origin of dese dem dose in NYCE

[Paul Johnston]

Cockney (and SE English generally )  also has /d/ for eth in initial position, and probably has  had for a long time.  In Kent, East Surrey, and East Sussex, it goes back to Middle English.  Lots of people from London and the Home Counties came to the Mid-Atlantic states in the late 1600's, and the place names of the area that are of English origin reflect that.  Now: the stopping doesn't happen to the voiceless fricative, nor does it happen in other positions (> modern /f v/ in these dialects).  The /d/ is also alveolar.  But there could be a contact effect with the Dutch, or later immigrants like the Irish (some of whom actually came to NYC in the 18th century too).

Paul Johnston
On Feb 10, 2012, at 4:26 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:      origin of dese dem dose in NYCE
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ok, people can make all kinds of claims on websites, but I ran into one =
> on NYCE that had me wondering. The claim is that the  fortition of (dh) =
> and (th) (i.e., the pronunciation of dental fricatives as dental stops =
> leading the stereotypical dese, dem, dose, and I suppose tree for 3, =
> etc. is ascribed to originally the Dutch, which of course has no such =
> interdental fricatives. If this were true, it would be just about the =
> only Dutch substrate effect on NYCE outside the lexicon (which anyway is =
> pretty much either gone or spread far more widely, as in stoop and =
> cruller).=20
>
> Now, there are two reasons to imagine that the Dutch probably had =
> nothing to do with it. First there are plenty of other contact languages =
> that don't have dental fricatives. Second, the NYCE stops are dental not =
> alveolar. I understand that Dutch has (unlike say Yiddish and Italian) =
> alveolar not dental /d/ and /t/. Still it's possible, I suppose.=20
>
> Does anyone know of early 19th or even 18th Century mentions of this =
> pronunciation, which is not all that common in North America outside of =
> Irish, French, and Spanish contact dialects?=20
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael Newman
> Associate Professor of Linguistics
> Queens College/CUNY
> michael.newman at qc.cuny.edu
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

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