The Lemon Fool

Arborbridge wrote:As for giving examples: there aren't many, but I did mention one, Mark Steel.

Damn, I never even noticed his accent (hmm, maybe when he does a send-up of something in the town he's doing?). He's just so brilliantly funny, his show grabs my attention. One of the best comedians ever to get BBC airtime!

UncleEbenezer wrote:Just occasionally accents can make it harder to understand, though one can generally adjust. When Neil Nunez first appeared on Radio 4 it took me a couple of weeks to understand him without having to concentrate hard, but now I like his distinctive voice.

Me too. In fact I think I heard the very start of his career. I was listening to a phone-in programme and Neil was a caller. Nicky Campbell's show I think it was. Nicky made a comment in passing at the end of Neil's call to say what a marvellous voice he had and how it was made for radio. Neil expressed an interest and Nicky said something like I'll call you after the show and we can have a chat about it". Then a month or two later Neil started appearing on R4 as a continuity announcer.

A mesmerising voice, but what is his accent?

Lootman wrote:The truth is that everyone has an accent, even so-called "standard English" which, as far as I can tell, is Estuary English i.e. just another accent.

I completely disagree. These are some good examples of Estuary English, which to me sounds like a watered down version of Cockney - https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=c ... awYaY,st:0

The BBC still employs some of the best broadcasters, by which I mean those who use what I would describe as standard English - English without any noticeable accent at all. Unfortunately, however, `BBC English' has become a pejorative term, and is generally seen as synonymous with `posh' English.

This is wholly unjustified. A good example of what I would describe as standard English / BBC English is Steve Rosenberg, the BBC's Moscow correspondent, and this is an example (at 1:32) from one of my favourite R4 programmes, From Our own Correspondent - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0hlgwkc

It's a very long way from `posh' English, which as I said, is a distinct accent of its own - Brian Sewell is a good example - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no3WIrxW09Q Although I don't actively dislike it, it would be just as annoying as any other distinctive accent if used by a national broadcaster

But standard English is also a long way removed from the whiny drawl of Estuary English. And as I said in my original post, it means that I can listen to what Steve Rosenberg and others like him are telling me without the distraction of trying to identify his accent.

Another curious thing is despite me being of working class extraction and being edumacated in the rough end of Surrey, my accent gets spontaneously commented upon by my customers as sounding like "a BBC newsreader".

I still think of myself one of the few people with no accent at all, yet nowadays I notice one or two BBC presenters having the same subtle "Surrey twang" as me, in particular, Claudia Hammond.

Clitheroekid wrote:

Lootman wrote:The truth is that everyone has an accent, even so-called "standard English" which, as far as I can tell, is Estuary English i.e. just another accent.

I completely disagree. These are some good examples of Estuary English, which to me sounds like a watered down version of Cockney

I guess I just meant that standard English is a generic southern accent but not Cockney, Bristolian or those strange yokel dialects they speak as you get closer to Penzance.

So Clitheroekid, you had a problem with Huw Edwards' accent? I'd say he had some of the clearest and measured diction out there.

Arborbridge wrote:

Lootman wrote:I think it would be hard to intentionally change an accent, except in the sense that actors can do that.

But accents can naturally and slowly change over time if say you are immersed in another culture or marry someone with a different accent. My mother apparently had a Geordie accent when she was young but it had vanished by the time I came along. Her sister retained hers however.

Lord Howard had a dreadfully fake sounding accent, which I think was changed from his native Welsh. I might be wrong about that, but that is what I was told.

I recall a program from years ago which analysed Michael Howard's accent. Apparently it was some combination of west Wales and Romanian. It somehow explained his - to our ears anyway - idiosyncratic pronunciation of certain words.

Mike4 wrote:A mesmerising voice, but what is his accent?

Isn't it something carribean?

The voice sounds instantly black, but that's more in an anatomical sense than from his accent, which itself is pretty mild.

The wonderful thing about Radio 4 is that there is room for everybody. I particularly like the voice/accent of Ian McMillan, the Bard of Barnsley, even if I originate from the other side of the Pennines.

A gather from a female aficionada of The Food Programme that the voice of presenter the late Derek Cooper was 'like having a bath in warm chocolate'. His clear warm voice was not unlike (but deeper than) that of the late Brian Cobby who was the voice of the Speaking Clock for as long as I can remember. Both did other voice-overs.
Neither accent was RP or saliently regional.

The standardisation of BBC English was laid by Lord Reith, and it is worth listening to him (a Scot) describing this when in conversation with (drawling English) Malcom Muggeridge : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwBQLoa3E_Y

bluedonkey wrote:I recall a program from years ago which analysed Michael Howard's accent. Apparently it was some combination of west Wales and Romanian. It somehow explained his - to our ears anyway - idiosyncratic pronunciation of certain words.

Welsh Romanian Jewish (refugee stock), I think? It always struck me as odd that he didn't seem to like foreigners much.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 89499.html

BJ

Redmires wrote:The wonderful thing about Radio 4 is that there is room for everybody. I particularly like the voice/accent of Ian McMillan, the Bard of Barnsley, even if I originate from the other side of the Pennines.

Indeed, his voice and accent are something of a treasure.

I particularly liked hearing a programme about how he'd worked with my former colleague at Sheffield University on a project to provide natural-sounding synthetic voices for those who can't speak[1]. Part of the project was to get a good and appropriate accent for the individual patient, and McMillan provided one - or more accurately, training material for the AI - for his South Yorkshire area!

[1] The most famous user of such a synthetic voice - Stephen Hawking - had a very early and artificial synthesiser. Because it had become "his voice" and part of his identity, he refused to have it updated, despite the technology moving on a long way within his lifetime.

stewamax wrote:A gather from a female aficionada of The Food Programme

Today's presenter Shiela Dillon is one who really gets on my nerves. I suspect her (posher than the Royals and sounds affected) accent is part of that, but it's more that she always seems to be looking/talking down her nose at the listener.

UncleEbenezer wrote:Today's presenter Shiela Dillon is one who really gets on my nerves. I suspect her (posher than the Royals and sounds affected) accent is part of that, but it's more that she always seems to be looking/talking down her nose at the listener.

For a more palatable female voice, Georgia Mann who presents Words & Music, or better still Sarah Mohr-Pietsch who without a trace of accent or affectation produces wonderful clarity in a voice like hot rum & molasses.

V8

UncleEbenezer wrote:Today's presenter Shiela Dillon is one who really gets on my nerves. I suspect her (posher than the Royals and sounds affected) accent is part of that, but it's more that she always seems to be looking/talking down her nose at the listener.

Top me, Sheila Dillon doesn't sound remotely 'posh'. Her voice has occasional hints of Western Isles Scottish (no idea why) but none of the mid-Lancashire of her childhood. Her intonation is sometimes pushy - think Eastern USA - but I find her voice quite pleasant.

stevensfo wrote:
[1] Excluding Denmark: Danish isn't so much a language as a speech-impaired variant of Norwegian or Swedish, so easier to get by in English there.

Excluding Denmark: Danish isn't so much a language as a speech-impaired variant of Norwegian or Swedish, so easier to get by in English there.


Steve[/quote]

I read that a French language expert recently opined that there was no such thing a English: only badly pronounced French. Nonsense, of course, but his research did highlight a number of words which the French have re-adopted thinking they are English words, but they are actually adaptations of old French from around Norman times, as I understand him to say.

BTW: I admire you command of other languages. I only wish I had such knowledge.

Arb.

Arborbridge wrote:

stevensfo wrote:
[1] Excluding Denmark: Danish isn't so much a language as a speech-impaired variant of Norwegian or Swedish, so easier to get by in English there.

Excluding Denmark: Danish isn't so much a language as a speech-impaired variant of Norwegian or Swedish, so easier to get by in English there.


Steve

I read that a French language expert recently opined that there was no such thing a English: only badly pronounced French. Nonsense, of course, but his research did highlight a number of words which the French have re-adopted thinking they are English words, but they are actually adaptations of old French from around Norman times, as I understand him to say.

BTW: I admire you command of other languages. I only wish I had such knowledge.

Arb.[/quote]

Arb, just for the record, you're actually quoting UncleEbeneezer, not me.

Re. English vs French, the Norman dialect of old French became Anglo-Norman and resulted in a huge simplification of Old English, adding new words and making the terrible grammar much easier.

The Normans were actually Scandinavians who had occupied Normandy and were then 'allowed' to claim it in order to stop them coming further south and kicking the sh*t out of the real French and their king. They were incredibly powerful, which was one of the reasons why the Pope gave his blessing to their invasion on probably the only date that every schoolboy remembers.

Steve

stevensfo wrote:[1] Excluding Denmark: Danish isn't so much a language as a speech-impaired variant of Norwegian or Swedish, so easier to get by in English there.

Interesting. The way I heard it, Swedish, Danish and Norwegian have all changed a fair bit since the ancient days when everybody in the region spoke Old Norse; and the infallible Wikipedia adds that Swedes in particular run into problems ("pronunciation, "false friends" etc) in understanding the other two spoken languages, whereas Norwegians can manage pretty much anything.

English, then, has become a lingua franca for the bloc - which, incidentally, also includes Finland, whose Finno-Ugric language is probably closer to Hungarian than anything we would recognise. You don't get far in business (or politics) if you can't speak the adopted common tongue.

BJ

bungeejumper wrote:

stevensfo wrote:[1] Excluding Denmark: Danish isn't so much a language as a speech-impaired variant of Norwegian or Swedish, so easier to get by in English there.

Interesting. The way I heard it, Swedish, Danish and Norwegian have all changed a fair bit since the ancient days when everybody in the region spoke Old Norse; and the infallible Wikipedia adds that Swedes in particular run into problems ("pronunciation, "false friends" etc) in understanding the other two spoken languages, whereas Norwegians can manage pretty much anything.

English, then, has become a lingua franca for the bloc - which, incidentally, also includes Finland, whose Finno-Ugric language is probably closer to Hungarian than anything we would recognise. You don't get far in business (or politics) if you can't speak the adopted common tongue.

BJ

Indeed, Icelandic is the only modern language that still has much in common with old Norse. Norwegians are best-placed to understand both Swedish and Danish, and my Swedish serves to understand Norwegians - e.g. I've enjoyed going to the theatre in Norway - but not Danes, unless they modify their language (as many can do when talking to a foreigner) towards something more canonical. The written languages are close enough to be interchangeable.

As for Finland, yes their language is, um, unusual. But Swedish is also spoken as mother tongue for a minority of Finns (the composer Sibelius, who wrote some very nationalist music, being an example). Others don't like it. Of course, Finland as a country is relatively new: a simplified history might chronicle alternating Swedish and Russian rule, and both influences can be seen.

As for English as canonical, that's mostly since 1945. German was much more widely spoken pre-war. After all, Latin was the pan-European lingua franca for most of christian-era history.

stevensfo wrote:Re. English vs French, the Norman dialect of old French became Anglo-Norman and resulted in a huge simplification of Old English, adding new words and making the terrible grammar much easier. The Normans were actually Scandinavians who had occupied Normandy and were then 'allowed' to claim it in order to stop them coming further south and kicking the sh*t out of the real French and their king. They were incredibly powerful, which was one of the reasons why the Pope gave his blessing to their invasion on probably the only date that every schoolboy remembers.
Steve

Quite so.
But before 500 BC, which to US visitors we refer to as ‘almost yesterday’ as opposed to the more recent ‘yesterday’, a huge swathe of Europe spoke not Latin or Greek but Old Celtic – the predecessor of Welsh, Scottish and Irish Gaelic and the other less-common variants.

Almost all the present-day Spain, Portugal, France, Austria and all points east to Romania and the Ukraine spoke some variety of Old Celtic. Geographically above these, North Germany and the Scandinavian countries spoke (Proto-) Old Norse. So the Romance languages are Johnnies (or perhaps Jeannies)-come-lately, and William of Normandy was linguistically coming home, especially east of the Danelaw, albeit with an unfortunate infusion of French from his Normandy base around Rouen (ceded to the Vikings by King Charles the Simple of France).

UncleEbenezer wrote:

bungeejumper wrote:Interesting. The way I heard it, Swedish, Danish and Norwegian have all changed a fair bit since the ancient days when everybody in the region spoke Old Norse; and the infallible Wikipedia adds that Swedes in particular run into problems ("pronunciation, "false friends" etc) in understanding the other two spoken languages, whereas Norwegians can manage pretty much anything.

English, then, has become a lingua franca for the bloc - which, incidentally, also includes Finland, whose Finno-Ugric language is probably closer to Hungarian than anything we would recognise. You don't get far in business (or politics) if you can't speak the adopted common tongue.

BJ

Indeed, Icelandic is the only modern language that still has much in common with old Norse. Norwegians are best-placed to understand both Swedish and Danish, and my Swedish serves to understand Norwegians - e.g. I've enjoyed going to the theatre in Norway - but not Danes, unless they modify their language (as many can do when talking to a foreigner) towards something more canonical. The written languages are close enough to be interchangeable.

As for Finland, yes their language is, um, unusual. But Swedish is also spoken as mother tongue for a minority of Finns (the composer Sibelius, who wrote some very nationalist music, being an example). Others don't like it. Of course, Finland as a country is relatively new: a simplified history might chronicle alternating Swedish and Russian rule, and both influences can be seen.

As for English as canonical, that's mostly since 1945. German was much more widely spoken pre-war. After all, Latin was the pan-European lingua franca for most of christian-era history.

Finnish is similar to Estonian, both non-Indo European languages, so totally different from what we know. We had colleagues who worked there for 5 years and hardly learned a word. Everyone spoke English, and of course, Swedish.

The other two non-Indo European languages are Hungarian and Basque. As far as I know, the origin of Basque is still a mystery.

I reckon it originates from a long-forgotten Stone Age 18-30 all-inclusive holiday tour, whose operator went bust while they were there.

Or the survivors from Atlantis?


Steve