"hair did" and "bad grammar"
Moderator: Marduk
"hair did" and "bad grammar"
Question in question.
Basically everything about this question and answer irked me (besides trying to understand the distribution of "did" and "done" in this context). Sorry, Concorde, but I'm going to just go ahead and disagree with you all over the place here.
1. Everyone talks in the dialect they think is going to help them fit in to their cultural group. Dr. Baker-Smemoe at BYU even has been doing studies on the speech patterns of Mormons and Non-Mormons in Utah and, guess what! They talk differently!
2. It is great to point out that different cultural groups talk differently, use different jargon, etc., to fit in. But it is erroneous to say that one is inherently better or more proper than the other.
3. While it is possible that saying "got my hair did" started as a grammatical joke, I think it is more likely that it is based on some other speech pattern already found in that dialect. (Which is generally called, in linguistics, African American Vernacular English.) Consider these sentences, where an asterisk is something that I don't think is correct in either dialect.
1) I did my hair yesterday.
2) Yesterday my hair was did.*
3) Yesterday my hair got did.*
4) Yesterday I got my hair did.
5) Yesterday I got my truck fixed.
4 and 5 are the same construction! But one uses "did." They both may be putting the emphasis on "I" or something else; I'd hazard a guess that there is a meaning difference between "got my hair did" and "got my hair done," but I don't really have the resources to figure that one out (the meaning difference could be anything, from perfect versus progressive, or maybe something in the overall components of the sentence (maybe one can include a location and one can't, or something like that)).
4. There are definitely people in and out of the community that seriously uses "hair did" that use it as a bad grammar joke. This is pretty common when people outside a community take another community's thing, especially if the outside community thinks it is funny. That doesn't make the origin of the original use "bad grammar," though.
tl;dr: There probably is a rhyme or reason to it and it isn't "bad grammar" (whatever that even means ). PEACE OUT!
Basically everything about this question and answer irked me (besides trying to understand the distribution of "did" and "done" in this context). Sorry, Concorde, but I'm going to just go ahead and disagree with you all over the place here.
1. Everyone talks in the dialect they think is going to help them fit in to their cultural group. Dr. Baker-Smemoe at BYU even has been doing studies on the speech patterns of Mormons and Non-Mormons in Utah and, guess what! They talk differently!
2. It is great to point out that different cultural groups talk differently, use different jargon, etc., to fit in. But it is erroneous to say that one is inherently better or more proper than the other.
3. While it is possible that saying "got my hair did" started as a grammatical joke, I think it is more likely that it is based on some other speech pattern already found in that dialect. (Which is generally called, in linguistics, African American Vernacular English.) Consider these sentences, where an asterisk is something that I don't think is correct in either dialect.
1) I did my hair yesterday.
2) Yesterday my hair was did.*
3) Yesterday my hair got did.*
4) Yesterday I got my hair did.
5) Yesterday I got my truck fixed.
4 and 5 are the same construction! But one uses "did." They both may be putting the emphasis on "I" or something else; I'd hazard a guess that there is a meaning difference between "got my hair did" and "got my hair done," but I don't really have the resources to figure that one out (the meaning difference could be anything, from perfect versus progressive, or maybe something in the overall components of the sentence (maybe one can include a location and one can't, or something like that)).
4. There are definitely people in and out of the community that seriously uses "hair did" that use it as a bad grammar joke. This is pretty common when people outside a community take another community's thing, especially if the outside community thinks it is funny. That doesn't make the origin of the original use "bad grammar," though.
tl;dr: There probably is a rhyme or reason to it and it isn't "bad grammar" (whatever that even means ). PEACE OUT!
Last edited by mic0 on Fri Aug 01, 2014 11:14 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: "hair did" and "bad grammar"
I always wondered if any aides ever wanted to tell then-President George W. Bush "Sir, it's nuclear, not nookyular."
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Re: "hair did" and "bad grammar"
Interesting analysis.
ETA: That's not even grammar, that's palatalization and a stupid straw man to distract from many policy problems in the Bush administration.
ETA: That's not even grammar, that's palatalization and a stupid straw man to distract from many policy problems in the Bush administration.
Re: "hair did" and "bad grammar"
Portia wrote: ETA: That's not even grammar, that's palatalization and a stupid straw man to distract from many policy problems in the Bush administration.
Could you imagine if the president said "to-mah-to" instead of "to-may-to"? The second one is "standard" but the first one is so widely spoken (and by people we consider prestigious), that it would be a kind joke, not a mean one. Unfortunately the "weird" pronunciation of nuclear is done by people from less prestigious social spheres, therefore it is funny and "wrong."
Re: "hair did" and "bad grammar"
Funny bit with Jeff Foxworthy talking about people's perceptions about people with Southern accents, including what one might think if brain surgeons and wealth managers had deep Southern accents . The part where he talks about youns (Y'all plus three) reminded me how I heard yous all the time in Pennsylvania from many socioeconomic levels. In our mission, pretty much every area had some kind of community service opportunity established (in one area, missionaries helped at a food bank once a week, in another, they helped clean a public park once a week, etc...) Well, when I was in one area, we were looking for another venue, since the current one was going to be discontinued. We were asking at a local hospital if there were any volunteer openings available for regular once-per-week performance. The head of personnel at the hospital continually referred to the two of us as yous.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Re: "hair did" and "bad grammar"
I guess I don't understand why you're irked? I didn't mean to disparage people who say it. Is it grammatically correct to write or say "I got my hair did."?
I grew up in Detroit at a majority black school and I remember my black English teacher lecturing us one day about saying things like "got my nails did" and things like that. I was just basing my comments off my experience in a community that said things like that.
Basically I just don't see why you're so irked. There was no malicious or disparaging intent.
I grew up in Detroit at a majority black school and I remember my black English teacher lecturing us one day about saying things like "got my nails did" and things like that. I was just basing my comments off my experience in a community that said things like that.
Basically I just don't see why you're so irked. There was no malicious or disparaging intent.
Re: "hair did" and "bad grammar"
Didn't I make your first point? That was my intent.
Re: "hair did" and "bad grammar"
And as for point two, one is not inherently better but don't we have a grammar guide or accepted usage of the English language? One is considered more proper and that's just the way it is. Ain't is not considered proper, I think we all know. What's wrong with acknowledging that?
Re: "hair did" and "bad grammar"
I mean maybe grammar is the wrong word to use but honest question here: is saying "I got my hair did" a proper usage of the English language? By modernly accepted standards? I wish we had l'academie francaise in the US to settle such things.
Re: "hair did" and "bad grammar"
Also I'm on my phone in class (for shame) which is why I'm just posting instead of editing. Laziness.
Re: "hair did" and "bad grammar"
CEDILLE ALERT! CEDILLE ALERT! WE HAVE A CODE 0199! I'm pretty sure you're going to get Katyaed on this one. Going to just sit back and watch the carnage. :PConcorde wrote:I wish we had l'academie francaise in the US to settle such things.
Re: "hair did" and "bad grammar"
She can feel free to come in and correct me. I'm not linguistics. I'm well aware I don't know crap. I just hate irking people or having people upset with something I said when I wasn't even trying to upset anyone. YOU WILL BE MAD ONLY WHEN I WANT TO MAKE YOU MAD. Please.
Also I left an accent out. I'm in a French literary analysis class right now so it's doubly shameful.
Also I left an accent out. I'm in a French literary analysis class right now so it's doubly shameful.
Re: "hair did" and "bad grammar"
It is grammatically correct to write or say "I got my hair did" within AAVE. Standard American English, what is taught in most U.S. schools and grammar books, does not use that construction, but that doesn't make it grammatically incorrect in another dialect of English. I agree with you that it is fine to acknowledge that there is a generally accepted proper way of speaking. That being said, it is also important to acknowledge that "proper" English is a made-up idea that often ends up reflecting people's socio-economic background rather than any actual measure of intelligence, education, or knowledge of language. The writers of Language Log said it better than I can in reaction to Weird Al's song "Word Crimes":
"First, while Weird Al talks about "grammar," most of his prescriptions do not pertain to what linguists consider the "grammar" of English, and this reflects a widespread divide between the use of the term "grammar" in everyday language and "grammar" by linguists. This divide frustrates linguists, because it makes them feel like everyone misunderstands the very substance and nature of their field of study.
Second, a little rumination on Weird Al's violent reactions against "bad grammar" raises deep and longstanding questions of social equity regarding class, education, race, age, ethnicity, gender, and how these relate to languages, dialects, and social registers. There is ample research on these issues (which any sociolinguist could point you to), but the upshot is that the notion of "Proper English" typically serves to prop up the already-privileged speakers whose native language variety it is (sort of) based on. This puts speakers whose native language variety does not approximate "Proper English" at an immediate disadvantage in society, the same way that privileging Whiteness puts those who are not White at an immediate disadvantage in society. It is not the linguistic differences themselves that do this (just as it is not the racial/ethnic difference themselves that determine privilege), but the *attitudes* about them. This is why many linguists are having a hard time laughing with Word Crimes: to do so feels like complicity in an ongoing project of linguistic discrimination that intersects with class, race, and other kinds of discrimination."
I definitely see what you're saying, it is just that from a strictly academic linguistics point of view there is no right or wrong grammar, just like biologists wouldn't say there is a right or wrong way for a shark to eat. (In this off-the-cuff analogy, shark species are dialects and the methods they use to eat are grammar...)
PS: as it always goes with The Board, I (the reader) probably inferred things you did not intend and am making a larger point rather than trying to criticize you personally.
"First, while Weird Al talks about "grammar," most of his prescriptions do not pertain to what linguists consider the "grammar" of English, and this reflects a widespread divide between the use of the term "grammar" in everyday language and "grammar" by linguists. This divide frustrates linguists, because it makes them feel like everyone misunderstands the very substance and nature of their field of study.
Second, a little rumination on Weird Al's violent reactions against "bad grammar" raises deep and longstanding questions of social equity regarding class, education, race, age, ethnicity, gender, and how these relate to languages, dialects, and social registers. There is ample research on these issues (which any sociolinguist could point you to), but the upshot is that the notion of "Proper English" typically serves to prop up the already-privileged speakers whose native language variety it is (sort of) based on. This puts speakers whose native language variety does not approximate "Proper English" at an immediate disadvantage in society, the same way that privileging Whiteness puts those who are not White at an immediate disadvantage in society. It is not the linguistic differences themselves that do this (just as it is not the racial/ethnic difference themselves that determine privilege), but the *attitudes* about them. This is why many linguists are having a hard time laughing with Word Crimes: to do so feels like complicity in an ongoing project of linguistic discrimination that intersects with class, race, and other kinds of discrimination."
I definitely see what you're saying, it is just that from a strictly academic linguistics point of view there is no right or wrong grammar, just like biologists wouldn't say there is a right or wrong way for a shark to eat. (In this off-the-cuff analogy, shark species are dialects and the methods they use to eat are grammar...)
PS: as it always goes with The Board, I (the reader) probably inferred things you did not intend and am making a larger point rather than trying to criticize you personally.
Re: "hair did" and "bad grammar"
And good luck reading this wall o' text on your phone. Oops!
Re: "hair did" and "bad grammar"
I think you're misreading Mico. I don't think she's angry, just disagreeing. We talked about this one time when Haleakalā thought we were "offended," and we weren't. We just disagreed.
Also, "I'm not linguistics?" Maybe the funniest thing on this board in a year. :D (Teasing, Concorde, teasing!)
Also, "I'm not linguistics?" Maybe the funniest thing on this board in a year. :D (Teasing, Concorde, teasing!)
Re: "hair did" and "bad grammar"
Yes, it is. Within that dialect. Brits say things that sound wrong to American English speakers, that is a part of dialects of a language. The French Academy tries to stop language change, a futile effort in the long run. I don't think it would work very well in the U.S. (does it work in France? Besides in official publications?).Concorde wrote:I mean maybe grammar is the wrong word to use but honest question here: is saying "I got my hair did" a proper usage of the English language? By modernly accepted standards? I wish we had l'academie francaise in the US to settle such things.
Re: "hair did" and "bad grammar"
Such tiny text....
Lol, I'm trying not to laugh in class right now. "I'M NOT LINGUISTICS! I AM CONCORDE."
Lol, I'm trying not to laugh in class right now. "I'M NOT LINGUISTICS! I AM CONCORDE."
Re: "hair did" and "bad grammar"
There tends to be few feelings of offense over here but lots of disagreeing. Maybe we need to make a FAQ with "you will be disagreed with - a lot." on it.Portia wrote:I think you're misreading Mico. I don't think she's angry, just disagreeing. We talked about this one time when Haleakalā thought we were "offended," and we weren't. We just disagreed.
Re: "hair did" and "bad grammar"
In the future start all critiques of my answers with a long winded complimentary paragraph about my beauty, charm and incredible amazingness. Soothe my ego.
Re: "hair did" and "bad grammar"
Board Board Editors*, you know what to do.Concorde wrote:"I'M NOT LINGUISTICS! I AM CONCORDE."
*Do you exist still?