Science and Technology news... :: View topic - Why does the North American accent differ so much from the B

Makoto Taniguchi · Guest

I was wondering, why does the North American accent (mainstream, not
ebonics) differ so much from the British? when you look at other
countries like New Zealand or Australia, you can clearly see a British
element to their accent. So why does the North American accent differ
so much from the other Anglo-occupied countries?

TWINBLUE · Guest

[quote]I was wondering, why does the North American accent (mainstream, not
ebonics) differ so much from the British? when you look at other
countries like New Zealand or Australia, you can clearly see a British
element to their accent. So why does the North American accent differ
so much from the other Anglo-occupied countries?
[/quote]
Oh I say! It is very likely because those other countries had so many British
immigrants and the US had a great many
other nationalities besides.

TWINBLUE

Representative Trantis · Guest

"Makoto Taniguchi" <bartron2k2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bpoalm$2chp$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
[quote]I was wondering, why does the North American accent (mainstream, not
ebonics) differ so much from the British? when you look at other
countries like New Zealand or Australia, you can clearly see a British
element to their accent. So why does the North American accent differ
so much from the other Anglo-occupied countries?

[/quote]
An educated guess would be that other British colonies had a large
anglo-saxon population. Canada, Australia and New Zealand had a lot of anglo
imigrants, since they remained part of the British empire. the USA didn>t
and as a result it gained imigrants from countries other than Britain. These
others, mostly european, spoke other european languages. Hence they
contributed to a less Anglo sounding accent.

(Just an educated guess).

Guest

In article <bpoalm$2chp$1@darwin.ediacara.org>,
Makoto Taniguchi <bartron2k2@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]I was wondering, why does the North American accent (mainstream, not
ebonics) differ so much from the British? when you look at other
countries like New Zealand or Australia, you can clearly see a British
element to their accent. So why does the North American accent differ
so much from the other Anglo-occupied countries?
[/quote]
The explanation is obviously that the British consume lots of marmite,
and the Australians have a counterpart, vegemite. As Canadians and
Americans aren>t into either, their accent has diverged. Thus the
correlation is perfect, indicating that we need look no further for
an explanation. The argument is just as strong as many of those advocated
on this newsgroup as explaining evolution of various traits.

--
Joe Felsenstein joe@removethispart.gs.washington.edu
Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington,
Box 357730, Seattle, WA 98195-7730 USA

John Edser · Guest

[quote]MT:-
I was wondering, why does the North American accent (mainstream, not
ebonics) differ so much from the British? when you look at other
countries like New Zealand or Australia, you can clearly see a British
element to their accent. So why does the North American accent differ
so much from the other Anglo-occupied countries?
[/quote]
JF:-
The explanation is obviously that the British consume lots of marmite,
and the Australians have a counterpart, vegemite. As Canadians and
Americans aren>t into either, their accent has diverged. Thus the
correlation is perfect, indicating that we need look no further for
an explanation. The argument is just as strong as many of those advocated
on this newsgroup as explaining evolution of various traits.

JE:-
"Explaining evolution of various traits" is sailing
very close to discussing causation within the sciences; something
you suggested you would never do. I think everybody agrees that
a correlation is not a theory of cause and affect. Science only
uses correlations to inspire the inductive invention of theories
of causation. Sir Karl Popper simply suggested that all suggested
causative theories must provide valid points of refutation
as well as valid points of verification (here valid means logically
possible). If you suggest that marmite and vegemite are causative
to accents then you have created a theory of causation.
The problem is, you have not provided a single point of
refutation for that theory even if "the correlation is perfect,
indicating that we need look no further for
an explanation ". Thus the theory is not rejected
because you only suggested it as a joke, but because zero points
of refutation were presented. The same problem exists within
the _consistent_ misuse of over simplified models within evolutionary
that are used to contest and win against the theory they were
simplified from (which of course is just an absurdity),
e.g. Hamilton>s rule. Hamilton>s thinking entirely dominates
evolutionary theory, to this very day. I have asked, for over
four years, for points of refutation to be provided for Hamilton>s
proposed selective road map. None have ever been provided, by yourself
or anybody else here.

Best Wishes,

John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@ozemail.com.au

John Wilkins · Guest

<joe@remoevthispart.gs.washington.edu> wrote:

[quote]In article <bpoalm$2chp$1@darwin.ediacara.org>,
Makoto Taniguchi <bartron2k2@hotmail.com> wrote:
I was wondering, why does the North American accent (mainstream, not
ebonics) differ so much from the British? when you look at other
countries like New Zealand or Australia, you can clearly see a British
element to their accent. So why does the North American accent differ
so much from the other Anglo-occupied countries?

The explanation is obviously that the British consume lots of marmite,
and the Australians have a counterpart, vegemite. As Canadians and
Americans aren>t into either, their accent has diverged. Thus the
correlation is perfect, indicating that we need look no further for
an explanation. The argument is just as strong as many of those advocated
on this newsgroup as explaining evolution of various traits.
[/quote]
American accents preserve a degree of middle and north country English
accents of the 17th and 18th centuries, as well as having a strong Irish
influence.

And this is on-topic only to the extent that it explains why G.C.
Williams is in such agreement with Maynard Smith and the Haldane school
of evolutionary theory.

And Vegemite is *waay* better than Marmite, although I will admit
Marmite can also be used as axle grease if necessary.
--
John Wilkins
DARK IN HERE, ISN>T IT?
wilkins.id.au

Anon. · Guest

Makoto Taniguchi wrote:
[quote]I was wondering, why does the North American accent (mainstream, not
ebonics) differ so much from the British? when you look at other
countries like New Zealand or Australia, you can clearly see a British
element to their accent. So why does the North American accent differ
so much from the other Anglo-occupied countries?

What>s all this? As a Brit, I think you foreigners all sound the same.[/quote]

My guess is that there is variation in the origins of the British
immigrants, and this may have made a large difference. Certainly,
Australian English has a large cockney influence (i.e. from working
class London).

Another point to bear in mind is that accents in Britain are much more
varied than in our former colonies, so what you may think of as sounding
British may be very different to what I think sounds British. The film
Trainspotting springs to mind as an example of a very different accent.

Bob

--
Bob O>Hara

Rolf Nevanlinna Institute
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
Telephone: +358-9-191 23743
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax: +358-9-191 22 779
WWW: http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/

Guest

In <bpr8tu$4gl$1@darwin.ediacara.org>, "Representative Trantis" <a@a.com> writes:
[quote]
"Makoto Taniguchi" <bartron2k2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bpoalm$2chp$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
I was wondering, why does the North American accent (mainstream, not
ebonics) differ so much from the British? when you look at other
countries like New Zealand or Australia, you can clearly see a British
element to their accent. So why does the North American accent differ
so much from the other Anglo-occupied countries?

An educated guess would be that other British colonies had a large
anglo-saxon population. Canada, Australia and New Zealand had a lot of anglo
imigrants, since they remained part of the British empire. the USA didn>t
and as a result it gained imigrants from countries other than Britain. These
others, mostly european, spoke other european languages. Hence they
contributed to a less Anglo sounding accent.

(Just an educated guess).
[/quote]
Educated?

I hear significant differences between voices from England,
Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Australia, Queensland, Canada and New Zealand,
in spite of their common heritage.

Given that the former colonies were invaded a little over 200 years
(eight generations) ago, I wonder whether Darwinian evolution might have
changed anything else in that time.

You do have twelve fingers don>t you?

John Sutherland
Phone & Fax +61 2 4683 1511
9 Meryla Street, Couridjah NSW 2571 Australia

Makoto Taniguchi · Guest

[quote]I hear significant differences between voices from England,
Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Australia, Queensland, Canada and New Zealand,
in spite of their common heritage.
[/quote]
Does Scotland and Ireland really count? I mean I>ve always suspected
that the people of Celtic descent completely outnumbered the
Anglo-Saxon populus.

firstjois · Guest

"Makoto Taniguchi" <bartron2k2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bpoalm$2chp$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
: I was wondering, why does the North American accent (mainstream, not
: ebonics) differ so much from the British? when you look at other
: countries like New Zealand or Australia, you can clearly see a British
: element to their accent. So why does the North American accent differ
: so much from the other Anglo-occupied countries?

I didn>t know there was a "the North American accent." We have hundreds of
different accents here: splinters, off splinters, off splinters. I was
born near Boston, Massachusetts and while living in Texas I was often asked
if I were British. Beauty must be in the ear of the beholder, but most
likely the original settlers must be given blame for the main elements of
each accent.

Also, think of "My Fair Lady" has there ever been a single signature
British accent?

[moderator>s note: I>ve always thought of Auntie Beeb (that is, the
BBC) as the "signature" accent. How about Grytpype-Thynne? - JAH]

Jois
----------------------------------
"Once you know, you know"
The Unified Field of Know Theory

:

TWINBLUE · Guest

[quote]You do have twelve fingers don>t you?
[/quote]
I was just wondering what evolutionary
pressure you have noticed that would tend to make twelve fingers adaptive.

TWINBLUE

Peter F. · Guest

AEVASIVE implicitly refers to a natural principle, and tendency inherent in
all normal (and in most abnormal) individuals. More precisely, it is an in
evloutionary reality "adaptation attracting" principle that fundamentally
helps to_explain_ how and why evolution on this planet has resulted in that
we humans are the most characteristic and extreme example of this
"particular principle of psychobiophysiological patterning'.

[Hence the principle can also be described as: a not so strange "strange
attractor".]

AEVASIVE also encapsulates a definition of the kind of genophenotype that
this evolutionary patterning-principle tends to produce within any
biosphere; That is, the principle that AEVASIVE implies will inevitably and
actually 'be at work' during the phylogeny of any fauna within *every*
Earth-like biosphere *even if*, by chance (e.g. by a string of unusually
unfortunate astrophysical disruptions of the "AEVASIVE phenotype producing"
trend), a species _as AEVASIVE as ours_ would not result.

With the use of a few mathematical symbols the principle might be put as:

O [for "Opportunity type evolutionary pressure(s)"]

"INVERTED U" [-- since no ASCI character]

S [for "selective Hibernation imploring type" Adversity (naturally
'pruning') type evolutionary pressure(s)]

~~> [=approximate vector]

"ambi-advantageously" (correspondingly) adapted genophenotypes.

---
End of 'equation'
---
Here is a fuller, more verbose, definition:

When, as commonly and with significant frequency occurs, one or more
"evolutionary Opportunity" (what "exerts _opportunity type_ evolutionary
pressure")

[O being broadly definable as: _One or more common or frequent environmental
feature(s) - figuring
in the life-time of individuals - that, given a prerequisite
"intrinsic (individual) *genophenotyping* patterning potential" (_intrinsic_
evolutionary Opportunity) and a
preexisting (already genotyped and phenotyped) capacity to take survival
promoting/reproductive advantage of examples {members} of the same category
{IE, IOW, one of two didactically dichetomized into 'concEPTual existence'
super sets} of *evolution causing factors*]

COINCIDES with a "selective Hibernation imploring type" situation (or thus
significantly influential environmental 'setting'), THE COMBINED naturally
selective pressure does on the whole tend to favor the survival and
evolutionary success of sonme (CORRESPONDINGLY) "AMBI-ADVANTAGEOUSLY
adaptive"
mutations and ditto (ambi-advantageously) adapted genophenotypes.

We are the most AEVASIVEly behaving and 'equipped' outcome of this
principle is us!

P

"John Edser" <edser@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:bptbng$o6q$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
[quote]
MT:-
I was wondering, why does the North American accent (mainstream, not
ebonics) differ so much from the British? when you look at other
countries like New Zealand or Australia, you can clearly see a British
element to their accent. So why does the North American accent differ
so much from the other Anglo-occupied countries?

JF:-
The explanation is obviously that the British consume lots of marmite,
and the Australians have a counterpart, vegemite. As Canadians and
Americans aren>t into either, their accent has diverged. Thus the
correlation is perfect, indicating that we need look no further for
an explanation. The argument is just as strong as many of those advocated
on this newsgroup as explaining evolution of various traits.

JE:-
"Explaining evolution of various traits" is sailing
very close to discussing causation within the sciences; something
you suggested you would never do. I think everybody agrees that
a correlation is not a theory of cause and affect. Science only
uses correlations to inspire the inductive invention of theories
of causation. Sir Karl Popper simply suggested that all suggested
causative theories must provide valid points of refutation
as well as valid points of verification (here valid means logically
possible). If you suggest that marmite and vegemite are causative
to accents then you have created a theory of causation.
The problem is, you have not provided a single point of
refutation for that theory even if "the correlation is perfect,
indicating that we need look no further for
an explanation ". Thus the theory is not rejected
because you only suggested it as a joke, but because zero points
of refutation were presented. The same problem exists within
the _consistent_ misuse of over simplified models within evolutionary
that are used to contest and win against the theory they were
simplified from (which of course is just an absurdity),
e.g. Hamilton>s rule. Hamilton>s thinking entirely dominates
evolutionary theory, to this very day. I have asked, for over
four years, for points of refutation to be provided for Hamilton>s
proposed selective road map. None have ever been provided, by yourself
or anybody else here.

Best Wishes,

John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@ozemail.com.au

[/quote]


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Biological Evolution Forum
Page 1 of 1