Re: 'mouth noises' bad? [was: Re: YAPT]

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 14:43:23 -0800, Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...> wrote:

>--- "J. 'Mach' Wust" <j_mach_wust@...> wrote:
>
>> That's not true. The quickest changes happen in
>> vocabulary, that is, in the
>> meaning of words. In Italian or in Spanish, for
>> instance, the pronunciation
>> has changed very little for hundreds of years (in
>> Spanish except for a few
>> consonants), whereas the vocabulary has made huge
>> changes.
>
>Counter example: English in the deep south of the USA
>came from the same source as English in Australia, and
>separated at most 400 or 500 years ago, yet are
>radically different in pronunciation while remaining
>virtually identical in vocabulary.
Try a little of Shakespear, and you'll see that the vocabulary has also
changed dramatically.


>> The velocity of sound change seems to vary from
>> language to language:
>> Italian is still pronounced more or less the same as
>> in the Middle Ages,
>> whereas English has changed dramatically.
>>
>
>As I noted in an earlier post, languages like Italian
>which are confined to a relatively small geographic
>area might have more stable pronunciation.  Introduce
>geographic isolation between two populations, however,
>and they appear to diverge rapidly, as witness Sydney
>vs Alabama. (What about Amish country vs Germany? How
>much do they differ with respect to details of mouth
>noises?)
Very few, if at all. They differ mainly because of the old-fashioned
vocabulary they use.

gry@s:
j. 'mach' wust

Reply