Moderator:Forum Administrators
Dormouse559 wrote:What do you mean by "softening"? Do you happen to know IPA?Levo wrote:Oh yeah,
and our s (sh) is becoming soft :S which sounds awful, and about 20 years ago was still funny, but today many people pronounce it a bit softer than how I remembered in my childhood, and such people who have no pronounciational disorder
Maybe our r is softening too a little bit? i'm not sure (towards standard-Swedish like, but not close to that yet).
Levo wrote:Dormouse559 wrote:What do you mean by "softening"? Do you happen to know IPA?Levo wrote:Oh yeah,
and our s (sh) is becoming soft :S which sounds awful, and about 20 years ago was still funny, but today many people pronounce it a bit softer than how I remembered in my childhood, and such people who have no pronounciational disorder
Maybe our r is softening too a little bit? i'm not sure (towards standard-Swedish like, but not close to that yet).
Yesterday I had no time to look up IPA properly. I mean, that that kind of sh which sounded like lisping 20 years ago and most people were smiling at it, is now becoming widespread among a lot of people having no pronounciational disorder. Even on TV. Of course, not the worst stereotypical lisping, but our s [sh] became much softer. Now we don't even tell anymore with friends and family, "hey, he is having a lisp", because they are not a small minority any more.
Johanna wrote:It's the 'has'/'had' part that's left out in the Swedish versions. But you can't leave them out always yet, just in certain circumstances.
TaylorS wrote:English will diverge into several languages, I see 4 emerging in North America: Northern, Southern, Western, and Canadian.
johnklepac wrote:TaylorS wrote:English will diverge into several languages, I see 4 emerging in North America: Northern, Southern, Western, and Canadian.
Considering the already high and increasing degree of communication we have with people outside our region of the country, I'd expect the opposite.
IpseDixit wrote:Personally I don't see any diverging process inside the English language, the fact that there are regional words and slangs and different pronunciations does not mean anything in my opinion... all languages have regional variations.
johnklepac wrote:Scottish Gaelic is not going to fare too well. I doubt too many people in Scotland will even know about it 1,000 years from now.TaylorS wrote:English will diverge into several languages, I see 4 emerging in North America: Northern, Southern, Western, and Canadian.
Considering the already high and increasing degree of communication we have with people outside our region of the country, I'd expect the opposite.
TaylorS wrote:This is a popular myth, linguist Bill Labov's work on American English dialects has shown that modern mass communication has in no way slowed or stopped the divergence of dialects.
Quetzalcoatl wrote:- complete loss of the "Konjunktiv 1" ("er sei", "er habe", "er wolle") (probability: 80%)
- [ç] > [ʃ] (50%)
- dative-accusative-merger for masculine nouns ("Ich helfe den Mann." instead of "Ich helfe dem Mann.") (70%)
It might be in that not much category but the French quarter in Winnipeg has quite a bit, including a university. They do speak French there too. Some use a rolled rJackFrost wrote:Llawygath wrote:Such things as French, for some reason, were spared
In Canada? Yes and no. Any francophone outside Quebec and New Brunswick doesn't really have much access to stuff in French.
Gormur wrote:I've never studied Scots Gaelic but I think it'll stay around at least for cultural purposes.
Gormur wrote:I was thinking more along the lines of festivals, street signs and literature in schools but okay
Return to “General Language Forum”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests