Maybe DEBORAH...I really cannot comment with any proper degree of credibility.....I merely transcribed the article exactly as it appears in today's quoted paper. Most people here in the UK do tend to associate "the American accent" (general term, completely ignoring the fact that US accents are as varied as are Brit ones) with the word "drawl". I know it's innacurate, but that's just how it is seen (or rather heard) by the average Brit. It's the same silly principle I guess that to some Americans all English people talk like Hugh Grant or, even worse, like the Queen.
<<Gentlemen, what's the problem? There are only three main types of English. Dictionary.Com defines them thusly:>>
Dictionary can define them however they want, but it still says nothing about the fact that there are only "three English dialects"! Now, if the entry said something like this your argument might stand up logically:
***1) QUEEN'S ENGLISH
n.
English speech or usage that is considered standard or accepted; Received Standard English. Considered one of three English dialects worldwide.***
However, it does not say this of course.
Dictionary.com does a fine job defining the terms for its purposes, but says nothing to support your arguments...
<<In all seriousness, I don't think that any of you can show me a Canadian English version of The Lord's Prayer, or a "Texan", "Californian", or "Boston" English version of it.>>
A common assumption of yours, Brennus, is that the written language is exactly how people speak. It's not. I can read the exact same text as someone from Liverpool, have the exact the same grammar, syntax, etc., yet much will distinguish my speech from the Liverpudlian's. Even more so with informal speech (which is the real language--the bedrock of what is considered the actual language or language variety someone uses...not how they read or write). Even if we produce a grammatically identical sentence in spoken, conversational speech, large phonological differences will clearly distinguish our varieties as separate dialects. Also, this is even ignoring the fact that grammar and syntax do actually differ to varying degrees depending on the dialect. Another convincing argument for their status as dialects.
Dialects are not distinguished or defined whatsoever by how similar their writing is. The written language is not the language. You claim to be interested in and to have read up on linguistics-related topics for years, Brennus, but in so doing you surely should've come across basic linguistic notions such as the absolute separation of the written language (if a language even has one) from the actual spoken language, amongst many other things related to this topic.
You may believe whatever you want, Brennus, but you may not reasonably argue what you've been arguing and also expect others to accept what you're saying.
<<Why bother arguing with him? He know's that he's wrong, he's just arguing for the sake of arguing.>>
Unfortunately it seems so. I really can't say much more on the topic.
<<...in my Australian Queen's Cockney>>
Haha. Apparently I'm one of over 30 million speakers of the Queen's California English...or would that be California Queen's English? ....... ;)
I didn't know you had a Queen in California! Maybe you have lots of them....we have our share ...apart from Liz...the one with the crown :-)
<<I didn't know you had a Queen in California! Maybe you have lots of them....we have our share ...apart from Liz...the one with the crown :-)>>
Haha. There's one or two here :)
The problem with The Our Father is that you wouldn't usually change the grammar about. People chant these prayers off without really much thinking about the words. Those who do think about them would just as likely think it sacrelidge to change the words. The words "thy", "thee", "thou" and "thine" still survive in prayers even when the faithful have ceased using them in every day speech generations ago.
Alright there !
Hast tha' Brennus packed in wi' sain tha' thuz onl-e tither dialecks in English ? I 'ave ter say I've not seen any er is posts at t'subject in 'and while a page or two.
Of course its easy to put into writing, in a makeshift way, purely phonetic differences, more often referred to as accents than dialects. Tha can easily see that that kind of transcription can exaggerate differences, as can including far too many idiomatic phrases in a written text, just to prove your sen.
I don't right see how Yorkshire english can be regarded as a variety of Queens, and not tuther way round. After all, the use of an extended /a:/ sound in words such as 'bath' and 'grass' in RP, if we take this as some kind of archetype of Queen's English, is a novel feature.
I were also thinking on the differences between Queen's and Cockney. Does rhyming slang really count as a dialectal feature, even if we don't consider it to be just an affectation in this day and age ? Writing the Lord's Prayer in Cockney seems mostly to be an exercise in amateur phonetic transcription, not right what I'd call typical of a 'serious linguist.'
Thuz a reit grand site on t'Tykes and thu dialect at't'link below. You'll ave ter wait while you read it afore passing judgment too 'astily.
Ta ta fer now
http://www.yorksj.ac.uk/dialect/
Travis.A test of your statement! ;)
Een proef op je bewering!Jij beweerde in je vorige inzending dat de Nederlandse taal zoveel verschilt met die van de oosterburen dan Schots van Engels,je bevestigd dat door te zeggen dat deze talen veel van elkaar weg hebben,zoals gewoonlijk verglijk je daarbij Nederlands met Engels en Duits,alsof het een soort dialekt is van een van beide,dit is onzin...Nederlands is niet zoveel van Engels en zoveel van Duits.Nederlands is geheel Nederlands!
Now...tell me: ...
The above message is a responds to this one...
=>american nic, attempting to read Scots, *not* Scottish English, for me is like when I attempt to read written Dutch or West Frisian, as in I can often guess what's going on, as often a lot of the word forms look like those German (in the case of Dutch and West Frisian) or English (in the case of West Frisian and on occasion Dutch), and much of the grammatical forms are either like those in German (in the case of Dutch) or English (in the case of West Frisian), but in the end, though, I don't have that much understanding of what's going on. For me, Scots is to English what, say, Dutch is to German, as in it's "close but not quite" overall. Close enough to have some understanding, but not enough to really fully comprehend everything that's going on, besides having a rough general idea of what's being said. <=
I wasn't trying to argue that Dutch is a dialect of English or German, Sander. What I was just saying is that my understanding of written Scots is like that of my understanding of written Dutch; that is, that I can at times eyeball a general meaning even though I myself don't speak it per se, and I lose much of what's specifically being said in the process. Also, I was saying that just because I have *some* understanding of written Scots doesn't mean that it is a dialect of English, just like how Dutch is not a dialect of German even though individuals who know German may be able to somewhat understand it at times.
(hmmm....)
you seem to like to use 'per se' ...what does it mean in English?
"per se" is a Latinism which basically means "specificially" or "exactly" or like in English proper.
Yeah,we have it in Dutch too,it means 'ofcourse' / naturally'.
The term "per se" seems to be particularly popular with Americans....they seem to use it far more often than anyone else. That's my impression from listening to radio programs anyway.
Just check back in this Forum....it's nearly always an American who uses it, so that bears out what I have just said. There's nothing at all wrong with it..far from it...it's useful and convenient and suits the purpose very well....saves using more English words unnecessarily.
"by or in itself; intrinsically".
Yeah,look at Travis' posts,he regularly uses 'per se'...