Fwd: origin of dese dem dose in NYCE

[Paul Johnston]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Paul Johnston <paul.johnston at wmich.edu>
> Date: February 13, 2012 3:09:50 PM EST
> To: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Subject: Re: origin of dese dem dose in NYCE
> 
> Certainly not in NYC vowels, or not without reinforcement from other groups.  As for [@i]:
> 
> 1.  The [@i] in bird etc. might conceivably have come from either Dutch <ui> = [œY~æY] or <eu> = [øY]--except that Dutch <ui, uy> is usually taken in as [aI] (it is Spuyten Duyvil = [spaItn daIvl], isn't it?  At least, that's how this suburban boy learned it; cf. the usual pronunciation of Stuyvesant, Schuyler etc.).  Jersey Dutch texts spell it [a"u], and it isn't clear what that means--but it looks like [EY] or [æY], the latter being common in broad Amsterdam of the present day.  Closer to [aI] than [@i] in any case.
> 
>> 2.  The diphthongal reflexes of <eu> = [ø:~øy] can't be a source either.  For one, the diphthongal reflexes of the high-mid vowels, I think, came about later than the 17c.  For two, Breukelen became Brooklyn with [U].  I've heard New Yorkers pronounce Modern Dutch <eu> with [@r] in personal names (my dad had a Dutch colleague named Van Heukelom, which was [væn   h at rk@l at m] to him however.
> 
> 3.  In Hollandic of the present day, certain /Vr/ combinations--but only in final position--have a strongly palatalized approximant /r/, which can turn into an /i/ in broad vernacular varieties.  This certainly affects /a:r/, /o:r/ and /u:r/, and I think [ø:r] too.  But (1) this is another recent change--it's not even in the 20th c. dialect atlases--or at least not the Reeks Nederlandse Dialektatlassen; and (2) final position is precisely NOT where you get [@i].  Instead you get [^:].
> 
> 4.  The only expression I can think of with real good NY Dutch vowels is Santa Claus, from Zeelandic [sEnt@ klO:s] rather than Std Dutch [sInt@ kla:s].
> 
> Paul Johnston
> On Feb 13, 2012, at 2:32 PM, Michael Newman wrote:
> 
>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
>> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>> Poster:       Michael Newman <michael.newman at QC.CUNY.EDU>
>> Subject:      Re: origin of dese dem dose in NYCE
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Can you find any other evidence of Dutch or German influence outside of lexicon?
>> Michael Newman
>> Associate Professor of Linguistics
>> Queens College/CUNY
>> michael.newman at qc.cuny.edu
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Feb 13, 2012, at 6:01 PM, Dan Goncharoff wrote:
>> 
>>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
>>> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>> Poster:       Dan Goncharoff <thegonch at GMAIL.COM>
>>> Subject:      Re: origin of dese dem dose in NYCE
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> OTOH, the non-Dutch theory suffers from concluding that, although
>>> Dutch and German were a dominant foreign language in NYC from the
>>> beginnings of New Amsterdam through the 19th Century up to the General
>>> Slocum disaster and WWI, they are thought to have no influence
>>> whatsoever.
>>> DanG
>>> who wonders what accent the German-born John Jacob Astor spoke...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Jonathan Lighter
>>> <wuxxmupp2000 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
>>>> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>>> Poster:       Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>
>>>> Subject:      Re: origin of dese dem dose in NYCE
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> The "Dutch" theory and others suffer fatally from the double
>>>> assumption that there was just one determining factor (a particular
>>>> foreign language or earlier English dialect) and that a little
>>>> reflection and "common sense" will identify it.
>>>> 
>>>> JL
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Ronald Butters <ronbutters at aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
>>>>> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>>>> Poster:       Ronald Butters <ronbutters at AOL.COM>
>>>>> Subject:      Re: origin of dese dem dose in NYCE
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 
>>>>> This vowel is also heard in New Orleans, and among older Black speakers =
>>>>> in the South. Not too bloody likely that the Dutch had much to do with =
>>>>> it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 13, 2012, at 10:23 AM, James A. Landau wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> There is a stereotype that people from Brooklyn pronounce /@r/ as /oi/ =
>>>>> or /ui/.
>>>>>> ("toidy-toid and toid avenue").
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> Could this be, contrary to your statement above, a holdover from Dutc
>>>>> 
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> "If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."
>>>> 
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>> 
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org