Why do black folks......

[faceking]

Wtf?! Where I come from it's pronounced AUH-NT!

We mixed it... I had ant-ees, aunts, ants, and auntees. All mixed in w/ North Beach San Franciscan Italian. Auntie Jackie, Ant Connie, Antee Lou, Aunt Marie, another Aunt Marie, Antee Maria... the list goes on. Was always weird to me... was like Brooklyn in the Fog.

 

[798686]

Hmmm... I've always pronounced it, "ant." I've always thought, "awnt," sounded affectatious unless you're from another English-speaking country. Guess I was wrong.

It's affectatious in some parts of the UK, too. We say 'ant' in the north, and 'grass', etc. Down south they tend to say 'ahhnt', or 'grarse', lol. Maybe it's to do with the amount of Irish immigrants that came to Liverpool and Manchester in the 19th Century? - or maybe not, lol.

Deno - 'shite' is very common here, and especially in Ireland (the pronunciation, I mean).

 

[B_Stronzo]

It's affectatious in some parts of the UK, too. We say 'ant' in the north, and 'grass', etc. Down south they tend to say 'ahhnt', or 'grarse', lol. Maybe it's to do with the amount of Irish immigrants that came to Liverpool and Manchester in the 19th Century. - or maybe not, lol.

Historically that's precisely the reason.

Deno- 'shite' is very common here, and especially in Ireland (the pronunciation, I mean).

The only place I don't see 'shite' is in the south of England (for example Devon and Cornwall).

Both those counties pronounce a hard final "r" on a word unlike other parts or England. It's what I call the "Long John Silver" accent .. it's "piratey".

 

[b.c.]

There are two schools of thought when teaching a language. We'll use English as an example here.

There are two types of people when teaching English:

1. the English teacher
2. the linguist

Essentially, English teachers are full of shit. Language is not static. That is it evolves and changes with time, this includes words, syntax and morphology.

The English teacher is a prescriptivist (or Linguistic Prescrption)...they believe that there is a right and wrong way to speak or a 'proper' way to speak.

The linguist is a descriptivist, (descriptive linguistics) and is interested in analyzing (see semantics for how this is done and syntax) and describing how language is spoken in a given community at a given time (not a short period, like weeks or a few years).

In other words...English teachers are concerned with how language should be (keeping it static and enforcing social and politically correct norms (i.e. see who/whom argument) while the others, the linguists, declares how language is.

Yes, I understand the analysis. In part, what I'm asking is, does the former ("English" teacher) use the static approach (perhaps) because it is simpler for the student (in primary grades at least)?

For example, in a lower elementary phonics class, would they prefer to stick to the static pronunciation of "au" in pronouncing "aunt" (even though we know the sound changes in words such as laugh for example)?

Or do you think they should teach the variations at this grade level? Again, just wondering your thoughts on this.

 

[Fleur]

Yes, I understand the analysis. In part, what I'm asking is, does the former ("English" teacher) use the static approach (perhaps) because it is simpler for the student (in primary grades at least)?

Probably. And it also stems from a line of thought of "right" and "wrong" ways to speak.

For example, in a lower elementary phonics class, would they prefer to stick to the static pronunciation of "au" in pronouncing "aunt" (even though we know the sound changes in words such as laugh for example)?

In a phonetics class what you do is translate words into the IPA to make it universal. You do this when you're learning in the way you say the word, not how it's meant to be said. And when you translate other speech it's the same way.

Or do you think they should teach the variations at this grade level? Again, just wondering your thoughts on this.

They can, but really the variations are regional and already implicated taught in the schools unless it's something not PC like slang. Most of where English teachers go wrong is defining English with set rules. There is UG and rules but they define things arbitrarily. Like you need to say "whom," you can't split infinitives etc.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

I can't help thinking that it's too much of an excuse for raising kids who can't spell or speak their own language. "Oh he's just adding to the English laungauge".

NO IT AIN'T!

Anyway, the very rare black Britlander here, so I pronounce Aunt properly. I call her auntie and love them all dearly.

 

[b.c.]

Probably. And it also stems from a line of thought of "right" and "wrong" ways to speak.

In a phonetics class what you do is translate words into the IPA to make it universal. You do this when you're learning in the way you say the word, not how it's meant to be said. And when you translate other speech it's the same way.

They can, but really the variations are regional and already implicated taught in the schools unless it's something not PC like slang. Most of where English teachers go wrong is defining English with set rules. There is UG and rules but they define things arbitrarily. Like you need to say "whom," you can't split infinitives etc.

Yes, I can see the logic of it. If kids grow up in a region where everyone says "Ant" Sally and you teach them "Aunht" there is the problem of a possible disconnect between the latter pronunciation and the meaning of the word (i.e. they know what an "ant" is, but not an "aunht"), which I guess, touches on the whole "ebonics" debate, (but I really don't want to "go there").

 

[Fleur]

I can't help thinking that it's too much of an excuse for raising kids who can't spell or speak their own language. "Oh he's just adding to the English laungauge".

NO IT AIN'T!

Anyway, the very rare black Britlander here, so I pronounce Aunt properly. I call her auntie and love them all dearly.

Well...it's not about that. Language naturally evolves (but very slowly)...there's a difference between that and slang (which is your example there babe) :wink:

Ahem see:

Thou shall not want

You will not want

Those evolutionary changes did not happen overnight. And there was a time when English teachers would slap you on the hand if you didn't say it the former way.

This is why there is an English grammar guide that is updated yearly and after awhile "whom" was taken out due to the evolution of the English language...Happens all the time, but gradually.

 

[Fleur]

Yes, I can see the logic of it. If kids grow up in a region where everyone says "Ant" Sally and you teach them "Aunht" there is the problem of a possible disconnect between the latter pronunciation and the meaning of the word (i.e. they know what an "ant" is, but not an "aunht"), which I guess, touches on the whole "ebonics" debate, (but I really don't want to "go there").

Well, you don't want to go there...that's a whole other thread for "large language support group" members...

or something like that. If you want me to ramble about Ebonics, you can always take me up on that. The short answer is it started out as a pidgin and is now a creole language (like in New Orleans for example).

Basically, if you can write a book on a language's syntax, morphology, semantics then it's a language (this is a general rule for linguists)...doesn't mean that languages don't evolve though. And there are such books now for Ebonics.

The point is...there are "no primitive" languages. There are however pidgins, which is not a primitive language but a mesh of two or more languages in a given community that evolves. Once that pidgin moves on to the next generation, it's widely accepted that that is when it becomes a creole (or a language in it's own right).