why do black people use you in the wrong context? such is “you ugly” instead of “you’re ugly” I know u guys can differentiate, it’s a nuisance

starlightswitch:

randomslasher:

kingkunta-md:

miniprof:

rsbenedict:

prettyboyshyflizzy:

you a bitch

It’s called copula deletion, or zero copula. Many languages and dialects, including Ancient Greek and Russian, delete the copula (the verb to be) when the context is obvious.

So an utterance like “you a bitch” in AAVE is not an example of a misused you, but an example of a sentence that deletes the copular verb (are), which is a perfectly valid thing to do in that dialect, just as deleting an /r/ after a vowel is a perfectly valid thing to do in an upper-class British dialect.

What’s more, it’s been shown that copula deletion occurs in AAVE exactly in those contexts where copula contraction occurs in so-called “Standard American English.” That is, the basic sentence “You are great” can become “You’re great” in SAE and “You great” in AAVE, but “I know who you are” cannot become “I know who you’re” in SAE, and according to reports, neither can you get “I know who you” in AAVE.

In other words, AAVE is a set of grammatical rules just as complex and systematic as SAE, and the widespread belief that it is not is nothing more than yet another manifestation of deeply internalized racism.

This is the most intellectual drag I’ve ever read.

YASSSSSSSSS LINGUISTIC DRAG

In “Pittsburghese” copula deletion happens after the transitive verb “to need”. Where standard English would say something “needs to be x”, in Pittsburgh we say it “needs x”. Even my mom, who trained herself out of most Pittsburghese, fell into this when prepping for parties, informing us “the floors need swept”, “the dishes need washed”, “the table needs wiped”, and “[room after room] needs cleaned”.

Why did my mom train herself out of Pittsburghese? Because people made fun of it. The priest at my church calls us to “waship” because he trained himself so hard out of pronouncing the word “wash” as “worsh”. Also Pittsburghese. My sister works in student life at her college and was instructed not to use “you guys” as the plural of “you”; the Pittsburghese “yunz” gets mocked, so she uses “y’all” which is “classy”.

And it is classism in the case of Pittsburghese. And anti-immigrant bias. Much of the population of Pittsburgh in the past was Eastern European immigrants living paycheck-to-paycheck working in the steel mills.

The “needs done” construction is also standard in Scottish English, which is probably how y’all got it too. I grew up with a version of Appalachian English from WV/VA (pretty heavily influenced by Scottish speakers) which also uses it.

(Needs washed | Yale Grammatical Diversity Project: English in North America)

I didn’t even realize that phrasing sounded unusual in other US dialects until I ran into people ridiculing it. That’s still what I will use 99% of the time, because I’m just stubborn that way. It gets the point across.

What sounds at least as jarring to me, though, is the “needs doing” standard usage here in England. That does make sense in its own way, but it still automatically sounds very very wrong every time.

What I’m not doing is assuming that any different dialect usage must really be Wrong and Uneducated, and getting rude about it. Don’t understand that mindset, and not sure I want to.

axonsandsynapses:

yuletidekarkat:

dannygayhealani:

creatingaquietmind:

the speech impediment of the 21st century (by Marc Johns)

I’ll fuck you up buddy this is not a speech impediment it’s linguistic evolution!! the existence of the phrase “Aisha was like” allows the speaker to convey whatever Aisha said without making the listener assume they’re quoting Aisha directly while still maintaining the FEELING of what Aisha said.

ie, Aisha said she didn’t want to go out with me VERSUS Aisha was like, “I’d rather kiss a Wookie”.

the addition of “XYZ was like” lets the speaker be more expressive and efficient and it is a totally valid method of communicating information!!

With the way language has evolved, this is one of the few ways I can even think of to express in casual conversation what someone said.

“So I said to Aisha,” is certainly used, but if you remove the “so,” which implies casual tone (“and” can be used in the same way), you get

“I said to Aisha,” which is really formal in most English dialects/variations. I don’t know about all, but in New England dialects, you sound like you’re reading aloud from a novel.

“I told Aisha,” is really only used when you continue to describe, not tell, what you told her. Ex: “I told Aisha that James was too punk for her” works while, “I told Aisha, ‘James is too punk for you’” crosses the line back into formalness of the “I said.”

Things like “I asked” or “I answered [with]” are similar levels of casual and efficient to the “So, I said [or say, as many conversations about the past take place in present tense anyway, as if the speaker is giving a play-by-play in the moment]” but are specific to only certain situations.

“I was like, ‘Marc Johns, what is your obsession with restoring archaic speech patterns and interfering with the natural progression of English from complex to efficient?’” envelopes all of these easily and is accessible and crisp, and allows for more variations on inflection than the others.

Of course, James is probably like, “I already fucking said that.” But eh, I tried adding on.

#linguistics #a.k.a. how I learned to stop worrying and love the evolution of the English language without being a discriminatory elitist jerk (via crystalandrock)

Source: creatingaquietmind

allthingslinguistic:

breakaribecca:

Found this quote in an article on the harm of prescriptivism in social movements, so I made a simple, shareable version.

The whole article, about English varieties in Ghana, is also worth reading.

Source: breakaribecca

samanticshift:

coincidenceiscancelled:

karnythia:

strangeasanjles:

lordhellebore:

athenadark:

dollsahoy:

luvtheheaven:

samanticshift:

samanticshift:

“i don’t judge people based on race, creed, color, or gender. i judge people based on spelling, grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure.”

i hate to burst your pretentious little bubble, but linguistic prejudice is inextricably tied to racism, sexism, classism, xenophobia, and ableism.

ETA: don’t send me angry messages about this…at all, preferably, but at least check the tag for this post before firing off an irate screed.

no one seems to be following the directive above, so here’s the version of this post i would like all you indignant folk to read.

no, i am not saying that people of color, women, poor people, disabled people, etc, “can’t learn proper english.” what i’m saying is that how we define “proper english” is itself rooted in bigotry. aave is not bad english, it’s a marginalized dialect which is just as useful, complex, and efficient as the english you’re taught in school. “like” as a filler word, valley girl speech, and uptalk don’t indicate vapidity, they’re common verbal patterns that serve a purpose. etc.

because the point of language is to communicate, and there are many ways to go about that. different communities have different needs; different people have different habits. so if you think of certain usages as fundamentally “wrong” or “bad,” if you think there’s a “pure” form of english to which everyone should aspire, then i challenge you to justify that view. i challenge you to explain why “like” makes people sound “stupid,” while “um” doesn’t raise the same alarms. explain the problem with the habitual be. don’t appeal to popular opinion, don’t insist that it just sounds wrong. give a detailed explanation.

point being that the concept of “proper english” is culturally constructed, and carries cultural biases with it. those usages you consider wrong? they aren’t. they’re just different, and common to certain marginalized groups.

not to mention that many people who speak marginalized dialects are adept at code-switching, i.e. flipping between non-standard dialects and “standard english,” which makes them more literate than most of the people complaining about this post.

not to mention that most of the people complaining about this post do not speak/write english nearly as “perfectly” as they’d like to believe and would therefore benefit by taking my side.

not to mention that the claim i’m making in the OP is flat-out not that interesting. this is sociolinguistics 101. this is the first chapter of your intro to linguistics textbook. the only reason it sounds so outlandish is that we’ve been inundated with the idea that how people speak and write is a reflection of their worth. and that’s a joyless, elitist idea you need to abandon if you care about social justice or, frankly, the beauty of language.

and yes, this issue matters. if we perceive people as lesser on the basis of language, we treat them as lesser. and yes, it can have real ramifications–in employment (tossing resumes with “black-sounding names”), in the legal system (prejudice against rachel jeantel’s language in the trayvon martin trial), in education (marginalizing students due to prejudice against dialectical differences, language-related disabilities, etc), and…well, a lot.

no, this doesn’t mean that there’s never a reason to follow the conventions of “standard english.” different genres, situations, etc, have different conventions and that’s fine. what it does mean, however, is that this standard english you claim to love so much has limited usefulness, and that, while it may be better in certain situations, it is not inherently better overall. it also means that non-standard dialects can communicate complex ideas just as effectively as the english you were taught in school. and it means that, while it’s fine to have personal preferences regarding language (i have plenty myself), 1) it’s worth interrogating the source of your preferences, and 2) it’s never okay to judge people on the basis of their language use.

so spare me your self-righteous tirades, thanks.

Oh my gosh YES, this post got so much better.

this is sociolinguistics 101. this is the first chapter of your intro to linguistics textbook.

and

and yes, this issue matters. if we perceive people as lesser on the
basis of language, we treat them as lesser. and yes, it can have real
ramifications

(Also, most of what people loudly defend as “proper English” is nothing more than an adherence to one particular style guide over another–it was what they were taught, therefore it is the only way. Heh, nope. Learn some more. Linguistic descriptivism for all.)

most of what is taught isn’t even based on English but the rules for teaching latin

yes, you can split the infinitive because in English it’s two words, but in latin it’s one

so it is based on a structure designed by a very small educated elite to remind others of their place, and that place was as subhuman, the educated gentlemen who made these rules generally considered anyone who lacked in some way – no matter what it was – as subhuman and that they should be kept down by any means necessary and so created a labyrinth of traps to reveal them- including language

Lingustic prescriptivism is outdated and can be used far too easily as a tool for perpetuating classism, racism, and misogyny.

This post cleared my fucking skin up and completely hydrated me.

This whole thread. Listen, I have seen people assume that someone for whom English is a 7th language is ignorant because their accent or phrasing. Meanwhile they are scrolling through their mental rolodex & trying to remember whatever petty bitch rules apply in English instead of the grammar from Italian or German.

I judge people on language too. How they talk, what they say…Not saying it’s a good thing. I’m probably an elitist. But I’m fine with that.

i will pay people not to leave comments like this. go work on your insufferable self and leave my post alone.