Something doesn't add up

"Derek Broughton" <news.RemoveThis@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:71353764.1QNca3D0Vl@cedar.serverforest.com...


> Are you claiming that Peabody's and Kennedy's accent are different?
Because
> if you aren't, I will
>
> > By the way, are you a fan of New England or Manhattan clam chowder?
>
> Ahem! Nova Scotia fish chowder, if you please...
> --
> derek

I'll concede they are different, but that term is still used genericly to
describe the "upper-crust Bostonian" accent as a whole.

And I dislike chowder overall, I prefer my clams fried or perhaps
baked/stuffed.

-W
 >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up 

Paul S. Person <psperson DeleteThis @ix.netscom.com.invalid> writes:

> Seattle, the dialect of which, of course, since I live here, is the
> very epitome of modern standard English. Yes, that's right, we speak
> it like TV anchormen did in the 50's (you can't get much more
> "standard" than that!)! Our parents and teachers insisted on this!

I went to a lovely seminar recently, which reported on the dialect of
Michigan. Michiganders are convinced that they speak standard
American, (General American (GA) is the usual term in linguistics),
just like the TV anchormen.
In fact, this is rubbish - as all non-Michiganders, and Michiganders
who move away for a while, realize, they have a number of very
significant differences from GA, including attributes normally
associated with those pesky Canucks just across the water.
The best thing is that what Michiganders think they hear, depends on
who they think they're listening to, and they distort their memory
accordingly: play them the exact same word, tell them it's a
Michigander speaking, and they'll repeat it back to you much closer to
GA than the original; tell them it's a Canadian, and they'll repeat it
back accurately.

I wonder whether the study should be repeated in Seattle!
 >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up 

Julian Bradfield wrote:

> Paul S. Person <psperson.RemoveThis@ix.netscom.com.invalid> writes:
>
>> Seattle, the dialect of which, of course, since I live here, is the
>> very epitome of modern standard English. Yes, that's right, we speak
>> it like TV anchormen did in the 50's (you can't get much more
>> "standard" than that!)! Our parents and teachers insisted on this!
>
> I went to a lovely seminar recently, which reported on the dialect of
> Michigan. Michiganders are convinced that they speak standard
> American, (General American (GA) is the usual term in linguistics),
> just like the TV anchormen
> .
> In fact, this is rubbish - as all non-Michiganders, and Michiganders
> who move away for a while, realize, they have a number of very
> significant differences from GA,

Indeed...

> including attributes normally
> associated with those pesky Canucks just across the water.

Bite your tongue!

> The best thing is that what Michiganders think they hear, depends on
> who they think they're listening to, and they distort their memory
> accordingly: play them the exact same word, tell them it's a
> Michigander speaking, and they'll repeat it back to you much closer to
> GA than the original; tell them it's a Canadian, and they'll repeat it
> back accurately.
>
> I wonder whether the study should be repeated in Seattle!

Pointless, I think - I don't believe that study had to be done in Michigan
in the first place. It's pretty much universal.

However, back to Paul's observation about Seattle - my (admittedly
unprofessional) experience across North America is that the further West
you go the more people have an accent that seems closer to the "standard"
for either the US or Canada. Perhaps that's to be expected in the US,
where all "culture" has originated out of Hollywood for most of a century,
but it seems odd in Canada, where everybody knows Toronto is the centre of
the universe.
--
derek
 >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up 

Paul S. Person <psperson.DeleteThis@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
> Aren't there recordings of JRRT? Do they include "stoor"?

Yes, no.

-M-
 >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up 

Derek Broughton <news.RemoveThis@pointerstop.ca> writes:

> Julian Bradfield wrote:

>> The best thing is that what Michiganders think they hear, depends on
>> who they think they're listening to, and they distort their memory
>> accordingly: play them the exact same word, tell them it's a
>> Michigander speaking, and they'll repeat it back to you much closer to
>> GA than the original; tell them it's a Canadian, and they'll repeat it
>> back accurately.
>>
>> I wonder whether the study should be repeated in Seattle!
>
> Pointless, I think - I don't believe that study had to be done in Michigan
> in the first place. It's pretty much universal.

No, it isn't. The study was repeated in other places in the U.S. (I
forget where), where they don't have the same self-confidence about
speaking "standard American". The listeners in those areas were more
accurate in their repetitions, and didn't vary according to the stated
origins of the speaker.
 >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up 

On 2008-06-03 12:06:54 -0400, Derek Broughton <news.RemoveThis@pointerstop.ca> said:

> Tom Hook wrote:
>
>> I have not had the pleasure of tasting that dish although I have had
>> the pleasure many years ago of visiting the Maritime Provinces (all of
>> them even Newfoundland...). Nova Scotia was my favorite where once
>> looking down from the cliffs of Cape Breton, I saw eagles soaring
>> between me and the water below. JRRT would have been impressed, I
>> certainly was. Quite a sight, quite a lovely place.
>
> Eagles are pretty commonplace around here But looking _down_ on them,
> would always be impressive! We have a pair and a single eagle that are
> year-round residents close by.

Here in Connecticut we have bald eagles as well who feed at a
hydro-electric dam nearby when they release water from the reservoir.
The surge of water stirs up the fish below the dam and the eagles feast
on the churn.
 >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up 

On 2008-06-03, Julian Bradfield <jcb DeleteThis @inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in
<e6cskvubbyp.fsf DeleteThis @krk.inf.ed.ac.uk>:

> I went to a lovely seminar recently, which reported on the dialect of
> Michigan. Michiganders are convinced that they speak standard
> American, (General American (GA) is the usual term in linguistics),
> just like the TV anchormen.

Ahem. I am a *Michiganian*. "Michiganders" sounds ridiculous.

> In fact, this is rubbish - as all non-Michiganders, and Michiganders
> who move away for a while, realize, they have a number of very
> significant differences from GA, including attributes normally
> associated with those pesky Canucks just across the water.

Perhaps there is Canadian-like pronunciation for those in the northern
lower peninsula or the upper peninsula, but not further south in the
state. Maybe around US-10 and north of there?

Down here in the more populated regions there are some interesting
oddities which I have observed (and I include myself) although I have no
experience or education in dialects. We all say "acrosst." Older
people say "warsh." Many including myself say "root, foot, roof, route"
pretty weirdly. And we're very nasal.

On the other hand we can easily pronounce things the standard way when
we pay attention, and talk like TV anchormen, as you note below.

> The best thing is that what Michiganders think they hear, depends on
> who they think they're listening to, and they distort their memory
> accordingly: play them the exact same word, tell them it's a
> Michigander speaking, and they'll repeat it back to you much closer to
> GA than the original; tell them it's a Canadian, and they'll repeat it
> back accurately.

Sometimes when I hear someone say "acrosst" I will later mention that
most Michiganians say "acrosst" and ask him/her if he/she ever
pronounces it that way. 100% deny that they do, although I had
previously heard it myself.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
 >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up 

In message <news:6859208.I0ugScqMR3@cedar.serverforest.com>
Derek Broughton <news.TakeThisOut@pointerstop.ca> spoke these staves:
>
> Julian Bradfield wrote:
>>
>> The monomorphemic '-oor' words in English are boor, door, floor,
>> moor, poor, spoor. I use /O:/ for 'floor' and 'door' (as does
>> everybody), and I use /U@/ for the rest. I think most people use
>> now /O:/ for all of them, but I like to make it clear whether I'm
>> calling somebody a 'bore' or a 'boor'!
>
> That comes as a complete surprise to me. I _have_ heard "poor"
> pronounced with /O:/ - particularly by Americans

A highly unscholarly and questionable survey conducted among a small
segment of Danish engineers sitting within speaking distance from my
own place showed a general suprise that it would be anything but
/pU@/ in English, but the Cambridge Dictionary site lists the U
version as US and the /O:/ as the standard (presumably intended to be
RP or at least some kind of 'Standardized British English').
<http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=61484&dict=CALD>

poor (No Money) /pO:-\r/ US /pUr/

(the '-\r' should be the SAMPA mark for a linking r -- in IPA denoted
by a superscript r -- an r 'pronounced only before a vowel in British
English')

It doesn't give the /pU@/ version at all.

> - but I've never heard "moor" and "spoor" pronounced that way (and
> who uses boor? -

Still guided by the Cambridge site, the pronunciation for moor is
given as /mO:-\r/ /mU@-\r/ US /mUr/, spoor the same as poor but
boor at least is given simply as /bU@-\r/ US /bUr/.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided
into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from,
and (d) rocks.
- /Equal Rites/ (Terry Pratchett)
 >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up 

And at a much more serious note . . .

Playing round a bit at the www.howjsay.com site, I was surprised to
hear the pronunciation of 'Tolkien', which I'd transcribe as
/tQlki@n/[1].

Knowing that Tolkien, in letter #347, insisted that the last syllable
of his name was 'pronounced by [himself] always /-keen/.' I was a bit
surprised about this and got to look around for a bit.

Wikipedia lists the pronunciation as /t@Ulki:n/[2] and dictionary.com
as /t@Ulkin/ or /tQlkin/ [3] and Infoplease gives /to:lke:n/ or
/tolke:n/[4]. Finally Inogolo has a recording which, to me, sounds
very much like /tQlkin/ [5] The usual way to spell it without
phonetic symbols is 'TOLL-keen'.

Given the pronunciation guide in /letters/ I've been pronouncing it
/tQlki:n/, wondering whether it ought to be /tQlkin/, on the
possibility that Tolkien perhaps intended the /-keen/ to designate
the quality but not the length of the vowel.

Now, given this plethora of suggestions, can anything be said to be
the 'correct' pronounciation -- and if so, what is it? And if not,
can anything be ruled out as definitely /not/ correct? I can't recall
if there's a recording of Tolkien pronouncing his own name, but that
might of course be accorded some level of definitiveness, at least in
this group.

[1] <http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=tolkien&submit=Submit>
[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien#cite_ref-0>
[3] <http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tolkien>
[4] <http://dictionary.infoplease.com/Tolkien>
[5] <http://inogolo.com/pronunciation/d1448/J_R_R_Tolkien>

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement.
But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another
profound truth.
- Niels Bohr
 >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up 

Huan the hound <huanthehound RemoveThis @netscape.net> wrote:
> Down here in the more populated regions there are some interesting
> oddities which I have observed (and I include myself) although I have no
> experience or education in dialects. We all say "acrosst." Older
> people say "warsh."

"Acrosst" is probably from "across", but where does "warsh" come from?

- Dirk
 >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up 

"Dirk Thierbach" <dthierbach.RemoveThis@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote in message
news:20080604071009.D48.1.NOFFLE@dthierbach.news.arcor.de...
> Huan the hound <huanthehound.RemoveThis@netscape.net> wrote:
> > Down here in the more populated regions there are some interesting
> > oddities which I have observed (and I include myself) although I have no
> > experience or education in dialects. We all say "acrosst." Older
> > people say "warsh."
>
> "Acrosst" is probably from "across", but where does "warsh" come from?
>
> - Dirk

wash

-W
 >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up 

Troels Forchhammer <Troels.RemoveThis@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
> Given the pronunciation guide in /letters/ I've been pronouncing it
> /tQlki:n/,

So do I.

> wondering whether it ought to be /tQlkin/, on the possibility that
> Tolkien perhaps intended the /-keen/ to designate the quality but
> not the length of the vowel.

In German /tollkühn/, the vowel is clearly long (as one can immediately
see from the h), and Tolkien would have known that. I have never
heard anyone pronounce it with a short last vowel, and, at least
for me, that pronounciation would feel really strange.

- Dirk
 >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up 

Huan the hound wrote:

> On 2008-06-03, Julian Bradfield <jcb.TakeThisOut@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in
> <e6cskvubbyp.fsf.TakeThisOut@krk.inf.ed.ac.uk>:
>
>> I went to a lovely seminar recently, which reported on the dialect of
>> Michigan. Michiganders are convinced that they speak standard
>> American, (General American (GA) is the usual term in linguistics),
>> just like the TV anchormen.
>
> Ahem. I am a *Michiganian*. "Michiganders" sounds ridiculous.

It does, but I've heard it (even when I was working there).
>
>> In fact, this is rubbish - as all non-Michiganders, and Michiganders
>> who move away for a while, realize, they have a number of very
>> significant differences from GA, including attributes normally
>> associated with those pesky Canucks just across the water.
>
> Perhaps there is Canadian-like pronunciation for those in the northern
> lower peninsula or the upper peninsula, but not further south in the
> state. Maybe around US-10 and north of there?

Even though I told Julian to bite his tongue over that suggestion, I think
you're right. I was working in Saginaw/Midland and the accent was
certainly more like S. Ontario than "Midwest".
>
> Down here in the more populated regions there are some interesting
> oddities which I have observed (and I include myself) although I have no
> experience or education in dialects. We all say "acrosst." Older
> people say "warsh." Many including myself say "root, foot, roof, route"
> pretty weirdly. And we're very nasal.

Now, those people north of I-10 still say we Canadians (every last one of
us, apparently) say "root, foot, roof, route" weirdly

> Sometimes when I hear someone say "acrosst" I will later mention that
> most Michiganians say "acrosst" and ask him/her if he/she ever
> pronounces it that way. 100% deny that they do, although I had
> previously heard it myself.

LOL. Here on Nova Scotia's Eastern Shore, a friend was telling me of an
argument she overheard:
Man1: "... so we dragged it home..."
Man2: "Dragged! What kind of word is that? You mean "we drug it".

Our friend thought this was a hilarious example of local dialect, but sure
enough the OED gives "drug" as a proper part of "drag".
--
derek
 >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up