Talk:Ebonics (word)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The following is from Talk:Ebonics: (Please do not edit this page)

Misc Commments

Just my two cents worth - I frequently hear black people refer to Coke or any Soft Drink as "Soda Water". I think it's interesting and hope its of use. --ArcticFrog 19:28, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)ArcticFrog

None of the examples under "Grammitical Features" show any connection to any West African language. If we're going to assert such a connection, there needs to be evidence.

---

I don't think we should keep the list of words. Almost all of what is listed is slang, which is not the same thing as Ebonics. Ebonics is a dialect and its characteristics include some words, but most importantly, changes in pronunciation, tense use and the like. Tuf-Kat

I vote to move the "word list" to hip-hop slang, because on a cursory reading it almost all sounds that way. I'll have to re-locate that on-line hip-hop dictionary I was browsing through last year. "Bust a cap" is an idiom or slang usage -- not an example of dialect in my eyes. Ah, but I might be prejudiced by my White Middle-class upbringing.

I'd like to see more in the article about linguistic features, such as treatment of plurals or things like He go in place of He goes or the omission of helping verbs (He big vs. He is big).

That's a linking verb, not a helping verb.

Let me emphasize that I am not knocking or putting down Black English -- I just want to see an accurate description of it. --Uncle Ed 14:35 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

---

I like the term "hip-hop slang". I think the heart of your assertion is flawed however:

Almost all of what is listed is slang, which is not the same thing as Ebonics.

We're talking about African American Vernacular English (AAVE) (i.e., Ebonics) here, right? What does vernacular mean? The "common, everyday language of a people". You are engaging in a bit of intellectual dishonesty to assert that Ebonics is somehow a (more) legitimate vernacular than what you to eloquently term "hip-hop slang". Fact of the matter is, "hip-hop slang" is the common everyday language of many black youth. It IS the vernacular english of (at least some groups of) African American youth.

Ebonics refers to a dialect, which includes slang. Slang is a set of words that are informal, ever-changing and often used only in specific contexts. A dialect is, basically, a subset of a language that is more or less intelligible to speakers of other dialects. Tuf-Kat

Ok, so is Ebonics something more than that? Google searches reveal lots of talk about Ebonics but invariably my attempts to find out what Ebonics really is point back to lists of "hip-hop slang". This is in stark contrast to the (IMHO) less controversial and rather more scholarly treatment that another Black English Vernacular language has been given - notably Patois (Standard Jamaican English). Color me skeptical. Regardless of what Ebonics is, it is not Standard American English (SAE). It clearly encompasses "hip-hop slang" and possibly other language elements which are not clearly defined or easy to identify.

I did a search for "Characteristics of Ebonics" and found all the info I just added in the first three or four links that came up. Tuf-Kat

The HEART of the controversy is, while nobody seems to be interested in legitimizing "hip-hop slang", in fact, it is difficult to determine exactly what additional characteristics "Ebonics" has which would distinguish it from "hip-hop slang". Just because the Oakland School Board declared Ebonics to be a unique language or dialect does not make it a fact. Clearly students in the Oakland School District speak "hip-hop slang". Assertions, however, that they speak a separate language or dialect appear to be more of an administrative move on the part of the Oakland School Board to make the district eligible for federal funds for second language instruction - ostensibly to help students whose first language is AAVE to learn SAE after the administrative determination that their students need extra help learning SAE.

I think that what I added is an appropriate refutation of this. Of course, Wikipedia can not take a POV, so if you feel that your POV is not adequately represented, this must be represented in the appropriate context. Be aware the linguists do recognize Ebonics as a separate dialect distinct from standard American English. The study at the page I linked at the page includes an interesting study, where one group of students got standard english education using Ebonics in a translative approach and one who got the standard method, and the control group's actually got slightly worse over time, and the Ebonics group's skills increased dramatically. Tuf-Kat

Now that I think about it, in the interest of accuracy it seems even more inappropriate to move "hip-hop slang" off a page about "Black English" - to do so would be disingenuous.

- Elano

---

Elano, I haven't read your comment yet, as I got stuck in an edit conflict. The below is not a response to you.

As requested, I added a buncha characteristics. I'm not a linguist, but I have a pretty good knowledge of the terms used, so I think I did it all right and came up with my own examples that are correct. Coming up with an example of the inverted negative was difficult, and I may have done it incorrectly. A linguist might want to take a look at this to check. The sample they give is:

• AAVE: "Befo' you know it, he be done aced de tesses." (SE Before you know it, he will have already aced the tests.)

And there is an in depth description of the phenomenon a few paragraphs down, after the Toni Morrison quote. I didn't do the pronunciation stuff, because I don't know the SAMPA code well enough. If someone else does, the same link above goes into great detail.

I also never quite got the hang of the i.e. vs. e.g. thing, as may be apparent. Tuf-Kat

enlarging the focus of the Ebonics entry

Ebonics, also referred to as African American Vernacular English and African American English, is not only made up of rules related to grammar or what linguists called syntax. Like other varieties, and many linguists prefer this term because unlike the term dialect, variety has a less negative connotation, African American English (AAE) has syntactical rules or what lay people would call grammar rules; AAE also has phonological rules or what lay people would call rules for pronunciation.AAE has lexical items or what lay people would call vocabulary words. AAE also has rules for how the language is to be used which linguists call pragmatics. African American English is more than the language of urban youth although this variety is part of African American English . But African American English is also the language used by older African Americans many of whom speak their own version of African American English that is devoid of many of the lexical items and syntactical structures used by urban African American youth. Most of what is written on the Ebonics site does not address these issues that are just as much a part of African American English as they are of any other language variety. A lot has been written on the topic. Some suggested readings include:Spoken Soul by Rickford and Rickford, Talkin' and Testifyin' by Smitherman, Black Street Speech by Baugh, Africanisms in the Gullah Dialect by Turner, He said, she said by Goodwin, Sister Speak by Lanehart, Sociocultural and Historical Contexts of African American English edited by Lanehart. These are just a few of the books that have been written on the topic. There are many, many articles not listed here that can be consulted for those seeking more information.

How Afro-American Is Ebonics?

I have heard older whites from Missisippi talking in Ebonics, who probably are not fans of hip-hop and assuredly didn't get it from hip-hop. Could it be possible that Ebonics is actually some old dialect that was common in the Deep South at one time and the repressive measures taken against Afro-Americans in other parts of the country helped preserve it?

page moved back

I have no idea why, but somebody moved this page to a very uncommon name. I've moved it back per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). --mav 09:10, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

title problem

the intellentsia loves creating and uttering arcane jargons. (as many of us who dabble seriously in linguistics and languages knew (or experts thereof), slang and jargon-formation has much to do with the social function of keeping others out; and one-upmanship in the struggle of socio-intellectual pecking-order.)

in light of the above, i vote for not using the the lingo "ebonics", but instead, simply say the much logical and communicative "American Black English". (my preference is to drop the "vernacular" even.)

wikipedia articles has a tendency towards verbosity or logorrhea, jargonization and highbrowism.

Xah P0lyglut 06:55, 2003 Dec 8 (UTC)

But English speakers far more commonly say and think of the subject with the name ebonics than with American Black English. Common use rules. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). --mav 07:14, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For what it's worth, which might be little, I performed a googlefight:

[1]. Kingturtle 07:29, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The diff is quite dramatic. --Menchi (Talk)â 07:31, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Although, I am sure 10,000s of the ebonics hits are concerning jokes and insults and the lot. But still, the difference is considerable. Kingturtle 07:34, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

American Heritage Dictionary has this to say http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Black%20English about "ebonics"

"Usage Note: In the United States, the term Black English usually refers to the everyday spoken varieties of English used by African Americans, especially of the working class in urban neighborhoods or rural communities. Linguists generally prefer the term African American Vernacular English, although some use the term Ebonics, which saw widespread use in the late 1990s. It is an error to suppose that Black English is spoken by all African Americans regardless of their background. In fact, the English spoken by African Americans is highly variedas varied as the English spoken by any other racial or ethnic group. ·Sometimes Black English is used to refer to other varieties of English spoken by Black people outside of the United States, as in the Caribbean and the United Kingdom."

If we focus on popularity fight, we should note that it should be "ebonics" pitting simpler phraseologies that is not a lingo, such as any one of "black english" "black vernacular english" "black american english" and so forth. Since this is a combination, the winner determination in popularity would not be as easy as one "google-fight" lookup.

But most importantly, it's not google popularity that should be the ultimate guide in our case. The endeavoring of a encyclopedia is to educate and spread info. The purpose of technical jargons is to facilitate communication among experts. The abstruse "ebonics" has nothing much to gain than the communicative "Black English" or such vernacular variants. It doesn't connote any special concept or meaning or technicality. By itself itself is a bad lingo, because ebonics came from ebony, which means a type of tree, and eventually the wood, and the color black or darkish. The word ebony itself has no connotation to the black people or African, unlike the word "black" (e.g. blacks). Also, ebonics sounds like a study in some particular area, whereas its meaning Black English is in fact just a dialect that barely qualifies itself as such, more like a accent and usage variation.

if i may say so, the usage-flood of "ebonics" has much to do with intellectuals showing off and the racial sensitivity of America. (from socio-linguistics point of view, jargons has the effect of social awareness, and consequently affects thinking and behavior; such effect is much exploited in marketing) As a technical terminology in language studies, "ebonics" is rather poor and worthless.

The absurdity of "ebonics" can be seen when such a variant of ghetto vernacularity is exalted to 'becoming an official "language" of USA'. In that respect, we might as well chalk-up Hispanic American Vernacular English to some linguistical significance, may i suggest to start with a buzzer Hispionics?

xah P0lyglut 10:00, 2003 Dec 8 (UTC)

The title should not be used to educate the reader. That is for the text to do. The title's purpose is to mark likely places for the reader to look for information. Therefore, the information should be at the most commonly-used term, with exceptions only to prevent ambiguity. The most commonly used title is Ebonics, and so that is where most people will search. In the article, neutrally-phrased text should explain the origin of the different terms and where and how each is used. The body of the article can exclusively use African American Vernacular English or whatever name you're pushing for, but the title should be at the most easily-accessible name. Tuf-Kat 21:47, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

---

The preposterousness of the situation must not stop here. Those Americans with Chinese ethnicity must have a voice on this too, given that Chinese has made entries in the American Hollywood so much of recent with their kung-fu stints that so much swayed the tech geeks of Americana, from the The Matrix to Kill Bill to a flurry of Jacky Chan and Jet Li. Thus, due to the inspiration of discourse on the very scientific and political nomenclature of the ebonics terminology, i propound besides Hispionics, a Sinonics, from Sinology-phonetics. This, should give a jump-start on the analysis of the ins and outs of the Sino-American vernacularity of English. But when considering the whole shebang with respect to wikipedia's NPOV canon, i think at this point it is justifiable to also include a jargon for the English speakers of India. Because, for all fairness, India has some 1.x billion people about equal to China, one of the most populous by far, and English is a official language of India, and also the Primary language of communication between Indians. Furthermore, the English spoken in India is vastly distinctive with respect of classification as a dialect or even a sub-family of English by itself, far more so than Black English can justify itself being a dialect, and perhaps even more so than the popular dichotomy of the English English vs American English. So, since Black English has a specialized designation of being "!Ebonics!", and now that Hispionics and Sinonics are both a proposition, it is necessarily out of NPOV creed that we instigate a jargon for the Indian variety of English. For which, i envisage a proposition of Hindionics. (Hinduism/Hindi - phonetics) (if you live in India, please stand up and speak out on truth.)

Lastly, i think i have a liking towards Black English (aka ebonics). The blacks, even though some suggests to be genetically inferior intellectual-wise (and mostly likely superior physical-wise), their vernacularity has a proclivity towards being logical and simpler in general. A sting right in the face of petty grammarians and pedantics ivory tower dwellers who spare no trickle of chance to banter split infinitives and the like who at the same time knew zilch or iota of mathematical theories of languages or symbolic logic. I wonder, if one walks down Harlem New York and talk to a hearty speaker of ebonics, whether one would in return receive a expletive that is semantically equivalent to copulation literally. The hip-hop stuff of ebonics is so intriguing. I wonders if ebonical people will be proud of the the word.

Xah P0lyglut 04:42, 2003 Dec 9 (UTC)

I totally do not understand your point. We have articles on dialects of English at their most common name. This includes Ebonics, Indian English, Manglish and Singlish. If you want to write an article on some dialect or accent that doesn't yet have one, it should be located at its most common name. If it doesn't have a common name, it should be at some reasonably seach-able title like Hispanic-American English. We could not put it at hispionics because it is a non-intuitive title with not a single google hit or proven reference. Tuf-Kat 05:57, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)

'yeah, like, "you totally do not understand my point". Duh!', is an example of Valley Girl vernacularity (VGV), or, for which i proffer the jargon "Californics" -- a portmanteau of California and Phonetics. I applaud you for enlisting Manglish and Singlish, being the proto-typical of wikipedian behavior as i have expounded in above commentaries, neither of which are concerns of self-respecting philologists, but are loved by the jargon-slinging sophomoric wikipedians proudly displaying their expertise thru googling and spontaneity. I absolutely condone you for having no understanding of my elaborations, and am also impressed by your sincerity; because in general, it takes a deep undertaking of languages and logic, from aspects or approaches or methodologies ranging from social, psychological, mathematical, computational et al aspects, to be on the same side as me. So, my general reaction towards incomprehension of my "ramblings" is of encouragement for further understanding, of me, and of things, among which is the stupendous inanity of the jargon "ebonics". Xah P0lyglut 03:24, 2003 Dec 10 (UTC)

If you don't like the policy, you may bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names). Tuf-Kat 05:43, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

thanks kindly for this suggestion. At this point, the rubic for this article is immaterial, to me, what matters more is whether my efforts on jargonization has taught anybody anything. You see, if my verbiage ends up changing one webpage among billions, than that's minuscule in comparison to if i made some impression on a number of folks, who got a deeper understanding of the purpose of jargons, the effects of jargons, the communication efficiencies of jargons, how to judge a jargon, or critical thinking about jargons, and who might from now on see the way i see about jargons. Cheers. Xah P0lyglut 08:45, 2003 Dec 10 (UTC)

For the record, Ebonics is not jargon. African American Vernacular English would be the the jargon term. Tuf-Kat 08:50, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

---

Made small change to intro paragraph -- dialect is a sociolinguistic -- not a linguistic -- term. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 14:18, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

God, this discussion is so silly. Encyclopedia articles should be written by experts-- duh, that's how real encyclopedias get written.

Anyway, to make some constructive points:

• This article should be titled "African American Vernacular English" (AAVE for short). Why? Because the contemporary sociolinguistic research literature on the topic, which is the one place you're going to find good information on it, refers to it like that.
• Still, the word "Ebonics" should be kept as an index term pointing to the AAVE entry, because of its currency. The popularity of this word is due exclusively to its use in the utterly dreadfully worded (though well-meaning) Oakland School Board resolution. (I can't believe they didn't hand it off to somebody in Berkely linguistics before voting on it. But that's another story.) This provoked a media firestorm that fed on linguistic chauvinism against AAVE (a prime example, the idea that AAVE is "hip-hop slang", shown in this very discussion). Contrary to somebody who comments above, the currency of the word "Ebonics" is not due to "intellectuals" at all. It is due to the media. The word by now is indelibly associated to racist jokes.
• It should be mentioned that AAVE is not the only variety of African American English; it is the English typically spoken by less educated African Americans (as has been pointed out already). One can identify other African American English varieties, closer to Standard American English, yet still distinctive. They don't get talked about nearly as much (or even recognized).
• The term "Black English" suffers from two problems if used to refer to AAVE: (a) it fails to pick out AAVE from the full range of varieties of English spoken by African Americans; (b) while "black" is a racial characteristic, "African American" is an ethnicity, and not all English speakers in the US who are black speak AAVE. Trivial examples: Haitian Americans, many Cuban Americans.
• It is important to stress that many linguistic characteristics of AAVE are shared with Southern English in general. Others are strikingly similar of creoles in the Caribbean (which the entry does already mention.) The balance of contributions from each source is a major controversy.
• BCorr: you're picking nits that don't exist. There's nothing wrong with saying that "dialect" is a linguistic term. Dialectology is widely regarded as sociolinguistics in Anglophone academia anyway, but the notion of "dialect" antedates this, and is straight out of Linguitics 101.

I might agree with moving the article to another title, but it definitely violates our naming conventions to do so. If you want to move it, go there and discuss the issue. Tuf-Kat 08:29, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

Since it's been more than 3 months since TUF-KAT made these suggestions and no one has protested, I'm going to go ahead and move this page to African American Vernacular English, and change all the internal references to "ebonics" to "AAVE" --Nohat 00:32, 2004 Feb 25 (UTC)

That was written by an anon not TUF-KAT. [2] Common usage stands. --mav 03:42, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I would argue that first of all, common usage of the word "ebonics" does not refer to what is being described on this page. The common perception of "ebonics" is that it is something akin to "Hip Hop slang" and slang gets only a passing reference in one sentence in the whole article. The rest of the article discusses the salient linguistics features of AAVE. If, however, you look for what the common usage is among those who know what it is, you'll find that African-American Vernacular English enjoys much more use. In fact, I did a search of the LLBA database and "African American Vernacular English" (as a phrase) outnumbers "ebonics" 151 to 92. And I might add that for most of those ebonics references, the term is in quotes, following AAVE or BEV.

Furthermore, most dictionaries define "ebonics" as "Black English" or "African American Vernacular English", implying that "ebonics" is merely another name for the "real" topic which is defined under BE or AAVE. See AHD, m-w, and the Oxford English Dictionary.

Finally, the term "ebonics" is merely trendy right now. In 20 years, no one will know what ebonics is, but linguists will still talk about AAVE.

Since dictionaries define ebonics as being AAVE and usage of AAVE outnumbers ebonics among linguists, I think the article should be moved back to African American Vernacular English or at the very least Black English, which is an older term. But I'm not an admin and I can't move it back correctly, so I'll leave it as it is for now.

--Nohat 05:23, 2004 Feb 25 (UTC)

For what it's worth (as an anonymous sometimes wikipedia editor) I would have to say that I agree that ebonics is an inappropriate title, regardless of its currency. Because of the media misinterpretation of the Oakland schoolboard proposal, Ebonics now carries a somewhat pejorative meaning, and its use discredits the legitimate study of AAVE as a dialect of SAE.

While I appreciate Wikipedia's naming conventions, one certainly needs to take into account the propriety of certain (valid) names for things, given social stigmae and so on. For example, the term "negro" is a valid and widely understood term for peoples of African descent -- one which, in fact, enjoyed a certain amount of popularity among both blacks and whites at one point in time. However, use of this word (despite its currency) to describe African Americans or other African descended peoples would probably be met with some discomfort nowadays.

I suppose my point is this: the school board selected the term Ebonics because, currently, as ebony is both black and beautiful, it is often used as an adjective or modifier to describe something black in a positive way. Despite this root, the word ebonics has been sullied by the scandal following the school board proposal, and is now used primarily by racist whites to belittle or marginalize african american dialect. As such, I feel it ought to be used as a redirect only, with AAVE (or something similar) remaining the article's official title.

69.141.225.52

69.141.225.52, please read NPOV before trying to re-instate your edit again. Tuf-Kat 16:16, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Other grammatical features

Regarding the "examples" below:

• There is no -s ending indicating possession—the genitive relies on adjacency. This is similar to many creole dialects throughout the Caribbean Sea. Example: my baby mama (="my baby's mama")
• The word it denotes the existence of something, equivalent to Standard English there in "there is", or "there are". Examples It's a doughnut in the cabinet (="There's a doughnut in the cabinet") and It is no spoon (="There is no spoon").
• Altered clause order in questions: She tryin' to act white. She think who the hell she is? (="She's trying to act white. Who the hell does she think she is?")

AFAIK, all of these are not actually correct, nor have I (as an African American) ever heard these as general rules, or in fact, other than "baby mama" and "she tryin'", I've never heard these. Also, is "-in' instead if "-ing" actually Ebonics, or simply the English language across the world? -- BCorr|Брайен 15:39, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Moving to ...

African American vernacular English

Will this be OK? Does it violate naming conventions? If so which? Rich Farmbrough 22:25, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An important rule of thumb for naming articles is to look at other articles in its category an then try to pick a name that matches the others as closely as possible. In this case, check out Category:English dialects. In this situation, African-American English would conform the closest, but it has POV problems: not all African-Americans use this dialect. African-American vernacular English is a good choice, and I agree that it's a better name than the neologism "Ebonics". (You'll have to get the African-American vernacular English (or whatever name you choose) redirect speedily deleted so you can do the move.) • Benc • 22:47, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is a long discussion up top on this subject (actually several discussions). AAVE is most commonly referred to as Ebonics, and so the article should stay here, I think. Tuf-Kat 00:34, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I had already read all of the above discussions (and I hope Rich did, too), and it looks like you're in the minority in wanting to leave this article at Ebonics.

I really don't care too much about the naming issue; I think it's a minor point. However, when you get down to it, I believe that AAVE is a more appropriate name than Ebonics for a serious encyclopedia article. I think most of the editors on this talk page would agree with that statement, for varying reasons.

If you feel that this naming issue is important, I'd suggest setting up a vote to last one week, and listing it at WP:RFC. Alternately, if it's not a major issue for you, just let Rich move the article. Does this sound like a workable solution? • Benc • 00:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Three people -- Nohat, Polyglot and an anon supported moving it, and two supported leaving it -- me and mav. I really don't care if it's moved, but moving it violates one of the naming conventions (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)). I would very mildly disagree with moving it, but an argument could easily be made under the "undue offensiveness" clause. I've suggested before asking there if there would be agreement for such a move, but no one has ever done so. The only reason I have been enforcing the status quo is that I am apparently the only Wikipedian with this article on my watchlist. In any case, I don't think anyone argues that AAVE is more common than Ebonics, so this is the de facto title unless there is broad consensus for an exception to the naming conventions. If you or Rich want to move it, set up a requests for comment page or ask at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names). Tuf-Kat 02:00, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

I haven't really pressed the issue because I have found the "use common names" policy to be, overall, a good one, in that it prevents articles from being given obscure names, or in some cases, neologisms. However, in this case, the way I feel about "Ebonics" is that it is kind of a "slang" or "colloquial" name for what is really "African-American vernacular English" (which is an unfortunate mouthful). Bike outnumbers bicycle in Google hits [3], but the article is at Bicycle (with a redirect at Bike) because "bike" is really more of a slang or colloquial term for what is reall a bicycle. I think the same principle would apply here. I don't think anyone would seriously propose moving "bicycle" to "bike". Nohat 02:08, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think Ebonics is much more common, and AAVE too technical and obscure for most people (unlike bicycle, which is simple and well-known). If it must be moved, I would prefer African American English, but I'm not sure that really satisfies anyone. Tuf-Kat 02:20, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Based on the above I have invited comments via RFC and naming conventions talk pages. Please update the summary I've thrown together, below, I know it's incomplete (&POV!). Rich Farmbrough 12:14, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Naming Convention / Move / RFC

We are looking at which of these is the preferable prime entry for this article (currently Ebonics)

There is a slight preference expressed for moving but only a handful of peole are involved, so I thought it worth widening the discussion. Much discussion is in the Talk above, but we have tried to distill it below. In particluar I have not included any of the alternative choices of title.

Please feel free to modify the lists below:

Pro move;

• Unambigous title
• Article written as if African American vernacular English was the title
• African American vernacular English correct linguistic term.
• Ebonics possibly ofensive, contraveneing naming convention.
• American Heritage Dictionary redirects from Ebonics to African American vernacular English.
• Eonics not in widespread usage outside US?
• Ebonics a neologism, which may fade
• Ebonics is not synonomous with African American vernacular English (if true this is critical) - possibly being transatlantic.

Anti move;

• Ebonics wins a googlefight
• Ebonics in current usage in certain non-liguisitc circles?
• Ebonics shorter
• (Ebonics is a nice word. My POV.)
• Ebonics fits nameing convention - most common name.

Thanks Rich Farmbrough 12:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proposal

How about we move the linguistic stuff to African American Vernacular English and leave the bits about the Oakland School Board decision here (obviously leaving pointers behind in both directions). I would be agreeable to that. Tuf-Kat 14:59, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent solution to me. • Benc • 21:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have boldly done so. Tuf-Kat 23:09, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Ambiguity in resolution's intent

Both uses of the word 'in' in the following fragment (part of which is a quote from the Oakland resolution) are ambiguous:

Doing some teaching in Ebonics, however, was mandated by the Oakland resolution in two places; e.g., "imparting instruction to African-American students in their primary language"...

"Teaching in <language>" can mean that the language of instruction is <language> (and that the subject is unspecified), or that the subject of the instruction is <language> (and the language being spoken at the time is unspecified). The former interpretation is more common, but the latter makes more sense in context. Someone who understands the exact mandate, please disambiguate? (Obviously the quote can't be changed, but if the rest of the sentence is it should become clear.)

(Feel free to delete this comment if and when this is implemented.)

Swept under the rug

I think there are two key ideas that the article fails to highlight sufficiently.

1. That whites and the well-to-do and the highly-educated comprise a "higher social class" than blacks and the poor and the under-educated (who comprise a "lower class" or "underclass"
2. That teaching schoolchildren in their foreign language retards their adoption of standard English, rather than helping them (a) become bilingual or (b) master the 3 R's of reading, writing, and arithmetic necessary for upward mobility

Now, I'm not saying that Wikipedia should endorse both these ideas (or either one of them) -- just that these ideas are IMHO at the heart of the controversy over Ebonics. Educators and other "do-gooders" were outraged that so-called "bilingual education" was being extended to "substandard English". These advocates saw this as a double whammy: retarding academic progress while promoting "ghetto talk" to the same level as a "real language".

Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that regular use of standard English's possessive (apostrophe plus letter S) in itself is an enobling force; English itself does not always require it (a car's door is generally called a "car door"). But balkanization of America into independent and insular hyphenated groupings is bad for the nation as a whole, as well as for the isolated groups (this is my personal POV). And delaying or refusing to learn standard English keeps immigrants and former slaves down.

There's nothing wrong with speaking a patois, a creole or a slang among one's own circle. When I'm with military men, I swear like a trooper. And I know a businessman in Queens who can speak what seems to me an incomprensible Jamaican dialect of English, but is perfectly capable of conversing in standard English when he chooses to. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 15:34, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Another move!

Ebonics generally refers to the vernacular itself, so when someone looks up Ebonics on Wikipedia, he should expect to see a page about the dialect. Of course, this isn't much of a problem, since we do point directly to the AAVE page from here.

However, since this page is about the Oakland Ebonics Controversy, perhaps we should name it Oakland Ebonics Controversy or some such, and point Ebonics over to the AAVE page.

AAVE is now African American Vernacular English, and this page now redirects to that page. There is nothing in this article that is not included in African American Vernacular English (except the "Jeopardy" incident, which, IMO, is superfluous) -- and more effectively. deeceevoice 02:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with this move. Once upon a time the two articles were together, and there was a dispute about whether it should be titled "Ebonics" or "African American Vernacular English". There was a compromise that the bit about the controversy could stay at "Ebonics" and the rest would move to "African American Vernacular English". However, the information about the controversy is now properly integrated into the AAVE article, so this article is superfluous. Nohat 03:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)