 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004"My baby's daddy."
We need a word for the phrase "my baby's daddy." Among black women I have almost never heard "my husband" when they are refering to their "man". Can't we just invent a new word for "my babies daddy"? >We need a word for the phrase "my baby's daddy." >Among black women I have almost never heard "my husband" when they are refering >to their "man". >Can't we just invent a new word for "my babies daddy"? That's really amazing. That part about when you are among all those black women, how "baby's' turn into "babies", I mean. I wonder what they say when you are not among them? >Subject: Re: "My baby's daddy." >From: Tony Cooper tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >black women, how "baby's' turn into "babies", I mean. I wonder what >they say when you are not among them? They be illiterate, ya unnerstan. Certainly they are not as clever as you who has come up with the unique and interesting retort of pointing out a spelling mistake in an usenet post. > >Subject: Re: "My baby's daddy." > >From: Tony Cooper tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Certainly they are not as clever as you who has come up with the unique and > interesting retort of pointing out a spelling mistake in an usenet post. If there is only one baby, then there is no question: my baby he (she) daddy. More than one baby, then: my babies they daddy. Spelling variations optional in a spoken language. > If there is only one baby, then there is no question: my baby he > (she) daddy. > > More than one baby, then: my babies they daddy. Smitherman says Black Dialect obviously has the concepts of plurality and possession, but they are not indicated by the addition of -_s_ or apostrophes with -_s_. ... _That was Mr. Jounson store got burn down_, the position of the noun, _Mr. Johnson_, signals who owns the store... With the third person plural pronoun, _they_, the same form serves for subject, possessive, and so-called reflexive as in _The expressway bought they house_ and _They should do it theyselves_ ... At an earlier stage in the development of Black English, forms like _he book_ (for _his book_) and _she house_ (for _her house_) were prominent, but these have gradually disappeared. You may hear them in very young preschool children. _Talkin and Testifyin_, pp. 28-29. The resumptive pronoun ("That man he") is a characteristic of subjects, not possessives.  SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If the human brain were so simple 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |That we could understand it, Palo Alto, CA 94304 |We would be so simple |That we couldn't. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > If there is only one baby, then there is no question: my baby he > > (she) daddy. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > The resumptive pronoun ("That man he") is a characteristic of > subjects, not possessives. OK. You are saying "my baby they daddy"? ( That is, assuming it is a small child talking . . . perhaps roleplaying.) I think some of the upper paragraph has gone 'way over my head, especially in the notion of "plural not indicated by the addition of -s", when the second paragraph clearly shows "theyselves". So "My baby daddy he (works at the. . .)." is OK as a subject if I have one baby. But does the article or text not show how "My babies' daddy he works. . ."? (I am curious, and could have said ". . .daddy he work. . .", but don't want to make a joke of this, being quite distant from co-workers talking in their home milieu. SignaturePat durkinpa at msn.com Wisconsin > > > If there is only one baby, then there is no question: my baby he > > > (she) daddy. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > OK. You are saying "my baby they daddy"? No, just "my baby daddy". I'm not sure she's completely consistent about the plural notion, though. She does show some plurals ending in "-s", including some hypercorrected ones (as "mens", "childrens", and "peoples"). She puts this down to an attempt to conform to more standard patterns. On the other hand, all of the unmarked plurals she gives in examples seem to have the plurality specified in other ways (as by the inclusion of an explicit number). > I think some of the upper paragraph has gone 'way over my head, > especially in the notion of "plural not indicated by the addition of > -s", when the second paragraph clearly shows "theyselves". That's not pluralizing by adding "-s", it's just a pronoun that ends in "s". > So "My baby daddy he (works at the. . .)." is OK as a subject if I > have one baby. Right. Although it would probably be "work" rather than "works". > But does the article or text not show how "My babies' daddy he > works. . ."? I can't find an example with a plural possessor, so I can't be sure. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If we have to re-invent the wheel, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |can we at least make it round this Palo Alto, CA 94304 |time? kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> But does the article or text not show how "My babies' daddy he >> works. . ."? This is illogical as it assumes the same daddy for more than one baby. How would the speaker really know? > >> But does the article or text not show how "My babies' daddy he > >> works. . ."? > > This is illogical as it assumes the same daddy for more than one baby. How > would the speaker really know? *Ahem!* Barring a DNA test, if there is anyone who could be certain about the man in question being the father of the babies in question, it would be the speaker, that is, the babies' mother. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com >Subject: Re: "My baby's daddy." >From: "Raymond S. Wise" mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >the man in question being the father of the babies in question, it would be >the speaker, that is, the babies' mother. You come from Minnesota and no nothing about Black people. Their lifestyle (and I am not saying this as an insult--it's just different) precludes most Black women from knowing who their babies daddy is. I once went out with a black woman, believe it or not. Her attitude was that having sex on a date was like holding hands---no it was expected. Many times when a Black woman has fraternal twins they be having different daddies. > >Subject: Re: "My baby's daddy." > >From: "Raymond S. Wise" mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Many times when a Black woman has fraternal twins they be having different > daddies. Actually, I come from a rural region in Illinois in which blacks were, indeed, unknown--although there were black people in the nearest big city. But I left there decades ago. I now live in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area, which is quite racially diverse and has been for some time. For example, Minneapolis has the highest concentration of American Indians of any large US city, and St. Paul has the highest concentration of residents who are Hmong. Black Americans have long been part of the mix here. Your reasoning is faulty. You claimed, of an expression such as "my babies' daddy," that it "is illogical as it assumes the same daddy for more than one baby. How would the speaker really know?" I answered *Ahem!* Barring a DNA test, if there is anyone who could be certain about the man in question being the father of the babies in question, it would be the speaker, that is, the babies' mother." If it is a question of logic, then logic is on my side, not yours: What I said is irrefutable, what you said--that is, your comments about the logic of the situation--can be called into question. Besides which, it is not only black women who would have occasion to use the expressions "my baby's daddy" and "my babies' daddy." I have personally heard a white woman use one term or the other. I presumed it was "my baby's daddy," but, since they are pronounced identically, it might well have been "my babies' daddy." SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com Rushtown: >Many times when a Black woman has fraternal twins they be having different >daddies. Damn straight, boo! These niggas gotta be straight-trippin', G! >Subject: Re: "My baby's daddy." >From: de781@aol.com (DE781) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Damn straight, boo! These niggas gotta be straight-trippin', G! Really! (meaning, "I heartily agree"). >> >> But does the article or text not show how "My babies' daddy he >> >> works. . ."? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >the man in question being the father of the babies in question, it would be >the speaker, that is, the babies' mother. Not as so as you think it might be. My wife is a BSN and project manager for a program called Healthy Start. Her caseload consists of women that are about to have a baby or have recently had a baby. It is not uncommon - far from uncommon, in fact - for the woman not to be sure if the father is this one or that one, or even that other one. > >> >> But does the article or text not show how "My babies' daddy he > >> >> works. . ."? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > is not uncommon - far from uncommon, in fact - for the woman not to be > sure if the father is this one or that one, or even that other one. Please read my most recent reply to Rushtown. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com Rushtown: >>That's really amazing. That part about when you are among all those >>black women, how "baby's' turn into "babies", I mean. I wonder what [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Certainly they are not as clever as you who has come up with the unique and >interesting retort of pointing out a spelling mistake in an usenet post. You'd better get used to that Rushtown. These people tend to think just a *tad* (note the heavy sarcasm) too highly of themselves. They're arrogant and cruel beyond belief. They just harassed a woman because she asked a question and let them know it'd be more helpful to her if they replied by email, since she wouldn't be returning to this group. What do they do? They waste time writing out *incredibly* detailed (read, BORING) answer, and then explain that they're not emailing it to the woman; they're just posting it here because they don't want the "lazy" woman to get the message UNLESS she comes back here, which she likely won't because she probably don't even remember *where* she posted the question! Now, they diss you for a spelling mistake (a type of thing I've seen them *all* do--they are, after all, humans, no matter how much they'd like us to believe otherwise). Get this. They even diss me for using words according to how they are defined in dictionaries, simply because the definition I'm using is not "common enough" for their tastes. Odd, eh? > Rushtown: >>> That's really amazing. That part about when you are among all those >>> black women, how "baby's' turn into "babies", I mean. I wonder what [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You'd better get used to that Rushtown. I'm used to Rushtown. I know who and what he is. You don't. (Yes, yes, I know that you meant to put a comma there, but I used your sentence as a straight line for my answer.) SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ Skitt: >> You'd better get used to that Rushtown. > >I'm used to Rushtown. I know who and what he is. You don't. > >(Yes, yes, I know that you meant to put a comma there, but I used your >sentence as a straight line for my answer.) I'd have no problem with you making a joke out of my error, EXCEPT for the fact that if I really MEANT to say, "get used to that Rushtown", someone would tell me that it's *not* correct to refer to someone as "that 'X'", unless there was also *another* "Rushtown", or something like that. So, techically, your joke isn't Englishly correct. <<I know who and what he is. You don't.>> Are you *serious* about the above? He's a "troll"? > Skitt: >>> You'd better get used to that Rushtown. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Are you *serious* about the above? He's a "troll"? A self-proclaimed one. He has changed somewhat, though. In real life he is a lawyer of some repute, not all of it white as the driven snow. He's also not particularly good with the written word. I pay very little attention to what he posts. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ >I pay very little attention to what he posts. Naw, you can't ignore them. And I might mention that yes I am a troll---but a special type of troll. Everything I post is most probably true, such as race differences in IQ. It is done to get a rise out of people and to stimulate discussion. But, I do, to repeat, confine myself to opinions that I can well defend. Rushtown: >Naw, you can't ignore them. >And I might mention that yes I am a troll---but a special type of troll. Well, in a way, aren't we *all* trolls? *Everyone* here posts mainly off-topic. To paraphrase the amazing, swan-wearing Bjork, "everything is trolls"! >Everything I post is most probably true, such as race differences in IQ. What do you mean by "race differences in IQ"? >It is >done to get a rise out of people and to stimulate discussion. And if that's not the point of the net, then what is? >But, I do, to >repeat, confine myself to opinions that I can well defend. Ditto! Ain't nothing wrong with being true to yourself and not being afraid to speak your mind! By your definition of trolling, I guess I'd no doubt be a "troll" too. Some people need to learn to think *outside* the box, I agree. Skitt: > In real life he is >a lawyer of some repute, not all of it white as the driven snow. He's also >not particularly good with the written word. That's not very nice. >I pay very little attention to what he posts. Awwww. :( > Skitt: >> In real life he is >> a lawyer of some repute, not all of it white as the driven snow. >> He's also not particularly good with the written word. > > That's not very nice. Truth is not always nice. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ >Rushtown: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >*tad* (note the heavy sarcasm) too highly of themselves. They're arrogant and >cruel beyond belief. >Now, they diss you for a spelling mistake (a type of thing I've seen them *all* >do--they are, after all, humans, no matter how much they'd like us to believe >otherwise). You, like Rushtown, assumed my comment to be centered around the spelling error. It was not. It was an arrogant and cruel observation dissing Rushtown's stereotyping of black women. You play silly games with the definition of "racism", but you don't recognize it when it smacks you in the gob. AUE can be like a pond full of minnows: seemingly flat and ordinary, but full of activity below the surface. There's nothing particularly wrong with not noticing all the silver flashes, but I've never seen anyone that is so insistent on shouting out "I CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING ON." You may be comfortable in the dunce cap, but why keep pointing out that you're wearing one? Cooper: >You, like Rushtown, assumed my comment to be centered around the >spelling error. But, it was. You compared "baby's" to "babies". Ghetto people don't say *either*! >It was an arrogant and cruel observation >dissing Rushtown's stereotyping of black women. But, black women *do* say "baby daddy". Trust me. I's ghetto. >You play silly games with the definition of "racism", It wasn't racism! Would you have preferred it if he said "Ebonic women" use "baby daddy"? Now THAT'S racist, because there are tons of ghetto Hispanics who also use "baby daddy". Word? >but I've never seen >anyone that is so insistent on shouting out "I CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT'S >GOING ON." You may be comfortable in the dunce cap, but why keep >pointing out that you're wearing one? Because "I'm real. The way I walk, the way I move, the way I talk. I'm real. The way I look, the way I stare, my style, my hair. I'm real. The way I smile, the way I smell, it drive you wild. And you can't go on without me." > Cooper: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > But, black women *do* say "baby daddy". Trust me. I's ghetto. The racism, Joey, was the repeated assertion that a black woman could be assumed not to know who the father of her children is and that each of her children is likely to have a different father. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |This case--and I must be careful 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |not to fall into Spooner's trap Palo Alto, CA 94304 |here--concerns a group of warring |bankers. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ [...] > The racism, Joey, was the repeated assertion that a black woman could > be assumed not to know who the father of her children is and that each > of her children is likely to have a different father. Call me a racist or slap my hand, but MANY unwed *big-city* black mothers with several kids don't know -- or are not certain -- who the father of each kid is, and each of her children is likely to have a different father. SignatureReinhold (Rey) Aman > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the father of each kid is, and each of her children is likely to > have a different father. That's as may be, but the implication doesn't hold. Certainly not to the extent that if a black woman talked about "my babies' father" you'd have any reason to question her assertion. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |So when can we quit passing laws and 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |raising taxes? When can we say of Palo Alto, CA 94304 |our political system, "Stick a fork |in it, it's done?" kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >Cooper: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >But, it was. You compared "baby's" to "babies". Ghetto people don't say >*either*! I see that "centered around" is yet another phrase you decline to understand. How did you happen to discover that ghetto people don't say "baby's" or "babies"? What to they call those miniature people? >>It was an arrogant and cruel observation >>dissing Rushtown's stereotyping of black women. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >"baby daddy"? Now THAT'S racist, because there are tons of ghetto Hispanics >who also use "baby daddy". Word? No. Andrew's an idiot, but he's not stupid. "Ebonic" is not a type or group of women. Cooper: >How did you happen to discover that ghetto people don't say "baby's" >or "babies"? What to they call those miniature people? "Baby". >"Ebonic" is not a type >or group of women. Yes, it is. It's women who speak "Ebonics". > Tony Cooper wrote: >>> We need a word for the phrase "my baby's daddy." >>> Among black women I have almost never heard "my husband" when they >>> are refering to their "man". >>> Can't we just invent a new word for "my babies daddy"? That's because their man is usually not their husband. >> That's really amazing. That part about when you are among all those >> black women, how "baby's' turn into "babies", I mean. I wonder what [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > unique and interesting retort of pointing out a spelling mistake in > an usenet post. Yabbut this is alt.usage.english, not alt.whose.my.dady. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ Cooper: >That's really amazing. That part about when you are among all those >black women, how "baby's' turn into "babies", I mean. I wonder what >they say when you are not among them? Your joke is gay and you's *all* morons, because black women say "baby daddy"! No pluralization; no possession! Evah! Rushtown: >We need a word for the phrase "my baby's daddy." >Among black women I have almost never heard "my husband" when they are >refering >to their "man". >Can't we just invent a new word for "my babies daddy"? "Who that is? It's just my baby daddy!"--Trick Daddy |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.