Hugo Weaving? The man's Australian, number one; number two, I have never heard anyone talk like him in my entire life!
COCKNEY SOUNDS AMERICAN!!!
All accents aside, there are eloquent and articulate people who speak clearly and intelligibly on both sides of The Puddle. Similarly, there are people who verbally mumble and stumble and degrade the English Language with an inability to express themselves in words of more than one syllable all over the place.
Sometimes I think Americans generally are more articulate than a lot of British people...maybe because they do not have such a wide range of dialectal speech...and Americans tend to speak up more assertively, which is in their favour. Sorry....I meant favor. :-)
I'm in a really good mood this morning.
Sometimes I think Americans generally are more articulate than a lot of British people...maybe because they do not have such a wide range of dialectal speech...and Americans tend to speak up more assertively, which is in their favour. Sorry....I meant favor. :-)
I'm in a really good mood this morning.
Talking about Australians.....it seems that many British people travelling in the USA are mistaken for Aussies over there.
<<Talking about Australians.....it seems that many British people travelling in the USA are mistaken for Aussies over there.>>
I have been asked quite often in the States what part of Australia I was from. I think the reason is that most American's know what North American accents sound like and they know how Hugh Grant and the like sound in films. However, as I don't sound like either of those I can't be American or English so I must be Australian. It's often difficult for Americans to comprehend that I've never met anyone who sounds like Hugh Grant and I've never met the Queen or any Sirs or Lords, I don't live in a castle and nor do any of my friends. People in England don't stop what they're doing at 4 O' clock for afternoon tea and yes I do also drink Coffee- coffee houses have been in England since at least the 1600s (refer to Pepys' Diary for references). People in Britain do have cars although they are generally smaller. Wales is not in London, nor in England, but a small country next to England which is part of the UK. And yes all people from the South of England are gay- that part is true and don't let anyone try and tell you different!
I have been asked quite often in the States what part of Australia I was from. I think the reason is that most American's know what North American accents sound like and they know how Hugh Grant and the like sound in films. However, as I don't sound like either of those I can't be American or English so I must be Australian. It's often difficult for Americans to comprehend that I've never met anyone who sounds like Hugh Grant and I've never met the Queen or any Sirs or Lords, I don't live in a castle and nor do any of my friends. People in England don't stop what they're doing at 4 O' clock for afternoon tea and yes I do also drink Coffee- coffee houses have been in England since at least the 1600s (refer to Pepys' Diary for references). People in Britain do have cars although they are generally smaller. Wales is not in London, nor in England, but a small country next to England which is part of the UK. And yes all people from the South of England are gay- that part is true and don't let anyone try and tell you different!
Actually, I think that the problem with us distinguishing British and Australian accents also lies in the fact that A) we have very few opportunities to hear them side-by-side for comparison, and B) all we're usually listening for is R's and T's, which you both do the same. Your vowel differences are somewhat lost on us, because we aren't paying attention to them...
>>Actually, I think that the problem with us distinguishing British and Australian accents also lies in the fact that A) we have very few opportunities to hear them side-by-side for comparison, and B) all we're usually listening for is R's and T's, which you both do the same. Your vowel differences are somewhat lost on us, because we aren't paying attention to them...<<
Well, one thing I also end up easily noticing, probably moreso than the non-NAE /t/, is the use of /Q/ where most NAE-speakers would have /A/ or sometimes /O/ or /@/, even though there are some NAE dialects which preserve such. Of course, I myself don't tend to clearly notice things that distinguish English English dialects from Australian English dialects, for lack of real-world contact with either.
Well, one thing I also end up easily noticing, probably moreso than the non-NAE /t/, is the use of /Q/ where most NAE-speakers would have /A/ or sometimes /O/ or /@/, even though there are some NAE dialects which preserve such. Of course, I myself don't tend to clearly notice things that distinguish English English dialects from Australian English dialects, for lack of real-world contact with either.
>>All accents aside, there are eloquent and articulate people who speak clearly and intelligibly on both sides of The Puddle. Similarly, there are people who verbally mumble and stumble and degrade the English Language<<
Well, much of that is dependent on whatever register one is speaking, especially because register is generally very closely linked to the degree of cliticization, assimilation, and elision, in most English dialects. The matter is that I, at least, and it seems like most NAE-speakers in general as well, do not like unnecessarily speaking in a formal register. Considering that I tend to reserve formal language in speech for quite formal contexts, for expressing strong emphasis, for expressing a high level of politeness, and for talking with non-native speakers, and considering that my everyday speech (which I find non-native speakers often have trouble with) normally tends towards being highly aggressively cliticized and highly subject to assimilation and elision, I doubt I really fall into the category of those who speak "clearly", "intelligibly", and who don't "mumble", to use your words. I don't really care myself though, as such is pretty much like how most people here speak anyways, and it, at least here, is generally better to speak very informally than to speak too formally, which just comes off as stilted or snobbish more than anything else.
>>with an inability to express themselves in words of more than one syllable all over the place.<<
Why aim at only syllable per word? I prefer to, when possible, aim at *less* than a syllable per word. At least in my dialect, I regularly pronounce "do you have" ([dj{:v]), "you do not" ([jo~?]), and "I do not" ([ao~?]) in single syllables, and "I don't know" ([a:o~.n:o]) in two syllables, for example. (Note here that [ao] is a single diphthong, like [aU] but with a slightly lower offglide, not two separate vowels in sequence.) :D
>>Sometimes I think Americans generally are more articulate than a lot of British people...maybe because they do not have such a wide range of dialectal speech...and Americans tend to speak up more assertively, which is in their favour. Sorry....I meant favor. :-)<<
Well, I'm "articulate", so to speak, when I want to be such, which is usually when I'm trying to be very polite or very forceful, or when the person who I'm talking with won't understand half of what I say anyways. The key words here, of course, are "when I want to", that is.
Well, much of that is dependent on whatever register one is speaking, especially because register is generally very closely linked to the degree of cliticization, assimilation, and elision, in most English dialects. The matter is that I, at least, and it seems like most NAE-speakers in general as well, do not like unnecessarily speaking in a formal register. Considering that I tend to reserve formal language in speech for quite formal contexts, for expressing strong emphasis, for expressing a high level of politeness, and for talking with non-native speakers, and considering that my everyday speech (which I find non-native speakers often have trouble with) normally tends towards being highly aggressively cliticized and highly subject to assimilation and elision, I doubt I really fall into the category of those who speak "clearly", "intelligibly", and who don't "mumble", to use your words. I don't really care myself though, as such is pretty much like how most people here speak anyways, and it, at least here, is generally better to speak very informally than to speak too formally, which just comes off as stilted or snobbish more than anything else.
>>with an inability to express themselves in words of more than one syllable all over the place.<<
Why aim at only syllable per word? I prefer to, when possible, aim at *less* than a syllable per word. At least in my dialect, I regularly pronounce "do you have" ([dj{:v]), "you do not" ([jo~?]), and "I do not" ([ao~?]) in single syllables, and "I don't know" ([a:o~.n:o]) in two syllables, for example. (Note here that [ao] is a single diphthong, like [aU] but with a slightly lower offglide, not two separate vowels in sequence.) :D
>>Sometimes I think Americans generally are more articulate than a lot of British people...maybe because they do not have such a wide range of dialectal speech...and Americans tend to speak up more assertively, which is in their favour. Sorry....I meant favor. :-)<<
Well, I'm "articulate", so to speak, when I want to be such, which is usually when I'm trying to be very polite or very forceful, or when the person who I'm talking with won't understand half of what I say anyways. The key words here, of course, are "when I want to", that is.
Actually, there is another major reason that I tend to prefer such extremely informal forms: I find I can just generally speak *far* faster and with far less effort in them, whereas speaking in more "clear" formal forms often is far slower, requires more effort, and is more tiring when speaking for any real period of time, for me. When I don't have to think about "clearly" enunciating everything, using rules that are at least to some degree "learned" and thus requiring actual thought at some level, speaking as a whole is much easier and more fluid, at least for me.
When the American Fox news guys reported the G8 summit being held in Scotland, England ...........AARRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!
Friends of my mother were in Mississippi, USA and this bemused guy there, when told that their accent was Scottish, asked if that was from Scotland, and if Scotland was anywhere near England. For reasons of diplomacy and bonhomie in the guy's own country I think they resisted the strong urge to show him true Scottish sarcasm.
Friends of my mother were in Mississippi, USA and this bemused guy there, when told that their accent was Scottish, asked if that was from Scotland, and if Scotland was anywhere near England. For reasons of diplomacy and bonhomie in the guy's own country I think they resisted the strong urge to show him true Scottish sarcasm.
<<When the American Fox news guys reported the G8 summit being held in Scotland, England>>
American geography.........fair and balanced 24 hrs a day.
American geography.........fair and balanced 24 hrs a day.
>>People in England don't stop what they're doing at 4 O' clock for afternoon tea<<
Really? In all the books I've read about England, it says that there is a 4 o'clock tea.
Really? In all the books I've read about England, it says that there is a 4 o'clock tea.
Ah, but progress marches on. Once they all lost the leases on their castles, they had to join the workforce and taking a long, leisurely break right at crunchtime just went out the window.
Now if we could convince their shopkeepers to stay open past SIX....
Rick, the problem with American geography is we've never invaded Scotland....Just give us some time; we're a little busy right now. But we'll pencil 'em in for 2078...and then we'll remember EXACTLY where it is!
Now if we could convince their shopkeepers to stay open past SIX....
Rick, the problem with American geography is we've never invaded Scotland....Just give us some time; we're a little busy right now. But we'll pencil 'em in for 2078...and then we'll remember EXACTLY where it is!
<<Hugo Weaving? The man's Australian, number one; number two, I have never heard anyone talk like him in my entire life!>>
I didn't know he was. I could not tell. Possibly, he's been living in the US, so his accent was modified a bit. That's why I thought that he was American with a nice clear accent. Obviously, I was mistaken. Besides he's an actor he can train to speak accents at will!!!
<<Actually, there is another major reason that I tend to prefer such extremely informal forms: I find I can just generally speak *far* faster and with far less effort in them, whereas speaking in more "clear" formal forms often is far slower, requires more effort, and is more tiring when speaking for any real period of time, for me. When I don't have to think about "clearly" enunciating everything, using rules that are at least to some degree "learned" and thus requiring actual thought at some level, speaking as a whole is much easier and more fluid, at least for me.>>
Just that's what I mean, it's not about spoiling the language just to save some time when talking. Honestly, I think that the way you speak (even with an accent or not) tells a lot about you, about your culture and your educational background. Eg:
What do you think of a bloke speaking like this:
Yo man, whazzup? hey, it's pretty cold man, I gonna wear som'in. I ain't got no choice!!! You betta do da same, dude!!
ANd what about this?
Hey, Hello. How are you? It's very cold, huh? I'm going to wear something. I have no choice! and You should do the same!
Is there an important difference of time when speaking? maybe just 1 or 2 seconds, and if you want to you can always speak quickly and that's it. Time is not the problem, and it's not a reason to spoil the language either.
And about effort, well... no coments.
<<>>People in England don't stop what they're doing at 4 O' clock for afternoon tea<<
Really? In all the books I've read about England, it says that there is a 4 o'clock tea. >>
Yes, It's called the "Afternoon tea". And it's not about drinking tea only, it's much like a meal at 4 o'clock. Tea served with some baked scones served with jam or cream. Or also you can always have cucumber sandwiches. :)
And yes, People used to stop to do the "Afternoon tea". However, now most people don't have time to do so. Now they have the "High tea" served with buns, cakes, toasted crumpets or that sort of thing. (more down to earth stuff).
And talking about the main topic here. I keep my words "COCKNEY SOUNDS SORT OF AMERICAN TO ME" even if You say that now American accent is like cockney, I'm not sure, I must be crazy. And I prefer "Estuary English" (pronounced esCHU@rI, well kind of, hehehe). Even if they say that EE is a bastardized version of cockney.
I didn't know he was. I could not tell. Possibly, he's been living in the US, so his accent was modified a bit. That's why I thought that he was American with a nice clear accent. Obviously, I was mistaken. Besides he's an actor he can train to speak accents at will!!!
<<Actually, there is another major reason that I tend to prefer such extremely informal forms: I find I can just generally speak *far* faster and with far less effort in them, whereas speaking in more "clear" formal forms often is far slower, requires more effort, and is more tiring when speaking for any real period of time, for me. When I don't have to think about "clearly" enunciating everything, using rules that are at least to some degree "learned" and thus requiring actual thought at some level, speaking as a whole is much easier and more fluid, at least for me.>>
Just that's what I mean, it's not about spoiling the language just to save some time when talking. Honestly, I think that the way you speak (even with an accent or not) tells a lot about you, about your culture and your educational background. Eg:
What do you think of a bloke speaking like this:
Yo man, whazzup? hey, it's pretty cold man, I gonna wear som'in. I ain't got no choice!!! You betta do da same, dude!!
ANd what about this?
Hey, Hello. How are you? It's very cold, huh? I'm going to wear something. I have no choice! and You should do the same!
Is there an important difference of time when speaking? maybe just 1 or 2 seconds, and if you want to you can always speak quickly and that's it. Time is not the problem, and it's not a reason to spoil the language either.
And about effort, well... no coments.
<<>>People in England don't stop what they're doing at 4 O' clock for afternoon tea<<
Really? In all the books I've read about England, it says that there is a 4 o'clock tea. >>
Yes, It's called the "Afternoon tea". And it's not about drinking tea only, it's much like a meal at 4 o'clock. Tea served with some baked scones served with jam or cream. Or also you can always have cucumber sandwiches. :)
And yes, People used to stop to do the "Afternoon tea". However, now most people don't have time to do so. Now they have the "High tea" served with buns, cakes, toasted crumpets or that sort of thing. (more down to earth stuff).
And talking about the main topic here. I keep my words "COCKNEY SOUNDS SORT OF AMERICAN TO ME" even if You say that now American accent is like cockney, I'm not sure, I must be crazy. And I prefer "Estuary English" (pronounced esCHU@rI, well kind of, hehehe). Even if they say that EE is a bastardized version of cockney.
And the "high tea" a.k.a. just "tea" is served at about 6 in the evening.
What a snobbish topic of conversation!!!
What a snobbish topic of conversation!!!
<<Yo man, whazzup? hey, it's pretty cold man, I gonna wear som'in. I ain't got no choice!!! You betta do da same, dude!!>>
This is hardly standard American, Pete. This is a specific dialect spoken by a small fraction of the inhabitants of the US.
This is hardly standard American, Pete. This is a specific dialect spoken by a small fraction of the inhabitants of the US.