Page 2 of 2

Re: The uncommonness of a common language

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:58 pm
by Wock
Jaysen wrote:Just another thought (I am not turning into bob u here am I?) is it possible that there is a basic socioeconomic explanation? The rebellious folks who wanted out of HM Kingdom were not quite in the noble class, but neither were they serf.

Than again regional dialects seem to point more to nation of origin as a whole. Southerenese has a large african/spanish twist at its core. North-eastern is heavy with UK stylings. North-midwest is heavy Scandinavian.

I assume that the west coast is just heavily influenced.



I think it can be easier explained as ACCENT INFLUENCED PRONUNCIATION.

You say tomato I say Heinz.

Catsup - Ketchup

BBQ - Bar-B-Que - Barbecue


Just ask anyone from the Boston area to say "Put the dog in the car and get the keys from the drawer so I don't have to climb on the roof."

It will sound like

"Put da dawg in da kaw and get de keys from the draw so I don't have ta climb on da rough."


accent

or you may find this interesting

clique |klēk; klik|

It is another one of those words that has TWO pronunciations in the dictionary and BOTH are correct.

Just like the word NUCLEAR

nuclear |ˈn(y)oōklēər; -kli(ə)r|

USAGE A variant pronunciation, |ˈn(y)oōkyələr|, has been used by many, but is widely regarded as unacceptable.


:-P

Re: The uncommonness of a common language

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:18 pm
by vic-k
router: I never use rooter, always rowter. That`s probably because I`ve spent over 30yrs working with woodworking routers(ow)

Clique: I`ve always used both pronunciations, and heard them used by others.
One of the online dictionaries also shows two adjectives : click and cleek
— cliqu·ey \ˈklē-kē, ˈkli-\ adjective
— cliqu·ish \ˈkli-kish\ adjective
vic

Re: The uncommonness of a common language

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:55 pm
by Plette
Siren wrote:
Plette wrote:"cleek"

Cleek for me, too.

I was reading something interesting the other day about how words are imported differently into UK and US forms of English, at least as regards stress patterning. (Sorry--don't know about Canadian; the only Canadians I know were originally something else, or have lived abroad for decades, so I don't know how authentically Canadian their language might be.)

Take the word "cliché", for example. In French, the two syllables have equal stress; in UK English, the stress is on the first syllable (CLI-ché), apparently because our national arrogance leads us to change things to suit our own language's stress patterning :wink: ; in US English, the stress is on the second syllable (cli-CHÉ), apparently over-compensating for the English language's tendency to move the stress to the first syllable of that word. Stressing the second syllable sounds weird to me; stressing the first syllable must sound weird to Americans; no doubt, both sound weird to the French whose word we have appropriated.

Stress patterning is an interesting concept. Personally, I find it very hard to follow US television news bulletins (not that I come across them very often), and I think this is because the pattern of stress on words within sentences is very different to what I am used to, and sometimes seems to remove any impression of intelligible meaning. Some UK children's broadcasters do something similar. But maybe those examples reflect bad presenting skills rather than language variations.


English is my first language, but I do also speak French. So when talking in French I would say cli-ché with even accents on both, and when talking to Americans or Canadians I would say cli-CHÉ, and when talking to Brits I would say CLI-ché simply because I've lived there and I know that's how they say it and I like to be intelligible. There were other differences between UK English pronunciation and Canadian that I noticed: for example, Canadians say WEEKend, like Americans, and the British tend to say weekEND.

Funnily enough the British differences almost never seemed incorrect to me, simply different. So when I was there I would alter my stress patterns accordingly unless I was talking to someone from North America or elsewhere in the world, just for the sake of easier communication. Yet here in the US I am highly resistant to the idea of some changes - I don't care if nobody understands me because of my refusal to say nitch, because it's just bloody wrong. :lol: Changes in inflection are one thing, but I have less tolerance for pronunciation shifts. Although in my defence, having knowledge of French is probably why the American reworking of loan words (clique as click, niche as nitch, etc.) strikes me as so dramatically odd.

On a final note, if there's one language in which stress patterns are truly odd, it's Russian. I am learning it now and there is virtually no way to predict from the spelling of a word where the stress will fall. My partner is Russian, so I have an on-demand pronunciation coach...but it still makes me miss the days of learning languages with predictable (and therefore "boring", as I am told) stress patterns.

Re: The uncommonness of a common language

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:05 pm
by Jaysen
Plette wrote:and I like to be intelligible.

There's yer problem. Most of us here don't care.

There are them prolandians though…

Re: The uncommonness of a common language

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:25 pm
by vic-k
Jaysen wrote:There's yer problem. Most of us here don't care.


Don`t y` mean YOU dont care


Fluff

Re: The uncommonness of a common language

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:10 am
by Jaysen
vic-k wrote:
Jaysen wrote:There's yer problem. Most of us here don't care.


Don`t y` mean YOU dont care


Fluff

Fluff,

the idea of "most" is an exclusive generalization. "most" indicates that there are known entities that are non-conforming.

Now I hold that you, Mdm Fluff are included in the excluded portion. M. LeD on the other hand, and even worse, the vic-k himself should be considered included in the generalization.

See what I mean?

Re: The uncommonness of a common language

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:59 am
by vic-k
Jaysen wrote:Fluff,
Идея "большинство" является эксклюзивным обобщение. "большинство", указывает, что Существуют известные организации, которые не соответствующие требованиям.
Теперь я держу, что вы, МДМ-пух, включены в часть исключена. М. LED, с другой стороны, и даже хуже, VIC-K сам должен быть рассмотрен, включенных в обобщении.
Смотрите, что я имею в виду?
»

wot? :shock:
fluff

Re: The uncommonness of a common language

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:07 am
by Jaysen
Fluff have you been into the fire water again?

Re: The uncommonness of a common language

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:37 pm
by Wock
I think his water bowl is full of Green Absinthe.

Or he is us using his sharp wit to tell you you are speaking greek to him. :-)


Just show him the rusty dog collar coated in cat nip....

Re: The uncommonness of a common language

Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:54 pm
by vic-k
Wock wrote:Or he is us using his sharp wit to tell you you are speakinggreek to him. :)
Rrrrussian !! Comrade Pidgeonovitch 8)