![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
If this is merely an "extremely minor article explaining a viewpoint of King's College researchers", as Mackan has put it, then perhaps the article should be renamed accordingly.-- CaptainSurrey 17:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The Jafaican article should state the known facts, which probably shouldn't include fresh research outcome. If I don't get any significant objections, I'm going to start restructuring this article, but not actually remove any content. The part which talks of King's College research is going to be titled "Left Wing Research", because that's what it is. No amount of leftwing censorship can change that.-- CaptainSurrey 17:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I've just requested The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (Penguin Press Science S.) (Paperback) from the city library. When I've finished reading that and photocopied the necessary pages, I shall post some references for a counter argument, in order to make this article more neutral; this article clearly is biased in favour of the left, but that's okay, as long as a counter presentation for centrism, is presented as well.-- CaptainSurrey 12:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Mackan, your edit reverts seem very aggressive and tyrannical. You should discuss the Non NPOV issue with myself, before you show leftwing agression in your rash editing. Why should it be such a problem for you, that there is a Non NPOV message at the top of this article? Are you trying to censor any challenge to this socialist propaganda?-- CaptainSurrey 23:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The example list has been a problem ever since it was first included. While I think that there at some stage probably was a source included for the few words which were first included, it has apparently been lost somewhere along the road, and even though I put a disclaimer before the list, unsourced additions have continued. Not only is the fact that the sources are unreferenced a problem, but the actual list is not compliant with Wikipedia policies. I propose, in accordance with the official policy, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary, to remove the entire list (even if a source were presented). As stated in the official policy;
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not: 1) Dictionary definitions. (...) 2) Lists of such definitions. (...) 3) Usage guides or slang and idiom guides. (...)
(see the link for further information) If nobody opposes, I will eventually remove the entire list. Mackan 19:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
"Used completely" by young inner-city working class Londoners? I think not. Those not of white-british extraction perhaps (and a fair amount that are), but completely? No way.
Would suggest looking up Jamaican Creole or West African Pidgin pages.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.174.95 ( talk) 18:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The articles by newspapers I have read about this dialect have been poorly researched and suggest cultural snobbery, so should not be sited as neutral reference points. I am not saying this about the university research on the subject.
So perhaps leave politics alone in this discussion and move on to a better researched and more accurate definition of what "Jafaican" actually constitutes if anything. OK, socio-politics may have a bearing on the origins of this dialect and perhaps could be neutrally researched. I doubt it is the only factor in the evolution of the dialect. In fact that the term appears to be in itself a slang word, which has been mainly used in a derogatory sense in the newspaper articles sited and rarely, if ever, by the people who speak this dialect. Perhaps it doesn't really have a place on Wikipedia at all.
I do think that the term "Jafaican" IS derogatory. Regardless of if it is a blend of the words African and Jamaican (Which I see as tenuous at best), I have rarely seen it used in this context and it will definitley get picked up as a way to describe how certain people speak as a derogatory term (It already is by newspapers). I actually find it slightly offensive. In the same way I find the word "pikey" offensive or "chav". So in some senses I agree with CaptSurrey's standpoint.
I also totally disagree with the word list. Which someone seems to be rather tyrannical about editing back to simple Jamaican patois or cockney street slang which appears elsewhere. Whoever is doing this seems as though they "know best". Not the case. I live in South East London (Which is perhaps the best place to hear the dialect) and have rarely heard half the words in this list used.. "Jafaican" is categorically not simply patois or Cockney.
What is most fundamentally ignored in the Wiki is that "Jafaican" is a BRITISH STREET LANGUAGE (predominantly from London, but not strictly) - And not actually a dialect at all. Much like Anthony Burgess' "droog" language in A Clockwork Orange it is built up of codes and metaphors which are created to seperate one subcultural tribe from another. Not only that, but it can be (and often is) affected. People who use it can often speak in many different ways, to suit their surroundings. The same difference as between "Rapped" English and spoken English. See what I'm getting at?
I would put forward the idea that whilst "Jafaican" does have some origin in African and Jamaican accenting and word use, it has mainly sprung up from subcultural youth tribes as a way to belong and identify with each other. I don't believe that the stated fact in the wiki that it springs from "inner city" youth is correct, as it's usage is far more widespread, across many (sub)cultural groups and classes than this. Speculation of this kind is the sort of thing that you will see on "Chavscum" and is not relevant to the DIALECT, which, after all is what we are dealing with here. So should be revised.
Phrases that you will DEFINITELY hear in modern (especially London subcultural) street slang:
So therefore it could be stated that "Jafaican" also constitutes American street slang, British (Dance culture) street slang and not strictly simply Jamaican and African blended as seems to be asserted in the article.
It is also worth noting something about it's grammatical usage. Rather than just stating individual words out of context. (Perhaps from some conducted field research - of which there is absolutely nothing sited)
EG.
"I was seein' my blud 'uvva week, ya ge' me cuz"
However you cut it, this above phrasing, whilst it does have a tinge of Jamaican phrasing to it, in the way that the words are spoken phonetically is most certainly more based around Cockney or Estuary English. But also has some origin in American Street slang and the phrasing used in Rap and Hip Hop music.. I think what we are really talking about here is a subsection of British street slang, and as such should be in that section of Wikipedia and not have it's own section at all.
That newspapers have called something "Jafaican" as a derogatory and rather middle class term to describe the way people they (a) don't really understand and (b) seek to put down by pidgeonholing them into a quatifiable entity, in order to then ridicule is not, in my opinion, a good enough reason to put it on Wikipedia. I'm not going to go into a political standpoint here, as CaptainSurrey has hit the nail on the head elsewhere. If we were taking about the STRUCTURE OF THE DIALECT, some ACCURATELY RESEARCHED ORIGINS, GRAMMAR, PHONETICS and other such useful and unbaised material it would be a lot more valuable as an article than it is in its current state. As it stands it is nothing more than speculative and innaccurate and as an Wiki entry is pretty uninformative.
Thanks
199.229.190.200 16:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Ash Whiting
199.229.190.200 15:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, fair enough, but seeing as that Daily Mail article is stuffed full of innacuracies and misrepresentations I would say that it isn't a particularly accurate source.
I would say that university DIALECTIC research would be a far better source of information.
And stop taking this so personally. I don't think you have researched this subject very well. And I think you maybe ought to before adding a WIki entry which is predominantly based on a Daily Mail article, which is almost certainly a scathing, middle class view.
199.229.190.200 15:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
To Ash Whiting
You make some true statements, but the language you are refering to is a simplified and standarized version of what the language really is.
"Wha gwaan, blud, wah yu seh? weh ya deh? yo cuz, set me sum p's fa gi de man dem, till ma jam man soon come an bunks yu dat bak, ite bless, man go speak to yu bak"
if spoken quick enough, I FIND, that non-blacks easilly get lost and tell me to repeat my self, however, black people are to keep up. Sentence structure is an issue and variates, by levels. Surrounded by white people, one might tone it down, but surrounded by Black Jamaicans, for instance, the language will take another form and become more complex and sway towards its natural influence. This is true of most black people. Most white people adopt the language in secondary school, whereas most black children are already speaking this in Nursary. It is an adaptation. But what you are saying is true to some degree. And the best place to hear this language in its truest form would be in areas like Harlesden or Brixton where there is a high concentration of West Indian, mainly Jamaican people.
Sarkz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.174.95 ( talk) 18:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the title of the article should be changed to "Multicultural London English". That sounds more technical and therefore appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Thegryseone ( talk) 04:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I'm going to be doing lots of editing on this article. I have lots of sources and I'll add them eventually. Thanks. Thegryseone ( talk) 02:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Any accent of English that uses /q/ gets respect from me. Grover cleveland ( talk) 06:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This article is clearly POV based in favour of namby-pamby liberal sociology. I demand that a counter argument be presented that offers some counter evidence that Jafaican is just a natural merging of existing diverse language cultures in London. I am quite aware that many of these little punks ARE trying to 'be cool' with this stupid little gangster talk.--CaptainSurrey
talk
Indeed, pretentiousness is not a modern invention and has probably played a role in language development since humans began speaking (Chaucer mocks the Anglo-French speech of one of his characters in the Cantebury Tales for instance.) If enough people speak a certain way, then pretentious or not, it takes on a reality and is a legitimate subject for an article. 92.235.178.44 ( talk) 16:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I've added the NPOV warning header, as I feel that this article does not have a neutral point of view, but actually is written in favour of the left wing flank of politics. I have not changed anything else.
Just because a bunch of professors at a university, produce a left wing theory that Jafaican is a natural language and not a trend, doesn't mean that this article should jump on the socialist band wagon.-- CaptainSurrey 19:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Well actually its a good indication. Unless you can provide a source to contradict it, the duty of the Wikipedians is to provide verifiable, sourced information, whether they agree with it or not. And a university study is a rather good source, whether or not you agree with its findings. -Tim- THobern 19:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Could someone in the know please add examples to the phonetics section? For instance, what word(s) exhibit the "fronting of /ʊ/ less advanced in London than in periphery" pattern? Thanks in advance. -- Mattmm ( talk) 13:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I recommend that the element that diretcly makes a leftwing proposition that Jafaican is a merging of other speech styles and languages, be moved to a section on research, and then the content at the very beggining should merely state the facts about the bizarre phenomenon. A left wing piece of biased research is NOT evidence or fact, but opinion.-- CaptainSurrey 20:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that a merger of dialects of dialects is a left wing theory. It is an occurrence that happens when different groups interact. Moreover you calling this dialect a "scum language" reeks of prescriptive grammar (e.g. telling other people your dialect of English/any other language is better than another dialect). The fact is English has many different dialects, especially in the UK where the language has had the most time to diverge in different directions. In Linguistics we use descriptive grammar and analysis. It describes the way a language or variety of a language works, and how it is different from other varieties.
Received Pronunciation has its own quirks that my dialect of English, Pacific Northwest English, spoken in the states of Washington, Oregon, and Northern California in the USA, does not have, and which are divergent from older varieties of English too. According to Lodge (2009), Shockey (2003), and Roach (2009) RP realizes the interdental fricative /ð/ (the "th" in "this") as /nn/ whenever it occurs next to an "n". For example "pure RP" speakers would pronounce in this as "in nis" [ɪn̪ n̪ɪs]. If I did this in my dialect of English I would sound like I have a serious speech problem, and I probably would have been sent to speech therapy in grade school.
My dialect of English also does very strange things (from the perspective of English in its entirety that is). I pronounce the sound /æ/ (the "a" in cat) as [eɪ] when before a /g/ or /ŋ/ (the "ng" sound). Thus, I pronounce beg, and bag the same way. Sometimes I even shift the stress of my words to word-final position (e.g. I emphasize the "y" in "Totally" to "e"). I have been asked if I am a foreigner in other areas of my own country, because it is also something many immigrants, whose first language does not have the /æ/ sound do (e.g. Spanish). British people did not even know I was an American, and assumed I was an ESL person even though English is my first language because of it. I also have been told that I sound stupid/like a surfer when I shift the stress to word final position, so I do not do it except for when I am on the West Coast.
Basically every dialect does everything differently in most languages. The only exceptions are languages which are spoken in such a limited geographical area and by so few speakers that they can't vary very much dialectally (e.g. Icelandic). They still change through time, just not into different dialects (at least in the case of Icelandic). I think that the way you pronounce "in this" makes you sound like you have a speech impediment to be honest, and the way I pronounce "a" before "g" and "ng" makes me, and other Pacific Northwest English speakers sound like we learned English as a second language. The fact is there are different varieties of English, which may sound stupid to other speakers, but that is no reason to say one is better than another. I cannot see how this article is POV. And the fact that it has normal phonological rules suggests that it is a sociolect (a dialect spoken by a certain social group) and not just a trend. Brianc26 ( talk) 07:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Article directly contradicts itself, isn't it? I would really like some examples of this. As an estuary speaker, I don't know if I front u or not, can't understand what it means in reality. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Assuming there are no objections I'd like to start working on at least a partial rewrite here and try to bring the page up to the standard of some of the better linguistic articles on this site. A lot of the data here is unsourced or sourced to online articles and not completely encyclopedic. The article presumes a fair amount of familiarity, too - the opening section in particular is probably confusing to someone outside of London/the UK. TheGreenRock ( talk) 19:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Yo I'm going to start a new page , because this page is wrong .No such thing as a "multicultural accent" .I live in london and I have only heard "black london accents" never a multicultural one . No matter how many studies and test you do there is definitely a black accent here especially in london . —Preceding unsigned comment added by London Black Man ( talk) 11:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
black london accent? are you nuts? bare man talk like this and they aint black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.123.74 ( talk) 01:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Why is "every second" word in this "article" in quotation "marks" like "South" English, "less advanced in London" etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.30.152.223 ( talk) 21:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I think we should proceed to make the change, to a term used in the scholarly (linguistics) literature. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose the proposed move to
Multicultural London English. I agree that more encyclopedic terms should be used but "Multicultural London English'...sounds more technical and therefore appropriate for an encyclopedia article" has no basis in Wikipedia policy. In most cases it is preferable to use the common name of something (per
WP:UCN) and it is not appropriate for editors to create a name for a subject (per
WP:OR). All of the external links cited in the article refer to Jafaican or Jafaikan though one mentions that "academics prefer 'multicultural English'." Please present evidence that "Multicultural London English" is more common, more preferred, or considered by others outside of Wikipedia to be more correct (
WP:VERIFY) and I might change my position but, as it stands, the proposed target is vague (as a descriptive, it's fine but it doesn't serve to designate a particular dialect) and doesn't seem to be the most common name. —
AjaxSmack 00:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
M.I.A really doesn't talk with this accent though.
Preceding comment was unsigned
CapnZapp (
talk) 15:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I have copied the text from the article and marked in bold sections which do not appear to be in the most suitable location. The first paragraph seems correct, however.
Jafaican, also called Tikkiny, is a fairly recent dialect (and/or sociolect) of English spoken mainly in inner city London. According to research by London University's Queen Mary College, Jafaican is gaining territory from Cockney/Estuary English.
The word (also written Jafaikan) is a neologism which became prominent in 2006, coined as a portmanteau of the three words "Jamaican", "African" and possibly, "fake".
It is said to contain many elements from the languages of Jamaica, West Africa and the Indian subcontinent.
It was popularized by British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen as the gangster-wannabe Ali G.
Although the name "Jafaican" implies it's "fake" Jamaican, researchers indicate that it's not the language of white kids trying to "play cool" but rather that "[it is] more likely that young people have been growing up in London exposed to a mixture of second-language English and local London English and that this new variety has emerged from that mix.
Preceding comment was unsigned CapnZapp ( talk) 15:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
In the examples section at the bottom, Man Like Mobeen is said to showcase MLE, however, this show is set in or just outside Birmingham...
Hi, I research MLE for my job and noticed some of the references on this page are incomplete or unclear (e.g. FASS - not sure what this is?) I'll be cleaning some of these up, so any feedback on what any of these references might be would be very helpful, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smgates22 ( talk • contribs) 17:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
If this is merely an "extremely minor article explaining a viewpoint of King's College researchers", as Mackan has put it, then perhaps the article should be renamed accordingly.-- CaptainSurrey 17:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The Jafaican article should state the known facts, which probably shouldn't include fresh research outcome. If I don't get any significant objections, I'm going to start restructuring this article, but not actually remove any content. The part which talks of King's College research is going to be titled "Left Wing Research", because that's what it is. No amount of leftwing censorship can change that.-- CaptainSurrey 17:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I've just requested The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (Penguin Press Science S.) (Paperback) from the city library. When I've finished reading that and photocopied the necessary pages, I shall post some references for a counter argument, in order to make this article more neutral; this article clearly is biased in favour of the left, but that's okay, as long as a counter presentation for centrism, is presented as well.-- CaptainSurrey 12:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Mackan, your edit reverts seem very aggressive and tyrannical. You should discuss the Non NPOV issue with myself, before you show leftwing agression in your rash editing. Why should it be such a problem for you, that there is a Non NPOV message at the top of this article? Are you trying to censor any challenge to this socialist propaganda?-- CaptainSurrey 23:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The example list has been a problem ever since it was first included. While I think that there at some stage probably was a source included for the few words which were first included, it has apparently been lost somewhere along the road, and even though I put a disclaimer before the list, unsourced additions have continued. Not only is the fact that the sources are unreferenced a problem, but the actual list is not compliant with Wikipedia policies. I propose, in accordance with the official policy, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary, to remove the entire list (even if a source were presented). As stated in the official policy;
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not: 1) Dictionary definitions. (...) 2) Lists of such definitions. (...) 3) Usage guides or slang and idiom guides. (...)
(see the link for further information) If nobody opposes, I will eventually remove the entire list. Mackan 19:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
"Used completely" by young inner-city working class Londoners? I think not. Those not of white-british extraction perhaps (and a fair amount that are), but completely? No way.
Would suggest looking up Jamaican Creole or West African Pidgin pages.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.174.95 ( talk) 18:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The articles by newspapers I have read about this dialect have been poorly researched and suggest cultural snobbery, so should not be sited as neutral reference points. I am not saying this about the university research on the subject.
So perhaps leave politics alone in this discussion and move on to a better researched and more accurate definition of what "Jafaican" actually constitutes if anything. OK, socio-politics may have a bearing on the origins of this dialect and perhaps could be neutrally researched. I doubt it is the only factor in the evolution of the dialect. In fact that the term appears to be in itself a slang word, which has been mainly used in a derogatory sense in the newspaper articles sited and rarely, if ever, by the people who speak this dialect. Perhaps it doesn't really have a place on Wikipedia at all.
I do think that the term "Jafaican" IS derogatory. Regardless of if it is a blend of the words African and Jamaican (Which I see as tenuous at best), I have rarely seen it used in this context and it will definitley get picked up as a way to describe how certain people speak as a derogatory term (It already is by newspapers). I actually find it slightly offensive. In the same way I find the word "pikey" offensive or "chav". So in some senses I agree with CaptSurrey's standpoint.
I also totally disagree with the word list. Which someone seems to be rather tyrannical about editing back to simple Jamaican patois or cockney street slang which appears elsewhere. Whoever is doing this seems as though they "know best". Not the case. I live in South East London (Which is perhaps the best place to hear the dialect) and have rarely heard half the words in this list used.. "Jafaican" is categorically not simply patois or Cockney.
What is most fundamentally ignored in the Wiki is that "Jafaican" is a BRITISH STREET LANGUAGE (predominantly from London, but not strictly) - And not actually a dialect at all. Much like Anthony Burgess' "droog" language in A Clockwork Orange it is built up of codes and metaphors which are created to seperate one subcultural tribe from another. Not only that, but it can be (and often is) affected. People who use it can often speak in many different ways, to suit their surroundings. The same difference as between "Rapped" English and spoken English. See what I'm getting at?
I would put forward the idea that whilst "Jafaican" does have some origin in African and Jamaican accenting and word use, it has mainly sprung up from subcultural youth tribes as a way to belong and identify with each other. I don't believe that the stated fact in the wiki that it springs from "inner city" youth is correct, as it's usage is far more widespread, across many (sub)cultural groups and classes than this. Speculation of this kind is the sort of thing that you will see on "Chavscum" and is not relevant to the DIALECT, which, after all is what we are dealing with here. So should be revised.
Phrases that you will DEFINITELY hear in modern (especially London subcultural) street slang:
So therefore it could be stated that "Jafaican" also constitutes American street slang, British (Dance culture) street slang and not strictly simply Jamaican and African blended as seems to be asserted in the article.
It is also worth noting something about it's grammatical usage. Rather than just stating individual words out of context. (Perhaps from some conducted field research - of which there is absolutely nothing sited)
EG.
"I was seein' my blud 'uvva week, ya ge' me cuz"
However you cut it, this above phrasing, whilst it does have a tinge of Jamaican phrasing to it, in the way that the words are spoken phonetically is most certainly more based around Cockney or Estuary English. But also has some origin in American Street slang and the phrasing used in Rap and Hip Hop music.. I think what we are really talking about here is a subsection of British street slang, and as such should be in that section of Wikipedia and not have it's own section at all.
That newspapers have called something "Jafaican" as a derogatory and rather middle class term to describe the way people they (a) don't really understand and (b) seek to put down by pidgeonholing them into a quatifiable entity, in order to then ridicule is not, in my opinion, a good enough reason to put it on Wikipedia. I'm not going to go into a political standpoint here, as CaptainSurrey has hit the nail on the head elsewhere. If we were taking about the STRUCTURE OF THE DIALECT, some ACCURATELY RESEARCHED ORIGINS, GRAMMAR, PHONETICS and other such useful and unbaised material it would be a lot more valuable as an article than it is in its current state. As it stands it is nothing more than speculative and innaccurate and as an Wiki entry is pretty uninformative.
Thanks
199.229.190.200 16:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Ash Whiting
199.229.190.200 15:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, fair enough, but seeing as that Daily Mail article is stuffed full of innacuracies and misrepresentations I would say that it isn't a particularly accurate source.
I would say that university DIALECTIC research would be a far better source of information.
And stop taking this so personally. I don't think you have researched this subject very well. And I think you maybe ought to before adding a WIki entry which is predominantly based on a Daily Mail article, which is almost certainly a scathing, middle class view.
199.229.190.200 15:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
To Ash Whiting
You make some true statements, but the language you are refering to is a simplified and standarized version of what the language really is.
"Wha gwaan, blud, wah yu seh? weh ya deh? yo cuz, set me sum p's fa gi de man dem, till ma jam man soon come an bunks yu dat bak, ite bless, man go speak to yu bak"
if spoken quick enough, I FIND, that non-blacks easilly get lost and tell me to repeat my self, however, black people are to keep up. Sentence structure is an issue and variates, by levels. Surrounded by white people, one might tone it down, but surrounded by Black Jamaicans, for instance, the language will take another form and become more complex and sway towards its natural influence. This is true of most black people. Most white people adopt the language in secondary school, whereas most black children are already speaking this in Nursary. It is an adaptation. But what you are saying is true to some degree. And the best place to hear this language in its truest form would be in areas like Harlesden or Brixton where there is a high concentration of West Indian, mainly Jamaican people.
Sarkz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.174.95 ( talk) 18:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the title of the article should be changed to "Multicultural London English". That sounds more technical and therefore appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Thegryseone ( talk) 04:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I'm going to be doing lots of editing on this article. I have lots of sources and I'll add them eventually. Thanks. Thegryseone ( talk) 02:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Any accent of English that uses /q/ gets respect from me. Grover cleveland ( talk) 06:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This article is clearly POV based in favour of namby-pamby liberal sociology. I demand that a counter argument be presented that offers some counter evidence that Jafaican is just a natural merging of existing diverse language cultures in London. I am quite aware that many of these little punks ARE trying to 'be cool' with this stupid little gangster talk.--CaptainSurrey
talk
Indeed, pretentiousness is not a modern invention and has probably played a role in language development since humans began speaking (Chaucer mocks the Anglo-French speech of one of his characters in the Cantebury Tales for instance.) If enough people speak a certain way, then pretentious or not, it takes on a reality and is a legitimate subject for an article. 92.235.178.44 ( talk) 16:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I've added the NPOV warning header, as I feel that this article does not have a neutral point of view, but actually is written in favour of the left wing flank of politics. I have not changed anything else.
Just because a bunch of professors at a university, produce a left wing theory that Jafaican is a natural language and not a trend, doesn't mean that this article should jump on the socialist band wagon.-- CaptainSurrey 19:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Well actually its a good indication. Unless you can provide a source to contradict it, the duty of the Wikipedians is to provide verifiable, sourced information, whether they agree with it or not. And a university study is a rather good source, whether or not you agree with its findings. -Tim- THobern 19:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Could someone in the know please add examples to the phonetics section? For instance, what word(s) exhibit the "fronting of /ʊ/ less advanced in London than in periphery" pattern? Thanks in advance. -- Mattmm ( talk) 13:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I recommend that the element that diretcly makes a leftwing proposition that Jafaican is a merging of other speech styles and languages, be moved to a section on research, and then the content at the very beggining should merely state the facts about the bizarre phenomenon. A left wing piece of biased research is NOT evidence or fact, but opinion.-- CaptainSurrey 20:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that a merger of dialects of dialects is a left wing theory. It is an occurrence that happens when different groups interact. Moreover you calling this dialect a "scum language" reeks of prescriptive grammar (e.g. telling other people your dialect of English/any other language is better than another dialect). The fact is English has many different dialects, especially in the UK where the language has had the most time to diverge in different directions. In Linguistics we use descriptive grammar and analysis. It describes the way a language or variety of a language works, and how it is different from other varieties.
Received Pronunciation has its own quirks that my dialect of English, Pacific Northwest English, spoken in the states of Washington, Oregon, and Northern California in the USA, does not have, and which are divergent from older varieties of English too. According to Lodge (2009), Shockey (2003), and Roach (2009) RP realizes the interdental fricative /ð/ (the "th" in "this") as /nn/ whenever it occurs next to an "n". For example "pure RP" speakers would pronounce in this as "in nis" [ɪn̪ n̪ɪs]. If I did this in my dialect of English I would sound like I have a serious speech problem, and I probably would have been sent to speech therapy in grade school.
My dialect of English also does very strange things (from the perspective of English in its entirety that is). I pronounce the sound /æ/ (the "a" in cat) as [eɪ] when before a /g/ or /ŋ/ (the "ng" sound). Thus, I pronounce beg, and bag the same way. Sometimes I even shift the stress of my words to word-final position (e.g. I emphasize the "y" in "Totally" to "e"). I have been asked if I am a foreigner in other areas of my own country, because it is also something many immigrants, whose first language does not have the /æ/ sound do (e.g. Spanish). British people did not even know I was an American, and assumed I was an ESL person even though English is my first language because of it. I also have been told that I sound stupid/like a surfer when I shift the stress to word final position, so I do not do it except for when I am on the West Coast.
Basically every dialect does everything differently in most languages. The only exceptions are languages which are spoken in such a limited geographical area and by so few speakers that they can't vary very much dialectally (e.g. Icelandic). They still change through time, just not into different dialects (at least in the case of Icelandic). I think that the way you pronounce "in this" makes you sound like you have a speech impediment to be honest, and the way I pronounce "a" before "g" and "ng" makes me, and other Pacific Northwest English speakers sound like we learned English as a second language. The fact is there are different varieties of English, which may sound stupid to other speakers, but that is no reason to say one is better than another. I cannot see how this article is POV. And the fact that it has normal phonological rules suggests that it is a sociolect (a dialect spoken by a certain social group) and not just a trend. Brianc26 ( talk) 07:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Article directly contradicts itself, isn't it? I would really like some examples of this. As an estuary speaker, I don't know if I front u or not, can't understand what it means in reality. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Assuming there are no objections I'd like to start working on at least a partial rewrite here and try to bring the page up to the standard of some of the better linguistic articles on this site. A lot of the data here is unsourced or sourced to online articles and not completely encyclopedic. The article presumes a fair amount of familiarity, too - the opening section in particular is probably confusing to someone outside of London/the UK. TheGreenRock ( talk) 19:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Yo I'm going to start a new page , because this page is wrong .No such thing as a "multicultural accent" .I live in london and I have only heard "black london accents" never a multicultural one . No matter how many studies and test you do there is definitely a black accent here especially in london . —Preceding unsigned comment added by London Black Man ( talk) 11:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
black london accent? are you nuts? bare man talk like this and they aint black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.123.74 ( talk) 01:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Why is "every second" word in this "article" in quotation "marks" like "South" English, "less advanced in London" etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.30.152.223 ( talk) 21:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I think we should proceed to make the change, to a term used in the scholarly (linguistics) literature. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose the proposed move to
Multicultural London English. I agree that more encyclopedic terms should be used but "Multicultural London English'...sounds more technical and therefore appropriate for an encyclopedia article" has no basis in Wikipedia policy. In most cases it is preferable to use the common name of something (per
WP:UCN) and it is not appropriate for editors to create a name for a subject (per
WP:OR). All of the external links cited in the article refer to Jafaican or Jafaikan though one mentions that "academics prefer 'multicultural English'." Please present evidence that "Multicultural London English" is more common, more preferred, or considered by others outside of Wikipedia to be more correct (
WP:VERIFY) and I might change my position but, as it stands, the proposed target is vague (as a descriptive, it's fine but it doesn't serve to designate a particular dialect) and doesn't seem to be the most common name. —
AjaxSmack 00:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
M.I.A really doesn't talk with this accent though.
Preceding comment was unsigned
CapnZapp (
talk) 15:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I have copied the text from the article and marked in bold sections which do not appear to be in the most suitable location. The first paragraph seems correct, however.
Jafaican, also called Tikkiny, is a fairly recent dialect (and/or sociolect) of English spoken mainly in inner city London. According to research by London University's Queen Mary College, Jafaican is gaining territory from Cockney/Estuary English.
The word (also written Jafaikan) is a neologism which became prominent in 2006, coined as a portmanteau of the three words "Jamaican", "African" and possibly, "fake".
It is said to contain many elements from the languages of Jamaica, West Africa and the Indian subcontinent.
It was popularized by British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen as the gangster-wannabe Ali G.
Although the name "Jafaican" implies it's "fake" Jamaican, researchers indicate that it's not the language of white kids trying to "play cool" but rather that "[it is] more likely that young people have been growing up in London exposed to a mixture of second-language English and local London English and that this new variety has emerged from that mix.
Preceding comment was unsigned CapnZapp ( talk) 15:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
In the examples section at the bottom, Man Like Mobeen is said to showcase MLE, however, this show is set in or just outside Birmingham...
Hi, I research MLE for my job and noticed some of the references on this page are incomplete or unclear (e.g. FASS - not sure what this is?) I'll be cleaning some of these up, so any feedback on what any of these references might be would be very helpful, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smgates22 ( talk • contribs) 17:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)