Re: American Dutch dialects, re-correction

--- On Sat, 2/28/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> From: tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
> Subject: [tied] Re: American Dutch dialects, re-correction
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, February 28, 2009, 3:04 PM
> > > > 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

In the mid-late 1800s about 50/50. In Ohio, probably half the German-Americans are Catholic

>
>
> > 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?

Local school marms recruited from educated locals, pastors's daughters, etc. until the early to mid-1800s when every nook and cranny had a rudimentary "college," many of which, unfortunately, are still teaching that the earth is flat and that humans came from pigs, not monkeys

>
> > 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