Re: YAEPT alert! [Re: Not phonetic but ___???]

--- Roger Mills <rfmilly@...> wrote:
> Gary Shannon wrote:
> > --- Philippe Caquant <herodote92@...> wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Those people have access to French national TV
> > > channels, but it seems that in reaction, they do
> all
> > > they can to speak their own way.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > That's very interesting.  It might also be a
> reaction
> > against the French tendancy to "police" their
> language
> > more strictly than English.  Young people rebel
> > against authority, but since English lacks any
> > "authoritative" governing body there's not much to
> > rebel against except convention, and conventions
> > already vary widely enough that even in this area
> > there is no single convention against which to
> rebel.
> >
> > Although the cockney ryhming slang is a similar
> > attempt to define a certain in-group by deliberate
> > language alteration.
> >
> My guess would be that the under-class, be it 19th C
> Irish-American, early
> 20th C. Italo-American, or in all times
> African-American (change the names
> for the country of your choice-- Russo-Uzbek e.g.)
> is going to develop a distinctive argot.  Whether to
> conceal illegal
> activities or merely to épater les
bougeoises..............

You are probably correct.  In the 1920's the Chicago
gangsters had their own slang, but it seems to have
been limited to a few dozen novel words for such items
of black market commerce as "hootch".  For what reason
I'm not sure, but the U.S. seems to be particularly
devoid of any _extensive_ argots.

Anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

--gary

Reply