> On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:01:16 +0000, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>insignificant,
> >I was pointing to a possible Dutch
> >connection, because it seemed to me that American dialectologists
> >wouldn't have been aware of that particularity of Dutch dialects
> 20/21st century Dutch dialects...
> >worse, would have reacted like Miguel: this dialect is
> >since no one has written about it,Apprently not.
> I don't care if anyone has written about it.
>I used to live in and aroundThus, since the Spanish siege?
> Leiden (1964-1984), so I know what I'm talking about.
> To summarize the argument thus far, you said:(low,
> >That's interesting, since the American War of Independence was in
> >that period, and since the Americans (at least in the standard
> >Dutch-influenced?) dialect that spread from New York) didn'tNow it does.
> >drop /r/'s.
> But New York _does_ drop /r/'s.
> And you said:
> >New York was the
> >noveau riche immigrant port in the middle, originally with a Dutch
> >substrate. Amsterdam and Rotterdam Dutch has retroflex r's, as
> >Standard American, un[like] New England and Southern.Reference?
> But Amsterdam Dutch doesn't have retroflex /r/'s.
>The "Gooise /r/" is notLeiden, and
> retroflex, but an alveolar continuant (like British RP /r/).
> to a minor extent, Rotterdam, do have retroflex /r/, but, asmentioned in
> the text I quoted earlier, retroflex /r/ is very recent there.century (and
> pronunciation of /r/ in Leiden is first mentioned in the 19th.
> it wasn't retroflex then[*]),Argumentum e silentio.
>so it has no bearing on 17th. century Dutch,And perhaps not. How do you know?
> which is perhaps best preserved in Afrikaans, which has