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.
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.