Well, that makes a lot of sense about Caxton, who would probably be known as “Thomas Caskton” if it weren’t for all those ignorant, lazy Anglo-Africans, mangling his name all the time.
Thanks for the etymology lesson.
This is great stuff folks! There is some great information here!
Max
It appears in North African dialects as well, although the default in general is d. I think again in Yemani it crops up, but is also unstable. But this is impressionistic reporting.
On pseudo boy:
Sometimes it is impossible to alleviate rotting ignorance, I would advise then perhaps standard treatment for gangrene.
Either the big C just got whoosed, or I did.
Okay so there’s an internet dialect where “definately” is correct or at the very least acceptable when communicating? Where does being ignorant end and something being a dialect begin?
**
This has nothing to do with the subject at hand. We are talking about speech. Speech and writing are two distinct forms of communication. Spelling is an element of the latter, not the former.
Dialects do not grow out of ignorance, although I suspect your posts do. A dialect is a language spoken by a group of people that has an internally consistent grammar and is distinguished from other dialects by features of this grammar as well as other speech elements such as vocabulary and pronounciation. Barring abnormal isolation or mental handicap no one grows up ignorant of their own dialect, although they may well grow up ignorant of the acrolect (“standard” or privledged dialect, e.g. SEV in the US) or some of its features.
Hah!
I once had a friend named Faith, who dated an Algerian. All the Algerians called her Face. They obviously did not have [symbol]q[/symbol]. Eventually we all started calling her Face.
One thing the Maghribis can do, that most other Arabs can’t, is articulate the unvoiced /p/. I think it’s because they all grew up speaking French (instead of drinking “Bibsi”).
Tom never fails us. Just when the thread was getting interesting, we get treated to sanctimony. “[Your] opinion is simply wrong.” Good grief. No, you’re not smug or anything.
That opinion is wrong, and doesn’t really belong in GQ. There is no causal relationship between dialect and intelligence. Perhaps some dialects are associated with having a lower level of education, but that’s a correlation… low intelligence doesn’t affect your dialect or ability to use language, and trying to judge someone’s intelligence based on their dialect is an exercise in futility (and bigotry).
-fh
Oh, istara, one more thing about the “dark l” going to [w]. This is found in some Ebonics pronunciations, following the [u} vowel sound. The effect is to lengthen the vowel, making the [l] seem to disappear altogether. Examples—
cool > /ku:w/
school > /sku:w/
Just yesterday I happened to see Mary Poppins again, in which Dick Van Dyke did an abominably bad imitation of a Cockney accent. When singing “Chim Chim Cher-ee” he accidentally wound up sounding “Ebonic” at one point.
In Ebonics, “cool” sounds exactly like the Cockney exclamation “koo!” and is used in the same way.
One can debate where the OP “belongs,” but opinions expressed by subsequent posters that you think are “wrong” belong here as much as those you happen to agree with.
They also say hooowme instead of home, gumband instead of rubber band, rett up a room instead of clean, dahntahn instead of downtown, upstreet instead of down the block and iceelite instead of beer, but we love them anyway. 
Hedra–“code switching” just about exactly as you describe is built in and explicitly codified in Japanese (and probably some other languages); it’s described in depth in studies of Japanese, as well as texts for learning Japanese. It makes Japanese devilishly hard to learn, even for the Japanese themselves; it’s so complex that it has to be studied deliberately; kids aren’t expected to just “pick it up” the way the do code switching in English. At it’s most complex level, it’s called keigo, but it crops up in everyday speech. Even with the same people, the level of speech changes with the situation.
rostfrei–I’m just assuming you’re yanking our chains. You forgot to mention those damn krauts naming their kids things like Ulrich, Ottfried, and Werner. What the heck kind of idiot names his kid Gerhard? I think it’s just stupidity.
The same idiot who would have named his kid Vullfgangg?
Thif hole discushun ith makin me bery hunry, I fink Ile go make a sammich.
The OP was a genuine question. GQ is the appropriate Forum. rostfrei’s comment was pure opinion. Whether it belongs here is, itself, arguable. (I am not one to insist that opinions be barred from GQ). However, that expressed opinon of rostfrei is, in fact, in error–colloquially, “wrong”–as the evidence provided by multiple posters, including those posting before rostfrei, had already demonstrated.
If someone would like to post actual linguistic studies that actually claim that accents and dialects evolve through laziness, that would be material to be considered. Interjecting an unsubtantiated opinion in contradiction to evidence may be summarily dismissed until such time as actual evidence is presented.
As far as the switching back and forth thing, we humans are very adaptable. We seem to even change even our mind set when put into different situations. Case in point, language skills.
I grew up in south/coastal Texas, and we had a thing there we called “Texican,” a strange mix of Southern English, Mexicanized Spanish, and slang.
I was taught Standard English in school (required), and Spanish (elective). The Spanish we were taught in school was Castillian or formal Spanish and was different from what the Hispanic and mixed community around me spoke. But, we could all watch Telemundo or Dan Rather and understand what was going on.
Without formal education in either language, though, I wonder if I would be able to communicate with “mainstream” America? If a child was forced to learn their language from the streets, as it were, or more correctly family and friends, would they be able to speak SEV when situations seem to demand it?
or should I say: sich-ee-a-shns ?
WHOOOA! Hold on there Elmo!
I’ve heard the “gumband” thing, and the “upstreet” thing…
…but “iceelite”???
What’s the origin of that?
Sorry for the highjack.
Calm yourself, Tommy Boy. Taking the earlier posters’ descriptions of all those “linguistic studies” at face value (likely an imprudent step in itself, given how much of what passes in certain fields these days as “research” has less to do with scholarship and more to do with promoting some fad-based educational technique, “celebrating” some dubious cultural phenomenon, or lining the pockets of those who financial self-interests are served when school boards buy into such things), they posit that when one says “axe” rather than “ask,” “dis” rather than “this,” and the like, one is following a pattern sufficiently predictable and rule-bound to merit the characterization “dialect.” Terrific. That observation, thrilling though it is, does nothing to refute the hypothesis (which is all it was touted to be) that certain features of speech might be attributable to “laziness”–perhaps a form of “patterned” (and habitual) laziness, if you will.
I, of course, have no idea if this is correct, but obviously, Tommy Boy, neither do you. You can “summarily dismiss” whatever you like for whatever reason you like, including that it offends your political sensibilities and other deeply-held set of biases rather than some other. But you’d do better to keep an open mind and recognize that any hypothesis based on a fellow poster’s good faith observations is worth exploring. Stick to neutral principles of dialogue here, and don’t fly off the handle just because someone’s hypothesis seems to threaten your cherished notions of how the world is or ought to be.
Whatever your opinions (with their continued lack of external support) of scholarship may be, the point had been made that all the pronunciations in question had been documented in British English long before the settlement of North America or the importation of African slaves to this region. Since people generally speak in the ways that they hear speech as children (and since the documentation for those speech patterns predate any “fad-based educational techniques”), we can safely dismiss any mere opinion that attempts to project (one’s unsubtatntiated beliefs regarding) personal characteristics as to the reaon behind any specific speech.
As to “calming” myself and “flying off the handle”, I will note that I have only judged the quality of statements and, unlike you, have resorted to no personal slurs.
If you wish to provide evidence that the 19th and early 20th century linguists who documented the /-þ/ >> /-f/, / -ð/ >> /-f/, /þ-/ >> /d-/, / ð-/ >> /t-/, and /sk/ >> /ks/ shifts in British pronunciation hundreds of years ago were simply making up ideas to “celebrate” “dubious cultural phenomenon,” please do so. Otherwise, neither unsupported wishes nor personal attacks really belong in this Forum.