6 ms·

I remember reading on some listicle website that the original English accent used by the commoners in that time period was much closer to the modern American ac

I remember reading on some listicle website that the original English accent used by the commoners in that time period was much closer to the modern American accent. Something about how the accents of colonies tend to become fixed in time. And a quick google for "original english accent american" turns up a few links supporting that idea. I'm trying to reconcile that with this here. Is this performance based on newer, more nuanced evidence? Or maybe this is more specifically the accent of Londoners, while the average rural Englishman would be closer to the American accent? Or perhaps what he was speaking really is very close to the modern American accent and I just have a tin ear (definitely shouldn't rule that out!)? Moreover, I'm curious how one finds evidence to support what historic accents were like. It's not like it shows up in writing, after all. Is it by studying all the accents of the neighbors and trying to extrapolate? Maybe someone stumbled across a 17th century pronunciation guide? robotmay on here commented that some of the puns and rhymes only work in this sort of accent, which is a particularly clever way of gathering evidence.

eaguyhn 8y ago
There was a documentary produced back in the 1980's called, "The Story of English" and it explored the origins and evolution of the language. Episodes 2 and 3 focus on Chaucer, Shakespeare, and the arrival of Raleigh in America. Cool stuff :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UG6vHXArlk&list=PL6D54D1C7DAE31B36 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UG6vHXArlk&list=PL6D54D1C7D...
bootsz 8y ago
Yeah, there's the Tangier Island in Virginia where people have an accent that some claim is closer to the English accent spoken in pre-colonial times: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16320595 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16320595
- rootbear 8y ago
  I've been to Tangier and the accent there is truly strange. It has a very archaic sound, for sure. And it's not just the accent, there are grammatical differences as well. One branch of my family is from the Great Smoky Mountains region of Appalachia. The accents and speech there also have archaic features due to isolation and influences from Scottish, Irish, and Welsh settlers. Some years ago, I read Ben's father David Crystal's book "Pronouncing Shakespeare" and it has a whole chapter on how they reconstructed the original pronunciation. In Shakespeare's time, they did, in fact, write about elocution quite a bit, and some clues come from there. And, as others have noted, you see rhymes and puns show up when you revert to the old pronunciations. As I recall, Crystal claimed that he thinks they got it at least 80% right.
  - thaumasiotes 8y ago
    > It has a very archaic sound, for sure. How can you tell the difference between a strange archaic accent and a strange innovative accent?
  - luxpir 8y ago
    On Americans with (fossilised) British accents: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxVOIj7mvWI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxVOIj7mvWI
BjoernKW 8y ago
Well, it's not entirely unlike a general American accent. First of all, it's rhotic. Then, some of the vowels sound more American than their contemporary English / British counterparts. Apart from a few dropped h's, which could be attributed to London, where Shakespeare spent much of his life, it's not unlikely that colonists in North America sounded pretty much like this. It's been more than 400 years since then and languages change over time, sometimes drastically so. One way to research accents is by examining language in poems, (if these exist for the time and language), rhymes in particular. Another is by analogy and extrapolation. Writing systems and their development over time can help, too, if there's some sort of phoneme-grapheme mapping in the language at hand.
- sorokod 8y ago
  I believe that there is a well documented dynamic for geographically spread languages where the periphery changes slower then the core.
  - gerbilly 8y ago
    It's true of Québec French compared to the mainland pronunciation. We still speak an offshoot of 18th century French. [1] [1] In fact contemporary commenters in the 18th century used to say how indistinguishable Canadian French was compared to the French spoken in France.
    - thaumasiotes 8y ago
      > We still speak an offshoot of 18th century French. Obviously, but so do the people in France.
      - gerbilly 8y ago
        Ok, but the rate of change since the 18th century has been slower than in France especially in Paris.
        8y ago
bena 8y ago
I mean, most of what we think of as "the English accent" is pretty much a contrived accent to begin with. Received Pronunciation (or BBC English) is just that. You learn it. Kind of like the Mid-Atlantic accent you hear in old movies. It is kind of weird, there are several accents basically created to give the illusion of class.
- slfnflctd 8y ago
  It's not only about class, though, these accents tend to be easier to understand-- a particularly useful trait for audio recordings.
lainga 8y ago
>It's not like it shows up in writing, after all. In fact, that's one of the ways Shakespeare's English was reconstructed: by finding rhymes or probable puns in his and contemporary texts that would make sense with one pronunciation but not another.
mseebach 8y ago
> Something about how the accents of colonies tend to become fixed in time It's about isolation. Colonies tend to be far away and difficult to travel to and from. So the american colonies only had what they brought with them, and a relatively thin trickle of trans-atlantic traffic, while England remained knee deep in European culture and the linguistic influences that come with it. A few hundred years of that leaves a deep mark.
- Mediterraneo10 8y ago
  > It's about isolation. Not necessarily. An innovative center and conservative periphery is commonly observed even in language families where the center is far from trade routes, while on the periphery the languages are spoken in territories along major trade routes.
abritinthebay 8y ago
I feel the similarity of the American and older English accents is played up - it's mainly similar due to rhotic vs non-rhotic. Also, of course, you then have to ask what American accents anyhow - Georgia vs Texas vs Vermont vs.. etc. To my (admittedly English) ear the linked speech sounds like broad English but with the rhotic/non-rhotic change reversed.

eaguyhn 8y ago

There was a documentary produced back in the 1980's called, "The Story of English" and it explored the origins and evolution of the language. Episodes 2 and 3 focus on Chaucer, Shakespeare, and the arrival of Raleigh in America. Cool stuff :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UG6vHXArlk&list=PL6D54D1C7DAE31B36 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UG6vHXArlk&list=PL6D54D1C7D...

bootsz 8y ago

Yeah, there's the Tangier Island in Virginia where people have an accent that some claim is closer to the English accent spoken in pre-colonial times: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16320595 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16320595

rootbear 8y ago
I've been to Tangier and the accent there is truly strange. It has a very archaic sound, for sure. And it's not just the accent, there are grammatical differences as well. One branch of my family is from the Great Smoky Mountains region of Appalachia. The accents and speech there also have archaic features due to isolation and influences from Scottish, Irish, and Welsh settlers. Some years ago, I read Ben's father David Crystal's book "Pronouncing Shakespeare" and it has a whole chapter on how they reconstructed the original pronunciation. In Shakespeare's time, they did, in fact, write about elocution quite a bit, and some clues come from there. And, as others have noted, you see rhymes and puns show up when you revert to the old pronunciations. As I recall, Crystal claimed that he thinks they got it at least 80% right.
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  > It has a very archaic sound, for sure. How can you tell the difference between a strange archaic accent and a strange innovative accent?
- luxpir 8y ago
  On Americans with (fossilised) British accents: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxVOIj7mvWI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxVOIj7mvWI

BjoernKW 8y ago

Well, it's not entirely unlike a general American accent. First of all, it's rhotic. Then, some of the vowels sound more American than their contemporary English / British counterparts. Apart from a few dropped h's, which could be attributed to London, where Shakespeare spent much of his life, it's not unlikely that colonists in North America sounded pretty much like this. It's been more than 400 years since then and languages change over time, sometimes drastically so. One way to research accents is by examining language in poems, (if these exist for the time and language), rhymes in particular. Another is by analogy and extrapolation. Writing systems and their development over time can help, too, if there's some sort of phoneme-grapheme mapping in the language at hand.

sorokod 8y ago
I believe that there is a well documented dynamic for geographically spread languages where the periphery changes slower then the core.
- gerbilly 8y ago
  It's true of Québec French compared to the mainland pronunciation. We still speak an offshoot of 18th century French. [1] [1] In fact contemporary commenters in the 18th century used to say how indistinguishable Canadian French was compared to the French spoken in France.
  - thaumasiotes 8y ago
    > We still speak an offshoot of 18th century French. Obviously, but so do the people in France.
    - gerbilly 8y ago
      Ok, but the rate of change since the 18th century has been slower than in France especially in Paris.
      - 8y ago

bena 8y ago

I mean, most of what we think of as "the English accent" is pretty much a contrived accent to begin with. Received Pronunciation (or BBC English) is just that. You learn it. Kind of like the Mid-Atlantic accent you hear in old movies. It is kind of weird, there are several accents basically created to give the illusion of class.

slfnflctd 8y ago
It's not only about class, though, these accents tend to be easier to understand-- a particularly useful trait for audio recordings.

lainga 8y ago

>It's not like it shows up in writing, after all. In fact, that's one of the ways Shakespeare's English was reconstructed: by finding rhymes or probable puns in his and contemporary texts that would make sense with one pronunciation but not another.

mseebach 8y ago

> Something about how the accents of colonies tend to become fixed in time It's about isolation. Colonies tend to be far away and difficult to travel to and from. So the american colonies only had what they brought with them, and a relatively thin trickle of trans-atlantic traffic, while England remained knee deep in European culture and the linguistic influences that come with it. A few hundred years of that leaves a deep mark.

Mediterraneo10 8y ago
> It's about isolation. Not necessarily. An innovative center and conservative periphery is commonly observed even in language families where the center is far from trade routes, while on the periphery the languages are spoken in territories along major trade routes.

abritinthebay 8y ago

I feel the similarity of the American and older English accents is played up - it's mainly similar due to rhotic vs non-rhotic. Also, of course, you then have to ask what American accents anyhow - Georgia vs Texas vs Vermont vs.. etc. To my (admittedly English) ear the linked speech sounds like broad English but with the rhotic/non-rhotic change reversed.