The response from Blogger Support:

Hi Robert,

Thanks for notifying us of this issue. We had a number of unplanned outages in early February, resulting in various problems in Blogger and BlogSpot, including a number of cases in which posts would be lost when users republished their blogs. The full details were posted on our status page (http://status.blogger.com) at that time, though things should be working normally now. We apologize for the problems this has caused, but please be assured that we are actively working on preventing this from happening again, and on improving the reliability of Blogger and BlogSpot. Thank you for your patience.

Sincerely,
Blogger Support

Thanks to Hayden for digging up the cached copies on Bloglines.

March 30, 2006 · Uncategorized · (No comments)


I have been fascinated by the particulars of the dialect of English spoken by my students (and some other teachers and staff), and its divergence from my own dialect (and from the somewhat artifical standard). I’ve begun compiling a list of features, in no particular order, and what follows is a non-exhaustive sample.

Sugar as a noun for diabetes. When told not to chew gum or eat candy in class, students will sometimes claim that they need it because they “have sugar.” The teacher with the classroom next door (and who is from the area) has said to me, “I don’t have sugar per se, but I’m border-line, and I like to keep a snack around.”

Sinuses as a noun for allergies. When a sniffling student with red, watery eyes is asked how he is feeling, he might respond, “I’m okay, I just got sinuses.” (Responding with the information that we all have sinuses is met with blank stares.)

There are several peculiarities of prepositions, the most strange to me the use of on with relative days or times: “On tomorrow we will hold a meeting,” “on yesterday we won the game,” “on this evening we have a lot of homework.” It’s perhaps not so strange when one realizes that the same preposition is perfectly standard and conventional for absolute dates (“on the 15th,” “on Thursday,” “on Thanksgiving”). Still, I wonder where this use came from.

More widely known (from rap music?) is the redundant preposition: “it stinks up in here,” “get yourself up out of here.”

Evening is often used where I would say afternoon. When we have a faculty meeting after school (3:00), teachers say that we have a meeting this evening. I believe I’ve even had my sixth and seventh period students come to me in the morning to ask about what we’d be doing this evening.

Supper is the word for dinner. It sounds archaic and folksy to me, but it’s the first word used for the evening meal. I’m not sure if dinner presents connotative differences or if it is simply unused. (I believe the local way precedes my own, since I think etymology suggests that dinner should mean breakfast.)

To lose one’s manners as a verb meaning to fart. I hear this one every day. “Mr. Pollack! Somebody done lost his manners over here!”

Na’un. I’m still unsure of this one. I’m fumbling to spell it phonetically (the vowels are different enough here that I have trouble replicating or reliably remembering them). This word (construction?) is not particularly common, but I’ve heard it several times, and always as a negation when two (or more?) options are presented. Is it a contraction of neither one? Of neither of them? Of (could it even be?) nary a one?

Carry as a very broad verb meaning to take or to escort. May be used even of people, as in, “She carried us to Memphis when she got a job there,” or, “He carried her to the movies for a date.”

The Mississippi Long U. (Is it the Delta Long U? Is it shared by any white populations?) Sometimes it sounds like an r is being interposed after every long u, sometimes like a German ö (or oe, as in Goethe). It’s very clear in words like community, excuse, computer, cute, which can almost sound like commurnity, excurse, compurter, curt. I’ve got a student whose last name is Hughes, and it’s very clear there, too.

Dropped copula on predicate nominatives (as in Greek or Latin — which likeness comes as a great surprise to my students). I think this construction is recognized and understood everywhere in the English-speaking world(as a result of movies? music?): “He working right now,” “You sick?”

Well known, again, is the use of the verb to be very differently than in my own or the standard dialect, though I’m not sure I understand the morphological distinctions. There might be a distinction between a phrase that drops the copula and one that uses to be: “You happy” vs. “you be happy.” If there is a distinction (of aspect?), I’m not sure what it is. Most of the standard conjugations of to be seem not to be used much (despite my pesterings to use them when writing S.A.E. — Standard American English — essays).

The third-person singular verb is never conjugated, which is another widely recognized feature of Southern and of African American speech, though it is quite unsurprising phonetically: the final s is almost never pronounced. It is not a peculiarity of third-person verbs. No s is pronounced at the ends of plural nouns, of genitive nouns, or even of many words which ordinarily ends in the letter. “My friend’s car” becomes “my friend car;” “all my friends go” becomes “all my friend go.” Sometimes some kids will even pronounce a word like glass as glah, though this is less common, and the missing s seems to become an aspiration. (It is interesting that Spanish dialects in much of Latin America do the same thing — and are even similarly associated with rural areas and lower economic classes, I think. Spanish even does it with a medial s, [in Buenos Aires, obelisco is just as often obelihhh-co] but I don’t think I’ve heard that in Mississippi.)

Another widely known: the healthy reflexive verb, as in, “I ate me some food.”

One of the first features I noticed, which I had never heard before and which is totally ubiquitous is the inverted syntax on questions. “What is that?” becomes “What that is?”

The dummy pronoun on existential to be is it, not there as in my dialect and the standard. Thus, “there is something” becomes “it is something.” I still can’t force my ear to hear this construction as existential, and have to perform a conscious translation each time. I’ve explained this to my students with the insight that there’s no reason for any pronoun there apart from convention (in Spanish, for instance, one uses the verb haber) but they didn’t seem particularly interested.

The pluperfect verb seemingly to introduce a preterite narrative. The most common use is the phrase, “what had happened is” to begin a story in the past-tense. The pluperfect is not generally used again once the narrative has been so introduced. I don’t think it should be heard as a pluperfect, just as an indication of the tense of the whole narrative to follow. (My kids don’t much use perfects or pluperfects in the standard way, I think, and I’m not sure if they hear in them the distinction that I do — again, an analog to Spanish or French.)

Trying to as a verbal phrase to mean wanting to or about to or starting to, which may be used for inanimate objects. “My tooth is trying to hurt.”

Ain’t as a past-tense negation. Of course I’m familiar and comfortable with ain’t, but don’t think I had ever known it to be used in the past-tense. “I ain’t know” (for “didn’t know”).

Room for class. “Mr. Pollack, what grade am I getting in your room?” Once, when my class was in the library, someone referred to “this room” but they meant my class, and not the library.

I will add more as I discover or remember them.

March 30, 2006 · Language · 5 comments


What follows is a response to “The Reading Wars” by Nicholas Lehmann, Atlantic Monthly, November 1997. This article was given to me and my classmates by Dr. Mullins, who requested a response. It discusses the controversy over the relative merits of the phonics and “whole-language” methods of reading instruction, which apparently raged in California during the 1990s.]

It is clear, of course, that there is no simple solution to the eponymous “wars,” and there is probably no simple response to the debate that comprehends its complexity and that treats both sides with fairness. I am left believing that I cannot justly take a position on the relative merits of the phonics and whole-language methods of reading instruction because I remain too aware of my ignorance about them. I gather the basic distinction, or at any rate I believe that I do, but I am not at all clear about the theoretical bases of either, and am not informed of any persuasive data (all data presented in the article, as it readily admits, are politicized and muddy).

It seems to me that phonics is informed by the history of writing, while whole-language is informed by the experience of fluent reading. (I do not mean with this impression to denigrate or to elevate either of them.) The association of image to sound is fundamental to all true alphabets (as opposed to ideograms), and while it remains particularly vivid in many written languages, over the last several centuries it has become less clear in written English. English spelling today is as indicative of etymology and historical pronunciation as it is of contemporary pronunciation. “Sounding out” words, especially bigger words, seems essentially to be a process of decoding gibberish that sounds close enough to an already-known word to recognize the likeness; and thus children ploddingly read: chuh-ill-duh-ren, chuhilduhrehn, CHILDREN! It is no longer the case in English, as it is in many languages, that a competent reader can, upon encountering a new word in writing, know with certainty how to pronounce it. Nevertheless, the spelling is by no means arbitrary, and the association, though it may in cases seem tenuous, is not altogether absent. So teaching the sounds and their association to letters and letter-combinations seems a reasonable and historically obvious approach.

Fluent reading, however, is quite unlike sounding-out words. Upon reflection, fluent reading appears to be a remarkable and mysterious mental phenomenon. We who read expertly do not sound out words. We recognize the same symbols as associated to different sounds in different circumstances, sometimes according to syntactical rules so subtle we are not consciously aware of them (and sufficiently complicated that we could not keep track of them quickly enough to read even if we were conscious of them). Other times the discrepancy is arbitrary, and known only from experience. Indeed, we hardly notice individual letters. We recognize whole syllables, or whole words, or often even whole phrases, seemingly as single units. If we are actually analyzing the words as children do who are learning to read, we do it with the remarkable capacity of those subconscious faculties that allow us to stand and walk, while small children still compelled to control their muscles consciously must concentrate to stay upright, and nevertheless teeter and fall. Indeed, the experience of fluent reading seems to be holistic, not particularly analytical, and since all reading must eventually reach this place to be fluent, it seems fair enough a notion to nurture it deliberately.

Perhaps the most prudent path involves both methods – a foundation in phonics to introduce written language to the individual in the same way it was introduced to society, followed by a “whole-language” nurturing of whatever faculty of mind allows us to read without conscious analysis. Or maybe such is a diluted middle-path that misunderstands the basis and benefit of each method, and would be worse than either of the two in isolation. I simply don’t know enough to say. I can say, however, that I am somewhat surprised at the controversy, since it has seemed from my own clouded view that the central problem of literacy has had less to do with the particulars of first-grade reading lessons than with actual exposure to words and books and reading in all subsequent years. However kids first learn to turn marks on paper into language, they need to keep doing it, but most of them stop. Maybe the particulars of earliest instruction do exert some influence over the manner and time of their stopping, but I am inclined to think that the stopping itself is the most basic problem that needs to be faced, and the political “war” in California does not seem to have much awareness of it.

March 30, 2006 · Language, Teachering · (No comments)


I’ve completely lost two posts. They vanished. Something was fishy the night I posted them, because I remember that the first vanished before I posted the second, but I still had the first in a separate file so I reposted it. Now they’ve disappeared, and Blogger Support doesn’t seem to help much, as all their suggestions are clearly aimed at technically un-savvy users who might, say, delete their own posts by mistake.

I sent them an email and am still waiting for a response. I presume both posts are gone forever, which is lousy, since I can’t even remember what one of them was, and the other was a long-ish list/lexicon of dialectical features I’ve noticed in my students’ usage, and I spent quite a long time writing that one. I still have the rough list, but I’m not eager to re-write. I wish I could even remember what the other post was.

Maybe I’ll move the blog to another provider.

Nobody happened to cache a copy they still have floating around, did they?

March 29, 2006 · Uncategorized · (No comments)


I received an interesting comment to an old post:

I visited the area in the early 70s with Bobbie Lee herself. At that time I worked with her in Las Vegas. We have remained friends ever since. Much of the area in and around the famed Tallahatche Bridge is not what it was 30 years ago, actually poorer. It is in Chickasaw County, not far from Greenwood Mississippi. The bridge was, back then, almost unuseable. The so-called Choctaw Ridge is just one of many areas identified by the locals as “up on the ridge”, all with various little names. It is unlikely any map would identify the exact location of a Choctaw Ridge, people of the area called the same place different things. I can only say it is a real place, and probably long forgotten by most in the area now.

This is interesting, though “Chickasaw County” is not especially near to Greenwood, and the Tallahatchie River does not enter it. History is strange.

I’ve not posted anything in quite a while. Stress and procrastination are partners. I’ll add a few posts soon.

March 26, 2006 · Geography, History, Music, The South · (No comments)