Hatunen

On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:21:47 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
wrote:

    >In article , [email protected]
    >(Hatunen) wrote:

    >> Hm. Do Geordies who have passed through Cambridge or Oxford still
    >> soune like Geordies?
    >These days, frequently, yes. I'm sure there were fewer Geordie accents
    >coming out of Oxbridge half a century ago, but that was because the
    >"working class" were far less likely than now to attend, and the intake
    >was much more dominated by kids from public schools. (Public in the
    >English sense of private, of course!)
    >IOW there probably was in the past a certain commonality of accent among
    >Oxbridge graduates, but it wasn't *because* they'd been to Oxbridge --
    >their university and their accent were both symptoms of their class.

Which is why those who weren't born to that class made sure they
learned that accent.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen

On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:49:46 +0000, Keith Anderson
wrote:

    >On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 17:40:09 GMT, [email protected] (Hatunen) wrote:
    >>On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:24:42 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>Oh, I know what he *thinks* it is. I just rather doubt that there is any
    >>>particular accent attributable to attendance at Oxford or Cambridge.
    >>>However, I am being picky for the sake of it.
    >>Hm. Do Geordies who have passed through Cambridge or Oxford still
    >>soune like Geordies?
    >Maybe, maybe not - but at least Microsoft has recognised their
    >existence:
    >http://citizennews.co.uk/default.php?itemID=596

That's pretty funny...

************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

barney

In article , [email protected]
(Hatunen) wrote:

    > On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:21:47 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
    > wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >IOW there probably was in the past a certain commonality of accent
    > among >Oxbridge graduates, but it wasn't *because* they'd been to
    > Oxbridge -- >their university and their accent were both symptoms of
    > their class.
    >
    > Which is why those who weren't born to that class made sure they
    > learned that accent.

But they didn't, always. That's the point. I can name real examples,
actual people with whom I am personally familiar.

I also wonder how likely it would be that you would pick up a dramatically
new accent in just three years at the age of most students (18-21
approx.). Of course, the exposure to a different accent -- or a more
heterogenous mix -- might well modify some extremes and turn a "strong"
regional accent into a "mild" one.

I'm sure there must have been studies done on this -- if there are any
linguists or educationalists reading the group who know, do tell. I guess,
though, that increasing non-public-school intake into Oxbridge coincided
to some extent with the growth in acceptability of regional accents
anyway -- so it would be difficult to know whether accents survived the
experience because of their deep roots in the individual, or because there
was less incentive to change.

Evelynvogtgamble

"Miss L.Toe" wrote:
    >
    > wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > In article , [email protected]
    > > (Girard) wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > > finds Britain's finest minds propounding, in sophisticated language and
    > > > melodious Oxbridge accents
    > >
    > > I'd sure like to know what an Oxbridge accent is.
    >
    > Well, my good sir - It most certainly is not one that preceeds a grammatical
    > incorrect sentance with I'd sure..

Not to nit-pick, but it is "grammatically" not "grammatical", and
"sentence", not "sentance" (when you criticize others' grammar, it's a
good idea to make sure your own is correct, first.)

Evelynvogtgamble

Keith Anderson wrote:
    >
    > On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:57:12 -0000, "Miss L.Toe" wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > wrote in message
    > >news:[email protected]...
    > >> In article , [email protected]
    > >> (Girard) wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> > finds Britain's finest minds propounding, in sophisticated language and
    > >> > melodious Oxbridge accents
    > >>
    > >> I'd sure like to know what an Oxbridge accent is.
    > >
    > >Well, my good sir - It most certainly is not one that preceeds a grammatical
    > >incorrect sentance with I'd sure..
    >
    > How about "I say old boy! The cads and bounders on one of these
    > new-fangled Usenet thingumybobs want to know what an Oxbridge accent
    > is. Dashed if I know."

You sound like Bertie Wooster! (Do people actually still TALK like
that, outside of Wodehouse dramatized for the telly?)

    > >

Gregory Morrow

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:


    > Keith Anderson wrote:
    > >
    > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:57:12 -0000, "Miss L.Toe" wrote:
    > >
    > > >
    > > > wrote in message
    > > >news:[email protected]...
    > > >> In article , [email protected]
    > > >> (Girard) wrote:
    > > >>
    > > >>
    > > >> > finds Britain's finest minds propounding, in sophisticated language
and
    > > >> > melodious Oxbridge accents
    > > >>
    > > >> I'd sure like to know what an Oxbridge accent is.
    > > >
    > > >Well, my good sir - It most certainly is not one that preceeds a
grammatical
    > > >incorrect sentance with I'd sure..
    > >
    > > How about "I say old boy! The cads and bounders on one of these
    > > new-fangled Usenet thingumybobs want to know what an Oxbridge accent
    > > is. Dashed if I know."
    > You sound like Bertie Wooster! (Do people actually still TALK like
    > that, outside of Wodehouse dramatized for the telly?)

"Dear Miss Evelyn:

You are hereby invited to the Birth Control Festival in the West African
nation of the the Gold Coast....

RSVP to Government House by 12 April 1947.....

Yours Titularlly

xoxoxo
Graham Greene&Evelyn Waugh....."

Owain

<barney wrote
    | I also wonder how likely it would be that you would pick up a dramatically
    | new accent in just three years at the age of most students (18-21
    | approx.). Of course, the exposure to a different accent -- or a more
    | heterogenous mix -- might well modify some extremes and turn a "strong"
    | regional accent into a "mild" one.

Until the 1970s when 'comprehensive education' [1] took over, Oxbridge
candidates (in fact almost all university candidates) would have been taught
at grammar schools, which would have been more likely to employ graduates,
if not Oxbridge, then other universities - when there were far fewer
universities drawing staff and students from a more restricted social range.
These schools were also more likely to positively aim to remove regional
accents and dialects and teach their pupils how to speak 'properly'. Many
children had separate accents and vocabularies for school, playground, and
parents. So the transition from a regional to an Oxbridge accent would not
have been a sudden one.

And, of course, the BBC still demonstrated how English should be spoken.

Owain

[1] Which in my limited but personal experience is neither :-)

barney

In article , [email protected]
(EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)) wrote:


    > You sound like Bertie Wooster! (Do people actually still TALK like
    > that, outside of Wodehouse dramatized for the telly?)

Not really. Maybe the odd retired major-general in Tunbridge Wells.

We don't wear bowler hats, summon hansom cabs in the London pea-souper, or
eat roast beef particularly often, either

Interesting point, though. I was going to say that it's language of the
20s/30s -- which only the very aged would have grown up with -- but I
wonder if it was already old-fashioned by then, and if that was part of
Wodehouse's joke.

Greg Byshenk

CB wrote:

    > I'm afraid this article is all FORM
    > but NO SUBSTANCE. I was just in Barcelona last Saturday, Feb 5th, and got
    > caught in the middle of a anti-war demonstration around Placa Catalunya with
    > an estimated crowd of 1.3 million. I hade never seen such a sea of humanity
    > and I will tell you right now, they did not seem to be anti-American, just
    > anti-war.

I agree fully with the last sentence.

As an American who lives in Europe, I find very little "anti-Americanism"
here. I see some concern about the present US Administration, and a
great deal of concern about and disagreement with its policies, but that
is very much not equivalent to "anti-Americanism".


A somewhat more thoughtful (IMO) article is at:




Registration is required, so an excerpt:

[...]

Most people, though, get their news from TV and there the difference is
immense. The coverage of Saturday's antiwar rallies was a reminder of the
extent to which U.S. cable news, in particular, seems to be reporting about
a different planet than the one covered by foreign media.

What would someone watching cable news have seen? On Saturday, news anchors
on Fox described the demonstrators in New York as "the usual protesters" or
"serial protesters." [...]

This wasn't at all the way the rest of the world's media reported Saturday's
events, but it wasn't out of character. For months both major U.S. cable
news networks have acted as if the decision to invade Iraq has already been
made, and have in effect seen it as their job to prepare the American public
for the coming war.

So it's not surprising that the target audience is a bit blurry about the
distinction between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda. Surveys show that a
majority of Americans think that some or all of the Sept. 11 hijackers were
Iraqi, while many believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11, a
claim even the Bush administration has never made. And since many Americans
think that the need for a war against Saddam is obvious, they think that
Europeans who won't go along are cowards.

[...]

- From Paul Krugman, "Behind the Great Divide", NYT 18 Feb 2003


--
greg byshenk - [email protected] - Leiden, NL
hate spam?

barney

In article ,
[email protected] (Owain) wrote:


    > the transition from a regional to an Oxbridge accent would
    > not
    > have been a sudden one.

Good point. Which of course bears out my contention that it was not so
much an "Oxbridge accent" per se as an accent shared by people who were
more likely than others to go to Oxbridge.

Do we win the prize for most boring thread yet?

Evelynvogtgamble

[email protected] wrote:
    >
    > In article , [email protected]
    > (EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)) wrote:
    >
    > > You sound like Bertie Wooster! (Do people actually still TALK like
    > > that, outside of Wodehouse dramatized for the telly?)
    >
    > Not really. Maybe the odd retired major-general in Tunbridge Wells.
    >
    > We don't wear bowler hats, summon hansom cabs in the London pea-souper, or
    > eat roast beef particularly often, either
    >
    > Interesting point, though. I was going to say that it's language of the
    > 20s/30s -- which only the very aged would have grown up with -- but I
    > wonder if it was already old-fashioned by then, and if that was part of
    > Wodehouse's joke.

You'd be a better judge of that than I, since my only visit to the UK
was two years ago, where I found people I met sounded pretty much like
people do on the imported BBC programs we see on PBS, here. (Except
for one BA employee at Heathrow - I could scarcely understand a single
word of what he said, yet he claimed to be London born and bred!)

Evelynvogtgamble

greg byshenk wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    > Registration is required, so an excerpt:
    > So it's not surprising that the target audience is a bit blurry about the
    > distinction between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda. Surveys show that a
    > majority of Americans think that some or all of the Sept. 11 hijackers were
    > Iraqi, while many believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11, a
    > claim even the Bush administration has never made. And since many Americans
    > think that the need for a war against Saddam is obvious, they think that
    > Europeans who won't go along are cowards.

....Which makes the numbers who turned out for anti-war demonstrations
across the U.S. even more astonishing! Even without the support of the
media (and despite the foul-mouthed "hawks" who have invaded this
newsgroup) a great many Americans rely on their own judgement, feel that
a war would be wrong, and have the courage to say so in public.


    >
    > [...]
    >
    > - From Paul Krugman, "Behind the Great Divide", NYT 18 Feb 2003
    >
    >
    > --
    > greg byshenk - [email protected] - Leiden, NL
    > hate spam?
    >

Gregory Morrow

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:


    > (and despite the foul-mouthed "hawks" who have invaded this
    > newsgroup)


While you DOVES (read: "pigeons"or even STOOL PIGEONS!!) are bobbling about
and cooing, gabbling nonsensically about "peace", ingesting bird seed and
occasionally scoring the odd bit of discarded gum wrapper or ciggy butt with
which to "feather" your nests, us HAWKS are making plans! We are
*watching*...*analysing*...*planning*.....!!!!

Beware, Evelyn!!! Does the pigeon eat the hawk, or is it the *other* way
around, hmmm.....??????

Will YOU be someone's dinner, or will you soar *triumphantly* in the sky, a
thing of glory to be admired and feared....???

--
Best
Greg

Dajaxon

spoken like a texan

Gregory Morrow

dajaxon wrote:

    > spoken like a texan


"OUCH!"

--
Best
Greg in Chicago (prefers the Molly Ivins and Jim Hightower types 'o Texans)