Black English (UNCLASSIFIED)

Wed Oct 14 22:38:59 UTC 2009

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Wilson, I struggled with writing the example I used -- I'm not a scholar of languages like many on this list, nor am I as accurate an observer and reporter of these sorts of things as are others (including yourself) on this list.

But it does seem to me that there are grammatical differences in BE and the White Plebian English (Southern variety) as I hear both, that aren't reflected in the arguments that James Landau made.  It struck me that the simplest way to make that point was to make a (simplistic) example of an instance that I've observed.  I didn't caveat it as perhaps I should have by saying that it is a generality that in no way was consistent amongst all Black or White people, nor even amongst all Black Plebian or White Plebian speakers.  In fact, I myself have dropped "is" from statements of the form "He is crazy" when speaking.

Despite my inartfulness in making the argument, I believe my basic point is correct -- that there are grammatical differences between BE and WE that would show up in the test that James Landau proposed.  I'd have to carefully listen to some informal Black speech to properly cite them (probably the easiest thing to access would be Robin Harris albums, or other comedians; or perhaps the Judges TV shows
that you report on from time to time; or Maury Povich).

You are right, that such distinctions are ill-defined.  The division between BE and and other "dialects" aren't hard and fast lines, but probably more like two circles which overlap except at the margins (as spoken) and almost not at all (as heard) (that is, while speakers of BE and WE may speak slightly differently, they comprehend each other almost totally).  (and if the point that James was making is that these differences are not significant enough to constitute separate dialects, I'm not competent to say otherwise, other than to continue to observe that there are small differences in grammar that he did not allow for, as well as accent and vocabulary).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Wilson Gray
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 5:14 PM
> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Black English (UNCLASSIFIED)
>
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header ---------------
> --------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Wilson Gray <hwgray at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: Black English (UNCLASSIFIED)
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
> There's another problem to be considered, here. Is it possible for
> "grammatical difference" to be other than ill-defined, when
> distinctions between and among lects of what everyone considers
> intuitively, instinctively to be the "same" language?
>
> It is extremely difficult to show that it is generally the case that
> *no* WPEg speaker would *ever*, in his normal, unmonitored speech,
> say, "He crazy" or fail to comprehend its meaning, if he heard it in
> the speech of another.
>
> In like manner, it is extremely difficult - indeed, in IMO and in IME,
> *impossible* - to show that it is generally the case that *no* BPEg
> speaker would *ever*, in his normal, unmonitored speech, say, "He's
> crazy" or fail to comprehend its meaning, if he heard it in the speech
> of another.
>
> Can a difference that makes no difference be defined as a "difference"
> that carries theoretical implications for the description of language?
>
> To quote Chomsky:
>
> "I think not."
>
> Of course, in contradistinction to Chomsky, *I* may be wrong. ;-)
>
> -Winston
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Mullins, Bill AMRDEC
> <Bill.Mullins at us.army.mil> wrote:
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header -------------
> ----------
> > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > Poster:       "Mullins, Bill AMRDEC" <Bill.Mullins at US.ARMY.MIL>
> > Subject:      Re: Black English (UNCLASSIFIED)
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >
> > Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> > Caveats: NONE
> >
> >>
> >> What, then, is Plebian?  Let us define it by examples of its
> grammar.
> >>   -   The conjugation of "to be"â€  is complicated, and I am not
> sure I
> >> have it entirely correct.  Let me try: Certain ombinations such as
> "I
> >> are" and "he am" are not allowed.  Allowable combinations are (I
> >> think):
> >>
> >>      o I am/is            We is/are
> >>      o You is/are         You/yâ€™all is/are
> >>      o He/she/it is       They is/are
> >>
> >>      o I was              We was/were
> >>      o You was/were       You/yâ€™all was/were
> >>      o He/she/it was      They was/were
> >>
> >>   -   for the negative, "ainâ€™t" can be used in all persons and
> >> numbers
> >>   -   Some intermingling of the past tense and the present perfect,
> >> e.g. "Heâ€™s got" does not mean "he has had" but rather "he had"
> >>   -   Double negatives are used freely, and have the negative rather
> >> than the positive sense: "ainâ€™t no such thing asâ€¦".  Triple
> >> negatives can also occur, e.g. "We donâ€™t take nothing from
> nobody."
> >>   -   "he does not" is contracted to "he donâ€™t"
> >>
> >> Observe that the above is NOT "bad grammar" but rather a DIFFERENT
> >> grammar than that of Patrician.
> >>
> >> If Plebian were merely a "substandard" form of "correct" English,
> then
> >> one would expect that the growth in compulsory education over the
> last
> >> two centuries would have wiped it out, or at least forced it into
> >> decline.  But no, Plebian is alive and flourishing, is quite
> >> persistent, and shows no signs of decline.  Hence we have no choice
> but
> >> to rank it as a dialect equal with and competitive to Patrician.
> >>
> >> Philologists should be looking into the differences between
> Patrician
> >> and Plebian and the question of why, after several centuries,
> neither
> >> dialect has managed to dominate the other.
> >>
> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>
> >> Now to contradict my own title.  Black English does exist.  What is
> it?
> >>
> >> It is nothing more than a phonetic variation of Plebian English,
> with a
> >> notable amount of vocabulary not shared with other variations of
> either
> >> Patrician or Plebian English.
> >>
> >> A way to demonstrate:  transcribe a sample of BE, keeping the
> original
> >> grammar but using standard rather than eye-dialect spelling.
> Compare
> >> it with a similar transcription of speech from a white speaker of
> >> Plebian.  Can you tell the difference?
> >>
> >>     - James A. Landau
> >
> >
> >
> > I think there are more grammatical differences in Black Plebian
> English grammar vs. White Plebian English grammar than James allows
> for.  For example
> >
> > BPEg:  "He crazy."
> > WPEg:  "He's crazy."
> >
> > This is a different conjugation of "to be".
> > Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> > Caveats: NONE
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -Wilson
> –––
> 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.
> –Mark Twain
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org