''bath'' and ''Mary''

"The only remaining buildings from the brief convict era are the Commissariat Store in George Street..."

Yep, thats the building that I was thinking of in particular. I went to Brisbane about 2 months ago and went pass that building, taking note at how old it was.

So where did most of the migrants that went to Qld come from? Was it NSW or from England itself? If NSW, that explains the closeness between NSW and Qld speech, otherwise, the closeness must have been done on reinforcement from the south or just a similar mix as NSW and others (more Scots and Irish that influence speech with minimal influence from English migrants).

Sometimes there are no simple answers concerning accents. I've heard many people from the US and Australia try to rationalize why some accents are slightly different, by looking at history and the places from which people emigrated. There are literally thousands of accents in England alone which change substantially from town to town. Americans make a big thing out of the rhotic and non-rhotic issue, but in the North West of England, towns switch from non-rhotic, to rhotic to pronounced rhotic accents (such as Blackburn) quite randomly with no differences in population origins.

You can't just say that an accent in the US is non-rhotic because of English influence because many people in England (Predominantly Lancs, East Anglia and South West) pronounce the "Rs". Likewise short and long vowel sounds exist in England, with the majority (NW, NE, W & E Midlands and large parts of the SW) speaking with short "a"s. I suspect that the primary influence on Australian accents was quite specifically from London and surrounding areas.

<<Sometimes there are no simple answers concerning accents. I've heard many people from the US and Australia try to rationalize why some accents are slightly different, by looking at history and the places from which people emigrated.>>

Well those historical patterns do in fact produce noticeable results in terms of accents sometimes, and such things are well documented by linguists.

<<There are literally thousands of accents in England alone which change substantially from town to town. Americans make a big thing out of the rhotic and non-rhotic issue, but in the North West of England, towns switch from non-rhotic, to rhotic to pronounced rhotic accents (such as Blackburn) quite randomly with no differences in population origins.

You can't just say that an accent in the US is non-rhotic because of English influence because many people in England (Predominantly Lancs, East Anglia and South West) pronounce the "Rs".>>

Right, so to be technically accurate, if we're talking about a non-rhotic US accent as a result of British influence, it should technically be specificied "non-rhotic" British influence, as, not all British accents are non-rhotic, as you point out.

<<Likewise short and long vowel sounds exist in England, with the majority (NW, NE, W & E Midlands and large parts of the SW) speaking with short "a"s.>>

Geographically I'm sure more of England uses what you call "short a" in words like "glass," while I would bet that populationwise, more people used "long a" for those words due to larger population concentration in London and Southern England. At least that's how it is for the rhotic accents. Geographically, more of English land is rhotic but populationwise, more English people are non-rhotic.

<<I suspect that the primary influence on Australian accents was quite specifically from London and surrounding areas.>>

Yes, mostly so.

<<Geographically, more of English land is rhotic but populationwise, more English people are non-rhotic.>>

True

<<Geographically I'm sure more of England uses what you call "short a" in words like "glass," while I would bet that populationwise, more people used "long a" for those words due to larger population concentration in London and Southern England.>>

Population of the South East is just over 8 million according to national statistics. This figure also represents a larger than average number of new immigrants. The total population of England is just over 49 million, so give or take a few million, the short "a" sound accounts for nearly four/fifths the population (approx).

Welcome!!! http://www.areaseo.com/contacts/ google pr. [URL=http://www.areaseo.com]pagerank 5[/URL]: Professional SEO, pagerank algorithm, Web Site Analysis. Also [url=http://www.areaseo.com]online pr16[/url] from google pr .

« Population of the South East is just over 8 million according to national statistics. This figure also represents a larger than average number of new immigrants. The total population of England is just over 49 million, so give or take a few million, the short "a" sound accounts for nearly four/fifths the population (approx). »

Is that for the official Southeast region which actually excludes London though? 8 million sounds too small for London, and certainly too small if the whole of the Southeast is to be included. Equally, I was usually under the impression that the long 'a' sound was the norm in the Southwest is well — am I wrong? (It's not something I've really listened for).

Yes, I'm right. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_East_England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London

The official population for 'South East England', which includes Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Surrey, Kent, East Sussex, West Sussex, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, but *not* Greater London, is 8,000,550. Additionally, Greater London, which is considered a completely separate region, has an official population of 7,420,600. Thus, in reality, the Southeast has a population of about 16 million. And if my assumptions about the Southwest are correct, that's another 5 million.

Having said all that, that still doesn't prove any particular point that the long 'a' is more common than the short 'a' in British English.

<<Is that for the official Southeast region which actually excludes London though? 8 million sounds too small for London, and certainly too small if the whole of the Southeast is to be included. Equally, I was usually under the impression that the long 'a' sound was the norm in the Southwest is well — am I wrong? (It's not something I've really listened for).>>

Good question, can't remember where I found those figures as it was 6 months ago. South West tends to have a pronunciation different from other areas (I think).

>"Bath" changes in Britain depending on the accent, but there are two distinct groups- bath with a short "a" (the original pronunciation) which is common in most of Britain and "bahth" (with a long "a") which is predominantly used in the South East of England<

>Australians and NZs have adopted the long "a" sound<

True for bahth, but Australians have not (except for a few) adopted "plahnt", while every NZer has. K1W1s also say chahnce, prahnce, lahnce and dahnce, but almost all Australians don't. Both groups say lahst, pahst, fahst and cahn't. Victorians and some Queenslanders pronounce "castle" as cassle, but the rest say cahsel to rhyme with parcel.

It has to do with when and by whom each of the original colonies was populated, but it makes it much more difficult for a non-Australian to affect an Australian accent effectively. Cockneys and Scots had a much greater influence on the NZ accent than on that of Australia, which had a much higher proportion of Irish and north of England immigrants.

Australians and New Zealanders have similar intonation, but the telling difference is in the short vowels, where NZers render a short A as though it were a short E, a short E as though it were a short I, and a short I, even in stressed syllables, as a schwa.

The long 'a' sound used in Australia and New Zealand isn't quite the same vowel as the one used in RP though, is it?

<<True for bahth, but Australians have not (except for a few) adopted "plahnt">>

True, the vowel changes took place over quite a long period of time, so not all changes were in place when Australia was originally colonized. Apparently at one point, there was some discussion whether Saturday should be pronounced Sahturday!

"Australians and New Zealanders have similar intonation, but the telling difference is in the short vowels, where NZers render a short A as though it were a short E, a short E as though it were a short I, and a short I, even in stressed syllables, as a schwa."

This is, of course, not exactly true but it is how it sounds to non-Kiwis. The vowels in "pat" and "pet" are raised and the one in "pit" is lowered and centralised.

>>The long 'a' sound used in Australia and New Zealand isn't quite the same vowel as the one used in RP though, is it?<<

Benjamin, it is precisely the same vowel as used in RP, which is the standard taught and encouraged throughout Australia for well over a century.

>>This is, of course, not exactly true but it is how it sounds to non-Kiwis. The vowels in "pat" and "pet" are raised and the one in "pit" is lowered and centralised.<<

Your first sentence expresses your opinion, with which I disagree. You mention that "it is how it sounds to non-Kiwis", which implies that it doesn't sound that way to you, which in turn suggests that you are a Kiwi. If you're not, the statement makes no sense.

Perhaps you could explain your second sentence more fully; I presume that your description "raised" is jargon, so perhaps you could explain your opinions in non-jargon terms. Do you dispute the truth that NZers typically pronounce "pat" as "pet", for example? Do you dispute that the sound they make in "pit" is a schwa? Do you contend that they do not use a sound which is typically unstressed , the schwa, as a substitute for a stressed short I in such words as "pit"?

>>Apparently at one point, there was some discussion whether Saturday should be pronounced Sahturday!<<

Absolute rubbish, but we all know a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, don't we? Well, those of us who received our formal education before education died know it.

<<Your first sentence expresses your opinion, with which I disagree. You mention that "it is how it sounds to non-Kiwis", which implies that it doesn't sound that way to you, which in turn suggests that you are a Kiwi. If you're not, the statement makes no sense. >>


???? I believe Jim is Australian, not a Kiwi. And I would read his statement as meaning, "that is how it sounds to me, as I am not a Kiwi, even though I know that's not how it sounds to them" -- which makes perfect sense to me.

>> Well, those of us who received our formal education before education died know it.<<

I'm an old codger. I received my formal education 75 years ago, just before education died. So, that would make you uneducated.