Analyze my dialect

[Starchild]

In fact, regarding the British sense of distance, we're probably the only people in the world who think nothing of ruling a nation of millions on the other side of the world but balk at nipping to the corner shop for a pint of milk.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
obviously you've never heard of the two causes of dialect variety... foreign influence and prolonged seperation (linguistic drift)...

in terms of the science of linguistics, tell me how did it come to pass that a small area like England would have more dialects than a massive area like the US?

Stop the crap here Speer. Dialects in the New World are notoriously more uniform than in Europe, where there is an history spawning milleniums. Many dialects in Europe can trace back to different languages spoken by small Celtic, Germanic, Caucasian, etc, tribes.

[Provost Harrison]

So true, so true

The idea of having to go all the way back up to Hull (220 miles) fills me with dread...

[JimmyCracksCorn]

We've had far more years.

This is irrelevent when it comes to linguistics. North American English isn't a new language that was spawned in the early 17th century, its a direct continuation of early 17th century English from the British Isles. We have just as much variety as you do because... we came from you. This should be no surprise.

Basically, you can narrow down the lingustic influence on the eastern United States (just the east coast mind you) can be broken down into 4 immigration waves from the United kingdom in the early 17th century. East Anglians went to New England, South of England (London and further south) to Virginia, North Midlands to the Delaware region, and the borderlands (Ireland, Scotland, Northern England) to the frontier and Appalachia. All of the linguistic variety from those regions can be reflected in their respective ending locations in North America (though in 16th and 17th century formats), and thats just the eastern United States. Canada, the Western US and the Caribbean are a whole other story.

Again, no on is denying there's alot of variety in the UK, we're just saying there's just as much here and it would be ignorant to deny that.

[Al B. Sure!]

stop the crap? no one here has referenced anything scientific... explain to me how it could possibly be that there is more variety in England when England has not undergone the two causes of linguistic variety as much as America has.

is this a case of something just being so, despite scientific theories making it very much clear it shouldn't be so?

[Provost Harrison]

Well come on that AS, reference something scientific, educate us all...

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Stop the crap here Speer. Dialects in the New World are notoriously more uniform than in Europe, where there is an history spawning milleniums. Many dialects in Europe can trace back to different languages spoken by small Celtic, Germanic, Caucasian, etc, tribes.

Not true, do some some research.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Well come on that AS, reference something scientific, educate us all...

You're the one making ridiculous, sweeping claims. I'd say the burden of proof is on you my friend.

[Provost Harrison]

I postulate that due to the regional differences before rapid forms of transit and different linguistic origins I postulate that we have the most diverse accents. Counter that!

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
stop the crap? no one here has referenced anything scientific... explain to me how it could possibly be that there is more variety in England when England has not undergone the two causes of linguistic variety as much as America has.

I have just given you another cause for linguistic variety, which is history and tribal amalgation. America was populated at a time where communication means were relatively developed, and things only went farther in that direction, all with a strong central government.

For instance did you know that in France, in the 15th century, only 10% of the population spoke French? 300 years later, in 1792, that number had reached 50%.

Now, at the same date, in America, what was the percentage of the population that didn't speak English at all and never was able to do it after a few years because of the absence of contact with the local population and/or education?

is this a case of something just being so, despite scientific theories making it very much clear it shouldn't be so?

You've gotta know how to use this 'scientific' stuff properly.

[Odin]

Here in Minnesota people in the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metro and the "North Woods" part of the state have the accent familiar to most people, but the western part of the state, where I live, the accent has some "Old West" influence.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hey, whats wrong with Nashville? Nashville's a great town...

Nashville . Tennessee is just a great state overall.


Oh, and can we stop the penis waving and admit that both areas have as much distinction in accent? Hell, I live in the South now, and the 'drawl' is anything from consistent, even within in the same county.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Oh, and can we stop the penis waving and admit that both areas have as much distinction in accent? Hell, I live in the South now, and the 'drawl' is anything from consistent, even within in the same county.

Well, doesn't that demonstrate that population movements and mixing is much more frequent in America?

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, not at all. I'm sure plenty of people in Britain have moved from one area to another.

And, of course, I moved to Atlanta. There is NO WAY that I or most other Northerners would move to rural Georgia which is where the distinct accents come from. In those rural areas of the South, there is very little mixing or movement (except for people who want to move OUT).

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


I have just given you another cause for linguistic variety, which is history and tribal amalgation. America was populated at a time where communication means were relatively developed, and things only went farther in that direction, all with a strong central government.

For instance did you know that in France, in the 15th century, only 10% of the population spoke French? 300 years later, in 1792, that number had reached 50%.

Now, at the same date, in America, what was the percentage of the population that didn't speak English at all and never was able to do it after a few years because of the absence of contact with the local population and/or education?



You've gotta know how to use this 'scientific' stuff properly.

We're not talking about Europe, we're talking about the UK and North America - and specifically English. There may well be a country in Europe that is more lingustically diverse than the UK and North America combined but thats irrelevent to the discussion.

As far as accent mixing is concerned, the UK has, arguably, experienced quite a bit more of homogenization than North America has. North America has never had anything quite so dramatic of an influence as the BBC, which was a great standardizing factor in the UK. Prior to its existence, various countries in England still spoke their indigenous languages, but not anymore. What you UKers here as a "North American" TV accent is our equivalent of BBC English... its a standard, but it certainly isn't a norm.