3 ms·

Yes, this is basically considered fact. American is old-English. The same with Québécois and French.

jaratec 7y ago
I am not sure about these "facts". Why would quebec accent stay the same for centuries? Languages are unstable, especially their pronunciation. Consider also the extraordinary diversity of accents in uk. Did only one cross the Atlantic?
- thefringthing 7y ago
  It's possible for both dialects to evolve, but at different rates. Present-day Quebecois French is not identical to 17th century French, but it's closer to it than present-day Parisian French is.
  - jeromegv 7y ago
    You can't just make that kind of statement as a fact without providing any kind of source. Read any text from 17th century, languages have evolved quite a bit on both sides of the atlantic. One big reason why Parisian french would be quite different is that colonization to New France did not come from Paris.
  - umanwizard 7y ago
    People say this, but I've always thought it was just another piece of pop badlinguistics nonsense that you hear about practically every language. Do you have a reliable source?
- cultus 7y ago
  Smaller populations very reliably have slower-evolving language. Icelandic is similar to old Norse and old English. Just like you'll hear a lot of Iowan accents in Atlanta but not if you drive 80 miles outside of town. Believe it or not, there is an entire field called linguistics that studies human language and how it evolves.
  - Mediterraneo10 7y ago
    Although Icelandic maintains an orthography close to Old Norse, the value of the letters is very different today indeed. The vowel system, for example, has been greatly restructured. Preaspiration became a quality of the consonants. In terms of lexicon, much of the archaic flavour is actually the result of 19th-century language reformers trying to restore old words. In the meantime, Icelandic had borrowed heavily from Danish. Indeed, there is the field of linguistics, and scholarly treatments of Icelandic (as opposed to pop-sci presentations of the language as a time capsule like yours) point out that Icelandic has undergone a great deal of innovation like any other North Germanic language.
- Tainnor 7y ago
  It's true that languages generally change, but they don't necessarily change equally fast everywhere. See also this answer: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/4033/do-languages-change-at-different-rates https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/4033/do-lang...
foldr 7y ago
This is plainly not the case. The grain of truth here is that certain linguistic features common to many dialects of 16th century British English have been preserved in most dialects of American English, whereas most dialects of British English have lost these features. (E.g., most American English dialects are rhotic.) But there is ample evidence that many aspects of American English have changed in the past few hundred years. Americans are clearly not speaking some kind of fossilized dialect from the 15th century. By the way, the term "Old English" strictly speaking refers to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English. No-one is claiming that Americans speak this language.
paleotrope 7y ago
Yeah, in a way you could consider modern British English to be largely an affectation to denote class distinctions.
- foldr 7y ago
  Because class distinctions didn't exist in 15th century Britain?! This is simply nonsense.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    No, just the particular fads, e.g., the one that drove the change to the non-rhoticity of RP, didn't exist in 15th century Britain. That the current accent is driven by a particular fad aimed at highlighting upper class status doesn't imply that class distinctions are novel, just the particular effort to demarcate them (which wasn't durable, obviously, as RP isn't exclusive to the upper classes.)
    - foldr 7y ago
      Sure, accents are partly markers of social status, but it's quite wrong to ascribe the diversity of accents in Britain to this. There was never a period where everyone in Britain spoke with the same accent.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        > but it's quite wrong to ascribe the diversity of accents in Britain to this. No one, AFAICT, did that. The reference to “modern British English” is not, as I read it, a reference to “the current diversity of British accents”, but rather “the current dominant British accent”.
        foldr 7y ago
        The current dominant British accent, if there is such a thing, isn't a marker of social status. If you're referring to RP, then hardly anyone even speaks RP nowadays (even the Queen only makes a half-assed effort...)
mumblemumble 7y ago
That's a common stereotype of Québécois French, but I think it's more accurate to say that, just like for pretty much all widely spoken languages, there was a lot more regional variation in the French-speaking world a few hundred years ago, but it's been consolidating over time, and different places happened to consolidate differently. IOW, Parisian French also retains some primitive features that have largely disappeared from one Canadian region or another. But we don't talk about those as much. I'm guessing because doing so wouldn't jive well with certain stereotypes about Québec being a backwards hinterland.

I am not sure about these "facts". Why would quebec accent stay the same for centuries? Languages are unstable, especially their pronunciation. Consider also the extraordinary diversity of accents in uk. Did only one cross the Atlantic?

thefringthing 7y ago
It's possible for both dialects to evolve, but at different rates. Present-day Quebecois French is not identical to 17th century French, but it's closer to it than present-day Parisian French is.
- jeromegv 7y ago
  You can't just make that kind of statement as a fact without providing any kind of source. Read any text from 17th century, languages have evolved quite a bit on both sides of the atlantic. One big reason why Parisian french would be quite different is that colonization to New France did not come from Paris.
- umanwizard 7y ago
  People say this, but I've always thought it was just another piece of pop badlinguistics nonsense that you hear about practically every language. Do you have a reliable source?
cultus 7y ago
Smaller populations very reliably have slower-evolving language. Icelandic is similar to old Norse and old English. Just like you'll hear a lot of Iowan accents in Atlanta but not if you drive 80 miles outside of town. Believe it or not, there is an entire field called linguistics that studies human language and how it evolves.
- Mediterraneo10 7y ago
  Although Icelandic maintains an orthography close to Old Norse, the value of the letters is very different today indeed. The vowel system, for example, has been greatly restructured. Preaspiration became a quality of the consonants. In terms of lexicon, much of the archaic flavour is actually the result of 19th-century language reformers trying to restore old words. In the meantime, Icelandic had borrowed heavily from Danish. Indeed, there is the field of linguistics, and scholarly treatments of Icelandic (as opposed to pop-sci presentations of the language as a time capsule like yours) point out that Icelandic has undergone a great deal of innovation like any other North Germanic language.
Tainnor 7y ago
It's true that languages generally change, but they don't necessarily change equally fast everywhere. See also this answer: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/4033/do-languages-change-at-different-rates https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/4033/do-lang...

foldr 7y ago

This is plainly not the case. The grain of truth here is that certain linguistic features common to many dialects of 16th century British English have been preserved in most dialects of American English, whereas most dialects of British English have lost these features. (E.g., most American English dialects are rhotic.) But there is ample evidence that many aspects of American English have changed in the past few hundred years. Americans are clearly not speaking some kind of fossilized dialect from the 15th century. By the way, the term "Old English" strictly speaking refers to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English. No-one is claiming that Americans speak this language.

paleotrope 7y ago

Yeah, in a way you could consider modern British English to be largely an affectation to denote class distinctions.

foldr 7y ago
Because class distinctions didn't exist in 15th century Britain?! This is simply nonsense.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  No, just the particular fads, e.g., the one that drove the change to the non-rhoticity of RP, didn't exist in 15th century Britain. That the current accent is driven by a particular fad aimed at highlighting upper class status doesn't imply that class distinctions are novel, just the particular effort to demarcate them (which wasn't durable, obviously, as RP isn't exclusive to the upper classes.)
  - foldr 7y ago
    Sure, accents are partly markers of social status, but it's quite wrong to ascribe the diversity of accents in Britain to this. There was never a period where everyone in Britain spoke with the same accent.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > but it's quite wrong to ascribe the diversity of accents in Britain to this. No one, AFAICT, did that. The reference to “modern British English” is not, as I read it, a reference to “the current diversity of British accents”, but rather “the current dominant British accent”.
      - foldr 7y ago
        The current dominant British accent, if there is such a thing, isn't a marker of social status. If you're referring to RP, then hardly anyone even speaks RP nowadays (even the Queen only makes a half-assed effort...)

mumblemumble 7y ago

That's a common stereotype of Québécois French, but I think it's more accurate to say that, just like for pretty much all widely spoken languages, there was a lot more regional variation in the French-speaking world a few hundred years ago, but it's been consolidating over time, and different places happened to consolidate differently. IOW, Parisian French also retains some primitive features that have largely disappeared from one Canadian region or another. But we don't talk about those as much. I'm guessing because doing so wouldn't jive well with certain stereotypes about Québec being a backwards hinterland.