al27052 writes:
> People from hotter climates tend to speak their vowels more loudly, and give
> them full breath support, somewhat like an opera singer does.
Unless you’re an expert in phonetics and have done a vastly more extensive survey than anyone I’ve ever heard of, you’re not qualified to say this.
al27052, you keep referring to your own self-assessed expertise in such matters, despite lacking formal credentials. Which is fine, but would you be up for a test of your ability to identify accents, accent features, and such?
You’re ALL right!
See A History of the English Language by Baugh & Cable. Explains the entire process, including the influences of meddling grammarians, in the last third of the book. It’s the archaeology of the English language. May be a bit dry for some, but if this is your thing, it’s a page-turner.
Actually, I’m probably at least as well-qualified as an expert in phonetics.
The reason you don’t understand this is because you probably have no professional musical training. A good professional musician, particularly one with a background in classical voice, can hear nuances of tone quality and timbre that no garden-variety phoneticist would be able to, at least not without years of training or some kind of scientific instrument.
I don’t know how to easily prove this to you, but I assure you, it’s quite true. The fact that you almost certainly don’t have any friends with years of classical musical training, especially in voice, makes it kind of difficult.
I don’t mean that to sound arrogant, it’s just a fact. I know it sounds arrogant, but I can’t control that.
I derive an almost physical pleasure from listening to sounds with beautiful tone quality. I can describe and point out subtle qualities of timbre in my favorite musical sounds that only someone with my talent, training, and love of music can easily hear. And that’s just that. I don’t know how to prove it, but that’s factual.
I’m not sure I’m interested in proving it, either, unless I don’t have to think too hard to come up with a good way. I’m quite secure in the quality of my musical ear, and don’t need to prove it to anyone, you know?
Sure. Why not?
Being a professional musician does not mean that you can say anything about phonetics, and furthermore you have not done a survey of enough different languages to make any claim about the correlation between the climate and quality of vowels.
And your training in music involves what, exactly?
I guarantee you any good opera singer and/or teacher of classical voice would confirm EVERYTHING I’ve said about the difference in vowel sounds immediately. Classically-trained vocalists live and die by tone quality, timbre, and pronunciation, especially vowel pronunciation. It’s their bread and butter.
I am a trained pianist and percussionist, but I have intense passion for tone quality and timbre; that make me highly focused on those things in ALL contexts, including everyday speech.
In addition, I’m a good natural mimic, and love trying to guess locations from accents. I’ve gotten quite good at it over the years. I can hear the difference between Vietnamese, Japanese, and Chinese accents, between Costa Rican, Spanish, and Mexican accents, and I can distinguish literally dozens of regional US accents, as well as quite a few European accents.
al27052, show us a published piece of research (in a refereed journal) on the subject of the relationship between the average temperature of a region and the vowel quality of the languages spoken there. Otherwise you have nothing. People are constantly coming up with half-baked theories and convincing themselves with their personal observations that these theories are true. This is because they only notice the cases which support their theories and unconsciously ignore the cases which contradict it.
I already posted the link.
You can be as skeptical as you want. Your skepticism doesn’t serve to help you learn anything here, though, because I don’t find instructing you to be worth my while. 
Ok, I will set this up soon. (The samples I use will be easily Google-able, but I trust you will have the integrity to refrain from doing so.)
Sounds like a good challenge.
(Bolding mine)
Who can’t?
With practice? Most people can. You’d be surprised how many Americans lack that practice, though.
Also, a lot of older people in general are extremely resistant to learning new languages. Their brains lose the ability as they get older, and they also have cultural/racial prejudices, in many cases. Almost no Americans over age 70 can hear the difference, would be my guess.
Whoops, I totally forgot about this…
I come from Appalachia and I’ve been attuned to the dialect in my home culture for some time. (Hey, for a relief–I mean lighter read–about dialects, try linguist Walt Wolfram. I’ve been reading him lately for data and analysis of Appalachian, specifically Upper Midlands dialect.)
Anyway, yes, as Lamia points out, that’s at least one AmerEnglish dialect that has clear and numerous ties to old Scots-Irish. The accent is close, but even more obvious are the lexical similarities. Words historically used in Scotland are still used in Upper Appalachian today. When I took southern california college friends “back home” with me, they couldn’t understand waiters, clerks, or even my parents at times. When my mom tried 5 times to tell them she’d be reddin’ out t’press, everyone was dumbfounded.
My ancestors into the hills here so long ago that sometimes we can’t trace backgrounds. Of course, there was a lot of obfuscation of origins throughout their history.
I’d guess the distant past settlement history and subsequent geographical and strong cultural isolation is what set Scots-Irish permanently.
How long ago did your ancestors come to America? Were they from the pioneer generations that settled in and sometimes fought with the Native Americans with “their” land? I’m guessing it would be sometime in either the 17th or 18th centuries, but that’s a 200 year time frame. My “ancestors” came to the United States in 1979, so I’m a recent arrival. =)
Hmmm… The Scots-Irish were British. English, Scots, Welsh and those from Northern Ireland (where the Scots-Irish (Ulster Scots) came from) were British.
The Scots-Irish didn’t start arriving in America until the 1700s, so who was colonising the first Southern States?
I think maybe the English played some part in the early colonies, a look at the first US census in 1790 gives some interesting stats on the demographics of the USA at that time.
As can be seen from the results, the British made up 74.3%+ of the population of European descent, 60.9% being English (and presumably Welsh) and 14.3% being of either Scots-Irish or Scots heritage. Then, 8.7% German, 5.4% Dutch, French and Swedish combined, 3.7% Irish and 7% unidentified.
Quite how accurate such a survey was can probably be questioned, but it must give some idea of the make up of the early USA?
Therefore, presumably the various different English dialects brought to America must have had some influence on the development on Southern and other American accents?
Hmmm… The Scots-Irish were British. English, Scots, Welsh and those from Northern Ireland (where the Scots-Irish (Ulster Scots) came from) were British.
The Scots-Irish didn’t start arriving in America until the 1700s, so who was colonising the first Southern States?
I think maybe the English played some part in the early colonies, a look at the first US census in 1790 gives some interesting stats on the demographics of the USA at that time.
As can be seen from the results, the British made up 74.3%+ of the population of European descent, 60.9% being English (and presumably Welsh) and 14.3% being of either Scots-Irish or Scots heritage. Then, 8.7% German, 5.4% Dutch, French and Swedish combined, 3.7% Irish and 7% unidentified.
Quite how accurate such a survey was can probably be questioned, but it must give some idea of the make up of the early USA?
Therefore, presumably the various different English dialects brought to America must have had some influence on the development on Southern and other American accents?