"baby mama" does not mean what they thought it means
Wilson Gray
hwgray at GMAIL.COM
Tue May 6 02:50:54 UTC 2008
"When other black friends and acquaintances - "po' folk with no
education," as my Texas grandmother would have referred to them - use
"baby mama / daddy," _they're not joking_ and
"*they don't alternate these _or any other possessive_ with the -'s form.*"
This is also true of black speakers of the relevant sociolinguistic
class heard on The Judges, on BET, in neo-blaxploitation movies, on
the street, and on the various forms of public transportation.
This is true of such speakers even when they are sufficiently
cognizant of the usages of other dialects that they use such
Briticisms as [aaarrrggghhh!!!] "at the end of the day."
There is no alternation between possessive -'s and possessive -0.
There is only possessive -0. Formations such as "baby mama," in which
simple "baby" is the equivalent of "baby's" in other dialects, are the
norm in this (sub-)dialect. One can hear, e.g.:
at my mama house, in my brother car, one of my sister friend
etc., without hearing any instances of possessive -s, even in social
environments in which the speakers wish to appear as
a(stereo)typically black as possible.
Hope this helps!
-Wilson
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Marc Velasco <marcjvelasco at gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster: Marc Velasco <marcjvelasco at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject: Re: "baby mama" does not mean what they thought it means
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> While humorous, no, it doesn't really address the question.
> Basically, I want to know whether this is an instance of a generalized
> practice, or whether it's merely a one-off item, with no other
> instances of it as yet.
>
> and when I say instance, I mean, instance of the 'unmarked possessive'
> and not just the 'baby mama' phrase specifically.
>
> thanks for the continued patience I receive on this topic,
>
>
> On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Wilson Gray <hwgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> > Sender: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > Poster: Wilson Gray <hwgray at GMAIL.COM>
> >
> > Subject: Re: "baby mama" does not mean what they thought it means
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I don't know whether this speaks to the question (or not; as a kid, I
> > learned a prescriptive rule that stated that "or not" is not used
> > after "whether"; my own intuition is that there are some cases in
> > which "or not" can be deleted and others in which it can't), but when
> > my friends, whether black or white, and I use "baby mama / daddy," we
> > use it only as a joking replacement for "baby's (parent)."
> >
> > When other black friends and acquaintances - "po' folk with no
> > education," as my Texas grandmother would have referred to them - use
> > "baby mama / daddy," they're not joking and they don't alternate these
> > or any other possessive with the -'s form. My impression is that they
> > don't even realize that they're not using -'s. If you try to bring it
> > to their attention, they basically just wonder WTF you're talking
> > about, reminding me of my old Army buddy from an area of North
> > Carolina so rural that he raised a hog for his high-school senior
> > thesis. He was an early adopter of the glottal stop as a replacement
> > for the flap in American English. Apparently, where he was from -
> > Fuquay Springs - it was standard, in BE, at least. Whenever I would
> > try to talk to him about it, he would shut off discussion by
> > forcefully and annoyedly stating, "Man, I don't use no glo?al stop!"
> >
> > FWIW, I, as would my grandmother, were she still living, consider the
> > use of the glottal stop to be quite déclassé. But, what can one do,
> > after all?
> >
> > -Wilson
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Jonathan Lighter
> > <wuxxmupp2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> > > Sender: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > > Poster: Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at YAHOO.COM>
> > > Subject: Re: "baby mama" does not mean what they thought it means
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > I suppose even the final arbiters of meaning feel the market-driven need to be more _au courant_ than completely accurate.
> > >
> > > Isn't there a (recent?) lexicalized "baby mama" of the kind OED is grappling with versus a nonlexicalized kind that results for those you don't always utter a possessive / z /? E.g., "I been married before, but Judy my baby mama."
> > >
> > > And isn't it likely that the recent usage is largely a media creation via somebody's misapprehension of the nonlexicalized (i.e., boring) form?
> > >
> > > Just askin'.
> > >
> > > JL
> > >
> > > Wilson Gray <hwgray at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> > > ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> > > Sender: American Dialect Society
> > > Poster: Wilson Gray
> > > Subject: Re: "baby mama" does not mean what they thought it means
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > What's strange is the attempt to put a semantic restriction on the
> > > meaning of a slang term, when the meaning of a slang term is nothing,
> > > if not labile. For, example, back in the day, "skank" said nothing
> > > about a woman's personal morality. It was all about her socio-economic
> > > status and physical attractiveness. A "skank" was merely an
> > > unattractive girl from the projects or from the poor side of the
> > > (black) part of town.
> > >
> > > There's also "skag," with the same meaning as "skank," while
> > > simultaneously meaning "heroin."
> > >
> > > Adding the inappropriate and invalid _"(in most cases)"_, which no one
> > > can reasonably claim to know to be true, while leaving out the valid
> > > and appropriate "... not _necessarily_ his wife ..." is off the wall,
> > > to coin a phrase.
> > >
> > > How is it that the work that aims to be the final arbiter of meaning
> > > in English just casually tosses in a piece of unproved, well,
> > > bullshit, apparently for the mere hell of it? I assume that the OED's
> > > definition of "baby daddy" has the same addendum, given that the only
> > > distinction between the two is a reversal of sexual specificity.
> > >
> > > -Wilson
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Laurence Horn wrote:
> > > > ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> > > > Sender: American Dialect Society
> > > > Poster: Laurence Horn
> > > > Subject: Re: "baby mama" does not mean what they thought it means
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > At 9:43 AM -0400 4/29/08, Wilson Gray wrote:
> > > > >"... [I]f you're the exclusive partner (possibly but not
> > > > > necessarily the husband) of said baby mama and if
> > > > > she is (at least by presumption) yours, you
> > > > > wouldn't refer to her as your baby mama, even
> > > > > though she technically is."
> > > > >
> > > > >You wouldn't? That's news to me. Who did the research that supports
> > > > >this claim and where can I find it?
> > > > >
> > > > >-Wilson
> > > >
> > > > Well I wouldn't use it whether or not she is, since it's not part of
> > > > my active lexicon. What I was trying to characterize here is the
> > > > dialect of those who conformed to the claim implicit in the OED
> > > > definition, which is that it's restricted to those outside of
> > > > exclusive sexual relationships; my claim was that any such
> > > > restriction is pragmatic and not semantic in nature. I agree that
> > > > the female parent (biological parent? gestational parent?) of one's
> > > > child(-to-be) is one's baby mama, but I was assuming that at least
> > > > for some men in the traditional version of this situation, she
> > > > wouldn't be so referred to, and that the OED gloss reflects their
> > > > analysis of this restriction.
> > > >
> > > > LH
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Laurence Horn wrote:
> > > > >> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > > > >>-----------------------
> > > > >> Sender: American Dialect Society
> > > > >> Poster: Laurence Horn
> > > > >> Subject: Re: "baby mama" does not mean what they thought it means
> > > > >>
> > > > >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>
> > > > >> At 12:22 AM -0400 4/29/08, Wilson Gray wrote:
> > > > >> >What is the source of the OED's assertion: "... _not (in most cases)_
> > > > >> >his current or exclusive partner"?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >-Wilson
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I would guess they're trying to build in the
> > > > >> pragmatics; semantically, one's baby mama is the
> > > > >> mother of one's baby/child/child-to-be. But if
> > > > >> you're the exclusive partner (possibly but not
> > > > >> necessarily the husband) of said baby mama and if
> > > > >> she is (at least by presumption) yours, you
> > > > >> wouldn't refer to her as your baby mama, even
> > > > >> though she technically is. (Just as "partner"
> > > > >> generally, but not definitionally, excludes
> > > > >> "spouse", rather than the way "fiance(e)"
> > > > >> semantically excludes "spouse".) So I'd think
> > > > >> the sense of the phrase is "not usually used
> > > > >> for..."
> > > > >>
> > > > >> LH
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Mark Mandel wrote:
> > > > >> >> ---------------------- Information from the
> > > > >> >>mail header -----------------------
> > > > >> >> Sender: American Dialect Society
> > > > >> >> Poster: Mark Mandel
> > > > >> >> Subject: "baby mama" does not mean what they thought it means
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> from my nephew, an exchange with an editor (or something) at
> > > > >>MSNBC.COM:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> From: $NEPHEW
> > > > >> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:08 AM
> > > > >> >> To: Jonel Aleccia
> > > > >> >> Subject: poor choice of headlines?
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> "Baby mamas who eat better deliver more boys" (from
> > > > >> >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24262928/)
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> While I understand that blogs provide a less formal forum for writers,
> > > > >> >> this headline (or sub-head?) is from what appears to be a regular
> > > > >> >> article appearing in msnbc.com's health section. That being said, I
> > > > >> >> must ask who chose this sub-head and why it was considered
> > > > >> >> appropriate? For one, slang, unless it is a direct part of the main
> > > > >> >> storyline, should rarely, if ever, be used in research reviews. And
> > > > >> >> second, this slang isn't even appropriate for the research in
> > > > >> >> question, as it (the slang) refers to single mothers who don't know
> > > > >> >> the identity of their baby's father. This review did not indicate
> > > > >> >> that this research focused on this demographic.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Can you provide any insight into this?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> Regards,
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> ===
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> From: Jonel Aleccia [mailto:JoNel.Aleccia at msnbc.com]
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Dear Mr. $LASTNAME,
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Thanks for your note. While the reporters and editors here disagree
> > > > >> >> with your idea that slang shouldn't be used in connection with a
> > > > >> >> research report, we were convinced to change the sub-head by your
> > > > >> >> argument that it refers to single mothers. After checking, we find
> > > > >> >> you're right. Thanks for taking the time to point that out.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Best,
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> JoNel Aleccia
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> My nephew comments: "Score one for the literate among us "
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> While there's disagreement over its stylistic appropriateness, and
> > > > >> >> he's somewhat off on the definition of the term*, he was right about
> > > > >> >> its semantic appropriateness.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> * "the mother of a man's child, who is not his wife nor (in most
> > > > >> >> cases) his current or exclusive partner" -- OED; also quoted in
> > > > >> >> Wikipedia.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> --
> > > > >> >> Mark Mandel
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >> >> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >--
> > > > >> >All say, "How hard it is that we have to die"---a strange complaint to
> > > > >> >come from the mouths of people who have had to live.
> > > > >> >-----
> > > > >> > -Sam'l Clemens
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >> >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >--
> > > > >All say, "How hard it is that we have to die"---a strange complaint to
> > > > >come from the mouths of people who have had to live.
> > > > >-----
> > > > > -Sam'l Clemens
> > > > >
> > > > >------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > All say, "How hard it is that we have to die"---a strange complaint to
> > > come from the mouths of people who have had to live.
> > > -----
> > > -Sam'l Clemens
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > All say, "How hard it is that we have to die"---a strange complaint to
> > come from the mouths of people who have had to live.
> > -----
> > -Sam'l Clemens
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
--
All say, "How hard it is that we have to die"---a strange complaint to
come from the mouths of people who have had to live.
-----
-Sam'l Clemens
------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
More information about the Ads-l
mailing list