For the past couple of years, I have witnessed a trend in the way Americans speak English.

A few years ago, there was a movement to certify Ebonics as a language. Ebonics, as far as I was concerned was just a bunch of slang words added to the improper conjugation of the verb “TO BE” coupled as the helping verb to a main verb which often ended in “ing”.

Now there is a new way of speaking English which is epitomized by the McDonald's commercial that states. “I'm loving it.”

“I'm loving it” is of course short for “I am loving it”.

Why not “I love it”? Why do we need the helper or auxiliary verb “am”?

The difference between “I love it” and “I have been loving it for a long time” is obvious. The first statement is showing the present condition, while the second sentence shows an existing and past condition simultaneously.

Proper ********* New Alternative********** Ebonics

I run *********** I am running ************** I be run or I be running

He runs ******** He is running ************* He be running

You run ******** You are running ********** You be running

They run ******* They are running ********* They be running

Why would anyone use the longer alternative way.

I called up a customer service person and after I explained my problem, she asked, “So, what are you wanting me to do about it?”

How about the more easily constructed question, “So what do you want me to do about it?

It seems that in Ebonics they didn't conjugate the verb "to be" before placing it before the main verb which often ended in “ing”, but this new way of speaking is conjugating the proper helper verb properly, but always using a main verb which always ends in “ing”.

One step better, but still incorrect.

Can any English teachers out there tell me if I am right or wrong?

I am wanting to know. :confused:

I have heard that much of our customer service calls are now handled off-shore in India, a country that is very fond of the gerund. They say that it is cheaper to rout our calls to India and that we are none the wiser since the local folk are trained to speak American English.

LOL, Green...I think we have all experienced out-source frustration. It makes me CRAZY. And it's not even the gerunds, although that is pretty much a dead giveaway that I'm not really talking to "Bill from the Cleveland office".

And don't make them lose their place in the script by asking too many questions, or not responding per their training. They will just start all over again! It makes me want to SCREAM, "Listen, A Plus, I know what the hell I'm doing, now can we just move on to the REAL problem - your crappy product?"

My DH volunteered my services to one of his buddies - a retired aircraft mechanic who doesn't know RAM from ROM. He couldn't access the Internet via his new ISP. I worked on it for an hour or so and decided it was their software, so I called support. Sure enough, in no time at all I was talking to a guy in India who said his name was Abraham Lincoln (I swear). After a LOOOOOOOOOONG time, he finally agreed that the software was bad. His suggestion was that I go to my house, or a library, or an Internet cafe, and download a newer version, save it to a floppy disk (or other media), then take it back to the home of my DH's friend and install it. "Couldn't you just mail him a new CD?", I asked. "That would take too long", said Mr. Lincoln. I did the guy a huge favor and canceled his service. Then I signed him up with another ISP, which works, but I have no doubt that if he has problems with this one, the Support scenario will be pretty much the same. Maybe I'll get Bill Clinton next time. I always did want to talk to him.

"I am wanting a car" IS a badly constructed sentence. I can't think of a single instance wherein "I am wanting" would be grammatically correct. I hear similar usage all the time, though. On King of Queens the other night, Doug's wife said, "I'm not hatin' it." Now if that's not going all the way around the vocabulary farm to get to the outhouse, I don't know what is. Does that mean she likes it, but stops short of loving it? That would be my interpretation. I guess "I like it" would have been too uninspired.

As for "running"....it still depends on the context, no matter the form of the word.

I am running in the Boston Marathon.

I was running when he hit me with the bottle.

Our concept of good English changes with time, so maybe part of the problem is that us old people just don't always "get it". I have heard a number of people complain that the HBO series Deadwood was great, but the dialogue sometimes made no sense. The scriptwriters went to great lengths to use the vernacular of the times, just as Shakespeare did, and sometimes that makes for a tough read in 2006. Our high school kids would probably appreciate Romeo and Juliet a lot more if Juliet had cried out from the balcony, "Romeo, Romeo....you best be gettin' your sorry self over here 'fore I open up a can of whup ass on you."

Carlene -- You are hilarious. I think I'm going to have to steal your sentences for my Freshman comp. classes. It's good to know that some English professor was successful in getting across the idea of the introduction, body and conclusion, but the sad thing is that only English majors seem to have learned this. Thanks for a good laugh.

Abraham Lincoln! LOL That's hilarious. Were you laughing? I would be, and I would be tormenting the poor gerund-dude with many questions about his feelings on his assassination.

I'm an English professor and we don't worry too much about slang because it changes so often. I think the use of the present participle is a passing thing that is cool at the moment. We know that language really does change all the time which is good for those of us who teach linguistics. Also we realize that language is slippery and hard to pin down because it's a living thing and grows and changes all the time. We also studied Ebonics or African American English and found that when black folks were brought over as slaves, they kept the basic syntax (sentence structure) of their language and just substituted English words which is why they use "be" in the present tense all the time. That is the way West African languages used the verb form, so it's sort of historical really.

Actually we'd just like to get our students to be able to spell, but spelling in the English language makes no sense whatsoever. We don't necessarily spell words like they are pronounced. For example, through really should be thru. Though should be tho. The reason for this is that in the 17th century a bunch of scholars got together in England and standardized the language according to how THEYspoke it. The King James Version of the Bible is in 17th century English and it's hard to read. Anyway, pronunciations changed but the spelling didn't. I blame the English for this. In England, the town of Reading is pronounced redding. Leicester is pronounced lester. Those English people just don't speak English!

I heard an interview with an English fellow who headed a society that had the aim of simplifying spelling of the English language. He said that just for a start no other language had such complicated spelling for basic numbers - one, two, four, eight are the worst culprits.

Many years ago, the Harvard Educational Review ran a great article on a related topic. The author, Lisa Delpit, an African American and teacher, tried to express how important it is to not declare a "home language" (Ebonics, if you will, but my sister's ex spoke a strange conglomeration of English and he was white) wrong.

If you are white, and live in the mainstream white culture, there is no reason to be concerned about Ebonics or other non-mainstream language. (My very-anglo MIL, used to tell me it was time to bring the clothes in off the line "before they draw damp." That language worked well for her and her neighbors. I was the weirdo.) It works where it works and for whom it works.

The issue, as I understood Delpit, was that those in power in the classroom needed to teach students the difference between "home language" and "business language," and cause them to be proficient in the mainstream language which--because formal English proficiency was a key to the kindgom of power--might prove to be their key to success. That is NOT best accomplished by denigrating the language that THEY KNOW WORKS, in their neighborhoods and homes and churches.

That said, I overheard a Sheriff's department radio person give info as (data changed) "Subject is identified as James Jones, 123 Elm Street, outta Covina." Outta? OUTTA? Was any word necessary between the street and the city? They need a class on business English.

I'm pretty sure it gets my goat because I'm old.

I think I'm going to have to steal your sentences for my Freshman comp. classes. It's good to know that some English professor was successful in getting across the idea of the introduction, body and conclusion, but the sad thing is that only English majors seem to have learned this. Thanks for a good laugh.

You teach college English???? Where were you when this thread started?

PS...I had one particularly great comp teacher. I was intimidated by him, by the fact that I was one of those old people who ruin the curve in a classroom full of kids who were majoring in fun, and by the size of a full-scale university (I spent as many years as I could at community colleges. They finally made me file a degree plan and kicked me out.) The Prof and I did not communicate all semester, except via the work I turned in and the remarks he wrote in the margins of my papers before he handed them back to me. His standards were high, so high that a lot of kids dropped his class. I cherished every little word of praise. They were my gold stars. I learned from him that ideas, opinions, instructions - whatever you might be writing at the time - are more than just words. When they are well and thoughtfully put together, they are powerful. And if you write well, people will listen to you. They might not agree with you, but they WILL listen.

The issue, as I understood Delpit, was that those in power in the classroom needed to teach students the difference between "home language" and "business language," and cause them to be proficient in the mainstream language which--because formal English proficiency was a key to the kindgom of power--might prove to be their key to success. That is NOT best accomplished by denigrating the language that THEY KNOW WORKS, in their neighborhoods and homes and churches.

I couldn't agree more. I grew up in Texas, where people are famous for going "over yonder" and always seem to be "fixing to" do something . We don't put things away, we put them up. We have a colorful, descriptive way with words around here. A tough looking woman appears to have been rode hard and put away wet. If the neighbors have a smart-mouth kid, they need to have a come to Jesus meetin' with that boy. And one of my personal favorites, whenever someone is really full of himself, we say we'd like to buy him for what he's worth and sell him for what he thinks he's worth.

My mother had the greenest thumb around. Surveying my backyard one day, she said, "You need to do something about that lob lolly over yonder and move this tree before the roots get into your sidewalk and make it all catty wampus. Have you got a bill doogie?" Huh? My DH had no idea what she was talking about. But she got my full attention too when she announced that we had "a dead man" buried under the crepe myrtle tree. "What do you mean there's a dead man buried under there? How do you know?" For the uninitiated, a "dead man" in this context is a large piece of treated wood, approximately the same size and shape as a coffin. It is attached to a guy wire to keep it taut and buried 6 feet underground.

Now, with underground utilities being the norm, there are probably fewer and fewer homes around with dead men buried in the backyard. It was a real conversation stopper, and I will definitely miss them.

Currently, I am working on my dissertation for a Ph.D. in Adult Education. In mentoring about 6-8 Masters level students each semester, it's amazing to me how poorly the quality of writing has become. In fact, most colleges and universities now have something called a writing center. Students make an appointment and have their papers "corrected" for spelling and grammar use by proficient teachers and graduate level English majors.

It seems "spell check" and "grammar check" and the "thesaurus" available to students on word processing programs has taken a front seat to students actually writing drafts and then refining their academic writing endeavors.

While I'm on my soapbox, it's also pathetic to see how many professional emails I receive that lack correct spelling and grammar usage. It seems we really do need to go "back to basics" as standardized testing scores show a decrease in percentages of "passing" grades as the students progress in school. Sad!

Currently, I am working on my dissertation for a Ph.D. in Adult Education. In mentoring about 6-8 Masters level students each semester, it's amazing to me how poorly the quality of writing has become. In fact, most colleges and universities now have something called a writing center. Students make an appointment and have their papers "corrected" for spelling and grammar use by proficient teachers and graduate level English majors.

It seems "spell check" and "grammar check" and the "thesaurus" available to students on word processing programs has taken a front seat to students actually writing drafts and then refining their academic writing endeavors.

While I'm on my soapbox, it's also pathetic to see how many professional emails I receive that lack correct spelling and grammar usage. It seems we really do need to go "back to basics" as standardized testing scores show a decrease in percentages of "passing" grades as the students progress in school. Sad!

I agree. My grandmother was born in 1887 in a small farming community north of Ft Worth, TX. She went only as far as the 8th grade in school because there was nothing locally available thereafter. I have many letters and postcards written by her to family members over the years. Her spelling and punctuation, sentence structure and capitalization are impeccable. Her handwriting is perfectly legible. I am amazed - shocked, actually - that her one room country school house education may have been superior in some respects to what children receive now, over 100 years later.

As for "running"....it still depends on the context, no matter the form of the word.

I am running in the Boston Marathon.

I was running when he hit me with the bottle.

"I am running in the Boston Marathon" to me would be what someone might say as an announcement of what they plan to do rather than a statement made while running.

I guess if his cell-phone rang and he answered it during the race, and the caller asked, "What-cha doing?" Then:

"I am running in the Boston Marathon" might be a good answer.

Many years ago, the Harvard Educational Review ran a great article on a related topic. The author, Lisa Delpit, an African American and teacher, tried to express how important it is to not declare a "home language" (Ebonics, if you will, but my sister's ex spoke a strange conglomeration of English and he was white) wrong.

If you are white, and live in the mainstream white culture, there is no reason to be concerned about Ebonics or other non-mainstream language. (My very-anglo MIL, used to tell me it was time to bring the clothes in off the line "before they draw damp." That language worked well for her and her neighbors. I was the weirdo.) It works where it works and for whom it works.

The issue, as I understood Delpit, was that those in power in the classroom needed to teach students the difference between "home language" and "business language," and cause them to be proficient in the mainstream language which--because formal English proficiency was a key to the kindgom of power--might prove to be their key to success. That is NOT best accomplished by denigrating the language that THEY KNOW WORKS, in their neighborhoods and homes and churches.

#1. I am sorry I ever mentioned Ebonics. I was just using it as another comparison with the McDonald's "I'm loving it" and what I think is the correct statement "I love it".

#2. I believe I saw Lisa Delpit on a TV show debate when the (not quite accurate) headlines where about the Oakland School Board deciding to teach Ebonics. It was so funny to watch two Black women with PHD's in English debating Ebonics. I wish the white moderator would have had the gumption to ask Ms. Delpit, why when defending Ebonics as a language she spoke as perfect a version of American English as you would ever hear. If it was not Ms. Delpit in that debate, my comment is still as valid, because while one women condemned Ebonics (for the same reason as I) because it hinders communication and if spoken only at home, it will still hinder the practice makes perfect aspect needed to be proficient in Language, the other professor (who I believe was Ms. Delpit) defended it as a valid language.

TOM....I have come to the conclusion that you just like to argue.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. My mother used to say that I would argue with a fence post. I'm sorry she never had the opportunity to meet you. And I mean that in the nicest way possible. LOL...

As my MIL would have said..."I'm fixin' to get shed* of this debate."

*pronounced "get shut."

I am interested in language too, and now I am old enough that I am growing curmudgeonly about my mother tongue. I must tell you that I was puzzled by your earlier chat about ebonics. I thought it was a way of teaching English, something like phonetics perhaps. Now the question has been clarified; ebonics is Black American English and thus it is politically correct in a way that speaking rural redneck is not. It is true that Black Americans have been marginalized and were, moreover, originally imported against their will in order to live out their lives as slaves. African Americans feel that society owes them something and those white folks who are compassionate are inclined to agree.

Canada, my country, is officially bilingual; both English and French are official languages. That being said, everyone knows that English - or American - is what one has to speak in order to survive and prosper in this, an English speaking world. Though ebonics shows respect to a group of individuals who were maltreated, the laws of social Darwinism insist that minorities learn to adapt.