Moderator: Community Team
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
nietzsche wrote:Is this a remake?
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.
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
muy_thaiguy 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.
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.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
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
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.
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
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.
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.
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.
Symmetry wrote:The Bill Bryson book "Mother Tongue" is pretty interesting about this, if you're interested.
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.
betiko wrote:Regarding what you call the middle atlantic accent, I have to say I haven't really met americans with that one
betiko wrote:but that it sounds pretty close to a posh british accent to me.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users