|
Re: Language observations....
Originally Posted by tonyk38
(Post 9362389)
What many people don't realise is that the 'rhotic' pronunciation by most Americans was also far more widespread in England in the past, rather than mostly being a West Country/North Lancashire phenomenon as today. So Americans it could be argued have a better accent for Shakespeare than someone from say, the south east of England.
The only time an accent containing rhotic is used it's usually for the comic relief in the play. As we all know,that's all that Northerners and country yokel's are good for...playing the buffoon. I'm from Manchester by the way,and lived in Plymouth for 13 years so I think I can get away with that. |
Re: Language observations....
Originally Posted by tonyk38
(Post 9362366)
The French influence was very minor and not the main reason for the divergence between British and American English which was largely due to British English being exposed to many world influences from then onwards through the expansion of Empire whilst in contrast, American English was in many ways more isolated.
I never assumed anything was obvious because the historical juxtapostitions seemed odd. But yes, it is Early Modern English. If you look at the modern day spelling of many English words and compare them to French, there is a lot of similarity. So, of all the foreign languages I would say that French has had the most impact. |
Re: Language observations....
Originally Posted by Deancm_MKII
(Post 9363502)
Obviously the English language was exposed to many different cultures during the expansion of the British empire however prior to that, going back to say 1066 and onwards the language of the aristocracy/monarch was French and only the peasants actually spoke the old Germanic English. Don't forget William The Conqueror was French. Obviously as time passed the languages merged.
If you look at the modern day spelling of many English words and compare them to French, there is a lot of similarity. So, of all the foreign languages I would say that French has had the most impact. |
Re: Language observations....
Originally Posted by Rambi
(Post 9363513)
That merger was a long time before the US colonies separated. US English uses a lot of French expressions in the legal domain along with British English.
|
Re: Language observations....
Originally Posted by Deancm_MKII
(Post 9346524)
Apparently American English is closer to proper Olde English than English is. Modern English is a French bastardised version of it.
|
Re: Language observations....
Originally Posted by Rambi
(Post 9363513)
That merger was a long time before the US colonies separated. US English uses a lot of French expressions in the legal domain along with British English.
From my examples of Old English on the previous page, you can see just how much English has changed; from a language that a Low German speaker or a Fries would be quite familiar with to something utterly different, and this is where French comes in. The influence of French on English however was mostly with vocabulary: introducing thousands of new words and heavily influencing the spelling of those words. We often retain French spellings even when the English pronunciation is totally different. The only significant grammatical change we get from French I can think of is the 'S' plural ending. The only OE survivors from this change that I can think of are Children, Oxen, Bretheren, Men, Women, Feet, Teeth, Geese, Lice, Mice and Dormice, though there may be others I can't remember... (you'll notice even with Dormice there's a French influence (Dor=sleep). Whilst lots of Old English words survived, many other fell out of use: The OE for market was 'ceap' and mostly survives now in place names (eg Chipstead, Chipping Barnet) but which we retain in the word Cheap; whereas Market is of course a French word. The OE for Army (the French word) was 'here', which really only survives in the word Heraldry and again place, and some personal names (Hereford, Harold). Many others have fallen out of use completely in the modern lexicon. The Normans of course also gave us the vast majority of our first names (over 99% of OE first names fell out of use mere decades after the invasion); and of course introduced the idea of surnames so that the Domesday Book could keep tabs on everyone: thus in one village, John who lived by the Bridge would be known as John Bridge (initally something like 'John atte the Brygge'), whereas John who lived by the village green would be henceforth known as John Green; John with the gammy leg would be known as John Crookshank and John who's a bit full of himself would be known as John King etc. As has been mentioned, the nobility of this time spoke French. It was the language of prestige whereas English was the language of the peasantry. This all started to change as you all know, because of the Hundred Years War, which England lost, and as a result, lost nearly all her French possessions. Suddenly the French speaking monarch was divorced from his ancestral homeland so turned to English as a means of communicating with his subjects. Thus English gained prestige and power and the rest, as they say, is history... Sorry for rambling on.;) |
Re: Language observations....
Originally Posted by tonyk38
(Post 9363548)
Thus English gained prestige and power and the rest, as they say, is history...
|
Re: Language observations....
I found out last week that the Aussies says Heshan when we say hessian lololol I laughed a fair bit, little amuses the simple!!! :o
|
Re: Language observations....
Blimey, you lot are deep...it was just a joke :lol::lol:
|
Re: Language observations....
Originally Posted by hevs
(Post 9366252)
Blimey, you lot are deep...it was just a joke :lol::lol:
When will the pleasure end? |
Re: Language observations....
Originally Posted by hevs
(Post 9366252)
Blimey, you lot are deep...it was just a joke :lol::lol:
|
Re: Language observations....
Originally Posted by moneypenny20
(Post 9366491)
Made me chuckle how it went straight to 'serious discussion' mode.:lol:
I assume post number 3 got the joke but didn't like imagery. Think post number 4 got confused between America and Australia :unsure: |
Re: Language observations....
I aim to please/annoy/infuriate (delete as appropriate).:p
|
Re: Language observations....
Originally Posted by Rambi
(Post 9366692)
Maybe I should highlight that post number 2 was also a joke :thumbup:
I assume post number 3 got the joke but didn't like imagery. Think post number 4 got confused between America and Australia :unsure: |
Re: Language observations....
Originally Posted by ukecadet
(Post 9363461)
That's more or less what I was getting at.Received Pronunciation is mostly used in Shakespearean plays,which as you probably know is non-rhotic.
The only time an accent containing rhotic is used it's usually for the comic relief in the play. As we all know,that's all that Northerners and country yokel's are good for...playing the buffoon. I'm from Manchester by the way,and lived in Plymouth for 13 years so I think I can get away with that. :D |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 11:50 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.