3 ms·

I think that it isn't well regarded as a language because at root it is simply an adaption of another language (English). There's differing vernaculars anywhere

I think that it isn't well regarded as a language because at root it is simply an adaption of another language (English). There's differing vernaculars anywhere you go, depending on the culture and the demographic. There's no use in regarding them each individually as "languages", they are termed correctly as just being vernaculars. When I started working at a factory when I was 18, I was suddenly bombarded with blue collar vernacular. By the time I was 21, double negatives, particular "ain't got no.." were fairly ingrained in my speech and I still talk like that in informal situations. I certainly wouldn't advocate that becoming a nationally recognized language. AAVE is perpetuated culturally but almost any AA you meet can speak formal English just fine, being necessary for success outside of their cultural enclave. Making it a separate language per se doesn't serve any real function and will really only cause another level of division on a national level.

jlgreco 14y ago
> When I started working at a factory when I was 18, I was suddenly bombarded with blue collar vernacular. By the time I was 21, double negatives, particular "ain't got no.." were fairly ingrained in my speech and I still talk like that in informal situations. To add to this, I have experienced similar. Years of working on farms/in food processing plants has left my informal speech riddled with expletives. I switch that on or off depending on the setting, but in situations that I am comfortable in that are not professional settings (for example, my mothers dinner table), it can slip through without me noticing.
derleth 14y ago
> I think that it isn't well regarded as a language because at root it is simply an adaption of another language (English). As Italian is simply an adaption of Latin. So, was Dante writing bad Latin or good Florentine? > I certainly wouldn't advocate that becoming a nationally recognized language. Why not?
unhammer 14y ago
> I certainly wouldn't advocate that becoming a nationally recognized language. The US has no official language, so it's a moot point. The article talks about how _teachers_ should recognize the language. Not teach the language, recognize it as a language, and not assume you're dumb just because you grew up speaking a different language (assumption like that have a definite negative effect on student performance).

jlgreco 14y ago

> When I started working at a factory when I was 18, I was suddenly bombarded with blue collar vernacular. By the time I was 21, double negatives, particular "ain't got no.." were fairly ingrained in my speech and I still talk like that in informal situations. To add to this, I have experienced similar. Years of working on farms/in food processing plants has left my informal speech riddled with expletives. I switch that on or off depending on the setting, but in situations that I am comfortable in that are not professional settings (for example, my mothers dinner table), it can slip through without me noticing.

derleth 14y ago

> I think that it isn't well regarded as a language because at root it is simply an adaption of another language (English). As Italian is simply an adaption of Latin. So, was Dante writing bad Latin or good Florentine? > I certainly wouldn't advocate that becoming a nationally recognized language. Why not?

unhammer 14y ago

> I certainly wouldn't advocate that becoming a nationally recognized language. The US has no official language, so it's a moot point. The article talks about how _teachers_ should recognize the language. Not teach the language, recognize it as a language, and not assume you're dumb just because you grew up speaking a different language (assumption like that have a definite negative effect on student performance).