From: tgpedersen@...
Message: 7700
Date: 2001-06-20
> --- In cybalist@..., tgpedersen@... wrote:was
> > --- In cybalist@..., markodegard@... wrote:
> > > Torsten writes:
> > > > I just thought of another irritating fact. Upstate New York
> > > > colonized by the Dutch (note the spelling and pronounciationof
> > (theCf.
> > > > 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.
> > Hitchcock's "North by Northwest"early
>
>
> 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
> New York. The Dutch settlements did not extend west beyondroute
> Schnectady. The settlement of the newly opened lands along the
> of the Erie Canal was very largely New Englander. The next biggestIrish
> group was probably Irish immigrant. By this time even Albany had a
> large population of recent New Englander arrivals and a growing
> population.Valley
>
> While Dutch was still spoken in the hinterlands of the Hudson
> south of Albany, immigrants probably would have had little contacta
> 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
> matter of hours. From that point on the immigrants would have leftThank you for the, should I say, "conclusive" facts.
> 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