What is with it when people claim that here in New York we say "woild" for "world"? I'm from New York and can tell you that no one here talks that way. I find it quite annoying when people say that New Yorkers say things like "woild" for "world" or "boid" for "bird". We say our "ur" sound no different than anyone else in the United States.
woild
I know what you're talking about and it can be found everywhere from Southern Mississippi (Homer Stokes in "O Brother Where Art Thou?" kept saying he was a "soivant of the little man") up to Cincinnati (comedian Ron White said one young waiter claimed Cincinnati was the "Chili Capital of the Woild"). It's weird and I think it's more common in the Ohio River Valley. I may have just made that up though...
Same reason that Canadians say "aboot". They don't. It just sounds like that to people without the /@U/ sound in their dialect. Here is an explanation from Wikipedia:
"The General American [ɝ] and [ɔɪ] : In the most old-fashioned and extreme New Yorkâarea accents, the vowel sounds of words like girl and of words like oil both become a diphthong [ɜɪ]. This is often misperceived by speakers of other accents as a "reversal" of the "er" and "oy" sounds, so that girl is pronounced "goil" and oil is pronounced "erl"; this leads to the caricature of New Yorkers saying things like "Joizey" (Jersey) and "terlet" (toilet). This particular speech pattern is no longer very prevalent; the character Archie Bunker from the 1970's show All In The Family was a good example of a speaker who had this feature. Younger New Yorkers (born since about 1950) are likely to use a rhotic [ɝ] in bird even if they use nonrhotic pronunciations of beard, bared, bard, board, boor, and butter. Similarly, the line-loin merger is sporadically heard in New York."
"The General American [ɝ] and [ɔɪ] : In the most old-fashioned and extreme New Yorkâarea accents, the vowel sounds of words like girl and of words like oil both become a diphthong [ɜɪ]. This is often misperceived by speakers of other accents as a "reversal" of the "er" and "oy" sounds, so that girl is pronounced "goil" and oil is pronounced "erl"; this leads to the caricature of New Yorkers saying things like "Joizey" (Jersey) and "terlet" (toilet). This particular speech pattern is no longer very prevalent; the character Archie Bunker from the 1970's show All In The Family was a good example of a speaker who had this feature. Younger New Yorkers (born since about 1950) are likely to use a rhotic [ɝ] in bird even if they use nonrhotic pronunciations of beard, bared, bard, board, boor, and butter. Similarly, the line-loin merger is sporadically heard in New York."
<<I know what you're talking about and it can be found everywhere from Southern Mississippi (Homer Stokes in "O Brother Where Art Thou?" kept saying he was a "soivant of the little man") up to Cincinnati (comedian Ron White said one young waiter claimed Cincinnati was the "Chili Capital of the Woild").>>
Well I don't think a the fake accent of a Marylander playing a Mississippian, and hearsay from a comedian, really count as evidence. ;-)
Regardless, the phonemenon in question did use to exist in New York City (although it's basically extinct there today); and I have heard it from some people from New Orleans, so it is plausible that some people might have it in Southern Mississippi.
Well I don't think a the fake accent of a Marylander playing a Mississippian, and hearsay from a comedian, really count as evidence. ;-)
Regardless, the phonemenon in question did use to exist in New York City (although it's basically extinct there today); and I have heard it from some people from New Orleans, so it is plausible that some people might have it in Southern Mississippi.
<<Regardless, the phonemenon in question did use to exist in New York City (although it's basically extinct there today)>>
Indeed. But despite the fact that it's extinct, people still claim we talk that way for some reason.
Indeed. But despite the fact that it's extinct, people still claim we talk that way for some reason.
I was just reading a book about the New York accent the other day, and it said that the [ɜɪ] sound was common in South Carolina as well (though it was an old book). I find it interesting though that in non-rhotic accents in North America, the NURSE set is almost always rhotic: in New York, in AAVE, in Southern English (when it was non-rhotic), possibly in Boston, though I'm not sure.
<<...possibly in Boston, though I'm not sure.>>
You're right. In Boston and Worcester, even the most consistently non-rhotic people still use [3`] for "nurse". [3] would sound out of place here.
(As a side note, though, people with a traditional Maine accent do use [3].)
You're right. In Boston and Worcester, even the most consistently non-rhotic people still use [3`] for "nurse". [3] would sound out of place here.
(As a side note, though, people with a traditional Maine accent do use [3].)
I had a theory that this was because of NURSE becoming an r-coloured vowel, and therefore there was no r to drop, but I read in Wells's Accents of English that the r-coloured vowel occurred in lots of accents that later became non-rhotic, and also that some of those non-rhotic accents that now have [3`] once had a non-rhotic realization, whether [3] or [3I]. I've also come to think that AAVE has [3r\] rather than [3`], so I have no idea why.
On a slightly different focus, Lazar, do you know if non-rhoticism was borrowed in Boston or was brought by immigrants from England?
On a slightly different focus, Lazar, do you know if non-rhoticism was borrowed in Boston or was brought by immigrants from England?
<<On a slightly different focus, Lazar, do you know if non-rhoticism was borrowed in Boston or was brought by immigrants from England?>>
I'm not sure, but I think the former explanation is more likely. I read somewhere that non-rhoticism became dominant in port cities that had a lot of contact with England during the Colonial period, like Boston, Providence, New York, and Savannah. So perhaps it was originally borrowed as a prestige dialect. (Borrowing of prestige variants definitely seems like the most likely explanation for the trap-bath split that has traditionally been present in Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. I'm pretty sure I read that this was borrowed from London speech during the 1800s.)
I'm not sure, but I think the former explanation is more likely. I read somewhere that non-rhoticism became dominant in port cities that had a lot of contact with England during the Colonial period, like Boston, Providence, New York, and Savannah. So perhaps it was originally borrowed as a prestige dialect. (Borrowing of prestige variants definitely seems like the most likely explanation for the trap-bath split that has traditionally been present in Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. I'm pretty sure I read that this was borrowed from London speech during the 1800s.)
<<like Boston, Providence, New York, and Savannah.>>
And Charleston. ;-)
And Charleston. ;-)
Yes, I've read about the port cities as well. I think non-rhoticism in the South might have a different history though, because the whole coastal area was the centre for non-rhoticism, rather than just ports. The coast had more English settlement, whereas the inland was more Scottish.
I also wonder why only Boston borrowed the trap-bath split, while other areas, like New York, borrowed non-rhoticism without the trap-bath split. If people were trying to sound English, trap-bath would have been much easier to acquire than non-rhoticism! Also, in both Boston and New York, non-rhoticism is (now) associated with the lower classes. It's interesting that the prestige accent, once picked up by sailors and dock workers trying to move up the social scale, becomes a mark of low class.
I also wonder why only Boston borrowed the trap-bath split, while other areas, like New York, borrowed non-rhoticism without the trap-bath split. If people were trying to sound English, trap-bath would have been much easier to acquire than non-rhoticism! Also, in both Boston and New York, non-rhoticism is (now) associated with the lower classes. It's interesting that the prestige accent, once picked up by sailors and dock workers trying to move up the social scale, becomes a mark of low class.
>> Also, in both Boston and New York, non-rhoticism is (now) associated with the lower classes. <<
What if you have something like a Boston Brahmin accent? I heard one just recently speak, and he sounded quite elegant. Would that accent be stigmatized in the Northeast? The next time I go back east, I'm going to put on a Boston Brahmin accent. What do you think people would say? (I'm not very old.)
What if you have something like a Boston Brahmin accent? I heard one just recently speak, and he sounded quite elegant. Would that accent be stigmatized in the Northeast? The next time I go back east, I'm going to put on a Boston Brahmin accent. What do you think people would say? (I'm not very old.)
<<What if you have something like a Boston Brahmin accent?>>
As someone who lives in Massachusetts, I'd have to say that the Boston Brahmin accent is practically non-existent here. People's speech here tends to be somewhere on a continuum between the more traditional urban working-class non-rhotic accent, and General American.
<<Would that accent be stigmatized in the Northeast?>>
Probably in the same way that an old-fashioned U-RP accent would be stigmatized in modern Britain.
As someone who lives in Massachusetts, I'd have to say that the Boston Brahmin accent is practically non-existent here. People's speech here tends to be somewhere on a continuum between the more traditional urban working-class non-rhotic accent, and General American.
<<Would that accent be stigmatized in the Northeast?>>
Probably in the same way that an old-fashioned U-RP accent would be stigmatized in modern Britain.
It's too bad non-rhoticism was introduced to the Northeast before scientific studies of language had really developed, because it would have made for some very interesting work. It's hard to imagine people making such a dramatic change in their accent, presumably as a conscious affectation as well. I don't see how children could have acquired it naturalistically in this situation.