Re: [tied] Re: American Dutch dialects
- --- On Sat, 2/28/09, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...> wrote:
> From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>I've often wondered if the aberrant pronunciation of <often> with a /t/ sprang from Midwestern Germans who learned English from hyper-corrective schoolmarms.
> Subject: [tied] Re: American Dutch dialects
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Date: Saturday, February 28, 2009, 9:47 PM
> --- In email@example.com, "tgpedersen"
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> > > The English preservation of /w/ is no more
> unnatural than the Danish
> > > preservation of /sk/, which changed in all other
> Germanic languages
> > > at least before front vowels, and in some before
> all vowels.
> > The idea that Danish, unless Swedish and Norwegian,
> preserved /k/ and
> > /sk/ before front vowels is a common misconception,
> although it's true
> > as a description of the language today. A large number
> of the dialects
> > did in fact palatalize those, today Vendsysselsk and
> Bornholmsk, the
> > two most peripheral dialects, still do, and even in
> spelling this was
> > marked as (s)kj-/(s)ki-. Danish *depalatalized*, most
> likely under
> > German influence; those spellings became obsolete
> around 1900. My
> > favorite example is 'sky' /skü?/
> "aspic" < French 'jus' /3ü/ > 19th
> > cent. Da. /sjü/, falsely understood as 'sky'
> dial. /sjü?/, now /skü/,
> > and depalatalized. Another one is 1900 cent. colloq.
> > "sergeant", falsely depalatalized from
> > Torsten
> Well, like Rick says about the Almodovar script, I really
> put my foot
> in my mouth on that one. The depalatalization you talk
> about which
> changed former /sjy/ to /sky/ on the surface seems
> artificial, although you say it's because of a regular
> equation of
> dialectal /sj/ = standard(?) /sk/.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:
>Yes, you probably imagine that. How would you back up that belief?
> --- On Sun, 3/8/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> > From: tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
> > Subject: [tied] Re: American Dutch dialects
> > To: email@example.com
> > Date: Sunday, March 8, 2009, 4:49 AM
> > > > > They would have studied in the capital BUT
> > there were no real
> > > > > doctors where my family lived. You had to go
> > to the capital by
> > > > > car or train.
> > > >
> > > > He either had direct or indirect contact with NYC and
> > > > spoke some predecessor of General American, or he did
> > > > neither. You can't have it both ways.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Torsten
> > >
> > > The problem is that General American English sounds nothing
> > > like NYC English. I don't think you could persuade anyone
> > > except a die-hard Yankees fan otherwise.
> > No, the problem is you think today's NYC English after
> > the massive immigration of the late 19th - early 20th
> > century is identical to that of the early 19th century.
> I imgagine that earlier NYC was even farther removed from General
> American English.
And if so, then General American, coming from the country, should lately have exerted a major influence on the NYC dialect. How likely do you find that idea?
> Keep in mind that NYC was NOT the major immigrant port until c.That's right. And the dialects that came first are naturally those you find furthest out on the country. And those are not General American.
> 1830 or so.