"get", "Wendy", "pretty", &quo

>> is that I prefer to treat General American as a relatively fixed variety to which other varieties can be effectively compared <<

But that is only your definition of what General American is. Since it has no "official" definition, why is your definition any more valid than anyone else's? Wouldn't it be better to say a Conservative American accent then, rather than "General American"?

>> rather than a catchall including all varieties that do not sound too accented to the average North American <<

Isn't that how most people would define it?

>> Also remember that General American corresponds to what was spoken in approximately the southwestern Midwest about the end of WW2 <<

I'm guessing that there were variations there even at that point in time. Heck, maybe some of them said "git" for "get" even. Was the southwestern Midwest all that homogenous at that time? I know that our "unusual" pronunciations around here are certainly not unique to here, and I bet they didn't even originate here. It seems like there's a double standard. You say that GA is what was spoken in the SW Midwest about the end of WW2, however because /E/ seems to predominate, it must be "General American"? Wouldn't it be equally valid to say that /E/ is a regional pronunciation as well?

>>>> is that I prefer to treat General American as a relatively fixed variety to which other varieties can be effectively compared <<

But that is only your definition of what General American is. Since it has no "official" definition, why is your definition any more valid than anyone else's? Wouldn't it be better to say a Conservative American accent then, rather than "General American"?<<

No, because General American is actually quite new as a formalized standard variety; it postdates WW2, you must remember, whereas Received Pronunciation, for the sake of comparison, dates back to the nineteenth century.

>>>> rather than a catchall including all varieties that do not sound too accented to the average North American <<

Isn't that how most people would define it?<<

Just because many people may define something as something does not mean that their definition is more useful simply due to the number of people who use it.

>>>> Also remember that General American corresponds to what was spoken in approximately the southwestern Midwest about the end of WW2 <<

I'm guessing that there were variations there even at that point in time. Heck, maybe some of them said "git" for "get" even. Was the southwestern Midwest all that homogenous at that time? I know that our "unusual" pronunciations around here are certainly not unique to here, and I bet they didn't even originate here. It seems like there's a double standard. You say that GA is what was spoken in the SW Midwest about the end of WW2, however because /E/ seems to predominate, it must be "General American"? Wouldn't it be equally valid to say that /E/ is a regional pronunciation as well?<<

The matter, though, is that /E/ is the vowel accepted as being used in "get" in General American. And note that I said "approximately" earlier on, rather than stating that what people spoke there at the end of WW2 is *exactly* what General American is. Just because some people there may have used /I/ at that time does not make the use of /I/ in "get" any more a part of General American.

Your insisting that /I/ is part of General American is simply confusing a regional pronunciation which you think of as being "standard" simply due to being used to it with what General American actually is. There is a difference between formal pronunciation in some given dialect and an formalized standard, even if the former approximates the latter, you must remember. Just because formal pronunciation in your dialect may use /I/ in "get" does not mean that /I/ is necessarily used in General American proper.

>> No, because General American is actually quite new as a formalized standard variety <<

Formalized standard variety? How can it be, if nobody speaks it, it's not codified or even defined anywhere, and nobody even agrees on what it is/was? How can it possibly be thought of as a formalized standard, if there is no defintion of it?

>> The matter, though, is that /E/ is the vowel accepted as being used in "get" in General American. <<

Who accepts it? I don't accept it. There is no codified standard pronunciation. I'm not changing my pronunciation of it, even I went on television. Since nobody speaks General American anymore, how can that be the "accepted" form?

>> Your insisting that /I/ is part of General American is simply confusing a regional pronunciation which you think of as being "standard" simply due to being used to it with what General American actually is. <<

>>
Just because many people may define something as something does not mean that their definition is more useful simply due to the number of people who use it. <<

More useful?? What does it have to do with being useful or not useful? What you're defining would be the definition of a Conservative American accent, not *General American*.

>> Just because some people there may have used /I/ at that time does not make the use of /I/ in "get" any more a part of General American. <<

How is /E/ any more a part of General American then?

>> formalized standard <<

I have never seen any book or any other resource spell out what features General American. How do you come to the conclusion that /E/ is the "Formalized standard", whereas /I/ is a regional form? Aren't /E/ and /I/ both regional forms?

>>>> No, because General American is actually quite new as a formalized standard variety <<

Formalized standard variety? How can it be, if nobody speaks it, it's not codified or even defined anywhere, and nobody even agrees on what it is/was? How can it possibly be thought of as a formalized standard, if there is no defintion of it?<<

Just because it has not been explicitly codified by some specific group does not mean that there is not an established conception of what it is. And note that I am *not* talking about laypersons' views of what it is here, mind you. And just because not all facets of it are universally agreed upon does not mean that it does not exist as a concept.

>>Who accepts it? I don't accept it. There is no codified standard pronunciation. I'm not changing my pronunciation of it, even I went on television. Since nobody speaks General American anymore, how can that be the "accepted" form?<<

A standard need not be codified by a single group, you must remember. And I did not say that no one speakers it anymore, just that the people that could be considered as speaking it is more limited these days than historically.

As for what you speak, it is obviously not General American proper, even if you might think it is such. It is is not a "pronunciation of it" but rather a variation *upon* it, at the very least. And no, I am not saying you "should" change how you speak either, if you take my comments as implying such.

>>More useful?? What does it have to do with being useful or not useful? What you're defining would be the definition of a Conservative American accent, not *General American*.<<

Just what is this distinction that you have conceived of between some sort of "Conservative American accent" and General American anyways? You are the only person I have ever heard posit such a distinction. And really, General American is only about sixty or so years old - it is hard to truly speak of such as being all too conservative to begin with.

>>How is /E/ any more a part of General American then?<<

Because how people spoke in the southwestern Midwest around the end of WW2 is not the *definition* of General American but rather just the prototypical example of a speaker population rather close with respect to their everyday speech to the formal standard that is General American.

>>I have never seen any book or any other resource spell out what features General American. How do you come to the conclusion that /E/ is the "Formalized standard", whereas /I/ is a regional form? Aren't /E/ and /I/ both regional forms?<<

This is because to a large extent much about the features of General American is not written down hard and firm by any one group. It is sort of like the unwritten British constitution, for the sake of comparison. Just because no one wrote it down what it is in a single document does not mean that it does not exist.

As for /E/ versus /I/, yes, you could say that both are regional, but the matter is that /E/ is a conservative form common to the English-speaking world whereas /I/ is a regional innovation, and thus the former is likely to be favored in a standard, especially considering that it is quite widespread to begin with (unlike some conservative forms that are not present in Genearl American which are quite limited in their extent in North America).

<<Just because many people may define something as something does not mean that their definition is more useful simply due to the number of people who use it.>>

useful or not, that's how General American is usually defined. The way that people generally define a term is the definition of that term. If you want to speak of the way the Southern Midwest spoke fifty years ago, a more appropriate term would be "Conservative Southern Midwest accent", not "General American", especially since the Southern Midwest is hardly general being a relatively small part of the country.

I've never heard Wendy's pronounced as "Windy's", for what it's worth. Get is sometimes pronounced as spelled, and sometimes as "git" depending on stress and rapidity of speech, but I definitely think of it as "get".

And pretty is always "pritty". Well, actually, for me, it's "priddy". But it doesn't ever rhyme with petty.

I still don't get why Sarcastic Northwesterner can't accept that "git" is regional.

>> I still don't get why Sarcastic Northwesterner can't accept that "git" is regional.<<

I still don't git why everyone else can't accept that "get" is just as regional. Isn't it possible that both forms were brought over on the boat, considering that in some dialects in England, /gIt/ is found?

>>I still don't git why everyone else can't accept that "get" is just as regional. Isn't it possible that both forms were brought over on the boat, considering that in some dialects in England, /gIt/ is found?<<

You have to then show that the two aren't separate parallel innovations. The matter is that the distribution of "git" in North America does not lend well towards showing that examples of "git" in the western US can be traced back to England, as its presence in the western US without it being present in more eastern US except for the South indicates that its presence in the West is most likely an innovation postdating the settlement of much of North America (unless you somehow find sufficient evidence that the West was settled primarily by southerners). Even if examples of it in, say, southern NAE can be traced back to such does not mean that all examples of "git" in North America can.

>> without it being present in more eastern US except for the South indicates that its presence in the West is most likely an innovation postdating the settlement of much of North America <<

I've been listening to people on television on how they pronounce those words. Many of the characters in the "Flintstones" series seem to have get [gI?], when [wIn], and [@gIn], and they certainly have Eastern accents. Also, my friends from Mason, Wisconsin also use those pronunciations, so these pronunciations certainly exist in the East. The fact that these pronunciations exist in Wisconsin certainly proves that.

>>I've been listening to people on television on how they pronounce those words. Many of the characters in the "Flintstones" series seem to have get [gI?], when [wIn], and [@gIn], and they certainly have Eastern accents. Also, my friends from Mason, Wisconsin also use those pronunciations, so these pronunciations certainly exist in the East. The fact that these pronunciations exist in Wisconsin certainly proves that.<<

What I meant by "more eastern US" is the eastern seaboard, which actually was settled significant numbers of settlers who spoke English natively from the British Isles, just for the record, not the Midwest. As for Wisconsin, it did not directly receive English-speaking settlers from the British Isles (with the only real English-speaking settlers being previously settled New Englanders and possibly some English-speaking Irishpeople). Rather, the vast majority of non-internal immigration to Wisconsin prior to the mid-twentieth century was from continental Europe, aside from settlers from Ireland and Iceland. Consequently, Wisconsin would not have direct exposure to English dialects from the other side of the Atlantic save Irish English, which has not been a primary influence on the English here.

Btw, where are the Flintstones from? New York city? Are those pronunciations common in NY?

They're from Bedrock, of course.

From Wikipedia:

- Alan Reed (Fred) was from New York City
- Jean Vander Pyl (Wilma) was from Philadelphia
- Mel Blanc (Barney) was born in San Francisco and grew up in Portland
- Bea Benaderet (Betty) was born in New York City and grew up in San Francisco