BS: American speech

Subject: BS: American speech
From: The Sandman
Date: 23 Aug 26 - 01:04 PM

Jefferson said, "The new circumstances under which we are placed,calls for new words, new phrases, and for the transfer of old words to new subjects
""We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language." – Oscar Wilde

American English is it an improvement or other wise?, in my opinion it is only to be expected that language will change and evolve.
I wondered how others feel about the American evolvement of langauge and spelling.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 23 Aug 26 - 04:25 PM

I find it difficult to accomodate some of their favorite words into our UK language. Ours came first!

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 23 Aug 26 - 04:48 PM

I watched a very interesting and informative documentary TV series and then bought the book. I highly recommend it.

The Story of English by Robert McCrum & William Cran & Robert MacNeil

"Now revised, The Story of English is the first book to tell the whole story of the English language. Originally paired with a major PBS miniseries, this book presents a stimulating and comprehensive record of spoken and written English—from its Anglo-Saxon origins some two thousand years ago to the present day, when English is the dominant language of commerce and culture with more than one billion English speakers around the world. From Cockney, Scouse, and Scots to Gulla, Singlish, Franglais, and the latest African American slang, this sweeping history of the English language is the essential introduction for anyone who wants to know more about our common tongue."

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 23 Aug 26 - 05:09 PM

You do realise that English in the UK has also evolved? And in India, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa. Anywhere English is spoken it has been adapted to local needs.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 23 Aug 26 - 05:12 PM

Robert "Robin" MacNeil is American PBS royalty, having been on an early version of the PBS News Hour called the MacNeil Report and then the MacNeil Lehrer Report. I remember watching when his Story of English came out and I think I have the book here.

Before anyone on the east side of the pond gets too uppity about the language, to keep in mind the quote from Canadian book reviewer (and a lot more) James D. Nicholl:

“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.”

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 23 Aug 26 - 06:08 PM

Manitas, that is exactly the basis of the Story of English book and TV series. Very enlightening and educational.

One thing I remember learning for the first time was that certain areas of UK English dialect can be seen to have influenced US variations of the English language, depending on where the UK immigrants originally lived e.g. The Puritans etc.

(A thread detour: Robert MacNeil also wrote a fiction book called Burden of Desire which is one of my all-time faves. Part of the reason I read it in the first place was that someone visited a student share-house I lived in a long time ago, looked at the view of the nearby shipping harbour and told us about the Halifax explosion. He said we would have been killed immediately in a blast like that because the house was on a hill facing the harbour - right in the line of fire. In Halifax the whole side of the hill facing the harbour was obliterated, buildings, people, everything. Scary!)

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: meself
Date: 23 Aug 26 - 07:11 PM

Robert MacNeil was from Halifax, if I remember correctly. Far too young to have experienced the explosion, which was in ... 1917?

*******************

Met a woman in a line-up in the Calgary airport some years back - Canadian, but a professor at Cambridge. She had had academic positions all over the world, and felt relieved that she would not have to learn another new language when she got the post at Cambridge ... "Boy, was I wrong!" said she.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: JennieG
Date: 23 Aug 26 - 07:21 PM

An article from Canadian CBC about the last letter of the alphabet and its pronunciation:

The last letter

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 23 Aug 26 - 07:24 PM

MacNeil's book was a fiction book. He didn't claim to have been alive to witness the event at the time.

Another brilliantly revealing book about the evolution of the English language was written by Owen Barfield is History in English words

described as ".. a historical and linguistic exploration published in the early 20th century. The work delves into the evolution of the English language, examining the historical significance and meanings buried within words, particularly those derived from various cultural and linguistic influences. Barfield aims to illustrate how language reflects the inner history of humanity and the evolution of consciousness. The opening of the text introduces the concept that the meanings of words provide insight into their historical context. Barfield employs several examples to illustrate how certain words, like "electric," have evolved both in definition and significance over time. He emphasizes that examining these words can reveal much about the societies and cultures that used them, fundamentally arguing that language serves as a living archive of human history, bridging the past with present consciousness. This opening segment sets the stage for a deeper analysis of language and culture as the text progresses."

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Lighter
Date: 23 Aug 26 - 09:42 PM

Oh, Gawd, not "The Story of English!" I and my colleagues, who taught the history of English, were looking forward to the series so many years ago, and yes, some of it is is interesting and even entertaining.

It's also super-simplistic, frequently trivial, usually gee-whiz, and poorly informed on the way languages really work and evolve. And did I mention kind of bardolatrous and a wee bit sententious?

The best episode was the one with the exotic dialects.

Maybe the "Third Revised Edition" of the book is better than the original I remember.

I recommend "The Stories [sic] of English," by actual linguist David Crystal (not an editor or a TV journalist). It too is fun to read.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 23 Aug 26 - 10:41 PM

Perhaps you would like to pooh-pooh Owen Barfield's book as well.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: The Sandman
Date: 24 Aug 26 - 03:49 AM

"uppity" originated in the United States during the 19th century. It first appeared in African American English and was later adopted into wider American use.Origins and MeaningFirst recorded in print in 1881, the word combined "up" with a playful ending.It means arrogant, snobbish, or acting above one's social class.Similar British variants like "uppish" existed earlier, but the specific form "uppity" is American.Cultural Impact in the US During the Jim Crow era and the Civil Rights movement, the word took on a heavy racial connotation.
"pooh-pooh" is not exclusively American. It is used across global English, including in British, Irish, and American English, meaning to dismiss an idea or suggestion as silly or unworthy of serious attention. The interjection "pooh" (expressing scorn or disgust) dates back centuries in the broader English language, and the doubled verb form has been used since the early 19th century.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Aug 26 - 08:39 AM

Bill Bryson's book "Mother Tongue" is a very good and easy to digest read. I don't know how academically accurate it is but Bryson, being an American writer living in England, is in a good position to comment.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Lighter
Date: 24 Aug 26 - 04:47 PM

Check out the many one- and two-star reviews of Bryson's book on Amazon before investing your dough.

Enjoy.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: The Sandman
Date: 24 Aug 26 - 04:54 PM

I take no heed of reviews , I found it some years ago and considered it good

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Monique
Date: 24 Aug 26 - 05:22 PM

You can listen to History of English Podcast.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Aug 26 - 08:51 PM

Tikity boo

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Aug 26 - 02:04 AM

"Tickety-boo" is an old-fashioned, informal British expression that means everything is correct, satisfactory, or running smoothly

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Aug 26 - 10:31 AM

Checking Amazon UK Lighter, I find that, out of 7828 reviews, 80% are five and four star with only 5% being one and two star. Amongst the latter, a lot seem to be complaining that it is not Bryson's usual humorous travelogue while others complain that it is not academic enough. He can't win really!

Like Sandman, I rarely take notice of critics, let alone amateur ones, but even if I did I think I would risk less than a tenner on this one :-) (Cheapest used copy on Amazon is £1.09 if you don't even want to risk the full price)

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 25 Aug 26 - 03:28 PM

Thanks DtG. I agree. I just looked up the Amazon reviews on The Story of English book written by McCrum, Cran and MacNeil and the reviews are statistically similar: 85% positive (4 and 5 stars) and only 5% negative (1 and 2 stars).

The TV series was broadcast in 1986, presumably to inspire an interest in the general public in the variations of the English language around the world and the book was published in 1987. The serious and (I presume) academic study by James Crystal was not published until 2004 i.e. 18 years later. I don't think the initial series and book can be judged by the same academic standard. I would assume that Crystal was inspired by the TV series and book to take his studies into a more deep academic level, and his audience would be academic rather than for popular use by the general population.

By comparison, in the realm of astrophysics, Galileo could be dismissed and disparaged but given the level of technology available to him compared with today, his studies are still inspirational to this day.

Lighter, I could tell you what I really think of your explosive, dismissive and disparaging comments about The Story of English, and especially about your complete lack of explanation for your beliefs and the lack of identification of the educational context in which you worked (early schooling, high school, post-secondary school, college, university, higher level university?) ... but I won't.

I'll just say that if the TV series and book had been available a few years earlier when I was teaching high school English I definitely would have been happy to use them as a resource to inspire the students. As it happened I left teaching and qualified as a librarian and worked in the local public library system for almost 20 years so after seeing the TV series I ordered a copy of the book for myself and also one for the library, to inspire interest in the variations of English around the world.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: The Sandman
Date: 26 Aug 26 - 04:53 AM

American spelling, and the correction of English spelling on the computer can be mildly irritating.
Dough, is an americanism for money.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 26 Aug 26 - 08:58 AM

.... can't .... resist ....

And "D'oh!" is a Simpsonism for frustration.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Aug 26 - 06:14 AM

META will pay 17 Billion to those addicted to their online speech.
What about the number one killer of children, which are guns?

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Mary G
Date: 27 Aug 26 - 03:21 PM

someone once asked why do dutch speak english with an american accent. answer was, they don't. americans speak english with a dutch accent.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 27 Aug 26 - 05:39 PM

Review written in 1986 by David Crystal of The Story of English book.

There are positive comments and some suggestions for improvement. It is certainly not dismissive of the book and in fact, it appears that David Crystal has a high level of approval for the book. I am assuming that David Crystal is the same person who wrote the book Lighter recommended.


The story of English, by Robert McCrum, William Cram & Robert MacNeil. Faber &
Faber/BBC Publications. 384pp. £14.95.

This, unusually, is the book of a film as yet unseen. The TV series, 'The Story
of English', starts soon on BBC2 in nine 55-minute episodes, and this book has
been compiled by the script-writer (Robert McCrum), the producer/director
(William Cran), and the presenter (Robert McNeil). It is the biggest linguistic
media event for years, the first thorough photographic account of the world's
most widely-used language.

The book follows the plan of the series, and gives a guided tour, often
whistle-stop, of the way English has grown around the world. We begin at the
beginning, with the Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Normans. We move on
through the Renaissance, the Reformation, Shakespeare and early American
settlements. We come back to England for the age of Johnson, and move north for
the English-Gaelic conflicts, the exodus to northern Ireland, and the further
exodus to America. We retun to Ireland for the history of conflict there, and
then emigrate again to America and Liverpool.

Next we leave for Africa, but in no time are back in America via the slave
trade, the development of Caribbean pidgins and creoles, and Black American
English. We stay for the War of Independence and the Canadian migration, a'1.d
see the forceful impact of immigrant languages. World War I brings us back to
Europe with the US troops; then we are abroad again, via Cockney London to
Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and finally to the West lndies, West
Africa, India, and Singapore. We end the tour with a look at language change
and decay, at Plain English and Americanisms, and are left wondering what the
future will be.

The emphasis is very much on explaining regional development in social
terms. This book is about social history as well as language - and that is how
it should be. Unlike so many writers on English, the authors have grasped the
essential point - that language means people, and it changes because people do,
as they travel the world meeting new accents, words, and usages. The overriding
theme is the variety of the language - the many 'Englishes' which identify where
people are from, who they are, and who they want to be like.
The influence of television is everywhere - in the documentary style ('The
African past is still vivid for Janey Hunter'), and the end-of-chapter links
which get us from, say, the Celtic fringe to Africa, just as magazine programmes
would. And there are many full-colour illustrations - but these give me mixed
feelings.

I have no worries about the 34 clear and colourful maps displaying the
movement of English around the world, apart from an error (in the very first
of~~c:...
map, where no mother tongue use is shown ~n South Africa) and a discrepancy (the
map showing the Indo-Europeans coming from the Black Sea doesn't tie in with the
text, which plumps for north-central Europe). It's the 156 pictures which upset
me.

Let me put it this way: what is a picture of Anne Hathaway's cottage doing
in a book on the English language? The problem wouldn't be noticed on
television, of course. As the presenter talked about Shakespeare's role in the
history of English, the camera would rove around Stratford, searching out good
scenes to make interesting television and to avoid the much-feared 'talking
head'.

But books are, in effect, printed talking heads, and irrelevant pictures
stand out. The pictures should be as informative as the text - but in this book
only a dozen are about language directly (such as a comic strip in Indian
English). The rest are of famous users (Shakespeare, Dennis Lillee), places
(the Appalachians, Londonderry), or events (slave ships, Culloden). It's a pity
more use wasn't made of the more visual aspects of English (such as the graphic
range of written language).

The authors have produced a text of great clarity and accuracy, and
supported it with useful footnotes, further reading, and an index. There is the
occasional bit of emptiness, such as 'English as a world language is sustained
by another elusive quality - its own peculiar genius', but I can live with that.
The only blunder I spotted was the claim that English 'has a grammar of great
simplicity and flexibility' - hardly an appropriate remark, remembering the
l8DD-page grammar of one of the series consultants, Randolph Quirk, which shows
just how complex English grammar really is. And I wouldn't pay much attention
to the view that an educated person's vocabulary is only 15,000 words.
The book tries to tell the whole story of English, but of course it falls
far short of that. It stresses, rightly, the development of the spoken
language, but treats less well of the written language. It is good on regional
varieties, but less systematic about occupational varieties (science, religion,
law, etc.). It is very good on vocabulary, but grammar gets little attention,
and much of the discussion of pronunciation is opaque (why didn't they issue a
tape or record to go with the book?).

But still, more than any other book on the language, this one holds a
mirror up to nature. It is a realistic and responsible account of English in
the world, with its many new varieties and hybrid Franglaisian forms.
And it leaves us with an understanding of the biggest problem of all - the tension
between the demands of a universal standard and those of regional diversity.

Such are the issues dealt with in this appealing, informative, and elegant book.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: meself
Date: 28 Aug 26 - 12:51 AM

I read the book and watched the series, back when they were new, and found them thoroughly engaging and worthwhile.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 28 Aug 26 - 01:59 AM

There are videos available online of the BBC documentary The Story Of English An English Speaking World 1986. There is a playlist of all episodes.

Enjoy!

I'm going to re-watch it after 40 years since it was first broadcast.

To fit in with the topic of this thread, the American episode could be episode 6 Pioneers O Pioneers!

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Aug 26 - 09:13 AM

In the first chapter of the book Winnie-the-Pooh, Milne explains that the bear's arms sometimes got stuck straight up in the air. When a fly landed on his nose, he had to blow it off, making a "pooh, pooh, pooh" sound

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Aug 26 - 02:42 AM

"Catch-22" – Coined by Joseph Heller in his 1961 satirical novel Catch-22. It describes a problematic situation for which the only solution is denied by a paradox inherent in the problem itself. Today, people use it constantly in bureaucratic or everyday situations (e.g., "You need work experience to get a job, but you need a job to get experience—it's a Catch-22").

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Aug 26 - 03:35 AM

thank you Helen, interesting

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Aug 26 - 04:05 AM

the strength of the English language is that it can and does change ...quote

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Aug 26 - 08:42 PM

That stuff is interesting Sandman.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 30 Aug 26 - 07:03 AM

> the strength of the English language is that it can
> and does change

The strength of Latin is that it doesn't. Unless, of course, you're a Jesuit in the Vatican who has to talk about computers.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Aug 26 - 11:04 AM

Latin is a dead language.however nobody has done any research into what if anything is spoken in graveyards

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 30 Aug 26 - 12:20 PM

I always thought Latin would have been easier and more interesting if we had been made to converse in it rather than just recite declensions, conjugations and translate passages of Cicero! Or we could have learned Italian instead.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 30 Aug 26 - 12:46 PM

I enjoyed studying Latin. Yes, it was mostly learning by rote, but its vocabulary forms the basis of a lot of European languages so it is a sneaky way in to understanding some of the words in those languages. I especially like the way words originally from Latin come into English via different languages so we have variations coming from the same root word. I'll have to think of some examples. I'll get back to you on that. Owen Barfield's book will have some good examples, I think.

Meanwhile, one of the few American words I use fairly often is "wrangling". I tell people I left teaching high school English because I didn't want to spend my working life wrangling teenagers. I came to this conclusion fairly early in my teacher training year when I first went "prac-teaching" (i.e. practice teaching) on a weekly basis. Yeah? Nuh! Thanks but no thanks. I stumbled on library work and it was a lot more predictable.

wrangler

"1510s, 'one who takes part in quarrels, angry debater, stubborn adversary,' agent noun from wrangle (v.). The meaning 'person in charge of horses or cattle, herder on a Western ranch' is from 1888; as a proprietary name for a brand of jeans, trademarked 1947, claiming use from 1929."

"wrangle(v.)

"late 14c. (early 14c. as a surname), wranglen, 'contend (with) in a test of strength,' also figurative, 'dispute, argue noisily;' from Low German wrangeln 'to dispute; to wrestle,' related to Middle Low German wringen, from Proto-Germanic *wrang-, which according to Watkins is from a nasalized variant of *wergh- 'to turn,' from PIE root *wer- (2) 'to turn, bend.'

The meaning 'take charge of horses or herd animals' is by 1897, American English. In the U.S. West, wrestle (v.) for 'throw (cattle) for the purpose of branding' is attested by 1888. Related: Wrangled; wrangling. The noun is recorded from 1540s, 'angry dispute, noisy quarrel'."

At a high school class reunion event I was talking to a woman who said that she was teaching a class and a teenage boy lifted up a chair and held it over her head and he came very close to hitting her. Scary!

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 30 Aug 26 - 01:22 PM

I'll pass that tale on to Herself, Helen. She has tales from the classroom of having to face down riotous teenage boys that make my hair stand on end; "wrangling" (in both the C14th and C19th senses) would be an apt description. At least no chairs (or knives) were involved.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: meself
Date: 30 Aug 26 - 03:16 PM

"Wrangle" is one of those words that strike me as onomatopoeic, even though there is no specific sound it corresponds to - but the sound of the word itself helps to convey the meaning.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 30 Aug 26 - 03:46 PM

I forgot to say that when I taught adults in the post-secondary college for a few years I encountered some students who needed wrangling but they were there by choice so it was good motivation for them to comply.

I insisted that one very noisy, persistently disruptive young man should leave the class and stand outside, which he did and he calmed down from then on. I also managed to wrangle another very persistent class disrupter - in love with the sound of his own voice, thought he was the class clown but not funny - by reminding him that the subject was compulsory and if he failed to pass the assignments he would have to take the subject again next year. For some strange reason he shut up and did the work for the second half of the semester after that. LOL

And then there was a group of four young women, one of whom was the loud mouth disrupter, who kept on talking and laughing loudly about irrelevant stuff - as she always did - while I was trying to remind the class of all the things they needed to work on for the upcoming external exam, which was an essential requirement. I tried and tried asking them to be quiet because they were making it difficult for the whole class until finally a man at the front of the class stood up, turned to the group at the back and yelled "shut up!!" and they finally did. One of the young women who was being negatively influenced by the main disrupter unfortunately failed the exam and the subject as a consequence. The disrupter passed of course, because she had secretly been taking the subject seriously herself but winding up her friends to make lots of noise in every class. And I just remembered another male disrupter who made me cringe by talking loudly from the back of the class, while looking at me and telling me some details about his Prince Albert piercing. Sadly for him it made him look like an idiotic, sad prick. It didn't boost his standing in the class, IMHO. LOL

But teaching adults was definitely more rewarding.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Aug 26 - 05:21 PM

Tangler is a slang word in irish english

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Aug 26 - 06:18 AM

Facebook has significantly influenced American speech by accelerating the viral spread of slang, reshaping public political discourse, and changing how people communicate online.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Aug 26 - 08:07 AM

American television shows have influenced American speech through a process of general leveling and pop-culture vocabulary sharing, rather than the localized, socio-accent transfer seen with EastEnders on London or regional speech.How EastEnders Affected London/UK SpeechMicro-accent adoption: Research (such as studies from the University of Glasgow) shows that regular, emotionally engaged viewers of EastEnders unconsciously adopt specific phonetic features of London/Cockney speech, like TH-fronting or glottal variants, even in distant regions like Glasgow.Identity signaling: Viewers—particularly youth—use these features to project an urban, working-class, or "non-posh" persona.How American TV Affected American SpeechGeneral American baseline: Rather than importing a fringe regional dialect, American network television historically promoted General American as a neutral baseline, reducing extreme regional divergence. source AI

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: mayomick
Date: 31 Aug 26 - 08:55 AM

AIphobes avert your eyes
The word wrangle comes from the late 14th-century Middle English verb wranglen, meaning to dispute or contend in a test of strength.Origins and RootsGermanic Roots: It traces back to the Low German word wrangeln ("to dispute, to wrestle") and Middle Dutch wrangen.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: mayomick
Date: 31 Aug 26 - 11:22 AM

Wrangling Lane, which leads towards the abandoned village at Dode, near Harvel in Kent, .
, "may preserve a memory of the site being used as an ancient meeting or debating place"

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 31 Aug 26 - 11:26 PM

mayomick, as I quoted from the etymology page on Date: 30 Aug 26 - 12:46 PM "...Low German wringen, from Proto-Germanic *wrang-," etc etc

The reference to horses and other livestock is attributed to US usage:

"The meaning 'take charge of horses or herd animals' is by 1897, American English"

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Sep 26 - 05:54 AM

Look out for the silent P in Wranglers...

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Sep 26 - 08:42 AM

LOL Dave! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: gillymor
Date: 01 Sep 26 - 08:50 AM

Ain't Wranglers dungarees?

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: meself
Date: 01 Sep 26 - 11:36 AM

I'm Canadian, but find the term "argy-bargy" occasionally coming out of my mouth, from my years of watching Coronation Street, decades ago. Often when some foreign slang is adapted, it's because it fulfills some linguistic need that no other word or phrase does in quite the same way; i.e., without the same effect or connotation.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 01 Sep 26 - 01:59 PM

meself, I have a similar term which I learned in the late '90's from a very funny UK skit show Goodness Gracious Me described as "A British sketch-comedy that explores the integration of Indian and British cultures through a series of satires, musicals, and skits". Some of my favourite actors starred in it, including Sanjeev Bhaskar, Meera Syal, and Nina Wadia and I have enjoyed their performances in lots of other shows, mostly drama and not comedy. Brilliant!

The question "innit?" was very common in the show. Being an Aussie I hadn't heard it and it took me a while to work out what it meant but then I started saying it and I still say it now and then, usually with a smarty-pants smile on my face - although most people I say it to usually just look confused because they didn't watch the show. It always brings back memories of that show to me.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Sep 26 - 02:30 PM

‘Argey-bargey’ and ‘innit?’ (a contraction of ‘isn’t it?’) are in common usage all over the UK. My parents (both Lincolnshire Yeller-bellies) used ‘argey-bargey’ when I was a nipper back in the ‘50s, and ‘innit?’ seemed to grow in popularity in the ‘90s possibly, as Helen says, as a result of ‘Goodness Gracious Me’ TV show.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: robomatic
Date: 01 Sep 26 - 03:02 PM

That Nicholl quote from SRS is something I once saw as a Youtube comment and I copied it down:

"English does not borrow from other languages. English foollows other languages down dark alleys whacks other languages over their heads goes through their pockets for loose words and phrases usually to misuse them."

Glad to have a source!

American speech of course began LONG before the United States. And since we are near the end of the American epoch, it appears it will be a part of Whatever Comes Next. India probably has more English speakers than our combined cultures right now. And I don't see Chinese achieving world domination just yet.

In the meantime I've enjoyed "RobWords" on Youtube. I do NOT know how learned he is, but he puts on a good show and appears to be quite literate and informed, and brings on good speakers to complement his spiel.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Sep 26 - 08:33 AM

Init was also popularised by Harry Enfield's Greek character, Stavros. He often started his skecth with "'ello peeps" and finished a lot of sentences with "init"

Stavros

I was once in the embarrassing position of having to teach a group of IT people from a Greek company the basics of UNIX. The first process kicked off by the OS and the one from which all others stem is "init"

They either realised that I wasn't taking the piss or had never seen Harry's show

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 02 Sep 26 - 09:12 AM

In Days Of Old, there was Coronation Street, where people bored each other in Salford accents. Soporific: my mother was famed for watching it in her sleep.

Nowadays, all the soaps consist of people shouting at each other in Sloven, with a cliffhanger crisis to end every episode (and an explosion to tell you it's a Friday). It's got to the point where viewers resort to watching Friends Classic to get a bit of peace and quiet, so be of good cheer: we may yet see hear "innit" as verbal punctuation being displaced by "G'day".

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 02 Sep 26 - 12:54 PM

Or maybe "Onya!" (short form of "Good on you, mate!").

I never watched the soaps, except for a short stint of watching Eastenders until I became bored. When I was a poor student and after I had moved out of home I used to catch the train up to see my Mum sometimes in the afternoons. She would have the US show Days of Our Lives on the TV but she would be just doing housework or sitting in the next room, not actually sitting down and watching it. What really struck me was that, even if I only visited her every few weeks the show was still stuck on the same loop as my last visit. It was one step forwards and a few steps back and the loops of past events kept on getting played over and over again.

My friends and I used to call it Days of Our Dreary Bloody Lives.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: meself
Date: 02 Sep 26 - 03:07 PM

Once when I was teaching Inuit kids in the Arctic, I overheard one teenaged girl mock another by saying that Coronation Street was her favourite TV show. (CBC was one of the two TV stations they got, and Coronation Street was on daily, IIRC.)

Thought some of the Coronation Street -haters would like that ... !

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 02 Sep 26 - 06:07 PM

And further to my decision to stop "wrangling" livestock - sorry, I mean teenagers:

One-third of school time lost to student misbehaviour, report finds
One-third of lesson time is being lost as student misbehaviour reaches "crisis" levels in rowdy Australian classrooms, according to a new survey of hundreds of teachers across the country.

"Blaise Joseph, a former teacher and education director at the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS), which ran the survey, said teachers reported, on average, losing 9 minutes out of 30 minutes of teaching time to student impropriety.

"'The term 'crisis' should not be used lightly,' he said.

"'But losing almost one-third of teaching time to student misbehaviour is of sufficient scale and urgency to warrant that description.'"

...

"He said this behaviour over time was 'exhausting' for educators and had a significant impact on their wellbeing.

"'One in 10 teachers said it had a significant negative effect on their health and wellbeing in the past week,' he said.

"Female teachers were more likely to report losing teaching time to student misbehaviour and twice as likely to report this having a significant impact on their health and wellbeing.

"'There is lots of anecdotal evidence in recent years that female teachers are especially bearing the brunt of some misogynistic conduct from students,' Mr Joseph said."

...

"The proportion of teachers intending to leave the profession who cited student behaviour as a reason rose from 25 per cent in 2020 to 47 per cent in 2024.

"A Senate inquiry into disruption in classrooms in 2024 also found classroom disruption was a significant and worsening problem, damaging learning time and the teaching workforce."

...

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Sep 26 - 02:06 AM

According to Green's Dictionary of Slang, the term "ladybird" was historically used in 19th- and early 20th-century American and Australian slang to mean a kept mistress or prostitute
ladybird in east anglia is a Bushy Barnaby

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: robomatic
Date: 04 Sep 26 - 02:32 PM

Language changes that I've adopted have been the use of the soft pronunciation of "schedule" which means that I'm pronouncing it in the English way. I also use some well known internet abbreviations such as "TTFN".

One thing I haven't done and probably will never use is the introduction of the glottal stop into consonental use, such as the 'ing' of gerunds but it shows up all the time in the American world now. It's something I used to associate with Cockney accent, but now I've heard it on the public airwaves.

The purely American use of this is with the increasingly Hawaiian pronunciation of the name: Hawai'i.

I've also heard Americans using the phrase "no worries" which is new to me. I heard it commonly from the people of Down Under, but now I hear it all the time with an American accent.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 04 Sep 26 - 05:32 PM

This isn't an American speech quirk but an English one.

English comedian Chris Ramsey and also the excellent TV documentary presenter Stacey Dooley have a specific way of pronouncing words like "cities" or "geneticists" where the "t" sound between two vowel sounds is not pronounced. Instead it is a soundless stop which I thought was the glottal stop - could be wrong about that.

"Cities" is pronounced "ci-ies" i.e. "ci-[stop]-ies" and "geneticists" is pronounced "gen-e-i-cists" i.e. "gen-e-[stop]-i-cists", with the accent/emphasis in the word on the vowel sound just before the "t".

That pronunciation always surprises me because I don't think I have ever heard an Aussie use that pronunciation or even an English person over here. It seems to be specific to a place in northern or north-eastern England - maybe, but I am not sure.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Sep 26 - 06:26 PM

It’s all over England, Helen, but it seems to have got worse since ‘East Enders’ started on BBC TV. I’d also describe it as a glottal-stop.

When I was young, in the East Midlands of England, glottal stops as you describe were very rarely heard.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: meself
Date: 04 Sep 26 - 06:34 PM

I've noticed something similar in mainstream American speech, as I hear it from various media - not exactly a glottal stop, but almost, such that "important" becomes "impor()an()", and "didn't", "di()n't" (or, "ditt()n'").

Also, a slurring of 's' sounds; "especially" becomes "eshpecially"; "esteem" "eshteem", etc. I notice this more in female speakers. Sometimes it seems like a bit of an affectation, but I don't know.

I'm not criticizing, just observing.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 04 Sep 26 - 07:49 PM

Maybe, meself, we females are just pisshed. LOL

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 Sep 26 - 03:25 AM

That slurring of ‘s’ sounds has become a thing in the UK in recent years. I first noticed it when BBC2 radio introduced a new presenter, Richie Anderson, to read the traffic news - ‘street’ became ‘shtreet’, ‘student’ turned into ‘shtudent’, etc. etc. Since then, it seems to have taken over and become accepted pronunciation.

I do believe that affectations and mis-pronunciations by radio and TV personalities and actors have a tendency to be picked up and taken into everyday speech by listeners and viewers. I’ve always put things like the glottal-stop and the substitution of the ‘f’ or ‘v’ sound for ‘th’ - e.g. ‘noffing’, ‘bovvered’ - down to laziness on the part of the speaker, but the substitution of ‘sh’ for ‘s’ in words like street and student actually makes them more difficult to pronounce - for me at least.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 05 Sep 26 - 05:32 AM

Affectations: One chat-show host faked an inability to pronounce 'R' to make himself stand out (possibly at the suggestion of his agent); to this day I can't help think of him as Jonathan Woss, or Wossie. What he succeeded in doing was coming over as a pillock.

One lad at our old church never pronounced sibilants, but that was no affectation: he'd been partially-deaf from birth, notably at the high-frequency end, and never actually heard any sibilants when he was learning to speak. A bright lad, as I remember.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 05 Sep 26 - 05:43 AM

BWM, I suspect that social media influencers are to blame for inspiring people to speak in a similar manner to themselves, and in some cases their speech mannerisms could be deliberately created.

MaJoC, I didn't know Jonathan Woss deliberately decided to do that. I always thought it was unfortunate that he was born with a surname that he couldn't pronounce.

I remember when one of my nephews was young and he couldn't pronounce "l" sounds properly. I realised from watching him that he was holding his tongue further back in his mouth instead of just behind his top front teeth so the "l" sounds were more like "w" sounds - "Mary had a wittew wamb". He practised it a few times with the tongue correctly placed and he never had a problem after that. It was cute when he was very young, but now he has a PhD so it might not work so well for him in his professional life. LOL

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Rain Dog
Date: 05 Sep 26 - 08:02 AM

"One chat-show host faked an inability to pronounce 'R' to make himself stand out (possibly at the suggestion of his agent"

Really? I have never heard any mention of that?

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 05 Sep 26 - 12:54 PM

Rain Dog, that is the first I have heard of it too but having seen him fairly recently on a TV show I was struck with how exaggerated his mispronunciation appears to be. Also I would be surprised if he couldn't correct it or at least improve it with a little advice from a speech pathologist and some practice. I'm keeping an open mind on it. More reading required, maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Sep 26 - 01:23 PM

I was brought up in london in the 1950s, no one spoke with an" east enders accent"

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 05 Sep 26 - 01:34 PM

I'm cautiously rephrasing my previous comments about Jonathan Ross's Rhotacism - The Speech Impediment Where You Can't Say 'r'

When I have heard him speak it has always sounded to me to be exaggerated but I don't have any evidence on whether he has always spoken that way or whether he has exaggerated it for comic effect. When I have heard people with rhotacism IRL I hear a subtle difference to Wossi's pronunciation. There is usually an 'r' which is almost but not quite there, but in Wossi's case it seems more like a plain and simple "w". I am not an expert. This is just my personal perception. Please ignore my comments if you prefer. Also, please note that I would never ridicule anyone with a speech impediment. It becomes a bit complicated if in Wossi's case he has chosen to ridicule himself for comic effect.

That page I provided the link for is a teaching resources page. Interesting reading.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 05 Sep 26 - 03:57 PM

You mean people can adopt a persona, or speech pattern which is false just to make themselves stand out?

What a modern phenomenon.

It would never have happened in Victoria's time.

"I am not fond of uttering platitudes
In stained-glass attitudes.
In short, my mediaevalism's affectation,
Born of a morbid love of admiration!

If you're anxious for to shine in the high aesthetic line
as a man of culture rare,
You must get up all the germs of the transcendental terms,
and plant them ev'rywhere.
You must lie upon the daisies and discourse in novel phrases
of your complicated state of mind,
The meaning doesn't matter if it's only idle chatter
of a transcendental kind.

And ev'ry one will say,
As you walk your mystic way,
"If this young man expresses himself in terms too deep for me,
Why, what a very singularly deep young man
this deep young man must be!"

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Sep 26 - 06:44 PM

He ups and yells, 'I'm down on you, I'm up to all yer pranks! Don't I know you for a traitor from the Tipperary ranks?'" just for jonathan Ross

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: robomatic
Date: 05 Sep 26 - 09:21 PM

That () mentioned by Helen and Backwoodsman is exactly what I'm talking about. I call it a glottal stop because that's what I think it is. It used to be something I thought I only heard in Cockney speak but it has landed solidly in the States.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 06 Sep 26 - 01:55 AM

robomatic, I didn't get your reference to " ... the introduction of the glottal stop into consonental use, such as the 'ing' of gerunds". Can you give us some examples please?

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: robomatic
Date: 06 Sep 26 - 02:57 PM

From the word: "hunting" to: "hun'-ing" where the 't' is ghosted.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 06 Sep 26 - 03:05 PM

Ok thanks, robomatic. I didn't get the connection with the missing 't' in words with '-ing' at the end so I thought you were referring to something else.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Sep 26 - 03:59 PM

The worst glottal-stop offence I’ve heard here in the East Midlands of England is ‘ta’oo’ (tattoo).

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: keberoxu
Date: 07 Sep 26 - 02:17 PM

Don't know about other regions, but the words
"mitten" and "kitten"
regularly have their double-t's glottal-stopped in America.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Sep 26 - 06:05 PM

And "mountain," "fountain," "eaten," "beaten," "catnip," and many more.

Technically, this isn't glottal stop, which is in the back of the throat. This is in the nose. It's called the "nasally released allophone of the phoneme /t/." Or an "alveolar nasal" for short.

Its symbol in the International Phonetic Alphabet is [tn].

Enunciating the /t/ in such words in the "prescribed" way will usually mark you as either a non-native speaker of American English or else archaic and a little bit weird. (It's forgivable - sometimes - in very formal contexts.)

Chances are the alveolar nasal has existed in English informal speech here and there for centuries.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: robomatic
Date: 07 Sep 26 - 06:54 PM

Oh, Lighter! I was COUNTING on someone to enlighten me on the proper interpretation of the phonemes and the 'stops' I'll promptly make myself annoying in Starbucks with my friends!

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Sep 26 - 07:23 PM

Before you do that, note that the n in what came out here as [tn] should be a tiny superscript, not a full-sized letter.

This knowledge will really impress people. They'll want your autograph.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: BobL
Date: 08 Sep 26 - 02:31 AM

The stopped 't' is a noted speech feature in the town of Luton. And (as I think I mentioned in another post somewhere) the nearby village of Billington is locally known as Billi''n.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 08 Sep 26 - 10:16 AM

Glo'al stops common here in Sco'land too!

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Charmion
Date: 08 Sep 26 - 11:23 AM

I hear the American glottal stop most often from a presenter on an NPR podcast I listen to occasionally. I never heard it at all until maybe 10 years ago and, when I hear it now, it's always from a someone born after about 1995. It's an odd affectation.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 08 Sep 26 - 01:24 PM

Charmion, I don't think I have ever heard an Aussie doing the glottal stop.

(That could be the name of a new dance, perhaps. Now Bill Oddie's song "doing, doing, doing the funky gibbon" just popped into my head. If he was still with us he could write a new song "doing, doing, doing the glottal stop". :-D )

Even on TV I can't think of any Aussie presenters or people being interviewed who have used that pronunciation unless they are from a country or area in the world where it is common. If it is influenced by social media then it is possible that younger people might start using it. Wait and see, I guess.

Currently the DNA Family Secrets TV show is being broadcast in Oz with Stacey Dooley presenting it. In the show I saw last Saturday, one of the people whose family was being traced through DNA was Scottish and I also noticed the glottal stop in some of his words.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Sep 26 - 01:25 PM

As someone mentioned, the recently spreading pronunciation of "Hawai'i" really does feature a glottal stop: the sound comes from the throat rather than the nose. (I can't think of any other normal American examples offhand.)

The stop mirrors the native Polynesian pronunciation, which is regarded by many as more "correct."

For added complexity, "Hawai'i" (with the "okina," not an apostrophe, indicating the glottal stop) became the official U.S. spelling and pronunciation for the *island* of Hawai'i (usually just called the "Big Island") in the 1990s.

But - wait for it - the name of the state is still "Hawaii."

Since we're speaking English, not Hawaiian, I don't see a non-political point, but what do I know? By the same reasoning "Colorado,""California," and "Texas" should be pronounced as in Spanish.

And the Dakotas should be given the Santee Sioux pronunciation.

Etc.

PS: The native pronunciation of "Hawai'i" uses a v-type sound instead of the English w. So to be even more "correct" in English, you should say "Havai'i."

Some people do. With or without the stop.

Except that the actual Hawaiian-language pronunciation is closer to an f than a v....

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: meself
Date: 08 Sep 26 - 02:26 PM

Charmion: Is what you're hearing not what Lighter has identified as an "alveolar nasal" rather than a "glottal stop"?

Lighter: I figured the pronunciation of Hawai'i with the glottal stop comes more from more people visiting Hawaii and otherwise being exposed to native Hawai'ian-speakers, rather than affectation or (misguided?) fastidiousness, such that the glottal-stop pronunciation becomes natural to them - as in Canada, first-language English-speakers tend to pronounce Quebec as "Kay-bec" or "Ke-bec" if they've spent much time in that province, rather than "Kwe-bec", which is standard in "English Canada". Am I wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 08 Sep 26 - 04:22 PM

In the last year or more, I have heard on TV that we Aussies have been mispronouncing Maori, the First Nations people of New Zealand. I have always heard it pronounced like "Mow'ri" where the accent or emphasis is on the first syllable and it sounds like "now" and not "know" or "mow". A Maori man politely pointed out on TV that it is pronounced with the first syllable rhyming with "mow" or "know". The accent is still on the first syllable. He also seemed to slightly emphasise the vowel sound as if it had two sounds but he seemed to be saying "Mow'(a)ri".

I feel bad that we have been mispronouncing it all of this time so I am happy that he pointed it out to all of the Aussies. We want to be good neighbours to the people of NZ, and especially the First Nations people.

Lighter, you know more about the difference between glottal stops and the alveolar nasal effect, so I'll try to refer to that pronunciation correctly. When I try to replicate those pronunciations with the missing "t" sound I tend to notice the effect in my throat and not my nasal area but being a non-native to areas where the pronunciation is common I might be doing it wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Charmion
Date: 08 Sep 26 - 04:51 PM

Meself, I honestly can’t hear any difference between an alveolar and a glottal stop. Maybe I could if I heard it in real life, but from a recording filtered through an iPhone — well, my ears just ain’t that discriminating.

In Canada, the Pacific coastal island group once officially named after Queen Charlotte is now known as Haida Gwai’i — with that same “okina” diacritic in the written form and glottal-ish stop when spoken. I have no idea if Haida is related to Polynesian languages, but I would not be a bit surprised.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Sep 26 - 05:36 PM

Meself, you're probably right in a general way, but surely different people have different motives in changing their language habits. One size probably does not fit everyone - and never does.

When I was a lad, everybody I heard on TV news (which I listened to far too much) said "HiroSHEEma" and "CaribBEan."

Then, maybe in the '60s, they switched to "HiROshima" and "CarRIBbean."

I will not switch, because it would be uncurmudgeonly to do so.

Allow me to ramble to something else, though it relates to grammar, not pronunciation.


About 25 years ago I noticed that CNN anchors had switched from the idiomatic "job market" to the unnecessarily, super-fastidious plural "jobs market."

When I mentioned it to my class of undergraduates (born around 1982) they said it was hard to believe.

Now, not only is "jobs market" nearly the only form I hear (at least on TV), this pluralization has extended everywhere. I have heard "a 25-years-old photographer," "a ten-feet drop," "teeth care," and many more.

I suspect that some people who use these forms started in childhood because singular attributives sounded illogical, and as they grew they spread it to others, who suddenly began to think the same thing: "It *must* be wrong - even though I've never thought of it before!"


And I can't tell you how many years it's been since I heard a living person say, "Between you and me." But contrariwise, I've never heard anyone say, "It's I" - not even my grandparents, who were born in the 1880s.

Shakespeare used "between you and I" at least once, but he was then in the minority. But in the expression "between you, me, and the lamppost" (i.e., just between us), "I" is never used - yet.

Fifty years ago, the Chaucerian scholar Professor John Fisher informed me: "Language isn't logical. It's psychological."

Which is worth remembering.

Helen: say "mountain" and "fountain" aloud with the glottal of"Hawai'i" and you may hear and feel the difference. The glottal comes from back in the throat, the alveolar comes from the back of the nose. The latter is a softer sound.

If you pronounce "mountain" with the glottal stop of "Hawai'i" (or the first "aye" of "Aye, aye!" or the t's of Cockney "bottle") it will sound rather strange - more like "moun UHN" The stress will seem to fall unnaturally on the second syllable.

It may take practice!

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Sep 26 - 09:01 PM

Charmion, it seems to be unclear whether Haida is somehow related to the nearby Athabaskan languages or if it has no known or surviving linguistic relatives at all. (Basque is similar in that way.)

In any case, Haida seems not to bear any relation to Hawaiian or other languages of the Pacific.

There are said to be fewer than 15 living native speakers.

And now that I've looked into it, I can report that the ' in Haida Gwai'i is not an okina.

It's called..."an apostrophe." But it's an apostrophe used for a very different purpose.

It indicates an "ejective consonant." We don't have these in English. It resembles a glottal stop, but is "pronounced with a sudden burst of air from the glottis." A bit like clearing your throat.

Haida Gwai'i has glottal stops too. These are indicated by a period. They are "phonemic"; in other words, they contrast meaningfully with other sounds, like the ejective consonant.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 08 Sep 26 - 10:38 PM

Charmion, I can't hear the difference either and I don't hear it in real life. Chris Ramsey, who I've only ever seen on TV, seems to me to have the worst examples of the pronunciation method, IMHO.

Just as I was finishing my teacher training graduate diploma I heard of a new method to "teach" reading to children. (I say "teach" because the information I read about it showed little or no actual useful teaching as far as I could see. In fact I suspected it would create major barriers to literacy abilities.) I don't know the name of the method or the author/creator of it. I laughed out loud and thought that it was a quick-fix money maker and it would be gone and forgotten within months. Unfortunately, someone in power put the "method" in place in Australian schools and it is only now, 50 years later that the education decision makers are recommending the return to teaching reading using phonics. (Hallelujah!!)

The proposed method was to somehow magically get children to recognise whole words without spelling and sounding out the words, letter by letter, ie. without using phonics.

The English language is complicated enough with words and spelling variations originating from different languages and cultures. Even with phonics it can be difficult.

I just used example of "now" and "know" in my last post. The pronunciation of the "o" sound is different in each, and then there is the silent "k". After learning to sound out words the learner also has to know that there are variations of sounds for the vowels and some of the consonants, including similar sounding words with completely different spelling and meaning. Examples are the verb "bow" (bow to show respect) and the noun "bough" and also the noun "bow" (rhymes with "know", to tie a bow in a ribbon) or "bow" of a ship (rhymes with "now") so the same word with different pronunciations and meanings. The context of the sentence gives the clue to the word's pronunciation and meaning.

The proposed method made me really angry, way back then, but even angrier now that there are education decision makers who have suddenly found the benefits of good, old fashioned phonics.

What makes me even angrier is that literacy levels have dropped over those decades and that also means that some parents and even grandparents are unable to teach the children in their families how to read well, so the effect has been multiplied over the generations. I don't know the statistics but I suspect that lower social class students would have been more vulnerable to the negative effects. I was lucky that my working class parents both loved reading so they taught us to read and enjoy books from a very young age. Not everyone is so lucky.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 09 Sep 26 - 02:47 PM

So, regarding my last post, imagine this. An adult is reading a picture book to a child to help her/him in learning to read.

There is a picture in the book of someone sitting on a couch, knitting a mitten with the words shown on the page. Now imagine that the adult reading the words and pointing to the relevant parts of the picture pronounces it as "si'()ing on a couch, kni'()ing a mi'()en" because he/she does not make the "t" sound. And, it is also possible that the adult does not make the "ing" sound but makes the sound "in" instead or maybe even just "n" if the "i" is not spoken as written. [Note: there is a symbol for pronouncing vowel sounds like "e" and "i" with that hard to define sound, but I can't remember what it is.] In that case it would be very difficult for a child to know how a word ending in "en" is different from a word ending in "ing".

If a child has not been taught to sound out all of the letters in a word then the chances of recognising a whole word are very unlikely. If the adult teaching the child was also taught to read in the same way and has that particular way of pronouncing words then what is the probability that the child will correctly read and understand the words as written on the page?

I have seen an excellent documentary show Lost for Words on Australian TV in the last couple of years where a group of adults of varying ages who have had literacy issues all their lives are given the chance to learn to read. A lot of the teaching method is based on phonics, and also showing them words which sound the same but have different spelling and meanings, i.e. homophones. All of the adult participants improved their reading skills by the time the classes ended. It was inspiring.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 11 Sep 26 - 12:49 AM

I have also noticed on Oz TV that some of the young journalists have a habit of saying "Prime Mini-Sta-a-a-argh" (i.e. "Prime Minister") and even the older Speaker of the House of Parliament yells out "orda-a-a-argh" (i.e. "order!") when he wants people to stop talking over other people. The journalists emphasise and lengthen the last syllable but the Speaker of the House sounds like a deep-voiced monster in a graveyard at midnight. IMHO

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: meself
Date: 11 Sep 26 - 03:51 PM

And another thing! A speech habit that emerged, in Canada at least, with my sons' generation (b. 1980s), particularly in extraverts: I hear it all the time on the radio from musicians and event-organizers promoting their latest ventures - and that is, repeated interjections of an enthusiastic "yeah!" into their discourse. Example: "So, yeah!, it's this Tuesday, and, yeah!, it's going to be a great time, and yeah! you can still get tickets, and yeah! you should get right on it if you want one, 'cause yeah! they're going fast. So yeah! come on out and we'll see you there ... and ... yeah!"

Is that everywhere now? I'm trying not to let it bug me ... !

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 12 Sep 26 - 12:14 AM

Or replace the "yeah" with the word "like".

"And I was, like, going to the park, like, and this dog was there, like, and the next thing he was, like, yapping at me ..."

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: JennieG
Date: 12 Sep 26 - 02:41 AM

Yes, Helen.....I have been saying for several years that if the word 'like' was abolished from the English language, every teenager everywhere would be struck dumb.

Like.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 12 Sep 26 - 07:05 PM

There's an interesting quote (1919 \ 1921) from HL Menken on Ben Miller's blog The Survival of Archaic English in the American Dialect

A very large number of words and phrases, many of them now exclusively American, are similar survivals from the English of the seventeenth century, long since obsolete or merely provincial in England.
Among nouns Thornton notes fox-fire, flap-jack, jeans, molasses, beef (to designate the live animal), chinch, cordwood, home-spun, ice-cream, julep and swingle-tree;
Halliwell adds andiron, bay-window, cesspool, clodhopper, cross-purposes, greenhorn, loop-hole, ragamuffin and trash; and other authorities cite stock (for cattle), fall (for autumn), offal, din, underpinning and adze.
Bub, used in addressing a boy, is very old English, but survives only in American.
Flapjack goes back to Piers Plowman, but has been obsolete in England for two centuries.
Muss, in the sense of a row, is also obsolete over there, but it is to be found in “Anthony and Cleopatra.”
Char, as a noun, disappeared from English a long time ago, save in the compound, charwoman, but it survives in America as chore.
Among the verbs similarly preserved are to whittle, to wilt and to approbate.
To guess, in the American sense of to suppose, is to be found in “Henry VI”: Not all together; better far, I guess, That we do make our entrance several ways.
In “Measure for Measure” Escalus says “I guess not” to Angelo. The New English Dictionary offers examples much older—from Chaucer, Wycliffe and Gower.
To interview is in Dekker.
To loan, in the American sense of to lend, is in and Henry VIII, but it dropped out of use in England early in the eighteenth century, and all the leading dictionaries, both in English and American, now call it an Americanism.
To fellowship, once in good American use but now reduced to a provincialism, is in Chaucer.
Even to hustle, it appears, is ancient.

Among adjectives, homely, which means only homelike or unadorned in England, was used in its American sense of plain-featured by both Shakespeare and Milton.
Other such survivors are burly, catty-cornered, likely, deft, copious, scant and ornate.
Perhaps clever also belongs to this category, that is, in the American sense of amiable.

Source quoted from:
"Mencken, H.L. (Henry Louis), 1880–1956. The American language: An inquiry into the development of English in the United States, by H.L. Mencken. 2nd ed., rev. and enl. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1921."

www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/43376/pg43376-images.html

Ben Miller's blog
https://outofthiscentury.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/the-survival-of-archaic-english-in-the-american-dialect/

Here's another bit of Menken

The American language, as we have seen, has begun to take in the English boot and shop, and it is showing hospitality to head-master, haberdasher and week-end, but subaltern, civil servant, porridge, moor, draper, treacle, tram and mufti are still strangers in the United States, as bleachers, picayune, air-line, campus, chore, scoot, stogie and hoodoo are in England.

www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/43376/pg43376-images.html

I think I don't bat an eyelid now for campus, chore, scoot, ,,, but I think I do have recollections fiftysomething years ago of thinking 'campus' was a bit of a fancy word.
Apparently his 'air-line' was what we, the English, call a bee-line.

and for a list of words see the link in CONTENTS to
The Two Vocabularies
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/43376/pg43376-images.html

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 12 Sep 26 - 07:20 PM

Wow, FreddyHeadey! Thanks for the interesting word information and the links. I have the feeling that if I went down the rabbit-hole and read all of those links I might never get back up to the surface again.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Lighter
Date: 13 Sep 26 - 07:39 AM

To "fellowship" is still in everyday use in the U.S. in religious, especially Evangelical, contexts.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: meself
Date: 18 Sep 26 - 12:46 PM

It's terrible the way certain pronunciations can drive you up the wall. One such American pronunciation - that is creeping into Canada, I fear - is that of the long "u" or "ue" as "oo", when they occur in the middle or end of a word, as in "avenoo" for "avenue" (i.e., "avenyou").

At the same time, there are certain words that I myself pronounce in that fashion: "dew", for instance, I grew up pronouncing "doo" rather than "dyew" - and it doesn't bother me in the least when I hear it coming out of my mouth ... ! Go figger. I mean, figyour.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Sep 26 - 02:33 PM

The one that boils my urine is ‘toon’ (tune).

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Lighter
Date: 18 Sep 26 - 04:30 PM

How about when people say "toon" when they clearly mean "song"?

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Rain Dog
Date: 18 Sep 26 - 04:36 PM

It would be a dull world if we all thought the same about everything.

It would also be a dull world if everyone spoke properly like me.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Sep 26 - 04:41 PM

”How about when people say "toon" when they clearly mean "song"?”

Or, just as bad, ‘song’ when they clearly mean ‘tune’ (toon)!

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Lighter
Date: 18 Sep 26 - 05:48 PM

Ouch! I've known some of those people too. Maybe even more of them.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 18 Sep 26 - 06:28 PM

Even worse, track.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Sep 26 - 10:13 AM

At this point the thread is making even less sense than when it started. Tune/toon? Track? Avenue? Is there more than one way to say those words, or are you suggesting they have different meanings in this part of North America?

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Sep 26 - 11:47 AM

I've never heard a song or tune called a "track" unless it was on an album.

The noted colloquial differences are probably in use here and there across the English-speaking world. You just have to know the right people.

I say "toon." Always have, always will.

I say both "avenoo" and "avenue," usually the latter. Somebody tell me why.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 19 Sep 26 - 01:24 PM

Many years ago I used to watch the "reality" TV (i.e. socially engineered situations which supposedly make "good television") singing competitions like The Voice, and Australia's Got Talent etc. I always thought it was annoying when one of the contestants sang an American song with an American pronunciation of certain words. They would sing Aussie songs in their usual everyday accents and the same for any UK songs, so it was only the American songs with the American pronunciation. Funny, weird, and eventually I gave up watching the shows for various reasons.

So as an example, if they sang the song At Last they would pronounce "lasst" and not "larst" etc.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Sep 26 - 03:00 PM

Errrrrmm…in my part of the Lincolnshire Backwoods, we pronounce ‘last’, ‘bath’, ‘path’ etc. with the flat ‘a’, not ‘Larrst’, ‘Barrth’, or ‘Parrth’. Standard pronunciation here. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 19 Sep 26 - 05:49 PM

Yes but, BWM do you say a$$hole or ar$ehole? That is the million dollar question. LOL

I watch Pointless, the UK TV quiz show hosted by the excellent Alexander Armstrong. I notice that he says jog'raphy (with a big stress on "jog" and he always says that on a higher note) instead of what we say here gee-og'raphy. I'm wondering whether it is a UK social class thing - and THAT always reminds me of when I, a lowly working class young woman, was posted to a snooty high school. I'll never forget the deputy head mistress looking down her nose at me whenever she spoke to me. They made the mistake of thinking that because I had studied Latin I must be part of their upper crust social level. Wrong!! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Sep 26 - 06:06 PM

I bet you say jee-aw'-gruh-fy while I say jee-ah'-gruh-fy.

(That's the best I can do it with the English alphabet.)

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 19 Sep 26 - 06:07 PM

Tune vs Toon: I believe the latter came originally from Norfolk. Bernard Matthews, who hailed from there, became (in)famous for describing his turkeys as "bootiful" in TV adverts.

Standing by to be told that I've mentioned that before hereabouts.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 19 Sep 26 - 06:26 PM

No Lighter, I've always said and heard jee-o'-gruh-fy - with the "o" sound as in "jot". I don't remember hearing an Aussie say it any other way.

Oh no, I've started another detour on this thread: jog'raphy, gee-og'raphy, jee-aw'-gruh-fy, jee-ah'-gruh-fy, jee-o'-gruh-fy.

I say potay'to, and you say potar'to, I say tomay'to and you say tomar'to.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Sep 26 - 07:42 PM

That's exaactly what I mean by both "aw" and my criticism of the English alphabet.

The "o" in your "jot" is much closer to "aw" than the "ah" in my "jot."

Compare "aught" with "cot." Clearly different words based on sound alone.

But decades ago, when I was teaching, many of my university students (I won't say Most) could not distinguish between my spoken "cot" and "caught." They just couldn't hear the difference.

Which relates to a very obvious (to me) and I think fairly recent shift in the U.S., where I now constantly hear "cawt" for "caht" and "caht" for "cawt."

My impression is that most of those speakers are under 60. In other words, young whippersnappers born after about 1965.

I have no idea where or how this shift originated, but my mere impression is that it's very widespread.

Of course, things were far worse during the simplistically named Great Vowel Shift.

Try thus video to hear what happens when people talk to each other long enough: https://www.youtube.clom/watch?v=842OX2_vCic

The turning point for me is around 1400: Chaucer's day.

I find this equally informative but less fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuXi6fn68SQ

Simon Roper has done several more excellent, quick YouTube overviews.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Sep 26 - 07:50 PM

PS: I've never heard anybody say "bootiful" in the U.S., but that doesn't mean someone isn't doing it. (I have heard "beautyfull," many times.)

I grew up saying "tuh-mah'-toe" (until I was ridiculed out of it in a distant part of the Union) but have never heard any person seriously say "puh-tah'-toe."

My wife grew up less than 15 miles from where I did. I say "milk." She very clearly says "melk." I say "Halloween"; she says "Holloween."

As I've said before, "Go figure"! (Or "figger," depending.)

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Sep 26 - 07:54 PM

Should add that, in the video, almost every word suddenly became intelligible around 1600.

Before 1400, absolutely nothing was recognizable.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 20 Sep 26 - 12:11 AM

Lighter, I think the "puh-tah'-toe" pronunciation in the song was just a joke. I've heard "tomah'to" in Oz, but only ever heard "tomay'to" on some US TV shows.

I hear both pronunciations of either and neither here. In fact my own descriptive term for a non-specific transgender person is "ee'ther/eye'ther, nee'ther/neye'ther" but I have not been brave enough to say it to a person who fits that description.

I'll watch the videos you have recommended.

I'm beginning to suspect that we might have to revert to referring to the proper phonetic symbols in English to describe pronunciations in this discussion. My problem is that I find them a bit overwhelming.

I have never heard "cot" and "caught" pronounced in a similar way here.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 20 Sep 26 - 12:43 AM

Links to the videos Lighter recommended:

From Old English to Modern American English in One Monologue in One Monologue

The Evolution of English Conversation from Old English to Modern English

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Sep 26 - 02:09 AM

Here it’s Arsehole. Jog’raphy. Pot-ay-to. Tom-ah-to.

But is it day-ta or dah-ta in Oz, or even the US-ian ‘dada’? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 20 Sep 26 - 02:26 AM

I've mostly heard "dah'ta" here but I watch ABC (Oz) News etc and they use the pronunciations which have been deemed acceptable (by some unnamed bods, somewhere behind the scenes).

So - is it con'truh-ver'sy or contro'versy?

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Sep 26 - 09:02 AM

I think dada is vastly less common than dayda.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 Sep 26 - 10:48 AM

day-ta. po-tay-to. to-may-to. Cot and caught are identical.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Sep 26 - 11:15 AM

Cot = ‘cot’.
Caught = ‘cort’.

How do US-ians pronounce ‘aught’? Is it ‘ort’ or ‘ot’?

Back in the heady days of my youth, Controversy was pronounced with the stress on the second syllable - con-trov-er-sy. But influenced, I believe, by good ole Auntie BBC, it has generally become the third syllable that’s stressed, so con-tro-ver-sy.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: meself
Date: 20 Sep 26 - 12:51 PM

In Canada: CON-troversy, although you do hear the British con-TROV-ersy once in a long while - but never contro-VER-sy.

Both 'data' (as in dad) and 'dayta'. I believe most Canadians preserve the 't' pronunciation, although slipping toward the 'd' sound.

Used to be always 'con-TRI-bute', now I hear 'CON-tri-bute' all the time. Similarly, 'ad-VER-tiz-ment' (for 'advertisement') has become 'ad-ver-TIZE-ment'.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Sep 26 - 01:08 PM

"Caught" has traditionally been "cawt" (as the "au" might suggest).

"Cot" for me has the "a"-sound in "hard."
Few notice and fewer really care about gradual changes. No generalization about pronunciations can safely be applied nationally.

With an estimated >`350,000,000 native speakers of English worldwide, and tremendous international travel and mass media, there is plenty of variation. Not everyone hears or reproduces precisely the same sounds, and with time everything changes (as in the revealing YouTube videos that Helen has kindly made even easier to watch).

I've mentioned that many of my students could not hear the difference between "cot" and "caught" even when I pronounced them carefully.

Because, in that far distant region of the Union, they themselves did not distinguish them. (We're starting to get technical now, so I'll just say it's a matter of phonemes, allophones, language acquisition, etc.)

There is (or was in the last century) greater variation within the U.K. than within the U.S., despite numbers and square mileage. At least so it seemed. But how could anyone know for sure?


"Controversy" has always been (in my lifetime and experience) "con' troversy."

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 20 Sep 26 - 02:01 PM

Lighter said, "There is (or was in the last century) greater variation within the U.K. than within the U.S., despite numbers and square mileage. At least so it seemed. But how could anyone know for sure?"

When I watch the UK quiz shows Pointless and Tipping Point the contestants introduce themselves and state where they are from, and sometimes also whether they started life somewhere else. That means that I am starting to be able to hear the differences in accents and pronunciation from different areas of the UK. Also the norm used to be for actors and TV presenters in the UK to mostly speak "the Queen's English" (at that time it was "Queen's") even if the character in a show or the presenter came from an area with a specific accent or pronunciation.

One of the reasons I started using the subtitles/captions on TV was because dialects from various UK regions became more common in the TV dramas, comedies etc and being an Aussie I had trouble identifying some of their words and pronunciation. IMHO it was a good thing to bring the dialects in, but I needed help to understand some of them. I remember in the long running TV series called Shetland there was a character with a strong Shetland accent and it was almost a foreign language to my ears until I realised what the words were and the difference was mostly pronunciation with some local dialect words scattered throughout.

The pronunciation here in Oz of "cot" and "caught" has always been clearly differentiated. I've never heard "cot" with the "a"-sound in "hard" over here. Is the pronunciation of the vowel sound in "caught" longer than in "cot" in your area, Lighter?

The link I provided on 20 Sep 26 at 12:11 AM for the phonetic symbols page was a bit confusing. There might be simpler sites to navigate. There were a couple of lists further down the page of variations of pronunciations of vowel sounds including a section on longer vowel sounds and dipthong vowels, each with a few examples of words.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: meself
Date: 20 Sep 26 - 03:24 PM

In Canada, 'cot' and 'caught' have the same pronunciation. And, yes, I feel safe putting it categorically.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Sep 26 - 03:37 PM

Yes, Helen, I would say so. I suspect the vowels in my "cot" and "caught" are slightly "longer" (i.e., lasts longer) than yours.

Americans often find British English [etc.] accents to sound somewhat "clipped." I suspect that slight differences in vowel duration are the main reason. (Also "sing-songy" and "finicky," with too few "R's." In some cases "snobbish" is added.)

British [etc.] speakers often describe the average American accent as "flat," "nasal," "poorly articulated," "rather drawling."

And certain accents on both sides take quite a while to become fully comprehensible! Even to fellow nationals!

Of course, all of this is slowly changing in strange ways even as we write.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Sep 26 - 04:02 PM

But, meself, are they both "caht" or are they both "cawt"?

Those students of mine used "cawt" for both.

A Californian lady of my acquaintance uses "caht" for both.

She also says "cahl" for "cawl" (call).

("Father" and "bother" rhyme perfectly for me.

But "dog" and "hog" don't. At all.)

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Sep 26 - 04:10 PM

OK, can somebody please enlighten me why a fringe is called ‘bangs’ in the US? Drives me nuts!

I’m so glad I’m English and I talk proper like! ;-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 20 Sep 26 - 04:25 PM

BWM, don't you mean "talk all proper like"? LOL

We haven't even started discussing Aussie accents. I have noticed that most UK and US people are dreadful at mimicking our accents. A lot of them just get away with saying "g'day mate" unless they say "Good da-a-ay, ma-a-a-te" with a sort of upward then downward sliding pitch. Even our higher/richer social class here in Oz don't have a really posh accent. They just enunciate a bit more clearly and usually avoid the obvious Aussie words and phrases.

The important thing to remember is that Aussies are great, mate at laughing at ourselves so we sometimes "bung on" the accent just for a laugh.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: meself
Date: 20 Sep 26 - 04:29 PM

I'm not sure what the difference is between 'caht' and 'cawt', tbh. But caught, cot, not, knot, hot, fought, trot, lot, sought, taut, rot, wrought, as examples, all rhyme (couldn't think of any words that end in 'awt'). Words such as gnaw, yawl, shawl, awl - all(!) share that same vowel sound.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Sep 26 - 04:36 PM

H - one of my colleagues in my last job before I retired was an Aussie from Sydney, and he had a very sing-song-ey way of speaking, with a rise in pitch at the end of every sentence, so every sentence sounded like a question! Weird at first but, over time, we got used to it.

You’re right about Aussies laughing at themselves - every one I’ve met (and that’s a fair number) has been equally good at giving it out, and taking it back. Good guys!

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Sep 26 - 04:54 PM

Maureen O'Hara always spoke in American movies with an impeccably refined northern-style American accent.

I saw her interviewed many years after she'd retired from films. Her actual Irish accent was not just perceptible, it was amazing.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Sep 26 - 05:01 PM

Don’t you think the Irish accent is audibly present in certain American accents? Often seems that way to me.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 20 Sep 26 - 05:46 PM

BWM, I don't hear that rise in pitch at the end of every sentence very often here, so when I do hear it it is very noticeable. And, for me, it is very annoying. I don't know how that speech pattern evolved, or whether it relates to a specific area of Oz, or whether it goes back to TV actors or presenters, or even social media influencers.

There are some very funny comedians here who play on certain Aussie speech patterns. Magda Szubanski is my absolute fave - in everything she does - and then there is the Kath and Kim TV series with Jane Turner and Gina Riley, and Magda plays a regular character in the series. Many of the comedians who have been around for decades had their start in two extremely clever and funny skit shows called Fast Forward, and Full Frontal. They were similar in style to Goodness Gracious Me, which I suspect might have been inspired by the Aussie skit shows.

Magda Szubanksi "I said Pet, I said Love, I said Pet. Who needs a kidney anyway?"

Hubby and I still quote that line nearly 40 years after seeing the show.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: JennieG
Date: 20 Sep 26 - 06:22 PM

Going back a few posts....my Posh Melbourne Grandfather used to say "Con-tro-versy" with the emphasis on "tro".

He was born and grew up in England, migrating with his mother and siblings in his 20s during the early years of the 20th century. I don't know if he brought the pronunciation out to Oz with him, or acquired it after getting off the boat here.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Sep 26 - 06:39 PM

Probably the most "Irish-y" sounding feature in North America is the distinct pronunciation of "r" after vowels at the ends of words though it isn't universal.

It was certainly a feature of Irish English in the 17th and 18th centuries. But it was also a feature of English English - and still is in the southwest of England.

"R-dropping" only became the norm in England in the mid-to-late 1700s.

Massachusetts and the rest of New England had been settled largely by people from areas that had "dropped their r's" before that.

What is called the "Upper South" of the U.S., which includes the Appalachian mountains, was mostly settled by people from Ulster - who kept all of those "r's."

More Irish came, mainly from outside of Ulster, during and after the Famine. The estimate is over a million between 1845 and 1855, when the U.S. population was just under 20 million. By the time of the Civil War in 1861, about one American in 20 had been born in Ireland.

So the characteristic American "r" has two origins: early English settlement and later Irish immigration. (Scots came with r's too, but mostly to Canada.)

Dutch and many German settlers also had the postvocalic "r."

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Sep 26 - 06:53 PM

The press began noting that rise in pitch around 1994, and somebody gave it the name "uptalk."

It had supposedly just been invented by "Valley Girls" in California.

But I was hearing it from female students (I'd say only), far from California, ten or fifteen years earlier. It was already the norm (for young women) and hard to miss if you weren't used to it. It's spread since then.

One more unsolved mystery.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 20 Sep 26 - 08:27 PM

Yes, it is a mystery and I mostly recall young adult or teenage females doing it but I have heard a few males as well. It makes it sound like every sentence ends in a question.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 20 Sep 26 - 09:27 PM

Merger of the vowels in "cot" and "caught" (i.e. pronouncing both words with the same vowel) is one of the (I dare say) *famous* ways to distinguish Eastern vs. Western US dialects. Well, "famous" for people who think at all about accents. Maybe a rough analogy would be coming from England and knowing Cornwall accents are rhotic? ie fairly common knowledge.

The folksy American way of describing the situation is "East/West of the Mississippi," corresponding to the idea that the variety of accents West of the Mississippi River have minimal variations, as the region (like much of Canada) was settled sparsely and late by English speakers.

West of the Mississippi is not the *only* region where these vowels are merged. But elsewhere the vowel which is the same is a different vowel. My mother grew up in part of New England where they are also merged, but that's a sort of footnote to the general rule.

The (dumb, in my opinion) meme of US English as "Simplified English" has some understandability here if one thinks that a reduction in the number of vowels makes things "simpler." Western US accents' cot/caught vowel is close enough to Spanish vowel A. Now, Spanish has very few vowels and that makes it easy to learn to pronounce, but I've never heard anyone *deride* Spanish for being simple... My wife, who speaks English as a second language and with whom I live in California, wishes I would just cut the nonsense of these extra vowels and follow the simpler scheme. (This is not to say, however, that Californians don't do other things with vowels that are distinct, but I think that overall it's an easier dialect to learn, in the way that Spanish is "easy.")

In any case, what I meant to say is that this East-West divide is so consistent that any attempt to ascertain an American's region of origin typically *begins* with narrowing down East or West, no-merger or merger. And when people from the East go to the West, locals can sense "oh boy, here comes one of those Back East people" through this pronunciation. They don't necessarily know the explanation, but they know intuitively.

In my own home region of souther New England, I've observed that, beyond the basic distinction between cot-caught (etc), the further south one goes--or, the closer to the sea coast--the more the vowels sound like they are distinguished. Roughly speaking. That takes you closer to Long Island, NY. The distinctive vowel in "caught" is very noticeable in the regions adjacent to Long Island Sound (which is a body of water, if you're not familiar with the geography). I grew up within the reaches of that phenomenon, so, living in California, where the vowels have reduced, even though much of the rest of my accent is unremarkable, this feature really stands out and marks me as a foreigner. I have tried to reduce the difference in everyday life to blend in, but when I sing I pronounce all words "correctly" (ie according to the native blueprint in my head).

Sociologically, Western US (and Canadian) speakers sound "bland" and even somewhat "weak" to me. This is illogical, not at all fair, and inappropriately prejudicial but it is, nevertheless. The non-merger maps to a sort of "having cultural richness" and "toughness"—again, completely wrong from a logical standpoint, but prejudices against accents are nothing new. The Western speakers probably have their own prejudices against "me"—weird, unhip, old, whatever.

As Western/general California accents have become common in fast-form media (eg reality TV), compared to the former dominance of "New York" (read: Eastern) accents in film/TV, the possible effect is that someone like me feels saturated by a soundscape lacking richness and "soul." For the final time: This is not logical, but it is one perception that can have a cultural effect. (Despite it all, I love California and its people... just if aliens were attacking the earth and I had to build an army to fight them, I might choose more soldiers from the Eastern parts of the country.)

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 20 Sep 26 - 09:29 PM

Well, Australian speech characteristically has "up-talk," so there's that.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Sep 26 - 02:38 AM

Helen, my niece is, to all intents and purposes, an Aussie, having emigrated there with her mum - my sister - and dad when she was two or three. Around 50 now, and having lived in Perth and Bunbury WA for most of her formative years, she still speaks like an Aussie and has that ‘up-talk’ thing - it’s apparently very persistent! Having moved back to Blighty for quite a few years, she married and emigrated (again) to NZ. I haven’t seen her since she moved over there, I’d love to hear how she speaks now!

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: r.padgett
Date: 21 Sep 26 - 02:44 AM

"In Canada, 'cot' and 'caught' have the same pronunciation. And, yes, I feel safe putting it categorically." reminds me of East Yorkshire speech and Bod for bird

The basic long "a" and short "a" is a fundamental in British speech ~ long "a" being South of England and short "a" Northern England

100 years ago accent in South Yorkshire where I grew up and a mining area had very early English pronunciation

School did its damndest to smooth out the speech pattern but it does still exist in day to day speech

Actors can be in demand lol

Ray

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 21 Sep 26 - 03:53 AM

Ah BWM, does your niece now say "fush 'n' chups" in a Kiwi accent? ;-D

I really haven't heard any up-talk for a long time. Maybe it isn't common around Newcastle, NSW>

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 21 Sep 26 - 06:28 AM

Remind me, please: Have I mentioned hereabouts that the English pronunciation of "data" seems to have propagated to certain groups in the US, thanks to Patrick Stewart (a full-on Royal Shakespeare Company alumnus) starring in Star Trek NG? Or that parents in the States were up in arms about their childrens' accents getting contaminated by English pronunciation due to prolongued exposure to Pepper Pig?^†

Herself complained once, when Sir first went to infants' school, that he started speaking with a Nottingham accent: "Can't you stop it?" "But he's a Nottinghamshire lad," quoth the teacher. "He doesn't need to advertise the fact!" responded Herself, with some heat. She is now amused that Sir's own son, who is growing up in Somerset, generally has a West-Country accent (which she likes, but Sir doesn't) .... but swears like a Nottingham lad.

† At least it wasn't East Enders.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Sep 26 - 07:39 AM

Dunno, Helen, I haven’t seen Jo since she went Kiwi, wish I had!

Mrs Backwoodsperson is an inverterate accent-impersonator, and very good she is too! Her ‘Kiwi’ (which she describes as ‘Aussie with a clenched anal sphincter’) is hilarious!

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Rain Dog
Date: 21 Sep 26 - 08:40 AM

Michael Rosen presents Word of Mouth
on BBC Radio 4

The programme yesterday was about:

Voices of Manchester

Word of Mouth

Rob Drummond, Professor of Sociolinguistics at Manchester Metropolitan University, talks to Michael about the ways people talk in Greater Manchester. They discuss which areas are seen as more 'Lancashire' or more 'Manc' in their speech, and what is known as the 'happy vowel.' Plus they dissect the accents of celebrities such as the Gallagher Brothers, Gary Neville and Sara Cox.

Rob's project can be found here: https://explore.manchestervoices.org/

Produced for BBC Audio Bristol by Sally Heaven, in partnership with the Open University

+

I appreciate that it might not be easily available to those of you outside the UK.

If you scroll down the page that I have linked to, you will find a further link to an Open University page which tests you on your ability to identify various British accents. It's not the most difficult of tests, especially if you have been living in the UK for a good while.

All previous episodes of the programme are available to listen to.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Lighter
Date: 21 Sep 26 - 09:11 AM

Not to disagree with my friend Gibb, but the U.S. reality is more complicated. The presumed distinction among the public is usually North vs. South, but that was/is highly simplified. "General American" is used for people who, for various reasons, do not have obviously identifiable regional accents - identifiable by he average person, that is.


Here's a map by counties, though the "real" boundaries are far more blurry than they look here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Infographics/comments/q0zfqa/us_dialects_map/#lightbox

The accents Americans can easily detect are probably (these are broad descriptions clumped together from local variants) New England, Boston, Northern, Upper Southern/Appalachian, Gulf Southern, and (not always) California, which often seems to be "General American."

The "African-American" accent is historically rooted in the Gulf South but has always hadnumerous differences and internal variations. And not all Black people have it. Those that do are not restricted to any one region. Like "Gulf South" in general, it seems to be fading away.

Every ethnic group has its own variations.

For real extremes, think of John F. Kennedy, Dolly Parton, Strom Thurmond, and possibly Billie Eilish and GloRilla.

And let's not get started on Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Lighter
Date: 21 Sep 26 - 09:49 AM

I was saying "dayda" long before Star Trek.

But I also say "dadda" (not "dahda"; it depends on the mood of the moment).

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: r.padgett
Date: 21 Sep 26 - 01:41 PM

Day t'a and Dah t' a

Ray

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Sep 26 - 02:27 PM

It’s ’day-ta’ here in the Backwoods.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: r.padgett
Date: 22 Sep 26 - 02:09 AM

Me too in South Yorkshire

Ray

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 22 Sep 26 - 06:42 PM

BWM, I think you, me and your Missus might need to hide in a doomsday bunker if we keep making fun of the Kiwi accent. LOL

I dread to think of how she describes our Aussie accent, and BTW "Aussie" for some unknown, completely mysterious reason is pronounced "Ozz'ee" and not "Oss'ee". Go figger!

In the last year or so Aussies were called out by a well-respected Maori - possibly Jay Laga'aia - who told us that for a very, very long time we have been mispronouncing the name of the First Nations people in NZ.

All my life I have heard it pronounced as "Mow'ree" with the sound of "how" and "now". We have now been told that it is a double vowel sound which is explained in this video. The pronunciation could be shown as "Mah'o-ree" with the "o" sound pronounced like "go".

How to pronounce "Maori / Maori"

How many ways can the "o" sound be pronounced?

Examples: bow of ribbon, bow of a ship, often, could, sound, double....

No wonder people struggle to learn to read, especially if they were not taught how to sound out the words or to realise the multitude of different spellings for different sounds.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: JennieG
Date: 22 Sep 26 - 08:08 PM

Helen - shouldn't that be 'Kiwi eccent'?

I'm allowed to poke fun because I am 1/4 Kiwi, my maternal grandmother was born in NZ. All white, though - English and Irish ancestry, she was - no Maori.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Sep 26 - 08:16 PM

There are words used in English that have roots in the ancient Proto-Indo-European language.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 22 Sep 26 - 11:06 PM

Good point, JennieG, although maybe 'Kiwi ecc-nt' where the '-' equals a very short, almost non-existent version of 'uh'.

Ooh, I'm straying into dangerous territory now! 8-(

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: r.padgett
Date: 23 Sep 26 - 07:08 AM

Of course languages do tend to pronounce the vowel sounds slightly differently in normal course in England

Can be "fun" to change the vowel sounds like e to a and note the accent

Ray

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Sep 26 - 11:41 AM

It seems to me that the UK has more regional accents than America.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: r.padgett
Date: 23 Sep 26 - 12:25 PM

UK has had over time many influences from immigrants and a lot have either brought their own accents from their English speaking countries of birth and or have adopted the accents from birth in England

Scottish, Gaelic, Welsh, Irish, French from way back, and Old English from Anglo Saxon times ~ English seems in England is a rich language

My Yorkshire accent from my parents is very pronounced and there is a Lancashire accent probably more pronounced ~ see folky Sid Calderbank for example

Greater Manchester had a fair few immigrants from Ireland due to potato famine and there is evidence of Irish accents still there

Royston near Barnsley had miners walk 100 miles from "the Black Country" to take up work ~ dialect words and accents are still there from many years ago

Ray

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 23 Sep 26 - 02:49 PM

Ray, you said, "Scottish, Gaelic, Welsh, Irish, French from way back, and Old English from Anglo Saxon times ~ English seems in England is a rich language"

I referred to a book by Owen Barfield in my post on 23 Aug 26 at 07:24 PM. The link I gave is for an online access to the complete book. Each chapter is about a different influence on the English language in the British Isles according to historical events which brought new cultures into the lands.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: r.padgett
Date: 24 Sep 26 - 02:15 AM

Thanks Helen ~ would that my eye sight and age could extend to book reading anymore

I have checked your Aug 23rd video for a couple of minutes and seen the extent of English importance for the likes of ATC world wide

Well done the chap who wrote the book!

Ray

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 24 Sep 26 - 02:41 AM

Thanks Ray. I downloaded the Owen Barfield book from the book site and I think you could enlarge the font or enlarge the screen to possibly be able to read it more easily. I chose the "other formats & older devices" option and selected plain text. It is an excellent book, fairly short, and it really opened up my awareness of the multiple sources of the English language. The most interesting aspect for me is the insight into the lifestyles and cultures of the different societies contributing to our language.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: r.padgett
Date: 25 Sep 26 - 02:22 AM

Yes the commonality of a shared language that has taken many years to evolve must have aided communication throughout the World

Spanish and the Chinese languages have also been important

Ray

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 25 Sep 26 - 08:40 PM

One can see the effects of environment and immigration in the Scouse accent: it used to be said that it was one-third Irish, one-third Welsh, and one-third catarrh. This cultural artefact may or may not have been ruined by the Clean-Air Acts.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Paul Burke
Date: 26 Sep 26 - 04:18 PM

"There are words used in English that have roots in the ancient Proto-Indo-European language. " said Donuel.

That's a bit like saying to a woman about to have her first baby, "You'll be fine - you come from a long line of women who've had babies."

Or to put it another way, every language that's Indo-European has words that have PIE roots.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Lighter
Date: 26 Sep 26 - 05:10 PM

Accents change continually but very slowly.

It was often believed in the 1930s that owing to the influence of radio and movies, most U.S. accents would be homogenized into a kind of "general American" within a generation or two.

But nearly a century later, we just need to look at the map I linked to above to see how wrong the prediction was.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: r.padgett
Date: 27 Sep 26 - 02:28 AM

Long live regional accents ~ I think accents of actors in films and certainly in folk song are sought after ~ I still have my South Yorkshire accent if needed ~ when meeting old friends there is still a tendency to revert back!! lol

Ray

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Sep 26 - 03:30 PM

Greenhorn is an inexperienced or naive person, and the term comes from combining "green" (meaning fresh, raw, or immature) with "horn" (referring to the soft, developing horns of a young animal)
would it be similiar to johhny come lately, or wet behind the ears

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: r.padgett
Date: 01 Oct 26 - 01:41 AM

Similar but not the same and those terms have their own specific place depending on circumstances and occasions

Johnny come lately is perhaps where some newcomer comes in and takes over or makes comments that are frowned upon

Greenhorn has agricultural connections maybe

Wet between the ears is simply one with little experience

All without dictionary referral so correct if need be

Ray

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 02 Oct 26 - 10:33 AM

> Wet between the ears

I always thought it was "wet behind the ears", suggestive (come to think) of a newborn child.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Oct 26 - 11:41 AM

"Behind" is correct. Unless you're talking about a brain.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Oct 26 - 04:48 PM

In standard American slang, to "welch" (or "welsh") on a bet or a promise means to back out, break an agreement, or refuse to pay what you owe

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: meself
Date: 05 Oct 26 - 12:32 AM

That's one I haven't heard for ages here in Canada, but I remember hearing it occasionally when I was a kid. I think its meaning would still be recognized, though. I don't know if anyone thought of it as an 'ethnic slur', which I assume it was, originally, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 05 Oct 26 - 02:52 AM

Aussie pronunciations which annoy me:

"nature" is pronounced nay'cha, "feature" is fea'cha, "teacher" is tea'cha, etc etc.

I mean, I know that even though "teacher" is spelled that way and we don't usually pronounce it as tea'cherr, the cha sound is usually emphasised and sounds almost like chaaah.

It goes back to another post I made earlier in this discussion, Prime Mi'nis-staar' (emphasis on first AND third syllable and the "staar" part sounds more like an emphasised call-out).

I heard another word spoken by a TV journalist today but I can't remember what it was. I just remember that the sound was replaced by a "dg" or "j" sound despite the spelling. (It will come to me as soon as I hit the Submit button, I expect.)

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 05 Oct 26 - 04:31 AM

I just remembered the other word: "procedure", pronounced pro-see'dgah or pro-cee'jah.

Yes, I know how quirky English spelling is and how many ways there are to pronounce certain combinations of letters, but it is the "ah" sound which stands out for me. And yes, I do use these Aussie pronunciations but I am fairly sure that I don't announce the "ah" sounds with so much emphasis, as if I have just hit my thumb with a hammer. LOL

Thank the gods none of you can record my Aussie accent because you would laugh yourselves silly, I suspect. Pot-kettle-black, and all that.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: r.padgett
Date: 05 Oct 26 - 06:33 AM

We are all different and speech is variable ~ depends what you grew up with thank god for that Helen

Ray

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 05 Oct 26 - 09:42 AM

> procedure

Just tried it out myself, and verified that Herself does it too: it does sound like there's a J in the middle, much to our surprise. Curious. Perhaps we should get Peter Trudgill^† on the case.

† Etymologist in Residence at the New European World.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 05 Oct 26 - 02:05 PM

The "j" or "dg" sound is fairly normal, I think. It would be odd - and difficult - to pronounce it as it is spelled. The part which bugs me is when I hear it is the punk-rock sounding "aah!" at the end.

Think Shayne MacGowan singing God Save the Queen, as an example, when he was singing/yelling at his best to a crowd of thousands.

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: r.padgett
Date: 06 Oct 26 - 01:37 AM

Helen yes dg is in my name of course and I help pronunciation by saying use j this is not quite right and sounds more Asian, jet rather than jit er um

Ray

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 06 Oct 26 - 03:12 AM

Ray, I pronounce your name ‘Pad-jet’, with the ‘d’ sound followed by a soft ‘g’. I think that’s the ‘correct’ pronunciation?

Subject: RE: BS: American speech
From: Helen
Date: 06 Oct 26 - 04:39 AM

Ray, I didn't get what you meant because it's "obvious" to me that "dg" is pronounced like "j" but then I realised that you might sometimes have your surname pronounced with the hard "g" like "Pad'get", "go", "get" etc.

It's kind of funny that words with a "d" followed by a "u" are pronounced with the "j" sound, e.g. procedure, education, endure, etc.

Question: will this interesting thread still be going strong in another 30 years of the history of Mudcat? The more we discuss the complexities of the English language, the more interesting and intriguing it becomes.