:Dons a green hooded robe and lights a candle: Repeat after me or bear the consequences.
1) English is not the language of the Bible.
2) There is no evidence of an Adamic language, though obviously the first humans spoke something. Depends on your view of human descent.
3) There is no evidence that languages shape anyone's ability to think. (basically chuck anything that is a line from "My Fair Lady")
4) ASL is a language.
5) Animal communication is not.
6) Children do not learn language faster than adults.
7) Eskimos have the same number of words for snow as Americans, granted that Americans have more than any sane person needs.
8) Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
:passes the candle to bev: What did I forget?
[ February 25, 2007, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
9) Being Hearing is *not* better than being Deaf. It is just "different".
9a) Do not try to cure the Deaf. The Deaf do not want to be cured. Deafness is not a "defect". It is a variation.
10) All hail Esperanto. Esperanto should be the universal language of planet Earth.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: There is no evidence that languages shape anyone's ability to think.
Maybe I have little imagination, but I cannot imagine thinking abstractly without knowing a language.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Children do not learn language faster than adults.
Can you elaborate? Because I have seen research directly that contradicts this.
quote: 9) Being Hearing is *not* better than being Deaf. It is just "different".
9a) Do not try to cure the Deaf. The Deaf do not want to be cured. Deafness is not a "defect". It is a variation.
I don't see how you can classify missing one entire type of sensory perception that the rest of the population has as anything other than a defect, and how you can say it would not be better to have five senses than to have only four. Except if wishing makes it so.
Sorry if I am taking a tongue-in-cheek thread way too literally.
[ January 06, 2005, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
My understanding is that many people in the deaf community feel that way.
I don't get it either.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
quote: All hail Esperanto. Esperanto should be the universal language of planet Earth.
/Agrees!
Is anyone allowed to add to the list?
[ January 06, 2005, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: WheatPuppet ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Only if you are holding the candle.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I grew up with people in the deaf community--many of the opinions attributed to the community at large in the ASL thread are things I did not perceive. It all seems very PC to me.
They may or may not want to tell themselves these things, but it's sour grapes.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm also sure that many people in the deaf community *don't* feel that way.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: It all seems very PC to me.
Icarus, I *so* agree. And that is what we are mocking. But there do seem to be people who feel this way.
It reminds me of how homosexuals feel about being told they have a defect and not liking people to want to "cure" them. It is all a matter of perspective.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: quote:Children do not learn language faster than adults.
Can you elaborate? Because I have seen research directly that contradicts this.
I became fairly fluent in Tagalog far faster than a child can learn their first language.
The reasoning is that my mind is already mapped out in one language, so it isn't that much of a "jump" to map out another.
But because of the developmental state that children are in, they will learn languages more *completely* than adults learning additional language. They will pick up on the nuances of accent, the subtle changes in sound that are important phonemes in that language.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That's a totally unfair comparison.
So you can learn a language faster than a newborn.
I still doubt you could learn one faster than a 5-year-old.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote: Icarus, I *so* agree. And that is what we are mocking. But there do seem to be people who feel this way.
It reminds me of how homosexuals feel about being told they have a defect and not liking people to want to "cure" them. It is all a matter of perspective.
Woah, woah, woah. Me no likes that comparison. There are significant differences. Being deaf isn't really anything but a malus. You can't hear, you lose music, sound, a lot of beauty. There's no natural reason for people to go deaf, it just happens, same as people losing their sight and needing glasses or going blind.
Homosexuality is another matter. There is some evidense that homosexuality is natures own built in method of population control. And being homosexual really isn't a problem, they can get all the same sexual pleasures a heterosexual can in their own ways, and there are certainly more than enough kids in need of adoption that having a few more couples that can't have kids of their own but want kids really isn't a bad thing at all. Yea it is a genetic defect (we think), but in this case it might be there for a REASON. And in any case its sorta helpful to society at large (or it would be if we could just get over it and accept it).
Deafness, on the other hand, royally sucks for those who are deaf. They learn to live with it obviously. But if you could give them their hearing back, and would anyone really turn that down (aside from old people too set in their ways to bear the thought of change)?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Okay, I wasn't sure if you were advancing these ideas or mocking them, or a little of both.
On the language thing, maybe you pick up a second language faster than a child picks up a first. But I don't think that's what the claim is. I think the claim is that a child who has already picked up a first language--and so has already made some of those connections--can pick up a second language more quickly than an adult. I have seen the studies, but my own anecdotal evidence is mixed. I arrived at kindergarten not knowing a word of English. The teacher did not speak Spanish, nor did any of my classmates (maybe one or two, but at this point in time, I was still a relative anomaly as a Spanish speaker). I learned English very quickly. Within a matter of weeks, actually. After half of a school year, I was responding to my parents, who were speaking Spanish to me, in English without even realizing that I was doing it. On the other hand, when I took half a semester of French in graduate course, although I was doing well in the course, I certainly did not find that it came to me as easily, though a second romance language should have been easier to learn than a germanic one (to a non-English speaker).
And yet, in the case of my daughters, learning one language at all was a struggle--heck, it still is a struggle to pick up little nuances, like "What we are doing?" "I drinked my water" and "I falled down." And so we have not taught them Spanish, because we felt that this would interfere with the ability to learn English well.
So in my own life, the evidence is inconclusive. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Deafness, on the other hand, royally sucks for those who are deaf. They learn to live with it obviously. But if you could give them their hearing back, and would anyone really turn that down (aside from old people too set in their ways to bear the thought of change)?
Yes, people do turn that down.
[ January 06, 2005, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:9) Being Hearing is *not* better than being Deaf. It is just "different".
9a) Do not try to cure the Deaf. The Deaf do not want to be cured. Deafness is not a "defect". It is a variation.
Yeah, right. While I understand that some deaf people feel this way, there's not a single hearing person that would put their money where their mouth is on this issue. And I bet that it wouldn't be hard to find any number of deaf people that disagree too.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
For some reason, I'm continually hounded by the old question "Would you rather be blind or deaf." I think about that all the time.
My current answer: If I still have to support my family, I'd rather be deaf. That way I could still work on the computer and keep my job.
If I didn't have to take care of my family, I would *MUCH* rather be blind and keep my music.
That sure would make aikido interesting, though.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
Icarus bears the consequences.
I have to say that I tried to take Chinese immersion method and (I don't use this word lightly) it sucked.
Most adults get 1 hour a day (with summers off) to learn a language in and it takes them three years. A baby gets a lot more daily hours and it takes a long time. Depends on the kid.
So did you ever get back to us on why Chomsky makes you screw up your eyes?
quote:Yeah, right. While I understand that some deaf people feel this way, there's not a single hearing person that would put their money where their mouth is on this issue. And I bet that it wouldn't be hard to find any number of deaf people that disagree too.
This reasoning still applies to the homosexual community. I haven't met one who doesn't say "If I could choose to be straight, it would be so much easier..."
[ January 06, 2005, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
People do turn it down. It may be like a window of opportunity thing, like with other language development.
After all, that's what we're talking about here. You take a deaf person and give them their hearing . . . . HELLO! Unless they became deaf gradually, you have given them the ability to hear, but not the ability to comprehend spoken language. Suddenly they find themselves in the same situation many of us find when we have to try to learn a new language as an adult.
And when you have spent a lifetime in quiet, noise can be pretty scary too.
I can see how, once accustomed to deafness, you might turn down the gift of hearing.
But I still say it's clearly best to have been able to hear all along.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: But if you could give them their hearing back, and would anyone really turn that down (aside from old people too set in their ways to bear the thought of change)?
Yes. Absolutely. Being Deaf is part of their identity. They have never been hearing, and they don't want to be. They don't think they are missing out on anything important.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I think the claim is that a child who has already picked up a first language--and so has already made some of those connections--can pick up a second language more quickly than an adult.
Actually, this is probably true. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Yeah, right. While I understand that some deaf people feel this way, there's not a single hearing person that would put their money where their mouth is on this issue.
Meaning what exactly?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Meaning that hearing people all view deafness as a bad thing.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: But I still say it's clearly best to have been able to hear all along.
Well of course *we* would say that.
Anyone seen the ST:TNG episode where Troi loses her ability to sense the emotions of others? Everyone is like, "Dude, what's the big deal?" And she is devistated at losing her 6th sense.
If you have never heard music, what would motivate you to want to? If you have never heard sound, you aren't going to care that much about it.
Those who lose their hearing after knowing it, now that is a whole 'nother story. But they usually aren't Deaf, they are deaf. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
RE Chomsky:
Well, like some of the other ideas in this thread. The thought that grammar is inborn in us gets tossed around by "composition theorists" to the point where it has become accepted as a truism. And, anecdotally, based on my own experiences as an English teacher who started my career out believing this hokum because my grad school teachers told me it was so, and those of my wife who was smart enough not to buy into this line of reasoning in the first place, and watching tons of kids go through schools I have worked at over the past ten years, this just isn't so. Those of us who are avid readers convince ourselves that it is because we used grammar nearly perfectly without knowing what the heck a gerund was, but this was not because we had an intrinsic sense of it, but because we picked it up contextually from our reading. People who don't pick up grammar through reading, because they don't read enough, do benefit from having formal grammar taught to them. So do those of us who did pick it up effortlessly, by the way, because we can always learn to use it better. The unfortunate result of Chomsky's doctrine, though, is that many English teachers no longer teach grammar at all. It has become unfashionable, too, so that those who do are scorned. And there is a reason behind this. Most Language Arts teachers teach Language Arts because they love literature, not because they are linguists. And so this takes from them the responsibility to carry out a part of their jobs they find tedious, and frees them up to spend more time on literature.
But, in my experience, it tends to do their students a disservice.
[ January 06, 2005, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Meaning that hearing people all view deafness as a bad thing.
Well duuuh.
Bringing this back to homosexuality, how many straight men feel pity for the man who is incapable of being pleasured by a woman? How many think, "You just don't know what you are missing, man!!"
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Anyone seen the ST:TNG episode where Troi loses her ability to sense the emotions of others? Everyone is like, "Dude, what's the big deal?" And she is devistated at losing her 6th sense.
I enjoy watching Troi suffer far too much in that episode.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: The thought that grammar is inborn in us gets tossed around by "composition theorists" to the point where it has become accepted as a truism.
You know, I never really believed that myself. But that is not the same thing as "humans are hardwired to learn language". Dude. The *are*.
Why doesn't a puppy raised by humans learn language? Because they are not hardwired for it.
They will learn some words, sure. But not language.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Note how assiduously I avoid the homosexuality tangent!
Hearing people would say it is best to be hearing. Deaf people would say it is not. So this means it is all relative and there is no true best?
I disagree. I think it is self-evidently better to have more senses than less, provided your brain is wired in such a way as to be capable of processing all of the input.
And so, to those Deaf people who say being hearing is not better, I will quite arrogantly say that they are fooling themselves, that they are believing a convenient fiction.
Like I said: sour grapes.
Which does not mean I do not understand why a deaf person would turn down the ability to hear.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: But that is not the same thing as "humans are hardwired to learn language". Dude. The *are*.
Oh, I agree. I was referring to grammar specifically. Did I misinterpret you in that other thread?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: The unfortunate result of Chomsky's doctrine, though, is that many English teachers no longer teach grammar at all.
This is unfortunate.
Just because we are "hardwired for language" does not mean that we will immediately grasp all the nuances of the grammar of any one language. Like my example of only recently becoming aware of "If I were" instead of "If I was". I functioned and communicated quite well without the distinction. But being able to make the distinction, putting it into words if you will, between "If I were" and "I was" (I believe) has a defining effect on my thoughts.
It is my opinion that grammar/syntax is what allows us to "placehold" our thoughts. Kinda like how math gets to a point that we just can't picture the numbers anymore. It is easy to visualize three objects, right? You can tell at a glance three from four. But can you tell at a glance ten from eleven? Probably not. The use of numbers in math allows us to "placehold" our thoughts. It is a tool, a stepping stone, to higher thought and sentience. Abstract thought is either impossible or highly handicapped without it.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Oh, I agree. I was referring to grammar specifically. Did I misinterpret you in that other thread?
Yeah. You may have thought I take Chomsky's "inborn grammar" hook, line, and sinker. I don't, really. I thought it was an interesting idea, but I never believed it.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
mph, on surly days, I know just how you feel. Star Trek: TNG is not for surly people. That's why there is the original series. Double handed hammer hit to the back, anyone?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: And so, to those Deaf people who say being hearing is not better, I will quite arrogantly say that they are fooling themselves, that they are believing a convenient fiction.
I know you are avoiding the homosexuality can of worms, but I will just point out that just as this is your opinion and you have your reasons, I have my reasons for holding mine about homosexuality. But they are not the joking reason I provided above. They are based on doctrinal assumptions that cannot be proven at this time. But the reasons are there, and they make sense. Edit: They make sense only *if* you accept the doctrinal assumptions that cannot be proven, of course.
[ January 07, 2005, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
quote:Suddenly they find themselves in the same situation many of us find when we have to try to learn a new language as an adult.
Actually, it's apparently worse. The theory of generative grammar is that all languages share important structures (words for things, words for actions, ways of expressing position, manner and time. They all have syntax even if the particulars of it are different.). Once you know one language, learning another isn't acquisition so much as translation.
I think being deaf is a lot like any other minority. You want the world to accept you, not to have to change yourself to get by in the world. There is a difference between "minority" and "variation". And every minority has its outspoken proponents that seem to make matters worse, that project anger rather than compromise. They naturally get the most attention.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I cheered when Troi was ordered to wear a uniform like everybody freaking else!
You know the funny thing? I think she looked much hotter in the uniform than in the spandex outfit, and her character became less annoying as well. She became generally more competent outside of her bailiwick--okay, except for when she crashed the Enterprise --and less tiresome in general. I don't think that this is caused by the uniform, of course. I think they finally realized they had created one of the most annoying characters in TV history and decided to gradually fix her more annoying tendencies. And I give them props for that.
-o-
I would certainly have agreed with her that it would be worse to lose that sense of empathy, even without having had it myself.
-o-
Sorry, then, bev.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:
quote: But if you could give them their hearing back, and would anyone really turn that down (aside from old people too set in their ways to bear the thought of change)?
Yes. Absolutely. Being Deaf is part of their identity. They have never been hearing, and they don't want to be. They don't think they are missing out on anything important.
First off, last I checked, for someone who is completely deaf there was no way of returning full hearing right now. Has that changed?
If not, then how can you really say that? They may say now that they would never, but if truely faced would the choice, I have a hard time believing that someone who had experienced hearing would give up the chance of getting it back. Even those who hadn't would probably want to at least try the experience, with the choice of going back (if possible) or would SERIOUSLY consider it if not. The bit in italics falls under those too set in their ways to stand change, but I'm willing to bet even they would be torn pretty badly on the issue if they were faced with the real choice.
If so, then my hypothosis's will have obviously been disproven by experiement (as it were ). However, I would like to see evidense of such a case. *goes off to see if he can find either thing for himself*
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: I have my reasons for holding [my opinions] about homosexuality. . . . They are based on doctrinal assumptions that cannot be proven at this time. But the reasons are there, and they make sense. Edit: They make sense only *if* you accept the doctrinal assumptions that cannot be proven, of course.
*nod*
I agree/I believe you.
I don't have a problem with Christians considering homosexuality sinful. I don't think they are bigots for doing so.
And that's as much as I will say there.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Icky -- I think the same thing. She was far more attractive after they stopped trying to make her seem sexy. I have no idea why.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: First off, last I checked, for someone who is completely deaf there was no way of returning full hearing right now. Has that changed?
No, but they can get partial hearing.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
There was an interesting discussion about grammar over on the writers workshop. I was posting as franc li. I'll just sum up: You don't learn grammar from English teachers. You learn it in a foreign language class. Possibly from reading, though I doubt it.
I can tell you that if English teachers didn't learn grammar, it wasn't because they believed in Chomsky. It was because they used Chomsky as an excuse to remain lazy.
Generative grammar isn't about no grammar, it is about one grammar that can be used to describe all languages.
[ January 07, 2005, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Alcon, the cases of deafness that are toughest to "fix" are nerve damage. But cochlear implants can stimulate the nerves directly in many cases. But the quality of the sound is bad because only a few of the frequencies can be "tapped" with the technology we have at this time. Everything probably sounds like one of those really bad computer vocal simulators.
Many Deaf view cochlear implants as "evil". Well, "evil" might be too strong. They don't like them, and they don't respect those who get them.
There is also the possibility of nerve regrowth as medical technology advances. This would also be threatening.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:First off, last I checked, for someone who is completely deaf there was no way of returning full hearing right now. Has that changed?
Not full hearing, but partialy hearing yes. In either my aunt or uncle's case, I don't recall which, they were able to "restore" (you can't restore something that was never there, neh?) some hearing with an implant, even though they were completely deaf since birth. They found the experience profoundly unpleasant. (At least, that's the way it was recounted to me.)
Dude, did you read what I said about this issue up above?
If it weren't for beverly and pooka, I'd start to think I was posting in a vacuum.
[ January 07, 2005, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
<-- chopped liver, apparently
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Hey Icky, that explanation you gave was very interesting. I'm very bad with grammar - I know the very very basics and that's all - so I've always wondered how it is that I'm a coherent writer. I've always read a ton, so now that I think about it, it makes sense that I've picked up grammar from constant reading and can use grammar accurately without being able to define most parts of speech.
Unfortunately, because I'm an English major, people assume I know grammer. I always reply that I'm not a grammar major.
space opera
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:
quote: First off, last I checked, for someone who is completely deaf there was no way of returning full hearing right now. Has that changed?
No, but they can get partial hearing.
How expensive, bulky, difficult to deal with is it? How practical for the average deaf person is it? That plays a huge factor. If someone can't afford it... I can definately see the reaction being to convince themselves that they don't need it, they don't want it.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Generative grammar isn't about no grammar, it is about one grammar that can be used to describe all languages.
Just as a side note, I think that saying that similarities in all grammer indicating inborn grammar is like saying that similarities in the math developed in isolated cultures indicates "inborn math".
I think this is a mistake in assumed causality. I think it is better attributed to "that's just the nature of reality".
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote: Dude, did you read what I said about this issue up above?
If it weren't for beverly and pooka, I'd start to think I was posting in a vacuum.
Sorry Icky, that reply took me a while to write and edit, I'm kinda half posting on this thread, half playing a game atm. When I started it, I only saw like the first two replies after my last one. So no in fact, I did not.
EDIT:
Yeesh, I must be more tired than I thought. I somehow missed this entire post:
quote: People do turn it down. It may be like a window of opportunity thing, like with other language development.
After all, that's what we're talking about here. You take a deaf person and give them their hearing . . . . HELLO! Unless they became deaf gradually, you have given them the ability to hear, but not the ability to comprehend spoken language. Suddenly they find themselves in the same situation many of us find when we have to try to learn a new language as an adult.
And when you have spent a lifetime in quiet, noise can be pretty scary too.
I can see how, once accustomed to deafness, you might turn down the gift of hearing.
But I still say it's clearly best to have been able to hear all along.
I'm really sorry about that...
Hmm... put that way. Yeah, for someone deaf their entire life, I can sorta understand it. Personally, if I could gain another sense, say Troi's empathy, I'd jump at the chance. Even if it would take getting used to. But I could see that someone born into deafness might see it as more trouble than its worth to 'recover' hearing. However, for those who have had sound... yeah, I very much doubt they'd turn it down. And yea, current technology wasn't what I meant, if I could only have a few fequences of bad quality... I might even choose silence or the music of my mind over it. And I very much like having sound.
[ January 07, 2005, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I can definately see the reaction being to convince themselves that they don't need it, they don't want it.
Cochlear implants aren't that big a deal to get, and I imagine many insurance companies would pay for it. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I more or less agree about the laziness thing.
But--
When I took composition theory, we read Chomsky. I won't claim to remember the experience clearly. However, the upshot from our prof was that we should not teach grammar, and that the teachers who did were old fashioned and delusional, but rather we were taught to encourage our students to develop their inborn grammar by encouraging them to try on the speech patterns of different "discourse" communities. To encourage them to do this, of course, we could not penalize mistakes.
I firmly believe that we learn the use of grammar (best) from reading. I don't mean reading grammar books; I mean reading things that are well-written, and learning through example and context. I don't know how I could begin to prove that assertion to you, though. I just think about all of us who feel like we knew how to emulate proper grammar long before having it formally presented to us, and I don't think this only describes bilingual people.
I don't think formal grammar instruction is the best way to learn grammar, but I think it is better than nothing, and I think everyone can benefit at least a little bit from it.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
A child with a cochlear implant still sounds "off". Their intonation is not "normal". It may be due to the age at which people I have met had the operation. The question is whether it is better to be an accepted part of the deaf community or a marginal part of the hearing world.
Then there is the hypothetical about selective abortion, in which some deaf activists said that if it is okay for a hearing couple to abort a deaf baby, it should be okay for a deaf couple to abort a hearing child. I don't know that a deaf gene has been found... and if the deaf commmunity doesn't wish to participate it will probably take longer.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
That's too bad, Icky. I noticed whenever I was in a language class of any kind. (I took some Spanish in HS) it was the process of learning a second language that the grammar of the first language really started sinking in.
We might instictively learn grammar, but we don't understand it until we analyze it.
Edit: I distinctly remember LOVING grammar lessons in elementary school. I was the only one. I just ate it up. It was just another way I was "weird".
[ January 07, 2005, 12:27 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Sorry, Porter. I am posting a bit behind this thread--it's moving so quickly that every time I post I find two or three posts that beat me in that I have not read. So I didn't see your response.
Alcon, np. I was just venting because I had gotten that feeling in several threads lately, including the Jatraquero one.
In which you posted, Porter.
EDIT: PosTed.
PosTed.
[ January 07, 2005, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think it is sad and just plain mean that somebody with cocclear implants would no longer be accepted in deaf society.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: That's too bad, Icky. I noticed whenever I was in a language class of any kind. (I took some Spanish in HS) it was the process of learning a second language that the grammar of the first language really started sinking in.
Maybe this is another avenue, along with extensive reading.
quote: We might instictively learn grammar, but we don't understand it until we analyze it.
I agree.
quote: Edit: I distinctly remember LOVING grammar lessons in elementary school. I was the only one. I just ate it up. It was just another way I was "weird".
Me too. It's so mathematical.
-o-
And let me say, this thread is an example of wat I love about Hatrack. Two different tangents, neither of which was necessarily meant to originate a serious discussion. Lots of good back and forth. And at least a couple of threads in the last two days on the hot, controversial topic of . . . Deafness?!
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I don't know that a deaf gene has been found... and if the deaf commmunity doesn't wish to participate it will probably take longer.
Yeah, I thought of this as a possible perceived threat, but I wasn't sure.
One big difference between the Deaf and the blind is that the Deaf are bound together by their language. And because they are a pretty small minority, and they have been so isolated from the hearing world in the past, what with growing up in residential schools and all, they have grown pretty attached and dependent on that community support. It means a lot to them.
And they get by really very well without sound. It is not nearly as debilitating as you might expect if you have never depended on sound and have had the support of the Deaf community. But I imagine it is a pain working in a hearing-majority world.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
Bev- generative grammar kind of means both. But you are correct that the ability to map any language with XP theory is not evidence for the Language Acquisition Device.
From the writer's workshop:
quote: I don't think 5th graders are really able to understand grammar, except in the context of a foreign language. When grammar was learned in the English school system, in the golden age I am imagining, it was with students who learned Latin and also ancient Greek. The study of grammar by English-only speakers is really difficult, because it just seems like a bunch of arbitrary rules that are unnatural. ... I wonder to what degree this is due to "Latinate" grammar. That is, the grammar rules for English were established to model Latin. The prohibition on dangling prepositions is a prime example. A preposition has to preceed its object in Latin. That is why it is called a pre-position. I'm not kidding.
Another is the split infinitive. In Latin an infinitive can't be split because it is a single word.
[ January 07, 2005, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: We might instictively learn grammar, but we don't understand it until we analyze it.
I also started understanding English grammer only when I learned Portugese.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Trisha -- what is this writer's workship that you keep talking about?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I think it is sad and just plain mean that somebody with cocclear implants would no longer be accepted in deaf society.
Well, I don't know to what extent they are "no longer accepted" in Deaf society, but I imagine to them it seems like a "sell out".
Kinda like you (you as in Porter) don't respect someone who gets breast implants because they want to look like a model/celebrity.
[ January 07, 2005, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote: I think it is sad and just plain mean that somebody with cocclear implants would no longer be accepted in deaf society.
Yeah, the more I hear about Deaf society the less I like it... and I think part of my reaction on this thread has simply been refusal to believe that Deaf society could really be that... bad. I still find it hard to believe.
quote: Then there is the hypothetical about selective abortion, in which some deaf activists said that if it is okay for a hearing couple to abort a deaf baby, it should be okay for a deaf couple to abort a hearing child. I don't know that a deaf gene has been found... and if the deaf commmunity doesn't wish to participate it will probably take longer.
Neither is good. I mean I'm prochoice, but neither of those reasons are good reasons to have an abortion. In fact they are both terrible ones, IMO.
I don't know if there is a single gene necesarily for Deafness. This sorta thing usually has a variety of causes.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
I have really got to get to bed... I loved grammar in elementary school, I just didn't know what it was for until I applied it to a foreign language. But I recall the definition of a preposition as "anything a mouse can do or be to a hole" and that didn't make a lot of sense to me. I also memorized a list of 22 helping verbs.
P.S. Hatrack writer's workshop. There is a link in the banner above...
The argument was not that the Deaf wanted to abort hearing babies, but "How would it feel if someone wanted to abort members of your culture?" I mentioned on the ASL thread that the deaf community has a chip on its shoulder due to the large overlap between deafness and some actual learning disabilities. I think Down's Syndrome is one, and we already know that most people wouldn't think twice about aborting a child with Down's Syndrome.
The point is, the deaf community is in the position many minorities were in 50 years ago where it was widely believed that empirically inferior traits went along with the minority classification.
[ January 07, 2005, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I don't know if there is a single gene necesarily for Deafness. This sorta thing usually has a variety of causes.
There are so many different kinds of deafness and so many different causes. But some are probably genetic. And if that gene were found, and gene therapy on the unborn became a reality, I think the Deaf community would feel threatened by that.
I understand you feeling "rubbed the wrong way" by the Deaf community. I really had to fight against similar feelings as I learned about it. I personally think this sort of behavior is common in any tight-knit, small, isolated social group. A lot of it comes from narrow ranges of experience and ignorance. But this is how they actually feel.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
The examples people always like to give of the arbitrariness of grammar are the ones that are typically not emphasized much these days anyway. I mean, have you ever truly had a teacher penalize you for a split infinitive or a preposition at the end of a sentence?
These few examples do not convince me of the worthlessness of formal grammar instruction.
(Though, again, I agree there are better ways to get a basic grasp of grammar. It would be better if the formal instruction was only fine-tuning what was already there.)
[ January 07, 2005, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote: I understand you feeling "rubbed the wrong way" by the Deaf community. I really had to fight against similar feelings as I learned about it. I personally think this sort of behavior is common in any tight-knit, small, isolated social group. A lot of it comes from narrow ranges of experience and ignorance. But this is how they actually feel.
See, that sort of attitude in groups like this always frustrates me and pisses me off to no end. Becuase often these groups are the ones who preach tolerance and that they should be accepted for what they are and they rely on that tolerance and acceptance in the workplace and in life. Then they are intolerant with in their own community? And if they'd just open up their minds a little, they'd find they don't have to look to a closed, tight-nit community like that to get support, they could get support from a much larger community that doesn't just include those who are deaf, but many many other people.
The whole "you can't understand me, becuase you don't face the problem I face" attitude that is evidenced often by these sorts of group frustrates me to no end. No, I don't face the same problems, I face the a different set of problems which THEY can't understand, until they talk to me and try to understand it. And I can't understand theirs, until they talk to me and try to help me understand. Its just... ARGH!
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
My AP english teacher had a couple of pages of deadly composition errors that we had to avoid on pain of... something awful. It may have been an F or 10 points off per infraction on that assignment. Also, the split infinitive is the one people are always mocking the Star Trek thing over. Maybe just the folks I hang around with. As you can tell, I don't try too hard to avoid dangling prepositions. But I do know when they are happening. Dangling participles actually bug me.
Anyway, I had a pretty good education so I guess it's easy for me to say folks don't really need it. But it hasn't gotten me far in life.
P.S. Another legitimate beef the Deaf community has is that people keep trying to teach their language to Apes. True, the Apes haven't become proficient. Koko was able to invent a phrase to describe her feeling of apparent loss when her kitten died. I forget what it was, but it was a combination of terms to describe something different. Some signing apes have been observed passing the signs on to their children. (At which point the experiment was shut down by NASA )
The Great Apes are very close to humans, but I think of our language capacity is like a peacock's tail, and the development of it probably serves similar purposes. That is, birds have tails to balance them in flight and while walking. The peacock's tail is so big it has difficulty doing either. Likewise our language capacity was meant to build communities, but we use it instead to compete, to sue, to run for office, and do other things that are counterproductive the the purpose it was apparently intended for.
[ January 07, 2005, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Dangling participles actually bug me.
And well they should.
As far as the Star Trek thing, sure, we laughed at that too. But that's because we're geeks!
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:Doctor, you say there are no haloes around the streetlights in Paris and what I see is an aberration caused by old age, an affliction. I tell you it has taken me all my life to arrive at the vision of gas lamps as angels, to soften and blur and finally banish the edges you regret I don't see ...
[see link below for rest of poem]
I'll offer up a link to Lisel Mueller's Monet Refuses the Operation as another perspective. It is a poem, not an argument, but when I first ran across it, it gave me pause for heavy reflection. It is written in the voice of Monet, who is explaining to a physician why he does not want to have his cataracts removed. The cataracts are, of course, seen as an obvious affliction by the physician.
Mueller wrote a great poem. It is one of four items I always have in my office. For me, it is a good reminder that disability and ability are always contextual, never absolute. Granted, we often share the same general context, but not always.
As for hearing, it is a sense I could do without. Most of what I find unpleasant in the world is sound-related, and I find noises a terrible distraction from my research work. By trial and error, I've found one album (The Essential Leonard Cohen) that I can play on headphones to drown out officemates without driving me crazy, but it's the only one. I lisen to it all day, every day, and it is a great comfort. Before that, I was jumpish and skittered and distracted all the time. Even with earplugs, I found myself unable to ignore regular office noises enough to get absorbed in my work.
At this point, I wouldn't voluntarily give up my hearing, though, because I will continue to work with patients, and I have to be able to communicate with them in order to figure out how to help them. A lot of pediatrics is vet medicine, true, but not all of it. The adolescent part sure isn't.
However, were I just doing textual research, it would be a mighty temptation. I don't say this lightly, and I don't say it just to play the devil's advocate. I'm serious. My ideal vacation would be to take the Northwest Passage up by the pole. Stark white -- ice and snow, minimal visual distractions. No talking, no music. Just thinking. (Unfortunately, the icebreaker ships do make a lot of noise, but I expect it will be more of a white noise, once I get used to it.) I look forward to this trip, and I've figured out how much it will eventually cost.
I can't think well with distractions, especially not with noise distractions that are constantly pulling my attention away. They feel abrasive. I've often wondered whether this is a bit of PDD / "autism spectrum" symptomatology for me. Certainly many of these children seem to find many noises quite abrasive and upsetting, too. I imagine that they might well welcome deafness, too.
Of course, then the problem becomes: "Isn't it just that you are defective, that for some reason you cannot process this sense properly. The problem is not the sense itself (that is a gift! a blessing! and unmitigated good thing), and if you were wired right, then you would appreciate it."
*shrug
It's all context, it's always context. I haven't found many people who can concentrate as much as I can, who are as good at pattern recognition in text or in conceptual analysis. You may not have that, just as I may not have your particular skills or talents. I certainly do not enjoy music as others do. (Ask Tom and Christy! They have played Cranium with me as I tried to hum Stairway to Heaven. Pretty excruciating for all involved.) I know this means I miss out on a lot. I have heard and read how glorious, spiritual, and defining music can be. Good grief, Synesthesia is particularly eloquent about it here, but there is a wealth of data out there through history on how important music can be.
But it doesn't turn me on. Geometric theorems do, as do formal proofs in logic, a tight conceptual analysis, the interlocked feedback loops of endocrinology, and differential diagnosis. Mind you, math and music are often associated loves. I have one, but not the other.
Were I in a different context (say, 12th century AD), the disabling nature of deafness would likely far outweigh the enabling nature of it. Again, it is always contextual. But I see no reason to necessarily privilege one context over another.
What an interesting conversation! I'm glad I found the thread.
[ January 07, 2005, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I reckon we will simply not agree.
(Note though, that I said more senses was better with the specific caveat "provided your brain is wired in such a way as to be capable of processing all of the input." I was specifically thinking of things like David Brin's novel The Hollow Man, in which the main character can perceive the thoughts of those around him, but can't drown them out (not a unique sci-fi dilemma, but an interesting handling of it) and is miserable. He would give up that sense, if he could, because of its disruptive effect on his life.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I reckon we won't. Interesting to read different perspectives, though.
Note too that I said it is always about context. Nobody is ever exactly like anyone else, so which context is the privileged one will always be up to negotiation.
(BTW, I just read your Other Side thread. I just about died laughing. Woke my husband.)
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
One context: "provided your brain is wired in such a way as to be capable of processing all of the input" --> more senses is better
Another context: "provided your brain is wired in such a way as to be capable of processing non-sensory structure in its fullest detail" --> fewer senses (distractions) is better
A third context: "provided your brain is wired in such a way as to be capable of appreciating a less detailed discrimination of a sense" --> having blurred vision from cataracts is better, as opposed to seeing in crisp detail [think Monet, as per hypothetical in the poem above]
[ January 07, 2005, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I am saddened by the complete absence of the word "cunning" from this thread.
</aside>
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Regarding your first two contexts: are they mutually exclusive? You seem to take it for granted that they must be.
Regarding your third context: this is circular, neh?
Regarding my Other Side thread: Thanks! Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Peggy Larner anyone?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Trisha and Beverly -- how did you gals get into the secret fraternity of linguists?
[ January 07, 2005, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Cunning, I'd imagine. *high-fives twinky*
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote: Regarding your first two contexts: are they mutually exclusive? You seem to take it for granted that they must be.
I'd guess that in some metacontexts they are mutually exclusive, and in other metacontexts, they are not. (How's that for weaselly? ) Seriously, humans do not have limited potential. We are finite, bounded creatures. Some can do one, some can do both, some can do neither. And placing any of these in a given situation would make any one of them "better," depending on the constraints of the situation.
quote:Regarding your third context: this is circular, neh?
How so? (I really don't understand -- where is the circularity here, as opposed to any of the other examples?) I think that what makes a characteristic "better" is relative to context of what is possible and what is valued. That is always true, though, for any example of the like.
quote:Regarding my Other Side thread: Thanks!
Well, it is self-referentially brilliant. Dare I say ... cunning?
[ January 07, 2005, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
[Drat you, TomDavidson! ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"And placing any of these in a given situation would make any one of them 'better,' depending on the constraints of the situation."
It is certainly true that a child born without legs is at an advantage when he and his friends are attacked by the Leg-Eating Monster.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Well, if he were in a situation where one's toenails are particularly prone to Flesh-Eating Gangrenous Crud, he sure would be.
Look, I understand that currently we operate in a situation where many standardizations are assumed. E.g., it is undoubtedly more difficult to get through life as a left-handed person, since so much (from schoolchairs to scissors to can openers) is designed for right-handers. Not a severe disability, but yes, a disadvantage in this context. But really, that is on the level of red=stop and green=go.
Once we settle on a convention, bucking the convention puts you at a disadvantage. But there is nothing intrinsic about the convention itself.
The world as we have it now presents us with certain standardized conventions. We can change some of them, and some of them we can't. Still, the "betterness" is relative to the convention.
[ January 07, 2005, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
There is a Flesh-Eating Gangrenous Crud of the toenails, BTW. That isn't its scientific name, but it exists. Scout's Honor.
*fingers crossed (well, there are parasites and things which have a prediliction for the area under the toenail)
But for a less silly real-world example, there is the classic case of sickle-cell disease. Why would we ever have selected for a propensity to undergo painful crises of clumped blood cells in the extremities, lungs, etc., leading to autosplenectomy (and subsequent vulnerability to all the nasty encapsulated bacteria) and, in a not insignificant number of cases, death?
Well, if you live in an area endemic with malaria, it is protective. Context matters. There are very few things that we as humans all share which would ground any sort of "betterness" intrinsic to any member of us (as a species) that are not heavily moderated by the environment we are in.
And most of those environmental factors can be changed. We may decide not to change them, but that doesn't negate the essential arbitrariness of chosing that convention.
[ January 07, 2005, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Circular because you are saying an inability to perceive sharp edges is advantageous in the context of a person who is capable of enjoying that. Come on . . . if I take that to an extreme, an inability to defend oneself is advantageous in people with the capacity to enjoy being victimized, and it is incorrect to say that this inability is intrinsically worse, since, depending on your perspective, it is better.
-o-
This isn't the same as left- and right-handedness, where both are abilities, they are merely different ones. You are comparing the presence of an ability with its lack, and with a few caveats, I say the presence of a ability is always preferable to its absence.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Mmmm ... well, let's see. How would you phrase the context in which not seeing sharp distinctions is a benefit, a la Monet in the poem?
I think it is a plausible context to address, even if I have done you ill in my attempt to capture it. Help me?
[ January 07, 2005, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't like music either, Sara. I think it's because I'm not a naturally outgoing person, so my neurotransmitter exhaustion manifests as OCD instead of ADD. But society kind of caters to extroversion. I guess I have noise in my head a lot of the time, and noise in the environment is just annoying.
I've always said I'd rather be blind than deaf because I worked extensively with a blind woman, and seen how she was able to live independently. "Though the blind are reputed to have capabilities compensating for their lack of vision..." Funny that people believe this about the blind and not the deaf.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I have a bizarre love-hate relationship with music. I find it elating, but it is so powerful that I choose not to listen to it 90% of the time. It hijacks my emotions and mood too much, sometimes in a way that has a net unpleasant effect.
When I do choose to listen to music it is either soothing and wordless or old and familiar.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Dave worked with a deaf man in Winnipeg who was quite able to function perfectly well on his own. He, being of that age and sex, of course used it to his advantage: when eating out for lunch, he'd gesture at the menu with quizzical looks in order to get the waitress to lean closely over his shoulder.
Yes, the guys made a habit of going to Earl's, which is well-known for its shapely waitresses.
Yes, he did it on purpose.
Yes, the other guys dogged him because they were jealous. They were also appreciative.
(I have to work for awhile, but I'll be back later in the afternoon. )
[BTW, everyone who worked at that research center had gone through ASL training as part of their work orientation. The guys found this much to their advantage in larger provincial conferences, as they could sign wisecracks and snide remarks to each other during presentations without anyone knowing. For a while, Dave and I made use of ASL to talk across the room to each other -- e.g., in a Barnes & Noble cafe -- but my skills are rusty now. Shame, that.]
[ January 07, 2005, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Hooray for Tom! *high fives*
*feels better*
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'll never be able to think of cunning linguistics without picturing Robin Williams in drag. :retch:
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
pooka -- I can't believe you revived that screen name after giving me such a hard time for calling you pooka instead of Trisha. Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
^*(*&&%*%&* windows XP. How long did it take me to notice?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I was wondering about that myself.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It looks like it took you 3 posts to notice it.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
I should have realized it when I had to log in to Galacticcactus.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I also find it bizarre that you mocked me for calling you the "sex kitten" name "pooka", but your current name seems more more sex kitten than "pooka" does.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
I believe the phrase was "sexy pet name". "Sex kitten" is just perverted. And this name is from the StrongBad kid's book. How can it be bad?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
"sexy pet name" and "sex kitten name" mean the same thing to me.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
Interesting. Perhaps we should generate a dialect map study.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Deafness is not anything like homosexuality - a homosexual is still fully capable of engaging in sexual activity. A deaf person has lost something, a gay person has not.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Deaf people do have some advantages though. They have a very good eye, and are quick to observe. The same is true of their sense of touch. (In fact their sense of touch is quite heightened, and goes hand in hand with their need for social interaction, so that the deaf community tends to be more sexualized than hearing people) When a deaf person is not looking at you, and you want their attention, you simply stomp on the floor unless there is someone they are talking to who can see you waving your hand. They can feel the vibration very well, and tell what direction it came from.
But I think there is another defecit of being deaf that isn't spoken of here. That is social development. You would be amazed at how much children learn just by being around the conversation of others, even in the simplest situations such as preparing something for dinner or hearing other kids on the bus. Deaf children are unable to recieve this particular input. All spontaneous communication they recieve must be within visual range. Among hearing families, it must also usually be directed at them. The problem is that ASL really is a second language for hearing people. It is much easier for us to communicate verbally. Even the hearing family dedicated to making their deaf member be included will let slide many things that were spoken but not signed. And this is even where all the children have learned sign from the beginning. Our family is good friends with a family that did carry a genetic trait for deafness. Three of ten children were deaf. But still, there was lots of translation rather than communication occuring.
This is a lot of why deaf people are so isolated. They cannot make the leap, and so for interaction with the hearing world they must rely not only on our tolerance, but our whim at deciding to learn ASL.
There are a lot of social niceties my sister hasn't picked up on because of this, and because deaf culture sometimes even goes so far as to pronounce itself superior to hearing culture, she has often excused herself from paying attention to us when we outright tell her that such behavior is not polite, and sometimes quite rude.
She went to a public school at first, but the translators were fairly incompetent and even rude sometimes. So my parents enrolled her in the deaf school they had already purposefully moved close to. We found the teachers were far too tolerant of poor behavior and study skills. We found hearing parents that literally dropped their kids off in the fall and didn't see them again until summer. When those kids got older, they would tend to not go home, but stay with a deaf friend instead. Their family hadn't even bothered learning sign. No wonder many deaf people feel no love for the hearing community. Most hearing people never go beyond a few moments of feeling pity for the deaf person.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote: Deafness is not anything like homosexuality - a homosexual is still fully capable of engaging in sexual activity. A deaf person has lost something, a gay person has not.
Foust, what is your take on the perspective offered by the poem (Monet Refuses the Operation)? When he lost part of his eyesight to catacts, was it necessarily a bad thing? Was it only loss?
(*honest question )
[ January 07, 2005, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
I don't have cataracts, but I am severely near sighted.
I must say, the world is beautiful without my glasses. Especially lights. At Christmas I always take some time to view the tree without contacts or glasses.
I understand that Monet eventually did have the operation though, didn't he? And was appalled at how much he had mispercieved color.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
quote: Deafness is not anything like homosexuality - a homosexual is still fully capable of engaging in sexual activity. A deaf person has lost something, a gay person has not.
Having a child that is genetically linked to both you and the person you love is something most people yearn for, and those who are able will spend a lot of money to get. I fully believe homosexuals have this desire. It's perhaps a little on the romantic and sentimental side.
Currently, a child related to one or the other of a couple has to do. It has to be frustrating to them that so many children are neglected, or the parents break up over something stupid, or just take that ability for granted.
Anyway, homosexuals are in that respect not fully functional. Maybe I'm wrong that it bothers them. But I like to think they have the same desires to parent as heterosexuals.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I honestly have no idea as to the accuracy of the poem from a historical perspective. When I first came across it, I believe I tried to track down information, and I ended up finding controversy (IIRC) about whether he even had cataracts. Some sources seemed to believe this to be pure speculation.
What I find intriguing and compelling is the perspective that the poem offers, regardless of whether it refers to events that have ever actually occurred. Before I read it, I was a die-hard medical-model "disease is disease, injury is injury" person. It made me think. That got me interested.
quote:Anyway, homosexuals are in that respect not fully functional. Maybe I'm wrong that it bothers them. But I like to think they have the same desires to parent as heterosexuals.
Probably some homsoexuals have the same desire to parent as some heterosexuals do. That would be my guess.
[ January 07, 2005, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
It probably doesn't bother all of them, just like it doesn't bother all heterosexuals.
But I think it is true. Of the lesbian couple, they must have a sperm donor. And of the male couple, they must have not only an egg donor, but a surrogate as well. Or else adopt.
This is something that no amount of social acceptance or rights can change.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
IVF technology can [potentially].
And there is also the attachment formed by adopting. What the approach above commits us to saying is also that adoptive parents have less of an attachment to their children than do biological ones. Mind you, that may be correct -- but it is a deduction that follows from the premise, so it's worth committing to it in full awareness.
I realize that this may not fly far for those with certain religious beliefs, but some of us without the biological drive to have our own children believe there to be specific benefits to not having that drive. Not to speak for her, but I think our Janitor has written eloquently about this somewhere on the web. (She and her husband do not have children, but they have many many people in their home and lives, and they play many roles in those lives.)
[ January 07, 2005, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
I think adoption is beautiful. I'm simply saying there are a lot of people who undergo painful and expensive fertility treatments to get their own children. Before I read some of the personal accounts here, I felt adoption was better. But I don't think we have to put one above the other.
P.S. You have to keep in mind that my position on the deaf is that they are a minority with special needs, not that they are wrong to feel dignity in their condition nor are they a simple variation on normal.
[ January 07, 2005, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I'd agree, totally [with the "But I don't think we have to put one above the other']. I'd call that "not privileging one context over another," but the idea is just the same.
[ January 07, 2005, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Before I read it, I was a die-hard medical-model "disease is disease, injury is injury" person. It made me think.
Somehow this is bringing to mind our conversation from a couple of years ago about surgery to remove a cancerous eye in a Hmong child, who without the surgery would certainly die. I'm sure you remember it, but for the sake of those who don't, or who weren't here then, the dilemma was this--the family viewed the idea of the surgery with horror, since in their belief system removing the eye would result in all future incarnations of that person having only one eye. In their minds, it was better for him to die once of the cancer than to be deprived of an eye in all future incarnations. The doctors, of course, were approaching the problem from the a more conventional western perspective, and without a belief in reincarnation viewed the parent's attitude as being beyond abusive. At least, that's my recollection of it. Sara, if you remember the case better than I do, feel free to correct me.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I still haven't written my thoughts out for you, Noemon!
I think my wavering and reluctance about that case (and your request for input) rests on knowing that any argument made isn't going to be a satisfactory one. I think there are better and worse solutions, and -- given the context in which the situation occurs -- more and less workable situations.
But better to puzzle through it than just avoid it, eh? I'll try to tackle my thoughts about it here.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm not sure I can articulate why, but in my mind there is a big difference between religious beliefs that allow the child to die of cancer and religious beliefs that require them to slay their child.
This was touched upon in an abortion thread a few months back, but I was never able to resolve it in my mind to my satisfaction.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
Reminds me of an episode of Star Trek Deep Space 9, where one culture forbade autopsies but there was suspicion that a murder had occured.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
It's a great case for probing the iffiest areas, isn't it, Porter? For me, it's like probing a sore tooth with my tongue. I'm drawn to it, yet I dread it.
[Yeah, Trisha. Exactly.]
[ January 07, 2005, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
Well, when we were talking about the Garden of Eden yesterday it later occured to me that what wound up happening is that Adam decided to commit a sin of commission in order to stop a sin of ommision. (If one interprets "Multiply..." and "Don't Partake..." as contradicting commandments.)
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: You have to keep in mind that my position on the deaf is that they are a minority with special needs, not that they are wrong to feel dignity in their condition nor are they a simple variation on normal.
What other position would be expected of you or others, given that it's a variation on the broader mainstream cultural view on deafness?
Now, is this the only position to have? (OK, it's a loaded question and I'm providing an answer.)
I posted this on another thread, but it looks like I might as well post it here, too:
--recycled posting here--
For anyone interested in the social construction aspects of disability, there's a great account of a real time and place in our own country - a time and place in which deafness was not considered a disability or even deviant. (I don't think anyone has mentioned this book. Apologies if I missed it.)
It's been awhile (probably over 10 years) since I read it, so here's one of the customer reviews on Amazon that gives some good information on the book:
quote: Inspiring and interesting, February 9, 2002 Reviewer: lifeboatless_earthling (Massachusetts) - See all my reviews
This is one of my favorite books of all time. Originally written as an ethnographic study, it is also completely readable for a non-professional popular audience. Basically, it is the story of the islanders of Martha's Vineyard, a large island off the coast of Massachusetts. The islanders originally came from the same 2 or 3 boatloads of colonists from England, by way of Boston and Scituate, from a region in Kent which already seems to have had a high incidence of hereditary deafness. Due to the geographic isolation of the island, recessive genes for deafness, which were already prominent in the original Kentish colonists, came increasingly to the fore. As the proportions of islanders who happened to be deaf gradually increased, what was the islanders' answer? Not shunning the deaf. Far from it. Rather, a tradition arose that EVERYONE on the island, deaf or hearing, simply learned sign language as children!
This book is full of fascinating little anecdotes, about how island society worked to include its deaf members. For example, we learn about families and friends, some deaf and some hearing, who would regularly sit next to each other in church. The hearing members would sign the sermons to their deaf friends. Or, sometimes groups of people who could hear perfectly well might be together, for whatever reason, and they might happen to converse by signing just as much as in spoken English. Everyone spoke both languages.
Some of my favorite parts of the book focus on the benefits of signing. For example, perhaps two neighbors wanted to converse, while being separated by 200 yards of noisy space, made vocally impenetrable by sounds of surf and sea. Whether they were deaf or hearing, they could get out their spyglasses (this was a 19th century whaling community, where spyglasses were in every household) and sign to each other across the distance while viewing each other through the magnification afforded by the spyglasses. One entertaining anecdote tells of two young men, who could hear perfectly well, who would use their signing ability to pick up girls off-island. They would pique the girls' interest in them by signing amongst themselves, and would claim that one of them was deaf. After they had secured the girls' interest, they would put on a lengthy, well-practiced charade of deafness to keep the gils curious about them. Do they ever let on that they can really hear? You'll have to read the book to find out! Bwa ha ha haaaa ( that's the sound of an evil laugh).
Those are a few minor anecdotes. The whole book is packed with stories like that, and it's endlessly amazing. The last couple of chapters make excellent, general points about the human issues raised in the book, and about how we as a society think about the "handicapped" -- perhaps, as Dr. Groce points out, we should not use the term in the first place.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
(Just for clarity, I've edited my above post that sits below Trisha's and above Noemon's, as I was agreeing with the first part of her post (before the edit), not the last part (her edit))
[ January 07, 2005, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Ah yes. In my classes, Martha's Vineyard was mentioned often as a lost utopia for the Deaf to be remembered with sweet fondness.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Bev,
And there's the irony and the tragedy...
That simple acceptance is seen as "utopia" -
Says a lot about what deaf people experience in the rest of world, doesn't it?
[ January 07, 2005, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Yeah, I can totally understand that.
I am really glad that I had the opportunity to learn about Deaf culture and sign language. Even if some of the things I learned bothered me, it allows me to begin to understand and empathize.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:I still haven't written my thoughts out for you, Noemon!
Nope! I have to admit that while I really did bring it up because your comments brought it to mind, I also brought it up in hopes of finally hearing your thoughts on the subject.
quote:But better to puzzle through it than just avoid it, eh? I'll try to tackle my thoughts about it here
It worked!
::steeples fingers::
Eeeeeeexcelent.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
quote: not that they are wrong to feel dignity in their condition
This is a bit of a straw man presentation of some other opinions that have been expressed in this thread. People irritated by deaf activism.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I forget where we are in numbering the tenets, but an important one would be:
English Only is a fru-it of the devil.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Just because they pronounce an acquired foreign language the same does not make Welsh and Hindi related. (Um, there is a thread about this but I just used up all my search tokens unearthing this.)
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It's interesting that in the time since this thread last saw light, I now have a nephew who is largely deaf (the doctors aren't sure why). His mother was planning to home school before all this, so she is teaching him sign and is encouraging all of us to learn sign. I suppose I should put more effort into that.
Well, the reason I was bumping this is to address the question of "Talking down to your children." The evidence that children do not learn language by hearing adult speech came, oddly enough, from a deaf couple who gave birth to a hearing child. Wanting the child to learn to speak, they let it watch tv and had the radio on talk shows regularly. But the child did not learn to speak from that exposure. I'm sure deaf activists just have a conniption over this story, how the child may have missed the opportunity to learn sign in a literally fruitless effort of hearing input. I don't recall anymore if they parents didn't teach the child sign. I can't imagine playing with a baby without using what language you have, inadvertently.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:And there is a reason behind this. Most Language Arts teachers teach Language Arts because they love literature, not because they are linguists. And so this takes from them the responsibility to carry out a part of their jobs they find tedious, and frees them up to spend more time on literature.
But, in my experience, it tends to do their students a disservice.
I actually argued with the director of undergraduate studies for my major for having the major in linguistics added to the education/language arts track so that I could major in linguistics rather than literature. I argued that abilities as a linguist would make me a better teacher, and the linguistics degree still required a good sample of literature classes so I would be getting both.
I *love* linguistics and think it's a crime that my university only requires 1 class in linguistics to graduate with a teaching degree for Language arts. I sincerely believe we would be better served with people in schools who love language as much as they love literature.
I'm actually hoping to get a grad degree in linguistics, I'll just have to see how things fall.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I can't imagine expecting that your child will "learn speech" by passively absorbing TV and radio broadcasts. Even in environments where people aren't talking down to children, they're still interacting with children. While I didn't consciously dumb down my vocabulary for Sophie, I made sure to add additional context and visual cues to the sentences I used for her, and I think more than half the vocab she picked up was due directly to that sort of custom interaction.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
quote:Well, the reason I was bumping this is to address the question of "Talking down to your children."
I don't see how you're addressing it. There are lots of ways you can talk to children without necessarily talking down to them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Specifically, she was attempting to rebut KQ's claim that she doesn't talk down to children by arguing that it's impossible to teach children language without talking down to them. I don't think her example proves that point, but I DO think that she's right -- for a certain definition of "talking down" which does not necessarily require a simpler vocabulary, but which does require that special care be taken in using words or sentence structures with more complexity.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Good for you, Belle. I wholeheartedly agree. I think it's a shame that we treat English and language arts like such important subjects and then fail to teach students a more scientific and analytical approach to those subjects.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Specifically, she was attempting to rebut KQ's claim that she doesn't talk down to children by arguing that it's impossible to teach children language without talking down to them. I don't think her example proves that point, but I DO think that she's right -- for a certain definition of "talking down" which does not necessarily require a simpler vocabulary, but which does require that special care be taken in using words or sentence structures with more complexity.
I completely agree with this.
I would like to note something I learned in developmental psychology -- it seems that infants and children hear higher pitched sounds more easily and so, they theorize, this is why mothers get that baby voice that is an octave or so higher than their normal speech.
Unfortunately, I never seemed to get the hang of baby voice. I talk to my son like a human being. He seems to be learning language ok for all that, so I guess I'm not screwing him up.
I do double-talk with him. (I don't know if that's an official word or not.) Basically, I say something like I would to any grown up and then I rephrase it to help him with the meaning. For example. "Are you getting tired?" Then I will follow this with doing the sleep sign (we do baby signs) and saying, "Nap?"
We use pretty big words with him. One of my husband's favorite words is "inefficient." But with that, too, we follow it up with a simpler explanation which usually involves what the more efficient solution is. "Try holding the spoon like this." (for example)
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I do believe in not correcting children's errors of grammar, as they pick up grammar in a certain specific order, and depending on what stage they're in, they will have certain errors but not others. But I think studying grammar once you've acquired your langauge (say in sixth to eighth grade) is a great idea.
That said, I think I learned correct grammar from reading a lot, like most people have said, instead of from studying it. But I had a fantastic English teacher in 6th-8th grade and she did teach us why something is correct, rather than just "because it sounds right" which is what I knew on my own. It was interesting and useful to know that.
The grammar error that I notice most in the world is not improper use of the subjunctive ("If I was omnipotent..." vs. "If I were omnipotent..."), or split infinitives ("To boldly go..." vs. "Boldly to go..."). It is the lie lay thing ("Yesterday I laid (or worse "layed") out in the sun" vs. "Yesterday I lay out in the sun.") Almost nobody gets that right, and I notice it every time I see it. Then I have an impulse to correct the person. Then I stifle that impulse because it's not polite and because I make mistakes all the time in various things and people don't correct me (though perhaps it would be good if they did sometimes, if they did it in a way that wasn't a putdown.)
To me this is an interesting thread, and I'm glad it got revived. I just read through the whole thing, so I'm responding to various ideas that have come up throughout the thread.
I think talking to children in whatever way comes naturally is just fine. Absent any learning disabilities or other special needs, they are going to tend to pick up the same level of ability with language that their parents and siblings display. Reading to them a lot, and interacting with them verbally in other ways, is all they really need. Baby talk serves an important function.
I'm sort of geeky, and my father was as well. It may be the case that inability to metabolize certain fatty acids that cause brain inflammation may be the cause for that. Both of us are pretty smart in lots of things that don't involve people, though. Like math, science, engineering, building things, understanding machines, and for me, just about all school subjects. So the question becomes, if I could be "normal", whatever that is, would I do it? Would I have to give up this deep appreciation of math? Would I have to give up my science and engineering ability? Certainly I would like to understand people better, and be able to connect with them more easily, but I want it to be a "too" thing and not an "instead" thing. If I had to pick being me or being "normal", I would rather be me. So I understand how deaf people can feel the same way.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
I'm pretty sure the consensus now is that "to boldly go" is not grammatically wrong.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Obviously, if it's on TNG, it's not wrong. On that agree all of we can.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
[I do believe in not correcting children's errors of grammar, as they pick up grammar in a certain specific order, and depending on what stage they're in, they will have certain errors but not others. But I think studying grammar once you've acquired your langauge (say in sixth to eighth grade) is a great idea.[/quote]
I totally disagree. I think grammar comes more naturally to those who hear it correctly and hear themselves corrected. Their brains make the connections more easily when they try it out and hear it repeated back to them correctly. You don't have to be nasty about it. Mothers have a natural kind of way of doing this:
Child: Can I have a cookie? Mom: May I have a cookie...and no, you have to wait until after dinner.
You don't call attention to it or call them stupid or wrong. You just gently say it the right way and move on so that they hear it the right way and know what the right way is.
Otherwise, they're going to have a heck of a time in middle school trying to figure out why one way is right and another isn't. It really is kind of arbitrary when it comes down to it, but I always got A's in grammar without trying because I just chose the answer that sounded right -- the one that my mom used gentle redirection to show me.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly: 9) Being Hearing is *not* better than being Deaf. It is just "different".
Being alive is not better than being dead. It's just "different".
Being healthy is not better than being sick. It's just "different".
Having no arms or legs is not better than having arms and legs. It's just "different".
I get how some people make a virtue of a necessity. It helps them cope. But when it reaches the point (as it has) where some deaf parents want their children to be deaf as well, that's just child abuse.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly:
quote: It all seems very PC to me.
Icarus, I *so* agree. And that is what we are mocking. But there do seem to be people who feel this way.
It reminds me of how homosexuals feel about being told they have a defect and not liking people to want to "cure" them. It is all a matter of perspective.
What a horrible comparison. Being gay doesn't prevent me from doing anything. Unless you count falling in love with a member of the opposite sex, in which case heterosexuals are just as incapable of falling in love with members of the same sex.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:This reasoning still applies to the homosexual community. I haven't met one who doesn't say "If I could choose to be straight, it would be so much easier..."
I've met hundreds who say that. You need to get out more. Google "magic pill" and "gay" and see what you get.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote: I have my reasons for holding [my opinions] about homosexuality. . . . They are based on doctrinal assumptions that cannot be proven at this time. But the reasons are there, and they make sense. Edit: They make sense only *if* you accept the doctrinal assumptions that cannot be proven, of course.
*nod*
I agree/I believe you.
I don't have a problem with Christians considering homosexuality sinful. I don't think they are bigots for doing so.
And that's as much as I will say there.
She went beyond calling it "sinful" and compared it to a disability. That is definitely bigoted.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Trisha the Severe Bigot: Having a child that is genetically linked to both you and the person you love is something most people yearn for, and those who are able will spend a lot of money to get. I fully believe homosexuals have this desire.
My daughter is my daughter every bit as much as if I'd carried her to term myself. Apparently, you're not only bigoted against gays and lesbians, but against adopted parents as well.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The wonderful thing about linguistics is that most experiments that could prove or disprove anything would be considered so horribly unethical, they will never be conducted. So like the field of pregnancy pharmacology, we are left with data to be gleaned from the case studies of exigency. I think people who say they don't "talk down" to their children must have a weird idea of what it means to talk down.
I think the deaf community's rejection of people with cochlear implants would be like if there was an adoption community which banded together to reject people who were the product of fertility treatment. I mean, I guess I belong to a community of folks who think their appearance is okay, who struggle to reject the idea that everyone would be happier with cosmetic surgery. And I think my view is reasonable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Having a child that is genetically linked to both you and the person you love is something most people yearn for, and those who are able will spend a lot of money to get.
I've got to admit that I find the idea of "genetic linkage" bizarre. It's hard to imagine Sophie being any less mine if she were, say, the child of some random dude who had better sperm.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I always felt people should adopt until I got to an age where I started to know more people who wanted their own kids and couldn't. In my experience it is more often the husband who feels less interested in adopting if he can't spread his own seed. It's also a different matter when you've been able to have your own children. I'll never really know what it's like to struggle with that, especially if you're a religious person and how barrenness is used as a curse and lifting it as a blessing throught the Bible. Blindness is also used as a metaphor for wickedness in the scriptures. I guess I know how it feels to have your firstborn smote.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I've got to admit that I find the idea of "genetic linkage" bizarre. It's hard to imagine Sophie being any less mine if she were, say, the child of some random dude who had better sperm.
And yet, people do go to extraordinary lengths to have a genetically related child. It might seem bizarre to you, but there's a fertility industry that suggests it's a common desire.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Trisha the Severe Bigot: Having a child that is genetically linked to both you and the person you love is something most people yearn for, and those who are able will spend a lot of money to get. I fully believe homosexuals have this desire.
My daughter is my daughter every bit as much as if I'd carried her to term myself. Apparently, you're not only bigoted against gays and lesbians, but against adopted parents as well.
You're out of line, Lisa, especially with the juvenile name-calling.
Beyond that, pooka's statement that it is a common desire that is also experienced by homosexuals is a true statement. There is nothing in what you quoted that even suggests that your daughter is any less your daughter due to the lack of genetic relationship.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Having a child that is genetically linked to both you and the person you love is something most people yearn for, and those who are able will spend a lot of money to get.
I've got to admit that I find the idea of "genetic linkage" bizarre. It's hard to imagine Sophie being any less mine if she were, say, the child of some random dude who had better sperm.
Why is it bizarre that people want a child linked to them genetically? It seems to be a very productive thing to desire, from an evolutionary and reproductive standpoint. I have had and continue to have that desire (and have been blessed to have that desire fulfilled).
On the other hand, I don't see why this desire takes anything away from the parent/child relationship when a child is adopted. Can't it be both ways?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Trisha the Severe Bigot: Having a child that is genetically linked to both you and the person you love is something most people yearn for, and those who are able will spend a lot of money to get. I fully believe homosexuals have this desire.
My daughter is my daughter every bit as much as if I'd carried her to term myself. Apparently, you're not only bigoted against gays and lesbians, but against adopted parents as well.
You're out of line, Lisa, especially with the juvenile name-calling.
I disagree. If she's going to be a bigot, she's going to be called on it.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Beyond that, pooka's statement that it is a common desire that is also experienced by homosexuals is a true statement. There is nothing in what you quoted that even suggests that your daughter is any less your daughter due to the lack of genetic relationship.
I disagree.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I disagree.
She stated an opinion about whether most people desire a particular thing. How is that bigoted against people who don't desire that particular thing?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:On the other hand, I don't see why this desire takes anything away from the parent/child relationship when a child is adopted.
I would assert that it must. If there is a possible desirable attribute of "genetically related" which can be possessed by children, a child which does not possess this attribute -- all other attributes being held equal -- is inferior to one who possesses it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I would assert that it must. If there is a possible desirable attribute of "genetically related" which can be possessed by children, a child which does not possess this attribute -- all other attributes being held equal -- is inferior to one who possesses it.
The problem with your assessment is that "all other attributes" are not being held equal. Adoption requires a pretty grueling process, an element of selection, and the knowledge that the parent is caring for a child that is at risk of not receiving adequate care. Surrogate motherhood and sperm donation require other types of effort - a tangible symbol of the strength of the desire for the child.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:On the other hand, I don't see why this desire takes anything away from the parent/child relationship when a child is adopted.
I would assert that it must. If there is a possible desirable attribute of "genetically related" which can be possessed by children, a child which does not possess this attribute -- all other attributes being held equal -- is inferior to one who possesses it.
I'm really having trouble with this whole line of reasoning. It's cold and impersonal. Children aren't just lists of attributes, they are human beings. How can you suggest then, that lacking a desirable attribute makes one child inferior compared to another? This concept doesn't even belong in a discussion of children. This isn't math -- it is human love.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Trisha the Severe Bigot: Having a child that is genetically linked to both you and the person you love is something most people yearn for, and those who are able will spend a lot of money to get. I fully believe homosexuals have this desire.
My daughter is my daughter every bit as much as if I'd carried her to term myself. Apparently, you're not only bigoted against gays and lesbians, but against adopted parents as well.
And thus we see how the word bigot is losing all meaning.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I disagree.
She stated an opinion about whether most people desire a particular thing. How is that bigoted against people who don't desire that particular thing?
She doesn't have the first idea what gay people want or don't want, what we feel or what we don't feel, what we think or what we don't think. She's gone on record in the past as claiming that homosexuality is inherently misogynistic. She's found any number of justifications for her bigotry, and very few of them have been religious dogma. Rather, they've been personal assumptions about people who are different from her.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Not everything in the world is about whether homosexuality is good or bad. One of the things that isn't is whether most people want genetically-related children.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:On the other hand, I don't see why this desire takes anything away from the parent/child relationship when a child is adopted.
I would assert that it must. If there is a possible desirable attribute of "genetically related" which can be possessed by children, a child which does not possess this attribute -- all other attributes being held equal -- is inferior to one who possesses it.
I'm really having trouble with this whole line of reasoning. It's cold and impersonal. Children aren't just lists of attributes, they are human beings. How can you suggest then, that lacking a desirable attribute makes one child inferior compared to another? This concept doesn't even belong in a discussion of children. This isn't math -- it is human love.
Amen.
Not flesh of my flesh Nor bone of my bone And yet, miraculously, My own
Never forget For a single minute You didn't grow under my heart But in it.
Someone who hasn't adopted has no clue.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: [qb]
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Trisha the Severe Bigot: Having a child that is genetically linked to both you and the person you love is something most people yearn for, and those who are able will spend a lot of money to get. I fully believe homosexuals have this desire.
My daughter is my daughter every bit as much as if I'd carried her to term myself. Apparently, you're not only bigoted against gays and lesbians, but against adopted parents as well.
You're out of line, Lisa, especially with the juvenile name-calling.
I disagree. If she's going to be a bigot, she's going to be called on it.
I don't know about the posts I didn't read, but I think an ordinary person who hears that most people have a desire for genetically related children wouldn't even *think* about homosexuality, much less interpret it as an insult to homosexuals. It's like Rosie's getting upset about someone not wanting to shake hands during cold and flu season -- calling that homophobia rather than germ phobia. But not everything in the world is about her and her issues!
She was the one who included homosexuality. She was using this as an excuse for why homosexuals are "defective".
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I'm not really sure how this got into a discussion of homosexuality in the first place, to be honest. A few posts ago, we were talking about linguistics and language development in children. Perhaps we should return to that and hash out what it is that *all* homosexuals want or don't want in another thread. (Because, of course, they must all want the same things. )
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How can you suggest then, that lacking a desirable attribute makes one child inferior compared to another?
If all other attributes of two objects are held equal, lacking one desirable attribute -- by definition -- makes one object inferior. As Dag points out, though, this is almost impossible to do. We tend to be uncomfortable drawing "equivalencies" between people, because the difficulty of establishing what exactly human attributes ARE -- much less holding them equal -- is almost incalculable in itself.
The observation you're really making is that most parents love their children no matter what, and are inclined to believe that their children are wonderful regardless of the "performance" or attributes of other children.
Consider obesity, generally considered a negative attribute. Is a child who is obese improved by the removal of his obesity? Consider, as an extreme example, cancer. Or, as has been mentioned on this thread, deafness.
Adoption agencies will tell you that being over the age of two and/or a different race makes you "undesirable" to most people. Lots of people would prefer to have children that are genetically related to them, or are not disposed towards Down's Syndrome, etc. This isn't a fair judgement of the quality of the child, but the child is still clearly perceived as lacking by the market.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:She doesn't have the first idea what gay people want or don't want, what we feel or what we don't feel, what we think or what we don't think. She's gone on record in the past as claiming that homosexuality is inherently misogynistic. She's found any number of justifications for her bigotry, and very few of them have been religious dogma. Rather, they've been personal assumptions about people who are different from her.
You still have yet to explain how anything in the statement you quoted suggests bigotry against adopted parents.
You made a specific allegation that she was bigoted against "adopted parents." You specifically stated (by disagreeing with the contrary assertion) that this statement suggested such bigotry: "Having a child that is genetically linked to both you and the person you love is something most people yearn for, and those who are able will spend a lot of money to get. I fully believe homosexuals have this desire."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I'm not really sure how this got into a discussion of homosexuality in the first place, to be honest. A few posts ago, we were talking about linguistics and language development in children. Perhaps we should return to that and hash out what it is that *all* homosexuals want or don't want in another thread. (Because, of course, they must all want the same things. )
Pooka and Beverly decided, for no reason whatsoever, other than gay-bashing, to add homosexuality into this thread.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Lisa, did you notice that the posts you were quoting are from two years ago? The current discussion was on language development in children.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Not everything in the world is about whether homosexuality is good or bad. One of the things that isn't is whether most people want genetically-related children.
I hadn't noticed that this thread was from 2 years ago. But Will, you're missing the point that I didn't bring homosexuality into this at all. Pooka did. Beverly did. Okay, they did it 2 years ago. It'd be nice to think that Beverly has changed since then. I know pooka hasn't.
But why do you think it's okay for someone else to bring homosexuality into the discussion to badmouth us, but bad for me to object? Why are you trying to make it seem as though I introduced the subject out of thin air?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Lisa, did you notice that the posts you were quoting are from two years ago? The current discussion was on language development in children.
No, I didn't. Thanks for pointing it out.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:She doesn't have the first idea what gay people want or don't want, what we feel or what we don't feel, what we think or what we don't think. She's gone on record in the past as claiming that homosexuality is inherently misogynistic. She's found any number of justifications for her bigotry, and very few of them have been religious dogma. Rather, they've been personal assumptions about people who are different from her.
You still have yet to explain how anything in the statement you quoted suggests bigotry against adopted parents.
You made a specific allegation that she was bigoted against "adopted parents." You specifically stated (by disagreeing with the contrary assertion) that this statement suggested such bigotry: "Having a child that is genetically linked to both you and the person you love is something most people yearn for, and those who are able will spend a lot of money to get. I fully believe homosexuals have this desire."
She said that as an attempt to compare gays and lesbians to deaf people. You're a lawyer, Dagonee. Learn to read in context. Her point was that gay people lack the ability to do something that is important to them. In order to do so, she had to dismiss adoptive parenting as being of equal value to biological parenting. Anything in order to support her bigotry.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Every time you point out I'm a lawyer, you do so in a context that makes almost no sense.
It's clear to me that you don't want to back up your contention that asserting that most people desire a certain thing means that the one making the assertion is bigoted against those who don't desire it. Fine. I expected nothing else, actually. But don't pretend that you have done so. You haven't.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Every time you point out I'm a lawyer, you do so in a context that makes almost no sense.
It's clear to me that you don't want to back up your contention that asserting that most people desire a certain thing means that the one making the assertion is bigoted against those who don't desire it. Fine. I expected nothing else, actually. But don't pretend that you have done so. You haven't.
You're lazy.
quote:Originally posted by Foust (page 2): Deafness is not anything like homosexuality - a homosexual is still fully capable of engaging in sexual activity. A deaf person has lost something, a gay person has not.
quote:Originally posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (page 3):
quote: Deafness is not anything like homosexuality - a homosexual is still fully capable of engaging in sexual activity. A deaf person has lost something, a gay person has not.
Having a child that is genetically linked to both you and the person you love is something most people yearn for, and those who are able will spend a lot of money to get. I fully believe homosexuals have this desire. It's perhaps a little on the romantic and sentimental side.
Currently, a child related to one or the other of a couple has to do. It has to be frustrating to them that so many children are neglected, or the parents break up over something stupid, or just take that ability for granted.
Anyway, homosexuals are in that respect not fully functional. Maybe I'm wrong that it bothers them. But I like to think they have the same desires to parent as heterosexuals.
Better? I have to reiterate everything that's already in the thread so that you can understand what I'm saying? Read what Foust wrote. Read what pooka wrote in reply. Try and wrap your mind around the part about homosexuals not being fully functional.
I won't hold my breath waiting for your apology.
And my comment about you being a lawyer was pretty clear. This is an online forum. I was replying to pooka in the context of her bigoted remarks. Not just those in this thread, but in general. She has claimed that gay people are anti-women, which is one of the dumbest things I can imagine someone saying. And in this thread, she called us less than fully functional, based on nothing but her personal suppositions of what we think and feel. Anyone capable of getting through law school, to say nothing of passing the bar, should be able to grasp that without having it spelled out in nauseating detail.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I totally disagree. I think grammar comes more naturally to those who hear it correctly and hear themselves corrected. Their brains make the connections more easily when they try it out and hear it repeated back to them correctly. You don't have to be nasty about it. Mothers have a natural kind of way of doing this:
Child: Can I have a cookie? Mom: May I have a cookie...and no, you have to wait until after dinner.
Do you know anyone who actually uses "may" in all such situations? Do you actually use it?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I do.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I do. Sometimes. It tends to sound more like "M'I have a cookie?"
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Is that right, Trisha?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I totally disagree. I think grammar comes more naturally to those who hear it correctly and hear themselves corrected. Their brains make the connections more easily when they try it out and hear it repeated back to them correctly. You don't have to be nasty about it. Mothers have a natural kind of way of doing this:
Child: Can I have a cookie? Mom: May I have a cookie...and no, you have to wait until after dinner.
Do you know anyone who actually uses "may" in all such situations? Do you actually use it?
Yes, I usually do use the correct form in this case. I suppose it is one of those "rules" that a lot of people lapse on, and so maybe some parents won't choose to correct this. Nevertheless, there are other examples.
Mom: How old are you? Child: I is 3. Mom: I am 3, and yes, that's very good.
It is much easier to learn this correctly the first time rather than learning it later in school. I think the reason I do use may/can correctly is that my mom did and taught me how. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Do you know anyone who actually uses "may" in all such situations? Do you actually use it?
I'm an English major, and pretty well versed in formal speaking and writing, and yet this doesn't bother me. I don't correct it, and I also don't correct it when my kids finish a sentence with a preposition. I have no problem with splitting infinitives. To boldly go just sounds too cool to be wrong.
Now, that doesn't mean I wouldn't correct those things in a formal writing assignment, but everyday speech is not formal. As long as the grammar they are using works and makes them understood, I'm cool with it. None of us speaks the same way we write, I can almost guarantee it.
I expect that my children will use standard American English where needed, and I make sure they do know Standard American English but I don't expect they will always use it in all circumstances.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
quote:Now, that doesn't mean I wouldn't correct those things in a formal writing assignment, but everyday speech is not formal. As long as the grammar they are using works and makes them understood, I'm cool with it. None of us speaks the same way we write, I can almost guarantee it.
I expect that my children will use standard American English where needed, and I make sure they do know Standard American English but I don't expect they will always use it in all circumstances.
My personal belief (supported by my usage class in college) is that it is more important to speak appropriately than to speak "correctly" in all situations.
The example my professor gave was that when her kids were little, she would insist that they answer "This is he/she" in the following telelphone conversation:
"Hello, is Brinestone there?" "This is she."
If her kids said "This is him/her" instead, she'd walk by and whisper "This is she/he."
Once, when my professor answered the phone and said "This is she," her daughter walked by and whispered, with a smile, "This is her."
The daughter knew that using such formal language is inappropriate when chatting on the phone with a friend, even though the strictest grammar police would call it correct.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
When I started dating Tiffany, and eventually married her, I noticed she had a few bad habits in how she spoke to me. By first establishing a humorous relationship, where we could both make plays on words, I started humorously pointed out her mistakes. She was quite happy to correct herself after a few instances.
"Me and my husband went to the movies" was the first thing to go
I definitely differentiate my mays with my cans. But the classic, "I don't know CAN you" drives me nuts. I prefer to continue the dialog as if I completely accepted their query as correct. I'd probably do something like examine their teeth and test their jaw muscles and then respond with, (assuming its my own kid)
"I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be able to eat one, why do you ask?"
or
"I'm sure you could eat one, too bad I won't let you eat any right now."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
My daughter sometimes asks "May I". Maybe half the time. But what gets me is that about 90% of the time, when she asks me to do something, she'll say, "May you read to me?" or the like. I have no idea where she got it from, but it's proving awfully hard to get rid of.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I totally disagree. I think grammar comes more naturally to those who hear it correctly and hear themselves corrected. Their brains make the connections more easily when they try it out and hear it repeated back to them correctly. You don't have to be nasty about it. Mothers have a natural kind of way of doing this:
Child: Can I have a cookie? Mom: May I have a cookie...and no, you have to wait until after dinner.
Do you know anyone who actually uses "may" in all such situations? Do you actually use it?
I do. And I also use the "repeating back correct grammar" method of correction.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
For You and I. Gah. And more, even from the Doors. <sigh>
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Brinestone, you've got it exactly. That's what I want my kids to know - that there is a time and place for standard English and to know when to use it (job interviews, in conversations with teachers and other adults in authority, etc.) and there are times when you can relax and just talk to your friends. Now, of course, that means that I have to make sure they have learned standard English. So, I do correct them when it's appropriate. If they answer "Yeah" or even "Yes" to an adult I will immediately say "Didn't you mean yes Ma'am?" to remind them that I expect them to be courteous and polite (that may be a mostly southern thing, though - the "ma'am" and "sir" business) but I know when they talk with their friends, it's going to be a totally different ballgame.
My favorite correction to my teenage daughter is "You are not talking to one of your friends right now." That one statement is enough to snap her back into a more appropriate tone and word choice, if I think she's talking to an adult or even to me in an innapropriate manner.
That's part of learning the world and navigating in it - knowing the social rules and when one should be formal and when casual conversation is expected. I do NOT talk to my friends the way I do with my professors. I easily switch back and forth between standard and non-standard dialects without trouble. I suspect most of us do. Learning when to do that is part of learning tact and social graces and it's a lesson that all young people must eventually learn.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Better? I have to reiterate everything that's already in the thread so that you can understand what I'm saying? Read what Foust wrote. Read what pooka wrote in reply. Try and wrap your mind around the part about homosexuals not being fully functional.
You will note I have not ventured a comment as to whether any remarks made in this thread were bigoted towards homosexuals. Specifically, you disagreed with this statement: "There is nothing in what you quoted* that even suggests that your daughter is any less your daughter due to the lack of genetic relationship."
You don't have to reiterate everything in the thread because none of that was relevant to whether Pooka's statement said what you claimed it to say.
* What you quoted was this: "Having a child that is genetically linked to both you and the person you love is something most people yearn for, and those who are able will spend a lot of money to get. I fully believe homosexuals have this desire."
I have contested only** your disagreement with my contention that this statement says anything about your daughter being less of a daughter to you. That's it. Nothing more.
(**I also called you on your name-calling, which I would do whether I disagreed with your assessments of pooka's statements concerning homosexuality or not.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But the classic, "I don't know CAN you" drives me nuts.
Especially when the answer is "only if you give me the cookie."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Better? I have to reiterate everything that's already in the thread so that you can understand what I'm saying? Read what Foust wrote. Read what pooka wrote in reply. Try and wrap your mind around the part about homosexuals not being fully functional.
You will note I have not ventured a comment as to whether any remarks made in this thread were bigoted towards homosexuals. Specifically, you disagreed with this statement: "There is nothing in what you quoted* that even suggests that your daughter is any less your daughter due to the lack of genetic relationship."
You don't have to reiterate everything in the thread because none of that was relevant to whether Pooka's statement said what you claimed it to say.
* What you quoted was this: "Having a child that is genetically linked to both you and the person you love is something most people yearn for, and those who are able will spend a lot of money to get. I fully believe homosexuals have this desire."
I have contested only** your disagreement with my contention that this statement says anything about your daughter being less of a daughter to you. That's it. Nothing more.
(**I also called you on your name-calling, which I would do whether I disagreed with your assessments of pooka's statements concerning homosexuality or not.)
You're a pedant.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's so much easier than actually responding, isn't it Lisa? And you called me lazy.
My main objection to your baseless assignment of "bigoted" to that statement is summed up in MPH's post at the bottom of page 4. You've rendered the term useless and meaningless by inferring bigotry toward adopted parents from that quote.
I make such fine-edged distinctions because it's necessary to do so. If we want people to not be bigoted, we need to be able to tell people what is bigotry. Every time you use the word as inappropriately as you did here, you make it more difficult to do that.
The less charitable thing to do would have been to simply write off everything you've said in this thread because of your ridiculous usage of "bigoted" in that post.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I suppose it is one of those "rules" that a lot of people lapse on, and so maybe some parents won't choose to correct this. Nevertheless, there are other examples.
I think it's not that people lapse on the rules, but that they don't want to talk like that. Many people are annoyed by grammatical pedantry and don't like being forced to speak in a way that feels stuffy and unnatural.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Brinestone, you've got it exactly. That's what I want my kids to know - that there is a time and place for standard English and to know when to use it (job interviews, in conversations with teachers and other adults in authority, etc.) and there are times when you can relax and just talk to your friends.
I get the distinct impression that we are talking about vastly different age groups. This is so much more complex than anything I'm talking about. of course you use different speech patterns and word choices in different situations. But for a child who is just learning to acquire language, we're not talking about split infinitives or prepositions...we're talking about the core of the language...the things that make us understood by other people. Perhaps may and can wasn't the best example (although it is one I'm likely to correct). I'm talking more about vocabulary (using the right words for the right things), verb conjugation and tense, word order, etc.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
This morning my son asked if, back in the day of Jesus, they had photographs without colors.
"That's called black-and-white photographs," I responded, then continued to answer his question.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Christine, I don't see why they have to be different. If we calmly correct/repeat back/clarify, without ridicule, all language we want our children to use differently, whether it is word choice, grammar, or respectful/appropriate language choice, from the time they begin to speak, they pick it up as "whole language" instead of trying to "teach them grammar", "teach them what is appropriate", etc. It has been my observation that this works very well.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I get the distinct impression that we are talking about vastly different age groups. This is so much more complex than anything I'm talking about. of course you use different speech patterns and word choices in different situations. But for a child who is just learning to acquire language, we're not talking about split infinitives or prepositions...we're talking about the core of the language...the things that make us understood by other people. Perhaps may and can wasn't the best example (although it is one I'm likely to correct). I'm talking more about vocabulary (using the right words for the right things), verb conjugation and tense, word order, etc.
But you're not just talking about core grammatical principles like conjugation and syntax. The example you brought up is anything but crucial to being understood.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I think it's not that people lapse on the rules, but that they don't want to talk like that. Many people are annoyed by grammatical pedantry and don't like being forced to speak in a way that feels stuffy and unnatural.
Thank you. I'm with Belle on not correcting split infinitives or prepositions at the end of sentences --except I go one step further and defy them in written composition, as well. I guess I'm just a rebel, but I cannot see why those rules should be applied to English when the language almost begs for the fluidity of rearranging those words!
And I avoid the whole "This is she" thing entirely by saying "Speaking" or "This is Kristina."
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I suppose it is one of those "rules" that a lot of people lapse on, and so maybe some parents won't choose to correct this. Nevertheless, there are other examples.
I think it's not that people lapse on the rules, but that they don't want to talk like that. Many people are annoyed by grammatical pedantry and don't like being forced to speak in a way that feels stuffy and unnatural.
Talk like what, exactly? We tend to talk like we were raised, which means, in my case, that it is neither stuffy nor pedantic to use the word may when I am asking permission. It's just the way it is. Do you find it stuffy or pedantic to say "We were going to the movies" instead of "We was going to the movies?" Probably not, but there are people who would use the second sentence. It neither makes you pedantic to use the first form nor does it make them ignorant to use the second (as long as they are being informal and know the proper form when needed). It's just the way it is.
Culture and dialect have a lot more to do with how we speak than a concerted effort to lord over people. It's difficult to speak that way unless it is natural to you -- in which case, apparently, you are just as likely to be judged for your word choice as someone who doesn't know how to conjugate the verb "to be."
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Uprooted:
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I think it's not that people lapse on the rules, but that they don't want to talk like that. Many people are annoyed by grammatical pedantry and don't like being forced to speak in a way that feels stuffy and unnatural.
Thank you. I'm with Belle on not correcting split infinitives or prepositions at the end of sentences --except I go one step further and defy them in written composition, as well. I guess I'm just a rebel, but I cannot see why those rules should be applied to English when the language almost begs for the fluidity of rearranging those words!
And I avoid the whole "This is she" thing entirely by saying "Speaking" or "This is Kristina."
Or you could be like Napoleon Dynamite.
"Is Napoleon there?" "Yes." "Can I talk to him?" "You already are."
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Just for the record....I split my infinitives too.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I do find it stuffy and pedantic to always avoid ending a sence with a preposition. It's one of the rules I've decided to ignore, much like lay/lie.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Talk like what, exactly? We tend to talk like we were raised, which means, in my case, that it is neither stuffy nor pedantic to use the word may when I am asking permission. It's just the way it is.
Except that we actually tend to talk like our peers, not our parents. Most people have had a teacher or parent try to teach them to use "may" instead of "can" when asking for permission. If we've all learned it, why do so few people follow it?
quote:Do you find it stuffy or pedantic to say "We were going to the movies" instead of "We was going to the movies?" Probably not, but there are people who would use the second sentence.
For people to whom "we was" comes naturally, it may very well sound stuffy. The issue isn't that they don't know how to conjugate "to be," but that they choose to conjugate it in a different way. It's just like Brinestone's example of the girl who refused to say "This is she" on the phone; she knew what she was supposed to say, but she chose to say something else. Her mother was being pedantic when she tried to "correct" her.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: to always avoid
Heh.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
How many people even pronounce the whole word "can" when they say "can I?" I'm waiting for "c'I" to become a recognized contraction.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Please feel free to keep the linguistics discussion going, and to refrain from the name-calling. Thank you.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Except that we actually tend to talk like our peers, not our parents.
This usually amounts to the same thing. Most of us spend time with people who are like us, like our family, and a part of our own sub-culture. It would be an interesting study to look at the language patterns of those who don't. I would venture a guess that they have a clearer duality of speech than most...really using one voice with their peers and another with their families.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:I hadn't noticed that this thread was from 2 years ago. But Will, you're missing the point that I didn't bring homosexuality into this at all. Pooka did. Beverly did. Okay, they did it 2 years ago. It'd be nice to think that Beverly has changed since then. I know pooka hasn't.
But why do you think it's okay for someone else to bring homosexuality into the discussion to badmouth us, but bad for me to object? Why are you trying to make it seem as though I introduced the subject out of thin air? [/QB]
Just basing it on the part you quoted -- the idea that most people want genetically related children. Admittedly there could be other things I haven't read. But that isn't an anti-gay statement; it's a (possibly mistaken) statement about people in general, that doesn't even relate to gay stuff.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Um...can we get back to our linguistic discussion, please?
Because I'm supposed to be writing a paper, and it's the most ridiculous paper assignment ever and I managed to find a way to make it about linguistics but I would talk about it than write it.
Get this - it's for an English lit class (200 level survey) and we're supposed to take an author we've studied and a current issue and write about how that author would say or feel about the issue. Huh? Like I can read minds of dead people. *sigh*
Sooooo....I took W.E.B. DuBois and decided to write about African American Vernacular English (AAVE aka "Ebonics" or "Black English") and the controversy over whether or not speakers of AAVE should be classified as Limited English Proficient or not.
Yeah. Sounds fun, doesn't it?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:I do find it stuffy and pedantic to always avoid ending a sence with a preposition.
I find it entertaining in a deliciously frumpy way.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Belle: Actually that sounds like a really fun paper to write. He is probably dizzy from spinning in his grave. I imagine his nemesis Booker T Washington is as well ironically, neither of them has gotten what they wanted Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Since this is the Secret Fraternity of Linguists, I'm going to ask what you guys think. I'm curious. (by the way, 4 out of 5 pages done, so I'm in the home stretch)
It seems so obvious to me that 1) AAVE is just another dialect of English, like Brooklynese or Southern Regional - thus it is mutually intelligible with standard English and 2) Classifying African-American children as Limited English Proficient and thus stigmatizing them as "people who can't speak English" is a BAD idea. They are as capable as anyone else of speaking one dialect at home and learning another at school and switching back and forth.
Agree? Disagree? Thoughts?
Now what DuBois would have thought about the issue, heck I'm making that part up and just sprinkling some beautiful quotes from The Souls of Black Folk in the paper.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: It seems so obvious to me that 1) AAVE is just another dialect of English, like Brooklynese or Southern Regional - thus it is mutually intelligible with standard English and 2) Classifying African-American children as Limited English Proficient and thus stigmatizing them as "people who can't speak English" is a BAD idea. They are as capable as anyone else of speaking one dialect at home and learning another at school and switching back and forth.
1) I agree in theory, but I have to say that at its extreme, I find AAVE very, very difficult to understand in practice. When I have run across people who use this, I have had to ask them to repeat several times to understand. I also have difficulty with thick foreign accents, but I have not had much difficulty with southern or Brooklyn accents.
2) Stigmatizing children is always a bad idea, although a child who comes to the classroom never having spoken or heard much standard English is going to need more help learning that school dialect than others. So again, in practice, I'm not sure what else we can do with these students besides help them get up to speed. Theoretically, with the right approach, they would learn Standard English in early elementary school and then be able to switch back and forth.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Belle: I echo my earlier recommendation of The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker, with a detail: he shows a transcript of Black English, and shows how it has its own rules, as closely adhered to by the speaker as Standard English rules are adhered to be its speakers (moreso, perhaps).
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
My own personal take has been strongly influenced by a study of historical linguistics (ongoing) over the last 8 months.
Specifically, while proper pronunciation facilitates communication and thus can be encouraged, the fact is this is exactly how languages form.
Proto-IndoEuropean->Proto-Germanic->West Germanic->Anglic->Old English->Middle English->Modern English: British English, North American English (American and Canadian), Australian English, South African English, South Asian English
And the fact is that all language changes (in all languages) follow regular change patterns. A few examples from AAVE:
Metathesis: transposing of letters. ask>aks: as in, 'Let me aks you this.' Similarly happened in Latin>Western Romance>Spanish: Fabulare>Palabra (note the l and b are transposed. F>P is common) but Fabulare>Hablar (with the f changing to H)
sandi: changes at word boundaries. 'Gi[ve] me fi[ve] dollars,' where the five is pronounced 'fi' and 'give me' is 'gi-mee' (fairly normal even outside AAVE). Normally, all the letters are pronounced (albeit slightly differently.)
haplology: loss of a syllable. Probably>Probly>(and by elision, 'prolly')
There are many others that are discussed here (for simplicity's sake, anyway, not as a final reference.)
I've been trying to classify this AAVE change using the rules, but haven't succeeded yet. Seems regular enough:
Strength>stremf Best I can see, we have a alveolar labial nasal (n) that is replaced with a bilabial nasal (m) and a voiceless dental fricative (th) being replaced with a voiceless labial-dental frictative (f).
This actually illustrates the way languages change, however. A child (or non-native speaker, for that matter) hears a sound (allophone) and attempts to imitate it's most prominant characteristics. Thus, the most notable features of strength are "str" "ə" "n" "th", where the 'g' is almost silent, turning the 'n' into an "ŋ" (the 'ng' in 'sing') for some careful speakers of the language. But many people lose the subtle 'ŋ'. Next, most notable feature of the 'n' is that it is a nasal, and is similar to the 'm'. Thus a person casually listening and not watching the lips can easily substiture the 'm' for 'n'. Same with 'th' to 'f'. My thoughts on the matter, anyway.
Point being, this is exactly how dialects and then languages form. In 400 AD, the Old German spoken in what is now Britain and Germany where exactly the same. But it only took a few hundred years for them to differentiate drastically (factoring in the heavy layer of Greek and Latin from the Clergy/written works, Danish/Viking influence from their conquest of Northern England in the 800s, and the Norman Invasion in 1066 adding a heavy overlay of French to social and legal society), losing nearly all verb and noun inflection.
EDIT TO ADD: alot of this is talked about (including th>f) here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English
[ February 27, 2007, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: IanO ]
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Interesting.
I can't prove it, but I think that we also have rules (not innate ones, but cultural ones) for what sounds funny, stupid, sophisticated, whatever.
quote:ACHTUNG! ALLES LOOKENSPEEPERS! Das computermachine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy schnappen der springenwerk, blowenfusen und poppencorken mit spitzensparken. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das rubbernecken sichtseeren keepen das cotten-pickenen hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und watchen das blinkenlichten.
Would this be as funny in the reverse? Or in French? My attempt with Spanish:
quote: !ADVERTENSIA! !TODOS LOS ESPECTADORES! El computer no es por poking con los fingeros y grabbing con los manos. Es facil por snapa los springs, blowa las fuses y make cosas pop con las sparques. No es para usar by los idiots. Rubberneckados sight-seers: mantene los manos que pick la coton en sus pockets; relaxe y las luzes blinqueria, enjoya.
Doesn't quite work, for me.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Note, especially under American and Canadian Dialects, for the real differences that we hear everyday.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: How many people even pronounce the whole word "can" when they say "can I?" I'm waiting for "c'I" to become a recognized contraction.
I've honestly never heard that-- I've always heard "can" pronounced. Now, sometimes it all runs together, like "kinnaye", but it's there.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by IanO: Strength>stremf Best I can see, we have a alveolar labial nasal (n) that is replaced with a bilabial nasal (m) and a voiceless dental fricative (th) being replaced with a voiceless labial-dental frictative (f).
Actually, /n/ is simply an alveolar nasal, not alveolar labial (which makes no sense), and in the word 'strength' the nasal is velar (/ə/), not alveolar.
quote:This actually illustrates the way languages change, however. A child (or non-native speaker, for that matter) hears a sound (allophone) and attempts to imitate it's most prominant characteristics. Thus, the most notable features of strength are "str" "ə" "n" "th", where the 'g' is almost silent, turning the 'n' into an "ŋ" (the 'ng' in 'sing') for some careful speakers of the language. But many people lose the subtle 'ŋ'. Next, most notable feature of the 'n' is that it is a nasal, and is similar to the 'm'. Thus a person casually listening and not watching the lips can easily substiture the 'm' for 'n'. Same with 'th' to 'f'. My thoughts on the matter, anyway.
What's really going on in AAVE is that the voiceless interdental fricative has merged (at least partially) with the voiceless labiodental fricative (/θ/ > /f/). The preceding nasal then assimilates its place of articulation.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
In my editing, I forgot to take out the alveolar in alveolar labial (I had mistyped the wrong term, meaning to type alveolar nasal.)
Thanks for the correction.
And that explanation is really quite cool. Thanks. I was going for more of a social explanation of why the one sound was being modified (WHY the sound was changed), though (which is a huge discussion in itself). But the mechanism in your explanation makes sense.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Dude, I think if you could figure out why a certain sound changed in a certain why at a certain time, you would receive the Nobel Prize in Linguistics.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: How many people even pronounce the whole word "can" when they say "can I?" I'm waiting for "c'I" to become a recognized contraction.
I've honestly never heard that-- I've always heard "can" pronounced. Now, sometimes it all runs together, like "kinnaye", but it's there.
Hmm. Maybe it's a Chicago thing.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Well, I was basing it on what I had read in Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. You'll note that I implied that it was a huge and debatable subject and stated that it was just my opinion. But Fortsen presented the argument (probably from others) that the way we internalize pronounciation and grammer play's a major role in sound changes. The example of strength>stremf (especially given those particular phoneme changes) actually made sense to me in that context. So I was giving my opinion of one example between American English and AAVE because it harmonized with that explanation and was simple enough for me to work out. My opinion, as I said.
All in all, a very fascinating subject. I'm in the middle of 4 textbooks on the subject (a personal project), as well as the related subject of Indo-European Poetics (Watkins). Have only been in it for about 8 months, but am enjoying it immensely.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Icarus bears the consequences.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
--and less tiresome in general. I don't think that this is caused by the uniform, of course. I think they finally realized they had created one of the most annoying characters in TV history and decided to gradually fix her more annoying tendencies. And I give them props for that.![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
]