no linger > no longer
Colonial America English Accent and contemporary Brit accent
Well, depends - many systems do have font issues which make it hard to display much of IPA properly, such as my own, or when they do display it close to properly, it isn't exactly so (such as having bad placement of diacritics). One reason why I strongly tend towards using X-SAMPA is that it simply avoids all the font issues with Unicode, as while some people say "well IPA should work on all systems with modern browsers today", that in practice is most definitely not the case, and even when it is rendered in the first place the quality of the rendering is often substandard.
<<According to the literature I've read, British and American English have both changed over the last 250 years but British English has changed a little more.>>
Hmm...that's an awfully hard statement to back up reliably with accurate linguistic evidence. Both NAE and BrE have changed in different ways over the past several centuries. Also, both have remained conservative in different ways.
<<There is a theory that the languages of colonies tend to ossify and retain some characteristics that have disappeared in the mother country.>>
Yes, that has often happened for certain characteristics. However, this doesn't mean that the dialects don't also change and evolve in different ways, because they do. As Lazar pointed out, North American English has several features which were present in 16-17th century Southern British English, but NAE has developed in many innovative ways not seen in other places. As I said before, both NAE and BrE have retained conservative elements lost or changed in the other variety and both have innovated.
Also, NAE and BrE aren't homogenous monolithic entities and certain dialects in North America and Britain vary in terms of what innovations and conservatisms are found there. For example, rhotacism is still present in some British dialects and not all American dialects have vowel mergers before /r/.
<The best example of this is Icelandic, little changed from Old Norse...>>
No, no, no, no, no----no no.
As Judge Judy says, "that's baloney--it doesn't make sense." I won't waste my time on that issue again.
Hmm...that's an awfully hard statement to back up reliably with accurate linguistic evidence. Both NAE and BrE have changed in different ways over the past several centuries. Also, both have remained conservative in different ways.
<<There is a theory that the languages of colonies tend to ossify and retain some characteristics that have disappeared in the mother country.>>
Yes, that has often happened for certain characteristics. However, this doesn't mean that the dialects don't also change and evolve in different ways, because they do. As Lazar pointed out, North American English has several features which were present in 16-17th century Southern British English, but NAE has developed in many innovative ways not seen in other places. As I said before, both NAE and BrE have retained conservative elements lost or changed in the other variety and both have innovated.
Also, NAE and BrE aren't homogenous monolithic entities and certain dialects in North America and Britain vary in terms of what innovations and conservatisms are found there. For example, rhotacism is still present in some British dialects and not all American dialects have vowel mergers before /r/.
<The best example of this is Icelandic, little changed from Old Norse...>>
No, no, no, no, no----no no.
As Judge Judy says, "that's baloney--it doesn't make sense." I won't waste my time on that issue again.
<<Well, depends - many systems do have font issues which make it hard to display much of IPA properly, such as my own, or when they do display it close to properly, it isn't exactly so (such as having bad placement of diacritics). One reason why I strongly tend towards using X-SAMPA is that it simply avoids all the font issues with Unicode, as while some people say "well IPA should work on all systems with modern browsers today", that in practice is most definitely not the case, and even when it is rendered in the first place the quality of the rendering is often substandard.>>
Yeah. I just did that one post in IPA since it was that way in the original unilang post (where IPA fonts come out looking nice) and I didn't want to take the effort to painstakingly convert it to X-SAMPA. For most purposes here on antimoon I'll keep on using X-SAMPA.
Yeah. I just did that one post in IPA since it was that way in the original unilang post (where IPA fonts come out looking nice) and I didn't want to take the effort to painstakingly convert it to X-SAMPA. For most purposes here on antimoon I'll keep on using X-SAMPA.
Kirk,
You wrote: "No, no, no, no, no----no no.
As Judge Judy says, "that's baloney--it doesn't make sense."
Baloney? I don't know what to say. You are part of a very small fringe element going against the conventional wisdom on this one. Lots of luck!
Icelandic is the closest of the Northern Germanic languages to Old Norse and it is possible for Icelandic speakers to read the Old Norse sagas in the original without too much difficulty. --- Omniglot
Actually, Modern Icelandic has changed so little from its parent language, Old Norse, in the course of the centuries that Icelanders today read the Eddas and sagas of Old Norse literature more easily than the English and the Americans read Shakespeare. ---encyclopedia.com
... Icelandic differs little from the Old Norse of the sagas. Icelanders read the latter as we read Shakespeare, if we do so. --- Frederick Bodmer "The Loom of Language
Icelandic, spoken by about 200,000 people is deeply conservative.
--- Victor Stevenson "Words."
Very complicated grammar... ... Very conservative language with few changes in the history.
The origins of Icelandic come from Old Norse, which was used by the settlers. Iceland has been quite isolated through the centuries. The language has changed very little since the 9th century. The changes that have occurred are relatively minor compared to the other Scandinavian languages.
---- www.ling.gu. se/projekt
---On-line Translator.com
I could go on ad nauseam with more examples but I think you get the picture.
Re: "I won't waste my time on that issue again."
That's your privelege if you don't want to.
You wrote: "No, no, no, no, no----no no.
As Judge Judy says, "that's baloney--it doesn't make sense."
Baloney? I don't know what to say. You are part of a very small fringe element going against the conventional wisdom on this one. Lots of luck!
Icelandic is the closest of the Northern Germanic languages to Old Norse and it is possible for Icelandic speakers to read the Old Norse sagas in the original without too much difficulty. --- Omniglot
Actually, Modern Icelandic has changed so little from its parent language, Old Norse, in the course of the centuries that Icelanders today read the Eddas and sagas of Old Norse literature more easily than the English and the Americans read Shakespeare. ---encyclopedia.com
... Icelandic differs little from the Old Norse of the sagas. Icelanders read the latter as we read Shakespeare, if we do so. --- Frederick Bodmer "The Loom of Language
Icelandic, spoken by about 200,000 people is deeply conservative.
--- Victor Stevenson "Words."
Very complicated grammar... ... Very conservative language with few changes in the history.
The origins of Icelandic come from Old Norse, which was used by the settlers. Iceland has been quite isolated through the centuries. The language has changed very little since the 9th century. The changes that have occurred are relatively minor compared to the other Scandinavian languages.
---- www.ling.gu. se/projekt
---On-line Translator.com
I could go on ad nauseam with more examples but I think you get the picture.
Re: "I won't waste my time on that issue again."
That's your privelege if you don't want to.
>>Kirk,
You wrote: "No, no, no, no, no----no no.
As Judge Judy says, "that's baloney--it doesn't make sense."
Baloney? I don't know what to say. You are part of a very small fringe element going against the conventional wisdom on this one. Lots of luck!<<
Just because a lot of people believe something does not make it right. Especially when, in this context, the individuals in question are non-linguists.
>>Icelandic is the closest of the Northern Germanic languages to Old Norse and it is possible for Icelandic speakers to read the Old Norse sagas in the original without too much difficulty. --- Omniglot<<
Tis true, but "closest to" does not mean "same as", and this quote only mentions writing, not speech, and when it comes to linguistics, speech is more important than writing.
>>Actually, Modern Icelandic has changed so little from its parent language, Old Norse, in the course of the centuries that Icelanders today read the Eddas and sagas of Old Norse literature more easily than the English and the Americans read Shakespeare. ---encyclopedia.com<<
Do you know what the key word here is? It is "read". Even though written literary Icelandic may be very close to normalized Old Norse written in Latin script, that does not mean that the spoken languages are at all alike, especially with respect to phonology. Actually, I bet that many Icelanders today would probably have a hard time understanding if they heard anyone speak Old Norse with an accurate reconstruction of the phonology of such.
>>... Icelandic differs little from the Old Norse of the sagas. Icelanders read the latter as we read Shakespeare, if we do so. --- Frederick Bodmer "The Loom of Language<<
No, no, no - *written* Icelandic differs little from the Old Norse of the sagas. The phonology of modern Icelandic, on the other hand, is very different from that of Old Norse, in particular with respect to its vowel system, which while written in a way so as to look very close to such in Old Norse written in Latin script, in fact is very different from such in Old Norse.
>>Icelandic, spoken by about 200,000 people is deeply conservative.
--- Victor Stevenson "Words."
Very complicated grammar... ... Very conservative language with few changes in the history.<<
The things though is that Icelandic is not uniformly conservative. Phonologically, it is not conservative, especially with respect to vowels; in this regard Low Saxon would be a much better example of a conservative language than Icelandic. Grammatically, yes, it is very conservative, as it has most strongly resisted the trend towards analysis found throughout the Germanic languages than any of the other Germanic languages, even though some, such as Faroese and to a lesser extent Dalecarlian, come close.
>>The origins of Icelandic come from Old Norse, which was used by the settlers. Iceland has been quite isolated through the centuries. The language has changed very little since the 9th century. The changes that have occurred are relatively minor compared to the other Scandinavian languages.
---- www.ling.gu. se/projekt
---On-line Translator.com<<
Again, whoever this individual is happens to forget to mention that such only pertains to written Icelandic and the grammar of Icelandic, rather than to Icelandic as a whole.
>>I could go on ad nauseam with more examples but I think you get the picture.
Re: "I won't waste my time on that issue again."
That's your privelege if you don't want to.<<
For starters, I don't think that pulling random quotes from sources off the web which probably mean little to most people who have any real linguistic knowledge is a effective way of trying to make a point. Why does what these random sources that you just happen to quote, without any real reason for choosing them as specific sources, happen to somehow make what you think right in and of themselves?
You wrote: "No, no, no, no, no----no no.
As Judge Judy says, "that's baloney--it doesn't make sense."
Baloney? I don't know what to say. You are part of a very small fringe element going against the conventional wisdom on this one. Lots of luck!<<
Just because a lot of people believe something does not make it right. Especially when, in this context, the individuals in question are non-linguists.
>>Icelandic is the closest of the Northern Germanic languages to Old Norse and it is possible for Icelandic speakers to read the Old Norse sagas in the original without too much difficulty. --- Omniglot<<
Tis true, but "closest to" does not mean "same as", and this quote only mentions writing, not speech, and when it comes to linguistics, speech is more important than writing.
>>Actually, Modern Icelandic has changed so little from its parent language, Old Norse, in the course of the centuries that Icelanders today read the Eddas and sagas of Old Norse literature more easily than the English and the Americans read Shakespeare. ---encyclopedia.com<<
Do you know what the key word here is? It is "read". Even though written literary Icelandic may be very close to normalized Old Norse written in Latin script, that does not mean that the spoken languages are at all alike, especially with respect to phonology. Actually, I bet that many Icelanders today would probably have a hard time understanding if they heard anyone speak Old Norse with an accurate reconstruction of the phonology of such.
>>... Icelandic differs little from the Old Norse of the sagas. Icelanders read the latter as we read Shakespeare, if we do so. --- Frederick Bodmer "The Loom of Language<<
No, no, no - *written* Icelandic differs little from the Old Norse of the sagas. The phonology of modern Icelandic, on the other hand, is very different from that of Old Norse, in particular with respect to its vowel system, which while written in a way so as to look very close to such in Old Norse written in Latin script, in fact is very different from such in Old Norse.
>>Icelandic, spoken by about 200,000 people is deeply conservative.
--- Victor Stevenson "Words."
Very complicated grammar... ... Very conservative language with few changes in the history.<<
The things though is that Icelandic is not uniformly conservative. Phonologically, it is not conservative, especially with respect to vowels; in this regard Low Saxon would be a much better example of a conservative language than Icelandic. Grammatically, yes, it is very conservative, as it has most strongly resisted the trend towards analysis found throughout the Germanic languages than any of the other Germanic languages, even though some, such as Faroese and to a lesser extent Dalecarlian, come close.
>>The origins of Icelandic come from Old Norse, which was used by the settlers. Iceland has been quite isolated through the centuries. The language has changed very little since the 9th century. The changes that have occurred are relatively minor compared to the other Scandinavian languages.
---- www.ling.gu. se/projekt
---On-line Translator.com<<
Again, whoever this individual is happens to forget to mention that such only pertains to written Icelandic and the grammar of Icelandic, rather than to Icelandic as a whole.
>>I could go on ad nauseam with more examples but I think you get the picture.
Re: "I won't waste my time on that issue again."
That's your privelege if you don't want to.<<
For starters, I don't think that pulling random quotes from sources off the web which probably mean little to most people who have any real linguistic knowledge is a effective way of trying to make a point. Why does what these random sources that you just happen to quote, without any real reason for choosing them as specific sources, happen to somehow make what you think right in and of themselves?
Travis:
Let Kirk answer of the above questions posted by Brennus. Also, if possible enroll in an English class where you can learn how to write clear English. Your writing is so boring to read, and full of typos. Spruce it up a bit! BTW, do you hold a degree in linguistics?
Kirk:
You spelling 'thou' for 'though' is so uneducated. Go and hold a degree in linguistics then shoot off your mouth.
Let Kirk answer of the above questions posted by Brennus. Also, if possible enroll in an English class where you can learn how to write clear English. Your writing is so boring to read, and full of typos. Spruce it up a bit! BTW, do you hold a degree in linguistics?
Kirk:
You spelling 'thou' for 'though' is so uneducated. Go and hold a degree in linguistics then shoot off your mouth.
<<Icelandic is the closest of the Northern Germanic languages to Old Norse and it is possible for Icelandic speakers to read the Old Norse sagas in the original without too much difficulty. --- Omniglot >>
Ah, that's all very true. But statements like this are making a huge (erroneous) assumption, or at least implying it to a reader unfamiliar with the topic. Orthographical similarity and conservativeness does not imply language ossification by any means. The actual spoken language has undergone a normal amount of change as would be expected for any language within a period of 1000 years.
<<Baloney? I don't know what to say. You are part of a very small fringe element going against the conventional wisdom on this one. Lots of luck!>>
No, I'm espousing a linguistically informed approach to the subject. It's not disputed in linguistics that Icelandic has undergone quite noteworthy changes in 1000 years.
<<Actually, Modern Icelandic has changed so little from its parent language, Old Norse, in the course of the centuries that Icelanders today read the Eddas and sagas of Old Norse literature more easily than the English and the Americans read Shakespeare. ---encyclopedia.com>>
Not a great linguistic source, because it's implying no orthographic change means no language change. Not true. It's true that Icelanders can read the sagas today with relative ease but that says nothing of phonological changes (of which there have been a not insignificant amount) in the language.
<<... Icelandic differs little from the Old Norse of the sagas. Icelanders read the latter as we read Shakespeare, if we do so. --- Frederick Bodmer "The Loom of Language>>
Once again, the reading thing is quite true, but the implication that the language hasn't changed or that it's changed very little is false and misleading.
<<Icelandic, spoken by about 200,000 people is deeply conservative.
--- Victor Stevenson "Words.">>
Same thing.
<<Very complicated grammar...>>
Right off the bat from just that I can tell you it's not an accurate linguistic source.
<<... Very conservative language with few changes in the history.>>
Same as said above.
<<The origins of Icelandic come from Old Norse, which was used by the settlers. Iceland has been quite isolated through the centuries.>>
Yes, that's true.
<<The language has changed very little since the 9th century.>>
Not true.
<<The changes that have occurred are relatively minor compared to the other Scandinavian languages.>>
Here this source is probably referring to orthography as well as morphology, in which case that is true. However, that's only one aspect of language.
Brennus, if you're going to cite things to make convincing linguistic arguments you're going to need to come up with more linguistically academically sound sources. While some of those are reputable in general, you're either making false assumptions about what they're saying or they're not as well-informed as they should be on linguistics topics (this would especially apply to a source like encyclopedia.com).
Ah, that's all very true. But statements like this are making a huge (erroneous) assumption, or at least implying it to a reader unfamiliar with the topic. Orthographical similarity and conservativeness does not imply language ossification by any means. The actual spoken language has undergone a normal amount of change as would be expected for any language within a period of 1000 years.
<<Baloney? I don't know what to say. You are part of a very small fringe element going against the conventional wisdom on this one. Lots of luck!>>
No, I'm espousing a linguistically informed approach to the subject. It's not disputed in linguistics that Icelandic has undergone quite noteworthy changes in 1000 years.
<<Actually, Modern Icelandic has changed so little from its parent language, Old Norse, in the course of the centuries that Icelanders today read the Eddas and sagas of Old Norse literature more easily than the English and the Americans read Shakespeare. ---encyclopedia.com>>
Not a great linguistic source, because it's implying no orthographic change means no language change. Not true. It's true that Icelanders can read the sagas today with relative ease but that says nothing of phonological changes (of which there have been a not insignificant amount) in the language.
<<... Icelandic differs little from the Old Norse of the sagas. Icelanders read the latter as we read Shakespeare, if we do so. --- Frederick Bodmer "The Loom of Language>>
Once again, the reading thing is quite true, but the implication that the language hasn't changed or that it's changed very little is false and misleading.
<<Icelandic, spoken by about 200,000 people is deeply conservative.
--- Victor Stevenson "Words.">>
Same thing.
<<Very complicated grammar...>>
Right off the bat from just that I can tell you it's not an accurate linguistic source.
<<... Very conservative language with few changes in the history.>>
Same as said above.
<<The origins of Icelandic come from Old Norse, which was used by the settlers. Iceland has been quite isolated through the centuries.>>
Yes, that's true.
<<The language has changed very little since the 9th century.>>
Not true.
<<The changes that have occurred are relatively minor compared to the other Scandinavian languages.>>
Here this source is probably referring to orthography as well as morphology, in which case that is true. However, that's only one aspect of language.
Brennus, if you're going to cite things to make convincing linguistic arguments you're going to need to come up with more linguistically academically sound sources. While some of those are reputable in general, you're either making false assumptions about what they're saying or they're not as well-informed as they should be on linguistics topics (this would especially apply to a source like encyclopedia.com).
<<Travis:
Let Kirk answer of the above questions posted by Brennus.>>
Well, Guest, sage arbiter that you may be, Travis knows he's always welcome to respond to posts directed to me.
<<Kirk:
You spelling 'thou' for 'though' is so uneducated.>>
Naw, I'd never dream of replacing "though/tho" with an archaic 2nd person singular pronoun. I'm content with accepted spelling variant, "tho," thank you very much.
<<Go and hold a degree in linguistics then shoot off your mouth.>>
Well, now that you mention it, I'm almost there, actually ;) I have one linguistics class left and I've got the degree.
Let Kirk answer of the above questions posted by Brennus.>>
Well, Guest, sage arbiter that you may be, Travis knows he's always welcome to respond to posts directed to me.
<<Kirk:
You spelling 'thou' for 'though' is so uneducated.>>
Naw, I'd never dream of replacing "though/tho" with an archaic 2nd person singular pronoun. I'm content with accepted spelling variant, "tho," thank you very much.
<<Go and hold a degree in linguistics then shoot off your mouth.>>
Well, now that you mention it, I'm almost there, actually ;) I have one linguistics class left and I've got the degree.
And, I just read Travis' comments on Brennus' post and they're all spot-on. This just sums it all up, since Travis worded it perfectly:
<<I don't think that pulling random quotes from sources off the web which probably mean little to most people who have any real linguistic knowledge is a effective way of trying to make a point.>>
Certainly not. To anyone familiar with or trained in linguistics, dubious linguistic sources can be spotted a mile away.
<<I don't think that pulling random quotes from sources off the web which probably mean little to most people who have any real linguistic knowledge is a effective way of trying to make a point.>>
Certainly not. To anyone familiar with or trained in linguistics, dubious linguistic sources can be spotted a mile away.
>>Travis:
Let Kirk answer of the above questions posted by Brennus. Also, if possible enroll in an English class where you can learn how to write clear English. Your writing is so boring to read, and full of typos. Spruce it up a bit! BTW, do you hold a degree in linguistics?
Kirk:
You spelling 'thou' for 'though' is so uneducated. Go and hold a degree in linguistics then shoot off your mouth.<<
Like you actually expect me to actually answer anything you say, troll.
Let Kirk answer of the above questions posted by Brennus. Also, if possible enroll in an English class where you can learn how to write clear English. Your writing is so boring to read, and full of typos. Spruce it up a bit! BTW, do you hold a degree in linguistics?
Kirk:
You spelling 'thou' for 'though' is so uneducated. Go and hold a degree in linguistics then shoot off your mouth.<<
Like you actually expect me to actually answer anything you say, troll.
"Once again, the reading thing is quite true, but the implication that the language hasn't changed or that it's changed very little is false and misleading."
Quite true. Using omniglot.com, the source dubiously used above as evidence, here's the pronunciation of the same phrases in Icelandic and Norse (I've omitted a few minor points, like devoicing in some environments, for clarity):
"Hver maður er borinn frjáls og jafn öðrum að virðingu og réttindum. Menn eru gæddir vitsmunum og samvizku, og ber þeim að breyta bróðurlega hverjum við annan."
In Icelandic:
kfEr maDYr Er bOrIn frjauls Og japn 2DrYm aD vIrDINY Og rjEhtIndYm . mEn ErY XaidIr vItsmYnYm Og samvIzkY, Oh bEr Teim aD breita brouDYrKEXa kverjYm vID anan.
In Old Norse:
Wer mADur er borin vrA:ls og jAfn 2Drum AD virDiNgu og re:tindum . men eru g{dir vitsmunum og sAmvizku , og ber Teim AD br&ytA bro:DurlegA Werjum viD AnAn.
As you can see, the differences, at least in pronunciation, are about as radical as those between Middle and Modern English, meaning that Icelandic has certainly developed since the middle ages. I don't doubt its conservative nature, but there is simply no way a modern Icelander could verbally communicate with a Viking.
Quite true. Using omniglot.com, the source dubiously used above as evidence, here's the pronunciation of the same phrases in Icelandic and Norse (I've omitted a few minor points, like devoicing in some environments, for clarity):
"Hver maður er borinn frjáls og jafn öðrum að virðingu og réttindum. Menn eru gæddir vitsmunum og samvizku, og ber þeim að breyta bróðurlega hverjum við annan."
In Icelandic:
kfEr maDYr Er bOrIn frjauls Og japn 2DrYm aD vIrDINY Og rjEhtIndYm . mEn ErY XaidIr vItsmYnYm Og samvIzkY, Oh bEr Teim aD breita brouDYrKEXa kverjYm vID anan.
In Old Norse:
Wer mADur er borin vrA:ls og jAfn 2Drum AD virDiNgu og re:tindum . men eru g{dir vitsmunum og sAmvizku , og ber Teim AD br&ytA bro:DurlegA Werjum viD AnAn.
As you can see, the differences, at least in pronunciation, are about as radical as those between Middle and Modern English, meaning that Icelandic has certainly developed since the middle ages. I don't doubt its conservative nature, but there is simply no way a modern Icelander could verbally communicate with a Viking.
When I went down to Cornwall earlier this year...my first ever visit to that particular part of the UK Celtic fringe....I was more than just a wee bit disappointed in not hearing a single word of Cornish being spoken, or meeting anybody who knew more than a few basic words ...which most Cornish people know anyway.
The general accent of the true born Cornish people (those people born and brought up in Cornwall and not part of the huge influx of "emmets....."foreigners from "England" who've moved into the county) is really one of those rhotic English accents mentioned in this thread. It seemed to be much more pronounced in the older people and when my mate and I heard two old guys having a convo we could hardly understand a word they were saying. The rhoticism really is very strong as well as the long drawn out vowels, which I think made the West Country (Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Somerset) accent part of the basis for the development of the American accent back in the 17th century.
The general accent of the true born Cornish people (those people born and brought up in Cornwall and not part of the huge influx of "emmets....."foreigners from "England" who've moved into the county) is really one of those rhotic English accents mentioned in this thread. It seemed to be much more pronounced in the older people and when my mate and I heard two old guys having a convo we could hardly understand a word they were saying. The rhoticism really is very strong as well as the long drawn out vowels, which I think made the West Country (Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Somerset) accent part of the basis for the development of the American accent back in the 17th century.
"[T]hose people born and brought up in Cornwall and not part of the huge influx of 'emmets.....foreigners from 'England' who've moved into the county..."
Speaking of ethnological nutbars...
Speaking of ethnological nutbars...