Re: Probability of Article Replacement?
From: | Tristan <kesuari@...> |
Date: | Wednesday, February 26, 2003, 13:10 |
Joseph Fatula wrote:
> You might be interested to know this:
> I often thought that BBC English was quite similar to American English and
> that that's why we could understand it. But in talking with some friends
> who are here from Mexico (and whose American English comprehension is _very_
> good), they mentioned that they had a _very_ hard time understanding what
> Brits were saying. We were watching some movies, and one of them asked me
> what we called the particular language they were speaking. They were under
> the impression that it was some closely related language like Catalan is to
> Castillian (Spanish).
Which is just another part of the debate about where languages end and
dialects begin (and if a dialect is just a language with a army/navy,
there are a lot more English-derived languages around than I thought :P)
And if they had trouble understanding RP (BBC English), I wouldn't send
them to Australia any time soon. You sometimes hear the ee-vowel being
pronounced with a somewhat fronted [@\] vowel gliding onto an [i]-like
vowel. Which is just as well, what with the ear-vowel being a
monophthong, making the system something like:
i i: u
e e: ei @ 8: @u o: oi
& &: &i &u O O:
a a: ai au
bid beard hood
bed bared bead bird booed board Boyd
had bad paid bowed nod gone
bud barred bide load
(Perhaps add /u:/ 'fool' and /ou/ 'bowl' to that, depending on if [5]s
are pronounced. /&/ is probably not [&]. I don't know where exactly /@u/
fits. The /a/-series looks like it probably wants to move forward. Oh,
and [u] doesn't sound anything like some English [8] pronunciations or
American [Y](?) ones.)
(But from what I've heard of it, Cockney is much scarier. But at any
rate, the non-rhotic vowels are different enough from the American ones
that rhotic American who had never come across non-rhotic speech would
probably have a hard enough time with it.)
Tristan.
Replies