How important is class in spoken English!
Let me start by saying this is not another thread about RP, nor am I being snooty, but it occurs to me that this is something that is often overlooked when comparing dialects in this forum.
I am guessing that most of us who post regularly to this forum construct basic sentences appropriately- I was, you were, we were etc, but many don't. My own neighbours, for example, say I were, you was, we was etc.
Most of us (including me) talk about differences in language in terms of geography and the great chasms that divide us, but few of us stop to think how differently people in our own neighbourhoods sound and in actual fact how much we have in common.
How important do you feel class is?
Most people say I have an accent that leans towards RP, this is not how I chose to learn English, but how the Dutch school system teaches it, in fact, the Dutch and Scandanavia have said to have the best not-native English speakers (on average) but the most old fashioned styl imaginable.
For me personally, it doesn't matter what accent I have as long as I'm understood.
I agree with Sander's last sentence.
<<Most people say I have an accent that leans towards RP>>
I wouldn't say that, Sander - you just sound Dutch to me! ;)
(albeit just from the one sentence I've heard you speak!)
Sander,
I would think that it's more likely that you speak standard english! RP sounds like people have a plum in their mouths.
=>you just sound Dutch to me!<=
JUST dutch? ;-)
Rick, I'll try to give you a sample soon.
"the Dutch and Scandanavia have said to have the best not-native English speakers "
werd
Rick:
Interesting subject, especially since, in my opinion, language seems to be the one socially acceptable form of prejudice left. People who wouldn't dream of calling a black person a "nigger" are quite happy to make scathing judgments about "Ebonics."
For a variety of reasons, we still tend to insist on the polite fiction of something called "Standard English" and, as a result, consign those who do not appear to follow its grammatical norms to the category of "substandard speaker."
But "standard language" is itself nothing more than a set of ideas about the correct form of any given language. More often than not, those ideas are themselves purely arbitrary in nature.
Indeed - I agree totally.
JJM, have you see the 'Interesting comments about GenAm and RP' thread? You should check it out, especially Linda's hysterically inaccurate rants about stupid Northerners and their inability to speak 'Standard English'.
Candy:
I have been following that thread but not posting because I felt it was pointless.
It's natural for people to perceive other regional forms of "their" language as somehow odd or different. So I don't mind people making arbitrary judgments about how other dialects and accents "sound" (actually, I couldn't care less).
Such comments are bound to arise since we all have particular likes, dislikes and nostrums about how our language should work.
I do mind when people make such judgments without any conscious effort to accept that they are being purely subjective and are not making objective statements on the nature of language.
Ecko,
=>"the Dutch and Scandanavia have said to have the best not-native English speakers "
we(i)rd<=
Why is that weird?
''the Dutch and Scandanavia have said to have the best not-native English speakers ''
No, they haven't got...They pronounce EYES as ICE... LIES as LICE...
Dutch and Scandinavians should learn that in English final -s is normally voiced [z] (and not [s]), so EYES is read [aiz], and LIES is [laiz]... ( /ais/ and /lais/ are different words). BOYS [boys] rhymes with NOYZE [noyz] and not with VOICE [voys]... Dutch and Scandinavians are easily recognized by skipping this rule...Just buy a grammar book and learn it...Is it that difficult?!