9 Mar
2000
9 Mar
'00
3:06 a.m.
I tried hard to understand the socio-psychological dynamic that led up to
the development of this pseudo-language, Ebonyx, in the minds of the
west-coast (that's code for "californicated") education community's
leaders.
The place I arrived was at the conclusion that since the west-coast
community was unable to teach the young Blacks to stay in their chairs on
the few occasions on which they did attend class, they certainly couldn't
teach them to read, speak, and write properly, so they were forced to
classify what they, the young Blacks, did instead was another language.
This was seriously muddled in the debate over whether the educators on the
west coast should also be required to read, write, and speak properly.
The notion of Ebonyx was their way to "throw-in-the-towel" (for those
unfamiliar with U.S. boxing industry practice, this is a signal of
surrender.) so they wouldn't themselves have to learn what they had shown
they couldn't teach. If you ever spend any time in today's U.S. public
schools, you'll be appalled at the low quality of speech which has become
the norm among today's educators. When I was a pupil in the public schools,
I always found my teachers able to speak better-than-average English.
Today, that's no longer the case. They've become so wrapped up in being
"friends" with the pupils, they've forgotten they need to set an example.
I think the reason our kids don't learn languages well is because the tools
that should have been taught with English, e.g. organization and structure
in sentences, to underscore basic grammar, and organization in writing,
which certainly appears to be a dying art, are lacking, so there's no point
of reference. Try asking a recent high school graduate what a gerund or an
infinitive is. Then ask what the different between a present participle and
a gerund is. Don't even bother to discuss sentence diagrams, since the
teacher themselves don't know how to apply such tools. Foreign languages
all have their own sentence structure and grammar. If a teacher can't make
reference to a model their pupils must know, there's nowhere for them to go
in order to teach those same characteristics in another language.
It's a sad situation.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: allisonp(a)world.std.com <allisonp(a)world.std.com>
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Date: Thursday, March 09, 2000 7:44 AM
Subject: Re: languages
On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Merle K. Peirce wrote:
earned
I think that trend to continue as long as social activists try to promote
gibberish as language, as the ebonics debacle.
I'd be one to agree with that.
> I have always done well with English, and that is my field, where I two degrees,
and always regretted not getting another. I do recall,
though, that studying Latin did make things seem much easier to me, if
only because the language forced organised thought. I think German might
function that way also.
Some may laugh but it was learning Pascal after years of assembler,
focal and Basics that helped improve my english as it was the first time
I got to see structure at work. Up to that point verbs and nouns were
more of an abstraction needed to pass tests than working tools.
Allison
9 Mar
9 Mar
3:55 a.m.
An aside...
I find this discussion interesting and agree with the demise of modern
language but, this is a great stretch from discussing classic computers.
Of course if we drift into the structured language debate of the late 70s
we will all require asbestos/kevlar/ceramic britches. ;)
Allison
11:11 a.m.
Now Allison, since, as you know, computers are simply enhanced word
processors, the discussion is right on topic.... :)
On Thu, 9 Mar 2000 allisonp(a)world.std.com wrote:
An aside...
I find this discussion interesting and agree with the demise of modern
language but, this is a great stretch from discussing classic computers.
Of course if we drift into the structured language debate of the late 70s
we will all require asbestos/kevlar/ceramic britches. ;)
Allison
M. K. Peirce
Rhode Island Computer Museum, Inc.
215 Shady Lea Road,
North Kingstown, RI 02852
"Casta est qui nemo rogavit."
- Ovid
3:57 a.m.
Richard Erlacher wrote:
[Stuff deleted]
I think the reason our kids don't learn languages
well is because the tools
that should have been taught with English,
[more stuff deleted]
I recently had the sad task of judging science fair projects from three local
high schools. It was pathetic. Since this thread is about language skills
I'll ignore for the moment the more or less complete lack of understanding
of the scientific method and the extensive use of crayons in constructing
the presentations and focus on the stellar language skills that were almost
uniformly present across all of the entries.
The short form summary is that if I'd written in the fashion of these high
school students when I was in second grade I'd have been taken out and shot.
Certainly there were large collections of words, some of them polysyllabic,
but in general they were not arranged into anything that was parsable as
an english sentence. Written materials depended on spelling correctors
to eliminate spelling errors, sometimes with frightening yet amusing
consequences ("...our science fairy teacher...").
There were a few entries which were clever, well constructed, well executed
and innovative. Talking with the instructors I learned that these were
from the bright but bored students who twiddle their
thumbs while their
neanderthal classmates struggled with basic coursework (in
California the
instructional system is geared to address the needs of the lowest common
denominator; resources are generally not available for exceptional
students). The entry judged Best of Show was constructed by one such
student in a few hours on the day immediately preceding the judging.
It's a sad situation.
It's beyond sad. It's criminal.
FWIW, California is now going to start imposing financial penalties upon
high schools whose students do not perform at some minimal level. The
problem, of course, is that the students are already lacking fundamental
skills that they should have received at the elementary level, thus
penalizing the high schools is not going to fix the problem. Rather, it
will cause even more resources to be diverted to already unsalvageable
students while penalizing those who actually have a chance to do something
useful with their lives.
*Grumble*,
Chris
--
Chris Kennedy
chris(a)mainecoon.com
http://www.mainecoon.com
PGP fingerprint: 4E99 10B6 7253 B048 6685 6CBC 55E1 20A3 108D AB97
6:20 a.m.
Chris,
Good explanation, you cleared identified a part of the problem but it's
not all the student's fault. An even worse problem is that the students are
taught by teachers that aren't any better educated than the students
they're teaching. We can thanks years of preferential college admissions
and hiring practices for that. Furthermore the quality of teachers as
declined steadily with the rise in power of the NEA and other teacher's
unions since most teacher's are more concerned about their income than in
teaching. Other factors such as the decision to teach in "native languages"
haven't helped either. Every part of the educational system is lowering
it's standards to accomodate the worst (insert your choice here; student,
teacher, school system, income, etc etc). And every part of the system is
failing to support the other parts. The whole educational system is in chaos.
I wonder if the US is the only country that is having these kinds of
problems in it's "educational" system?
Joe
At 09:57 AM 3/9/00 -0800, Chris wrote:
Richard Erlacher wrote:
[Stuff deleted]
I think the reason our kids don't learn
languages well is because the tools
that should have been taught with English,
[more stuff deleted]
I recently had the sad task of judging science fair projects from three local
high schools. It was pathetic. Since this thread is about language skills
I'll ignore for the moment the more or less complete lack of understanding
of the scientific method and the extensive use of crayons in constructing
the presentations and focus on the stellar language skills that were almost
uniformly present across all of the entries.
The short form summary is that if I'd written in the fashion of these high
school students when I was in second grade I'd have been taken out and shot.
Certainly there were large collections of words, some of them polysyllabic,
but in general they were not arranged into anything that was parsable as
an english sentence. Written materials depended on spelling correctors
to eliminate spelling errors, sometimes with frightening yet amusing
consequences ("...our science fairy teacher...").
There were a few entries which were clever, well constructed, well executed
and innovative. Talking with the instructors I learned that these were
from the bright but bored students who twiddle their thumbs while their
neanderthal classmates struggled with basic coursework (in California the
instructional system is geared to address the needs of the lowest common
denominator; resources are generally not available for exceptional
students). The entry judged Best of Show was constructed by one such
student in a few hours on the day immediately preceding the judging.
It's a sad situation.
It's beyond sad. It's criminal.
FWIW, California is now going to start imposing financial penalties upon
high schools whose students do not perform at some minimal level. The
problem, of course, is that the students are already lacking fundamental
skills that they should have received at the elementary level, thus
penalizing the high schools is not going to fix the problem. Rather, it
will cause even more resources to be diverted to already unsalvageable
students while penalizing those who actually have a chance to do something
useful with their lives.
*Grumble*,
Chris
--
Chris Kennedy
chris(a)mainecoon.com
http://www.mainecoon.com
PGP fingerprint: 4E99 10B6 7253 B048 6685 6CBC 55E1 20A3 108D AB97
7:20 a.m.
Joe wrote:
Chris,
Good explanation, you cleared identified a part of the problem but it's
not all the student's fault. An even worse problem is that the students are
taught by teachers that aren't any better educated than the students
they're teaching. We can thanks years of preferential college admissions
and hiring practices for that. Furthermore the quality of teachers as
declined steadily with the rise in power of the NEA and other teacher's
unions since most teacher's are more concerned about their income than in
teaching. Other factors such as the decision to teach in "native languages"
haven't helped either. Every part of the educational system is lowering
it's standards to accomodate the worst (insert your choice here; student,
teacher, school system, income, etc etc). And every part of the system is
failing to support the other parts. The whole educational system is in chaos.
I wonder if the US is the only country that is having these kinds of
problems in it's "educational" system?
Joe: to be fair, you also have to blame society at large here.
You get what you pay for. Society has decided that teaching is
a profession that requires one to be a college graduate, but that does
not
deserve a corresponding salary. As a result, only two kinds of people
are attracted to it: Those who could not find a job in any other
kind of occupation, and those that love teaching so much that they
can take the low pay and all the crap that society lashes at them.
So yes, some of them are pretty bad teachers. Others have the stature
of heros in my mind.
How did this state of affairs come to be? It really is the work of
everyone. We know about teacher unions. We know about the general
disdain for learning in youth today, partly induced by the media,
but also by the attitudes of parents. What is missing is the
lack of commitment of society to try to fix this. We cannot have
better teachers unless we make it economically attractive
to be one. What other profession is there with an entry salary of
about $28K, and a top salary (after 20+ years) of less than $70K ?
We cannot make teaching economically attractive and at the same
time have tax cuts, no matter how hard our local politician tries
to make us believe it. We, as voters, still show our naivete
routinely when we choose to believe a politician who tells us that:
(1) Teachers are at fault and should therefore be tested, but it is not
necessary to raise their salary by 30% or more in order to make it
comparable to that earned in other professions.
(2) Students should be tested and failed if necessary, but the
budget of the school should not be increased even if testing
and repeating grades would cause student populations to soar,
(3) We are not to blame; it is somebody else's fault.
How can we possibly believe a guy like that? Isn't it obvious
that he's using us for his own personal purposes? These guys
are the norm rather than the exception, especially at a certain
level and above. The greatest example of this bunch gathers
at Capitol Hill.
If we, as members of society, were deeply comitted to fixing the
educational system, we would have to start by regarding education
as a high value and showing it. We would bite the bullet and
fund the (expensive) required programs to
(1) bring back the status quo of the teaching profession, attracting
better
young people and improving the competency of teachers;
(2) attain smaller class size;
(3)
There is no way around it. These simple and effective solutions
are also the more costly. But they are the only ones that will work.
However, I am a pessimist on this issue. I just do not see how
society will accept the blame and get the implementations of the
really constructive solutions started. Society is not mature
enough at this point to do that. And the _big_ problem is,
with worsening education, the society of the future will be less,
not more, mature.
--
Carlos Murillo-Sanchez email: cem14(a)cornell.edu
428 Phillips Hall, Electrical Engineering Department
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
8:32 a.m.
as a high value and showing it. We would bite the
bullet and
fund the (expensive) required programs to
Just hand me a voucher and let me pick the school my child goes to, and
watch how fast schools "find a way" to improve and EARN my money. Increase
their funding and watch it flow into the morass without even a ripple on
the surface.
10 Mar
10 Mar
12:31 a.m.
New subject: OT: Re: languages
At 04:20 PM 3/9/00 -0500, Carlos Murillo-Sanchez wrote:
What other profession is there with an entry salary of
about $28K, and a top salary (after 20+ years) of less than $70K ?
Actually, there are lots of jobs like that. Also, have you
forgotten the nice long summer vacation?
- John
9 Mar
9 Mar
4:01 a.m.
*snip*
I think the reason our kids don't learn languages
well is because the tools
that should have been taught with English, e.g. organization and structure
in sentences, to underscore basic grammar, and organization in writing,
which certainly appears to be a dying art, are lacking, so there's no point
of reference. Try asking a recent high school graduate what a gerund or an
infinitive is. Then ask what the different between a present participle and
a gerund is. Don't even bother to discuss sentence diagrams, since the
teacher themselves don't know how to apply such tools. Foreign languages
all have their own sentence structure and grammar. If a teacher can't make
reference to a model their pupils must know, there's nowhere for them to go
in order to teach those same characteristics in another language.
It's a sad situation.
Dick
I agree with the fundamental premise of this post, but I have to disagree with
the example of grammar. See, classical grammer, what most of us DID learn in
high school, was actually lifted from latin grammar. It never fit English very
well. In the last 20 years or so there have arisen new systems of grammar
which understand a word order language like English far better than latin
grammar, which was designed for a word-ending language where word order is
irrelivant, ever could. Of course, THESE grammars are not well taught either,
but the fact that a modern high school student doesn't know gerunds and present
participles may well be because that whole system of grammar is no longer
taught. It never was that useful to begin with.
Jim Strickland
jim(a)DIESPAMMERSCUMcalico.litterbox.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BeOS Powered!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5:22 a.m.
The notion of Ebonyx was their way to
"throw-in-the-towel" (for those
unfamiliar with U.S. boxing industry practice, this is a signal of
surrender.)
Well, throw-in-the-towel is known (at least the acording
phrase is in wide use in Germany - just most don't know
the orgin), but what is Ebonyx ?
And, Jim, for the Grammer ting, don't forget that English
is a bastard based on (at least) 5 languages from 3 different
language families (No Offense Ment).
And for the Computer part: I remember people during the
70's dreaming of real world computer languages, where
a computer language may evolve not only into a tool for
programming, but also able to be used as (somewhat simple)
human language. And now we have C - isn't C a bit like the
stuff we are talking about - the lowest common denominator
of programming languages at all ?
Serious, ain't we are going exactly the same way with
programming languages as with real ones ? Just instead
of centuries, it took only some dozend years to go from
Machine code (grunting sounds) to ADA (Goethes Poems)
and only less than 10 years to fall back to C ?
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa am 29./30. April 2000 in Muenchen
http://www.vintage.org/vcfe
http://www.homecomputer.de/vcfe
4:37 a.m.
And for the Computer part: I remember people during
the
70's dreaming of real world computer languages, where
a computer language may evolve not only into a tool for
programming, but also able to be used as (somewhat simple)
human language. And now we have C - isn't C a bit like the
stuff we are talking about - the lowest common denominator
of programming languages at all ?
Serious, ain't we are going exactly the same way with
programming languages as with real ones ? Just instead
of centuries, it took only some dozend years to go from
Machine code (grunting sounds) to ADA (Goethes Poems)
and only less than 10 years to fall back to C ?
I think the most obvious example of this is Java, and the
comments its developers made about C++. To paraphrase,
all the hard parts of C++ were removed to get Java. Programmers
had trouble with certain C++ features, so they were removed.
Same logic as with natural language. Unfortunately, the
parts of C++ removed are very important, particularly for
large systems.
--
Dr. Mark Green mark(a)cs.ualberta.ca
Professor (780) 492-4584
Director, Research Institute for Multimedia Systems (RIMS)
Department of Computing Science (780) 492-1071 (FAX)
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2H1, Canada
5:20 a.m.
Well, throw-in-the-towel is known (at least the
acording
phrase is in wide use in Germany - just most don't know
the orgin), but what is Ebonyx ?
Ebonyx was the attempt by some boards of education in California to establish
the slang associated with Black culture as a language so they could get funding
to teach english as a second language. It was always a brazen attempt to get
funding, nothing more.
And, Jim, for the Grammer ting, don't forget that English
is a bastard based on (at least) 5 languages from 3 different
language families (No Offense Ment).
None taken. You're absolutely correct. English took much of its structure
from Norweigan, and much of its vocabulary from Norman
French, and simplified
both. It picks up vocabulary from everywhere, and when that
fails words are
simply made up. I'm thinking here of Scuba and Radar, wich both started out
as acronyms and are now ordinary nouns.
*snip*
Serious, ain't we are going exactly the same way
with
programming languages as with real ones ? Just instead
of centuries, it took only some dozend years to go from
Machine code (grunting sounds) to ADA (Goethes Poems)
*laugh* I'm not sure I'd compare any computer language to Goethe, but it's
a good analogy...
and only less than 10 years to fall back to C ?
Gruss
H.
I think Hans is making a bit of a joke here, but he's not far from the mark.
A living language is not a static thing. It grows. It evolves. Parts are
added and other parts dropped as the society that speaks it changes. Until
recently (ie the last 20 years or so) English was taught in a very prescriptive
way - x is the correct way to speak, where x is whatever dictionary and/or
grammar system you embrace.
However in the late 60s (things take time to
filter into the education system) some language experts - notably Webster's
Dictionary among them - began to realise that language *changes* over time.
Websters dictionary embraced a descriptive philosophy - we're not in the
business of telling you how you SHOULD speak, only how you DO speak.
One of the results of this was the formation of the American Heritage
dictionary, which clung to the prescriptive philosophy.
Ultimately I think the descriptive folks are correct. While I agree with Dick
and others that as the English language is simplified it looses alot of its
elegance and beauty, I'd rather see that than the total stagnation that results
with rigid prescriptiveism. A great example of what happens to a language when
it is artificially prevented from changing is French. With the establishment
of the French Acadamy and the legislation against borrowings from other
languages, in a few hundred years French went from the language of diplomacy
to a linguistic backwater, populated with grotesque and awkward words created
to describe things where a borrowing had been previously used.
None of this changes the fact that today's schools are doing a lousy job
teaching people to communicate. (In the US). One need only look at the web
to see this - US domains which are so cluttered and badly designed and where
the text is so obtuse and irrellivant that the entire page is useless abound.
(Yes, in this graphical age, I think page layout should be taught alongside
some understanding of grammar and spelling). Schools are instead focusing on
self esteem building, instead of teaching and letting students develop self
esteem when they *succeed*. Obviously grinding a student's ego into the floor
every time they mess up is the wrong way to go about teaching anything, but
so is pushing self esteem above education. *sigh* If I had children, I would
definately feel ripped off by todays schools.
Anyway, I've gone on much longer in this message than intended, but in addition
to hitting a nerve this thread also hit stuff I studied in college, so... :)
--
Jim Strickland
jim(a)DIESPAMMERSCUMcalico.litterbox.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BeOS Powered!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
6:45 a.m.
> Well, throw-in-the-towel is known (at least the
acording
> phrase is in wide use in Germany - just most don't know
> the orgin), but what is Ebonyx ?
Ebonyx was the attempt by some boards of education in
California to establish
the slang associated with Black culture as a language so they could get funding
to teach english as a second language. It was always a brazen attempt to get
funding, nothing more.
:))
Serious,
ain't we are going exactly the same way with
programming languages as with real ones ? Just instead
of centuries, it took only some dozend years to go from
Machine code (grunting sounds) to ADA (Goethes Poems)
*laugh* I'm not sure
I'd compare any computer language to Goethe, but it's
a good analogy... > and only less than 10 years to fall back to C ?
I think Hans is making a bit of a joke here, but
he's not far from the mark.
A living language is not a static thing. It grows. It evolves. Parts are
added and other parts dropped as the society that speaks it changes. Until
recently (ie the last 20 years or so) English was taught in a very prescriptive
way - x is the correct way to speak, where x is whatever dictionary and/or
grammar system you embrace.
No, I'm bloody serious (beside some humorous thing). In my opinion
C (and C++) is way down the ladder and as more as I think about I
find it more and more similar to the 'real' language thing discussed
in here.
I wouldn't consider C as anything 'grown'. maybe evolved in the
sense of degeneration.
I often think about what happened - why are all other languages
out classed ? Some beauty(and use)full are almost forgotten.
What happened to Pascal, Modula or Smalltalk (not to talk about
ADA which I still consider the best design ever) ?
There's only C (no, I don't recognize C++ or Java on their own).
And interestingly a still existing COBOL population.
However in the late 60s (things take time to
filter into the education system) some language experts - notably Webster's
Dictionary among them - began to realise that language *changes* over time.
Websters dictionary embraced a descriptive philosophy - we're not in the
business of telling you how you SHOULD speak, only how you DO speak.
One of the results of this was the formation of the
American Heritage
dictionary, which clung to the prescriptive philosophy.
Well, to late over here - Standard German has equalized most German
languages and dialects. More than 100 years of Education did succeede.
Anyway
H.
--
VCF Europa am 29./30. April 2000 in Muenchen
http://www.vintage.org/vcfe
http://www.homecomputer.de/vcfe
6:50 a.m.
*snip*
Well, to late over here - Standard German has equalized most German
languages and dialects. More than 100 years of Education did succeede.
Anyway
H.
I thought book mal (which I KNOW is spelled wrong, what little German spelling
I knew in undergrad school I've long since forgotten) was the standard for
education, but I didn't think there were laws requiring it. Are there?
--
Jim Strickland
jim(a)DIESPAMMERSCUMcalico.litterbox.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BeOS Powered!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10:12 a.m.
*snip*
> Well, to late over here - Standard German has equalized most German
> languages and dialects. More than 100 years of Education did succeede.
I thought book mal (which I KNOW is spelled wrong,
what little German spelling
I knew in undergrad school I've long since forgotten) was the standard for
education, but I didn't think there were laws requiring it. Are there?
Maybe you're confusing the name with booksmal, the
'official' norwegian spelling/language ? Anyway,
Standard German (Hochdeutsch) is defined as the
language to be used in official (state) documents.
The spepelling of this language is defined to be the
standard spelling to be uese in any official corospodence
(Not for the citicen, but to be used by the officer).
All school education is using this language in all
classes. TV and Radio programs are made in Standard
German ... so society is converting - Well, the reasons
are maybe logical and understandable, just I dislike
them at all. As some of you may know, Germany had
several mor or less succesfull confrontations with
France, just, do you know what language the German
Officers had to use for conferences and to clear
orders ? German ? Wrong, even in the successfull
1870/71 war the language of the German commanders
was french - otherwise a Leutnant from lets say
Bavaria and one from Hanover would had a hard time
to understand each other. Althrough all part of the
German language family, close members, the difference
is way deeper than lets say between American, Australien
or English English. Maybe a bit like the Ebony thing.
Or to use known languages, in the worst case (Bavarian
vs. Platt) like between todays English and Dutch.
Anyway, going back to your question: it's a soft
force of standardisation rather a brute force today -
it has been different in the past.
Gruss
H.
BTW: Just curious - almost nobody is going on my remarks about C :)
--
VCF Europa am 29./30. April 2000 in Muenchen
http://www.vintage.org/vcfe
http://www.homecomputer.de/vcfe
9:42 a.m.
It was thus said that the Great Hans Franke once stated:
BTW: Just curious - almost nobody is going on my remarks about C :)
About it being a low level barely marginal language? No real argument
there, other than I find it better than C++.
-spc (And the less said about Perl, the better ... )
1:38 p.m.
*snip*
> Well, to late over here - Standard German has equalized most German
> languages and dialects. More than 100 years of Education did succeede.
I thought book mal (which I KNOW is spelled
wrong, what little German spelling
I knew in undergrad school I've long since forgotten) was the standard for
education, but I didn't think there were laws requiring it. Are there?
Maybe you're confusing the name with booksmal, the
'official' norwegian spelling/language ? Anyway, Standard German (Hochdeutsch) is defined as the
language to be used in official (state) documents.
The spepelling of this language is defined to be the
standard spelling to be uese in any official corospodence
(Not for the citicen, but to be used by the officer).
All school education is using this language in all
classes. TV and Radio programs are made in Standard
German ... so society is converting - Well, the reasons
are maybe logical and understandable, just I dislike
them at all. As some of you may know, Germany had
several mor or less succesfull confrontations with
France, just, do you know what language the German
Officers had to use for conferences and to clear
orders ? German ? Wrong, even in the successfull
1870/71 war the language of the German commanders
was french - otherwise a Leutnant from lets say
Bavaria and one from Hanover would had a hard time
to understand each other. Althrough all part of the
German language family, close members, the difference
is way deeper than lets say between American, Australien
or English English. Maybe a bit like the Ebony thing.
Or to use known languages, in the worst case (Bavarian
vs. Platt) like between todays English and Dutch.
Anyway, going back to your question: it's a soft
force of standardisation rather a brute force today -
it has been different in the past.
Gruss
H.
BTW: Just curious - almost nobody is going on my remarks about C :)
--
VCF Europa am 29./30. April 2000 in Muenchen
http://www.vintage.org/vcfe
http://www.homecomputer.de/vcfe
--
Jim Strickland
jim(a)DIESPAMMERSCUMcalico.litterbox.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BeOS Powered!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
7:33 a.m.
Well,
throw-in-the-towel is known (at least the acording
phrase is in wide use in Germany - just most don't know
the orgin), but what is Ebonyx ?
Ebonyx was the attempt by some boards of education in California to establish
the slang associated with Black culture as a language so they could get
funding
to teach english as a second language. It was always a brazen attempt to get
funding, nothing more. 
8:17 a.m.
On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Mike Ford wrote:
California has made the correct choice in dropping the
whole english as a
second language program in favor of english immersion. The sooner you learn
english and become proficient, the better students do in general. This
isn't to say that ebonics or any other cultural language doesn't have
merit, but points out the peril of "too much" local control in a polical
setting. This is like offering "creation" as an alternative to
"Darwin",
the problem being once you declare "God created the heavens and earth" you
have branched off from the next 10 years of scientific education to a path
that leads to what?
I don't know...Canada (ok, I'm biased a little being Canadian) allows for
official provincial languages outside of the national official languages,
French and English. It's a neat system, which I think provides a lot of
flexibility for subcultures to preserve their language/history. I'm
definitely not one of the "Speak English or Get Out" crowd.
As far as evolution/creation (oh boy, here we go), I think the problem
with their original idea of teaching both disciplines fell short right at
the place where they had to rectify the problem you mentioned, which
simplifies to the question of where a "safe" re-entry point was in the
continuum of Science for those who went apostate and chose Creationism
over Darwinian Evolution...
6:13 a.m.
On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 07:23:15PM +0000, Hans Franke wrote:
but what is Ebonyx ?
"Ebonics" is the latest euphenism for the seemingly grammarless slang used by
a lot of people these days, especially the uneducated. The name is just silly
though, why name a language after a tree, or maybe they meant the magazine?
I guess that's just more PCness, no one ever wants to specifically say what
race they're talking about (even when it's obvious to everyone), especially
in this case where the so-called "language" is something from which you have
to distance yourself if you want to be taken seriously.
And, Jim, for the Grammer ting, don't forget that
English
is a bastard based on (at least) 5 languages from 3 different
language families (No Offense Ment).
And *none* of those families wants to admit English is their child!
Well it's evolved quite a bit on its own so it's silly to try to draw too
close a parallel to anything.
John Wilson
D Bit
7:08 a.m.
the orgin), but what is Ebonyx ?
Name applied to stylized english spoken by some segments.
(No Offense Ment).
In Ebonyx might translate to "no dissin yo"
of centuries, it took only some dozend years to go
from
Machine code (grunting sounds) to ADA (Goethes Poems)
and only less than 10 years to fall back to C ?
But you can write excellent Hiku in C. ;)
Allison
9053
days inactive
9054
days old
20 comments
14 participants
participants (14)
-
af-list＠wfi-inc.com -
allisonp＠world.std.com -
at258＠osfn.org -
cem14＠cornell.edu -
chris＠mainecoon.com -
edick＠idcomm.com -
Hans.Franke＠mch20.sbs.de -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
jim＠calico.litterbox.com -
mark＠cs.ualberta.ca -
mikeford＠socal.rr.com -
rigdonj＠intellistar.net -
spc＠armigeron.com -
wilson＠dbit.dbit.com