Well, not ALL the English, just the ones that speak proper [british] English themselves. The English love to "take the piss" over the American variant of their language, and it has just been getting worse. Now it's starting to become official. Sorry.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wanted-ebonics-translator-federal-dea-job/story?id=11462206#.Ts9dhGNFunA

Wanted: Ebonics Translator for Federal DEA Job

The U.S. Department of Justice is looking for fluent Ebonics speakers to fill nine drug enforcement jobs, giving merit to a dialect that experts say is often mimicked and little understood.

The request is again drawing attention to the form of speech that was hotly debated in the '90s after a California school district passed a resolution recognizing the legitimacy of what is now more commonly referred to as "African-American English.". Ebonics detractors often characterize the speech as poor grammar or lazy English, but linguists say it has an important place in history.

Generally the people who complain that their language has too many foreign words (the French or Russians come to mind) don't seem to realize that the language they speak isn't the same as 100 years ago either. That's what living languages do, they grow and change. BUT, when that change - in the Ebonics case - is all about poor grammar and horrible spelling because the originators are simply uneducated, should it be made "official"?

Isn't there a difference between slang and categorizing the slang as a dialect?

If kids think it's OK to speak like this, what will that do for their future opportunities in continuing their education or getting a really good job?

Is this strictly an American-English issue, or are other languages being "threatened" with the same poor grammar and lazy "dialect"?German? Thai?

"Ebonics"? Nice word creation. And this is where it starts: Yes, languages evolve.

You ask: "Isn't there a difference between slang and categorizing the slang as a dialect? "

I'm sure the linguists make a difference. Allow me to mention that I am not an expert.

You ask: "If kids think it's OK to speak like this, what will that do for their future opportunities in continuing their education or getting a really good job?"

Probably, in an Ebonics environment. If they want a good job in the traditional environment, they would have to speek traditional English, I'd say.

You ask: "Is this strictly an American-English issue, or are other languages being "threatened" with the same poor grammar and lazy "dialect"?German? Thai?"

Germany is experience a new view on grammar as created by the immigrants, mostly from Turkey. This is a new phenomenon, it's in the first generation. I understand that what you describe about the US English must have been going on for several generations.

I'm not sure about Thai, as the new influence from English words and grammar into the language is even younger. Too early to say, but I'd wager that it will last and be considered a bonus rather than a deficiency.

I think this 'problem' (if it is a problem) affects all languages. No doubt a linguist would be able to explain this, but languages seem to simplify over the years (I've always wondered how they get complicated in the first place). Two examples: Greek, where we can trace the simplification from Homer down to modern Greek; Afrikaans, which is a kind of basic Dutch. Yes, they do add lots of new words, but the grammar, and often the spelling, gets simplified.

Read, if you can bear it, a few hundred posts on ThaiVisa, and see how native speakers very often have no grammar, and can't spell.

There is a constant tug-of-war between correct English and the vernacular of the streets. Education theoretically instils correct grammar and spelling, but these days spelling at least is disregarded. Correct English tends to lead to better jobs, but often the smarter people end up being officially correct, and speaking street vernacular in their spare time.

I think this applies to all languages, at least all those which have access to mass media. As Tom said, language is changing all the time.

"Well, not ALL the English, just the ones that speak proper [british] English themselves. The English love to "take the piss" over the American variant of their language, and it has just been getting worse. Now it's starting to become official. Sorry."

The English love to take the piss out of practically everything, especially themselves. That's what makes them so confusing to many non-English people.

Ausies and Kiwis are quite good at taking the piss.

I think this 'problem' (if it is a problem) affects all languages. No doubt a linguist would be able to explain this, but languages seem to simplify over the years (I've always wondered how they get complicated in the first place).

Simplified, yes. In English we often "hat" for just about anything that goes on your head or "shoes" for just about anything that goes on your feet. Not so in Russia. When I would say something (in Russian) like "let me put on my shoes" they would correct me and say "those aren't shoes, they are sneakers/boots".

I think this 'problem' (if it is a problem) affects all languages. No doubt a linguist would be able to explain this, but languages seem to simplify over the years (I've always wondered how they get complicated in the first place).

Simplified, yes. In English we often "hat" for just about anything that goes on your head or "shoes" for just about anything that goes on your feet. Not so in Russia. When I would say something (in Russian) like "let me put on my shoes" they would correct me and say "those aren't shoes, they are sneakers/boots".

I was thinking of grammar rather than vocabulary; the latter varies, sometimes simplifying (if the community is somewhat isolated), sometimes getting more complicated (if the community has more contact with the outside world). I think your examples of 'hat' and 'shoes' are basically just laziness (I'm not being personal!), but I don't know what causes it.

Ebonics

I remember when it first started they said they wanted o have a Miss Ebonics Beauty pageant but but nobody wanted to be Miss Idaho

nobody wanted to be Miss Idaho

Ausies and Kiwis are quite good at taking the piss.

Surely "Aussies and Kiwis are quite good at drinking piss."

I hope that remark is a commentary on the quality of their alcoholic beverages and not on their character.

I've just finished reading Bill Bryson's "Made in America"; he attempts to explain, in detail, why The Americans spell some words differently from the English.

One of the culprits was apparently Thomas Jefferson who was quite capable of spelling the same word three different ways on the same page.

Must have forgotten to turn his Spellchecker on.

Actually various spellings of words was pretty common in those days, Jane Austen regularly spelled ankle as ancle. Spelling was a more fluid thing back then, don't think the first real dictionary was until 1755 by Samuel Johnson, the Oxford English dictionary didn't even make an appearance until over 170 years later. There were dictionaries before Johnson but they weren't comprehensive and generally only covered technical or difficult words.

So, sometimes its best to rethink one's ideas about how set in stone some things are.

Jane Austen lived 200 years ago, and things have changed a bit since then... though English spelling was fairly consistent by her time (probably largely due to Johnson). A few of the differences between English and American spelling are simply rationalisation ('honor' for 'honour' etc, for example); others, I guess, are just Noah Webster being difficult.

Various people have tried a more thorough rationalisation of English spelling, the best known being Bernard Shaw, who left all his money for that purpose... silly man!

I used to have a first edition of Scott's Antiquary (about 1818, I think), of the same period as Jane Austen, and you would hardly have noticed from the spelling that it wasn't a modern edition.

Actually various spellings of words was pretty common in those days, Jane Austen regularly spelled ankle as ancle. Spelling was a more fluid thing back then, don't think the first real dictionary was until 1755 by Samuel Johnson, the Oxford English dictionary didn't even make an appearance until over 170 years later. There were dictionaries before Johnson but they weren't comprehensive and generally only covered technical or difficult words.

So, sometimes its best to rethink one's ideas about how set in stone some things are.

I like to have some sort of order in my life, I think if spelling joined the ever growing ranks of stuff that's become flexible I'd just give up.

Having said that, I don't mind the Americans making up their own words, it's a bit like Thai politics, interesting as long as you don't take it too seriously.

kid, was a farm animal when i was a young boy

kid, was a farm animal when i was a young boy

Least said, soonest mended...

SC