Language desk
< May 17	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 18

Accents in English

Is there something like a "British accent?" (or it has to be Scottish, English and so on).
Is there something like a South African accent? (considering that they have a dozen or so different languages).
Is there something like an African accent? (when using English as a foreign language)
Is there something like a European accent? (when using English as a foreign language) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmanRF34 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a native British English speaker I'd say yes to all the above, with the possible exception of number 1 where not only the separate countries have different accents but also the different regions, cities, areas have their own accent. However, this is tending to break down somewhat as children are exposed more to RP and American accents on television, and they grow up sounding much the same. I can tell the difference between someone from South Africa, Zimbabwe, Australia, New Zealand or Canada when they are speaking English. I can also tell the difference between someone from these countries and someone from Europe when speaking English. The difference between South African English and African English is because of the Afrikaans influence I believe: there is a big difference between these two "varieties" of English. Where I have trouble distinguishing is between different parts of Africa - sub-Saharan versus West Coast or East Coast, for example - and different parts of Europe: I can get Germanic, French, Spanish, Italian and "Eastern European" English. All of this is, of course pure OR but I don't think my experience is unique. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say definite no to 1, 3 and 4. I don't know enough SAffers to answer 2, but I can hear massive and specific regional variations in each of the three I've answered. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From an American point of view, I would say

1) Yes there is a "British accent", though purists would distinguish between Scottish, Welsh, English, and even different classes of English people (I have heard of a Cockney accent, an "Oxford" accent, and a "Cambridge" accent, etc.) But if you watch any American show which depicts British people, they typically adopt some amorphous accent that is clearly not American--I guess this is a stereotypical "British" accent.

2)Yes, there is a South African accent. To Americans, it is very similar to a British accent.

3)There must be regional differences in African accents (I am sure an Egyptian accent is much different from a Nigerian accent), but yes, most Africans do have an accent. Take, for example, Forrest Whitaker's depiction of Idi Amin in the movie The Last King of Scotland.

4)There are many easily discernable European accents, but no single "European" accent. There are definitely French, German, Spanish, and Italian accents which sound entirely different from one another. 138.16.42.247 (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For #3, I'd disagree: the South African accent sounds quite distinct from any other native English speaker. To me sounds like someone from Amsterdam moved to New Zealand and learned English that way. Very unique. As far as non-native accents, each non-native speaker usually brings with them their native phonology which makes their English distinct enough to usually be able to identify their native language quite easily, though some closely related languages (say Spanish and Portuguese) may provide more difficulty in identifying the differences. --Jayron32 15:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closely related romance languages have a pretty different phonology. The accent from Portugueses, Spaniards, Italians and Frenchs speak is pretty different. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone thinking there is a "British" accent or even an "English" accent hasn't met many British or English people. Or has a hearing impediment. --Dweller (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence: A famous person from the northeast of England (in the black shirt)([1]), a famous person from London ([2]) and a famous person (in the Mr Man shirt) from the southwest of England ([3]). That's without venturing out of England into the rest of Britain. --Dweller (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me then, do you think there is an "American" accent? Of course an American like myself can distinguish between many different American accents, but I still can tell an American from a non-American by their accent... Also, what kind of accents do the characters in US shows like Game of Thrones and The Tudors have? 138.16.42.247 (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should draw a line between: 'I don't hear a difference' and 'there is (or not) a difference'.

There's a stereotypical British accent, which is different from the stereotypical Scottish accent. Both are different from the Irish accent.
Those descendents of Dutch and German speak differently from British immigrant, who speak differently from native Africans.
Some Africans sound similar, but they do not have a historical language in the background. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are many distinctive accents from Europe. Some can get confused. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an American, I can distinguish a South African accent by "extraneous D's". The name of their country, for example, sounds to me like they are saying "Sowdt Adfridka". StuRat (talk)

I'd say yes to all but the 4th, but it is the disagreements between posters above that shows that there is a phenomenon of familiarity and recognition. Living in England, I can distinguish very many different accents in the UK. Intuitively it seems a bit weird to me that an American might not be able to distinguish between a Scot, a Welsh person, a posh South of England speaker and a Cockney, but I have learned that it is actually the case. An American might only be able to say "that person's probably British, but I don't know from where in Britain". The nearer you are, or the more often you hear speakers from a particular country, the more able you are to distinguish accents. I recently met someone who hails from rural Lancashire. I said "I thought you were a Scouser" and he said "oh no, they talk quite differently, like this", and sure enough it was quite different. And he could do Manchester, Nottingham, Leicester, which all sounded different, but not any of the various accents from the North East, or anything south of the Midlands. So I really think it is about familiarity. Tammy, you are a real expert. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I don't think I'm a "real expert". I listen to a lot of talk radio, and the varieties of English I've heard comes from that. Test Match Special is a great resource for identifying different accents. I'm also very interested in dialect, being a native speaker of Black Country, which is very different to RP. I've even managed to tie a particular accent down to a particular street in a Yorkshire village, after having lived there for 10 years! --TammyMoet (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to all 4 is that none of those 4 categories consists of a single uniform accent. Only category 2 even amounts to a family of related accents, in that all South African accents are influenced by Afrikaans phonology. As for British accents, there is more accent variety within the British Isles and even within Great Britain than there is in the rest of the English-speaking world. (And I say this as an American.) What Americans with limited exposure to British accents think of as "the British accent" is really Received Pronunciation (RP). Even an American, hearing a Scottish accent and a Cockney accent juxtaposed to RP, would have to admit that those accents are all quite different. Marco polo (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a variety in Great Britain, but it just does not compare to the rest of the English-speaking world. I can't even understand the English that people in the Caribbean speak! Likewise with many island-nations in the south pacific: some versions of English they use have become their own unique language. For example, try reading the Bislama Wikipedia--you can actually figure out what they're saying! [4]. Indian English speakers are also often very hard for me to understand. And there are some seriously recognizable American accents. Minnesota/Northern Midwest, Southeastern, Louisiana/Creole, Texas, and there's even a Hawaiian accent. Plus there's plenty more. 138.16.42.247 (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I wonder whether Marco Polo meant that there is more variation in Britain than within other countries in the English speaking world. I still find it hard to believe that an American couldn't tell a Geordie accent from RP, in fact I would be surprised if an American could understand a Geordie accent - I've known Londoners who cannot. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Do you speak English?, an interesting Podcast. Bus stop (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While of course English spoken by an Italian sounds very different from English spoken by a German, what about the English spoken by aristocrats who may have roots in several countries? —Tamfang (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TammyMoet, before I reached your post I too was thinking of Test Cricket commentary as a wonderful source of English accents from around the globe (and even that skips North America and Europe). As an Australian, I think I should point out that we don't all speak like Richie Benaud, whose accent sometimes leans towards that amazing one that has evolved with our own(?) Geoffrey Robertson (Sample here). Within Australia there are (to some of us) different accents between South Australians and the rest, and northern Queenslanders and the rest. It's said that some from the western suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne have distinctive accents. There's a recognisable Australian Aboriginal accent (for some of whom English is not their first language), and we can all pick those Kiwis! HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See IDEA - The International Dialects Of English Archive.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When discussing South African English accents one must be careful to clearly distinguish between South Africans whose mother tongue is English (such as myself) and others who speak it as a second (or third, fourth, fifth...) language. The "proper" SA English accent is an offshoot of early nineteenth century British English, as the main tranche of English speaking immigration to South Africa ocurred in 1820 when the colonial government decided they wanted to increase the population of the eastern border areas of the Cape Colony as a "buffer" against the Xhosa. The British immigrants were mostly from the working classes - artisans put out of work by the rampant industrial revolution were willing to uproot and settle in new lands of opportunity. There are of course regional and social variations in South African English. The settlement of New Zealand in 1840 followed a similar pattern and as a result there are some striking similarities between SA English and NZ English. Roger (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question asked if there is such a thing, not if there is a stereotype of such a thing, nor if ignorant people believe there is such a thing. As such, there is a categoric "no" to three of the questions, and probably a "no" to the SA one as well. --Dweller (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Detail évocateur

hello,

I am searching for a different word as "detail évocateur". "Dostoevsky is a master of the realistic detail évocateur... and hundreds of such details are remembered by the reader". Thanks.--GoP _T ^C _N 11:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One commonly used English term is "telling detail" (as you can see by Googling the expression). Deor (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we to understand that "evocative detail" is not different enough? —Tamfang (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a (slightly) false friend in that they have different senses of meaning (i.e. the French phrase is set whereas the English one isn't). Compare longue durée versus "long term". -Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"cosa es de reír o de llora" (spain)

can someone translate it? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.84.169 (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the context: "It makes you want to laugh or to cry". (Parallelism would suggests "llorar" rather than "llora", but I'm not familiar with colloquial usage.) -- Elphion (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it should be llorar as well. Have you been reading Las Casas? [5] Lesgles (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ya it's from a book which write about Las Casas. In the notes it's was wrote but i did not understand the context - now i do. thanks.--84.110.177.224 (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demonyms and their uses

Certain demonyms referring to an individual from a particular country or region or city can also be used in exactly the same form to refer to the people of that place as a whole, with the addition of the definite article.

Examples include:

the –ese words (the Portuguese, the Lebanese, the Vietnamese, the Maltese, the Burmese, the East Timorese, the Congolese, the Balinese, the Javanese, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Viennese, ...)

the –ish words (the English, the British, the Cornish, the Irish, the Swedish, the Spanish, ... ). We tend not to say the Turkish, the Polish, the Danish, the Finnish or even the Scottish, preferring the Turks, the Poles, the Danes, the Finns and the Scots, but there are some contexts where they're appropriate ("By 1940, the Polish were a defeated people"; although "the Danish" would usually mean a comestible rather than anything human, without the proper context).

outliers such as the French, the Dutch, the Welsh, the Swiss, the Manx, the Seychellois, the Quebecois, the Monégasque, the Khmer, the Lao ... (I'm not sure about the Icelandic. That word usually refers to the language, not to the people - but it can. I'm really undecided about "The Icelandic are an ancient and noble people").

But we definitely cannot call an entire people:

any of the –an or –ian words (the Afghan, the Indian, the Cambodian, the German, the Italian, the Peruvian, the Belgian, the Russian, the Hungarian, the American, the Canadian, the Mexican, the Venezuelan, the African, the Australian ...)

or other outliers such as the Czech, the Slovak, the New Zealander, the Israeli, the Iraqi, the Thai, the Chechen, the Angeleno, the Uzbek, etc.

Now, we can use these latter forms to refer to a representative but non-specific typical individual, where the meaning is the entire people ("The New Zealander is methodical and reliable; the Australian, on the other hand, ..."). But we cannot say "The New Zealander are a methodical and reliable people". Whereas, we can say "The Welsh are a romantic and idiosyncratic people".

My question: What makes the difference? Why do we treat the demonyms in the first group in a way that we cannot with the others? It makes sense for a consistent treatment to apply to all –ese words, to all –ish words, and to all –an/ian words. But the outliers intrigue me particularly. Why is "I love the Swiss" OK in reference to the whole nation, but "I love the Slovak" can only ever refer to a particular Slovak person? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demonyms ending with a hissing or hushing consonant go into the first group, and the rest go into the second group. --Theurgist (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't explain why the Seychellois, the Quebecois, the Monégasque, the Khmer and the Lao are all in the first group. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As are the Maya, the Inca, and various other indigenous peoples. Interesting question. Sorry that I don't have an answer. Marco polo (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you've listed them in the first group but the Khmers, the Laos, the Monégasques, the Mayas, the Incas etc. exist as well. ois-demonyms in fact are French words so they decline according to the rules of French. Though I suppose English in general tends not to decline exotic or poorly adopted proper names, and the Khmer, the Lao etc. may be preferable for someone.--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, if we only mind well-established English-language demonyms, and demonyms produced with well-established English-language suffixes, the pattern is that the plural ending is omitted when it would trigger an /-ɨz/ pronunciation. BTW, a native of Iceland is an Icelander. --Theurgist (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what about the people as a whole? Is it the Icelander people or the Icelandic people or the Iceland people? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 12:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with "the Icelanders"? --Theurgist (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The Thai", "the Chechen", "the Angeleno", and "the Uzbek" seem acceptable to me, FWIW. "The Czech" seems acceptable but maybe archaizing? (I can find attestations for it, e.g. "The Czech accession to the EU provided an ideal opportunity for interest groups and politicians to pressure the Czech Republic, but the Czech did not budge.") --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it seems my premise was a little inaccurate. Thanks for the replies, all. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]