actually, taken from a historical perspective, American english is hardly a bastardization; if anything, one could make a better case for american english being "purer" than the british english of today: some southern dialects in the Carolinas** are the closest living dialects to that spoken by shakespeare*; almost all the dialects retain archaic features and terms (rhoticism being the most prominent), to varying degrees, and lastly, they are older than modern british english, which in only ~200 yesr old. most dialects in the US east of the mississipi, as well as canadian english, are anywhere from ~400 to ~250 years old. so no, pver schwa'd a's and missing postvocalic r's are not features of a "pure" dialect-just the features of one of many dialects. besides, I find the idea of "bastardized" and "pure" to be entirely pointless. am I going to go to an egyptian and tell him my dialect is purer because I use wala instead of yala?
*no, I'm not making it up-they often pronounce things in an archaic manner: check this out: http://www.renfaire.com/Language/ . it is confirmed by wikipedia, and any entry of "great vowel shift")
**some, not all varieties.
@stalexon: yeah, yeah, when you lose you respond with petty jabs![]()
Bookmarks