Re: American Dutch dialects, re-correction

> > > Okay. Now you just have to find a way to make this English
> > > dialect import this feature into the main dialect of American
> > > English.
> > >
> > > Torsten
> >
> > I've never actually read anything on the topic, but I'm sure
> > rhotic dialects were probably more widespread in England during
> > the settling of the U.S, since the loss of /r/ happened over the
> > course of time and therefore was probably not as widely dispersed
> > at that time as now.
> > But after reading what Rick wrote, I now believe that American
> > rhotic pronunciation was more likely due to Irish and Scotch
> > pronunciation patterns, since as he said these were the primary
> > components of Midwest population.
>
> Of the first wave, but in the 1840s, the Germans came in and took
> over the place. In popular lore in the Midwest, most of the German
> settlers were Rhinelanders but there were a lot of Bavarians and
> later on, Russian Germans (in the Dakotas).

Most of them Protestants

> My German ancestors were all from the Rhine valley or nearby,
> although many were actually Huguenots.

Ie. political refugees from France. We had a contingent of them in
Fredericia.

> There was also a large German component in Pennsylvania, starting
> in 1683 and a smaller component in western Virginia c. 1720. Given
> that areas of German settlement and Scots-Irish settlement
> generally overlapped, German settlers adoptions of an acrolect form
> of local Scots-Irish influenced English would have ensured that /r/
> was maintained.

What happened to your school-marm theory? You've decided to opt for
something more local?

> On the Atlantic Coast, there are only 2 rhotic dialects:
> Philadelphia and Baltimore.
> Philadelphia was first settled by the Welsh and West country
> English, then by Germans and Scots-Irish.
> Maryland was originally a Catholic colony with a lot of Irish.

You've used that argument before. In the meantime, I've brought in
Labov's contention that NYC was once rhotic. Shouldn't you be arguing
against that to uphold your original restriction of rhoticness to
Philadelphia and Baltimore? Besides, Brooklynese /oi/ (in 'toity' etc)
must be from /&r`/ (with retroflex r), not non-rhotic /&:/, languages,
if they diphthongize, do so in a series, not in a single monophthong.


Torsten