There is no such thing as a New England dialect. I know what I'm talking about, I'm a Massachusetts native. Are you talking about the Boston accent, which is the accent of Eastern Massachusetts, Southern New Hampshire, and Southern Maine? Are you talking about the Rhode Island accent, which is noticeably different? Are you talking about the accent of Western Massachusetts, which is, again, different? Are you referring to the accent of Southwestern Connecticut, which sounds like New Yorkese? I've lived in the Boston area for most of my life, and I still speak in a thick Boston accent. It doesn't sound pretty. People make fun of it. Trust me when I tell you that the New England dialect, or anyone of them are not very appropriate for your language of Americanish. A more appropriate American language would be based on the speech of the West Coast, and the Western U.S., which I believe is the standard form of English in the USA.
Why not creating "Americanish"?
<<That's just it. There are no distinct "dialects" in the U.S. English grammar does not vary from state to state or region to region. Vocabulary is no different. The only difference are regional accents. The English spoken in Texas is the exacts same English spoken in Maine.>>
Again, I disagree. I recognize that "proper" American English pretty much transcends regional accents, but when talking about the English actually spoken in those regions, there are indeed differences in grammar and vocabulary. Often they are regarded as poor grammar or diction, but linguists don't study idealized versions of languages, they study languages as they are actually used and spoken. Depending on where you are in the United States, the sandwich you may be having for lunch can be referred to as either a sub, hoagie, or hero. They place you may be drinking from can be referred to as either a drinking fountain, water fountain, or bubbler. Do you say y'all? Is your final meal of the day called dinner or supper? For the girls, do you carry your belongings in a purse or a pocketbook?
Again, I disagree. I recognize that "proper" American English pretty much transcends regional accents, but when talking about the English actually spoken in those regions, there are indeed differences in grammar and vocabulary. Often they are regarded as poor grammar or diction, but linguists don't study idealized versions of languages, they study languages as they are actually used and spoken. Depending on where you are in the United States, the sandwich you may be having for lunch can be referred to as either a sub, hoagie, or hero. They place you may be drinking from can be referred to as either a drinking fountain, water fountain, or bubbler. Do you say y'all? Is your final meal of the day called dinner or supper? For the girls, do you carry your belongings in a purse or a pocketbook?
These small differences in terminology do not consitute a distinct dialect. Black people all over the U.S. commonly speak in Ebonics, which is full of improper English. But regardless of where they live, their papers are graded according to the same standards. Spelling is always the same, English words are always the same, grammar and sentence structure is exactly the same, and English is 100% intelligable between all Americans, regardless of what region they come from.
Apam,
I don't think Bostonian accents sound ugly! They're my favorite. "Chowduh! Say it Frenchy say it, Chowduh!" - lol
And as Apam said, the so-called standard accent of the media is the West Coast, California accent.
Apam,
I don't think Bostonian accents sound ugly! They're my favorite. "Chowduh! Say it Frenchy say it, Chowduh!" - lol
And as Apam said, the so-called standard accent of the media is the West Coast, California accent.
<<These small differences in terminology do not consitute a distinct dialect. Black people all over the U.S. commonly speak in Ebonics, which is full of improper English. But regardless of where they live, their papers are graded according to the same standards. Spelling is always the same, English words are always the same, grammar and sentence structure is exactly the same, and English is 100% intelligable between all Americans, regardless of what region they come from.>>
I am a college student, and took a linguistics course relatively recently. The two professional linguists teaching the class were very concerned that their students understand the difference between accents and dialects. Linguists hestistate to use the term "accent" very often because people so often misconstrue what an accent actually is, often confusing them with dialects. They clearly stated that there were a wide range of dialects localized entirely within the United States, and yes, so-called Ebonics is one.
Again, linguists are not interested how people are supposed to talk, but rather in how they actually do. A student writing a paper for an English class is not of great concern to them, because the student is being told to ignore his normal pattern of speech in favor of one forced upon him. See, a sinlge person of one dialect can speak in a variety of accents. Any person is likely to adopt different manners of speech depending on who they are talking to. A teenage girl will speak differently with her friends than with her parents, to whom she will speak differently to than to her boss.
<<English is 100% intelligable between all Americans, regardless of what region they come from. >>
Again, I disagree. Have you ever heard Gullah?
I am a college student, and took a linguistics course relatively recently. The two professional linguists teaching the class were very concerned that their students understand the difference between accents and dialects. Linguists hestistate to use the term "accent" very often because people so often misconstrue what an accent actually is, often confusing them with dialects. They clearly stated that there were a wide range of dialects localized entirely within the United States, and yes, so-called Ebonics is one.
Again, linguists are not interested how people are supposed to talk, but rather in how they actually do. A student writing a paper for an English class is not of great concern to them, because the student is being told to ignore his normal pattern of speech in favor of one forced upon him. See, a sinlge person of one dialect can speak in a variety of accents. Any person is likely to adopt different manners of speech depending on who they are talking to. A teenage girl will speak differently with her friends than with her parents, to whom she will speak differently to than to her boss.
<<English is 100% intelligable between all Americans, regardless of what region they come from. >>
Again, I disagree. Have you ever heard Gullah?
What I want to know is what makes foreigners think that they can change our language say they can learn it easier? English spelling maintains the rich variety of the origin of our words, and the fuels great diversity in dialects.
We have been called lazy by a certain person on this forum for refusing to reform our language. I don't feel I can take this person seriously because he uses shortcuts like "u" for you and "ppl" for people, but it seems to me that a foreigner who demands that hundreds of millions of people worldwide change their written language so its easier for him to learn is the lazy one.
We have been called lazy by a certain person on this forum for refusing to reform our language. I don't feel I can take this person seriously because he uses shortcuts like "u" for you and "ppl" for people, but it seems to me that a foreigner who demands that hundreds of millions of people worldwide change their written language so its easier for him to learn is the lazy one.
"Because we don't want to abandon tradition. We are not self-conscious like the Romanians, where we have to completely reform our language to fit some precious ideal. And what do you mean by the "New England" dialect. There are no dialects in the U.S., merely differences in accents according to region"
1. You don’t have the slightest idea about the Romanian language apart from some urban legends and expired links you read online including Nadia Comaneci and the Dracula myth.
2. American English is still considered broken English (mauvais anglais ) by millions of erudite scholars world wide.
3. American English is indeed in the process of changing into Americanish.
4. stop spamming this forum, by creating dozens of nonsense new topics.
1. You don’t have the slightest idea about the Romanian language apart from some urban legends and expired links you read online including Nadia Comaneci and the Dracula myth.
2. American English is still considered broken English (mauvais anglais ) by millions of erudite scholars world wide.
3. American English is indeed in the process of changing into Americanish.
4. stop spamming this forum, by creating dozens of nonsense new topics.
"You don’t have the slightest idea about the Romanian language apart from some urban legends and expired links you read online including Nadia Comaneci and the Dracula myth. "
I know enough about it to know that the Romanians, relatively recently, completely reorganized their language, replacing many Slavic words and words from other origins, to try to "Latinize" their language, or make it more "pure" Latin. It sounds like they had suffered from low self-esteem. They felt insecure in their "Latiness".
"American English is still considered broken English (mauvais anglais ) by millions of erudite scholars world wide. "
I don't think so. How is American English different from the English of England? It is not "broken" or "creole pidgin". It's pure and simple English. It's no more "broken" than Australian English. There are a couple of different words, particularly differences in slang words, and we spell a couple of words differently, as in "color", but that is the extent of our differences. I think the "Dude who Knows" has "dialect" and "accent" mixed up. A teenage girl does not speak different "dialects" to her peers, and her parents, and her employers. She might speak more casually with her peers, and use more slang than she would with persons of authority over her, like her parents or boss, but this is not speaking in different dialects. I don't know where you go to school, but something is wrong with their linguistics department.
"American English is indeed in the process of changing into Americanish."
No, it is not. It's the 21st century, and we're in the information age. The world is as small as it has ever been, and London and Sydney and Ottowa are no more than a mouse click away. The English speaking populations are not isolated from each other, for a dialect to emerge at this point in time. And there would be no such thing as "Americanish". The term would be "American", just as the people are called "Americans".
"stop spamming this forum, by creating dozens of nonsense new topics. "
Who are you guest, for you have obviously been here for some time? And for your information, I'm not the one who posts anonymously here. And I'm not the troll spamming the board with endless revisionist plans for the English language. You're the troll.
I know enough about it to know that the Romanians, relatively recently, completely reorganized their language, replacing many Slavic words and words from other origins, to try to "Latinize" their language, or make it more "pure" Latin. It sounds like they had suffered from low self-esteem. They felt insecure in their "Latiness".
"American English is still considered broken English (mauvais anglais ) by millions of erudite scholars world wide. "
I don't think so. How is American English different from the English of England? It is not "broken" or "creole pidgin". It's pure and simple English. It's no more "broken" than Australian English. There are a couple of different words, particularly differences in slang words, and we spell a couple of words differently, as in "color", but that is the extent of our differences. I think the "Dude who Knows" has "dialect" and "accent" mixed up. A teenage girl does not speak different "dialects" to her peers, and her parents, and her employers. She might speak more casually with her peers, and use more slang than she would with persons of authority over her, like her parents or boss, but this is not speaking in different dialects. I don't know where you go to school, but something is wrong with their linguistics department.
"American English is indeed in the process of changing into Americanish."
No, it is not. It's the 21st century, and we're in the information age. The world is as small as it has ever been, and London and Sydney and Ottowa are no more than a mouse click away. The English speaking populations are not isolated from each other, for a dialect to emerge at this point in time. And there would be no such thing as "Americanish". The term would be "American", just as the people are called "Americans".
"stop spamming this forum, by creating dozens of nonsense new topics. "
Who are you guest, for you have obviously been here for some time? And for your information, I'm not the one who posts anonymously here. And I'm not the troll spamming the board with endless revisionist plans for the English language. You're the troll.
Johnathan Mark Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:51 pm GMT
What I want to know is what makes foreigners think that they can change our language say they can learn it easier? English spelling maintains the rich variety of the origin of our words, and the fuels great diversity in dialects.
We have been called lazy by a certain person on this forum for refusing to reform our language. I don't feel I can take this person seriously because he uses shortcuts like "u" for you and "ppl" for people, but it seems to me that a foreigner who demands that hundreds of millions of people worldwide change their written language so its easier for him to learn is the lazy one.
Oh man! We are NOT under rule by the British Queen who may use her dictatorship to abandon English reform. Now, we are under rule of democratic government, then why shall you be hostile to this reform?
Again, why shall we use "u" or "ppl"? We may use it because we have already bumped up by this English spelling which is not cognate to its pronunciation. So, it is a signal for you guys to know "English needs to be reformed immediately no matter or whatever"
What I want to know is what makes foreigners think that they can change our language say they can learn it easier? English spelling maintains the rich variety of the origin of our words, and the fuels great diversity in dialects.
We have been called lazy by a certain person on this forum for refusing to reform our language. I don't feel I can take this person seriously because he uses shortcuts like "u" for you and "ppl" for people, but it seems to me that a foreigner who demands that hundreds of millions of people worldwide change their written language so its easier for him to learn is the lazy one.
Oh man! We are NOT under rule by the British Queen who may use her dictatorship to abandon English reform. Now, we are under rule of democratic government, then why shall you be hostile to this reform?
Again, why shall we use "u" or "ppl"? We may use it because we have already bumped up by this English spelling which is not cognate to its pronunciation. So, it is a signal for you guys to know "English needs to be reformed immediately no matter or whatever"
The original form of "debt" was "dette"
See, "dette" is much cognate to its pronunciation,
but how about "debt"? does it have -b sound?
Btw, you know why linguists changed "dette" to "debt"?
Because they would like to show their prestigious spelling which may be different from the ordinary people, they made this change. Then why didn't they think it would confuse more people for this change?
Maybe under this reform, "debt" would return its original spelling form : "dette"
See, "dette" is much cognate to its pronunciation,
but how about "debt"? does it have -b sound?
Btw, you know why linguists changed "dette" to "debt"?
Because they would like to show their prestigious spelling which may be different from the ordinary people, they made this change. Then why didn't they think it would confuse more people for this change?
Maybe under this reform, "debt" would return its original spelling form : "dette"
You're not even using the word "cognate" correctly. Please learn English before trying to reform it!
Guest Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:39 am GMT
You're not even using the word "cognate" correctly. Please learn English before trying to reform it!
Does it matter?
Of course not! The spelling and pronunciation are not cognate and you can't make "any excuses" in stopping this reform! Am i right?
You're not even using the word "cognate" correctly. Please learn English before trying to reform it!
Does it matter?
Of course not! The spelling and pronunciation are not cognate and you can't make "any excuses" in stopping this reform! Am i right?
LAA : « Black people all over the U.S. commonly speak in Ebonics, which is full of ***improper*** English ».
Aïe aïe aïe !!! Tu vas t'attirer les foudres de la patrouille contrenormative...
LAA : « Spelling is always the same, English words are always the same (...) ».
La preuve que non : « (...) English is 100% ***intelligable*** (...) ».
;)
Aïe aïe aïe !!! Tu vas t'attirer les foudres de la patrouille contrenormative...
LAA : « Spelling is always the same, English words are always the same (...) ».
La preuve que non : « (...) English is 100% ***intelligable*** (...) ».
;)
"La preuve que non : « (...) English is 100% ***intelligable*** (...) ». "
Since I understood this, I'll be able to respond. When people speak in Ebonics, they are still easily understood. They're still speaking impromper English, and they will use a lot of slang which common to their ethnic sub-culture, but they are still speaking English. Just because someone talks like an uneducated person, does not mean they are speaking a distinct dialect of the same language. It's like that everywhere. I don't know how it is in France, but I would assume that the youth of the inner city slums speak with improper grammar, a "ghetto" accent, and use a lot of slang vocabulary. They would sound a little different from a well-polished, rich businessmen from the other side of town, but they would still be speaking the same language, same dialect. The slang that these poor kids use is simply part of the language that everyone else uses, including the rich businessman. They just use it more often to sound "cool", or in place of other words that act like filler words.
Just because someone swears often does not mean they are speaking a different dialect. If I used four swear words, which are slang, would I no longer be speaking the same "dialect" as Benjamin of England, APAM of Mass, Tiffany of Florida, and Presley of California?
Since I understood this, I'll be able to respond. When people speak in Ebonics, they are still easily understood. They're still speaking impromper English, and they will use a lot of slang which common to their ethnic sub-culture, but they are still speaking English. Just because someone talks like an uneducated person, does not mean they are speaking a distinct dialect of the same language. It's like that everywhere. I don't know how it is in France, but I would assume that the youth of the inner city slums speak with improper grammar, a "ghetto" accent, and use a lot of slang vocabulary. They would sound a little different from a well-polished, rich businessmen from the other side of town, but they would still be speaking the same language, same dialect. The slang that these poor kids use is simply part of the language that everyone else uses, including the rich businessman. They just use it more often to sound "cool", or in place of other words that act like filler words.
Just because someone swears often does not mean they are speaking a different dialect. If I used four swear words, which are slang, would I no longer be speaking the same "dialect" as Benjamin of England, APAM of Mass, Tiffany of Florida, and Presley of California?