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

[raekwon]

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 ----------

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.

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.

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

 

[Marrow Man]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

Originally Posted by LawrenceU
I had a very interesting and lengthy discussion about this with my father this afternoon. He is a well studied professional linguist and retired English professor. He disagrees with both the position that Ebonics is a language and the position that it is a legitimate dialect. I did not know that he spent quite a bit of time studying the whole issue in the late 70's and early 80's. His position is that Ebonics is corrupted English that varies within every community, even within different blocks of the same community, thus it does not fit even a dialect definition. He is grieved that this issue is surfacing once again as he sees it as a real attempt by power brokers, both black and white, to keep black people in a position where they cannot move vertically either in culture or economics thus perpetuating a dependent class.

Best. Summary. Post. Ever.

 

[steadfast7]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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."

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]

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.

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

 

[steadfast7]

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.

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."

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?