Re: American Dutch dialects

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 3/8/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> > From: tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
> > Subject: [tied] Re: American Dutch dialects
> > To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Sunday, March 8, 2009, 4:49 AM
> > > > > They would have studied in the capital BUT
> > there were no real
> > > > > doctors where my family lived. You had to go
> > to the capital by
> > > > > car or train.
> > > >
> > > > He either had direct or indirect contact with NYC and
> > > > spoke some predecessor of General American, or he did
> > > > neither. You can't have it both ways.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Torsten
> > >
> > > The problem is that General American English sounds nothing
> > > like NYC English. I don't think you could persuade anyone
> > > except a die-hard Yankees fan otherwise.
> >
> > No, the problem is you think today's NYC English after
> > the massive immigration of the late 19th - early 20th
> > century is identical to that of the early 19th century.
>
> I imgagine that earlier NYC was even farther removed from General
> American English.

Yes, you probably imagine that. How would you back up that belief?
And if so, then General American, coming from the country, should lately have exerted a major influence on the NYC dialect. How likely do you find that idea?

> Keep in mind that NYC was NOT the major immigrant port until c.
> 1830 or so.

That's right. And the dialects that came first are naturally those you find furthest out on the country. And those are not General American.


Torsten