But the word simply fits in this context.

But all this has gotten too far off the point. I've said what I had to say about AAVE and culture. Yes, most African-Americans can rightly be said to speak AAVE in some form. deeceevoice 06:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but the idea that blacks and whites have substantially different vocal apparatus was debunked years ago, AFAIK. I don't deny that black and white speakers, at least in America, tend to sound different. But this is not a matter of vocal apparatus. Rather, it's a question of accent -- they have simply learned to use their voices differently thanks to growing up in different subcultures, just as a white New Yorker learns to use his voice differently than a white Georgian does. No physical explanation is necessary (or possible, I think). -- Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 07:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) -- P.S. Quill, I'm glad to know we agree. I thought we were more or less on the same side of this issue, but I wasn't certain.

No, I don't need to 'ask my black friends' about this, Deecee, because with only one exception each of them has at some point related a story about having been mistaken for a caucasian by an AA who only heard them speak.

I'm not misconstruing your words--certainly not intentionally twisting them--I just don't agree with them. An AA who has never learned AAVE doesn't speak it, simple.

Marnen--I don't know if there's such a thing as 'JAVE', either ;) but if there is, my mother, who isn't Jewish, speaks it very well. She grew up in NY with all Jewish teachers and many Jewish schoolmates and friends. Quill 09:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You really should ask your black friends; they will surprise you. That phenomenon you're speaking of is all about some black folks making assumptions based on the speaking of SAE -- what some (ignorant) folks call "sounding white." People often assume I'm white, too, when I speak SAE. Just as some people might assume, based on musical style, that Aguilera was black. Assumptions color perceptions. All the time.

A simple example of what I'm talking about regarding head-voice resonance: I'm in a back room, and the TV is on in another. I hear a voice speaking SAE (he's got the inflection and everything down), and it sounds like a black man, so I'm drawn to the television. Yep. It's a brother. Happens all the time. Another: The TV is on, and there's this commercial for some car. The music is "Key Largo." I'm listenin', diggin' the music, but I don't recognize the voice or the song. I'm thinking it's a sister, but then I'd probably know who it is; it's too good. Is she or isn't she? Maybe a new singer? I listen carefully. There's that resonance, that depth of tone. It's gotta be a sister, I conclude. So, I start thinkin'. Only then do I come to the conclusion it's the voice of Carmen McRae. Of course, in retrospect, that music is classic Carmen -- I just didn't think/realize it at the time. Another example: I live a few floors above the street, but sound bounces off the apartment buildings on the block and deflect it upward -- the canyon effect. I hear voices below all the time. I can always tell if it's a black man or a white man, based simply on the quality of the tone. If you've heard Nigerians speak, there is a free, audible aspiration with vowel sounds that clears the throat and the nostrils, that is actually forceful, almost explosive. That is the quality I hear in the African-American voice, particularly in males, during spirited conversational exchanges. It's that same head-voice resonance again. Virtually every African-American knows precisely what I'm talking about. (The more I engage in exchanges with white folks on Wikipedia, the more I am reminded of why so many black people just don't bother. Everything is an effort, everything requires some explanation.) And that's not meant to be a complaint or a putdown. No wonder American society is so polarized; the gap of understanding (and misunderstanding) is so wide, communication about even simple things comes on like work. deeceevoice 10:55, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please don't think that us whitefolx don't know what you're talking about on the vocal quality issue -- I know exactly what you're talking about. Heard it myself many a time. I just don't agree with your explanation of the cause. There's no "gap of understanding" here, unless it be that you're apparently trying to convince yourself that others' disagreement with you is racially flavored. I can't speak for Quill or anyone else, but at least in my own case, race plays no part in what I'm writing; I'm just trying for accuracy. So stop with the "racial gulf" thing already; it really doesn't help us get any closer to the accuracy we all want. Or should I just say "don't be hatin'"? :) -- Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 16:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disagree if you want, but what I've stated is simple fact -- about head-voice resonance and the gap. deeceevoice 18:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Repeating your assertions doesn't make them any more or less true. Obviously what you've stated is not "simple fact", or no one would have questioned it in the first place. You've got a lot of interesting stuff to say, but I wish you'd back it up -- most people here will take you more seriously if you do. -- Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 06:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend my time searching the Internet for sources -- particularly for stuff that isn't germane to the article in question and that is perfectly obvious to just about every black person on the street. I have neither the time nor the patience. But that's just me. After a while, this kind of stuff gets really old really fast; it's just wearisome. I've already spent too much time discussing this. What some white folks stubbornly want to believe is what they want to believe -- that they can sound just like Otis, or Aretha, or Bobby Bland, or Etta James, or Mavis Staples if they just learn the words and how to bend the notes. Yeah, right. I don't know if it's that seemingly omnipresent sense of white entitlement, or some misplaced sense of egalitarianism or what, but I'm certainly not gonna waste any more time trying to tell them otherwise. If what I have to say is so "interesting," then they'll use their search engines, ask their "black friends," speak to a voice coach -- whatever. Fine 'n' dandy. I'm done. So, returning back to the subject at hand, yes, most African-Americans speak AAVE. deeceevoice 10:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, I'm disappointed in you. I think a lot of what you have to say is extremely valuable, but this refusal to back up what you claim is really shooting yourself in the foot. Your assertions may be "perfectly obvious to just about every black person on the street", but they're not obvious to me (or Quill, or probably a lot of other nonblack Wikipedians). It appears that you complain about not being understood by nonblacks, but then you refuse to explain yourself when asked by people who genuinely want to understand what you're saying. That's not fair, either to yourself or to anyone else.

If what I have to say is so "interesting," then they'll use their search engines, ask their "black friends," speak to a voice coach -- whatever.

Sorry, but it doesn't quite work that way. You made the claim; it's your responsibility to back it up. Right now, it looks as if you can't be bothered to take responsibility for what you've said (I hope that's not so, but that's certainly how it comes across).

I'm spending more time responding to this than I normally would because I believe that you have a lot to contribute to the Wikipedia community, and I'd like to see you presenting your contributions in the best light possible. If the "gap of understanding" that you talk about truly exists, you have here a perfect chance to bridge it with additional information; I think most folks here would meet you halfway, but you've gotta build your half of the bridge. Please don't squander this opportunity. -- Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 16:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm "shoot[ing myself] in the foot"? And how's that? No, it's all about how I choose to spend my time. My ego isn't invested in any of this. What do I care if, in your ignorance, you disagree? Things are no different today from what they were yesterday, or what they will be tomorrow. I'm out. deeceevoice 03:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And yet, all you've done is state your opinion. You've invested a lot of time in stating your opinion. The problem is that your opinion differs from what others have learned. My ignorance? Marnen's ignorance? Maybe, but you haven't alleviated it.

You're right about one thing: the issue here was the sentence that begins "Most African Americans, regardless of socioeconomic...." I maintain that that sentence is misleading.  : Quill 21:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• chuckling* Like I care what it sounds like to you. :-p The statement isn't misleading at all. The article already states that many African-Americans speak a combination of SAE and AAVE and that code switching is prevalent. Further, not having seen a poll of any kind on the matter, I must rely on my knowledge and personal experience as an African-American. And based upon those two things, IMO, the statement in the context in which it appears is absolutely correct. Two of you have provided examples of black folks who've confessed to you what difficulty they have in speaking AAVE. That "oh, poor me" complaining can be even more of an artifice, far more of a put-on than code switching. Now, I'm not saying such is the case with the instances described herein, but certain knee-grows like to give the impression that they're so far removed from the "great unwashed" of the black masses, that they have a problem fitting in; they're too "well-spoken," as white folks are fond of putting it. Most black folks I know who have their heads straight (not straight-ened) wouldn't dream of saying such things to someone white; it smacks not only of personal insecurity but a desire to suck up to white folks. Yeah, there are plenty of self-loathing, uppity black folks who speak SAE who make a big deal out of being teased because of their "proper grammar." They think their above-average facility with SAE somehow makes them special, and they seek white approval/validation. (This syndrome is particularly noticeable in half-white kids who enjoy being an "exotic" -- just as long as they're not perceived as being "too" black -- and are not above playing the classic tragic mulatto in order to set themselves apart.) But it's my experience that even many of these same folks' speech has readily discernible elements of AAVE if they've grown up in a black family (in this case, generally not the "tragic mulattoes"). One simply has to know what to look for. Finally, Quill, given that black folks do code switch, and given the fact that you're white, you're certainly in a far less tenable situation than I to accurately judge how many black people speak AAVE, how often and to what extent. What part of that don't you get? deeceevoice 21:34, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The part where you make many assumptions and then base arguments on them. The part where you express your opinion as fact. The part where you contradict your own arguments. The above is amusing; I 'get' you pretty well, actually. Didn't you say you were 'out'? Quill 21:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm back after a self-imposed silence (to let others speak). Props to Quill and a couple more points:

Like I care what it sounds like to you.

So you're only aiming this article at people who agree with you? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- it will be read by people who do agree with any given view, people who don't agree, and people for whom neither is true. What happened to striving for accuracy and citing your sources? What happened to NPOV?

Also, it is not necessarily the case that those of us who disagree with you are "ignorant". Making such unjustified assumptions effectively cuts off any possibility for dialogue. Anyway, if we're really ignorant, wouldn't educating us be more productive than teasing us for our ignorance?

Finally, if (as you claim) you don't have any ego invested in this debate, why are you being so defensive and unhelpful when your assertions are questioned? -- Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 22:12, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've already said I wouldn't discuss that matter any further. Accept it or don't; it really doesn't matter to me. It's not germane to this discussion. Bottom line, black folks generally don't speak AAVE around white folks. Quill, you got no clue. :-p deeceevoice 22:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If it wasn't germane, why did you bring it up in the first place? If it was germane enough to bring up in the first place, why is it not germane enough to take responsibility for? I won't speculate on your motives in doing this, but this sort of behavior does call the credibility of everything else you've said into question. Is it worth your credibility to go on playing these silly games? -- Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 03:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, Deecee, I've been called 'clueless' before; but since many more people think I'm brilliant, I can live with the fact that there are a few who don't. In this case, I happen to be quite clued in; you don't recognize that because you've made assumptions and decided that you don't have to credit any disagreement because of those assumptions. I understand your frustration, I even understand the chip on your shoulder, but that doesn't mean that I will let bigotry pass without comment. Quill 08:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You got me laughin' out loud up in here, Quill. You mistake plain-speak for having a "chip on [one's] shoulder." And "bigotry"? LMBAO!  :-D I don't give other people that kind of power over me. Life is good. :-)

Now, about that "brilliant" thing (how embarrassing). Gee, I'm sure the vast preponderance of those fortunate enough know you are simply blinded by your "brilliance" -- as are we all here on Wikipedia (bowing low); we're all duly impressed by your huge "Mars Attacks"-like brain: http://videodetective.com/search.asp?SearchForMethodId=1&searchstring=mars+attacks&search.x=6&search.y=7)

-- not to mention such a self-serving observation. (Crackin' up, still. Dang. And whose ego is showin' here?) But as a "brilliant" white man, when it comes to gauging how widely black folks speak AAVE -- when it is virtually universally acknowledged that we generally don't do so ("code switching") in the presence of white folks dumb as dirt or otherwise; you're outsiders in this regard -- I repeat: you got no clue. Now, writing "You got no clue" is different from calling you "clueless." (Far be it from me to do so! I certainly wouldn't want to be among the lowly, benighted "few" who don't recognize the awesomeness of your magnificent brain power!) The simple fact is you are in absolutely no position to have any kind of credible opinion on the matter -- unless, of course you have some sort of empirical evidence. Which you don't. Otherwise, you would have presented it. So, again, my "brilliant," white brutha, when it comes to the numbers of blacks who speak AAVE and the numbers who don't, you got no clue. It should be a simple concept for someone of your dazzling intellectual capacities. Your obtuseness is baffling. Perhaps you'd like to explain it to Wikipedians of lesser intellect. (I'd like to know, too.  :-p) So, I gotta ask again: just what part of that don't you get? Inquiring minds want to know.  :-p deeceevoice 10:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You keep saying you've had enough, Deecee, but not enough to refrain from tossing the sarcasm around. I never said I thought I was brilliant, btw, just one more thing you've misquoted me on. I'm actually going to save all this; it's going to be great in a book sometime, as an illustration of just how wrong people can be.

Fascinating that I'm now supposed to come up with 'empirical evidence', where you can simply restate opinion and assumption and call me 'obtuse' for not accepting that as fact.

Inquiring minds might want to know, but at this point your mind isn't inquiring, it's closed.

Quill 22:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aw, Quill, baby. Just havin' a little fun.  :-p (chuckling) No, you didn't say you were brilliant -- did you? Just that everyone who knows you -- except "a few" -- does. Oh, yeah, and you also mentioned that you're "quite clued in" -- whatever the hell that means. lol Maybe it's just me, but I find the sheer smugness of that really hilarious. Ah, well, humor: diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks....  :-p

Hi deecee, I see that you're having fun ridiculing other folks again, pretty much illustrating what I wrote in the black supremacy discussion page. You're living proof no kidding. You gotta stop doing this crap. If you think it's not okay for someone to call you ape-brained, why would Martian-brained be better? Or is it all just part of the fun? Ware ware 02:51, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re: Wareware's post: I have absolutely no intention of engaging this racist mental cretin who uses words like "ape," "savage," "jungle," "monkey" when referring to black folks in a discussion on AAVE. Period. deeceevoice 05:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Would you answer my question if I call you a moronic bag of shit or Martian-brained? Honestly, is that any better? Ware ware 06:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have a question. I have noticed that some whites from parts of Missisippi and Alabama speak what is for all practical purposes AAVE. Is there an explanation for this?

Quill, as promised in my e-mail, a public apology. I think the firestorm over my RfC with Wareware has died down sufficiently so that this apology will not seem self-serving.

I do sincerely regret my over-the-top response to your labeling of my comments as "bigotry" in my earlier posts. I was having a bit of fun -- but at your expense. We've disagreed frequently in the past over this and that --and we've also agreed on occasion. When our paths have crossed in disputed territory, we've usually been able to come to a rapprochement of sorts that I believe has enured to the benefit of the discussion/article at hand. That, I think, speaks well of your reasonableness and fundamental fairness -- and, I'd like to think, of mine as well.

As I also told you in my e-mail, self-examination is a good thing -- something I try to do regularly and honestly. I questioned why I had such a reaction to your rather tame, though, IMO, inaccurate and unjustified, language and such a measured, even-tempered response to the appallingly racist vitriol of Wareware. Aside from the normal objections one would have to being accused of being something they are not, I can only surmise that I was completely fed up with what I perceive to be the injustice of being wrongly accused of bigotry on a website where no one but myself had ever reproached Wareware for his flagrant racism. My disgust, however, at that situation perpetrated another injustice, and you were the hapless target.

Again, I'm sorry. Apologizing is not a problem for me. Indeed, my ego is not involved in any of this. But my sense of who I am and what I wish to become is, and that actually makes this apology a relatively easy thing. But don't misunderstand; I do take it seriously. Hopefully, we can continue to discuss, debate, cooperate, write, redact and redact again to improve this sprawling, informative, dynamic, organic, sometimes frustrating work in progress. I am (as, we all are, hopefully) a work in progress as well. And I will do and be better. I promise.  :-)

Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 12:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Accepted. I have no idea what has been going on between you and Wareware or anyone else, so I'll stick to what's been going on here. It was big of you to follow up your e-mail with a public note and I do appreciate it.

Deecee, I am well aware that the racist attitudes that are still only too prevalent in the U.S. and elsewhere are reflected in Wikipedia as well. I have felt and still feel that the only way to confront them is to remain level-headed, accurate and clear. I'm not saying I always am, I'm saying I think that's best.

Just want to make one more point: I draw a distinction between bigotry and racism. Racism is an institutionalized phenomenon and I don't think you can be accused of it. Further, I did not wish to imply that I thought you were motivated by bigotry, rather that I found the statement bigoted.

Let's put this one behind us and press on, shall we?

Quill 23:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quill, four points. Yes, I understand perfectly the difference between racism and bigotry. And, no. There's no need or desire on my part to discuss Wareware's pathology here. Three: your appraisal of my comments as "bigoted" stem from your misunderstanding, which I may in the future be able to dispel -- maybe not. And, finally, I'm pleased you've accepted my apology. :-) And, yes. Let's do this thing. (Guess that's five.) Peace. deeceevoice 03:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• " 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)

Also, there is a very specific vocabulary to AAVE. We do not just stick to the SAE lexicon, with a smattering of words with African origins. No time now, but will add specific examples -- if people think it's necessary. deeceevoice 21:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Later returned and removed precursor sentences to mention of Saramaccan (for same reason as above):

• "As the African pidgin that would become AAVE was beginning to spread, two more dialects were developing and diffusing: Pidgin Portuguese and Pidgin French. The Portuguese variety in particular was becoming very popular in Europe and portions of the New World."

Now that I think about it, though, the reference to pidgin French likely has relevance w/regard to Louisiana (New Orleans, in particular). Comments? deeceevoice 08:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The current phonology section says:

• AAVE is non-rhotic, so the alveolar approximant [ɹ] is usually dropped if not followed by a vowel. However, the [ɹ] may also be dropped in other cases, e.g. "story" realized as "sto'y". This is perhaps due to the use of 'y' as a semi-vowel.

This description seems to be lacking something in the description of cases where intervocalic R is dropped. Just how is story pronounced without an R? What forms the hiatus between the [o] and the [i]? In SAE, it's pronounced [stɔɹi]. If the [ɹ] is deleted, you have a strange monosyllabic word with a [oi] diphthong. Is the word pronounced [stɔi] (as though it were written "stoy"), or is some other hiatus inserted, like [w], [j], or glottal stop? The spelling "sto'y" doesn't really make this clear. Nohat 19:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Never thought about this one. But upon reflection, I'd say it was more of a diphthong -- and not a stop. One question: has anyone come up with an explanation of the use of "scree" for "street"? I understand the unpronounced "t" -- but the substitution of "scr" for "str"? Never got that one. deeceevoice 20:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The link I added yesterday [2] has a very long laundry list of phonological characteristics of AAVE, some of which are probably restricted by locale, social group, or age group. This one is listed as "Backing in /str/ Clusters (BK-str)" but it doesn't provide any other information other than identifying it. No theory about origin or distribution. It references "Bailey & Thomas, 1998; Rickford, 1999".

On the matter of all the features in that document, I think we should consider making a similar page here. We should just keep the major features (like non-rhotacism, cluster reduction, etc.) on this page, but then link to a much longer page of changes. Comments? Nohat 22:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The " Standard English" gloss given for "he done did it" is "he already did it". If I understand perfective correctly, would "he's already done it" be a less American phrasing? cf American_and_British_English_differences#Grammar Joestynes 09:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you asking if "he's already done it" is used in SAE? It is, and that is how I would translate 'he done did it'; I'm not messing with the article because I'm not a linguist. I think AAVE also has "he done done it", but again, I don't speak AAVE so I'm leaving it alone. Quill

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) Very common in British English and Northeast American English ; not so present in the Standard American of the midwest.

I am not aware of any dialect of English where this phenomenon cannot be observed in casual conversation.

I'm not aware of that either, but something different about AAVE is that it can be observed not only in present partiples, but also in words like wedding, nothing, something, morning etc. which I've added to the statement. In other dialects it mostly only occurs in present particles like running., Steve

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)

Another usage that I've heard is "light-skinded" for "light-skinned" (or "dark-skinded", etc.). Decius 10:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I found a place for all those slang words: Slang used in Hip-Hop Music, which I'm heavily re-editing & updating from what the previous various editors made of that page. Decius 06:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Other good editors welcome. Decius 06:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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)

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 [ [3]]. Roodog2k 18:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I have not edited on this article before, so I greatly object to someone addressing me like I have been. The word "majority" is more accurate and NPOV. The anti-white statement that was put on here did not state what the term "white" constituted a hundred or a hundred fifty years ago -- what this passage was referring to -- or put English in it proper context. And there are no sources provided. Frankly, much of this article is original research by one editor. -- Noitall 15:49, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Your objection to the passage makes absolutely no sense. If you understand what white supremacy is, then you understand that whites believing blacks were inherently inferior and, therefore, couldn't speak SAE because of that presumptive inferiority is a no-brainer. Further, I will not say that the "majority" of white folks believed this, because I don't know. That such a belief was, indeed, common is the more conservative and, IMO, appropriate statement. Identifying white supremacy for what it is is not, ipso facto "anti-white." It's simply calling a spade a spade. If belief that blacks are somehow inferior to white people isn't white supremacist, then nothing is. (Duh!) *x* deeceevoice 21:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further, Noitlittle, if you'd bother to check the edit history of this piece, you will find that any number of editors have contributed to this piece in a substantive fashion. Don't insult or denigrate their contributions when you obviously haven't even bothered to verify your ridiculous assertions. And, no, this piece is not comprised of "original research." If this piece were a lot of stuff pulled out someone's a**, don't you think those far better informed than you would have caught it and done something about it by now? deeceevoice 21:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• You are violating numerous Wiki policies, and we haven't even addressed the substance of your POV edit.

1. No attacks -- I never attacked you. I made a reasonable edit and gave a justification on the talk page. I never even used your name.

2. NPOV -- by your vitriolic statement, enough said.

3. No original research -- look, its obvious you typed this up without sources. It does not matter how many people edited it, but if if is original research by a 100 people, it should be deleted. You can say it is not original research all you want, but if it is not backed up, then it is original research.

4. Articles are not done or owned by anyone -- You do not have a right to say who can and can't edit or use how many times it has been edited as a justification for anything at all. If the article can be made less POV with real research, then it will be a better article.

I can make personal attacks with the best of them, but notice I am trying to deal with you on a reasonable basis here. Thank you for being reasonable.

-- Noitall 22:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sort of parachuting out of the middle of nowhere here, but between "the majority commonly believed" and "whites commonly believed", I think the former would be closer to factually accurate because it would include a larger population of anti-black racists (a population which undoubtedly includes Asians and self-hating blacks.) I don't want to get involved in this little Wiki-race war beyond this observation, so there it is, take it or leave it. — Phil Welch 3 July 2005 23:01 (UTC)

It's a 'broken' dialect of the English language. Call it for what it is. User: Wijiwang

• AAVE [i]s not once characterized as "broken English," because I'm pulling the race card and am bringing up liberal discussion circles. such a view is unenlightened, often tinged with racial/ethnic bias and has fallen by the wayside in educated circles. The best Wikipedia articles are based on knowledge and do not present as fact views based on ignorance, bias and very possibly backward notions about ethnicity.(unless you're white or asian, because you are somehow excluded by being too responsibvle in how you raise your children). deeceevoice 13:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Overstrikes are not my language and represent troll activity. deeceevoice 09:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• User: Wijiwang has a valid opinion and so does deeceevoice. No valid opinions should be chased off this page. -- Noitall 23:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

User: Wijiwang has a valid opinion... Well, you're half-right. -- Calton | Talk 00:18, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hey now, just because deeceevoices opinion is different than yours and many people doesn't make his opinion any less valid. noitall is right though, the 'broken' english opinion should show up more in this article, since this is sorta one sided with proaave. It would be nice to see the "common man"'s view of ebonics. Most people, including teachers and professors I have spoken with are not nearly as pro ebonics as this article is. IreverentReverend 04:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Please stop calling AAVE "broken English" -- practically all linguists agree that it is a legitimate dialect. If you can produce sources who say otherwise, great -- they can be quoted in the article. But saying it's "not speaking English right" is offensive, and can't be boldly asserted here. Jwrosenzweig 06:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid we're being trolled. Trolls: go away! You are not wanted here. Nohat 06:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It is nothing more than poorly-spoken English. That's what a dialect is. However, it's not even consistent enough to be considered a dialect, it's just poor speaking skills and lack of enunciation. This article misrepresents it as a dialect with rules and consistent use, when in fact it is not. For example, while some pronounce 'ill' and 'eel' as homonyms, most completely transpose them, making a forty gallon 'steel' that is made of 'still.' '..... added by 216.49.220.19

You are either (a) sadly ignorant of even introductory linguistics or (b) a troll pretending to be ignorant. -- Hoary 02:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

You seem conflicted, 216. First you claim a dialect is nothing more than a "poorly-spoken" language. Then you go on to state that a dialect has "rules and consistent use." Which is it? Further, with regard to pronunciation, plenty of people who speak SAE pronounce "pen" and "pin" identically, or "tin" and "ten" -- when properly pronounced, they are not homonyms. So, what's your point? deeceevoice 02:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Another aspect of the persistence of AAVE across socioeconomic lines is the fact that many middle- to upper-class African-Americans are a scant two, possibly three generations away from the most grinding poverty imaginable. Many of them and/or their parents grew up in poverty -- in the Deep South -- where AAVE often was spoken exclusively or predominantly. With the Great Migration came greater employment and education opportunities, but certain speech patterns persisted, and still do persist. And while many second- and third-generation "Up South" blacks may no longer speak AAVE exclusively, we/they certainly grew up hearing it and code-switch with ease. deeceevoice 07:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

Kinda hard to cite "pulled it out of my ass like the rest of the POV article" so they didnt/wont cite it.

Grow up. Seriously, unless I see some sort of source for this soon, I am going to remove it. IreverentReverend 16:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

see this link [4] to see the valid criticism he removed from the NPOV header.

since you removed the tag and the talk comments I am adding them back

I added the NPOV tag due to the fact that the controversy over wether ebonics is even a language/slang/dialect/badly learned english is not even referenced. Even the little bit about the educational controvesry ignores the "other" side and goes on like a steam roller.

There is no such controversy. Erroneous beliefs of ignorant people being contrary do fact does not a "controversy" make. What exactly should it say other than there are some people who think that AAVE is bad English? There is no evidence, logical reasoned argument, or scholarly research that supports that point of view. There is nothing else to say other than nobody who as ever considered AAVE in an even vaguely intellectual or scholarly way agrees with them. NPOV policy does not mean giving extended discussions of the beliefs of ignorant people. Nohat 00:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, such talk is uncalled for. As was discussed earlier on this talk page, it is entirely appropriate to have both views. No one should own this page. -- Noitall 01:11, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

It's "entirely appropriate" to believe that AAVE is inferior English in the same way that it's "entirely appropriate" to believe that black people are inferior people because they're black. In other words, only appropriate if you're a racist. There is no need to elaborate on racist points of view other than to acknowledge that they exist, because there is nothing else to say about them.

If you disagree, you should try providing some evidence, logical reasoned argument, or scholarly research that supports the assertion that AAVE is bad English. I have seen nothing of the sort from you or any of the anons that support this ridiculous notion. All I have seen is plaintive whining about how your racist POV is not being adequately represented. Show us something that we can put on the page. Nohat 01:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT YOU BELIEVE --> NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. It matters what the community believes and that should be mentioned. And if you call me a "racist POV" one more time, I will bring YOU up for RfC. -- Noitall 01:35, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

1. The article does mention that many people believe that AAVE is inferior English. 2. I didn't call you anything. I called the belief that AAVE is bad English racist, which it is. Nohat 01:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

If you are taking it back, fine, but to quote, "your racist POV." -- Noitall 01:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you hold that POV, then it is yours, isn't it? And please, by all means, I heartily encourage you to open an RfC against me. It will quickly become quite to clear to a much larger group of people just who among us is a troublemaker. Nohat 02:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Well, it's on here and your statement confirms you meant it as a despicable and unjustified personal attack. Don't do it again. -- Noitall 03:04, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

a) that seemed to me a personal attack. b) the article glosses over many of the issues between the public and ebonics speakers (yes, I am using ebonics, which, btw, should be the name of the page, wikipedia naming convention says that a page should be named after what it is most often called, ie Jimmy Carter versus James Carter). While it centers on the linguistics aspect, it barely covers the fact that most people view it as a slang, barely covers the opinion of people that DON'T think it should be taught in school, the fact that many see it as racist for trying, the fact that even if ebonics is it's own language that speakers should be in English as Second Language classes rather than creating all new ebonics classes. You claim it is racist to see ebonics as bad English, and that POV shows in the article, regardless of the fact that many people that are not linguists don't study the language to see the patterns that you claim are their, they just hear english words used and pronounced improperly and assume that they are misusing english. I agree that the article is POV and needs changed. IreverentReverend 16:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The page is "African American Vernacular English," because that (or "Black English") is what it commonly was called long before "Ebonics" was coined. "Ebonics" places the term squarely in the framework of the California controvery, when AAVE predates that controversy and goes far beyond those narrow and racially and politically charged times. Further, the term has a pejorative connotation in some quarters. And, no. The article is not POV; it is factual (or was the last time I read it through which, admittedly, was some time ago). deeceevoice 15:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I defy you to go ask people (common people, not linguists) what "African American Vernacular English," is, and then ask the same people what "Ebonics" is. guarenteed they will respond MUCH more commonly to the latter. It doesn't matter which came first. Wikipedia's policy is to use the more common term. IreverentReverend 20:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

IreverentReverend is correct. It is the most common use that counts (wouldn't it be great if everyone knew what vernacular even meant). I would propose:

"Ebonics," known as "African American Vernacular English" to scholars and historically as "Black English." -- Noitall 21:48, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

We've looked at this issue before and came to the determination that yes, the word "Ebonics" is more commonly used than the term "African American Vernacular English". However, after an examination of the actual uses of that word, the vast majority of those cases were not referring to the topic discussed by this article, but instead to slang words particular to black youth culture. Thus titling the article "Ebonics" would be misleading because it doesn't reflect the most common meaning of that word. AAVE was chosen because it's unambiguous. Wikipedia policy permits the use of more precise terms for article titles in the case where the more common term may be ambiguous—"Be precise when necessary". The most common unambiguous term to describe what this article discusses, i.e. the linguistic description of the vernacular English used by African Americans, is in fact African American Vernacular English, as even an extremely cursory investigation into the technical literature on the topic would quickly reveal. Nohat 02:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I heartily agree with Nohat. He makes the point I thought to add earlier after I clicked "Submit" and didn't -- that "Ebonics" ghettoizes the phenomenon -- that is, places it in the context of contemporary urban street slang. Such a term trivializes AAVE and limits it -- often in the already limited minds of many who use the term. deeceevoice 14:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be some etymology questions surround some of the words:

hip/hep: From Slate -- "There's just one problem: The etymology is wrong. The origin of hip (and its partner, hep; the words are related) is, unsatisfyingly, unknown. The term first appeared at the turn of the 20th century, and quickly became widespread. Its meaning at this early point was "aware; in the know," and it was not widely used by African-Americans. It wasn't until the late 1930s and early 1940s, during the jive era, that the modern senses—"sophisticated; currently fashionable; fully up-to-date"—arose. (These senses did arise among African-Americans.)" The article is very thorough.

Also everything I've seen says that the Wolof word "hepi" means "to see" and "hipi" means "to open one's eyes." The definition of "to be aware of what is going on" (and similar) seem to all be referece to this page.

honky: From The Straight Dope -- "Honky comes from bohunk and hunky, derogatory terms for Bohemian, Hungarian, and Polish immigrants that came into use around the turn of the century. According to Robert Hendrickson, author of the Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, black workers in Chicago meat-packing plants picked up the term from white workers and began applying it indiscriminately to all Caucasians." It then goes on to mention the possible Wolof derivation promoted by Dalby, the same guy who seems to have messed up the "hip" derivation too. (The Slate link also has a couple sentences on this too.)

cat: The suffix appears to be kai: "The American slang cat means a person, as in hep-cat or cool cat, and is similar to the Wolof kai used as a suffix following the verb." However, I can find no substantiaion that cat is derived from kai.

bogus: "While its origins are a bit contentious, the best explanation comes from the editor of the paper which first used the word in print (in 1827), the Painesville (Ohio) Telegraph. That editor, Mr. Eber D. Howe, Click to visit a site about detecting counterfeit money.states that a machine for producing counterfeit money was found in the possession of a group of counterfeiters in Painesville. A crowd gathered to watch the seizure and arrests, and someone in that crowd shouted out that the odd contraption was a bogus. A Dr. S. Willard, of Chicago, later told the OED that he surmised that bogus was short for tantrabogus, a word with which he had grown familiar in his childhood, and which to him meant "any ill-looking object". He corroborated this with reference to a Devonshire, England word for the devil, tantarabobs. ... Anyhow, bogus is still considered to this day to refer to a machine which makes counterfeit money, and that sense of "counterfeit" or "fake" accounts for the word's most popular meaning today." ( cite)

There is nothing "clearly" African in origin about these words. They appear to be false cognates. Most of the references I found were either directly attrributable to Leland or Darby (and Leland is essentially entirely attributable to Darby too).

The page presents these derivations as fact. Maybe it is true, but it seems to be a minority position and heavily contentious. They be moved to a page more appropriate to deal with these historical linguistics questions and replaces with better examples such as "banjo" which is "usually described as of African origin, prob. akin to Bantu mbanza, an instrument resembling a banjo" ( Online Etymology Dictionary) even though I have no idea how this fits into AAVE.

One of the biggest problems is the lack of any trail relating the slang word back to its supposed Africa ancestry. Many of these words don't appear until too late to make that claim.

Dbmercer 19:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC):

Unfortunately, I must agree with the above, and fear that this article is some sort of "faux-scholarly" work intended to lend credence to a particular point of view. Indeed, I stumbled upon this article while following up on some dubious etymology at Dictionary.LaborLawTalk.com when I was searching myself for the etymology of bogus. The etymology given (which was identical to that given in this article) seemed incorrect based on my experience (since my first exposure to the word was in Singapore, which had little west African influence on its dialect of English), so I followed up on the references given in the article to find if this were true, and it appears to have come directly from this article. So my fear is that the incorrect information given here is propagating on web.

I am not an experienced member of the Wikipedia community, but shouldn't someone be allowed to delete this information, which is probably incorrect, or at least put a note in the article proper (i.e., not this discussion page) indicating that there is some doubt as to the veracity of the information given here? I am hesitant to do this myself given that I see the last edit to neutralize the point of view has been done and undone a couple of times, and I suspect that, more than likely, the perpetrators of this article would roll back any edits I make (and, frankly, I don't care enough to get worked up about it). But what is the "official" Wikipedia community approach to trying to neutralize the point of view of an apparently contentious issue? I don't really care about this particular issue, but I am concerned at the thought of people taking what they are reading here in Wikipedia as fact, when in fact it may not be.

I also think these etymologies are very dubious and will have a go at putting in a bit of disclaimer as a stopgap. Dbmercer seems to have done enough research to do a rewrite though. — Moilleadóir 04:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Mightn't the disclaimer want to be a little stronger, given the evidence? I'm not sure why those entries are even still in the article, as those examples are either wildly dubious or outright disproven. Just scanning the article those caught my eye. I'm glad to see this discussion already started here on this page. -- 207.230.1.200 16:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

It is more of a failure to learn the correct way than anything. (anonymous contributor)

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)

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)

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)

The plan was never to "teach" Ebonics, but to use an understanding of it as a tool for teaching Standard English in much the same way a foreign language is used as a "ladder" to assist education professionals in the instruction of ESL students in Standard English. The pedagogy is perfectly sound. deeceevoice 06:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

I don't know the answer, it's just that the apostrophes strike me as an SAE speaker transcribing AAVE. Such a thing would be silly in an article on the French (frawnsay) language, for instance.

-- Neale Pickett (not a Wikipedia regular)

I can understand Ebonics as a dialect...but as a written language....?

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)

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)

Dbmercer 17:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC): I agree.

• "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)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xtier ( talk •  contribs) 03:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

moved from article ∞ Who ?¿? 03:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)