Alternate Accents?

Putting this in pre-1900, but I suppose this could apply to post-1900 as well.

Are there any timelines that put detail into describing how the accents that develop in their timeline, as a result of differing circumstances, might diverge from OTL? For instance, there must be a ton of stories written on this board featuring the U.S. conquering Canada during the American Revolution or the War of 1812 - has anyone attempted to describe how the French Canadian accent might have evolved differently in a world where Quebec was a U.S. state for around 200 years?

I use that merely as an example. More generally, what rules would people need to keep in mind for developing alternate accents? And does anyone have any compelling ideas for what sort of accents could have developed in any part of the world had history gone a little differently?
 
The British accent was rhotic until the 1790s. Lord North, for instance, said his r's. In a no American Revolution TL, you could see a rhotic British accent.

Going the other way, non-rhotism spread across the American East Coast. If the US didn't purchase Louisiana, there would be more contact between the US and Britain, or if Anglo-American relations were better (say, thanks to more Federalist control of the US), non-rhotism could be a thing for all English speakers, and thus a silent r could be an official English rule.
 
Prior to WWII, educated Americans and actors spoke in a Mid-Atlantic accent, a sort of mix between American and British English (hence why old speeches and people in old movies sound so weird). But as affecting Britishisms became less prestigious, and emphasizing class distinctions became frowned upon, this accent was replaced by a Standard American accent, based on how people in Iowa and Central Illinois spoke in the mid-20th century.

I don't think it'd be too difficult to have the Mid-Atlantic accent survive, or have a different standard accent be picked for American radio/TV.
 
Also, since this would presumably more important to take into consideration, how far back in history can we reconstruct accents?
 
I've been curious about how the North American English and the British English accent diverged, with the Antipodes and South Africa taking more after Britain. Did the 18th century English speak more like modern day Americans and the American accent changed or vice versa? Or was the deciding influence settlers of North American coming from particular parts of the British Isles?
 
Any non-English examples as well?

German had a lot of dialects until it was standardized in the late 19th century, there's bound to have been a bunch of accents that died out in RL that in an alternative TL could have survived instead. Especially if 'Germany' remained divided into several nations instead of being united by Prussia.
 
I've been curious about how the North American English and the British English accent diverged, with the Antipodes and South Africa taking more after Britain. Did the 18th century English speak more like modern day Americans and the American accent changed or vice versa? Or was the deciding influence settlers of North American coming from particular parts of the British Isles?

The North American accent is more similar to the British eighteenth century accent - Lord North is actually documented as having spoken his r's. But, by the late 1790s, the British accent spoken by the elite changed, and the elite accent was adopted by many poorer peoples.
 
While I'm not the most informed on topics related to South Slavic accents, the standardization of Serbo-Croatian could've turned out rather differently. Hope I don't stray too far from the topic.

The 19th century Illyrian movement had developed its own linguistic conceptions which OTL never really went anywhere in the long term, instead being supplanted by the reforms Vuk Karadžić and those like-minded introduced, leading to the Vienna Literary Agreement. In a world where things turned out differently, the chosen Eastern Herzegovinian dialect of Štokavian origin might not have seen its rise in usage as a literary dialect.

Perhaps on the Croatian end, Čakavian or Kajkavian might've been emphasized over Štokavian, perhaps leading to a TTL Literary Agreement with the Slovenes, and thus the formation of the Sloveno-Croatian/Croato-Slovene language. Perhaps the Vienna Literary Agreement fails and thus we are left with a Croatian based on Illyrian linguistic conceptions and a Serbian based on Vukavian linguistic conceptions, based on two different dialects of Štokavian. We also have the whole situation with Ekavian, Ijekavian and Ikavian (the first being used for Serbian, the second being used for Croatian, and the third not having major use). A TTL literary movement, Croatian or possibly even Bosnian, might end up seeing Ikavian being used over Ijekavian (or in the case of a TTL!Bosnian, Ikavian over the Serbian Ekavian and the Croatian Ijekavian, possibly in tandem with the introduction of Arebica as a third script).

Heck, in another world, we could've seen a larger counter-movement against Vuk's proposed reform (beyond just the Austrian Serb intellectual circle and general upper class, and the Serbian Orthodox Church), thus leading to a wider adoption of Slaveno-Serbian, or possibly even a standardized form of Serbian which keeps the archaic elements Vuk decided to take out and the things he decided to put in (like the letter J). Such a counter-movement might even have been officially sanctioned or supported by then Prince of Serbia Miloš Obrenović, who had political reasons to be against his works.

Re-reading this post, I feel as though I might've missed the mark on the topic of this thread just a tad.
 
Last edited:
Any non-English examples as well?


Do you mean for Québec? Well, there is some issues with determining that. One factor is the extent to which the area and eventual state remains francophone. However, contrary to some on this site, I give the state a great chance to remain very heavily francophone. For instance, the state would have likely, even greater level of autonomy as a state than in the British Empire and would have tentative allies in the deep south (that is, Louisiane).

Which brings up an example of dialect. Within Louisiane, we have an example of French that has been submerged with large amounts of anglicismes and phrases. For instance, in French as spoken in the state from the end of the civil war till now, has certain unique anglicismes; one of which that anyone can identify in the area, is the phrase 'ya know'. It is extremely common to hear someone speaking in French fully then switch immediately to saying ya know at the end of words.

However, part of the comparison between the two is faulty, as in many cases, the French present historically and now in Louisiane has more commonality with Spanish due to its unique experience with Spain. One example of this is the J in many areas of Louisiane pronounce j as the Spanish h; this would never happen in Québec or other parts of Canada. There is also the case of the r in Louisianais French, that can be pronounced three different ways depending upon who is the speaker. That is particularly, older Francophones use a rolling r present in Spanish instead of the guttoral seen in common French, thus, rue in some dialects therein, seem to be similar to say Galician pronunciation of the same word. The other two, is the case of those who are francophone but rarely speak it or speak very, very informally (as an almost novelty), these would pronounce the r the basic English way. Then, there is the case of youth to young adults, who pronounce it with the standard metropolitain French style; this typically comes from education at schools in the region that teach French outside the traditional dialects and due to the internet that allows francophones in the area to connect with those in France. Mind you, oddly, anglicismes present in parts of the francophonie like, 'cool' and 'super', are not used in French found in Louisiane and is instead replaced with more local English or even French slang, most of which is common for southerners and black Americans, that are not usually known by francophones. Some of these, include; 'ya heard me (ya herd meh),' which is very common in inner city New Orleans or woah as a sort of replacement for hi or salut.

Hope that did something. I am not as educated on Québécois, as I am on Louisianais.
 
Last edited:

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
The British accent was rhotic until the 1790s. Lord North, for instance, said his r's. In a no American Revolution TL, you could see a rhotic British accent.

Going the other way, non-rhotism spread across the American East Coast. If the US didn't purchase Louisiana, there would be more contact between the US and Britain, or if Anglo-American relations were better (say, thanks to more Federalist control of the US), non-rhotism could be a thing for all English speakers, and thus a silent r could be an official English rule.

The dropping of r's after vowels likely started off as an East Anglian phenomenon. Then during the 18th century this spread into the speech of London and then at the end of the 18th Century into the ancestor of received pronunciation. Places in North America such as Eastern New England and Tidewater Virginia became non-rhotic before it became the norm in the ancestor of received pronunciation. Received Pronunciation is a quite conservative dialect in a lot of ways.

Even at that stage, apart from London and the East Anglia, the other regions of England remained strongly rhotic. The Industrial Revolution helped spread r-dropping to much of the North and urban centers of the West Midlands. Even in the middle of the 20th century, large sways of England (including places like Lancashire and Northumberland) still had rhotic accents. Although in England in the last 60 years non-rhotic speech has become the norm in West Country, Lancashire and Northumberland. Similar to the disappearance of non-rhotic speech among White Americans in New England, New York and the South.

founding-fathers-sound-like.png
 
Last edited:

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
A couple of accent what if's

Firstly, I believe that the Confederate States of America winning the Civil War and remaining a separate country to the United States of America would create in the later part of the 20th century a sharp rhotic/non-rhotic accent boundary along its border. Because the standard accent of the Confederate States would be based on the Non-Rhotic* Deep South. While the Standard speech of United States of America would be based on the Rhotic speech of the Midwest.

*The non-rhotic accents of the South don't even have linking, let along intrusive r's which are present in other Non-Rhotic accents.

Secondly, Australian English became a Rhotic accent and rejected the Trap-Bath Split*. Although it is not likely since Australian English was based on Cockney, along with other dialects in the South-East of England. I think the latter could have been very possible. By the time Australia was settled Cockney was already a non-rhotic dialect. Although in the 19th century the trap-bath split this not a fixed feature of received pronunciation. It was often dismissed as a Cockney vulgarism.

Maybe it could have been possible as a way of the emerging Australians differentiating themselves from the pommies. That mentality is a reason why Australia never adopted Association Football or Rugby Union as the main football code, instead either adopting Rugby League or the locally invented code of Australian Rules Football.

*Although even if Australian English did not have the trap-bath split, words pronounced with a flat a sound in much of North American English like Can't, Rather and Aunt would be pronounced with a broad a (ah) sound.
 
Last edited:
Firstly, I believe that the Confederate States of America winning the Civil War and remaining a separate country to the United States of America would create in the later part of the 20th century a sharp rhotic/non-rhotic accent boundary along its border. Because the standard accent of the Confederate States would be based on the Non-Rhotic* Deep South. While the Standard speech of United States of America would be based on the Rhotic speech of the Midwest.

Really? I see no reason why the non-rhotic Mid-Atlantic Accent would cease to be the standard accent of the US.
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
Really? I see no reason why the non-rhotic Mid-Atlantic Accent would cease to be the standard accent of the US.

Well, in the early 20th century in OTL Non-rhotic accents covered a vast territory of the Southern States. It even stretched into areas such as Texas, Arkansas and Kentucky. In the Confedrate States of America, rhotic accents would be increasingly seen as speech of hillbillies and maybe stigmatized.

However in the Northern States non-rhotic accents were limited to Eastern New England (East of the Connecticut River) and Greater New York. Also mid-Atlantic English might have never emerged in the way it did. People in the USA might come to see rhoticty as a defining aspect of US speech, contrasting with the non-rhotic speech which would be seen as typical citizens of CSA.
 
However in the Northern States non-rhotic accents were limited to Eastern New England (East of the Connecticut River) and Greater New York. Also mid-Atlantic English might have never emerged in the way it did. People in the USA might come to see rhoticty as a defining aspect of US speech, contrasting with the non-rhotic speech which would be seen as typical citizens of CSA.

The non-rhotic accent was already considered the best American accent at this point, prized as the accent of the elite of the East Coast as it had since the early nineteenth century. Presumably, if socialism rises in the US a la Turtledove, rhoticity could be seen as the accent of the proletariat and the lower class, but that's not strictly a phenomenon of this scenario.

The non-rhotic accent was also the accent of the upper class of the East Coast of the South, so I agree that Confederates may speak as such in this scenario.
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
The non-rhotic accent was already considered the best American accent at this point, prized as the accent of the elite of the East Coast as it had since the early nineteenth century. Presumably, if socialism rises in the US a la Turtledove, rhoticity could be seen as the accent of the proletariat and the lower class, but that's not strictly a phenomenon of this scenario.

The non-rhotic accent was also the accent of the upper class of the East Coast of the South, so I agree that Confederates may speak as such in this scenario.

Even in a timeline where the Confederate States managed to become an independent nation, the center of economic power in the remaining states of the United States would still shift around the turn of the 20th century from the North-East (which includes the Non-Rhotic cities of New York and Boston) to the Great Lakes (which is a Rhotic speaking) region.

However in the CSA the economic heartland is going to be the non-rhotic Plantation zone. Plus in OTL non-rhotic accents covered quite a large swathe across the Southern States, while in the Northern States it was restricted to Eastern New England and Greater New York City.

A similar process of Non-Rhotic accents spreading into the centers of economic power (Industrial Cities of the North and the Midlands) along with London. Was in my opinion a major factor why non-rhotic speech became a feature of Received Pronunciation.
 
Last edited:
Top