🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:12:26 -0400, Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:

>"Comm" <no@spam.com> wrote:
>>What the hey?  See in.
>>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message news:koqdg11r0oiuiajksgl98ue8d12rli7ukd@4ax.com...
>>> "Comm" <no@spam.com> wrote:
>>>>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message news:ro5ef1dtm1sanutvfp9vcmol1321a9q2mm@4ax.com...
>>>>>>The problem with that is that by the time about a year goes by for anyone
>>>>>>to learn "first year ebonics" the language of ebonics will have 
>>>>>>significantly CHANGED.
>>>>> As I said, nobody is learning "first year ebonics", since nobody is
>>>>> teaching it.
>>>>I haven't read the entire LONGwinded thread, heh.  Just saw this post from
>>>>you.  I know nobody's teaching it.  But how could anyone teach a language
>>>>that changes so fast?
>>> Who is teaching the language?
>>I have no idea IF it's being taught.
>
>No one has yet posted information about an Ebonic program that was
>intended to "teach the language".  The idea is to inform the
>*teachers* as to what the differences between Black English Vernacular
>and the academic standard language, so that the *teachers* can
>understand what the students are saying and when an error might be due
>to the nonstandard language rather than failure to understand the
>concepts, in which case the job of the teacher is *different*.  When a
>foreigner makes a mistake, the teacher likely will recognize the
>difference between a conceptual misunderstanding and a language error,
>but that is far less likely with a native speaker, especially one
>speaking a dialect that is so much derided.  The teachers also tend to
>have the same misconceptions about the nature of the differences as
>the racists who post obviously phony "ebonics talk".

Excellent points.  Perhaps they're severely envious as well as ignorant,
those racists  ...

>>>If you understood what an Ebonics
>>> program was, you wouldn't ask such a silly question, since no one in
>>> fact teaches "a language that changes so fast".
>>
>>I didn't ask a damned question.  I was commenting on teaching ANY KIND of 
>>language (ebonics as an eg) that changes very fast.  It's not possible.
>
>All languages change fast on the surface and very slowly underneath.
>Ebonics has not changed all that much.

"Every human language and dialect which we have studied to date--and we 
have studied thousands--has been found to be fundamentally regular..."

http://www.stanford.edu/~rickford/papers/SuiteForEbonyAndPhonics.html

>>> But as another form of answer, the language known as "Latin" evolved
>>> over a thousand years, and the church Latin spoken today is quite
>>> different from any form that was spoken in the Roman Republic or
>>> Empire.
>>Yup, I know that, that used to be my example when people bitched about "bad 
>>language."  Once upon a time, Spanish, French, Italian and a few others were 
>>BAD LATIN.  Now they are LANGUAGES.  What tends to keep languages in stasis 
>>long enough to be able to teach them, is when they are written languages 
>>with some rule book on grammar.  Like English has.
>
>English has continued to change at pretty much the same rate as it did
>before there were rule books.  The only thing that has really
>standardized is spelling.  The thing that causes rapid language change
>that is more significant is when a new power takes over that speaks a
>different language, as when the French Normans ruled England.  That
>prompted the rather dramatic change from Old English to Middle
>English, but even that took a couple hundred years.
>
>Middle English changing to modern English also took a hundred years or
>more, and much of the change was a change in pronunciation called the
>Great Sound Shift that affected German as well as English.  No one is
>quite sure why it took place.  But if you take a Middle English text
>and write with modern spellings, the text will likely be quite
>understandable.
>
>>In case you didn't 
>>notice, not too many god damned English words are SPELLED the way they're 
>>pronounced 
>
>But spelling is not a particularly important part of language, and it
>has NOTHING to do with the spoken language.
>
>lojbab

May your insights not be lost on those most in need of them.