"baby mama" does not mean what they thought it means
Marc Velasco
marcjvelasco at GMAIL.COM
Tue May 6 12:35:05 UTC 2008
> "*they don't alternate these _or any other possessive_ with the -'s form.*"
many thanks.
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 10:50 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
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "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
>
------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
More information about the Ads-l
mailing list