Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Is there any phonic reason why kids round here say 'aks' rather than ask? My 6 year old is saying it even though neither myself nor her dad do and most of the kids she's friends with have parents who don't say it. I just tried to tackle her on it (gently as I would other grammatical or word issues at that age) but she honestly couldn't hear the difference between the two and knew exactly how to spell the word.


As I'm not from these parts - I probably have plenty of my own coloquialisms - it just REALLY grates on me. Does it come out in the wash later on? Can you do anything to fight it?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/24650-ask-v-aks-any-reason/
Share on other sites

This grated me for a while as well. I teach in a secondary school were 'aks' is standard chat.


So then, as explained to me by a parent, it's roots are in the way afro-carribean people learnt English. It was easier to say 'aks' in some particular language transitions and so people did. Now passed down through generations, it's becoming part of speech for all London teenagers.

Well that's new. I have not heard any primary children using aks. And there is only 2 years difference between my youngest and yours.


It is prevalent in Afro-Caribbean communities yes but is also a teenage affectation


Just don't allow it, I have never allowed glottal stops nor 'haitch' and my children know to speak properly when I'm around.

But what got me is that my daughter couldn't even make out a difference between what she was saying and the correct way. (She's otherwise very good with her phonics and working out sounds.) And she knew how to spell it - even though she was saying it wrong. It certainly isn't a conscious decision to say it that way on her part.


She may have heard it from the workers at her nursery (who are Afro-Carribean) but was only there 3 days a week so got more input from us than them and we never use it. And while some of the kids in her class may use it, I've seldom if ever heard it from the parents I speak to, whose kids make up the majority of her friends.


It just made me wonder if there was any known reason as to how kids process the sounds or something like that. I don't want to dwell on it too much if it's one of those known steps that they make (like writing backwards etc).


It's not so much that I don't want her to use it - I appreciate the pressures to fit in etc - but I do want her to appreciate the difference and that there are times when it's not appropriate to speak that way.

I've had to correct both written and spoken use of 'of' for 'have', for example as in 'would of' instead of 'would have'. It comes from school and peer-group usage. I've also noticed a lot of posters on EDF making the same mistake.


Lots of kids of all colours and classes use 'street' and lots of teenage boys, of all colours and classes, 'jail it' with their trousers hanging low under their bums.


Goodness knows what teenage girls do, no doubt I'll find out soon enough... I couldn't help noticing when the teenage daughter of friends fell over while bouncing on a trampoline that she had no knickers on...

However, give teenagers credit. There's some excellent, well thought out, slang being used. All things rubbish are 'next', as in during an interview, if you're rubbish they would shout next. This translates as 'some next lesson'.


'Onions' was probably my favourite. Why would you call someone 'onions'? Because their face made me cry. It took all my will power to stifle that giggle.

Agree that a lot of it is very inventive, but I do wish they (teenagers) would be a little more discriminating with what they do take on board.

Speaking about 'jailing it', I saw a teenage boy shuffling along half bent over down the street and felt really sorry for him and his handicap. Until I realised that his belt was around the top of his thighs and that painful shuffle was the only way that he could keep his trousers on and walk at the same time!

Here's one man's view on 'saggy pants' -

Toomuchchocolate - I'd raise that as an issue. Those are basic mistakes and you will be doing the individual a favour in life and career terms if he/she can sort it out.


Tempted to point out the grammar mistakes on this thread alone but am afraid of my own subsequent ones!

I had an English teacher who got so fed up she made us write out the incorrect verb 'to of' - 'I of, you of, he / she ofs, I ofed' and so on to whatever tense 'I would of' is and then the correct 'to have'.


A great lesson that has stuck with me since.


In our house it is the wars of the northern v southern vowel sounds. Being a northerner I am with the harsh vowels especially A and Mr TP adds an r to all his A words, e.g. bath v barth. I think the southern vowel sound is also why aks is actually arks.

'aks' is well established in our primary school and has been for the last 4 years to my certain knowledge, why wouldn't it? My child picked up 'aks' and 'haitch' from nursery workers, went to school with children whose parents and grandparents say 'aks' and 'haitch', it filters in. As doubtless other language filters out and dilutes what were regional accents or dialects.


Interestingly none of the children I know who say 'aks' write it like that, they write 'ask'.


I am relaxed about it, as long as my children know the corrct word and can write it correctly. They are being brought up in S London, and pick up S London habits. If we lived in Yorkshire they would be picking up something else.

I think there is a lot of snobbery about London accents that does not necessarily exist with other regional accents. Dropping aitches, arks, fanks for thanks - these are things I would prefer my children not to do because they will be judged by how they speak. A Yorkshire accent if you are from Yorkshire is fine, but not everyone there sounds like someone from Last of the Summer Wine. And not everyone in London needs to sound cockney/Jamaican. But I think I might be over sensitive because my parents were so obsessed with me not sounding what they considered to be 'common'.

I like a regional accent of any variety, but I don't like bad diction or grammar. And the two are definitely not mutually inclusive. I think Dolly Parton has a gorgeous example of a thick regional accent, with impeccable diction and grammar. Children can have beautiful accents of any variety and still manage good diction and grammar.


Nunheadmum, I get what you're saying about your daughter appearing not to understand the spoken difference between the sound of 'ask' and 'aks'. I would say it's down to her young age. I agree with others who suggest always gently correcting her. If it really bothers you (yes, it would bother me too!), maybe you can make a game of trying to get it right? Star charts? Work phonetically at each letter in sequence? ...but only if your daughter likes that sort of thing, otherwise it could backfire. Then she'll start saying it to annoy you. :o xx

I am the foreigner and it strikes me how native speakers speak. If in language schools we were taught that certain verbs cannot be used in gerund form, then in the newspapers, adverts, friends, neighbours, TV presenters etc, my work's employee communication emails I see and hear "loving", "wanting", "needing". And this is spoken and written by those who consider themselves "white English from upper class" - or is it also some kind of a local dialect?

The 'I am wanting / needing / loving' etc is, I think American, and made popular here by the Macdonalds ad ;'I'm lovin' it'.


It is horrible, I agree.


I am more intolerant of TV-culture Americanisms than changes to the language that have come as a result of real people forming new communities together.

Carbonara Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The 'I am wanting / needing / loving' etc...


It's considered idiomatic use: Generally fine for informal spoken language, but don't use it for formal written written.

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/im-loving-it-grammar.aspx

I wasn't suggesting that you do. It was more a general observation. ;-)


Back to the subject of children and language... I find it remarkable that and intriuguing that children can be taught the best spoken English by their parents but still end up with the dialect of their peers. Take DH for example. It's Queen's English at his school-teacher mum's home, while "down the pub" he turns into a "Souf London" lad. Hillarious!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Because they have been awful - scoring own-goal after own-goal. You cannot be an apologist for their diabolical first 100 days on the basis that the previous lot were worse - in the same way the whole of the 14 years of Tory rule was tarred with the brush of despair about their very worst behaviour in the latter years Labour run the risk of their government being tarred with the same brush on the basis of their first 100 days. It has probably been some of the worst 100 days of any new government and Starmer's approval ratings aren't as low as they are without reason. You know they are in trouble when MPs start posting the good bits from their first 100 days - it's a sure sign they know they have a problem. And when this government have a problem the frontbenchers disappear from media interviews and they roll-out the likes of Pat McFadden to provide some air cover. Yesterday it was farmers. Today it is the pensioners being pushed into poverty by Winter Fuel payments. It's a perceptual disaster and has been since day 1 - they have to get a grip on it else this leadership team is doomed. You highlight the very problem here. Farmers are not being gifted money. They are being gifted assets. Assets that they don't realise as they continue to work those assets to provide food for the country. Most inheritance is cash or an asset (a house) that people sell to generate cash. Passing a farm to younger family members is very different. On the news they interviewed a farmer whose family had owned the farm since 1822 and he broke down in tears when he spoke about his 13 year old son who was working in the farm to continue it - no doubt in the realisation that his son would be hit by a tax bill when he took it over. Given farmers are not cash rich then the decision would likely be that they would need to sell some of the land that generations had worked hard to build to fund the tax bill - and so many farms are on a knife's edge that it might be enough to send them over the edge.   There are many valid reasons why the government are doing what they are doing but those reasons are not cutting through and they are losing control of the narrative. That is a massive issue for them.  
    • Another great job by Simmonds Plastering. This time he decorated the newly plastered living room and added a pantry cupboard in kitchen.  He is reliable and works really hard.  Highly recommend 07949 180 533
    • Because land has been exempt from inheritance tax wealthy individuals (like Clarkson and Dyson) have used it as a tax avoidance measure. Clarkson is on the record stating that he bought land for precisely this purpose. It is people like him who farmers should be angry with, if anyone, because they have exploited a loophole, which is now being (partially) closed. Yes, I do grasp the concept of inheritance - it's were one is given money, or valuable assets by chance of birth (having done nothing to earn it). As money you have earned, is taxed, it seems odd that money you have not, shouldn't be. I assume you don't disapprove of income tax? Why do you think people coming into a massive, unearned windfall shouldn't pay tax, but a nurse who works hard for everything they earn, should? Everyone has to pay inheritance tax over a certain threshold. In my opinion, if you are fortunate enough to be gifted any amount of money (whether cash, or a valuable asset), to quibble about paying some tax on some of it, seems rather entitled. Most farms worth under £3m will still end up being passed on tax free. Those that do have to a pay inheritance tax will do so at just 20% on that part of it that is over the threshold (rather than the standard 40%), and they'll have 10 years to do so (usually it is payable immediately). So it is still preferential terms for those being gifted a multimillion pound estate. 
    • Ah yes, good spot! Thanks for the link. It sounds like they are planning a licensed restaurant with a small bar from reading through the application. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...