Those pesky negatives (revisited)

[Dennis R. Preston]

Nope; what I'm saying is that I see no evidence whatsoever that "I'm
through" rather than "done" is AA(V)E. Sorry I even mentioned
perfective 'done.'

I'm very fond of the idea that somebody finds what I use as part of
my professional vocabulary) a pomposity. It ain't a label I get often.

dInIs



>On Aug 11, 2004, at 5:24 PM, Dennis R. Preston wrote:
>
>>---------------------- Information from the mail header
>>-----------------------
>>Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>Poster:       "Dennis R. Preston" <preston at MSU.EDU>
>>Subject:      Re: Those pesky negatives (revisited)
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>--------
>>
>>I'm puzzled with Wilson's comments on 'done' and 'through.'
>>
>>I would be hard pressed to distinguish the grammaticality (not
>>prescriptive status) of "Are you done?" versus "Are you through?" The
>>claim that the latter is AAE (or AAVE) don't warsh with me atall.
>>Perfective 'done' (I done finished) is, of course, widely shared in
>>nonstandard varieties, white and black, but Wilson's assignment of
>>'through' (in this sense) to AA(V)E is puzzler to me. Perhaps there
>>is some frequency factor involved, but I recall no references to it
>>in the literature.
>>
>>dInIs
>
>We're not talking about the same phenomenon. I'm speaking of "done" and
>"through" in their use as synonyms for "finished" only. I remember an
>old cop show in which the LAPD are dealing with a white man from the
>Southern hill country. The man says, "I kilt my partner." The cops ask
>him what he's talking about. He answers, "What I said. I *done*
>[emphasis in the original] kilt 'im." I find nothing interesting in
>this, despite the fact that it's a scripted, therefore completely
>artificial, exchange. However, if I understand dInIs a-right, he thinks
>that I'm claiming that a Southern black man would have said, not "I
>done kilt 'im," but "I through kilt 'im." Rather, what I'm claiming is
>merely that a white person would say something like, "I'm done killing
>him," whereas a black person would say something like, "I'm through
>killing him" and that either would say something like "I done finished
>killing him" or "I've finished killing him." I'm also stating as fact
>that this particular usage of "through" was totally pervasive in the
>social environment in which I grew up, whereas this same usage of
>"done" simply did not occur. When I found myself in environments in
>which the use of "done" was pervasive instead of that of "through," it
>struck me as "ungrammatical." I therefore constructed at least two
>incorrect theories to account for this phenomenon before I realized the
>truth of the matter: my way of using "through" is non-standard, despite
>the fact that the usage seems to be quite transparent. I've never found
>a single instance in which anyone has failed to grasp my meaning when
>I've said "I'm through" instead of "I'm done."
>
>Though I realize that few here are likely to care, I find the phrase,
>"African-American Vernacular English" to be an incredible pomposity
>devoid of useful content. Back in the day when "Negro dialect" was the
>standard term, a friend jokingly suggested that we rename our dialect
>"Niggese" and be through with it. Works for me. Why not? Because Jesse
>Jackson won't like it?
>
>-Wilson Gray
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>In general, I have no problem whatsoever with the splitting of
>>>infinitives. I'm fairly certain that I was in high school before I
>>>even
>>>heard about the no-splitting-of-infinitives "rule." Also, in general,
>>>I
>>>try to avoid the splitting of infinitives in writing, but *not*
>>>because
>>>I believe in the existence of some supposed "rule" against it. It's
>>>merely a stylistic whim. However, this simply is not the case wrt  "to
>>>_not_ VP." For me, it is a genuine rule of  grammar that "to not VP"
>>>is
>>>wrong. I didn't learn it through being taught it or by reading it in
>>>some prescriptive "grammar." I learned it from the fact that it was
>>>not
>>>used by the people from whom I learned to speak.
>>>
>>>I have to admit that this is not the first time that I've found myself
>>>on the wrong side of the grammatical fence. I once believed that only
>>>the illiterate or the semi-literate used "done" instead of "through"
>>>in
>>>cases such as, "I'll be done with this posting in a few minutes" "you
>>>can't go out till you're done with your chores" "are you done with
>>>that?"  "may I use that when you're done?" Then I realized that I was
>>>wrong. The truth was that only illiterate or semi-literate *white*
>>>people used such forms. Finally, I realized that I was still wrong,
>>>For
>>>speakers of standard English, such use of "done" is perfectly
>>>grammatical, used by speakers of all levels of education or social
>>>standing or sophistication. Rather, it's the use of "through" in cases
>>>such as those above that is a grammatical peculiarity, a feature of
>>>everyone's favorite non-standard dialect, Black English.
>>>
>>>Perhaps I should make it a point to remember a statement made by a
>>>former classmate after she had challenged Morris Halle during a
>>>lecture
>>>on a point of phonological theory: "I don't know why I said that! I
>>>know that I speak with an accent!"
>>>
>>>-Wilson Gray
>>
>>
>>--
>>Dennis R. Preston
>>University Distinguished Professor
>>Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic,
>>         Asian and African Languages
>>Wells Hall A-740
>>Michigan State University
>>East Lansing, MI 48824-1027 USA
>>Office: (517) 353-0740
>>Fax: (517) 432-2736


--
Dennis R. Preston
University Distinguished Professor of Linguistics
Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic, Asian, and African Languages
A-740 Wells Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
Phone: (517) 432-3099
Fax: (517) 432-2736
preston at msu.edu