Talk:New York Latino English

Removed nonsense about Sephardic Jews

1) Sephardic Jews are not latino (unless they happen to be latino, IE born in latin america etc) 2 Most NY Sephardic Jews Speak Arabic or Farsi as home language (or Hebrew) 3) even Latino Jews (Jews from Latin America) usually associate with other Jews and tend to take on there Dialects 4) Ladino Speakers are not found in abundance in NY (as apposed to say seatle) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.241.66 (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

found this page

I found this page, my area of research specialization, and decided to correct and professionalize it generally. I still can't figure out how to use IPA here, so I haven't. If someone knows how, please do the edits. Also, I'd love to change the name of the article to New York Latino English and make this page just a link there. It's kinda lame having the main article saying that the name of the article is a misnomer. It isn't even all that common anymore. Everyone with the least familiarity with the city knows that the Latino community is no longer predominantly Puerto Rican, although all props and respect are due to the Boricuas out there.

On the other hand, let me request that if you do not have research in your hand that supports any edits you want to make, please refrain from adding them (yo, page creator, that means you too with all due respect!). Enthusiasm for the topic is wonderful, but it doesn't help to add impressionistic notions or myths. It undermines the purpose of the Wikipedia, making it little more than a massive irregular blogspot. If anyone out there reading this is an undergraduate or even a high school student, you are welcome to visit the link at the bottom for the NY Latino English project and put yourself into contact with me. I'll put you to good serious work on the topic, and you may even get credit for it!

Sephardic Jews

In no way do sephardic Jews see themselves in the same vein as anyone who identifies him/herself as a "latino." Sephardic Jews relate to Jews first and foremost. Latino is a new identification marker and Sephardic Jew is not. Further, Sephardic Jews think like Jews, meaning, they think in historical persepective, and avoid fads and trends in thinking, talking, and behaving. For this reason, Sephardic Jews should not be included in this summary of illiterate New York Public School-driven Hispanic English. ?Me entiende profesor? Gracias, pero los judios sefardi no quieren ser incluidos con los dichos latinos en "Nueva Yol", y, no hablamos como ellos hablan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.44.93.71 (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

If, instead of anonymously adding in ignorant racist nonsense to the discussion, you had simply edited out the reference to Sephardic Jews in the main article, you would have done everyone a favor. mnewmanqc (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

==

"In some movies American street thugs, including non-Latino ones, may use NYLE features or other features of other Latino English varieties. As result, some people may inaccurately associate NYLE with delinquent street culture." Wrong. Many people associate NYLE with failure to become educated. Not being educated often results in a life of delinquent street culture. So, it is not so inacurrate when the common denominator between NYLE and delinquent street culture is failure to become educated. Pul-lease. What crap! 24.44.93.71 04:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Two Statements Regarding AAVE Influence Lack Source And Are Disputable

The dialect shows influence of New York European American English and African American Vernacular English and contact with Spanish.

What proof is there that New York Latino is influenced by AAVE? In this statement too, it's misleading. It's saying there's a balance of AAVE and New York dialect, which there's not, for a variety of reasons. One, the European-American population of New York is significantly higher than the African-American population. New York City is 11.6% African-American. It's 7% West Indian, 0.4% Sub-Saharan African immigrants and 8% Afro-Latino. New York City is close to 45 percent which, nearly 4 times the amount of the African-American population. Also, while there may be a few non-African-American's who speak AAVE, not all African-American's speak AAVE, so the percentage is below 11.6%.

Note that being West Indian is it's own ethnicity, and one of the largest ones of New York City. Contrary to the belief of someone who said West Indians resembled AAVE features, without a source, being black and African-American are not necessarily the same thing. Just because you're black doesn't mean you'll speak AAVE. In fact, most Caribbean immigrant's and their children wouldn't, because they're often apart of socioeconomic classes, which subsequently can create isolation.

In reference to Puerto Rican's, or other Latino's, is why would they speak AAVE? There are some reasons to support why there may be, but they're not listed on it. Also, although I won't change it, I don't agree with part the assessment of the beginning of the article, as it similarly lacks source. In that, it says New York Latino English. The problem is, if you were to look up New York dialect, that doesn't say European-American New York dialect, because European-Americans are not the only ones who speak it. Most New Yorker's, of all races speak that, or general American English, which certainly can hinge on what state they were born and raised in. Generally speaking though, immigrants and their descendants camouflage into the majority of the society. The second problem with saying New York Latino, and than saying sometimes called Nuyorican English is that it only recognizes Puerto Rican culture. Puerto Rican background only makes up roughly 3/8 of Latino ancestry in New York City.

Consonant cluster simplifications such as the loss of dental stops after nasals (e.g., bent) and fricatives, (e.g., left, test). this leads to a characteristic plural, in which words like tests are pronounced [t̪ɛst̪ɪs], sometimes written as testes. This feature is shared by African American Vernacular English.

I understand there's little source throughout much of this page, which is another problem of it's own, but in this particular quote, it'd be necessary for two reasons. It's saying that this feature is in AAVE, which there's nothing to support that. The fact is no there has to be evidence there to support such statements. Also, although it's not that important, the first word wasn't properly capitalized.

It's common knowledge that immigrant's will camouflage into majority rule. In saying that, it'd be widely to accept why New York Latino English would have more traits relevant to English. Also, AAVE is not regarded as an official form of English, and is highly regarded by some, namely Thomas Sowell, as less educated. Mind that he's brilliant, an African-American born and raised in North Carolina in 1930, who lived through the heart of the Civil Rights movement. He once referred to AAVE as a dysfunctional break off of white southern culture. I don't necessarily agree with that assessment, but it's certainly true that AAVE is a product of southern culture. And for that, it often doesn't camouflage itself into Northern states, especially New York City, which is one of the heaviest and distinctive accents in the region. So speaking AAVE in New York City can arguably be seen as a form of non-assimilation into dominant mainstream linguistics. The heaviest traits of AAVE tend to be in the poor and working class sector too, because many, like Sowell, viewed AAVE to be dysfunctional in the professional world. Therefore, many either don't speak AAVE or limit it.

It'd be hard that a new working-class immigrant group, such as Puerto Ricans, who primarily moved to NYC and other parts of the U.S. in between 1946-1964, would assimilate or significantly take after the traits of an accent that's heaviest within poor and working-class individuals. I'm not saying it's not possible, but the facts don't support it. Nearly all Puerto Rican-Americans in the New York City area don't speak a dialect similar to AAVE. Not just have the younger generation been born in America, but most of their parents were too, and sometimes, even grandparents. So Puerto-Rican's aren't reflective of other newer Latino groups in New York City. New York City had a considerable population decline in the 1970's, as did many city's, and between the Vietnam War and a sluggish economy, immigrant's were less encouraged to come during this period of time. So there's often 2 to 4 decades in terms of arrival to the U.S. that separate Puerto Ricans (as well as Cubans) and Dominicans, Colombians and other Latino groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.230.11 (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. In any case, the similarities between New York Latino English are in fact documented first in Wolfram (1974), who dealt with Puerto Rican English, and in Slomanson & Newman (2004), who report on speakers from Puerto Rican and non-Puerto Rican heritages. mnewmanqc (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The variation among Puerto Rican and non-Puerto Rican descendants is going to vary greatly lingually, primarily for the fact that nearly all young and middle-aged Puerto Ricans in the New York area are born in the U.S. Many groups, such as Dominicans, Colombians or others, are foreign-born. You can see this in a variety of ages. Because Puerto Rican descendants have been in New York longer, it means they're more likely to be mixed, primarily with European-Americans, since they're the largest group and are heavily Catholic like Puerto Ricans. I'm not necessarily disputing what's been reported from Wolfram, but the fact is, it's somewhat outdated. Most non-Puerto Rican and non-Cuban Latino descendants in New York City weren't there in 1974.

The point I was making in that though was that New York Latino and Puerto Rican are not the same thing. Even if there are similarities, there are variances, especially hinging on where people were born and raised, which varies tremendously for Puerto Rican's and other Latinos. New York Latino English should not automatically equal Nuyorican and that's the vibe the entry of this article gives.

My main argument in this section though was that AAVE and New York Latino don't have similar features, not that can be proven or sourced. Tom72.73.230.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC).

Chicano English also shares some of the above features.

Two questions in response to this. One, to who ever wrote this, where did you get this from? There's no source. Honestly, I'd never connect the two. So I have to ask, why?

The only things the two share in common are that Chicaco English has Spanish and English features. That's too broad to use as a justification. Spanish spoken in Mexican and Puerto Rican culture varies greatly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.230.11 (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There are no confusions of tense and lax vowels, outside contexts where other native speakers often vary usage. So sheep is never confused with ship, although really and ceiling may be pronounced with lax vowels, as in African American Vernacular English.

The assessment here is also disputable. Obviously, there's no source, but beyond that, I believe the words that are being used are poor examples. Tom72.73.230.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC).

Tom, there is actually a source for pre-liquid laxing in Latino English, but it's a talk given at a conference, and so it's not easily recoverable. So I'm fine with leaving it out. As for the lack of similarity with AAE, I just don't follow you. If you're arguing that there is no similarity, then you have to find something in the literature that supports your position, but the only sources that exist say there is a relationship between them. There's also a relationship between NYLE and the local European American NY Dialect, but there is no research supporting that. It's just easy to tell by listening to people. When I or someone else publishes data on this in a peer reviewed journal or book, then we can post it here. However, as of now there is one book and one article now on the connections with AAE and nothing disputing that. So that needs to stay in. Furthermore, I am confident that nothing disputing that will be published, complexifying it possibly but not disputing it. Why? because anyone who looks at the data will see that there is a close relationship, as befits the historical patterns of neighborhood settlement in New York. But perhaps that's not what you're saying. I do have a bit of difficulty following you.mnewmanqc (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're arguing that there is no similarity, then you have to find something in the literature that supports your position, but the only sources that exist say there is a relationship between them.

Similarly though, wouldn't you need to find literature that supports your theory that there are similarities to AAVE? I'm not saying what you're stating about the New York Latino English dialect is necessarily incorrect. I'm saying you're basing it's similarities to AAVE, without proving that the traits exist in AAVE to begin with.

In this kind of issue,

There's also a relationship between NYLE and the local European American NY Dialect, but there is no research supporting that.

It'd be much more supportable though, because as I mentioned, European-Americans make up nearly 4 times the population of African-Americans, in New York City. Also, many European-American's can trace their roots longer in the city than African-American's have, so this has greater social effects on the city's history.

I'll give you an example though. A Latin American or Asian immigrant moves to some place in the Mid-West. Their children just sound speak General American, like most people out there. Although General American traces much to various European-American ethnic groups, it's not a European-American accent. Similarly, in New York City, the European-American action often serves as the default accent. You could use the south as an example too. When Latino or Asian immigrants move there, usually, because of environment, their children have southern accents. Is speaking with a southern dialect a European-American trait? I guess, but, because AAVE is usually seen as backwards and less educated, it stays within this class. However, although some expressions may be, the southern accent as a whole is not viewed by southerner's to be backwards.

Simply, what I'm saying is, that out of default, immigrants camouflage into the populace, which motivates itself towards upward mobility. To insinuate Latino immigrants would take after the lingual traits of the poorer portion of another ethnicity is somewhat demeaning to them.

As far as sources go though, I wasn't the one placing statements on here, so it's not my position to get sources. I was just taking it off, because it lacked source. My view may not be right or wrong, depending on opinion, but it's open-ended, so that's why I wouldn't write it on there. Otherwise, it'd be like a student giving their teacher a research project and the teacher asking for a source and than the student asking the teacher for a source to disprove his research.

It's just easy to tell by listening to people.

How? You didn't describe how. My ears, as well as other's, may not hear the same thing as you than.

When I or someone else publishes data on this in a peer reviewed journal or book, then we can post it here.

Journals and books are long. They don't always give one dry cut answer. When reading, you have to create your own interpretation of what it means. Unfortunately, it doesn't mean other's will see it the same way. If the person believes there argument is sufficient, they should specifically refer to quotes from the journal or book as a reference, and than the creator of the article should verify this. This would be more useful than someone writing two sentences their own personal opinion. Unfortunately, people are lazy and probably wouldn't want to go through all that trouble, which is a big flaw of Wikipedia and info on the internet.

However, as of now there is one book and one article now on the connections with AAE and nothing disputing that.

I want to see specific quotes, and even paragraphs, of how this is relevant to one another. You say there's nothing disputing that, as if there's actually no fact to be disputed. Whereas, the only reason why it's not being disputed, on Wikipedia, is because no one has the energy to refute statements. As I'm sure you know, it's much more common for people to add information than to delete it on Wikipedia. Nearly all people who delete info usually work for the site. I've seen some of the most ridiculous writings on this site. Sadly, up until a little while ago, a Wikipedia article on Bradford Township Pennsylvania said that the town was 98 percent Martian. I don't even know if people have access to edit that part of the site. Sadly, it stayed up there for months.

Furthermore, I am confident that nothing disputing that will be published, complexifying it possibly but not disputing it.

Than several of the most important article's quotes should be placed on here. A big problem with that though is their may be information, especially that works against the point the person's trying to make, in the book or article, that won't be placed on here.

Why? because anyone who looks at the data will see that there is a close relationship, as befits the historical patterns of neighborhood settlement in New York.

Once again, that's vague. What's the data? The historical patterns of neighborhood is easily disputable. Lots of Jewish people living in the same neighborhood as African-Americans, particularly in Brooklyn, yet there's not much impact from AAVE onto Jewish New Yorkers, nor a Jewish-New Yorker impact on AAVE. That statement would be true to Jewish New Yorkers, all poor, middle class and rich.

The reason for is likewise to African-American's who speak AAVE, usually for socioeconomic reasons, they have much isolation from the rest of society. Although for different reasons, sometimes associated to religion, or higher economic and education status, many Jews have isolated and maintained their own identity. Therefore, African-American's who speak AAVE the heaviest are usually poorest and least educated, and have the highest amounts of isolation, which includes Latinos. That's why I don't understand how you could said it's easy to tell, because this is a complicated subject where it's not really dry cut. Tom72.73.230.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC).

Tom, I'm trying to understand what your argument is, but I just can't figure it out. I think you can't understand my points either, so it's just best to end this discussion. The only thing I want to say is that if you want to make any changes, please read the papers cited first and if you feel quotations are useful, then add them. I'm satisfied with how it reads now. mnewmanqc (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

edit war

Unfortunately, an edit war has broken out due to anonymous edits by 121.58.200.168 who is inserting the following statement, which I can't actually understand and in any case comes with no references:

"Large populations of Latino Americans of African descent (including mulattoes), started by Afro-Puerto Ricans, tend to acquire a mixture of distinct Caribbean accent (similar to that of nearby islands in the West Indies from Puerto Rico) and African American Vernacular English (AAVE) by tone, and New York Latino English by phonology"

I'm not sure what to do at this point. mnewmanqc (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is this on a separate page?

It seems that, although there are separate grammatical features, the majority of the phonological features seems to be very similar to New York City English. To explain my position in full, here is a list of the features that are shared with New York:

• Dental stopping

• Lack of velarization of initial l

• Variable rhoticity

As for the grammatical features, I don't think they really justify classifying this as a separate dialect. Both Italian and Jewish speakers also use separate grammatical features. However, they are not considered to be separate dialects. Rather, they are variations of the New York dialect.LakeKayak (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

There is one more thing I probably should say. @Mnewmanqc: I understand that you have written books on New York Latino English. Therefore, showing all due to respect to you, my only question is whether or not this article should be on its own Wikipedia page. And I will not question the authenticity of your findings.LakeKayak (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to moving it. Point of Information: I didn't write any books on NYLE, but I wrote one book on NYCE. mnewmanqc (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mnewmanqc: Then, I apologized. I thought you said New York Latino English was your primary area of study.LakeKayak (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. My conclusion was partially influence by the fact that this page was rarely watched, anyway. (I only could tell from the page history.) Nonetheless, the page has been moved successfully with New York City English.LakeKayak (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Redirect

New York Latino English seems to be a variety of New York City English. Therefore, the former contents of this page have been moved to the aforementioned page. And this page has been turned into a redirect page.

Hi, LakeKayak. You've voiced concerns over this article just being "a very specific ethnolect of New York City English" and you "fail to see the argument of why it merits its own page". You also mention that it appears to have "unusual information and seemed to be written as someone's personal opinion". I have a few responses:

• Is it actually clear that New York Latino English is merely a subset of New York City English? Linguist Michael Newman (assuming this is Mnewmanqc?) never seems to classify it as such. He certainly describes it as having a relationship to NYCE. In fact, he directly describes NYLE as "a mix of African American English and local European American English with features from Spanish". In my thinking, that is a fairly clear example of its own unique dialect, much like how Vermont English is a mix of Southwestern New England English and Northeastern New England English (which Charles Boberg thus resolves to regard as its own unique dialect), or like how many dialects, really, are a mix of other neighboring dialects or resistance to neighboring dialects or a mix or resistance to the influences from other languages, etc., etc.
• What is the "unusual information"?
• Which parts do you feel are opinionated? I'd be happy to make them sound less so.
• Are there other reasons why you think this topic fails to merit its own page? Even if it is "just" a subset of NYCE (which I doubt), "sub-dialects" of several other established dialects have their own separate pages on WP (e.g. Baltimore accent, Philadelphia English, Maine accent, etc.). Wolfdog (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: I can answer your questions, but I can only focus one question at a time. For one, it seems rather unusual to music preferences as a means to define a source of variability in speech. This is what also seemed to be more opinionated than fact.LakeKayak (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

LakeKayak It's larger than simply music preference. We're talking about subcultures with their own distinct "style" of a particular dialect. (Hip-hop here refers to an entire subculture, not just a casual music preference.) This is a sociolect: a language variety determined by one's social group. More "weirdly" arising sociolects have been documented in the past; see Polari for example. Also, this is based on an actual academic and oft-cited study. Wolfdog (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Wolfdog, just so you know where I'm coming from, I do find the concept of a sociolect being spoken only by homosexuals also to be unusual, or at least it gives over my head. But if I can't understand something, I may just have to move past it.

Moving right along, to you third question, I think that whether or not NYLE merits its own page would be more like similar to asking whether or not an Italian New York accent merits its own page, rather than Philadelphia or Baltimore English. Some of the phonological features of NYLE seem to be very similar if not identical to "mainstream" NYCE per se. While there is variability from "mainstream", there is also variability between Italian and Jewish speakers. That's where I was under the impression that this was only an ethnolect of NYCE in the way that Labov reports of an Italian or Jewish ethnolect.LakeKayak (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The status of Italian New York City English is that it is New York City English proper, plus certain features variably pronounced stronger than with other ethnic groups. But no Italian NYCE features actively contradict established NYCE features. The same cannot be said for NYLE. NYLE is a mixing of at least three linguistic sources without necessarily favoring any one and variations strongly correlated by one's subculture. A NYLE speaker's monophthongal PRIZE vowel can actually contradict NYCE. A NYLE speaker's monophthongal FACE and GOAT vowels can contradict NYCE. Read just the first page of this PDF to see that NYLE is being seriously considered as its own emergent dialect. (No one seems to be saying the same thing for the New York City English of Italian Americans... in fact, I can't find any current scholarly sources on that topic whatsoever, despite past studies.) The rest of the 33-page article never says anything to suggest that NYLE comes most directly from, or is an outgrowth of, NYCE (called "NYEAE" in the article). It simply uses NYCE as a point of comparison, and strong differences are noted. Meanwhile, the Slomanson and Newman article outright says that "our data show that New York Latino English (NYLE) is distinct from both African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and New York European American Vernacular English (NYEAVE)." Again, no one argues that about Italian NYCE, and that's the important distinction to make.

A sociolect means a dialect spoken by a group of people unified by cultural reasons other than simply their geographic proximity. So it shouldn't surprise you that sociolects can arise in all kinds of unusual social situations. Think how even people in a particular profession develop their own jargon that is only understood by fellow coworkers. Wolfdog (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: I stated my thoughts on the sociolect only for humor.LakeKayak (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

RE: "Think how even people in a particular profession develop their own jargon that is only understood by fellow coworkers." – I am not actually familiar with this which may have contributed to my confusion. Could you enlighten me?LakeKayak (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: I think I may understand now. I have possibly have come across people inventing vocabulary for humor. However, just for humor here, I don't think I have simply come across people creating a new dialect, per se, before now. I think that may be why I was confused.LakeKayak (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New York Latino English. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050309100939/http://qcpages.qc.edu/LCD/faculty/newman/NYLE.html to http://qcpages.qc.edu/LCD/faculty/newman/NYLE.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)