 |
|
|
|
Next: How to create an Internet Cash Cow - cash_cow_pkg..
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Jul 18, 2007
Posts: 76
|
(Msg. 76) Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:39 am
Post subject: Re: Stoors [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>fan>tolkien, others (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:38:38 +0100, Julian Bradfield
<jcb.TakeThisOut@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>Paul S. Person <psperson.TakeThisOut@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!
<snippo>
>I wonder whether the study should be repeated in Seattle!
Just one small problem: to test the assertion you'd have to do it in
the 50's! So, the first step is: invent a time machine.
--
"A portent, therefore, happens not contrary to nature,
but contrary to what we know as nature." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Jul 18, 2007
Posts: 76
|
(Msg. 77) Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:50 am
Post subject: Re: Stoors [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 16:02:23 -0300, Derek Broughton
<news.DeleteThis@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>> 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!
<snippo>
>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.
What we were /told/ (I make no representation as to its veracity) was
that the pioneers who settled our area came from wherever correct
(American) English was spoken way-back-when, which is why we didn't
need nearly as much drilling as children in other areas to "speak
proper". Since this was the 50's, and the schools were based on
contiguous districts, and the districts were (informally, that is, not
by law) segregated, it must be understood that this only applied to
white people.
Of course, if the idea that the linguistic purity of the present was
derived from that of the past was true of Seattle, it could well be
true of most of the West, at least in the USA. I agree that this does
nothing to explain the phenomenon in Canada -- western Canada
certainly was not settled by pioneers from the USA!
--
"A portent, therefore, happens not contrary to nature,
but contrary to what we know as nature." |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 18, 2007
Posts: 76
|
(Msg. 78) Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:01 am
Post subject: Re: Stoors [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:15:33 +0200, Troels Forchhammer
<Troels.DeleteThis@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
<snippo>
>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.
I would expect /any/ dictionary done in the UK to regard some
appropriate UK useage as "the standard". One done in the USA, on the
other hand, might be expected to make a different choice.
It occurred to me last night that, since JRRT spent his first few
years (four? five?) in South Africa, and since those years are /very/
important for determining which phonemes are available for later use
(some languages are "hard" for speakers of some languages precisely
because they require new and different phonemes [English speakers
learning Standard Classical Arabic, for example, encounter several
interesting new sounds]), it might be interesting to ask how a South
African would pronounce "stoor" or "stoar". Might it be, for example,
influenced by however they pronounce "Boer"?
--
"A portent, therefore, happens not contrary to nature,
but contrary to what we know as nature." >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 28, 2005
Posts: 263
|
(Msg. 79) Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:49 pm
Post subject: Re: Stoors [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Paul S. Person wrote:
> What we were /told/ (I make no representation as to its veracity) was
> that the pioneers who settled our area came from wherever correct
> (American) English was spoken way-back-when, which is why we didn't
> need nearly as much drilling as children in other areas to "speak
> proper".
Well, sure, that's what they say of Virginia, too - where they're supposed
to speak English most like Queen Elizabeth (that is, ER I!)
> Of course, if the idea that the linguistic purity of the present was
> derived from that of the past was true of Seattle, it could well be
> true of most of the West, at least in the USA. I agree that this does
> nothing to explain the phenomenon in Canada -- western Canada
> certainly was not settled by pioneers from the USA!
No, but the same pattern of settlement. Starting with the East, then the
West coast, and finally the Prairies.
--
derek >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 23, 2004
Posts: 37
|
(Msg. 80) Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:39 pm
Post subject: Re: Stoors [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 2008-06-04, Derek Broughton <news.TakeThisOut@pointerstop.ca> wrote in
<14984267.lm1bM18acN.TakeThisOut@cedar.serverforest.com>:
> Huan the hound wrote:
>> Ahem. I am a *Michiganian*. "Michiganders" sounds ridiculous.
> It does, but I've heard it (even when I was working there).
Yes, I've heard it too, but I want to put the better alternative out
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".
Although I know many people from the east side of the state, I have
never spent any time there north of Detroit. It would seem logical for
folks there to sound more like Ontario. But the "Yoopers" and some in
the northern LP don't sound Canadian to me-- more like Minnesota. But
perhaps I should say Minnesota residents sound a little like Yoopers,
because I think it can sometimes be more noticable there.
> Now, those people north of I-10 still say we Canadians (every last one of
> us, apparently) say "root, foot, roof, route" weirdly 
I wasn't going to try to describe how I say those words weirdly, but now
I'm quite interested. I say "root" and "roof" much like "foot" with a
little "it" sound at the end. How about you?
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 05, 2004
Posts: 60
|
(Msg. 81) Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 7:54 pm
Post subject: Re: Stoors [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <anld449rm23rnefnp2j5iu394mjvu19ndr.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>,
> It occurred to me last night that, since JRRT spent his first few
> years (four? five?) in South Africa, and since those years are /very/
> important for determining which phonemes are available for later use
[...]
Three. But he was in Dutch-speaking South Africa, so I suppose he
wouldn't have been around that many South-African-born English
speakers. I guess he would have followed his parents' accent.
-M- >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 23, 2008
Posts: 8
|
(Msg. 82) Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 6:19 am
Post subject: Re: Stoors [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Jun 5, 1:21 pm, Derek Broughton <n... RemoveThis @pointerstop.ca> wrote:
. Canadians think
> I'm an Aussie or South African, Americans think I'm English and English
> call me "Yank". I can't get no respect...
> --
> derek
This sounds like a man I used to know in childhood who emigrated to
Canada and aquired a Canuk accent. When he came back to England, when
he went into a shop he used to say, 'Hi, I'm from Canada' in case
anyone mistook him for an American (and so doubled the prices). >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 10, 2006
Posts: 159
|
(Msg. 83) Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:22 am
Post subject: Re: Stoors [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Derek Broughton" <news DeleteThis @pointerstop.ca> skrev i meddelandet
news:2239066.ix4jAhYXZq@cedar.serverforest.com...
[snip]
>> Of course, if the idea that the linguistic purity of the present was
>> derived from that of the past was true of Seattle, it could well be
>> true of most of the West, at least in the USA. I agree that this does
>> nothing to explain the phenomenon in Canada -- western Canada
>> certainly was not settled by pioneers from the USA!
>
> No, but the same pattern of settlement. Starting with the East, then the
> West coast, and finally the Prairies.
I may be mistaken, but didn't a considerable number of the early settlers in
British Columbia come from Britain? Of course, Britain is *very* East.
Öjevind >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 28, 2005
Posts: 263
|
(Msg. 84) Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:14 am
Post subject: Re: Stoors [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Öjevind Lång wrote:
> "Derek Broughton" <news.RemoveThis@pointerstop.ca> skrev i meddelandet
> news:2239066.ix4jAhYXZq@cedar.serverforest.com...
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Of course, if the idea that the linguistic purity of the present was
>>> derived from that of the past was true of Seattle, it could well be
>>> true of most of the West, at least in the USA. I agree that this does
>>> nothing to explain the phenomenon in Canada -- western Canada
>>> certainly was not settled by pioneers from the USA!
>>
>> No, but the same pattern of settlement. Starting with the East, then the
>> West coast, and finally the Prairies.
>
> I may be mistaken, but didn't a considerable number of the early settlers
> in British Columbia come from Britain? Of course, Britain is *very* East.
Indeed. One can expect somewhat more uniformity of accents there than on
the Canadian prairies, where the immigrants were very mixed. That doesn't
hold so true of the US, where California at least was settled by Spanish
before English-speaking people.
--
derek >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 28, 2005
Posts: 263
|
(Msg. 85) Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:21 am
Post subject: Re: Stoors [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Huan the hound wrote:
> On 2008-06-04, Derek Broughton <news.DeleteThis@pointerstop.ca> wrote in
> <14984267.lm1bM18acN.DeleteThis@cedar.serverforest.com>:
>> Huan the hound wrote:
>> Now, those people north of I-10 still say we Canadians (every last one of
>> us, apparently) say "root, foot, roof, route" weirdly
>
> I wasn't going to try to describe how I say those words weirdly, but now
> I'm quite interested. I say "root" and "roof" much like "foot" with a
> little "it" sound at the end. How about you?
That's the way I've heard that Canadians pronounce those words. I've never
met one I pronounce "root" (and "route" - I have to practically force
myself to say "router" as "r-ow-ter") like the o in "who". But then I was
born in London, raised in Cumbria and finished in Ontario. Canadians think
I'm an Aussie or South African, Americans think I'm English and English
call me "Yank". I can't get no respect...
--
derek >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 20, 2007
Posts: 31
|
(Msg. 86) Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:24 am
Post subject: Re: US dialects (was: Stoors) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Dirk Thierbach wrote:
> 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.
They say that a little bit here in Wyoming. (I don't, but I'm not from
here.)
They also say things like flage (long a) for flag. may-zhure for
measure. Maturial for Material. And for words like "hull" the 'u' is
swallowed so it's almost non-existant.
Also, instead of "The car needs to be washed." or "The car needs
washing." they say "The car needs washed."
Michelle
Flutist >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 17, 2007
Posts: 5
|
(Msg. 87) Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 4:26 am
Post subject: Re: US dialects (was: Stoors) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 20, 2007
Posts: 31
|
(Msg. 88) Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:33 am
Post subject: Re: US dialects (was: Stoors) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Noel Q. von Schneiffel wrote:
> On 5 Jun., 19:24, "Michelle J. Haines" <mhai....TakeThisOut@nanc.com> wrote:
>> Dirk Thierbach wrote:
>>
>>> "Acrosst" is probably from "across", but where does "warsh" come from?
>> Wash.
>>
>> They say that a little bit here in Wyoming. (I don't, but I'm not from
>> here.) (snip)
>
> And they say "jorb" instead of "job"... right?
>
> http://www.homestarrunner.com/cantsayjob.html
Not that I've ever noticed. I'll have to listen to my father-in-law a
bit, who has the strongest "Wyoming country" accent in the family.
Michelle
Flutist >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 28, 2005
Posts: 263
|
(Msg. 89) Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:02 am
Post subject: Re: Something doesn't add up [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Derek Broughton wrote:
> JimboCat wrote:
>
(re: Arthurian legend)
>> My favorites (among the small percentage I have read) include Mary
>> Stewart (of course!), especially /The Crystal Cave/, and, stragely
>> enough, Marion Zimmer Bradley's /The Mists of Avalon/ which tells the
>> story from the point of view of Morgan LeFay, an evil witch in
>> Mallory's version.
>
> Both very good. I've read the Cornwell, too, and I enjoy it. I can't
> stand T.H. White. I keep meaning to check out Jack Whyte.
I am in the middle of Jack Whyte's second book (/The Singing Sword/) and I'm
very impressed. We haven't come close to Arthur yet - it starts two
generations earlier, as the Roman Empire's time in Britain comes to a
close. It has wonderful rationalizations of the origins of the "Sword in
the stone" and the "Lady of the Lake". Elsewhere in the thread, Troels
wrote:
> It is, however, possible that a fifth or sixth century chieftain in
> England could have had mounted warriors inspired by Roman cavalry, though
> these, due to the prohibitive cost of both obtaining and maintaining horse
> as well as armour and weapons, would most likely have been few and far
> between
Whyte is working into this as I read. The first novel (/The Skystone/)
begins about the time of Adrianople, and Whyte's extrapolation (in the
second book) of how that led the Romans to develop their own heavy cavalry,
while presumably fictional, makes sense. That those Romans planning to
remain in Britain to try to maintain civilization would adopt tactics that
mesh with the Arthurian legends we all know, of mounted chivalry, follows
logically.
--
derek >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 18, 2007
Posts: 76
|
(Msg. 90) Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:12 am
Post subject: Re: Something doesn't add up [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:02:03 -0300, Derek Broughton
<news.DeleteThis@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>Whyte is working into this as I read. The first novel (/The Skystone/)
>begins about the time of Adrianople, and Whyte's extrapolation (in the
>second book) of how that led the Romans to develop their own heavy cavalry,
>while presumably fictional, makes sense. That those Romans planning to
>remain in Britain to try to maintain civilization would adopt tactics that
>mesh with the Arthurian legends we all know, of mounted chivalry, follows
>logically.
I am fairly sure that the Byzantines did develop cataphracts in
response to Adrianople and other encounters. Whether the second book
follows the historical timeline I have no idea, not only because I
haven't read it, but also because I do not have the timeline
memorized, but the basic idea sounds right.
--
"A portent, therefore, happens not contrary to nature,
but contrary to what we know as nature." >> Stay informed about: Something doesn't add up |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
