Conquer Club

Boston


Cajun


High Mid Atlantic


Southern


Upper Midwest

Is this a remake?

nietzsche wrote:Is this a remake?

NO

the previous one was "favorite" - this is "LEAST favorite"

anyway, you and betiko still can't hear the difference so go polymorph each other

Actually, being an Oregonian where there is ZERO accent, I enjoy all these BUT the heinous east coast "Boston"...that one grates on my last nerve. Love the Minnesotans....sound pretty much canadian

the least favorite american accent for everyone is the one from santa barbara.

Southern is terrible. Maybe that's just because I live in an area with a lot of southern accents and have to hear them quite a bit. Coming in a close second is cajun. That shit is hard to understand sometimes.

KoolBak wrote:Actually, being an Oregonian where there is ZERO accent, I enjoy all these BUT the heinous east coast "Boston"...that one grates on my last nerve. Love the Minnesotans....sound pretty much canadian

Everyone has an accent.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

WTF is this map? The "NY Accent" covers all of New York City and some of northern New Jersey. New York City has distinct accents within it and all those are different than a north New Jersey accent. More importantly, since when do Philadelphians talk like anyone from central Pennsylvania (nevermind folks from New York State). This map offends me.

Lootifer wrote:

KoolBak wrote:Actually, being an Oregonian where there is ZERO accent, I enjoy all these BUT the heinous east coast "Boston"...that one grates on my last nerve. Love the Minnesotans....sound pretty much canadian

Everyone has an accent.

Yup, mostly when you re talking a language from another country. Some very few Londoners could say that, but an american claiming he has no accent when he speaks English... Just lol.

Hopefully you didn't claim the same loot... Cause f*ck me you aussies and kiwis talk an english from another planet.

betiko wrote:

Lootifer wrote:

KoolBak wrote:Actually, being an Oregonian where there is ZERO accent, I enjoy all these BUT the heinous east coast "Boston"...that one grates on my last nerve. Love the Minnesotans....sound pretty much canadian

Everyone has an accent.

Yup, mostly when you re talking a language from another country. Some very few Londoners could say that, but an american claiming he has no accent when he speaks English... Just lol.

Hopefully you didn't claim the same loot... Cause f*ck me you aussies and kiwis talk an english from another planet.

IIRC correctly, "posh" English as spoken in London is an accent that was literally invented out of thin air in the 1800s. Upper class English in the U.S., Middle Atlantic English, is closer to how Englishmen used to speak and was preserved there because of the long periods of isolation the U.S. occasionally goes through. That might all be wrong. But I read it somewhere. Where? I don't know. So, it might be wrong. But I don't think so. But maybe it is.

Beautiful Middle Atlantic English from the late great Bob Sheppherd:



another beautiful Middle Atlantic accent about a tea party for dogs ...

OK i was partly right and partly wrong according to this, which also says Quebecois French is better than the Crap French betiko speaks -

But it’s actually the opposite: at the time shortly post-Shakespeare and pre-Ichabod when the majority of British settlers arrived in North America, they actually spoke much more like current Americans than current Brits.

Is it surprising that the British were the ones who changed their way of speaking? Actually, not really. Language change generally happens faster in urban environments than in rural ones, so there’s a tendency for colonies (rural) to maintain the older forms of a language while colonizers (urban, at least in the capital where the most prestigious dialect is spoken) keep on innovating. So the same pattern happens in other languages: for example, Acadian and Quebec French preserve some older features that are now archaic in European French.

ttp://the-toast.net/2014/03/19/a-lingui ... HsrAUSB.99

Though how does that explain Mexicans not using vosotros anymore while Spanish still do? Maybe this is wrong.

You no-accent naysayers spend much time in Oregon, washington, idaho?

saxitoxin wrote:OK i was partly right and partly wrong according to this, which also says Quebecois French is better than the Crap French betiko speaks -

But it’s actually the opposite: at the time shortly post-Shakespeare and pre-Ichabod when the majority of British settlers arrived in North America, they actually spoke much more like current Americans than current Brits.

Is it surprising that the British were the ones who changed their way of speaking? Actually, not really. Language change generally happens faster in urban environments than in rural ones, so there’s a tendency for colonies (rural) to maintain the older forms of a language while colonizers (urban, at least in the capital where the most prestigious dialect is spoken) keep on innovating. So the same pattern happens in other languages: for example, Acadian and Quebec French preserve some older features that are now archaic in European French.

ttp://the-toast.net/2014/03/19/a-lingui ... HsrAUSB.99

The Bill Bryson book "Mother Tongue" is pretty interesting about this, if you're interested. Some parts of the US read and understand Shakespeare much more naturally than a modern day Brit. I'd be a little bit wary about calling a London accent an invention though. You're probably thinking of RP (received pronunciation) or modified RP as an invention. More colloquially, RP is "the Queen's English" and MRP is how newscasters speak on the BBC.

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:OK i was partly right and partly wrong according to this, which also says Quebecois French is better than the Crap French betiko speaks -

But it’s actually the opposite: at the time shortly post-Shakespeare and pre-Ichabod when the majority of British settlers arrived in North America, they actually spoke much more like current Americans than current Brits.

Is it surprising that the British were the ones who changed their way of speaking? Actually, not really. Language change generally happens faster in urban environments than in rural ones, so there’s a tendency for colonies (rural) to maintain the older forms of a language while colonizers (urban, at least in the capital where the most prestigious dialect is spoken) keep on innovating. So the same pattern happens in other languages: for example, Acadian and Quebec French preserve some older features that are now archaic in European French.

ttp://the-toast.net/2014/03/19/a-lingui ... HsrAUSB.99

The Bill Bryson book "Mother Tongue" is pretty interesting about this, if you're interested. Some parts of the US read and understand Shakespeare much more naturally than a modern day Brit. I'd be a little bit wary about calling a London accent an invention though. You're probably thinking of RP (received pronunciation) or modified RP as an invention. More colloquially, RP is "the Queen's English" and MRP is how newscasters speak on the BBC.

yes, when I was talking of a plain english accent spoken by some londoners, i was thinking of a BBC newscaster, not a posh london accent.
Regarding what you call the middle atlantic accent, I have to say I haven't really met americans with that one but that it sounds pretty close to a posh british accent to me.

regarding the french they speak in quebec or the spanish they speak in any given country in south america: they have just evolved differently from the same basis. therefore, some are closer to the original language in some expressions, and some are closer in others. If you take french or spanish they are just derivatives from latin, so the question would rather be which one is closer to proper latin...
Nevertheless, there are language academies and written rules, so languages evolve slower now.

betiko wrote:If you take french or spanish they are just derivatives from latin, so the question would rather be which one is closer to proper latin...
Nevertheless, there are language academies and written rules, so languages evolve slower now.

Not really, they are broadly Latinate, but getting down to what should be considered "proper Latin" is troublesome too. There's a decent argument for "proper Latin" as a standard being the thing that killed off Latin as a living language.

Symmetry wrote:

betiko wrote:If you take french or spanish they are just derivatives from latin, so the question would rather be which one is closer to proper latin...
Nevertheless, there are language academies and written rules, so languages evolve slower now.

Not really, they are broadly Latinate, but getting down to what should be considered "proper Latin" is troublesome too. There's a decent argument for "proper Latin" as a standard being the thing that killed off Latin as a living language.

well yes, they are obviously derivates from latin. Each town/village since the romans had been slowly modifying the latin language into myriads of dialects. Close towns geographically (or with strong commercial bonds) all talking very similarly. Some still exist, some have died. Central governments have decided one day that a whole country should speak with the same dialect....

Symmetry wrote:The Bill Bryson book "Mother Tongue" is pretty interesting about this, if you're interested.

I just added it to my Amazon wishlist!

Symmetry wrote:You're probably thinking of RP (received pronunciation) or modified RP as an invention. More colloquially, RP is "the Queen's English" and MRP is how newscasters speak on the BBC.

you're probably right

betiko wrote:Regarding what you call the middle atlantic accent, I have to say I haven't really met americans with that one

Perhaps you don't move in the right circles?

betiko wrote:but that it sounds pretty close to a posh british accent to me.

explained:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkB4Jr9EgRY&t=0m13s

betiko wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

betiko wrote:If you take french or spanish they are just derivatives from latin, so the question would rather be which one is closer to proper latin...
Nevertheless, there are language academies and written rules, so languages evolve slower now.

Not really, they are broadly Latinate, but getting down to what should be considered "proper Latin" is troublesome too. There's a decent argument for "proper Latin" as a standard being the thing that killed off Latin as a living language.

well yes, they are obviously derivates from latin. Each town/village since the romans had been slowly modifying the latin language into myriads of dialects. Close towns geographically (or with strong commercial bonds) all talking very similarly. Some still exist, some have died. Central governments have decided one day that a whole country should speak with the same dialect....

I'd say that they are partly derived. Latin itself wasn't codified in the current sense till the Renaissance. So saying a language is derived from Latin kind of ends up with the problem of "Which Latin?". The Latin of Julius Caesar is pretty different from the Latin of a monk in the 12th Century.

Symmetry wrote:

betiko wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

betiko wrote:If you take french or spanish they are just derivatives from latin, so the question would rather be which one is closer to proper latin...
Nevertheless, there are language academies and written rules, so languages evolve slower now.

Not really, they are broadly Latinate, but getting down to what should be considered "proper Latin" is troublesome too. There's a decent argument for "proper Latin" as a standard being the thing that killed off Latin as a living language.

well yes, they are obviously derivates from latin. Each town/village since the romans had been slowly modifying the latin language into myriads of dialects. Close towns geographically (or with strong commercial bonds) all talking very similarly. Some still exist, some have died. Central governments have decided one day that a whole country should speak with the same dialect....

I'd say that they are partly derived. Latin itself wasn't codified in the current sense till the Renaissance. So saying a language is derived from Latin kind of ends up with the problem of "Which Latin?". The Latin of Julius Caesar is pretty different from the Latin of a monk in the 12th Century.

well all european latin speaking countries were roman colonies, so they spoke the latin of their time while occupied by romans, then kept the language after their departure... even though each town going their own way over time and over the way neighbourly towns were speaking it.
But I had no idea that latin was codified only in the 12th century. I would've thought that it was back in the glory days of the roman empire just BC.

saxitoxin wrote:

betiko wrote:Regarding what you call the middle atlantic accent, I have to say I haven't really met americans with that one

Perhaps you don't move in the right circles?

betiko wrote:but that it sounds pretty close to a posh british accent to me.

explained:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkB4Jr9EgRY&t=0m13s

betiko wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

betiko wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

betiko wrote:If you take french or spanish they are just derivatives from latin, so the question would rather be which one is closer to proper latin...
Nevertheless, there are language academies and written rules, so languages evolve slower now.

Not really, they are broadly Latinate, but getting down to what should be considered "proper Latin" is troublesome too. There's a decent argument for "proper Latin" as a standard being the thing that killed off Latin as a living language.

well yes, they are obviously derivates from latin. Each town/village since the romans had been slowly modifying the latin language into myriads of dialects. Close towns geographically (or with strong commercial bonds) all talking very similarly. Some still exist, some have died. Central governments have decided one day that a whole country should speak with the same dialect....

I'd say that they are partly derived. Latin itself wasn't codified in the current sense till the Renaissance. So saying a language is derived from Latin kind of ends up with the problem of "Which Latin?". The Latin of Julius Caesar is pretty different from the Latin of a monk in the 12th Century.

well all european latin speaking countries were roman colonies, so they spoke the latin of their time while occupied by romans, then kept the language after their departure... even though each town going their own way over time and over the way neighbourly towns were speaking it.
But I had no idea that latin was codified only in the 12th century. I would've thought that it was back in the glory days of the roman empire just BC.

There's no simple way to talk about this beyond saying that it's complicated. A big part of the problem arose from people wanting to get an "authentic" Latin. That basically meant Cicero. The Latin they were asking for was as alien to the Latin being used as a passage in English from Chaucer's time would be to you and I today,

Whan that Aprill with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licour
Of which vertu engendred is the flour,
Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halve cours yronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open ye
(so priketh hem Nature in hir corages),
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages,
And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes,
To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
And specially from every shires ende
Of Engelond to Caunterbury they wende,
The hooly blisful martir for to seke,
That hem hath holpen whan that they were seeke.

That's English.

That's pretty cool. I've always known that English was evolved from German, or at least is closely related to it, but seeing some of the earlier English, you can really see those influences a lot better than with today's english.

I received this email today from my college alumni association. Coincidence? Or is saxi really a professor?

Talk Like a Philadelphian

Meredith Tamminga, Assistant Professor of Linguistics

Tuesday, February 3, 2015
6–7 p.m.
World Cafe Live
3025 Walnut Street

Philly folk have a unique way of speaking that extends far beyond “youse,” “jawn,” and “wit wiz or without?” Drawing on 40 years of intensive research conducted at Penn on the Philadelphia accent, Professor Tamminga will play recordings of speech of typical Philadelphians, identifying the words and sounds that make “Philly-speak” unique. She will cover some basic principles of how speech sounds are produced and measured, as well as how and why accents develop over time.