4 ms·

>A cockney accent interacting with an RP ear would make Porter and Parker quite similar Not really? The first vowel and third consonant are different in both d

by foldr 7y ago

>A cockney accent interacting with an RP ear would make Porter and Parker quite similar Not really? The first vowel and third consonant are different in both dialects. (Note that while the 't' in Porter is subject to t-glottalization, the 'k' in Parker isn't.)

thaumasiotes 7y ago
> The first vowel and third consonant are different in both dialects. To my eye, each word has no more than two consonants in RP?
- foldr 7y ago
  To your ear you mean? Yes, both dialects are non-rhotic. I mean the third orthographically.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    No, I meant to my eye; I don't speak RP. But what training I have says to analyze e.g. "parker" as CVCV, p-ar-k-er. I don't see more difficulty in saying "ar" is the first vowel in "parker" than in saying "th" is the second consonant in "wither"...
    - foldr 7y ago
      Orthographically speaking, 'p' is the first consonant, 'r' is the second consonant, and 'k' is the third consonant. Phonetically speaking, 'k' is the second consonant.
      - thaumasiotes 7y ago
        Yes, I understand what you're saying. I am curious, though, how you would personally describe orthographic consonant clusters such as "th" and "sh", and how, in your experience, other people usually refer to them.
        kd5bjo 7y ago
        In my experience, the unqualified terms “consonant” and “vowel” unambiguously refer to individual letters, and the terms “consonant sound” and “vowel sound” are used to refer to the noises produced when speaking. Thus, most people I know would refer to both “th” and “sh” as two consonants. This is coming from a general US education with no focus on linguistics, and feels like the sort of thing that may have significant regional variances.
toyg 7y ago
I'm sure that 1) modern inflections were exactly the same 170 years ago, and 2) builders of all ages are extremely precise and well-educated writers that would never mix up their letters. I mean, even RP was barely formalized at that point...
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  RP was in the process of being formalized at that point. It was a BBC project (I exaggerate slightly)[1]. The Queen’s accent used to be distinctly non Received Pronunciation if you listen to early twentieth century recordings. Stone Masons would almost universally have been literate because you need to engrave things. Half assed graffiti could be someone who was less a skilled tradesman than a member of the guild but guild members would have been expected to be able to read the Bible at least. Knowing how to spell your own name is not a big thing if you can read the KJV. And t->k is not a sound shift observed in historical language changes. [1] RP probably received its greatest impetus, however, when it was selected in 1922 by the BBC Advisory Committee on Spoken English as a broadcasting standard – hence the origins of the term BBC English. The Committee believed Standard English, spoken with an RP accent, would be the most widely understood variety of English, both here in the UK and overseas. Members of the committee were also conscious that choosing a regional accent might run the risk of alienating some listeners. https://www.bl.uk/british-accents-and-dialects/articles/received-pronunciation https://www.bl.uk/british-accents-and-dialects/articles/rece...
  - toyg 7y ago
    > RP was in the process of being formalized at that point. It was a BBC project The first record of the term is from 1818 and the second decades later, according to wikipedia, hence why I said "barely formalized". A concept of upper-class English definitely existed, but it was certainly not as precise as what we now know as RP, nor did it match modern RP - it was just in the same ballpark, so to speak. > Knowing how to spell your own name is not a big thing if you can read the KJV. Most labourers today can read much more than the KJV (and probably in a one-off exam, I expect people were not re-tested every other week...) and still mispellings are routine. There are also 15 years between inscription and official recording, and changing name in the UK has always been extremely easy, so there is also the chance that Tom Porter might have tweaked his name to sound different after 15 years around the upper classes.
squiggleblaz 7y ago
There would have been no t-glottalisation in the time period in question. More likely it would have been voiced, like in America or Australia. The idea they could have sounded the same is improbable.

by foldr 7y ago

thaumasiotes 7y ago

> The first vowel and third consonant are different in both dialects. To my eye, each word has no more than two consonants in RP?

foldr 7y ago
To your ear you mean? Yes, both dialects are non-rhotic. I mean the third orthographically.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  No, I meant to my eye; I don't speak RP. But what training I have says to analyze e.g. "parker" as CVCV, p-ar-k-er. I don't see more difficulty in saying "ar" is the first vowel in "parker" than in saying "th" is the second consonant in "wither"...
  - foldr 7y ago
    Orthographically speaking, 'p' is the first consonant, 'r' is the second consonant, and 'k' is the third consonant. Phonetically speaking, 'k' is the second consonant.
    - thaumasiotes 7y ago
      Yes, I understand what you're saying. I am curious, though, how you would personally describe orthographic consonant clusters such as "th" and "sh", and how, in your experience, other people usually refer to them.
      - kd5bjo 7y ago
        In my experience, the unqualified terms “consonant” and “vowel” unambiguously refer to individual letters, and the terms “consonant sound” and “vowel sound” are used to refer to the noises produced when speaking. Thus, most people I know would refer to both “th” and “sh” as two consonants. This is coming from a general US education with no focus on linguistics, and feels like the sort of thing that may have significant regional variances.

toyg 7y ago

I'm sure that 1) modern inflections were exactly the same 170 years ago, and 2) builders of all ages are extremely precise and well-educated writers that would never mix up their letters. I mean, even RP was barely formalized at that point...

barry-cotter 7y ago
RP was in the process of being formalized at that point. It was a BBC project (I exaggerate slightly)[1]. The Queen’s accent used to be distinctly non Received Pronunciation if you listen to early twentieth century recordings. Stone Masons would almost universally have been literate because you need to engrave things. Half assed graffiti could be someone who was less a skilled tradesman than a member of the guild but guild members would have been expected to be able to read the Bible at least. Knowing how to spell your own name is not a big thing if you can read the KJV. And t->k is not a sound shift observed in historical language changes. [1] RP probably received its greatest impetus, however, when it was selected in 1922 by the BBC Advisory Committee on Spoken English as a broadcasting standard – hence the origins of the term BBC English. The Committee believed Standard English, spoken with an RP accent, would be the most widely understood variety of English, both here in the UK and overseas. Members of the committee were also conscious that choosing a regional accent might run the risk of alienating some listeners. https://www.bl.uk/british-accents-and-dialects/articles/received-pronunciation https://www.bl.uk/british-accents-and-dialects/articles/rece...
- toyg 7y ago
  > RP was in the process of being formalized at that point. It was a BBC project The first record of the term is from 1818 and the second decades later, according to wikipedia, hence why I said "barely formalized". A concept of upper-class English definitely existed, but it was certainly not as precise as what we now know as RP, nor did it match modern RP - it was just in the same ballpark, so to speak. > Knowing how to spell your own name is not a big thing if you can read the KJV. Most labourers today can read much more than the KJV (and probably in a one-off exam, I expect people were not re-tested every other week...) and still mispellings are routine. There are also 15 years between inscription and official recording, and changing name in the UK has always been extremely easy, so there is also the chance that Tom Porter might have tweaked his name to sound different after 15 years around the upper classes.

squiggleblaz 7y ago

There would have been no t-glottalisation in the time period in question. More likely it would have been voiced, like in America or Australia. The idea they could have sounded the same is improbable.