Re: American Dutch dialects

--- On Thu, 2/26/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> From: tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
> Subject: [tied] Re: American Dutch dialects
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 7:54 PM
> > > > Read Wikipedia
> > > >  
> > > >
> > >
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_English_regional_phonology
> > > >  
> > > > New York is NOT a rhotic dialect but
> Philadelphia is the only
> > > > rhotic dialect on the East Coast
> > >
> > > Dat's de toid time you tell me dat.
> > >
> > >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_dialect#History :
> > > 'The origins of the dialect are diverse, and
> the source of many
> > > features is probably not recoverable. Labov ...
> claims that the
> > > vocalization and subsequent loss of (r) was
> copied from the
> > > prestigious London pronunciation, and so it
> started among the
> > > upper classes in New York and only later moved
> down the
> > > socioeconomic scale. This aristocratic r-lessness
> can be heard,
> > > for instance, in recordings of Franklin
> Roosevelt. After WWII,
> > > the r-ful pronunciation became the prestige norm,
> and what was
> > > once the upper class pronunciation became a
> vernacular one.'
> > >
> > > So the r-lessness may not be original, which is
> what I proposed.
> > >
> > >
> > > Torsten
> >
> > In the wikipedia article they claim Philadelphia is
> the probable
> > focal point for the spread of General American
> English.
>
> This is what you mean?
> http://tinyurl.com/ae38fa
> 'The accent of Philadelphia and nearby parts of
> Pennsylvania, New
> Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, is probably the original
> ancestor of
> General American. It is one of the few coastal accents that
> is rhotic ...'
>
> So they are using as a premise for that conclusion that the
> Philly
> dialect is rhotic. But since Labov claims New York once was
> too, that
> argument doesn't eliminate NYC as a candidate.
>
> > Keep in mind that in colonial times and for a while
> after
> > independence, Philly was the largest city and the main
> port of
> > entry to the US. NYC took off with the river
> steamboats and the
> > Erie Canal.
>
> I know. The Erie Canal opened in 1825.
> http://www.eriecanal.org/
> I don't think the U.S.A. was done settled by that time.
>
>
> Torsten

There was a distinct Midwestern accent by then. Most early settlers in the Midwest originated around Lancaster Co. PA, from where they went to the Potomac and Shenandoah valleys and from there either down the New River or the Monengehela to the Ohio Valley. This was the general settlement pattern until well into the 1800s and immigration from present day WV into Ohio never stopped, it still continues,
The upper Midwest, i.e. the Great Lakes was largely settled from upper New England, upstate NY and Canada.
The lower Ohio Valley and much of Missouri was largely settled from WV, VA, KY, etc.
This was probably the most common pattern until the 1840s or so, when a new wave of German immigration moved into rural and small town Midwest. Irish immigration in the 1840s was mainly urban, although many had been farmer, they arrived penniless and couldn't afford to set up farms. many couldn't even afford to get out of Boston, NYC and Philly.
There was a large group in far upstate NY who got off the boar in Montreal and walked to the US from there. The story I heard was they were rejected from the US in Boston and sent to Canada, they were refused entry into Canada until they got the idea of going over to the US from there.