“Too far” = “point of unintelligibility”. Your having to resort to a translator or something.
I just defined “thick” by using the word “far,” so obviously they’re related concepts, but the point is that they have meaning only with reference to another identified accent or group of accents, not as an absolute characteristic.
[QUOTE=Stoid]
Sounds good to me.
[/quote]
You just lost the argument and showed your true colours. All along you have been attempting to argue that there is some sort of neutral accent. What you have effectively just conceded is that you just mean the most common.
Stoid, correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are arguing that if you took someone who had been exposed only to, say, Indian English and let them listen to a tape of SAE and a strong Scottish brogue, that they would find the SAE less accented than the brogue. But I don’t think that’s at all true: both accents would seem equally strong to them.
I think it would be interesting to try it and see. Can’t imagine how, though.
No, I agreed that the term “strong” or “thick” could be described as "“at greatest variance to the majority of other native English speakers”, which doesn’t speak to the idea of common or neutral at all, only to the idea of what constitutes thick or strong - especially since, “at greatest variance to the majority of other native english speakers” doesn’t mean that the majority of English speakers all speak alike, only that the variance among their accents is not as great as the variance shown by the person with the accent being described as strong or thick.
For instance, I linked to Billy Connelly speaking in his natural Scottish accent, which is pretty “strong”, and he goes further than his natural accent, doing one that is incredibly “strong” - both his natural accent and the one he takes on varygreatly from the majority of other native English speakers, whether they speak RP, SAE, Brooklynese, Aussie, various Southern, etc, making Billy’s accent “thick” to the ears of most people who speak English, even though they do not all have a common shared accent.
Thanks for answering - I was curious because of JKellyMap’s point in post 72.
But in an alternate world where a Scots accent was what most native English people spoke while an SAE was a small minority accent, a Scots accent would per your accepted definition not be strong or thick, while an SAE would be strong and thick. Yet if you were right about your “SAE is objectively neutral” thing, then there would be the bizarre situation where in this alternate world most English speakers, who you would agree were not speaking with a thick accent, would not be speaking with a neutral accent, while SAE speakers would have a strong accent but be speaking neutral English.
Give it up, for goodness sake.
You can go even more famous - The Beatles retained their Liverpool accents when singing. That’s about as high-profile an example that I can think of right now.
But to really see the point - just listen to, say, a Chinese or Japanese person singing an English-language song. The accent is often so strong that it’s really hard to make out the words.
Whatever accent David Bowie has while singing sure as hell isn’t American, either. And if you listen to Flight of the Conchords doing a riff on Bowie, you can hear that how recognizably non-American it is.
Yup, another good example. A more modern one might be someone like Lily Allen, who has not only a British but a clearly London specific accent when singing.
But that’s not the world we live in.
No it’s not, more’s the pity. Otherwise I, with my naturally Scottish way of speaking, wouldn’t have to deal with all of you with your weirdly thick SAE accents.
You’re correct, of course: we live in a world where the majority of English speakers are American. So what? That doesn’t mean their accent is “neutral”. You started off arguing that SAE was objectively neutral. Now you’re just arguing that there are more Americans than Scots.
Imagine that you were born and raised in rural northern Scotland.
Would you have been able to speak like an American, and if yes, what would that have involved?
Anyway, here’s something from Isaac Asimov’s Treasury of Humor:
The Chats are my plucked chicken refutation.
