# Bill the Butcher and the origin of the "Brooklyn accent." **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 10, 2003, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-the-butcher-and-the-origin-of-the-brooklyn-accent/187496 "2003-07-10T16:27:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-the-butcher-and-the-origin-of-the-brooklyn-accent/187496/21 "2003-07-15T03:03:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ruadh \* > **That’s a bit self-contradictory, isn’t it? If the Irish began to adopt English in the 18th or 19th century then presumably a fair number of them would have spoken it by the mid-1800s. In fact, I have in front of me a linguistic map of the 1851 census of Ireland which shows over half of the country to be less than 25% Irish speaking, and roughly over 3/4 of the remaining half to be less than 80% Irish speaking (sorry to bury you in percentages there, but you get the point). Even in the areas where Irish was the first language, most of the younger people - i.e., the people most likely to emigrate - would have been able to speak English by the mid 1800s.** I’m not sure what you mean by contradiction. Are you relating fluency rates prior to emigration to the resulting influence (or lack of) on American English? The quote you referred to might seem to imply that, but I don’t think that’s what is meant. Note the previous reference to _Scots-Irish_ influences on American Appalachian English: Credit is given to English speaking _Anglo-Saxons_ who had previously settled in N. Ireland (mainly Ulster) before becoming the “first wave” of Irish immigrants to America (as opposed to the “True” Scottish and Irish _Celts_, arriving in the “second wave” a century later). The first wave immigrants (the Scots-Irish) were originally from the Scottish lowlands, and spoke some variation of North English dialect (again, in contrast to the highland Gaelic speakers). So obviously, these first wave emigrants were _all_ fluent in English prior to emigrating, no? I don’t know about the fluency rate/percentage of the second wave (True Irish/former Gaelic speakers), but I’d agree with your assertion that most, if not all of them were probably English fluent prior to emigrating. However, I don’t think fluency is the relevant factor in that reference: \*\*That said, I have no idea how much influence they had on American dialects. \*\* Perhaps because of this distinction between _Anglo-Saxon_ and _Celtic_ immigrant groups, many of the influences on American dialects derived from _Hiberno_ English may have been attributed to _Anglo-Saxon_ English, downplaying the “True Irish” Celtic/Gaelic grammar contributions. Here are some examples, sometimes noted as “American _Anglo-Saxon_” (Appalachian dialect): - ng = n: somethin, nothin - I am going to = I’m a fixin to - I want = I am wanting - things = tings Would anyone familiar with Gaelic grammar like a go at these? I’m no expert in any sense, and I’m not familiar at all with the _evolution_ of Hiberno English, especially prior to emigration. These English speaking “Scot-Irish” were in Ulster for about 100 years prior to emigrating. Did they influence the Gaelic-converting-to-English speakers, or vice versa? What changes occured in those 100 years? How did their dialect differ from the English the “True Irish” were converting to? ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-the-butcher-and-the-origin-of-the-brooklyn-accent/187496/22 "2003-07-15T03:40:59Z")
**Satisfying Andy Licious said: It occurs to me that “youse” is being used as a plural “you,” which does not exist in English (“you” standing in for singular or plural"). So then it might have come from a language that has a plural form of "you."** > [@](#): > > Middle English had second-person singular **thou** / **thee** , and second-person plural **ye** / **you**. > > But then the object form **you** displaced the subject form **ye**. > > Then, in the European fashion, we began using **you** as a polite way of addressing one person, rather like French **vous**. > > Eventually **you** drove **thou** out of the language, and as a result: > **Standard English is one of the few languages on the planet not to distinguish singular “you” from plural “you”.** **ruadh said: There is in Hiberno- (Irish-) English, which also tends to pronounce TH as D or T (depending on context).** > [@](#): > > Speakers are clearly uncomfortable about this, and many local varieties have invented new plural forms of **you** , by various means. **Irish English has added the plural-marker “-s” to produce “yous”, which, as “youse” or “yas”, also occurs elsewhere, noticeably in New York City, where it may be due to Irish influence.** [Another tepid vote for the New York/Irish influence.](http://www.linguistlist.org/~ask-ling/archive-1997.10/msg00951.html)\* May be?\* Although the Dutch influence can’t be completely dismissed (they were there first, after all), the Irish interdental similarity, use of **youse** , and many other grammatical influences, deserve noting. Sorry for the overkill, you guys. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2003, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-the-butcher-and-the-origin-of-the-brooklyn-accent/187496/23 "2003-07-15T05:14:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by annaplurabelle \* > **I’m not sure what you mean by contradiction.** I’m referring to the implication that the Irish immigrants of the mid-1800s would not have known English because English only became widespread in Ireland in the 18th and 19th centuries. The mid-1800s are well into the 19th century. > [@](#): > > Credit is given to English speaking _Anglo-Saxons_ who had previously settled in N. Ireland (mainly Ulster) All of “N. Ireland” is in Ulster (although the reverse is not true). > [@](#): > > Here are some examples, sometimes noted as “American _Anglo-Saxon_” (Appalachian dialect): > > - ng = n: somethin, nothin > - I am going to = I’m a fixin to > - I want = I am wanting > - things = tings > > Would anyone familiar with Gaelic grammar like a go at these? I’m familiar with Gaelic grammar. Irish has a distinction between present and present habitual tense which could give rise to a phrase like “I am wanting”. In Hiberno-English “th” is often pronounced “t” and the final “g” in “ng” dropped, although I don’t know what these would have to do with grammar. > [@](#): > > These English speaking “Scot-Irish” were in Ulster for about 100 years prior to emigrating. Did they influence the Gaelic-converting-to-English speakers, or vice versa? What changes occured in those 100 years? How did their dialect differ from the English the “True Irish” were converting to? The plantation of Ulster began in the early 1600s and the English spoken there was certainly influenced by it, although it’s hard to tie it down to a particular time period. See Loreto Todd’s _Green English_ for more details. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-the-butcher-and-the-origin-of-the-brooklyn-accent/187496/24 "2003-07-16T01:00:36Z")
- Originally quoted by ruadh:\* **I’m referring to the implication that the Irish immigrants of the mid-1800s would not have known English because English only became widespread in Ireland in the 18th and 19th centuries. The mid-1800s are well into the 19th century.** Ah. I think we missed each other. I had thought you were referring to the concluding phrase (_"…had little permanent effect on American dialect formation."_) as being a (contradictory) implication that the immigrants weren’t English speakers. This was what I addressed in my last post, which probably didn’t make sense, in light of what you’re saying here. I’d wondered why you stressed the fluency question… Frankly, now I don’t have any idea how you perceive an implication or contradiction just based on the dates cited. Yes, the mid-1800s were in the 19th century. How is it expressed or implied in the cite that the immigrants would not have known English in the mid-1800s, or that the mid-1800s were not the 19th century? In any case, sorry for the mix-up. It wasn’t my intention to imply anything about fluency by posting that passage from the net. I was more focused on the conclusion about impact on American dialect. **I’m familiar with Gaelic grammar. Irish has a distinction between present and present habitual tense which could give rise to a phrase like “I am wanting”. In Hiberno-English “th” is often pronounced “t” and the final “g” in “ng” dropped, although I don’t know what these would have to do with grammar.** I was referring to the way this dialect is attributed to Anglo-Saxon, and yet appears to have Celtic influences. This is what prompted my curiousity about the evolution of English in Ireland prior to the emigration periods mentioned. Thanks for the book recommendation - will do. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-the-butcher-and-the-origin-of-the-brooklyn-accent/187496/25 "2003-07-16T05:06:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by annaplurabelle \* > **Frankly, now I don’t have any idea how you perceive an implication or contradiction just based on the dates cited. Yes, the mid-1800s were in the 19th century. How is it expressed or implied in the cite that the immigrants would not have known English in the mid-1800s, or that the mid-1800s were not the 19th century?** Well, why don’t you tell me what _you_ think the point is of including the information that the Irish didn’t learn English until the 18th or 19th century. In that context (i.e. before the paragraph’s other sentence), I can’t see what else it could be implying. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-the-butcher-and-the-origin-of-the-brooklyn-accent/187496/26 "2003-07-16T09:59:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ruadh \* > \*\*Well, why don’t you tell me what _you_ think the point is of including the information that the Irish didn’t learn English until the 18th or 19th century. In that context (i.e. before the paragraph’s other sentence), I can’t see what else it could be implying. \*\* I can’t speak for the author’s intentions. To me, the passage you referred to makes three points: 1. Most of the True Irish had adopted English by the 19th Century. 2. The True Irish immigration to America began in the mid-1800’s. 3. The True Irish immigration had little impact on AE. I question #3 on its own, but if the passage _implies_ anything about _fluency_, it’s that the Irish immigrants _were_ English speakers by the time they began arriving in America. If, as the author asserts, they did have little impact on AE, it was not related to fluency. Note that it’s an excerpt from a paper about _American_ English Dialects. Read in _that context_, and considering that the author is asserting that the True Irish had little effect on _American_ English, it’s not unusual that he/she wouldn’t mention more than a brief chronology. Poorly written it may be, and it’s already been mentioned in this thread that the author is a dubious source, but AFAIK the dates referred to are accurate. My interest was in learning more about the Irish influence on AE - that was the point in that paper I was questioning. I’m not interested in arguing or defending the author’s writing style. If you read it as implying something else, there’s nothing more I can say about it. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-the-butcher-and-the-origin-of-the-brooklyn-accent/187496/27 "2003-07-16T10:05:42Z")
I never said anything about fluency either, I was simply responding to the passage you quoted on the assumption that Sentence 1 was being used to justify the conclusion reached in Sentence 2. If the author had some other reason for including the information in Sentence 1, it wasn’t clear from the context. That is all. ---
**Author:** ![sugaree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@sugaree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sugaree)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-the-butcher-and-the-origin-of-the-brooklyn-accent/187496/28 "2003-07-16T11:07:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by YPOD \* > \*\* My swag on yous is that is not an English variation, but rather a common mistake that non - English speakers made. If their native tongue had a distinct second person plural, and they were struggling, they may have simply made you plural by adding that “s.” \*\* Pittsburghers have accents that are very different from New Yorkers or people in the urban Northeast in general. A New Yorker once told me that Pittsburgh accents sounded very Southern to her. But Pittsburgh is noted for its second person plural- younse or yunz (never youse). I wonder if this came from our large Ellis Island-era immigrant population- lots of Germans, Italians, and Slavs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-the-butcher-and-the-origin-of-the-brooklyn-accent/187496.md?page=1)