[Oisín]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Or there is the version that was common when I lived in Buckinghamshire -- fink. As in "nuffink" (nothing).

I always find that one very cute, just can't help it. For all the negative associations of lower-class Jerry Springer material white trash imposed on me by innumerable British TV shows, I still can't help smiling a little every time I hear someone use the word nuffink. Same thing goes for the whole 'replacing final t with glottal stop' thing. Awfully endearing.

Interesting little point I've been thinking of sometimes: Many Americans seem to do the exact opposite (with regards to -ng becoming -nk, not with regards to th becoming v and f) and write for instance, 'I thing this is a good thing'. Is this a reflection of actual pronunciation, or is it just people being bad spellers?

But in general, I would agree that when it comes to phonetically spelling vulgar accents, it's best to le'e it ahht.

Leave it out? Let it at it? Later it a hot?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Oisín

I always find that one very cute, just can't help it. For all the negative associations of lower-class Jerry Springer material white trash imposed on me by innumerable British TV shows, I still can't help smiling a little every time I hear someone use the word nuffink. Same thing goes for the whole 'replacing final t with glottal stop' thing. Awfully endearing.

Interesting little point I've been thinking of sometimes: Many Americans seem to do the exact opposite (with regards to -ng becoming -nk, not with regards to th becoming v and f) and write for instance, 'I thing this is a good thing'. Is this a reflection of actual pronunciation, or is it just people being bad spellers?

I'm not sure. Which regional US accent do you mean? There are quite a few, although in general they aren't as pronounced as those in places like the UK. There are also ethnic accents. For example, here in "Warshington, DC" a lot of the locals will say "axed" instead of "asked." But they know how to spell the word, it's just mispronounced.

Leave it out? Let it at it? Later it a hot?

It was my attempt at transliterating "leave it out." I'm impressed you got it the first time!

Here's another for you, a traditional Suffolk greeting: Roitbuh? Owyouadoin'of? I'll translate: "All right boy? How are you doing?" That one was always a stumper to the GIs stationed in the county.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

I'm not sure. Which regional US accent do you mean? There are quite a few, although in general they aren't as pronounced as those in places like the UK. There are also ethnic accents. For example, here in "Warshington, DC" a lot of the locals will say "axed" instead of "asked." But they know how to spell the word, it's just mispronounced.

I don't know which accent it is, I've just noticed that some people (and I thing, err, think I've only seen Americans do it) write think as thing for some reason...

It was my attempt at transliterating "leave it out." I'm impressed you got it the first time!

Well, it was the first thing(k) I guessed at, but the presence of the t's and the h's confused me a little. I'd write it as lee' i' ou' instead, but that's probably a different accent then (never was much good at identifying or distinguishing British accents from one another).

Here's another for you, a traditional Suffolk greeting: Roitbuh? Owyouadoin'of? I'll translate: "All right boy? How are you doing?" That one was always a stumper to the GIs stationed in the county.

Heh... If I saw that written without the 'translation', I would read it out loud and get, "All right, [buh]? How are you doing, love?" out of it

What's the 'of' for? And why 'boy'? Suffolkers strange people? (Incidentally, what are people from Suffolk called? With the strange way the English have of naming their peoples [Mancunians, Glaswegians, Brummies, etc.], I wouldn't be too surprised if they were called Soufflés or something...)

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Oisín

What's the 'of' for? And why 'boy'? Suffolkers strange people? (Incidentally, what are people from Suffolk called? With the strange way the English have of naming their peoples [Mancunians, Glaswegians, Brummies, etc.], I wouldn't be too surprised if they were called Soufflés or something...)

I'm not a Suffolk native myself, though my mother was. Her accent was relatively mild because she was from Ipswich. The really strong accents are out in the villages.

As far as I know there's no specific word for people from Suffolk (pronounced "Suffick"). "Boy" is pretty much used for any man, the older the better. You sometimes hear "gal" for woman. Old men are known as "old boys" especially in the third person "that old boy over there." The whole thing is pronounced with a sort of a sing-song lilt, with all sentences (not just questions) often ending on an up note.

Like a lot of rural accents, the grammar is pretty non-standard. For example, forming verbs with an extra "of." The Suffolk accent is pretty weird, and there are a lot of verbal ticks like that. For example, they tend to insert "hey?" into sentences, seemingly at random. It's one of those things a non-native could never get right, and even after living there eleven years I wouldn't try.

Really broad Suffolk isn't commonly heard outside the county but there is a popular English poet called Pam Ayres who has an accent similar to Suffolk's. She's from the neighboring county of Norfolk, but it is close enough.

Interestingly (to me), there is a chapter in a well-respected history of early America here that traces the origin of a number of common American words to East Anglian dialects, including Suffolk. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but there were several and they were ones that we wouldn't now think of as regional -- havig been popularized by their detour through the US. That's not surprising given that many of the early settlers to America came from the region.

To everyone else, sorry this was so off topic. Much obloiged (tugs forelock).

[Kerrigan]

It's interesting how, according to that list, only people who died in the 20th century mentioned alcohol. Also, it seems as though the majority of people who tried to make jokes as their last words died in the 20th century. The last words from the 18th and 19th centuries come off as much more dignified.

[Kerrigan]

With regards to American and English dialects, I've noticed that Americans tend to speak less like Englishmen and more like continental Europeans, eg, pronunciation is nasal like the French, and they tend to prefer Latinate words to Germanic words (especially the university students I know). Certain areas have very clear European influences, not the least of which are the North-Eastern corridor, where the local accents were shaped by Italian immigrants, and the South-West, where Spanish is very common. I have no doubt that within a few generations, American English will be nearly unintelligible to British people, and vice versa.

Recently I had an American friend over to visit, and the only accent that she is able to understand is the London Ya drawl. Nothing else she could understand. Strangely though, a lot of Canadians I know have been able to blend easily into English society, and many of them start to affect the accent even though they are in their teens or twenties. Americans (US people) are not really able to do this.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I have no doubt that within a few generations, American English will be nearly unintelligible to British people, and vice versa.

I find this most unlikely. Consider that for the 200+ years American and British English have been virtually separated, the changes have not been great enough to make them mutually unintelligible.

Also consider that with the amount of especially American television available everywhere, it's almost inconceivable that the English will be unable to understand their American brethren. The other way around might happen, though not quite as soon as within a few generations, IMO. There are already Americans (as you mentioned) who have trouble understanding most English dialects; and even I, a European who is just as used to British English as American English and understand them equally well, do encounter some difficulties when exposed to certain Scottish or accents (I readily admit that I needed subtitles for parts of 'Sweet Sixteen' to understand everything, and I think quite a few Americans and possibly even some Brits did too).

[willed]

Originally Posted by Oisín

I find this most unlikely. Consider that for the 200+ years American and British English have been virtually separated, the changes have not been great enough to make them mutually unintelligible.

Also consider that with the amount of especially American television available everywhere, it's almost inconceivable that the English will be unable to understand their American brethren. The other way around might happen, though not quite as soon as within a few generations, IMO. There are already Americans (as you mentioned) who have trouble understanding most English dialects; and even I, a European who is just as used to British English as American English and understand them equally well, do encounter some difficulties when exposed to certain Scottish or accents (I readily admit that I needed subtitles for parts of 'Sweet Sixteen' to understand everything, and I think quite a few Americans and possibly even some Brits did too).

Amen to that! I'm English and there are some Scottish accents I can barely understand!

[Kerrigan]

Ever been to Glasgow? It might as well be Germany, I can hardly understand the people there. People in Edinburgh and along the east coast (Fife, etc) are probably the easiest Scots to understand.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I have no doubt that within a few generations, American English will be nearly unintelligible to British people, and vice versa.

I severely doubt that. Really strong regional accents are dying in both countries. To find a really pure example you already have to hunt for someone older. The trend on both sides of the Atlantic is toward relatively uniform accents that are mutually intelligible.

I don't understand your "don't speak like Englishmen" comment. You seem to be conflating the flat vowels of the south of England (and educated classes at that) with the speech of "Englishmen." Other parts of England have much more nasal accents, and not coincidentally, those were the parts of England whose people tended to emigrate.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Ever been to Glasgow? It might as well be Germany, I can hardly understand the people there.

My point exactly

So how are us poor non-native speakers supposed to cope then? :S

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

I severely doubt that. Really strong regional accents are dying in both countries. To find a really pure example you already have to hunt for someone older. The trend on both sides of the Atlantic is toward relatively uniform accents that are mutually intelligible.

And this is not just in English, but in nearly all languages (the only real exceptions I can think of being Norwegian and Chinese, and Chinese not even really)

[Kerrigan]

SimeytheLimey, you don't think that Americans, in general, have a more nasal way of speaking than British people?

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

SimeytheLimey, you don't think that Americans, in general, have a more nasal way of speaking than British people?

New Yorkers perhaps, and Southerners too, but not all Americans. As Simey says, there are quite nasal British dialects too.

(Erm, yeah, I can read; I know I'm not Simey, but I don't care, I'm a butt-in'er )

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

SimeytheLimey, you don't think that Americans, in general, have a more nasal way of speaking than British people?

It depends on which accents you are comparing. There are a variety of American accents, some more nasal than others. There certainly are a variety of British accents. So, for example, would I say that someone from say, Colorado speaks with a more nasal accent than, say, a scouser, then the answer is certainly not. The Liverpudlian has by far the more nasal accent than a Coloradan. On the other hand, someone from New Jersey has a much more nasal accent than someone from Sussex.

Basically, you just overgeneralized.

Incidentally, from what I have read, the flat vowels of the home counties are reckoned to be a relatively recent innovation. That accent probably only goes back about 150 years or so and even then was mainly a class-based affectation. The sharper vowels that are heard elsewhere in the UK, and in all of Britain's former colonies are the more common usage.

[ghporter]

Kerrigan, the nasal quality you refer to is fairly regional, and can be included in accents from places as diverse as Upstate New York, Northern Illinois (outside Chicago), the Detroit area, and much of the Upper Midwest. As a reformed Michiganian, I notice when I speak with my family how nasal they sound. Further, in my profession as a technical instructor, I met with litterally thousands of young men and women from all over the U.S. (and from Central and South America, various Continental European countries, and most of the UK), and as Simey says, extreme accents (and dialects) are becoming less and less pronounced.

There's a reason for this: telecommunications, particularly TV, radio and film. This has the effect of exposing people all over the world to accents from all over the world, and thus "leveling out" regionalisms over an extended period of time.

Note that the US distributors of "Mad Max" had all the actors' voices dubbed by American actors because their Australian accents were "too extreme." I'll bet that those accents were more extreme than you'll find in Sidney or Brisbane today, too. The longer a group is exposed to a generalized accent, the less pronounced their accent will be.

Trying to locate someone's area of origin by their accent can cause some pretty interesting screw ups because of this, too. I had a student who I figured was from Northern Minnesota because his accent seemed to have a combination of attributes from Nordic influences, along with some hint of Canadian regionalisms. Wrong. REALLY WRONG. He was Irish, born and raised near Cork. He'd been in the States and among a variety of U.S. accents for about ten years when I met him, so his native accent had pretty much faded away.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by ghporter

There's a reason for this: telecommunications, particularly TV, radio and film. This has the effect of exposing people all over the world to accents from all over the world, and thus "leveling out" regionalisms over an extended period of time.

This compared with the fact that most countries now use telecommunications, particularly TV, to impose a standardized dialect on speakers of other dialects. 50-60 years ago, there were over 80 dialects in Denmark, all of them flourishing, many of them very different. Nowadays, because of TV, we basically have one dialect (Rigsdansk) left, and all the other dialects have been all but forced into oblivion by all but the older generation. Many people speak dialect to each other, but Rigsdansk to their children, with the particular purpose of preventing the dialect from living on, 'cause they see it as a disadvantage speaking dialect. This sucks.

The only country that I know of that doesn't do this is Norway, where the different (and often very strange) dialects are actively encouraged, and most of them are represented on national TV.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Oisín

This compared with the fact that most countries now use telecommunications, particularly TV, to impose a standardized dialect on speakers of other dialects.

I have to take exception to the term "impose" if you are applying it to places other than Denmark. In the U.S., the general trend in accents has been simply to reduce the distinctive regional halmarks. If this had been "imposed" then the trend would have been to go toward a combination of Northeastern accents, with a healthy dose of Manhattan overlaid on it, because the radio and television personalities who were so visible (and audible) were from that area. In fact, U.S. accents have tended to homogenize rather than concentrate on one regionality.

A Danish friend of mine has never mentioned anything about the loss of dialects in Denmark, though she has gone to great lengths to ensure that her son, born here in the U.S., was fluent enough in Danish to communicate effectively with his relatives there. Considering how small Denmark is, is it not possible that the trend toward a common dialect is as much because of improvements in transportation and mobility since 1945, allowing and encouraging the population itself to become more homogenous?

[Kerrigan]

Simey- Maybe I'm surrounded by so many yahs that I have a terribly distorted perspective of other English regional dialects . To be perfectly honest, when I travel through the UK, I usually just go back and forth from London to Edinburgh, and I've not spent much time at all in other cities like Liverpool, Manchester, etc. That is probably why I am not so familiar with those accents as I should be.

But enough about that. You said you live in Washington DC, right? I've always been curious as to how the southern accent evolved into what it is today. They say that a southern accent is the best way to disguise your intelligence, but I think it is one of the nicer sounding accents in the US.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by ghporter

If this had been "imposed" then the trend would have been to go toward a combination of Northeastern accents, with a healthy dose of Manhattan overlaid on it, because the radio and television personalities who were so visible (and audible) were from that area. In fact, U.S. accents have tended to homogenize rather than concentrate on one regionality.

When it comes to American radio and television news, I understand that the "Standard Midwestern" accent is predominant. I don't know if this is true from experience, I've just read this in various places.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I have to take exception to the term "impose" if you are applying it to places other than Denmark. In the U.S., the general trend in accents has been simply to reduce the distinctive regional halmarks. If this had been "imposed" then the trend would have been to go toward a combination of Northeastern accents, with a healthy dose of Manhattan overlaid on it, because the radio and television personalities who were so visible (and audible) were from that area. In fact, U.S. accents have tended to homogenize rather than concentrate on one regionality.

Perhaps impose isn't the best of words to use here, but the government (in Denmark, at least, but probably in most countries) is encouraging a homogenisation of dialects. In the US, dialects have mostly homogenised around Northeastern and Californian dialects, and almost everybody on the TV shows and programs we get over here speak a nearly uniform 'standard' dialect.

A Danish friend of mine has never mentioned anything about the loss of dialects in Denmark, though she has gone to great lengths to ensure that her son, born here in the U.S., was fluent enough in Danish to communicate effectively with his relatives there.

How old is your friend? And, more importantly perhaps, where in Denmark is she from?

If she's from Copenhagen or one of the surrounding areas, and if she's younger than, say, 50, there's a fairly big chance she's never really been exposed to other dialects than the standardised Rigsdansk to any great extent.

Considering how small Denmark is, is it not possible that the trend toward a common dialect is as much because of improvements in transportation and mobility since 1945, allowing and encouraging the population itself to become more homogenous?

It's more the other way around, in a way. Considering how small Denmark is, there has been a fairly high rate of inter-county mobility here for more than a century. Even on a horse carriage, distances of perhaps 20 miles are not insuperable, and could be (and were) carried out regularly. We've also had a very effective train system since the late 19th century, improvements in transportation and mobility since 1945 have been less, or at least less signific, here than in most other, bigger, countries.

All the way up until the beginning of the 1970's, while there was a tendency for the population to become increasingly homogenised, the various dialects were kept fairly intact. This changed with incredible speed once television became a household commodity, and Dansk Sprognævn (The Danish Language Authority) have been very active in promoting the standardised language via television especially.

Obviously, the circumstances are different for each country, and I haven't done any kind of research to back up my claims here, but it is my general understanding that various languages advisory committees and/or governments do use television very actively as a way of homogenising the spoken language, also in the US.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

But enough about that. You said you live in Washington DC, right? I've always been curious as to how the southern accent evolved into what it is today. They say that a southern accent is the best way to disguise your intelligence, but I think it is one of the nicer sounding accents in the US.

Washington, DC is only nominally in the South.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Washington, DC is only nominally in the South.

Don't Virginians have southern accents though?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Oisín

How old is your friend? And, more importantly perhaps, where in Denmark is she from?

She's a bit over 50, and she's from near Copenhagen. She has also traveled extensively in Europe over the years, so while she may have started out with a leaning toward Rigsdansk, I'm sure she's been exposed to a lot more than that. I didn't realize that Denmark could even HAVE distinct regional dialects until today, let alone 80 of them!

Originally Posted by Oisín

All the way up until the beginning of the 1970's, while there was a tendency for the population to become increasingly homogenised, the various dialects were kept fairly intact. This changed with incredible speed once television became a household commodity, and Dansk Sprognævn (The Danish Language Authority) have been very active in promoting the standardised language via television especially.

I thought the French were the only ones with Language Police. I find it very interesting that Denmark has them too, though I doubt that yours are as, let's say "eccentric" as the French. I can, however, see their point to a degree. With so few native speakers, Danish is not a language that has the inherent staying power of a language like English or Cantonese, so reinforcing one standard-to prevent branching, let's say-makes some sense.

Originally Posted by Oisín

Obviously, the circumstances are different for each country, and I haven't done any kind of research to back up my claims here, but it is my general understanding that various languages advisory committees and/or governments do use television very actively as a way of homogenising the spoken language, also in the US.

Having no formally established "standard" language, the U.S. does not seem to have a formal language advisory committe/board. Today, I dispair at the depths to which people fall in their butchering of their native tongue here. It's pathetic, really, considering how fairly easy it is to avoid the most eggregious examples of BAD.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by ghporter

She's a bit over 50, and she's from near Copenhagen. She has also traveled extensively in Europe over the years, so while she may have started out with a leaning toward Rigsdansk, I'm sure she's been exposed to a lot more than that. I didn't realize that Denmark could even HAVE distinct regional dialects until today, let alone 80 of them!

Oh, we most certainly do, or did. Several of the old dialects were close to being mutually incomprehensible, and many Copenhageners don't understand a word of what older people from Mors, Thyholm, or the South of Jutland say. The dialectical differences within Danish are actually bigger than those within English - the only English dialects that can claim to be as different from 'standard' English as, say, Thyholmsk is from Rigsdansk would be the Irish, Scottish, and Caribbean ones, because they're the only ones who have the English language mixed up with the grammar from another language. (Thyholmsk, as well as many other dialects in Jutland are, etymologically speaking, not Scandinavian languages at all; they are closer related to German than Danish, and as such, the grammar of these dialects is very different in many places from normal Danish)

I thought the French were the only ones with Language Police. I find it very interesting that Denmark has them too, though I doubt that yours are as, let's say "eccentric" as the French. I can, however, see their point to a degree. With so few native speakers, Danish is not a language that has the inherent staying power of a language like English or Cantonese, so reinforcing one standard-to prevent branching, let's say-makes some sense.

Oh, Dansk Sprognævn can be plenty eccentric! Lately, they seem to be on a killing spree, trying to get rid of all the old spelling forms of especially French and German loan words, bringing written Danish ever closer to written Norwegian. As such, mayonnaise can now be spelt majonæse; ressource [old Danish spelling] can now be spelt resurse; and most words with either -ch- or -sch- in them can now be spelt with -sj- instead (bolsje, gletsjer, rutsje, tusj for bolche, gletscher, rutsche, tusch/touch).

Having no formally established "standard" language, the U.S. does not seem to have a formal language advisory committe/board.

No, it doesn't, but the language encouraged by the media is fairly the fairly standardised Middle-Western accent adopted by Hollywood and TV shows. Even in places that have stronger dialects (the South, for instance), you'll see television news reporters and anchorpeople speaking with this standardised dialect, even if they are actually locals and native dialect speakers.

Today, I dispair at the depths to which people fall in their butchering of their native tongue here. It's pathetic, really, considering how fairly easy it is to avoid the most eggregious examples of BAD.

Me too, but I fear this is a losing battle; one that's been fought by the linguistically more conservative intelligentsia throughout millennia, and will continue to be fought as long as there are languages...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Don't Virginians have southern accents though?

Some do. But I live in Northern Virginia, which might as well be in the north. If you go about 100 miles further south than me then Virginia begins to feel like a southern state. But the accent is still not terribly strong compared to a state in the deep south.

[DeathToWindows]

Originally Posted by wtf_reporter

Nazi War Criminals (various-16 October 1946)

02:12 a.m. Julius Streicher - "Heil Hitler!" ("Ask the man his name.") "You know my name well. Julius Streicher! . . . Now it goes with God. . . . Purim Fest 1946! . . . The Bolsheviks will hang you one day! . . . I am with God. Adele, my dear wife."

For those who don't know, the bolded text referrs to the Megillah of Esther and the hanging of the sons of Haman (although, they were all hung simultainously, not in a series with statements)