Cartims wrote...
Hey Pious, cut down on the cawfee, just saying, (Brooklyn accent)
When I was in Marine Corps boot camp I was considered the "New Yorker" with the thick accent since I was from Chicago till someone from New York came and joined us who came from Medical.
Cartims wrote...
Hey Pious, cut down on the cawfee, just sayin' (Brooklyn accent)
Godak wrote...
vometia wrote...
I've read the link, but it doesn't make a lot of sense: the British accents that were rhotic still are, and those that aren't probably never were.
Did you really? It stated fairly clearly that it was only speaking of "normal" British English ('BBC English'), and "normal" American English ('CNN English').
"First, let’s be clear: the terms “British accent” and “American accent”
are oversimplifications; there were, and still are, many
constantly-evolving regional British and American accents. What many
Americans think of as “the British accent” is the standardized Received
Pronunciation, also known as “BBC English.”"
"There are a few fascinating exceptions: New York and Boston accents
became non-rhotic, perhaps because of the region’s British connections
in the post-Revolutionary War era. Irish and Scottish accents are still
rhotic."
EDIT:Autolycus wrote...
There is no godamn British accent, as it consists of 4 countries.
Britain consists of two countries ('countries' in this case meaning 'sovereign state'), Ireland and the UK.
The UK consists of four countries (in this case, a proprietary term, as they are not recognized as actual sovereign states by international organizations).
Anyway, yeah, there's really no clear cut "British" accent, as Britain is pretty darn diverse.
I did really. But that point seemed to be a bit of a nonsequitur (or the conclusion, depending).Godak wrote...
Did you really? It stated fairly clearly that it was only speaking of "normal" British English ('BBC English'), and "normal" American English ('CNN English').
vometia wrote...
I did really. But that point seemed to be a bit of a nonsequitur (or the conclusion, depending).Godak wrote...
Did you really? It stated fairly clearly that it was only speaking of "normal" British English ('BBC English'), and "normal" American English ('CNN English').
Modifié par Bann Duncan, 04 avril 2011 - 03:27 .
It does seem unlikely. I think that the commentary isn't entirely without merit, a modern equivalent being the encroachment of "Estuary English", but it's by no means universal and nor will it ever be. You do hear an erosion of the traditional rural accent in its favour in city areas around the south east, but not so much as you travel further away. But as regards that article, I found it a little irritating in that its premise seemed rather incoherent.Bann Duncan wrote...
And, even so, given that English is a Germanic language with a largely French vocabulary, I find it hard to believe that rhotacism was a universal phenomenon.
I've often thought that Webster wasn't really very forward-thinking: undermining the ability of people to communicate doesn't strike me as a terribly good idea.Bann Duncan wrote...
Also, I should add that a lot of American spelling stems from Mr Webster intentionally misspelling things to differentiate the "American" language from the "English" one.
Bann Duncan wrote...
It's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Ireland is not part of Britain at all and most of it is not part of the United Kingdom, either.
Bann Duncan wrote...
Northern Ireland is not a sovereign state.
Bann Duncan wrote...
"Great Britain" exists as a name because the thrones of Scotland and England were merged by the Acts of Union, but the two are countries in their own right.
Modifié par Godak, 04 avril 2011 - 03:35 .
Modifié par Bann Duncan, 04 avril 2011 - 03:40 .
Bann Duncan wrote...
It cannot. "The British Isles" does, however.
Bann Duncan wrote...
Oh, and as for Webster, he did indeed change spellings on his own whims -
not based on linguistic analysis. He just wanted American to be a
different language.
Idiot. (not you, him)
Modifié par Godak, 04 avril 2011 - 03:47 .
No, it can't. The terms "Britain" and "The British Isles" are not interchangeable and attempting to do so will likely get you into trouble.Godak wrote...
Yes, it can. Britain/The British Isles refers to Ireland and Great Britain (as well as the Isle of Man, etc.). Ireland refers to the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Great Britain refers to Scotland, Wales, and England.
Bann Duncan wrote...
No, 'Britain' comes from 'Britannia' which refers to that particular island.
vometia wrote...
No, it can't. The terms "Britain" and
"The British Isles" are not interchangeable and attempting to do so will
likely get you into trouble.
Modifié par Godak, 04 avril 2011 - 04:00 .
Godak wrote...
Bann Duncan wrote...
No, 'Britain' comes from 'Britannia' which refers to that particular island.
Yes, we derive the name "Britain" from the Romans. The meaning is not completely analagous, however. "Brittania" and "Britain" were used during the Middle Ages to refer to Ireland, Great Britain, and Brittany.
EDIT:vometia wrote...
No, it can't. The terms "Britain" and
"The British Isles" are not interchangeable and attempting to do so will
likely get you into trouble.
If anyone despises historical context that much, it seems like it's their issue.
("Britain" no longer refers to Brittany because, ya know...it's officially part of France now)
Pacifien wrote...
Wait, so did the Internet say my friend is right and that an American guy's accent is never sexy or what?
Guest_Autolycus_*
Godak wrote...
Cartims wrote...
Hey Pious, cut down on the cawfee, just sayin' (Brooklyn accent)
Fix'd.
Judging by the number of marriages between US servicemen and British women during WWII, it would appear that your friend may wish to think about it a bit longer.Pacifien wrote...
Wait, so did the Internet say my friend is right and that an American guy's accent is never sexy or what?
hahaha I think thats true of every war we've been in almost, several soldiers out at bragg come back with Iraqi and Afghan women for brides here lately.vometia wrote...
Judging by the number of marriages between US servicemen and British women during WWII, it would appear that your friend may wish to think about it a bit longer.Pacifien wrote...
Wait, so did the Internet say my friend is right and that an American guy's accent is never sexy or what?
KenKenpachi wrote...
hahaha I think thats true of every war we've been in almost, several soldiers out at bragg come back with Iraqi and Afghan women for brides here lately.vometia wrote...
Judging by the number of marriages between US servicemen and British women during WWII, it would appear that your friend may wish to think about it a bit longer.Pacifien wrote...
Wait, so did the Internet say my friend is right and that an American guy's accent is never sexy or what?
Nattfare wrote...
Godak wrote...
Bann Duncan wrote...
No, 'Britain' comes from 'Britannia' which refers to that particular island.
Yes, we derive the name "Britain" from the Romans. The meaning is not completely analagous, however. "Brittania" and "Britain" were used during the Middle Ages to refer to Ireland, Great Britain, and Brittany.
EDIT:vometia wrote...
No, it can't. The terms "Britain" and
"The British Isles" are not interchangeable and attempting to do so will
likely get you into trouble.
If anyone despises historical context that much, it seems like it's their issue.
("Britain" no longer refers to Brittany because, ya know...it's officially part of France now)
Okay, why not just call it Albion instead and be done with it?
Retour en haut