[tied] Re: The role of analogy, alliteration and sandhi in counting

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

>
> At 1:38:05 AM on Wednesday, May 9, 2007, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >> At 2:31:33 PM on Tuesday, May 8, 2007, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >>> Similarly English English-speakers tend to diphthongize
> >>> long vowels even when speaking foreign languages,
> >>> presumably because the low-status Scottish and Irish
> >>> varieties of English don't diphthongize long vowels.
>
> >> Most English and U.S. speakers tend to diphthongize long
> >> vowels when speaking foreign languages for a much simpler
> >> reason: they're doing what comes naturally.
>
> > They're doing what comes naturally to a native
> > English-speaker.
>
> To a native speaker of any of the (majority) varieties that
> diphthongize the long vowels. Exactly. Nothing to do with
> status.

I see. So the English don't want to sound like the Irish and the Scots
because that would be unnatural?

> >> Many can't hear
> >> the difference between, say, [e:] and [eI], and many who can
> >> hear it can't reproduce it, or can't reproduce it reliably
> >> without great concentration.
>
> > And the reason they can't hear or reproduce that
> > difference it is that the two are dialectal allophones in
> > English.
>
> Exactly. Nothing to do with status.

Then why do they prefer one over the other?

> > Native speakers of other languages than English have no
> > problem distinguishing them.
>
> Yes. So?

So what comes naturally to English-speakers does not come naturally to
native speakers of other languages. Therefore, if we want to make
linguistics a science that is comprehensible to people who speak other
languages than English we will have to appeal to other explanations
than that certain linguistic phenomena in certain languages exist
because the speakers of those languages find them natural.

> >> Many U.S. speakers aren't even aware of varieties that
> >> don't diphthongize long vowels, and if they are, they're
> >> likely to find them attractive.
>
> > I see you agree with me.
>


> Obviously not, unless you think that 'attractive' means the
> same thing as 'to be shunned as low-status'.

Sorry, I misread you. But awareness of Irishness and some idea of an
'Irish accent' is not a thing of the past in the USA.

> >>> I think this is a general priciple. Somehow you can't get
> >>> your brain to accept that those foreigners really in
> >>> earnest insist on speaking like the despised yokels of
> >>> your own country so you want to help them along on their
> >>> pronounciation.
>
> >> Fails the most basic plauibility test, at least in respect
> >> of the English example.
>
> > Which one is that, other than your Anglocentric
> > idiosyncracies?
>
> My mixed Left-/Rightpondian speech patterns have nothing to
> do with the matter. You wrote:
>


> Similarly English English-speakers tend to diphthongize
> long vowels even when speaking foreign languages,
> presumably because the low-status Scottish and Irish
> varieties of English don't diphthongize long vowels.
>
> The explanation doesn't hold water, since U.S. speakers do
> the same thing despite (a) general lack of exposure to
> Scottish and Irish varieties that don't diphthongize long
> vowels and (b) general absence of any sense that such
> varieties are low-status.

That's pretty recent. Cf. Scorsese's 'Gangs of New York'.


Torsten