spanish or spanglish which one do i need
holla i work construction,i notice that the guys,dont speak spanish,but what i call spanglish. how much of a difference is it..really? our greatings are as such, in good humor holla way! comasta.!!''or eh primo
hand me the pinc%$ drill.gracies. these terms are slang. how do i learn ,this type of spanish
9 Answers
I would highly recommend you to learn Spanish instead of just stopping at the Spanglish. I would say there's a big difference in those two languages.
This is what I think:
Spanglish is not a language, since languages are systems of communication with conventional rules that facilitate comprehension. Spanglish is mostly a case of not being able to speak at least one of the two languages correctly, and therefore, making use of whichever word or structure is available in either language in order to talk, more or less. It is perfectly conceivable that someone who uses Spanglish to try to communicate will say half of the words in Spanish and the other one in English, and another one will do exactly the opposite to say the same sentence. In other words, there are as many "Spanglishes" as people who resort to this random form of communication.
You can only understand every person who speaks Spanglish if you are fluent in both Spanish and English, you are imaginative enough to decode all the transgressions that they are doing in both languages, and you have the ability to quickly realize that what appears to be nonsensical sentences are, in fact, expressions and words translated word by word from one language into another, resulting in phrases as out of place in that target language, as someone dressed in a topless swimsuit in a formal opera.
Again, Spanglish is the result of a human need: communication. People want to communicate, and if they lack the formal training (eg. having gone to a Spanish speaking school) and/or they haven't been educated in a community with a strong cultural support and resources, their Spanish (or English, if things happen the other way around), is going to be very limited, and there is a lot of vocabulary that it is only learnt when you spend 8 hours a day in a school learning Spanish, when you are surrounded by books and magazines in Spanish, when the TV is mainly in Spanish, and when elder generations around you have spent their entire lives using and enriching their Spanish. Someone is not a fluent native because he is just born in one country, but because he is going to be exposed to an average of 8 - 14 hours for many years, and much of it is going to be formal language written, spoken and conceived by educated people. Immigrants who live in Spanish speaking neighbours where a lot of people fled their country without education or money, have enough trouble adapting to the new environment and language to worry about learning, say, their own literature. The deprivation of a proper cultural environment, lack of proper formation and very limited lexicon in Spanish, plus the ubiquitous presence of the local language that they are being bombarding with (ie. English), results in a mix which is neither Spanish, nor English.
In any of these "local Spanglishes" there are going to be certain features which will probably be understood just in that area, but go somewhere else, and things are likely to be different. Again, since it is the result of a poor command of Spanish, they are all likely to be using the same limited choice of commonly used words, but they are going to struggle to understand a Spanish native from a different country speaking normally. In any case, Spanglish is going to be very difficult to understand by any "normal" Spanish native who doesn't speak English too, very difficult for any English speaker who doesn't speak Spanish too, and it will not allow a proper communication among Spanglish speakers from different areas, unless the conversation is as simple as "How are you?", "What do you want?", "Is that cool?" and things like that.
If you learn standard Spanish, you'll be able to talk to over 400 million inhabitants (according to the latest figures), and you'll definitely have a command of the basic vocabulary that Spanish speakers are likely to use in their mixes of words.
This is what I think:
Spanglish is not a language, since languages are systems of communication with conventional rules that facilitate comprehension. Spanish (I believe that this was meant to read Spanglish) is mostly a case of not being able to speak at least one of the two languages correctly, and therefore, making use of whichever word or structure is available in either language in order to talk, more or less
Let me preface this be saying that this is my opinion and not meant as an affront of any sort on your views of language.
For the most part, what you have written following this block of text was very interesting and very well stated; however, I would have to disagree with your overall take on language as stated above.
The conclusion that Spanglish is not a language appears to stem from a somewhat elitist (I hope that this word does not come off as overly harsh) view of the entire concept of language. This conclusion appears to be based on the premise that:
languages are systems of communication with conventional rules that facilitate comprehension
I would like to examine this statement in a bit more detail before proceeding. First, a conventional rule implies a rule that has arisen out of customary usage over time. I live in South Texas, so I can not speak for other areas of the country, but often what I have noticed about people who speak with a mixture of Spanish and English (Spanglish) is that they will often construct their phrases in a fairly consistent manner. For instance, sentences will, generally speaking, often follow a pattern whereby a Spanish verb will be used in a sentence with an English noun and its modifier, or vise versa (i.e. English verb; Spanish noun/modifier). For example, one might say something like "¿Dónde está el Spanish book?" or, "Where is the libro de español?" Similarly the following might be said something like, "Es un fat man," or, "He's an hombre muy gordo."
In constructs such as these, moreover, it seems that the article that precedes the noun will invariably be constructed using an English article for Spanish nouns and a Spanish article for English nouns. Here I have listed two different conventions that I have observed myself. I am sure that there are others; however, I have not (and it is likely that nobody else has) taken the time to formalize any of these common sentence constructs.
As to the full statement that languages are "systems of communication with conventional rules that facilitate comprehension," I would contend that when taken as a whole, this definition describes something else. I think that what you are thinking of is the systematization of language rather than what defines a language. What your statement implies addresses well the idea of contemporary languages; however, it fails to address languages that are in their nascent state or early stages of development. Now I understand that by using the word "development" to describe these languages I am left open to the argument that, if these languages are still developing then they are not truly languages yet (i.e. fully developed or complete languages, if you will). However, I would contend that all languages are in a continuous state of development that, being continuous, never stop developing, but instead, change and develop alongside changing customs and other forms of culture. It is well worth noting that all of our contemporary languages (especially English) arose out of bastardizations of and hybridizations with other languages, and that many of these antecedent languages were in fact bastardizations of prior languages themselves.
Returning to my earlier point, I believe that this is what "Spanglish" represents: The unwanted love child of two well established and well respected languages (viz. Spanish and English). As such, I believe that it is vilified for its origins more than for its utility (or lack thereof). This odium stems from the fact that Spanglish was spawned of what is mostly viewed as an "unholy union" between Spanish and English. Moreover, these feelings have led to its neglect, and much like a neglected child, it is quite possible that this nascent language will whither and die before it is able to take root. However, just as an abandoned and unwanted child has a slim chance of survival, I think that this much maligned form of communication might also be able to survive to maturity. To be sure, it is more likely that this amalgamation will eventually be trampled underfoot of one or both of the more established languages, but it is also quite possible (especially with the increasing influx of Spanish speaking individuals into the southern portions of southern states) that this nascent language will develop into what you have deemed a language and to what I have termed a systematized language.
Anyhow, I hope that what I have said was not perceived as unnecessary or unwarranted criticism of your position. As I have stated previously, my intention was not to be inflammatory but rather to clarify where I differ in opinion of what justifies the term language.
I would like to make one additional comment on my thoughts regarding the actual origins of the language. It is true that some people may hybridize Spanish and English because they do not speak one of the languages well enough to use it fully. However, it has been my observation that, by and large, the people who employ this form of communication (Spanglish) speak both English and Spanish fluently. Most of these people (who I have observed) are second or third generation citizens who usually have a close relative such as a grandparent or parent who does not speak English. When people of these similar backgrounds (i.e. bilingual children of monolingual parents or grandparents) speak to one another, that is often when I will hear Spanglish (as I have described it) spoken.
As this language is rooted in the love of a child for a parent or grandparent it is likely that this form of communication will be somewhat more resilient than it would at first appear. Moreover, with the continued immigration of Spanish speaking people to a largely English speaking population, the conditions for Spanglish to grow and develop are enhanced. As to the ultimate outcome of this language I think that there are only three possibilities: It will never take root and will die off; It will be partially incorporated into one or both of its parent languages; or it will grow and eventually supplant one or both of its parent languages. As to which one of these will occur I have no clue and will probably never know. The growth of new languages does not grow in radical daily shifts but rather over centuries of cultural change and this shift (if it does occur) will likely occur at an imperceptible rate (I wonder did Latin know it was dying? was there a funeral for this "dead" language?)
I have a coworker who is 2nd generation American. His grandfather was Mexican and sometimes he speaks spanglish to me (I don't use the capital here, because this is not a language). I can tell you he does this because he is NOT fluent in Spanish and not because he wants to speak this way. I'm sure he would love to speak real Spanish.
Well... every time someone speaks differently, or simply bad, like in "Da ain't no shit", let's call it a language to avoid being elitist, and if someone says "me no know nuttin'", that'll be another language.
And I thought there were less than 7000 languages in the world. How wrong I was. There must be over 10,000,000 languages according to your idea of what constitutes a language.
Sarcasm!? Now that's a language I can understand 
What should I call what I call a language, then? Because we are using this word differently.
I suppose we are using the word differently. I am contending that language has a broader definition that includes any particular mode of expression that is characteristic of a group of people or culture. It has to do with the manner or style in which a particular group tends to select and combine words to convey thoughts and ideas.
And no, "me no know nuttin" is not a language, but it could be a sentence or a phrase as part of a larger developing language, and just as with the idea that "Spanglish" could dare be called a language, I also sense your vitriol that anyone could dare to deem such a bastardization of the English language an actual language. What I would say is this. Should this type of sentence construction continue (me no know nuttin, and such others like this) within a culture or subculture, then yes, I believe that it would be possible for this form of communication to take root and develop over time to become so divergent that it no longer resembled the language from which it stemmed. To be sure, some of the words used will be the same or similar to the parent language, but does this make them the same language. After all, there are many cognates (and false cognates for that matter) between various languages, but they are still recognized as distinct languages.
I suppose that it would be possible to call such distinctions dialects or sub-dialects of the more established parent language; however, in the case of "Spanglish" it is difficult to classify it as such because, as I have said before, it is born of more than one established language.
As far as the term "elitist" is concerned with language, fear that you have only seen the negative connotation behind the term. I would just remind you that without an elitist sense of language, languages such as Spanish, English and French along with many others would never have become as systematized as they have become to this day, and hence, not as useful. It was an elitist agenda that systematized the English language and disregarded (and therefore attempted to eradicate) the more guttural expressions and usages of the language. Obviously, this was a beneficial byproduct of an elitist view of what the language should be. To be sure, I could have used a word less inflammatory such as "idealist" to convey my meaning; however, I did not think that in the context of my message that the word "elitist" would be taken so negatively (after all without our past linguistic elitists where would our language be today?). I apologize profusely if I have injured your dignity in any way be labeling it as such. If you prefer to be called an idealist then I would be happy to oblige. My point, however, was that nascent languages will always be disregarded and disdained by those who speak a more established language, and that is why I said that it may be that this language will never take root and become as lasting as English or Spanish.
I will say this though. Where I live, there is a lot of prejudice towards people that speak Spanish by English speaking people. The same prejudice is expressed by well educated English speaking individuals who disdain others who might speak in terms such as "Da ain't no shit," or "me no know nuttin." It is a prejudice that stems from a desire by the English speaker for conformity from those of a different culture. It stems from the idea that these forms of communication tarnish the purity of the language. I am of a different opinion. I am of the feeling that language is generated and perpetuated by the cultures that they stem from and that as such different cultures will likely (and might be expected to) engage in diverse and possibly divergent forms of communication.
I'm sure that you are correct or at least close in your assertion that there are less than 7,000 (officially recognized) languages in the world; however, to not call a distinct form of communication engaged in by a distinct group of people a language seems a bit odd to me. The examples that you have provided are not, strictly speaking, standard English constructs, just as "Spanglish" does not use standard English or Spanish constructs. Neither Spanglish nor the examples you have provided could or should reasonably be called English (or Spanish), so if they are not nascent languages of their own then I don't know what you would call them. I think where we might differ in our approach to this subject may be that what you are calling languages are those 7,000 or so established and well studied languages; while, I believe that I am referring to language as any distinctly recognizable form of communication engaged in by a particular group of people. Whether you call it language or not is not my concern. If you prefer, or if you have a better alternative then I would be happy to hear it. After all, words are simply labels whose meaning is only justified by an implicit agreement between groups of people. To me, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
As I have said, it was not my intention to malign you in any way, and I do not intend to be goaded into telling "What [you should] call a language. You have made it this far in your life without the need for me to educate you and you are clearly both intelligent and thoughtful. I have only attempted to clarify my own position as far as what I have stated previously. I hope that I have made my own position clear and have quashed any animosity that you might feel towards my handling of this topic.
I would just like to add that my opinion on the overall use of the word "language" should not be misconstrued as an endorsement for going out and trying to learn Spanglish. I have an interest in many different languages and will likely never have enough years in my life to satisfy my desire for their understanding. Currently, I am focusing in earnest on Spanish, and I believe that it is a beautiful language (I obviously wouldn't be studying it if this were not so). I also love my own native English and believe it has just as rich, varied and interesting a history as Spanish. I will likely not actively engage in any concerted attempt to learn "Spanglish;" however, this language (or pseudo-language if you like) stems from a nascent tradition that is not distinctly one culture, and as such I am unwilling to discount it just because I prefer another form of communication.
By the way
Me appears that the things themselves see of distinct manner according the language that person speak, because doubt that to you enjoyed that the people may speak thus your language.
(That sentence is a perfect one in Spanish, by the way)
Yes, something like what I've just written is the kind of crap I have to bear all the time when people come to me and say: this is Spanish. Can you translate it for me?
That is pretty hilarious.
The conclusion that Spanglish is not a language appears to stem from a somewhat elitist
Well... every time someone speaks differently, or simply bad, like in "Da ain't no shit", let's call it a language to avoid being elitist, and if someone says "me no know nuttin'", that'll be another language.
And I thought there were less than 7000 languages in the world. How wrong I was. There must be over 10,000,000 languages according to your idea of what constitutes a language.
What should I call what I call a language, then? Because we are using this word differently.
This odium stems from the fact that Spanglish was spawned of what is mostly viewed as an "unholy union" between Spanish and English.
Me appears that the things themselves see of distinct manner according the language that person speak, because doubt that to you enjoyed that the people may speak thus your language.
(That sentence is a perfect one in Spanish, by the way)
Yes, something like what I've just written is the kind of crap I have to bear all the time when people come to me and say: this is Spanish. Can you translate it for me?
However, it has been my observation that, by and large, the people who employ this form of communication (Spanglish) speak both English and Spanish fluently.
Are you sure they are fluent in Spanish? Is your Spanish good enough to make this judgement? I don't doubt that your English is good enough to determine how good these Spanish speakers can speak English, but living in USA, that is to be expected. If their Spanish was equally fluent, I pretty much doubt that they'd use Spanglish.
I work with a Mexican who speaks both languages perfectly, and I've never heard him using Spanglish, not even when he speaks to his little child. But then, he's got a PhD, so maybe he is another elitist.
I believe that learning Spanish is your best bet.
That way, every native Spanish speaker
will be able to understand you. 
Not all native Spanish speakers speak English,
but all native Spanish speakers speak Spanish =D.
And once you know enough Spanish to communicate with
people, you can experiment with the Spanglish; see who
understands it, and who doesn't .
I would highly recommend you to learn Spanish instead of just stopping at the Spanglish. I would say there's a big difference in those two languages.
To answer your question... the only way to learn it is by speaking to people use it. As it is a combination of two languages, there are no rules and there is no one who can formally teach it. I would recommend that you learn real Spanish and then you can speak Spanglish if you want to as you will be able to mix the two in whatever way that works best for you.
