[QUOTE=spoke-]
And yet we have a 1916 sound clip, linked above, in which a man is speaking in a Southern accent identical to some accents heard today. Why haven’t we drifted away from that accent in 92 years? And if we can hold the accent essentially unchanged for 92 years, then why would 220 years be so much more extraordinary?
[/QUOTE]
First of all, I argue strongly against asserting that those recordings are exactly like today’s “Southern accent.” I hear some glide-weakening of /aI/, but it is not nearly as strong as today. He is r-ful in the section I listened to; his /o/ is not fronted. His /E/, as in ‘bet’ is not tripthongized; that is, it’s not pronounced like three separate vowels smooshed together. It is similar to today’s “Southern accent” in cadence and intonation, I’ll admit, along with some vowel stuff. So, I would say 92 years has made quite a difference, and 220 will make much more of a difference. And, further, I cringe at the thought of making any generalizations based on one person, particularly someone like a politician, who is most likely more educated than a typical speaker, giving a speech, which is a speech act that has much different norms than everyday speech.
And even if the 92 year old recording was exactly like today’s accent, that says absolutely nothing about what it was like 220 years ago. Language change does not happen at a constant rate; it has fits and spurts, somethings changing rapidly, while other aspects not at all.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
As for the “Southern accent” being many dialects, well yes, BUT… There are certain markers which are common to many different Southern accents, such that it is not hard to hear the common thread. The average person can hear an accent and identify it as a “Southern accent” even if they can’t identify exactly where the speaker is from, no?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, there are certain markers that are more or less common to most of the dialects in the South. But they are fewer than I think most people realize, and we have not made clear what those aspects are.
I don’t feel that our debate about this minutia is at all helpful in answering this question. I don’t feel that I can confidently state what Washington sounded like because I do not know much about Colonial American English or British English from the same time period, nor do I know enough about Washington’s personal history. These are not my area of study or interest. I just wanted to state that saying Washington would have spoken like a modern day Southerner is naive. Saying he sounded “Southern,” whatever that would have meant for that time period, is probably true.
And, crap, I just realized I was signed in as my husband. This is liberty3701.