posted
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.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. )
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, did you notice that the posts you were quoting are from two years ago? The current discussion was on language development in children.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please feel free to keep the linguistics discussion going, and to refrain from the name-calling. Thank you.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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 Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
