Then your complete ignorance on the topic should let you know that you should probably attempt to learn more first. I'm not gonna go speaking about whatever European place you live in's geographical politics.
Only that it is no less valid as a dialect than Standard English.
Its invalid as it is not complimentary with Standard English. If someone can speak both, it would be nothing. But AAVE exists as an actual term because of the push to have it become its own category of English instead of a subcategory. Most it is spoken by are not taught to speak anything but and it is completely failing them both as education and tools of success.
If Ebonics was just a way people spoke casually in places, no one would care. Renaming it AAVE makes it an official higher academic pedestal and in that way it is lesser because it barely even has its own consistent rules.
You keep using the two names for it interchangeably, which is why you are failing to get the point of it moving from one name to another changed its position and how we should treat it.
Then your complete ignorance on the topic should let you kn0ow that you should probably attempt to learn more first. I'm not gonna go speaking about whatever European place you live in's geographical politics.
I think I know enough. Whether or not Appalachian and Southern sounds different is of no relevance to my argument.
But AAVE exists as an actual term because of the push to have it become its own category of English instead of a subcategory.
If it is its own category, that is all the more evidence that people need to be able to speak standard English. No one is going to hire you if you only speak Ebonics and talk about "looting dey store". Nice that these PC morons wreck the futures of poor black kids, who through no fault of their own grow up in families speaking Ebonics, just so they can virtue-signal about how 'anti-racist' they are.
because it barely even has its own consistent rules.
As far as I know (gulp), it does have its consistent rules. For example, they have fused the nominative and the possessive case for 'they'.
You keep using the two names for it interchangeably, which is why you are failing to get the point of it moving from one name to another changed its position and how we should treat it.
Whether it is a dialect, or a subgroup of English, makes no difference to me. Either way, people need to be able to speak Standard English, so people can understand them and for their own future.
I know these PC retards may use the fact that it's a perfectly valid dialect as an excuse to say: "well, then they don't need to learn Standard English", and obviously I'm against that.
Whether or not Appalachian and Southern sounds different is of no relevance to my argument.
Then you probably shouldn't have made bold claims of "its just a variant of this" if its completely irrelevant to your argument and easily provably wrong by anyone with any knowledge. It makes your position look weaker regardless.
if you only speak Ebonics
You are doing it again where you call it Ebonics, and not AAVE. Ebonics is the variant way of speaking they developed. AAVE is the official, academically named version which is named such to push it as a substitute for standard English.
As far as I know (gulp), it does have its consistent rules.
If you stretch it very far. You can sit on BlackPeopleTwitter and watch it evolve in real time to new forms, that you will actually see outside the internet in short order. If it can change this fast then the "rules" are not actually established, and are more commonly repeated mistakes (which don't just become rules because they are common, "ain't" took decades to reach that).
Which again, isn't a problem for Ebonics type dialects. But it is a problem for something official like AAVE.
Either way, people need to be able to speak Standard English, so people can understand them and for their own future.
I think the reason people were arguing with you in the first place was because you came across as saying the opposite of this. Because I agree completely and I think most here would too.
Then you probably shouldn't have made bold claims of "its just a variant of this" if its completely irrelevant to your argument and easily provably wrong by anyone with any knowledge. It makes your position look weaker regardless.
Ebonics is definitely a variant of Southern American speech patterns. Where do you think they learned to speak like that?
You are doing it again where you call it Ebonics, and not AAVE. Ebonics is the variant way of speaking they developed. AAVE is the official, academically named version which is named such to push it as a substitute for standard English.
AAVE is just the PC term for Ebonics. It sounds more official. In reality, there is no difference. A rose by any other name is just that. As for anything that they want to imply by that, I reject that. I also reject that any dialect is any better than any other.
You can sit on BlackPeopleTwitter and watch it evolve in real time to new forms, that you will actually see outside the internet in short order. If it can change this fast then the "rules" are not actually established, and are more commonly repeated mistakes
That's interesting. But dialects generally change faster than 'standard' versions, because they don't have semi-officially codified rules.
I think the reason people were arguing with you in the first place was because you came across as saying the opposite of this. Because I agree completely and I think most here would too.
I didn't expect people to disagree with that part. But do you agree that one dialect is no more 'intelligent' or 'better' than any other? Quite part from which is more useful, which is definitely Standard English.
Which is distinct and separated by huge amounts of geography from "hillbillies" which you called the same. That's the contention, don't move goalposts around.
Heck "Southern Americans" are incredibly distinct because I sound nothing like a Carolina boy, or a Tennessee retard but we are all "The South." Yet you keep putting them in one big pot of "its all the same man!"
AAVE is just the PC term for Ebonics.
No its the official nomenclature. Its the one in textbooks and taught to students. They shed the negative stereotype of Ebonics to resell it. The difference isn't in the context, its in the intended reception and use.
But do you agree that one dialect is no more 'intelligent' or 'better' than any other?
If it fails to be understandable to those speaking your same language, and makes considerable enough differences than transcribing it to written form would be considered "significantly" wrong, then I'd call it lesser.
On the first step, even my own Cajun intonation would fail and I recognized this a long time ago and took considerable steps to rectify it. Only when engaged with other Coonasses does it slip back. And I still look down on people from Pointe-Aux-Chenes and Des Allemands for their even more absurd dialects.
On the second, common dialects like Boston or Minnesotan are only notable out loud. When written they are exactly the same, minus maybe a phonetic mistake by an uneducated person. They don't change rules of the English language on how verbs and such work to fit their own version, which is a major point against AAVE itself.
Quite part from which is more useful, which is definitely Standard English.
Why have two versions if one is quantifiably more useful? Does not its distance from the more useful one denote it is "lesser?"
If we consider Standard English a 0, then all significant dialects could be put on a number line from how "useful" they are relative to it. Things like Posh and Upperclass would probably be positive numbers, because they are stereotypically clearly spoken, lack slang, and have greater grasp of the breadth of words.
And many other dialects like AAVE, nearly all Southern ones, and various urban types would be negatives because they move further from the clarity and standardized 0. And some would be more negative than others, making them "lesser."
Don't get caught up in some "people hate it because its black" idea. They hate it because of the attempted force of making it part of our education system and officializing it. Otherwise it would be down in the pit with me and my wacky swamp voice.
Then your complete ignorance on the topic should let you know that you should probably attempt to learn more first. I'm not gonna go speaking about whatever European place you live in's geographical politics.
Its invalid as it is not complimentary with Standard English. If someone can speak both, it would be nothing. But AAVE exists as an actual term because of the push to have it become its own category of English instead of a subcategory. Most it is spoken by are not taught to speak anything but and it is completely failing them both as education and tools of success.
If Ebonics was just a way people spoke casually in places, no one would care. Renaming it AAVE makes it an official higher academic pedestal and in that way it is lesser because it barely even has its own consistent rules.
You keep using the two names for it interchangeably, which is why you are failing to get the point of it moving from one name to another changed its position and how we should treat it.
I think I know enough. Whether or not Appalachian and Southern sounds different is of no relevance to my argument.
If it is its own category, that is all the more evidence that people need to be able to speak standard English. No one is going to hire you if you only speak Ebonics and talk about "looting dey store". Nice that these PC morons wreck the futures of poor black kids, who through no fault of their own grow up in families speaking Ebonics, just so they can virtue-signal about how 'anti-racist' they are.
As far as I know (gulp), it does have its consistent rules. For example, they have fused the nominative and the possessive case for 'they'.
Whether it is a dialect, or a subgroup of English, makes no difference to me. Either way, people need to be able to speak Standard English, so people can understand them and for their own future.
I know these PC retards may use the fact that it's a perfectly valid dialect as an excuse to say: "well, then they don't need to learn Standard English", and obviously I'm against that.
Then you probably shouldn't have made bold claims of "its just a variant of this" if its completely irrelevant to your argument and easily provably wrong by anyone with any knowledge. It makes your position look weaker regardless.
You are doing it again where you call it Ebonics, and not AAVE. Ebonics is the variant way of speaking they developed. AAVE is the official, academically named version which is named such to push it as a substitute for standard English.
If you stretch it very far. You can sit on BlackPeopleTwitter and watch it evolve in real time to new forms, that you will actually see outside the internet in short order. If it can change this fast then the "rules" are not actually established, and are more commonly repeated mistakes (which don't just become rules because they are common, "ain't" took decades to reach that).
Which again, isn't a problem for Ebonics type dialects. But it is a problem for something official like AAVE.
I think the reason people were arguing with you in the first place was because you came across as saying the opposite of this. Because I agree completely and I think most here would too.
Ebonics is definitely a variant of Southern American speech patterns. Where do you think they learned to speak like that?
AAVE is just the PC term for Ebonics. It sounds more official. In reality, there is no difference. A rose by any other name is just that. As for anything that they want to imply by that, I reject that. I also reject that any dialect is any better than any other.
That's interesting. But dialects generally change faster than 'standard' versions, because they don't have semi-officially codified rules.
I didn't expect people to disagree with that part. But do you agree that one dialect is no more 'intelligent' or 'better' than any other? Quite part from which is more useful, which is definitely Standard English.
Which is distinct and separated by huge amounts of geography from "hillbillies" which you called the same. That's the contention, don't move goalposts around.
Heck "Southern Americans" are incredibly distinct because I sound nothing like a Carolina boy, or a Tennessee retard but we are all "The South." Yet you keep putting them in one big pot of "its all the same man!"
No its the official nomenclature. Its the one in textbooks and taught to students. They shed the negative stereotype of Ebonics to resell it. The difference isn't in the context, its in the intended reception and use.
If it fails to be understandable to those speaking your same language, and makes considerable enough differences than transcribing it to written form would be considered "significantly" wrong, then I'd call it lesser.
On the first step, even my own Cajun intonation would fail and I recognized this a long time ago and took considerable steps to rectify it. Only when engaged with other Coonasses does it slip back. And I still look down on people from Pointe-Aux-Chenes and Des Allemands for their even more absurd dialects.
On the second, common dialects like Boston or Minnesotan are only notable out loud. When written they are exactly the same, minus maybe a phonetic mistake by an uneducated person. They don't change rules of the English language on how verbs and such work to fit their own version, which is a major point against AAVE itself.
Why have two versions if one is quantifiably more useful? Does not its distance from the more useful one denote it is "lesser?"
If we consider Standard English a 0, then all significant dialects could be put on a number line from how "useful" they are relative to it. Things like Posh and Upperclass would probably be positive numbers, because they are stereotypically clearly spoken, lack slang, and have greater grasp of the breadth of words.
And many other dialects like AAVE, nearly all Southern ones, and various urban types would be negatives because they move further from the clarity and standardized 0. And some would be more negative than others, making them "lesser."
Don't get caught up in some "people hate it because its black" idea. They hate it because of the attempted force of making it part of our education system and officializing it. Otherwise it would be down in the pit with me and my wacky swamp voice.