--- In cybalist@..., tgpedersen@... wrote:
> --- In cybalist@..., markodegard@... wrote:
> > Torsten writes:
> > > I just thought of another irritating fact. Upstate New York was
> > > colonized by the Dutch (note the spelling and pronounciation of
> (the
> > > originally Native?) Schenectady). The main entry route for
> > immigrants
> > > was up the Hudson river and along the canal from Albany
> > > (Rensselaersburg) to Lake Erie.
> ...[snip]...
> The main railroad line between New York and Chicago went the same
> way, first straight north up along the Hudson River to Albany. Cf.
> Hitchcock's "North by Northwest"
I'm not qualified to speak on the linguistic aspects of the issue,
but I do feel I have expertise to speak on the demographics of early
New York. The Dutch settlements did not extend west beyond
Schnectady. The settlement of the newly opened lands along the route
of the Erie Canal was very largely New Englander. The next biggest
group was probably Irish immigrant. By this time even Albany had a
large population of recent New Englander arrivals and a growing Irish
population.
While Dutch was still spoken in the hinterlands of the Hudson Valley
south of Albany, immigrants probably would have had little contact
with its speakers. The trip from New York City to Albany by boat
would have taken at most a couple days, by train it would have been a
matter of hours. From that point on the immigrants would have left
the regions populated by Dutch speakers or their descendants and
entered that populated by descendants of New Englanders.
Thus, I think an argument for Dutch influence on American English
based on supposed contact in upstate New York cannot be supported.
That is not to say that one cannot be made based on possible Dutch
influence in New York City, and especially in Brooklyn.
Ned Smith