As far as I know this view is incorrect, or at least any 'standard' form of pronunciation would have been confined to a much smaller section of society than today, probably right up to the last century. The BBC is, I guess, influential in spreading pronunciation and before that the public schools (equivalent I think to private schools in the US) would have had an influence. However a lot of important and influential people would have spoken in regional dialects - Shakespeare almost certainly spoke with a Warwickshire accent and Lord Nelson is known to have spoken in Norfolk dialect.
Eric Crouch On 13 Jan 2006, at 03:17, guy_and_liz Smith wrote: > I'm sure Elizabethan England had many local dialects, just as it > does today. > But most countries have something that's considered the nominal > standard > dialect. IIRC, she was referring specifically to the accent that > would have > been used by by the "sophisticated" levels of society (the court, > the upper > end of the merchant class, etc.), something like BBC English is the > nominal > standard today. > > Guy > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 5:24 PM > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Surviving in Eliz. England. > > >> >> Given the multiplicity of 'English' accents in modern england, is >> there >> any reason to suppose Elizabethan England would have had but one >> dialect? >> London had a significant immigrant population as well as >> itinerants from >> wales, scotland, ireland, various areas of france, islands off >> scotland >> more norse than scots, frisia - not to mention the midlands, >> northumberland, cornwall etc. >> -- >> Dana Emery >> >> >> >> >> To get on or off this list see list information at >> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> > >
