An Epistle or An Opinion - Please send to all on you mail list!!!
Please send to all on you mail list!!! - © Kent Fletcher
March 6, 2007
In my short life, the degradation of the English language, American English at least, has continued unabated. Take the above sentence, for instance. I received an email this morning, more propaganda than anything, about the issuance of the new dollar coin which does not, evidently, have the statement, "In God We Trust" (IGWT) on it. This epistle does not concern the IGWT statement, but rather the sincere lack of upholding and using the English language as I was brought up to know it.
"Please send to all on YOU mail list !!!" This statement, and statements like it, just irks the hell out of me, to no end. It reminds me of ebonics, that guttural language used in the ghettos of our nation, and which has spilled out into the common street languages. It was interesting some ten years ago, that while the ebonics culture/language was glorified as a new age communication venue, and was openly 'welcomed' in Oakland, CA, that nearly as soon as the boil came to a head, it was pricked and the ebonics was mostly forgotten as front-page news. By most. But I haven't forgotten.
No, I have never lived in a ghetto, and have only passed through a couple of ghettos in my life, getting in and out as fast as I safely could, speed-wise. I do not envy the folk who are forced to live in them, nor do I envy the folk who must go into them, police and firemen, among others. To be able to communicate with the residents of these God-forsaken places, from my point-of-view, one must be able to quickly interpret the common language spoken within its boundaries.
For instance, from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/ebonic-issue.html:
The idea that Ebonic is very bad English is obviously false to linguists who have studied it in detail (e.g., Mufwene, Rickford, Bailey, & Baugh, 1998; Wolfram & Schilling-Estes, 1998). Outside the realm of academic linguistics, however, the idea that Ebonic is bad English is generally held to be uncontroversially true. Hence, it is necessary to demonstrate that this notion is untenable. It is clear on examination that Ebonic, far from being bad English, is actually superior to English in one of its subsystems, the verbal tense aspect system. In addition to the verb structure that English also has, Ebonic provides its speakers with rich resources for making distinctions among kinds and times of actions and states that can be made in English only awkwardly through use of a longer and more awkward expression. For example, Ebonic has several aspect markers; one is the habitual, exemplified below:
*She be eatin/She do be eatin.
She is sometimes/usually/always eating.
*She don't be eatin.
She is not sometimes/usually/always eating.
I suppose that within a culture, it is tolerated to use whatever language is acceptable to the masses. However, when a member of a culture has the opportunity to move out or into another culture, should the cultural language be allowed to move with the opportunity? Let me take it one step further: Let's say a Burkina Faso citizen, who has no working knowledge of American English, makes his way to the shores of these United States, where for the most part American English is the accepted language of the culture, for business purposes. Should this Burkina Faso citizen, upon wishing to be accepted into the American society, for business purposes, be allowed to conduct his business in his native language, to force his counterparts in a business purpose to understand HIS language first? Personally, I don't see that happening with any success on either party's part.
The same could be said for some poor, Southern redneck in the hills of Appalachia who has never traveled beyond his community, his ghetto if you will, suddenly being offered an opportunity to assimilate with the masses in the educated world, perhaps to be able to make mega-millions on some widget he has perfected within his ghetto, which would benefit the educated masses. If he is to hopefully come to a fruitful gain, in my humble opinion (IMHO), he would need to do one of two things: (1) learn the language of the folks he would be dealing with, or (2) force the people he would be dealing with to learn his language. I don't think the second option will happen in our "modern" world.
Let's even go another route in the usage of the American English language. A hundred or so years ago, one author, Joel Chandler Harris, wrote a series of stories epitomizing the cultural language of the black folks in the Southern United States. I ran across a website having the print versions of his stories, http://www.ongoing-tales.com/SERIALS/oldtime/FAIRYTALES/tarbaby.html, wherein is written this part of the Tar Baby tale:
"He came mighty nigh it, honey, sho's you born - Brer Fox did. One day after Brer Rabbit fool 'im wid dat calamus root, Brer Fox went ter wuk en got 'im some tar, en mix it wid some turkentime, en fix up a contrapshun w'at he call a Tar-Baby, en he tuck dish yer Tar-Baby en he sot 'er in de big road, en den he lay off in de bushes fer to see what de news wuz gwine ter be. En he didn't hatter wait long, nudder, kaze bimeby here come Brer Rabbit pacin' down de road - lippity-clippity, clippity-lippity - dez ez sassy ez a jay-bird. Brer Fox, he lay low. Brer Rabbit come prancin' long twel he spy de Tar-Baby, en den he fotch up on his behime legs like he wuz 'stonished. De Tar-Baby, she sot dar, she did, en Brer Fox, he lay low."
On some days I can read this story with no problems at all, if I let my mind go, just read it for what it is. However, had Uncle Remus told this story in our "modern" world, he would be probably laughed off as a senile old man, using a language unheard of with modern-day readers.
From another website, http://www.otmfan.com/html/brertar.htm, an "updated" version:
"One day Brer Fox thought of how Brer Rabbit had been cutting up his capers and bouncing around until he'd come to believe that he was the boss of the whole gang. Brer Fox thought of a way to lay some bait for that uppity Brer Rabbit.
"He went to work and got some tar and mixed it with some turpentine. He fixed up a contraption that he called a Tar-Baby. When he finished making her, he put a straw hat on her head and sat the little thing in the middle of the road. Brer Fox, he lay off in the bushes to see what would happen.
"Well, he didn't have to wait long either, 'cause by and by Brer Rabbit came pacing down the road--lippity-clippity, clippity-lippity--just as sassy as a jaybird. Brer Fox, he lay low. Brer Rabbit came prancing along until he saw the Tar-Baby and then he sat back on his hind legs like he was astonished. The Tar-Baby just sat there, she did, and Brer Fox, he lay low."
While the correct subject/verb/object context is not entirely correct, the second iteration is correct for the "modern" world. I would attempt to translate this story back to an ebonics read, but I'd probably go crazy doing it.
While all of us - black, white, brown, red, and yellow - use colloquialisms in every day speech depending on the locality, I think it all boils down to one thing: To be understood by the majority, one needs to join the majority, albeit just briefly to have a successful turn of events.
Now, to go a step further in this epistle: The same goes for the written word. To use the language of the common man/woman in a story is okay, for it makes the story as much as the characters. However, any work of communications should be, IMHO, on the up-and-up, should be correct in the modern-day world. "Please send to all on YOU mail list !!!" I'm sorry, but when I see/read this type of statement, I want to throw up, while others would probably pass it by, think nothing of it.
When I forward emails, if the subject or the substance of the email is grammatically wrong, I'll either attempt to correct it, or just toss it. To forward something that is grammatically incorrect indicates - to me if no one else - that I don't care, that I condone the behavior of the previous sender.
Am I eccentric? Probably, but when I think of the things my Mother pressed on my young mind, I just can't stand the grammatical degradation of our American English. Am I wrong? I don't think so.
March 6, 2007
In my short life, the degradation of the English language, American English at least, has continued unabated. Take the above sentence, for instance. I received an email this morning, more propaganda than anything, about the issuance of the new dollar coin which does not, evidently, have the statement, "In God We Trust" (IGWT) on it. This epistle does not concern the IGWT statement, but rather the sincere lack of upholding and using the English language as I was brought up to know it.
"Please send to all on YOU mail list !!!" This statement, and statements like it, just irks the hell out of me, to no end. It reminds me of ebonics, that guttural language used in the ghettos of our nation, and which has spilled out into the common street languages. It was interesting some ten years ago, that while the ebonics culture/language was glorified as a new age communication venue, and was openly 'welcomed' in Oakland, CA, that nearly as soon as the boil came to a head, it was pricked and the ebonics was mostly forgotten as front-page news. By most. But I haven't forgotten.
No, I have never lived in a ghetto, and have only passed through a couple of ghettos in my life, getting in and out as fast as I safely could, speed-wise. I do not envy the folk who are forced to live in them, nor do I envy the folk who must go into them, police and firemen, among others. To be able to communicate with the residents of these God-forsaken places, from my point-of-view, one must be able to quickly interpret the common language spoken within its boundaries.
For instance, from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/ebonic-issue.html:
The idea that Ebonic is very bad English is obviously false to linguists who have studied it in detail (e.g., Mufwene, Rickford, Bailey, & Baugh, 1998; Wolfram & Schilling-Estes, 1998). Outside the realm of academic linguistics, however, the idea that Ebonic is bad English is generally held to be uncontroversially true. Hence, it is necessary to demonstrate that this notion is untenable. It is clear on examination that Ebonic, far from being bad English, is actually superior to English in one of its subsystems, the verbal tense aspect system. In addition to the verb structure that English also has, Ebonic provides its speakers with rich resources for making distinctions among kinds and times of actions and states that can be made in English only awkwardly through use of a longer and more awkward expression. For example, Ebonic has several aspect markers; one is the habitual, exemplified below:
*She be eatin/She do be eatin.
She is sometimes/usually/always eating.
*She don't be eatin.
She is not sometimes/usually/always eating.
I suppose that within a culture, it is tolerated to use whatever language is acceptable to the masses. However, when a member of a culture has the opportunity to move out or into another culture, should the cultural language be allowed to move with the opportunity? Let me take it one step further: Let's say a Burkina Faso citizen, who has no working knowledge of American English, makes his way to the shores of these United States, where for the most part American English is the accepted language of the culture, for business purposes. Should this Burkina Faso citizen, upon wishing to be accepted into the American society, for business purposes, be allowed to conduct his business in his native language, to force his counterparts in a business purpose to understand HIS language first? Personally, I don't see that happening with any success on either party's part.
The same could be said for some poor, Southern redneck in the hills of Appalachia who has never traveled beyond his community, his ghetto if you will, suddenly being offered an opportunity to assimilate with the masses in the educated world, perhaps to be able to make mega-millions on some widget he has perfected within his ghetto, which would benefit the educated masses. If he is to hopefully come to a fruitful gain, in my humble opinion (IMHO), he would need to do one of two things: (1) learn the language of the folks he would be dealing with, or (2) force the people he would be dealing with to learn his language. I don't think the second option will happen in our "modern" world.
Let's even go another route in the usage of the American English language. A hundred or so years ago, one author, Joel Chandler Harris, wrote a series of stories epitomizing the cultural language of the black folks in the Southern United States. I ran across a website having the print versions of his stories, http://www.ongoing-tales.com/SERIALS/oldtime/FAIRYTALES/tarbaby.html, wherein is written this part of the Tar Baby tale:
"He came mighty nigh it, honey, sho's you born - Brer Fox did. One day after Brer Rabbit fool 'im wid dat calamus root, Brer Fox went ter wuk en got 'im some tar, en mix it wid some turkentime, en fix up a contrapshun w'at he call a Tar-Baby, en he tuck dish yer Tar-Baby en he sot 'er in de big road, en den he lay off in de bushes fer to see what de news wuz gwine ter be. En he didn't hatter wait long, nudder, kaze bimeby here come Brer Rabbit pacin' down de road - lippity-clippity, clippity-lippity - dez ez sassy ez a jay-bird. Brer Fox, he lay low. Brer Rabbit come prancin' long twel he spy de Tar-Baby, en den he fotch up on his behime legs like he wuz 'stonished. De Tar-Baby, she sot dar, she did, en Brer Fox, he lay low."
On some days I can read this story with no problems at all, if I let my mind go, just read it for what it is. However, had Uncle Remus told this story in our "modern" world, he would be probably laughed off as a senile old man, using a language unheard of with modern-day readers.
From another website, http://www.otmfan.com/html/brertar.htm, an "updated" version:
"One day Brer Fox thought of how Brer Rabbit had been cutting up his capers and bouncing around until he'd come to believe that he was the boss of the whole gang. Brer Fox thought of a way to lay some bait for that uppity Brer Rabbit.
"He went to work and got some tar and mixed it with some turpentine. He fixed up a contraption that he called a Tar-Baby. When he finished making her, he put a straw hat on her head and sat the little thing in the middle of the road. Brer Fox, he lay off in the bushes to see what would happen.
"Well, he didn't have to wait long either, 'cause by and by Brer Rabbit came pacing down the road--lippity-clippity, clippity-lippity--just as sassy as a jaybird. Brer Fox, he lay low. Brer Rabbit came prancing along until he saw the Tar-Baby and then he sat back on his hind legs like he was astonished. The Tar-Baby just sat there, she did, and Brer Fox, he lay low."
While the correct subject/verb/object context is not entirely correct, the second iteration is correct for the "modern" world. I would attempt to translate this story back to an ebonics read, but I'd probably go crazy doing it.
While all of us - black, white, brown, red, and yellow - use colloquialisms in every day speech depending on the locality, I think it all boils down to one thing: To be understood by the majority, one needs to join the majority, albeit just briefly to have a successful turn of events.
Now, to go a step further in this epistle: The same goes for the written word. To use the language of the common man/woman in a story is okay, for it makes the story as much as the characters. However, any work of communications should be, IMHO, on the up-and-up, should be correct in the modern-day world. "Please send to all on YOU mail list !!!" I'm sorry, but when I see/read this type of statement, I want to throw up, while others would probably pass it by, think nothing of it.
When I forward emails, if the subject or the substance of the email is grammatically wrong, I'll either attempt to correct it, or just toss it. To forward something that is grammatically incorrect indicates - to me if no one else - that I don't care, that I condone the behavior of the previous sender.
Am I eccentric? Probably, but when I think of the things my Mother pressed on my young mind, I just can't stand the grammatical degradation of our American English. Am I wrong? I don't think so.
posted by Fletch @ 8:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home