NP Re: Radicalism of reading

[davemarc]

> From: Joshua Fruhlinger <stencil at marketsource.com>
> 
> At 12:06 PM -0500 05.02.97, davemarc wrote:
> >Anyway, I've spoken about Ebonics with a genius linguist who's married
to
> >another genius linguist, and both of them only have a problem with how
> >linguists were virtually overlooked in the "debate" on the subject.  So
> >that proves everything.
> 
> Strange.  I don't recall being snapped at, but apology accepted.
> 
> Aren't all of these "forms" of English simply called argot(s)?  As such,
> they are styles/subcultures of something larger, hence don't require
> recognition as other forms/bodies of communication separate from the
> ideal-type.
> 
> I have a feeling your linguist couple friends have at hand thousands of
> examples  of argot(s) just like Ebonics and would argue that shifts in
> style of delivery are natural.
> 
Linguist J sez something to the effect that languages are usually
*imprecisely* defined communications systems.  English covers mucho ground,
Ebonics would be a subgroup within that, and a code developed between two
people would be a smaller subgroup.  He felt that Ebonics was large and
coherent enough to be codified, studied, and understood as a valid language
subgroup.  He also felt that anyone who understood it that way would not be
quick to tell students they were "wrong" or "stupid" to use phraseology
understood to be Ebonics--language that works just fine at home, in the
community, and even in school.  I agree with him.

The author A.J. Verdelle dealt with such an issue in her outstanding debut
novel "The Good Negress."  She also had an essay on Ebonics in The Nation,
but I haven't managed to snag a copy yet.

davemarc