> Joshua Shinavier wrote:
> > surely much of the difference consists of
> > passing slang (luckily, terms such as "groovy" and "neat-o" didn't stic=
k :)
> Those have stuck, they're just not as common as they used to be.  I
> still hear many people say "groovy", and even the occasional "neato".=20
> And of course, there's always the example of "cool", which has remained
> more-or-less in the slang department since the 1920's, over seventy
> years.

Well, I often use them myself as a joke, 'specially when talking about the
Beatles whom I like even though they're sorta hippy.  I would rather bite m=
tongue off than use them in serious conversation, however :-)

> > but I don't think that old recordings can have *that much* more influen=
ce on
> > the way we speak than old books.  Just my personal opinion/hypothesis.
> I would think that they probably do, for one thing, there's more WAYS
> they can have influence, i.e., pronunciation differences.  Imagine if
> recordings had existed before the Great Vowel Shift.  After that was
> over, people listening to those old recordings would hear a very
> different speech.  It COULD have an influence on their speech, bringing
> back at least a few old pronunciations.  Just a hypothesis, but it seems
> reasonable.

I'm sure old recordings have their influence, I just don't think it's an
especially strong one; our speech, I would think, is influenced to a far gr=
degree by the language we hear around us than the "old-fashioned" language =
films from Grandpa's day...


        _/_/      _/_/  _/_/_/_/   Joshua Shinavier            =20
         _/        _/  _/         Loorenstrasse 74, Zimmer B321=20
        _/        _/  _/_/_/_/   CH-8053 Z=FCrich              =20
 _/    _/  _/    _/        _/   Switzerland                 =20
_/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/