# "Dude", "brother", "awesome": what do you think?



## cris (Oct 1, 2010)

I think we, as Christian/evangelic community, are too quick to adopt words (among others) from MTV and the ghetto.
Has anyone noticed that, too?
Probably "awesome" is the worst "use-case", since, as we know, only God, or something directly related to Him is awesome (the creation) . Do we really think a burger can be "awesome"!?
As about the other two ones, I think we so much want to be "cool". We adopted the language of the teenagers. I don't know whether this happens because we are a society obsessed with youth (which we are) or for some other reason. 
But I cannot picture the apostles using words that are almost "gangsta"-like. Yes, the language evolves, but this is slang and I think, we, as Christians, should avoid them.
What do you guys think? Please let me know. Especially if you disagree.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 1, 2010)

cris said:


> Yes, the language evolves, but this is slang and I think, we, as Christians, should avoid them.



Why? What harm or evil is there in using cultural vernacular?

brother, I say - "take a chill pill, dude."


----------



## TimV (Oct 1, 2010)

Would you say that a hamburger was awful?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 1, 2010)

TimV said:


> Would you say that a hamburger was awful?


 
Ooh... good one!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 1, 2010)

Like totally.


----------



## TimV (Oct 1, 2010)

I haven't said anything to Adam yet, but I was cracking up going through his translation of Piscator's Disputations. The translation is great, but Adam is from the Bay Area, and he conscience or otherwise use of slang really spices the book up.


----------



## FenderPriest (Oct 1, 2010)

I think your face is awesome brother.

I also think it's a silly issue, to be honest. I mean, if you really want to break the English language down, you're using mostly French words in your English, and we all know the French are evil. The next time you use the word "apple" just think about where that word comes from! I think there are more important issues to think through, like how we use theological language today. I think some of the language issues fall into "all things to all men" when they aren't moral categories.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Oct 1, 2010)

If we were to take your logic, we also couldn't call anything "good," as Jesus said to the rich young ruler that no one is good but God. Yet I had a really good Chipotle burrito yesterday, and I see no problem in describing it as awesome.

Likewise with dude and brother. I'm not exactly sure what you're saying the problem is with them. They're just forms of address which should be used in appropriate contexts...e.g., I can call my buddies that, but if I'm talking to the president, I probably ought to find a different term.


----------



## Bookmeister (Oct 1, 2010)

Cris,
I agree with everyone here, vernacular is just that, it is neither *good* nor evil. A much larger problem, and a real problem, is the improper grammar running rampant in our society. Please take no offense Chris but we just have to look to your post, "As about the other two ones," is horrible grammar and a much bigger problem we should address.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Oct 1, 2010)

I do not _understand_ some slang terms these days, but that doesn't make them bad; grammar, on the other hand, is of a much greater concern to me.


----------



## LawrenceU (Oct 1, 2010)

Slang comes and goes. While much of it irritates me when I hear it in certain contexts I have learned to let it pass, usually. Some words really get me, like 'dude'. Being called that where I came from was liable to cause a fight. I still have that connotation stuck in my head. I agree with Alan, the devolution of grammar in general is much more serious. We are rapidly approaching a state where even 'educated' people cannot comprehend complex sentences accurately. Some truths cannot be fully communicated apart from that ability. The continual downgrading of vernacular grammar is directly tied to the inability of people to trace logical thought. That is one reason we see the disconnect in so much public thought as revealed in polling. Another aspect are the logical disconnects that exist in the thought processes of many Christians regarding theological principles.


----------



## Andres (Oct 1, 2010)

I disagree with the others that vernacular is "just that". I think it means a great deal how, when words are used. For example, if I hear an man over the age of, oh say 35ish use the word dude and/or brother when addressing another man, I think its not very appropriate. I think of it in terms of dress. Sure it may not be inherently wrong for a 45 year old man to dress like a 16 year old boy, but I think we would agree they would look awfully silly. As for the word awesome, I agree it should be reserved for God. 

Lastly, I do have to take issue with the OP's belief that these words are "ghetto" or "gangsta". Where in the world do you get that from? Saying stuff is ghetto or gangsta is even worse than throwing around dude and brother.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 1, 2010)

Andres said:


> I disagree with the others that vernacular is "just that". I think it means a great deal how, when words are used. For example, if I hear an man over the age of, oh say 35ish use the word dude and/or brother when addressing another man, I think its not very appropriate. I think of it in terms of dress. Sure it may not be inherently wrong for a 45 year old man to dress like a 16 year old boy, but I think we would agree they would look awfully silly. As for the word awesome, I agree it should be reserved for God.


 
Appropriateness does not come from the word per se, but from all the social factors involved. What's the nature of their relationship? How well acquainted are they? What's the setting and context of their conversation? Concerning "awesome", if we're going to start reserving words for God alone, won't we find that there's a lot more that we shouldn't use: good, wise, beautiful. Biblically, the word that seems to be refer most reservedly for God is his own name, YHWH.


----------



## raekwon (Oct 1, 2010)

Andres said:


> Lastly, I do have to take issue with the OP's belief that these words are "ghetto" or "gangsta". Where in the world do you get that from? Saying stuff is ghetto or gangsta is even worse than throwing around dude and brother.


 
Yesterday, I saw a woman order a drink at Starbucks that consisted of 16 shots of espresso (and only espresso). I later said that such a drink is "gangsta". Why? Well... because it's gangsta. Straight-up gangsta, in fact.


----------



## Zenas (Oct 1, 2010)

> Being called that where I came from was liable to cause a fight. I still have that connotation stuck in my head.



Which is also a result of the cultural vernacular from your area, homie. 

Will you also condemn the useage of internetisms like "lol"? That's the same thing, albeit typed 

(On second thought, no one answer that.)


----------



## he beholds (Oct 1, 2010)

Andres said:


> I disagree with the others that vernacular is "just that". I think it means a great deal how, when words are used. For example, if I hear an man over the age of, oh say 35ish use the word dude and/or brother when addressing another man, I think its not very appropriate. I think of it in terms of dress. Sure it may not be inherently wrong for a 45 year old man to dress like a 16 year old boy, but I think we would agree they would look awfully silly. As for the word awesome, I agree it should be reserved for God.
> 
> Lastly, I do have to take issue with the OP's belief that these words are "ghetto" or "gangsta". Where in the world do you get that from? Saying stuff is ghetto or gangsta is even worse than throwing around dude and brother.


 
While I disagree with the OP and with Andrew about using the vernacular, and especially about there being an age limit to its use, I must say that Andrew makes a great point about gangsta and ghetto. Reading the OP employ the slang use of terms to criticize using slang is ironic. Not only that, the words he chose actually are much more likely to cause offense than the words he criticizes!! (I use those terms, but I don't think it sinful to use slang.) When talking about going to an older, smaller mall back home, my husband and I called it "ghetto." His mom got super offended because she thought we were actually criticizing the mall as a place of danger or crime--to people in our generation it was clear that we were calling it small or old or simply less-appealing than another mall might be. And then use that word to someone from the ghetto, I am sure offense is caused there as well. But, if I were to call my mother-in-law's cooking awesome (which it is) she would see no reason to be offended. 

At one time in my life I would have been able to be convinced that the word awesome is meant for God alone, but now I think that if that were the case, then that would be his name. When I call a song, or anything, awesome, I do not mean that it struck a worshipful-awe in me, because at this point in the history of the word, it doesn't usually mean that. It just means cool, which used to speak of temperature.


----------



## LawrenceU (Oct 1, 2010)

Zenas said:


> > Being called that where I came from was liable to cause a fight. I still have that connotation stuck in my head.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Oh, I wasn't condemning it. I was making the point that we all have a vernacular with which we speak and listen. It is shaped by the culture in which we are raised and live. Some aspects of it appear to be moldable, while others not so much. That is one reason that we must be gracious in these sort of dealings. Yet, I do believe that popular media is more of a factor in shaping vernacular than anything else at the present time. I think this may be what is causing a coarsening of common speech.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Oct 1, 2010)

> Yesterday, I saw a woman order a drink at Starbucks that consisted of 16 shots of espresso (and only espresso). I later said that such a drink is "gangsta". Why? Well... because it's gangsta. Straight-up gangsta, in fact.



No Digity


----------



## Zenas (Oct 1, 2010)

LawrenceU said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> > > Being called that where I came from was liable to cause a fight. I still have that connotation stuck in my head.
> ...


 
I knew you weren't condemning it. It was a lame attempt at humor on my part.


----------



## AThornquist (Oct 1, 2010)

Afta listenin' ta dat hippidy-hop muzic I only gots ghetto jibba-jabba comin' out ma grill!


 I like this thread. While I agree that certain vernacular makes one appear very informal or even less educated, that is not always the case. Likewise, it often has no bearing on the meaning of one's statement and is thus, in my opinion, simply a matter of preference. With that said though, I do believe that it would be helpful for my generation to get out of the habit of thoughtlessly throwing this vernacular into our speech. I seriously struggle in this regard, but we ought to choose our words carefully and with the Lord's glory in mind; therefore, we must have control over our tongues, which includes the words we are discussing.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Oct 1, 2010)

I think that using the vernacular is part of our Reformed and Puritan tradition. The Puritans were plain style preachers who presented the Truths of Scripture in the speech of their time. If you read non-Puritan authors from the same time period, you will see that they are flowery, eloquent, and use the language in a way that did not connect with the people of the day. In contrast, when you read the Puritans, you find plain words (in their day), illustrations from real life, and down to earth language that points us above the earth towards the Son of God who took on common humanity for our sins. 

I am not opposed to the occasional awesome, dude, or brother- as long as they help us to connect with the lost people in our communities, cities, and nations.


----------



## AThornquist (Oct 1, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> I think that using the vernacular is part of our Reformed and Puritan tradition. The Puritans were plain style preachers who presented the Truths of Scripture in the speech of their time. If you read non-Puritan authors from the same time period, you will see that they are flowery, eloquent, and use the language in a way that did not connect with the people of the day. In contrast, when you read the Puritans, you find plain words (in their day), illustrations from real life, and down to earth language that points us above the earth towards the Son of God who took on common humanity for our sins.





I did not know that. Thank you for sharing!


----------



## Staphlobob (Oct 1, 2010)

I'm 57 years old and "cool" is about the only word I know. Working at the Helping Up Mission I heard someone (a repeat relapser) complain saying, "I don't get no rap unless I'm in this place. No one gives me any rap when I'm out of here." 

I had no idea what he was talking about. Upon asking him what he meant he said that "rap" is another word for "talk." So no one talks to him unless he's in the program. Weird. Why didn't he just say that?


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Oct 1, 2010)

> I also think it's a silly issue, to be honest. I mean, if you really want to break the English language down, you're using mostly French words in your English, and we all know the French are evil. The next time you use the word "apple" just think about where that word comes from! I think there are more important issues to think through, like how we use theological language today. I think some of the language issues fall into "all things to all men" when they aren't moral categories.



Please elaborate. Where does the word apple come from?


----------



## N. Eshelman (Oct 1, 2010)

> "Apple: Just think where that word comes from"



From The Oxford English Dictionary (the last word on words): 


> [Cognate with Old Frisian appel apple, Middle Dutch appel apple, pomegranate, orange, any round fruit growing on a tree, pupil, pommel (Dutch appel), Old Saxon appul (only in compounds; Middle Low German appel apple), Old High German apful, aphul, aphel, apfel apple, pomegranate, pupil (Middle High German apfel, German Apfel), Old Icelandic epli apple, any fruit from a tree, Old Swedish æple apple, any fruit from a tree (Swedish äpple), Old Danish æplæ, æpæl apple, any fruit from a tree, (æble), Crimean Gothic apel apple, apparently related to (and perhaps ultimately < the same Indo-European base as) Gaulish avallo, (in place names) aballo- apple tree (perhaps post-classical Latin -abulus in acerabulus kind of maple tree (7th cent.)), Irish abal apple tree, ubal, ubul apple (Irish úll), Welsh afall apple tree, afal apple (compare earlier (in a post-classical Latin context) Aballava, the British name of Burgh-by-Sands, Cumberland (probably 2nd cent. in an inscription)), and (if < the same Indo-European base, apparently developed from forms with a long vowel in the first syllable) Old Prussian woble apple, wobalne apple tree, Lithuanian obelis apple tree, obuolys apple, Latvian bele apple tree, bols, bolis apple, Old Church Slavonic jablan apple tree (in an isolated attestation), Old Russian jabolon´ apple tree (Russian jablonja), jabl´´ko, jabloko apple (Russian jabloko), Old Polish yabon apple tree (Polish jabo), yablek (genitive plural) apple (Polish jabko); perhaps compare also Abella, the name of a town in Campania in Italy, perhaps of the same origin (compare Virgil Aeneid 7.740 maliferae..moenia Abellae the walls of apple-bearing Abella). The words in Celtic, Baltic, and Slavonic apparently reflect both a simplex word and a derivative (apparently originally denoting the tree) with a suffix with -n-. For the name of the tree in the Germanic languages see Old English apuldor and its cognates (listed at APPLE TREE n.).
> The etymology of the word beyond Germanic is uncertain and disputed. The word may show a borrowing from a non-Indo-European language, or the forms in Germanic, Celtic, Baltic, and Slavonic may all be developed from an Indo-European base, although none of the attempts to identify cognates in other branches of Indo-European have yet met with general acceptance.
> In Old English originally a strong masculine u-stem, it shows (already in early texts) attraction to the more common a-stem declension (compare nominative plural æppla beside rare æpplas; see further A. Campbell Old Eng. Gram. (1959) §613); the existence of a weak by-form is perhaps also suggested by the genitive plural form æpplena (for expected æppla) in an isolated attestation from the first half of the 11th cent.
> The forms show metanalysis (see N n.).]


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Oct 1, 2010)

You just trippin dawg. 

Well, I grew up in "the hood", so, its just language you pick up. I do think it isn't right to address older people as "brother" and "dude". I understand... But just chill out. =)


----------



## Andres (Oct 1, 2010)

awretchsavedbygrace said:


> You just trippin dawg.
> 
> Well, I grew up in "the hood", so, its just language you pick up. I do think it isn't right to address older people as "brother" and "dude". I understand... But just chill out. =)


 
You actually make a valid point though. For you Julio, you give no second-thought to talking like this. It has to do with your culture, including what you grew up hearing. There are however other people that it is not natural to hear talk this way and those people sound absolutely ridiculous and I will even say offensive when I hear then throw some of that slang around. Yes, I am offended when I hear middle-aged caucasian men say words like ghetto and gangsta. The reason is because I know they do not talk that way normally so when they use the words its in a condescending context. Even though I doubt he intentionally meant it this way, this is exactly how I took the OP's usage of the words.

---------- Post added at 04:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:55 PM ----------




raekwon said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > Lastly, I do have to take issue with the OP's belief that these words are "ghetto" or "gangsta". Where in the world do you get that from? Saying stuff is ghetto or gangsta is even worse than throwing around dude and brother.
> ...


 
I don't get it. How is drinking a lot of caffeine gangsta? I guess we were/are culturally exposed to that word differently because it seems to have a totally different meaning to me than you.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 1, 2010)

Andres said:


> I disagree with the others that vernacular is "just that". I think it means a great deal how, when words are used. For example, if I hear an man over the age of, oh say 35ish use the word dude and/or brother when addressing another man, I think its not very appropriate. I think of it in terms of dress. Sure it may not be inherently wrong for a 45 year old man to dress like a 16 year old boy, but I think we would agree they would look awfully silly. As for the word awesome, I agree it should be reserved for God.


 
As a senior Marine Officer, age 42, I sometimes call my peers "Dude" in casual conversation. Of course I've been using that term with peers for over a quarter of a century. It's not exactly a new term as it was very common in the early 80's.


----------



## Edward (Oct 1, 2010)

Never call a dudette a dude. It's not groovy.


----------



## Rich Koster (Oct 1, 2010)

In Acts, I see God empowering people to speak the Gospel in dialect/ vulgar language. We should avoid profane speech, but use the language to communicate so the hearer fully grasps what is being said.


----------



## raekwon (Oct 1, 2010)

Andres said:


> awretchsavedbygrace said:
> 
> 
> > You just trippin dawg.
> ...


 
I almost used the word "hardcore" instead of "gangsta." The sense in which I was using it connotes toughness, rawness, etc.


----------



## Marrow Man (Oct 1, 2010)

Jay Adams tells the story of when he was working on his degree in Greek; he took a class at a secular university in which he was the only student. The professor was used to teaching classical Greek, but when he found out his student was interested in the New Testament, he decided to make that the subject of the class. It was obvious the professor was pretty unfamiliar with the NT, because during the first class he told his student to translate the NT. "All of it?" said Dr. Adams. "It's pretty long." "All right," said the prof. "Let's just do one book. Do one of Paul's letters. How about Romans?" "All of it?" was the reply again. "All right, just translate the first chapter for homework."

So Dr. Adams goes home and works all evening translating the first chapter of Romans. He comes back to class the next day and the professor asks him to read his translation. After every so many words, the professor stops and takes a look at the Greek text with a puzzled look on his face. He then asks his student to continue and then stops him again after a few words. Finally the professor exclaimed, "What is Paul saying? He's using gutter language!"

The point of the story is that Paul wrote in what was considered to be the vernacular of the day, koine Greek. Obviously, God is quite glorified in such "gutter language" being used to tell the gospel of Jesus Christ.


----------



## FenderPriest (Oct 1, 2010)

puritanpilgrim said:


> > I also think it's a silly issue, to be honest. I mean, if you really want to break the English language down, you're using mostly French words in your English, and we all know the French are evil. The next time you use the word "apple" just think about where that word comes from! I think there are more important issues to think through, like how we use theological language today. I think some of the language issues fall into "all things to all men" when they aren't moral categories.
> 
> 
> 
> Please elaborate. Where does the word apple come from?



I think I got my words backwords, let me explain - but my point still stands!!!!

When the Normans took over England in 1066, they took over the major functions of the country: court and commerce. Prior to this point, for sweet products from plants, the word "apple" was used to describe them all. Then, once those nasty French came in, they introduced the word "fruit" for sweet products from plants, and the word "apple" was specialized. Because they controlled and dictated commerce, the word stuck. (But we English Speakers are a spunky bunch, and still held to our words in secret.) So, thanks to the French - sheesh - we have the word "fruit" and now get confused as to whether a tomato is one or not. But, it makes sense, "french" and "fruity" go together nicely.

So, I had my words backwards - though, I honestly go through this etymology deal all the time in the grocery - but my point still stands: If we want to get down to the root meaning of words and whether we should use them or not, let's just go the whole way. Do you really want to use "apple" to describe one particular product because the French came in, nearly squashed out the English language, and forced you to change how you would otherwise talk as an upstanding English Speaker? I mean, "fruit" is a word that signifies horrid oppression and brutal kings that eventually lead to Henry VIII and Bloody Mary... How does that rest on your conscience?

Case made. Hope that helps! Sorry for my word slip.


----------



## cris (Oct 2, 2010)

Thanks everyone for the replies.
I'm sorry for the way I described the whole issue. Probably I'm out of line, like most of you guys seem to suggest. 
I am actually so saddened by the fact that we, the Christians, adopt whatever words MTV promotes. I'll have to have a closer look at all three of them.
This was my impression, that the gangsta guys are promoting them. Like I said, I'll have to have a closer look.
And I'm also saddened by the fact that we don't even realize how immersed in our culture we are (which often means MTV)
And yes, I'll work on my grammar. I'm sure I could use some English classes.
In any case, I am disappointed at how many Christians in US talk (among themselves, not when they are witnessing in a poor neighborhood). The same way I am disappointed at those in Germany and in Romania, where we have the same trend going on. But maybe I'm wrong, judging from your answers.


----------



## LawrenceU (Oct 2, 2010)

Cristian, I think I understand what you are saying. Much of the vernacular that you seem to be addressing seems to be coming from a seedbed of a rebellious mindset, at least to me and many others that I know. It does sadden me when I see Christians who absorb whatever the media is currently publishing into their lives be it language, dress, attitude, or pretty much anything else. I may be stuck up, but words and language mean things.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 2, 2010)

Cristian,

I think their might be a language gap and some cultural distance here. I appreciate the concern that we not be conformed to this world but I also think that the examples you gave weren't the best at registering your concern.

Dude and brother were never really "MTV words". Dude was never even a "ghetto word". Neither were ever really rebellious terms in themselves.

Ironically, it's also a bit anachronistic to talk about MTV influencing our speech in this culture as it has drastically waned as a cultural barometer with online media dominating culture today.

I'm trying to reflect on the real concern that I would have with certain terms. I don't know that the words themselves are as problematic as cultural trends. For instance, "Dude" was sort of a surfer term and became famous in the early 80's when Sean Penn used it in _Fast Times at Ridgemont High_. I don't recommend watching the movie but the real problem with Sean Penn in the movie is not his use of the term "Dude" but his whole "stoner" persona was glorified and celebrated. It was funny and cool to be stoned, indifferent about acheivement, and disrespectful to adults. There were plenty of people who had used the word "Dude" before Spicolli uttered his lines in that movie but it took on a certain "meaning" in the culture when said in a certain way.

That said, I would venture to say that anyone in their mid-30's or younger has no idea what I'm talking about with respect to that term. 

I'm just giving one example. It's easy to mistake ambivalence about the use of certain words with the adoption of whole ideas. The real issue is not the words themselves but whether we're adopting ideas along with them. It's far too presumptuous to assume that every time someone uses a word that they're buying into every cultural assumption that was prevalent in the use of that term from the early 80's.

As I noted earlier, I'm a Marine Officer. I've been one for over 20 years. Those that work with me would tell you that I'm very intense and hardly someone that would consider frivolous. Yet I also like to break up what would be very stressful and frustrating with humor. I try to use wit to bring some enjoyment into very difficult planning sessions. We get the job done but enjoy ourselves. I have peers that I've known for 20 years. I use the word "Dude" with them sometimes. I can assure you that none of them thinks for a minute that I'm a stoner like Spicolli because I say to them: "How's it going Dude?"

The point is that my life brings some context to the term. When I meet someone, it will be the nonverbal things that I see in a person that will give context to the words they use. I've known "Dudes" in my life that were stoners and I've known "Dudes" in my life that are very serious.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Oct 2, 2010)

> Ironically, it's also a bit anachronistic to talk about MTV influencing our speech in this culture as it has drastically waned as a cultural barometer with online media dominating culture today.



THis reminds me of a movie line I heard once, "MOM, MTV is broken. There is nothing but girls crying on it!"


----------



## PuritanZealot (Oct 2, 2010)

I agree in theory with what Cristian is saying, that sometimes older men when they say words like 'brother' or 'dude' in a preaching context sounds awful, and I know my pastor would never use words like that when he was preaching, but in the one on one situations where it's with people of your own age group I think it would make us come across a bit crazy if we stopped saying 'mate' (an English one) just because we'd been saved.
However, I do agree that the Puritans were down to earth and 'gritty' in their speech and ministry. I find it very interesting that the more sloshy wimpy kind of theologies espoused by arminianist churches these days have become the inner city theologies and the high calvinism of the puritans has become more middle class (especially in my area). Which is ironic when you read about the founders of certain denominations were the most 'ghetto' folk of their time. Strict and Particular Baptists like Gadsby, Kershaw, Warburton and Philpot were farmers sons, weavers, factory workers or straight up unemployed until they became annointed by God. So, in the Victorian era they lived in they would have been regarded much in the same way as if a Sheffield steel worker standing in the pulpit nowadays. It's a shame we don't see more of those working class types of men annointed to preach, not so much in England anyway. I'm certainly not shy of using words that fit with the subculture I came from, all the people I know grew up on council estates and if I waltzed around speaking in a posh accent they'd think I'd gone mad.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 2, 2010)

From a sociolinguistic perspective, language shifts all time. Each generation is making a copy of the database of their previous generation and that copy is not exact. New words are being created all the time, and words change meaning. It might be awkward and comical for a 'old timer' to attempt to use the jargon of the youth, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. I concur with Rich, 'dude' and 'brother' are not 'gangsta' talk from 'da hood.' In fact, linguists have shown that ebonics and African American English styles follow predictable phonological patterns, and should be considered a completely valid dialect of the English language. Therefore to denigrate such words (in an of themselves) can be considered prejudiced.

If we were to speak to a grammarian from Victorian England, he'd be shocked at the vulgarity and incorrectness of our everyday speech as well. But our speech is what it is. It's the way people talk. Within our society there are norms for appropriateness and acceptability. Remember when people were aghast at the utterance of the word "hell"?


----------



## LawrenceU (Oct 2, 2010)

Nova said:


> In fact, linguists have shown that ebonics and African American English styles follow predictable phonological patterns, and should be considered a completely valid dialect of the English language.



That is not a settled issue at all. Frankly, most reputable linguists reject that notion all together. You can read this thread to see some discussion about this: http://www.puritanboard.com/f38/dea-seeks-ebonics-experts-help-cases-62853/


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 2, 2010)

LawrenceU said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, linguists have shown that ebonics and African American English styles follow predictable phonological patterns, and should be considered a completely valid dialect of the English language.
> ...


 
There's the linguistics that attempts to prescribe how "standard" language is (if such a thing exists) and how it should be taught (grammarians), and there is sociolinguists which describes how things simply are. Prescriptive linguistics is a dying breed, based on the abandoned idea that there is a single standard English spoken form that is to be obeyed universally. Basic sociolinguistics will tell you this is not so. Note, we are talking about _spoken _English.

The result of sociolinguistic and phonological study on African American dialect shows that it functions just as any dialect, like Cockney or Scottish. There is no denying that there are many dialects of English. Even England does not name an official national language for itself. There are even interesting aspects of African American speech, like the "-iz-" infix, that do not occur in standard English, and is studied with as much curiosity as the grammars of foreign languages.


----------



## LawrenceU (Oct 2, 2010)

In Suk, I understand what you are saying, but the reality is that 'Ebonics' is a socio / political construction. It varies significantly from neighbourhood to neighbourhood within cities. It is a construct that was begun for the expressed purpose of further isolating uneducated blacks from the society at large. It is not a result of serious sociolinguistic analysis. I will agree fully that there are dialects of American English and that various dialects have developed within various black ethnoi as well; but, they are not languages, and there is no distinct 'ebonic' dialect. There are distinct dialects that have developed over time such as Southern Highland, Mid-Appalachian, South Coastal Plain, Upper Central American, Harkers, Cajun, and so on. These have the distinctive of being consistent within their regions. The same cannot be said of 'ebonics' despite efforts to make it so through 'education'.

BTW, Scottish is an adjective. If you are referring to Scots that is either a dialectic or lingual distinction depending upon one's presuppositions. More linguists, both socio and non, are moving to the distinct language in the discussion of Scots.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 2, 2010)

Lawrence, Blacks did not get together and construct a language that would isolate themselves from society. It is not political in itself, although languages in general are often used for political purposes. The dialect arose as dialects always arise: gradual changes in phonological patterning. I'm not sure how much it varies between neighbourhoods, but enough literature has been produced on it to suggest that it is very widespread and is becoming more and more regular. Why is it so difficult to recognize it as an emerging dialect? It's better to affirm it rather than denigrating it as a primitive or corrupt English, as some are in the habit of naming. After all, it's the language that people use in their everyday lives, their mother tongue, the language in which the gospel needs to be communicated to them. Queen's English speakers from London can say that our English, both spoken and written, is a corruption as well. These debates are not helpful.

---------- Post added at 01:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:11 PM ----------

Also, is there not such a thing as "Scottish dialect"? Have you heard Scots talk to one another? I agree, that might be considered a separate language altogether.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Oct 2, 2010)

> Lawrence, Blacks did not get together and construct a language that would isolate themselves from society.



I agree, but rap society praises novelty of speech. Snoop Dog is a perfect example of this. This in turn isolates themselves.


----------



## LawrenceU (Oct 2, 2010)

In Suk, we will just have to disagree on this. No, blacks did not get together and concoct a language, and yes there are various dialects that have emerged. But, it is not consistent, and research goes in both directions as to it gaining consistency. Trust me, the variances are huge. The preponderance of literature that has emerged to validate 'ebonics' as a legitimate dialect has come from suspect sources linguistically. They almost always have an agenda to further divide the American population into ethnic 'ghettoes'. No, it is not better to affirm it. It is a denigrated form of English and people that are not able to communicate outside of that 'dialect' are not able to do well in open society. That is a fact. The push to make it a language of education institutions can do nothing but further alienate blacks from society. That is not good. It is not Christlike. Speaking a jargon, dialect, what have you within that culture is just fine. I do it in several areas. I am a Southerner through and through. Old Delta South is my native dialect. I can converse in it. I write in it. But, when need be I move to more standard English. I am of Scottish extraction. I can read, speak, and do very well in Scots. It is not my native language / dialect. 

Here is a quote from the other thread:



> BlackCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> > > Originally Posted by LawrenceU
> ...


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 2, 2010)

Hi Lawrence, I appreciate that post. But a few points: opinions have changed since the 70s and 80s; this linguist is but one voice; and also, he was an English professor - whether of literature, or a grammarian, he will certainly have issues with colloquial language compared to "standard" English. I understand the racial and political issues involved; they are many and very sensitive. But that isn't what we're talking about it, nor have we been discussing Ebonics education in schools, separate issue, let's leave that to the administration. Nor have we been debating whether it's a separate language (there's a difference between dialect and language, of course). We're talking sociolinguistics, and apparently the textbooks I've been reading and classes I've been taking in a linguistics dept run by SIL Linguists (Christians) are suspect? I certainly hope not, considering how much tuition costs at my school!  But ok, we won't debate issues that neither of us are adequately well read on. Anyway, linguists debate things to no end.

Moving on ...
1. How would you feel if someone called your native Old Delta South a corrupt, denigrated form of _real _ English? Or if it were stereotyped as the talk of "hicks and cowboys", or some such thing?
2. Why are you allowed to called Old Delta South a dialect, but Blacks can't call Ebonics the same? What's a "legitimate dialect" and who gets to say? 
3. Of course those who want to function in larger society need to improve their English in order to succeed. That goes the same for every foreigner who immigrates here. But that doesn't mean the language used in the home is any less valuable or valid.

In the end, all I'm arguing is that '_people talk different. So, wassup_?' Blacks, surfers, southerners, and ethnics all talk according to conventional phonological rules, grammar, and vocubulary. Ever since the Tower of Babel, I'm sure, people have been criticizing how others talk as vulgar, incorrect, inappropriate, and beneath them. This, I think, is a product of our sinfulness and we should beware. Words like 'corrupt' and 'denigrate' are polarizing and negative. It creates Us vs. Them, ethnocentrism, and division.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Oct 2, 2010)

I would wager that any regularization that is occurring is generated by the media (music, movies, celebrities) rather than within. If someone doubts whether the linguistics are different from one neighborhood to another, they merely need to observe high school students in each of the neighborhoods during lunch. When I taught high school, there were expressions unique to our school and surrounding area. One could argue that is simply slang, and that would be my point. Where does slang leave off and a dialect begin?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Oct 2, 2010)

> 1. How would you feel if someone called your native Old Delta South a corrupt, denigrated form of real English? Or if it were stereotyped as the talk of "hicks and cowboys", or some such thing?



I would say they were correct.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 2, 2010)

It's really hard to define sometimes. From my understanding slang and idioms refer to discreet words and phrases used by a subculture. However, a dialect is much more systemic. (Some) linguists have found that Ebonics speakers actually talk according to predictable rules that can be analyzed like any other language. Media may have an influence, but which came first, the speakers or their culture?


----------



## Gloria (Oct 2, 2010)

cris said:


> I think we, as Christian/evangelic community, are too quick to adopt words (among others) from MTV and *the ghetto.*
> Has anyone noticed that, too?
> Probably "awesome" is the worst "use-case", since, as we know, only God, or something directly related to Him is awesome (the creation) . Do we really think a burger can be "awesome"!?
> As about the other two ones, I think we so much want to be "cool". We adopted the language of the teenagers. I don't know whether this happens because we are a society obsessed with youth (which we are) or for some other reason.
> ...


 


---------- Post added at 05:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:51 PM ----------




AThornquist said:


> *Afta listenin' ta dat hippidy-hop muzic I only gots ghetto jibba-jabba comin' out ma grill!*
> 
> 
> I like this thread. While I agree that certain vernacular makes one appear very informal or even less educated, that is not always the case. Likewise, it often has no bearing on the meaning of one's statement and is thus, in my opinion, simply a matter of preference. With that said though, I do believe that it would be helpful for my generation to get out of the habit of thoughtlessly throwing this vernacular into our speech. I seriously struggle in this regard, but we ought to choose our words carefully and with the Lord's glory in mind; therefore, we must have control over our tongues, which includes the words we are discussing.


 
You guys can't be serious with some of this stuff...why are these kind of jokes okay? Who exactly are you mimicking? Who do you have in mind? Is it appropriate or godly to do this? Answers desired.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 2, 2010)

Gloria said:


> You guys can't be serious with some of this stuff...why are these kind of jokes okay? Who exactly are you mimicking? Who do you have in mind? Is it appropriate or godly to do this? Answers desired.


 
Agreed. Thanks for calling us on that, Gloria.


----------



## jayce475 (Oct 2, 2010)

Nova said:


> Remember when people were aghast at the utterance of the word "hell"?


 
Are you suggesting it's alright to use this word to express disgust? Rather profane to my ears.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 2, 2010)

jayce475 said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> > Remember when people were aghast at the utterance of the word "hell"?
> ...


 
 um, no. Wasn't 'suggesting' anything. Just observing there was a time in our culture when this word, in social contexts, was considered "strong language."


----------



## jayce475 (Oct 2, 2010)

Nova said:


> jayce475 said:
> 
> 
> > Nova said:
> ...


 
Is it not strong language these days? Usage of such a word anywhere except for referring to the place of eternal torment, at least where I'm from, is always considered cussing.


----------



## Montanablue (Oct 2, 2010)

Nova said:


> Gloria said:
> 
> 
> > You guys can't be serious with some of this stuff...why are these kind of jokes okay? Who exactly are you mimicking? Who do you have in mind? Is it appropriate or godly to do this? Answers desired.
> ...



Seriously, I've been reading this post and becoming quite saddened.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 2, 2010)

jayce475 said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> > jayce475 said:
> ...


 
Cuss words are usually socially determined. Taking God's name in vain, however, universal.



> Seriously, I've been reading this post and becoming quite saddened.


 Kathleen, please elaborate. it would serve us ...


----------



## Montanablue (Oct 2, 2010)

I'm hesitant to be drawn into an argument, and I feel that that might happen if I elaborate _too _ much. I also do not wish to point fingers at anyone. I believe that pride in anything but Christ is serious folly. I've been guilty of this myself on many many occasions, and I hate to see it happening amongst believers - particularly in an open space such as the web where it can not only be scrutinized by others but can also hurt others.


----------



## LawrenceU (Oct 2, 2010)

Nova said:


> Moving on ...
> 1. How would you feel if someone called your native Old Delta South a corrupt, denigrated form of real English? Or if it were stereotyped as the talk of "hicks and cowboys", or some such thing?
> 2. Why are you allowed to called Old Delta South a dialect, but Blacks can't call Ebonics the same? What's a "legitimate dialect" and who gets to say?
> 3. Of course those who want to function in larger society need to improve their English in order to succeed. That goes the same for every foreigner who immigrates here. But that doesn't mean the language used in the home is any less valuable or valid.



This will most likely be my last post on this thread.

In Suk, I may be more well versed in this than you think Having said that, I will answer your questions and then close.

1. That happens all the time, and it does not cause offense on my part. Having said that you seem to be missing something in this discussion of 'ebonics'. Dialects are dialects because they are consistent within a group. 

2. Thus, even though they may be a denigration of standard language they are dialectically consistent. 'Ebonics' fails on this. That is not a slam against any person. It is a mere fact.

3. No one said is was less valid. What is happening is that there is a rather large push to have 'ebonics' elevated to a lingual status and thereby make it mandatory to have schooling, testing, business documents, and more in that 'dialect or language' much as you see with Spanish today in many parts of the USA. If you want to see what is really behind this do some research into what has happened to a great many black educators who have refused to allow 'ebonics' as acceptable in the classroom, papers and discussion, and/or attempted to teach standard English. It isn't pretty.

Yes, people talk differently in different subcultures, and that is good. Having said that, to progress in any culture at any time in history it has been necessary to be articulate in the standard language of that society. That is why it is imperative to teach and learn a standardised form of language. Believe it or not nihilistic theory is rather rampant in sociolinguistics, and many language arts for that matter. The recognition of standards is an important issue in every arena of life, language included. That does not denigrate anyone. It protects them and enables them.


----------



## jayce475 (Oct 2, 2010)

Nova said:


> Cuss words are usually socially determined. Taking God's name in vain, however, universal.



Agreed, though are you somehow suggesting that there are now contexts where "hell" can be used flippantly and not be used as a cuss word? In Australian English and British-influenced Singaporean English, youths like to throw around this word simply because they know that it is one, not because they have come to cause changes to language such that it is now alright to use it. It can even earn tight smacks from stricter parents back in Singapore.

Anyway, to weigh in on the debate from a Singaporean perspective. I've thought of talking about Australian English, but I figured that things are so similar to the US that it doesn't add much to the debate. Over in Singapore, there is the creole language known as Singlish which it sounds utterly rubbish to foreigners. I grew up immersed in it and can speak it like most Singaporeans. We have our own form of formal English, which is has a rather different prosody from Western English but is otherwise very British. The basilectal form is spoken in everyday contexts and I have no problem communicating with others in it, even when conducting bible studies in Christian fellowships. It is just a more familiar way to communicate with each other and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it. Everyone, however, is expected to be able to read, write and speak formal English in school and on formal occasions. Many youths do not have the basic capability in any language (English or Chinese) to read literature or understand good sermons properly, and this is most worrisome as many truths of scriptures may be kept from them. Barring a good bible teacher going through scriptures and going to great lengths to explain the bible to them in very simple language, they are often deprived of the meat of scriptures. At the same time, this poor English also keeps them away from regular reading of the bible.

In terms of everyday language, I am willing to speak in Singlish but would discard words which anyone might consider crude or offensive. We have borrowed words from many other languages which often tend to be rather crude and I don't believe that believers ought to use them as we ought to season our speech with salt. The pagans use them indiscriminately and we as believers ought not to talk like them. 

Though I am not against everyday usage of Singlish, I am adamant that foreigners or migrants should never even try it. A butchered creole language can make my blood vessels burst.

The bottom-line is that we ought to season our speech with salt at all times and when our speech sounds like that which the society at large would consider coarse and crude, we ought to watch it. If there comes a day that Singlish in itself comes to be associated with something ungodly, I would gladly discard all usage of it. I have no idea how the language of the young and African-American English are perceived in different communities in the US, but at heart we always ought to remember the principle of seasoning our speech with salt.


----------



## kvanlaan (Oct 2, 2010)

> So Dr. Adams goes home and works all evening translating the first chapter of Romans. He comes back to class the next day and the professor asks him to read his translation. After every so many words, the professor stops and takes a look at the Greek text with a puzzled look on his face. He then asks his student to continue and then stops him again after a few words. Finally the professor exclaimed, "What is Paul saying? He's using gutter language!"
> 
> The point of the story is that Paul wrote in what was considered to be the vernacular of the day, koine Greek. Obviously, God is quite glorified in such "gutter language" being used to tell the gospel of Jesus Christ.



Curious about this quote: was Koine Greek a dialect used in society at the time like a 'low' Greek (similar to 'high' and 'low' German) or was it just 'slang'? Kinda ignorant on this, sorry...

---------- Post added at 09:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 AM ----------

Also, are we then making a case for "The Message" here? It's in the vernacular.

EDIT: Sorry, that looks really bad. I'm not talking about the discrepancies in translation, I'm talking about how we present things to the lost. Must we ditch the KJV when giving scripture proofs to the unsaved? We witness in the language of the day, do we have to carry that through with Scriptural support too?


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 2, 2010)

kvanlaan said:


> > So Dr. Adams goes home and works all evening translating the first chapter of Romans. He comes back to class the next day and the professor asks him to read his translation. After every so many words, the professor stops and takes a look at the Greek text with a puzzled look on his face. He then asks his student to continue and then stops him again after a few words. Finally the professor exclaimed, "What is Paul saying? He's using gutter language!"
> >
> > The point of the story is that Paul wrote in what was considered to be the vernacular of the day, koine Greek. Obviously, God is quite glorified in such "gutter language" being used to tell the gospel of Jesus Christ.
> 
> ...


 Koine Greek was just simple, ordinary Greek. It was not a "dialect" or a slang language. Koine Greek would be to Classical Attic the way modern, proper, grammatical English would be to Elizabethan English.


----------



## kvanlaan (Oct 2, 2010)

Thank you, Pastor Greco!

So Koine was the common language of the great unwashed? I read that was the standard language from Egypt to Mesopotamia - thus I don't think we can compare ebonics to it, correct?

Also, the language of the day is one thing, the language of the hour is another. Dropping the F-bomb to emphasize the degree of Christ's love for us may be entirely culturally appropriate, but I don't think anyone would argue for that as worthy of keeping in one's evangelism 'toolbox'.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 2, 2010)

kvanlaan said:


> Thank you, Pastor Greco!
> 
> So Koine was the common language of the great unwashed? I read that was the standard language from Egypt to Mesopotamia - thus I don't think we can compare Ebonics to it, correct?


 We cannot compare it at all. Koine is Attic with a lesser range of vocabulary and less complex grammar. It bears no relationship to Ebonics - which I won't speak about here to be polite.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 2, 2010)

jayce475 said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> > Cuss words are usually socially determined. Taking God's name in vain, however, universal.
> ...



Well, "hell" pops up in many places: just now I was on the train and saw someone brandishing a can of beer called "hell's gate." there are place names with the word "hell" in it; I've heard Paul Washer call young people "hellions"; Jesus called people "son of hell" (although they probably were). I agree with you that perhaps that that word shouldn't be used flippantly by Christians, because it's a serious matter. 

Good discussion on Singlish, I know it well. When I was there, the sh* word was common speech whereas here it's highly offensive. Singlish is certainly a dialect, as catalogued by linguists, not sure whether it has gained creole status yet - but it's sure on its way. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if someone said that you weren't speaking a real language, or that it was corrupt English.

Standardization is really on a continuum, with "pure" dialect being theoretical, in my opinion. No one actually uses a pure dialect of anything, except computer programmers!

Lawrence, there may be regional differences in ebonics, but there is also a lot of consistency. Apparently it's widespread and consistent enough that they are considering using it in schools, right? If I'm not mistaken, I believe there is a translation of the Bible in Ebonics as well. I agree with you that standard language is more profitable, but it's only because most of high society is still anglo-saxon, white collar. if you lived in parts of the US, standard speech could get you killed. Although you might not take offence at your dialect being denigrated as stupid talk, but others might, and that's my point; especially those who use it natively and do not have many opportunities to learn the standard forms. We might need to disagree on the matter of standards, but just to point out: you Americans spell "color" _wrong_.


----------



## jayce475 (Oct 2, 2010)

Nova said:


> Singlish is certainly a dialect, as catalogued by linguists, not sure whether it has gained creole status yet - but it's sure on its way.



At least that's what the linguistics world in Singapore considers it (as a creole).



Nova said:


> When I was there, the sh* word was common speech whereas here it's highly offensive.



One of the instances whereby crude language is used. Believers ought to shun such usage. And no it is definitely not used more in Singapore compared to other places like Australia, so please don't paint it as some sort of distinctive of Singlish. Unless you have indeed had extensive exposure to the Singapore or have studied it thoroughly, please refrain from claiming familiarity with it and misrepresenting it.



Nova said:


> I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if someone said that you weren't speaking a real language, or that it was corrupt English.



Yes it is a real language simply because an unlimited amount of ideas can be communicated using it, just as how sign languages are languages. Whether it is a dialect, creole, or variation of English is inconsequential. On the other hand, if someone claims that it's not "real English", he may be right. And yes it is corrupt English when the sense of containing errors is used. But no there is nothing intrinsically immoral about this corrupted language.



Nova said:


> Well, "hell" pops up in many places: just now I was on the train and saw someone brandishing a can of beer called "hell's gate." there are place names with the word "hell" in it; I've heard Paul Washer call young people "hellions"; Jesus called people "son of hell" (although they probably were). I agree with you that perhaps that that word shouldn't be used flippantly by Christians, because it's a serious matter.



Paul Washer and our Lord weren't using the words flippantly. They were calling a spade a spade. Even when the word is used flippantly by the world we ought not to accept it. It is a serious matter for everyone, not just believers.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Oct 2, 2010)

Nova said:


> Apparently it's widespread and consistent enough that they are considering using it in schools, right?



What's your source for this? I've never heard this seriously suggested.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 3, 2010)

jayce475 said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> > Singlish is certainly a dialect, as catalogued by linguists, not sure whether it has gained creole status yet - but it's sure on its way.
> ...


 I'm not "painting" anything brother, stop reading things into my posts. I lived in Singapore for 5 years, did seminary there, and heard that word enough times from solid Christian brethren and society at large to know that it's not considered as vulgar as it here in north America. That was my _only _point. Remember that where English conventions and culture is concerned, especially Christian culture, Singapore (and Asia at large) is HIGHLY influenced by the west (and that's ok!). but I do agree with you, it would be great for our witness if Christians stopped using the word.



Nova said:


> > I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if someone said that you weren't speaking a real language, or that it was corrupt English.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is a real language simply because an unlimited amount of ideas can be communicated using it, just as how sign languages are languages. Whether it is a dialect, creole, or variation of English is inconsequential. On the other hand, if someone claims that it's not "real English", he may be right. And yes it is corrupt English when the sense of containing errors is used. But no there is nothing intrinsically immoral about this corrupted language.


 well, there are some on this thread who would argue that "corrupt" languages should not be recognized as distinct languages. And no one is saying there's anything immoral about languages. I just don't think it's helpful to attach negative labels to them, especially when they're good enough to be studied as linguistic phenomenon.


----------



## jayce475 (Oct 3, 2010)

Nova said:


> I'm not "painting" anything brother, stop reading things into my posts. I lived in Singapore for 5 years, did seminary there, and heard that word enough times from solid Christian brethren and society at large to know that it's not considered as vulgar as it here in north America. That was my only point.


I'm not reading anything into your post beyond what you have typed. Fair enough that you have had a good amount of exposure to Singlish. However, I do beg to differ that a word as crude as that is commonplace in Singapore and do believe that it is a misrepresentation. I've not heard it used a single time by my Christian brethren in Singapore (unless of course one is actually referring to feces or defecation) and the usage of such a word would earn a serious rebuke from teachers and parents around me. Yes it is very vulgar. Just that unfortunately these days there are some people who are very crude in their language as well. Interesting how a cultural gap exists between us even in terms of our experiences of Singapore though.



Nova said:


> And no one is saying there's anything immoral about languages.


The word "corrupt" may have a moral aspect to it and I needed to make it clear that I don't consider it intrinsically immoral.


----------



## LawrenceU (Oct 3, 2010)

Nova said:


> but just to point out: you Americans spell "color" wrong.



Not me  I also spell cheque, flavour, humour, and many other words correctly. Some of us Southrons were taught Oxford grammar and spelling.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 3, 2010)

LawrenceU said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> > but just to point out: you Americans spell "color" wrong.
> ...


Nice! You Southerners have definitely gone up a notch or two in my books! 

---------- Post added at 08:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:46 AM ----------




jayce475 said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not "painting" anything brother, stop reading things into my posts. I lived in Singapore for 5 years, did seminary there, and heard that word enough times from solid Christian brethren and society at large to know that it's not considered as vulgar as it here in north America. That was my only point.
> ...



It's true, it's becoming less common as S'pore becomes more metropolitan. I imagine in your Bible Presbyterian circles, you would have not heard it in church settings - but then your standards of behaviour have always been looked upon as a cut above the rest - admirable! But I did hear my BP seminary prof use it in a coffee shop setting. _wa piang eh!!_


----------



## JennyG (Oct 3, 2010)

LawrenceU said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> > but just to point out: you Americans spell "color" wrong.
> ...


bravo, Lawrence 
and do you really speak Scots...? I wish I could hear you!


----------



## AThornquist (Oct 3, 2010)

Gloria said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> 
> AThornquist said:
> ...


 

For the most part I am mimicking (to use your wording) the _caricature_ of "hood" talk, or a certain caricatured vernacular, in direct response to the opening post which asserted that the evangelical community adopts certain vernacular from the ghetto. The assertion itself was humorous to me because I thought it was kind of silly. There is not a specific group of people in mind in the sentence you highlighted. To be candid, I find no problem with it when done in good nature, and I find no biblical argument against it; so yes, it can be appropriate and godly to do this. Although I will say that I apologize if I offended you, sister; however, I do believe that whatever fault you seem to find with my statement is either because of a misunderstanding, such as not knowing my motives, or an issue of personal preference. 

Have a blessed Lord's day.


----------



## LawrenceU (Oct 3, 2010)

JennyG said:


> bravo, Lawrence
> and do you really speak Scots...? I wish I could hear you!



Aye, Ah dae spick Scots. But, written will hae tae dae fur noo. 

I'm sure native Scots will think me daft, and I'm sure that I butcher the language. But, I can carry on with my family and friends from Scotland just fine.


----------



## he beholds (Oct 3, 2010)

LawrenceU said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, linguists have shown that ebonics and African American English styles follow predictable phonological patterns, and should be considered a completely valid dialect of the English language.
> ...


 


LawrenceU said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> > but just to point out: you Americans spell "color" wrong.
> ...



Then _*I*_ will say, you spell those words incorrectly! In America, our words are color, check, flavor, humor... 
You would fail your 1st grade spelling unit were you to use those on the test.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Oct 3, 2010)

he beholds said:


> You would fail your 1st grade spelling unit were you to use those on the test.



Granted, I generally teach high school, not elementary grades, but I accept either spelling. Why not?


----------



## he beholds (Oct 3, 2010)

You don't think if these were on a spelling test, the teacher would want the "correct" way? I am of the opinion that either work, but clearly in America we see one as being the correct way. I just found it funny that we're arguing over correct vs. incorrect and the examples given prove that language is so messed up anyway! If you were teaching a first grade American how to spell color and she wrote "colour" you would want to correct her, so she spells it correctly for her American audience. Language mastery is about knowing the right language for the audience. (In my opinion, that is one of the very few places where post-modernism helps and doesn't hinder the truth.)


----------



## LawrenceU (Oct 3, 2010)

Jessica, I know what you are saying. I do adjust my spelling for the audience. But, that doesn't change the fact that I was taught Oxford spelling at the outset and then was switched to American. It hearkens back to the fact that at one time Americans did not spell in Websterian fashion and that the South was the last place where it began to change. It still has not completely changed. You will see the words grey, and the -our endings every now and then. If you read much Southern lit. you will also see those marks, as well as 's' rather than 'z' in suffixes. Language study is cool.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 3, 2010)

In _Not with a Bang but a Whimper: The Politics and Culture of Decline_, "The Gift of Language" Theodore Dalrymple describes what he has observed of the result of years of teaching English in a non-prescriptive fashion:


> With a very limited vocabulary, it is impossible to make, or at least to express, important distinctions and to examine any question with conceptual care. My patients often had no words to describe what they were feeling, except in the crudest possible way, with expostulations, exclamations, and physical displays of emotion. Often, by guesswork and my experience of other patients, I could put things into words for them, words that they grasped at eagerly. Everything was on the tip of their tongue, rarely or never reaching the stage of expression out loud. They struggled even to describe in a consecutive and logical fashion what had happened to them, at least without a great deal of prompting. Complex narrative and most abstractions were closed to them.
> In their dealings with authority, they were at a huge disadvantage—a disaster, since so many of them depended upon various public bureaucracies for so many of their needs, from their housing and health care to their income and the education of their children. I would find myself dealing on their behalf with those bureaucracies, which were often simultaneously bullying and incompetent; and what officialdom had claimed for months or even years to be impossible suddenly, on my intervention, became possible within a week. Of course it was not my mastery of language along that produced this result; rather my mastery of language signaled my capacity to make serious trouble for the bureaucrats if they did not do as I asked. I do not think it is a coincidence that the offices of all those bureaucracies were increasingly installing security barriers against the physical attacks on the staff by enraged but inarticulate dependents.
> (...)
> Beginning in the 1950s, Basil Bernstein, a London University researcher, demonstrated the difference between the speech of middle- and working-class children, controlling for whatever it is that IQ measures. Working-class speech, tethered closely to the here and now, lacked the very aspects of standard English needed to express abstract or general ideas and to place personal experience in temporal or any other perspective. Thus, unless Pinker's despised schoolmarms were to take the working-class children in hand and deliberately teach them another speech code, they were doomed to remain where they were, at the bottom of a society that was itself much the poorer for not taking full advantage of their abilities, and that indeed would pay a steep penalty for not doing so. An intelligent man who can make no constructive use of his intelligence is likely to make a destructive, and self-destructive, use of it.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Oct 3, 2010)

he beholds said:


> If you were teaching a first grade American how to spell color and she wrote "colour" you would want to correct her, so she spells it correctly for her American audience.



Like I said, I generally teach high school lit/grammar/writing, and it matters much less there. Like Lawrence says, growing up in the South affects (I almost typed "colored") my spelling and pronunciations. I've always preferred "grey," for example--it seems more like the color than gray. I blithely ignore Firefox's red squiggly line and type away.


----------



## Jesus is my friend (Oct 3, 2010)

Joshua said:


> Dude, this thread is wack, yo.



Gnarly comment Bud-dy!


----------



## he beholds (Oct 4, 2010)

LawrenceU said:


> Jessica, I know what you are saying. I do adjust my spelling for the audience. But, that doesn't change the fact that I was taught Oxford spelling at the outset and then was switched to American. It hearkens back to the fact that at one time Americans did not spell in Websterian fashion and that the South was the last place where it began to change. It still has not completely changed. You will see the words grey, and the -our endings every now and then. If you read much Southern lit. you will also see those marks, as well as 's' rather than 'z' in suffixes. Language study is cool.



That must be a Southern thing. I have never thought that anyone in America would first learn the English way of spelling things!! I wonder if my husband sees that a lot with his high schoolers. I know he sees "ur" for "your" and other atrocious things! And even though I tend to think grammar should be descriptive, I still think it only benefits people to learn the way to write and speak that the greatest number of people would recognize/understand. I think there is nothing immoral with "ur" inherently, but being that it is usually done in laziness _could_ be a matter of morality, and it is not the way that the greater population considers correct at this time so it would at least be immoral for the teacher to not correct. (I am actually thankful for this because I do happen to love English and love words--I just totally accept that language is fluid and that we once spoke English completely differently than we do now, and I don't think that is a morality issue, either!) I do have my own language pet-peeves, based on aesthetics, but I prefer to think of them as aesthetic issues. 



Scottish Lass said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> > If you were teaching a first grade American how to spell color and she wrote "colour" you would want to correct her, so she spells it correctly for her American audience.
> ...


 I actually use the spelling grey, too. But I just thought that both were correct. (And on google chrome, there is no squiggly line for grey!)
So, you will not teach Grace that there is a correct way for her to write the word color/colour or flavor/flavour, etc? You will let her decide?


----------



## LawrenceU (Oct 4, 2010)

he beholds said:


> That must be a Southern thing



It was, and it may be making a resurgence. After the War there was a concerted effort to standardise American English. It impacted schools in every state, but especially those of the South. In the South Oxford English was still the rule. There is more to that than mere spelling. There are also differences in punctuation, which actually make more sense; especially the use of quotation marks and commas.


----------



## PuritanZealot (Oct 4, 2010)

Sorry to wade in here, but I find it astonishing (and slightly pleasing) that the South still holds so vigorously onto those kinds of remnants of their independent heritage. It's almost like the few Scots who still speak properly. Dialect is an amazing thing and it is a sad day when a grandchild turns to their parent and asks 'what does granny mean' when she's talking, I know, I've been there, and watched my grandmothers Northumbrian dialect slowly perish.


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 4, 2010)

py3ak said:


> In _Not with a Bang but a Whimper: The Politics and Culture of Decline_, "The Gift of Language" Theodore Dalrymple describes what he has observed of the result of years of teaching English in a non-prescriptive fashion:
> 
> 
> > With a very limited vocabulary, it is impossible to make, or at least to express, important distinctions and to examine any question with conceptual care. My patients often had no words to describe what they were feeling, except in the crudest possible way, with expostulations, exclamations, and physical displays of emotion. Often, by guesswork and my experience of other patients, I could put things into words for them, words that they grasped at eagerly. Everything was on the tip of their tongue, rarely or never reaching the stage of expression out loud. They struggled even to describe in a consecutive and logical fashion what had happened to them, at least without a great deal of prompting. Complex narrative and most abstractions were closed to them.
> ...


 
I think what Ruben was trying to say (in my language) was . . . 

Wif a mighty limited vocabulary, it is impostible t'make, o' at least t'express, impo'tant distinckshuns an' t'examine enny quesshun wif cornceppual care. Mah patients offen had no wo'ds t'dexcribe whut they were feelin', 'cept in th' crudess postible way, wif expostulashuns, exclamashuns, an' physical displays of emoshun. Offen, by guesswawk an' mah experience of other patients, ah c'd put thin's into wo'ds fo' them, wo'ds thet they grasped at eagerly. Ev'rythin' was on th' tip of their tongue, rarely o' nevah retchin' th' stage of expresshun out loud, cuss it all t' tarnation. They struggled even t'dexcribe in a cornsecutive an' logical fashion whut had happened t'them, at least wifout a great deal of promppin'. Complex narrative an' most abstrackshuns were closed t'them, dawgone it. In their dealin's wif autho'ity, they were at a huge disadvantage—a disaster, on account o' so menny of them depended upon various public bureaucracies fo' so menny of their needs, fum their housin' an' health care t'their income an' th' ejoocayshun of their chillun. ah w'd find mahse'f dealin' on their beha'f wif them bureaucracies, which were offen simultaneously bullyin' an' incompetent; an' whut officialdom had claimed fo' months o' even years t'be impostible suddenly, on mah intervenshun, became postible wifin a week. Shet mah mouth! Of course it was not mah mastery of language along thet prodooced this hyar result; rather mah mastery of language signaled mah capacity t'make serious trouble fo' th' bureaucrats eff'n they did not does as ah axed, cuss it all t' tarnation. ah do not reckon it is a coincidence thet th' offices of all them bureaucracies were increasin'ly installin' security barriers aginst th' physical attacks on th' staff by inraged but inarticulate dependents. (...) Beginnin' in th' 1950s, Basil Bernstein, a London Unyversity researcher, demonstrated th' difference between th' speech of middle- an' wawkin'-class chillun, corntrollin' fo' whutevah it is thet IQ measures. Wawkin'-class speech, tethard closely t'th' har an' now, lacked th' mighty aspecks of stan'ard English needed t'express abstrack o' juneral ideas an' t'place varmintal experience in tempo'al o' enny other perspeckive. Thus, unless Pinker's despised skoomarms were t'take th' wawkin'-class chillun in han' an' deliberately larn them t'other speech code, they were doomed t'remain whar they were, at th' bottom of a society thet was itse'f much th' poreer fo' not takin' full advantage of their abilities, an' thet indeed'd pay a steep penalty fo' not doin' so. An intellyjunt man who kin make no cornstruckive use of his intellyjunce is likely t'make a destruckive, an' se'f-destruckive, use of it.


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 4, 2010)

Or, as we used to say on the playground . . .

Ithway ayay eryvay imitedlay ocabularyvay, ityay isyay impossibleyay otay akemay, oryay atyay eastlay otay expressyay, importantyay istinctionsday andyay otay examineyay anyyay uestionqay ithway onceptualcay arecay. Ymay atientspay oftenyay adhay onay ordsway otay escribeday atwhay eythay ereway eelingfay, exceptyay inyay ethay udestcray ossiblepay ayway, ithway expostulationsyay, exclamationsyay, andyay ysicalphay isplaysday ofyay emotionyay. Oftenyay, ybay uessworkgay andyay ymay experienceyay ofyay otheryay atientspay, Iyay ouldcay utpay ingsthay intoyay ordsway orfay emthay, ordsway atthay eythay aspedgray atyay eagerlyyay. Everythingyay asway onyay ethay iptay ofyay eirthay onguetay, arelyray oryay evernay eachingray ethay agestay ofyay expressionyay outyay oudlay. Eythay uggledstray evenyay otay escribeday inyay ayay onsecutivecay andyay ogicallay ashionfay atwhay adhay appenedhay otay emthay, atyay eastlay ithoutway ayay eatgray ealday ofyay omptingpray. Omplexcay arrativenay andyay ostmay abstractionsyay ereway osedclay otay emthay. Inyay eirthay ealingsday ithway authorityyay, eythay ereway atyay ayay ugehay isadvantageday—ayay isasterday, incesay osay anymay ofyay emthay ependedday uponyay ariousvay ublicpay ureaucraciesbay orfay osay anymay ofyay eirthay eedsnay, omfray eirthay ousinghay andyay ealthhay arecay otay eirthay incomeyay andyay ethay educationyay ofyay eirthay ildrenchay. Iyay ouldway indfay yselfmay ealingday onyay eirthay ehalfbay ithway osethay ureaucraciesbay, ichwhay ereway oftenyay imultaneouslysay ullyingbay andyay incompetentyay; andyay atwhay officialdomyay adhay aimedclay orfay onthsmay oryay evenyay yearsay otay ebay impossibleyay uddenlysay, onyay ymay interventionyay, ecamebay ossiblepay ithinway ayay eekway. Ofyay oursecay ityay asway otnay ymay asterymay ofyay anguagelay alongyay atthay oducedpray isthay esultray; atherray ymay asterymay ofyay anguagelay ignaledsay ymay apacitycay otay akemay erioussay oubletray orfay ethay ureaucratsbay ifyay eythay idday otnay oday asyay Iyay askedyay. Iyay oday otnay inkthay ityay isyay ayay oincidencecay atthay ethay officesyay ofyay allyay osethay ureaucraciesbay ereway increasinglyyay installingyay ecuritysay arriersbay againstyay ethay ysicalphay attacksyay onyay ethay affstay ybay enragedyay utbay inarticulateyay ependentsday. (...) Eginningbay inyay ethay 1950say, Asilbay Ernsteinbay, ayay Ondonlay Universityyay esearcherray, emonstratedday ethay ifferenceday etweenbay ethay eechspay ofyay iddle-may andyay orking-classway ildrenchay, ontrollingcay orfay ateverwhay ityay isyay atthay IQyay easuresmay. Orking-classway eechspay, etheredtay oselyclay otay ethay erehay andyay ownay, ackedlay ethay eryvay aspectsyay ofyay andardstay Englishyay eedednay otay expressyay abstractyay oryay eneralgay ideasyay andyay otay aceplay ersonalpay experienceyay inyay emporaltay oryay anyyay otheryay erspectivepay. Usthay, unlessyay Inker'spay espisedday oolmarmsschay ereway otay aketay ethay orking-classway ildrenchay inyay andhay andyay eliberatelyday eachtay emthay anotheryay eechspay odecay, eythay ereway oomedday otay emainray erewhay eythay ereway, atyay ethay ottombay ofyay ayay ocietysay atthay asway itselfyay uchmay ethay oorerpay orfay otnay akingtay ullfay advantageyay ofyay eirthay abilitiesyay, andyay atthay indeedyay ouldway aypay ayay eepstay enaltypay orfay otnay oingday osay. Anyay intelligentyay anmay owhay ancay akemay onay onstructivecay useyay ofyay ishay intelligenceyay isyay ikelylay otay akemay ayay estructiveday, andyay elf-destructivesay, useyay ofyay ityay.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 4, 2010)

DMcFadden said:


> Anyay intelligentyay anmay owhay ancay akemay onay onstructivecay useyay ofyay ishay intelligenceyay isyay ikelylay otay akemay ayay estructiveday, andyay elf-destructivesay, useyay ofyay ityay.


 
Which seems to prove Dalrymple's point quite nicely!


----------



## Skyler (Oct 4, 2010)

I don't have a problem with using the vernacular. Jesus did.

With one caveat--using outdated slang ("groovy!") ought to be wrong if it's not already.


----------



## he beholds (Oct 4, 2010)

Skyler said:


> I don't have a problem with using the vernacular. Jesus did.
> 
> With one caveat--using outdated slang ("groovy!") ought to be wrong if it's not already.


 
Right...I think aesthetically some words or phrases are unbearable! (But unfortunately, we all have different preferences and groovy is probably going to stick around--like mom-jeans.)


----------



## ryanhamre (Oct 4, 2010)

I think we also need to keep in mind that we're currently using the confines of the English language in thinking there's a potential problem here.

The case could also be made that using terms that are applied to God to apply to things that are not at par with God can sometimes be an unavoidable situation.

How can anything be "beautiful", when God is the essence of beauty?
How can we call a Judge of our court system a "judge", or even "just", when they have a fallen mind? When they are tainted by sin? When they are partial?
How can we call a shirt out of the washer "clean" when only God can truly cleanse?

The other thing to keep in mind is that the terms we use to describe God don't even measure up to the infinitude of his indescribably *awesome* nature. So even using words that can be attributed to divinity are less than reality. Do we stop using these words to describe God's attributes? No, i think not.

Good question, I hope i answered it. My arm is broken, so one handed typing was a labor of love, i just hope it's not so abrupt that it appears cold or brash. God Bless.


----------



## Messala (Oct 4, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> cris said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the language evolves, but this is slang and I think, we, as Christians, should avoid them.
> ...


----------



## Scottish Lass (Oct 4, 2010)

he beholds said:


> So, you will not teach Grace that there is a correct way for her to write the word color/colour or flavor/flavour, etc? You will let her decide?



I'll teach her that both are correct. She'll see the more frequent spelling in books, mostly, but I don't think either version is wrong, so "a correct way" doesn't exactly fit.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 4, 2010)

py3ak said:


> In _Not with a Bang but a Whimper: The Politics and Culture of Decline_, "The Gift of Language" Theodore Dalrymple describes what he has observed of the result of years of teaching English in a non-prescriptive fashion:
> 
> 
> > With a very limited vocabulary, it is impossible to make, or at least to express, important distinctions and to examine any question with conceptual care. My patients often had no words to describe what they were feeling, except in the crudest possible way, with expostulations, exclamations, and physical displays of emotion. Often, by guesswork and my experience of other patients, I could put things into words for them, words that they grasped at eagerly. Everything was on the tip of their tongue, rarely or never reaching the stage of expression out loud. They struggled even to describe in a consecutive and logical fashion what had happened to them, at least without a great deal of prompting. Complex narrative and most abstractions were closed to them.
> ...


 
We're collectively sort of shifting the discussion. I think it's possible to use slang terms _and_ have a rich vocabulary and the use of slang does not, in itself, mean that one is mimicking a person that has a poor vocabulary or glorifying those that do.

I started to really reflect on the issue you quoted a few years ago when I was living in Japan. I had never really considered the link between language and development until a friend of mine brought up a concern she had.

In Okinawa there's a school called Okinawa Christian School International (OCSI). When it started, decades ago, it served a valuable missionary purpose given the poverty of the island but now it's sort of supported by Westerners who sort of "pay in" to being a missionary and teach at the school and my friend, who had taught there, was concerned it was actually harming and not helping the students in the long run.

Words are really symbols for ideas and, as we progress educationally, we ought to be filling minds with more and more ideas that will have words to give them expression. Her concern was that OCSI neither teaches mostly Okinawan children enough English to convey enough of a vocabulary nor Japanese for the same purpose. In other words, if I am well trained in one language then I can take that knowledge of ideas that have words associate with them and bridge into another language that might have different words but the same basic colllection of ideas. The less vocabulary I have, the less ability I have to communicate propositions in any language. Because the students learn poor English and aren't in Japanese schools where they learn Japaneses, the students are impoverished by such an education.

Sadly, this is where a lot of people are in the United States. It is not merely a problem for the "ghetto" but many people have an undeveloped vocabulary and are therefore undeveloped intellectually. I found this particularly relevant as, in a recent discussion, it was pointed out how many concepts have come into our vocabulary from the Christian religion. There are ideas that are Scriptural that are nearly impossible to convey in other languages because, culturally, the language has been impoverished by idolatry.


----------



## he beholds (Oct 4, 2010)

Scottish Lass said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> > So, you will not teach Grace that there is a correct way for her to write the word color/colour or flavor/flavour, etc? You will let her decide?
> ...


 
For me, when I am teaching my kids how to spell, I will teach them the American way. When they are older and find the English word somewhere, I will then explain it.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Oct 4, 2010)

he beholds said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> > he beholds said:
> ...


 
I'll probably do the same; that's different than teaching that one is correct while another is not.


----------



## Montanablue (Oct 4, 2010)

Well, in Britain, if you spell color without the u, they mark your papers down. I learned that the hard way!


----------



## py3ak (Oct 4, 2010)

The portion I quoted doesn't make this explicit, but Dalrymple is speaking about how the decline of teaching children the "correct" way to speak has resulted in a decline in their ability to think; at least most of the essay can be read on Amazon.com with the look inside feature. That result is somewhat ironic, because the argument was that you couldn't tell natives that they spoke incorrectly - doing so was an affront to their self-esteem and a way to keep them in subordination. 
While I realize the descriptivist/prescriptivist debatecan be complex, and is often polarized, I think it ought to be acknowledged that the prescriptivist approach is a pedagogical necessity. Pinker's statement (Dalrymple's foil) that language "is qualitatively the same in every individual" and consequently correcting someone's speech is unnecessary is patent nonsense.


----------



## Gloria (Oct 4, 2010)

AThornquist said:


> Gloria said:
> 
> 
> > [/COLOR]
> ...


 
Yes, I was offended...and shocked. I probably wouldn't have posted anything had someone chimed in but no one had by the time I decided to post a response.

What is "hood" talk? Who lives in the "hood"? Wouldn't it be more genuine to say, "I'm mocking black people and/or people from a different socioeconomic background and/or culture from my own."

I don't really see how this conversation can advance if you think what you typed can be appropriate and godly. You are right in saying I don't know your motives. I don't see what this has to do with "personal preference." I'm going to finish reading the thread and then venture back into lurk mode. Thank you for taking the time to respond.


----------



## LawrenceU (Oct 4, 2010)

Semper Fidelis said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > In _Not with a Bang but a Whimper: The Politics and Culture of Decline_, "The Gift of Language" Theodore Dalrymple describes what he has observed of the result of years of teaching English in a non-prescriptive fashion:
> ...


 
Anyone want to toss a little Chomsky in here and get going on Transformational Grammar?


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Oct 4, 2010)

Gloria said:


> What is "hood" talk? Who lives in the "hood"? Wouldn't it be more genuine to say, "I'm mocking black people and/or people from a different socioeconomic background and/or culture from my own."




Gloria, this isn't a race thing. But to answer your question, all sorts of people live in the hood; Black, White, Hispanic, Middle Eastern. The usage of ebnics does not only pertain to African Americans. I use to live in the hood, and I sometimes still speak in that way, I can see the humor in it. 

By the way, Andrew grew up in the hood too, we call him B-rabbit. =)


----------



## AThornquist (Oct 4, 2010)

Gloria said:


> Yes, I was offended...and shocked. I probably wouldn't have posted anything had someone chimed in but no one had by the time I decided to post a response.
> 
> What is "hood" talk? Who lives in the "hood"? Wouldn't it be more genuine to say, "I'm mocking black people and/or people from a different socioeconomic background and/or culture from my own."
> 
> I don't really see how this conversation can advance if you think what you typed can be appropriate and godly. You are right in saying I don't know your motives. I don't see what this has to do with "personal preference." I'm going to finish reading the thread and then venture back into lurk mode. Thank you for taking the time to respond.




No. It _wouldn't_ be genuine to say I'm mocking black people or people of a "different kind." If you don't think this conversation can proceed, then so be it. 




awretchsavedbygrace said:


> Gloria said:
> 
> 
> > What is "hood" talk? Who lives in the "hood"? Wouldn't it be more genuine to say, "I'm mocking black people and/or people from a different socioeconomic background and/or culture from my own."
> ...




Thanks for entering the discussion mang; as we both know, you and I have common ground in this regard. Some boys waste their paper on girls and spinners while we rep the risen Christ who makes saints outta sinners. B-rabbit out.


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 5, 2010)

py3ak said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > Anyay intelligentyay anmay owhay ancay akemay onay onstructivecay useyay ofyay ishay intelligenceyay isyay ikelylay otay akemay ayay estructiveday, andyay elf-destructivesay, useyay ofyay ityay.
> ...



Ouch! 

[you *do* realize that the Dialectizer did the work and that I did not actually rewrite that very long quote, don't you?]


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 5, 2010)

The key to communication is...well, communication. The greek of the New Testament writers is not the highest.


A related issue:


The Wycliffe Bible Translators are translating the Bible into Creole (Patois) and this has caused similar controversy:

Translation Tiff | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction


Wycliffe UK blog » Jamaican Patois

Wycliffe UK blog » Jamaican Patois


----------



## Jared (Oct 5, 2010)

LawrenceU said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> > > Being called that where I came from was liable to cause a fight. I still have that connotation stuck in my head.
> ...



I have some cousins that live out west in California, Nevada, and Colorado. They say "right on" all the time. If you tell them you're going to go do something they'll say, "Right on". But, when I say that here in East Tennessee, people just give me a strange look and ask me what I just said.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 5, 2010)

DMcFadden said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > DMcFadden said:
> ...


 
I figured you must have _some_ way of doing that sort of thing very quickly, like a pig lating macro in your word processor.


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 7, 2010)

Gloria said:


> Yes, I was offended...and shocked. I probably wouldn't have posted anything had someone chimed in but no one had by the time I decided to post a response.
> 
> What is "hood" talk? Who lives in the "hood"? Wouldn't it be more genuine to say, "I'm mocking black people and/or people from a different socioeconomic background and/or culture from my own."
> 
> I don't really see how this conversation can advance if you think what you typed can be appropriate and godly. You are right in saying I don't know your motives. I don't see what this has to do with "personal preference." I'm going to finish reading the thread and then venture back into lurk mode. Thank you for taking the time to respond.



I hate to get all philosophical and all but I think I can help you out here. The concept of "hood-talk" need not describe any particulier group at all, in fact it can be (and probably is?) a language-game that has its own internal rules of meaning, or the use of certian words and phrases is understood by the speakers and hearers (readers). This means that it doesn't have to reflect a certian group or people to have meaning, the old way of viewing language, it only has to have meaningful usefullness. My brothers were listening to a song the other day, I was trapped in their car at their musical mercy (or lack thereof...), and I had no idea what the person was talking about because I am not cognizant of that particulier language-game at all, thank God.


----------



## nwink (Oct 12, 2010)

For words like "awesome," I tend to use them to describe things that truly are deserving of awe...instead of using the word flippantly/casually.


----------



## pepper (Nov 5, 2010)

*brother*

I knew a pastor who would sign cards and books using the word "brother". He was doing that back in the 1970's. I agree with Paul the Apostle. Be all things to all men where they are, yet without sin.


----------



## EverReforming (Nov 5, 2010)

Joshua said:


> Dude, this thread is wack, yo.


 
Right on.


----------

