Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 18:46:11 -0500
From: PPATRICK[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]GUVAX.BITNET
Subject: Re: Recent Black English
Re: Sali's and Tim Frazer's comments on BEV/AAVE habituals.
Yes, actually, Labov's analysis of habituals was referred to in the
earlier discussion, though not by Sali (but this is a list-- do we
have to make attributions here too?!). And if the point is that the
"BE" construction isn't habitual, then Labov's and others' (e.g.
Smitherman, 1997) analyses would in fact be "all wrong", and that
would be important to know (I think; anyway, that's why I said it.)
Thanks to Tim for clarifying the student's intuition. If this
is what the intuition is, then it isn't the same as Sali's subtler
distinction among Habituals; it's a denial that either type of
Habitual applies in AAVE. This seems to be wrong for the people I have
come in contact with, though since I'm not an AAVE researcher that's
just an impression so far.
Sali's semantic distinction does seem useful and apt; thanks
for clearing up that these are sub-types of Habitual. Also, it seems
perfectly well-articulated to me! I think linguists can articulate
these things as well as the next guy-- probably better. Native
speakers are useful for intuitions, and lots of other things, but give
me a linguist when it comes to articulating semantic distinctions--