| Author |
Message |
Luke
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 3:48 am
Post subject: Re: American British pronunciations |
|
|
Peter Duncanson wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:27:25 +0100, Luke <lpgmx@f2s.com> wrote:
Does anyone know Gavin's accent, by the way?
Scottish
|
I thought so but my Scottish partner wasn't so sure!
-Luke
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bogus address
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 6:18 am
Post subject: Re: American British pronunciations |
|
|
| Quote: | I'm no Professor 'Iggens, but I have a lifelong interest in, and sensitivity
for local dialect pronunciations. I'm particularly fascinated with the
persistence of Elizabethan dialectic pronunciations that have been
documented in various backwater areas of the eastern United States.
|
"Documented" = "the subject of persistent unfounded urban legend". The idea
survives because the notion of a sort of linguistic "Deliverance", where the
guys in dungarees go in for diphthongs rather than sodomy, makes such a cool
yarn. (Americans also invented Brigadoon; miraculous cultural survivals from
the distant past are a national myth).
Since no surviving English-speaking colony in North America was founded in
Elizabethan times your theory requires that they settled by time machine as
well as by boat.
There is nowhere in North America where a speaker of any of the innumerable
and mutually incomprehensible dialects of Elizabethan English could pass as
a native. What *is* true is that some *features* of English dialects of the
distant past have ended up getting preserved in widely scattered places, but
a feature does not make a dialect. New Zealanders aren't speaking the court
Scots of Queen Mary's time simply because they say "ashet", even though that
probably is where the word came from.
| Quote: | Anyway, years ago I noted that native residents of the Maryland area around
Washington, D.C. would pronounce the "u" in words such as bush as the oo in
"whoosh" (the oo drawn out as a long o-o-o). I figured it was some kind of
local colonial corruption, until I started hearing British news presenters
on BBC doing the same thing with "President Bush" as in "who-o-osh".
Can anyone comment on the British origins of this pronunciation?
|
I pronounce "whoosh" (not a word I use a lot) and "Bush" (a word I'd rather
have much less need to use) with the same vowel sound (as in "foot"). Do
you have in mind a sound like French "bouche", English "food"? I've never
heard a speaker of any British English dialect doing that. I'd suspect
African rather than British influence.
If this is an import of a US pronunciation, the chances are it won't last.
No kid here is going to grow up being called Colon just because there's a
temporarily-well-known American arsehole who says Colin that way.
========> Email to "j-c" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce <========
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html> food intolerance data & recipes,
Mac logic fonts, Scots traditional music files and CD-ROMs of Scottish music. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Mazor
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:51 am
Post subject: Re: American British pronunciations |
|
|
"Wanderer" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:11772qgxvk6ts.82jrpmmg51o3$.dlg@40tude.net...
| Quote: | On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:45:18 +0100, David wrote:
snip
British news presenters on the Beeb exhibit different accents; many of
them aren't even English.
That's a rather sweeping, and possibly quite incorrect, statement to
make. And why the distinction between British and English?
|
For the record, this was BBC World News on radio and the presenters (there
were several who did the boosh thing) had definite British accents. I can't
pin it down any closer than that. I usually can pick out a pronounced
(double entendre intended) Irish or Scot accent, and some other obvious ones
such as the Beatles' Liverpudlian, Cockney, and ethnic "English is my second
language" speakers. None of these applied.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Mazor
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:51 am
Post subject: Re: American British pronunciations |
|
|
"Luke" <lpgmx@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:ciq6bq$r8i$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
| Quote: | John Mazor wrote:
Anyway, years ago I noted that native residents of the Maryland area
around
Washington, D.C. would pronounce the "u" in words such as bush as the oo
in
"whoosh" (the oo drawn out as a long o-o-o). I figured it was some kind
of
local colonial corruption, until I started hearing British news
presenters
on BBC doing the same thing with "President Bush" as in "who-o-osh".
I *think* Gavin Essler says something resembling "Boosh" but most of
them rhyme it with "push".
|
The same Maryland speakers pronouced "push" with the same drawn-out o-o-o,
an exact rhyme.
| Quote: | Does anyone know Gavin's accent, by the way?
|
Who is Gavin Essler? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Mazor
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:58 am
Post subject: Re: American British pronunciations |
|
|
"bogus address" <bogus@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:12708@purr.demon.co.uk...
| Quote: |
I'm no Professor 'Iggens, but I have a lifelong interest in, and
sensitivity
for local dialect pronunciations. I'm particularly fascinated with the
persistence of Elizabethan dialectic pronunciations that have been
documented in various backwater areas of the eastern United States.
"Documented" = "the subject of persistent unfounded urban legend". The
idea
survives because the notion of a sort of linguistic "Deliverance", where
the
guys in dungarees go in for diphthongs rather than sodomy, makes such a
cool
yarn. (Americans also invented Brigadoon; miraculous cultural survivals
from
the distant past are a national myth).
|
Did we invent Camelot?
| Quote: | Since no surviving English-speaking colony in North America was founded in
Elizabethan times your theory requires that they settled by time machine
as
well as by boat.
There is nowhere in North America where a speaker of any of the
innumerable
and mutually incomprehensible dialects of Elizabethan English could pass
as
a native. What *is* true is that some *features* of English dialects of
the
distant past have ended up getting preserved in widely scattered places,
but
a feature does not make a dialect. New Zealanders aren't speaking the
court
Scots of Queen Mary's time simply because they say "ashet", even though
that
probably is where the word came from.
|
I am truly and humbly chastised by your vast and superior knowledge.
However, a few niggling doubts persist.
The Elizabethan era, by the most conservative and restrictive definition,
lasted at least until 1603. The earliest English settlements in Maryland
and Virginia were less than two decades later. Unless there was a massive
change in the language during that short period, settlers brought with them
most if not all of the characteristics of English as it was spoken in the
Elizabethan era in their native regions. So while the use of the term
"Elizabethan" may not be technically correct in that she was dead by then,
the practical difference is triffling.
More to the point, I did not claim that I heard an "Elizabethan dialect."
If you had read my statement carefully, you would have realized that I
deliberately chose the term "Elizabethan dialectic pronunciations". While
that may not be a term of art for professional students of linguistics, it's
meaning is clear enough: specific pronunciations of specific words, not a
complete dialect. Actually, I was several minutes into the conversation
that elicited the "noine thewsand dawlers" phrase before I paid closer
attention. Up until that point, I was only vaguely aware of some subtle
differences in the speaker's pronunciation; otherwise, there was nothing
remarkable to note. It wasn't until he strung together three glaring
examples that I realized that I was listening to remnants of a British
accent.
If you care to document how "noine thewsand dawlers" springs from a later
era of the British branch of the English language, so much removed that it
could not possibly bear the loose attribution of "Elizabethan," please do so
and I shall be properly corrected.
| Quote: | Anyway, years ago I noted that native residents of the Maryland area
around
Washington, D.C. would pronounce the "u" in words such as bush as the oo
in
"whoosh" (the oo drawn out as a long o-o-o). I figured it was some kind
of
local colonial corruption, until I started hearing British news
presenters
on BBC doing the same thing with "President Bush" as in "who-o-osh".
Can anyone comment on the British origins of this pronunciation?
I pronounce "whoosh" (not a word I use a lot) and "Bush" (a word I'd
rather
have much less need to use) with the same vowel sound (as in "foot"). Do
you have in mind a sound like French "bouche", English "food"? I've never
heard a speaker of any British English dialect doing that.
|
You better tell that to the several BBC radio presenters whom I heard using
that exact boosh pronunciation amidst their obvious British accents.
The French bouche sounds very close, although that's based on pronunciations
I learned in high school French so I can't vouch for it. Using the word
"moo" to actually imitate a cow sound (as opposed to the shorter,
less-stressed sound when using it less onomotopoeiacally as in "a cow's
moo") also is very close.
| Quote: | I'd suspect African rather than British influence.
|
Aboriginal or Afrikaaner African?
The latter is a non-starter for my local speakers, although the former
admits the hypothesis that the pronunciations I heard from local speakers I
heard were influenced by African slaves. However, given the culture of the
times and the master-slave relationship, that's rather unlikely. Unlike
today, where white rappers strive to sound black, no white from that era
would want to sound anything like a "negro".
| Quote: | If this is an import of a US pronunciation, the chances are it won't last.
|
I seriously doubt that it's an import. The boosh pronunciation is
particular to rural areas, rarely heard even there nowadays, and hence an
unlikely candidate for reverse migration.
| Quote: | No kid here is going to grow up being called Colon just because there's a
temporarily-well-known American arsehole who says Colin that way.
========> Email to "j-c" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce
========
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian
|
Midlothian, Virginia is a tolerably short ride from where I live. I think
you underestimate the persistence of British culture and language on your
American cousins.
Off topic: What is the derivation of Midlothian? The naive assumption is
that there must be other Lothians not centrally located, cf. Essex-Wessex,
Norfolk-Suffolk, but it can't be that simple, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wanderer
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 1:05 pm
Post subject: Re: American British pronunciations |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:10:56 +0100, David wrote:
| Quote: | In article <1lijroc5zf9e7.ehmdlkunzxjx.dlg@40tude.net>, Wanderer
me@privacy.net> wrote:
|
<snip>
| Quote: | You're wriggling.
Curious? I wonder why you think I'm wriggling? Maybe it's because your
response was really quite out of order. I certainly didn't make any
reference whatsoever to non-British presenters. Perhaps you're one of
those who have yet to understand the concept of Britishness when
compared to Englishness?
|
<snip>
| Quote: | You're still wriggling.........
Really? I think you've only now seen how preposterous your response was
(vis-a-vis "non-British" presenters) and, scared of losing face, are
attempting to give the impression that my position is unsteady; it is
as firm as a rock.
|
You're still wriggling.
You may have known what you wanted to say, but what you wrote most
certainly didn't say what you meant, and you know it! The earlier post
from Rob Kerr drew attention most succinctly to the inherrent lack of
clarity within your earlier statement.
--
wanderer at tesco dot net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Molly Mockford
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 1:20 pm
Post subject: Re: American British pronunciations |
|
|
At 22:58:46 on Tue, 21 Sep 2004, John Mazor <mazorj@erols.com> wrote in
<4150ea7b$0$2665$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>:
| Quote: | Off topic: What is the derivation of Midlothian? The naive assumption is
that there must be other Lothians not centrally located, cf. Essex-Wessex,
Norfolk-Suffolk, but it can't be that simple, right?
|
East Lothian and West Lothian.
--
Molly Mockford
I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that
lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be!
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Einde O'Callaghan
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 1:49 pm
Post subject: Re: American British pronunciations |
|
|
John Mazor wrote:
| Quote: | "Wanderer" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:11772qgxvk6ts.82jrpmmg51o3$.dlg@40tude.net...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:45:18 +0100, David wrote:
snip
British news presenters on the Beeb exhibit different accents; many of
them aren't even English.
That's a rather sweeping, and possibly quite incorrect, statement to
make. And why the distinction between British and English?
For the record, this was BBC World News on radio and the presenters (there
were several who did the boosh thing) had definite British accents. I can't
pin it down any closer than that. I usually can pick out a pronounced
(double entendre intended) Irish or Scot accent, and some other obvious ones
such as the Beatles' Liverpudlian, Cockney, and ethnic "English is my second
language" speakers. None of these applied.
I suspect it was a mild Scottish accent. Many Scottish speakers of |
standard English retain this vowel sound - I seem to recall people I
know from Edinburgh using it, even though most of their sounds were
fairly standard (meaning what used to be called RP).
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luke
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 1:54 pm
Post subject: Re: American British pronunciations |
|
|
John Mazor wrote:
| Quote: |
Who is Gavin Essler?
|
A BBC journalist/news reader. Not sure if he pops up on the World
Service, which you are listening to.
-Luke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 2:01 pm
Post subject: Re: American British pronunciations |
|
|
In article <4150ea79$0$2665$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>, John Mazor
<mazorj@erols.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Wanderer" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:11772qgxvk6ts.82jrpmmg51o3$.dlg@40tude.net...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:45:18 +0100, David wrote:
snip
British news presenters on the Beeb exhibit different accents;
many of them aren't even English.
That's a rather sweeping, and possibly quite incorrect, statement
to make. And why the distinction between British and English?
For the record, this was BBC World News on radio and the presenters
(there were several who did the boosh thing) had definite British
accents. I can't pin it down any closer than that. I usually can
pick out a pronounced (double entendre intended) Irish or Scot
accent, and some other obvious ones such as the Beatles'
Liverpudlian, Cockney, and ethnic "English is my second language"
speakers. None of these applied.
|
There might still be non-English British accents which aren't so
pronounced as to be obvious to foreigners (or, indeed, so pronounced as
to be not obvious to foreigners).
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/joachim/04-0.htm
"Did you know that 'B' and 'F' are two pillars supporting
the octave of musical tones?" asked Joachim... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 2:04 pm
Post subject: Re: American British pronunciations |
|
|
In article <1bii6r4rqew1r$.1nflp7tipjtlz.dlg@40tude.net>, Wanderer
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:10:56 +0100, David wrote:
In article <1lijroc5zf9e7.ehmdlkunzxjx.dlg@40tude.net>, Wanderer
me@privacy.net> wrote:
snip
You're wriggling.
Curious? I wonder why you think I'm wriggling? Maybe it's because
your response was really quite out of order. I certainly didn't
make any reference whatsoever to non-British presenters. Perhaps
you're one of those who have yet to understand the concept of
Britishness when compared to Englishness?
snip
You're still wriggling.........
Really? I think you've only now seen how preposterous your response
was (vis-a-vis "non-British" presenters) and, scared of losing
face, are attempting to give the impression that my position is
unsteady; it is as firm as a rock.
You're still wriggling.
|
No, but you're still trolling.
| Quote: | You may have known what you wanted to say, but what you wrote most
certainly didn't say what you meant, and you know it! The earlier
post from Rob Kerr drew attention most succinctly to the inherrent
lack of clarity within your earlier statement.
|
The semi-colon would indicate the presenters; the accents would call on
a colon.
Ah, but you didn't accuse me of lack of clarity, did you? You asked me
"why the distinction between British and English?"
And I ask you again: What distinction? Seems to me that if anyone is
wriggling here, it's you.
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/aureole/
Welcome: Step Into The Light... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matti Lamprhey
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 2:20 pm
Post subject: Re: American British pronunciations |
|
|
"Luke" <lpgmx@f2s.com> wrote...
| Quote: | John Mazor wrote:
Who is Gavin Essler?
A BBC journalist/news reader. Not sure if he pops up on the World
Service, which you are listening to.
|
If you're googling him, his name's Esler. He was born in Scotland and
his first broadcasting job was in Ireland.
Matti |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wanderer
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 4:53 pm
Post subject: Re: American British pronunciations |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:04:02 +0100, David wrote:
| Quote: | In article <1bii6r4rqew1r$.1nflp7tipjtlz.dlg@40tude.net>, Wanderer
me@privacy.net> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:10:56 +0100, David wrote:
In article <1lijroc5zf9e7.ehmdlkunzxjx.dlg@40tude.net>, Wanderer
me@privacy.net> wrote:
snip
You're wriggling.
Curious? I wonder why you think I'm wriggling? Maybe it's because
your response was really quite out of order. I certainly didn't
make any reference whatsoever to non-British presenters. Perhaps
you're one of those who have yet to understand the concept of
Britishness when compared to Englishness?
snip
You're still wriggling.........
Really? I think you've only now seen how preposterous your response
was (vis-a-vis "non-British" presenters) and, scared of losing
face, are attempting to give the impression that my position is
unsteady; it is as firm as a rock.
You're still wriggling.
No, but you're still trolling.
|
That is your opinion. It is also a last resort on usenet to accuse
someone of trolling when you realise you have an unsustainable argument.
| Quote: | You may have known what you wanted to say, but what you wrote most
certainly didn't say what you meant, and you know it! The earlier
post from Rob Kerr drew attention most succinctly to the inherrent
lack of clarity within your earlier statement.
The semi-colon would indicate the presenters; the accents would call on
a colon.
|
Oh, I see. When all else fails, give your own interpretation of the
rules. It is a very safe course of action for the English language,
where there is no final arbiter. Unfortunately this does not alter my
view that your choice of phrase that started this exchange is readily
open to mis-interpretation, something that you seem most reluctant to
acknowledge.
| Quote: | Ah, but you didn't accuse me of lack of clarity, did you? You asked me
"why the distinction between British and English?"
|
No, I made the mistake of creditting you with enough intelligence to go
back and re-consider what you had written.
| Quote: | And I ask you again: What distinction? Seems to me that if anyone is
wriggling here, it's you.
|
Oh, I don't think so. It isn't me that is having to resort to
obfuscation in an attempt to muddy the waters.
It would seem that this dialogue has reached its logical conclusion. May
I commend to you a little maxim that I try to keep in mind:-
Have I understood what the other guy is saying?
Have I meant what I said? Have I said what I mean?
--
wanderer at tesco dot net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Stevens
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:42 pm
Post subject: Re: American British pronunciations |
|
|
Luke wrote:
| Quote: | John Mazor wrote:
Anyway, years ago I noted that native residents of the Maryland area
around Washington, D.C. would pronounce the "u" in words such as
bush as the oo in "whoosh" (the oo drawn out as a long o-o-o). I
figured it was some kind of local colonial corruption, until I
started hearing British news presenters on BBC doing the same thing
with "President Bush" as in "who-o-osh".
I *think* Gavin Essler says something resembling "Boosh" but most of
them rhyme it with "push".
|
So, unless I'm imagining things, do a number of presenters with Scottish
origins - James Naughtie and Andrew Neill come to mind.
--
Mike Stevens
narowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Million-to-one chances turn up nine times out of ten.
(Terry Pratchett) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Stevens
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 6:17 pm
Post subject: Re: American British pronunciations |
|
|
John Mazor wrote:
| Quote: | If you care to document how "noine thewsand dawlers" springs from a
later era of the British branch of the English language, so much
removed that it could not possibly bear the loose attribution of
"Elizabethan," please do so and I shall be properly corrected.
|
Well, it's not so very different from the sort of super-upper-class
hyperlect spoken by people like the Duke of Edinburgh. But then I suppose
he counts as Elizabethan, depending on which Elizabeth you're thinking of
 . Come to think of it, our present HMQ spoke like that when she was
younger.
| Quote: | Off topic: What is the derivation of Midlothian? The naive
assumption is that there must be other Lothians not centrally
located, cf. Essex-Wessex, Norfolk-Suffolk, but it can't be that
simple, right?
|
Midlothian, East Lothian and West Lothian are nowadays all Unitary
Authorities in Scotland.
Back in history/mythology (my knowledge of Scottish history isn't good
enough to know where one ends and the other begins) it was a Kingdom in its
own right. So Mid-Lothian presumably referred to the middle bit of that
Kingdom. At one time, Lothian was dominated by Angles and more English than
Scottish, until the Picts conquered it in the seventh century AD. In the
twelfth century, the name "Scotland" referred to only one part of what the
name now means, and one of the other parts was Lothian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in