Re: Bastille Day - New cover

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 07:16:23 -0600, Les Cargill
<lcargill99@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

DeeAa wrote:
On 23 marras, 05:13, dvaoa<dv...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Along the same lines, a "fillet" of fish is pronounced "fill-let" in
England, whereas "fi-lay" in France& the US. In Canada you hear

Yep..and my own pronunciation is a happy mixture of Br/Am spelling,
also in writing.

The funny thing, IMO, is that while Shakespeare's plays are usually
thought best performed, or I'm guessing that's the general idea - with
a very British accent, in fact the language in England in the
16th-17th century was much closer to today's American English than the
so called Queen's English or RP English taught in schools.

Isn't that weird? 'Course, which American English? There are a few.

Wow, what a compilation! I studied cartography in college in the
70's. Projects involved dreaming up uses for maps. Never would've
dreamed this one up though especially with the connection to youtube.

I'm eastern canadian and when I was working in a pub in London,
England way back everyone thought I was from california. They were
expecting a new england type accent which is only common in the
southwest area of nova scotia. Listening to some west coast clips,
excluding SF Bay area I can see why. We sound the same.

It is due to the language not having changed that much in the US due
to its nature as a 'melting pot' of various people, dialects and
languages post that era, while in England the language has, perhaps
quite intentionally, been honed to differentiate more from French, by
putting more emphasis on its scandic and saxon aspects, sharper
consonants and more careful pronunciation of certain sounds.

So an American thespian likely produces a linguistically more accurate
Shakespeare rendition than a British scholar :-)