<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Guest, Author at The Historical Linguist Channel</title>
	<atom:link href="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/author/guest/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/author/guest/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2019 20:03:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.0.9</generator>
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">135321646</site>	<item>
		<title>Cool stuff about Writing Systems Today: Egyptian Hieroglyphs</title>
		<link>https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/cool-stuff-about-writing-systems-today-egyptian-hieroglyphs/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=cool-stuff-about-writing-systems-today-egyptian-hieroglyphs</link>
					<comments>https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/cool-stuff-about-writing-systems-today-egyptian-hieroglyphs/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Guest]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2019 09:00:50 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Archive - Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Orthography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abjad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Egyptian hieroglyphs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[orthography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[writing systems]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/?p=691</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>or how I tried to teach myself hieroglyphs and failed hilariously Once upon a time when I was still wee and less annoying (&#60;- lie) than today, I tried to teach myself how to read hieroglyphs, the ancient Egyptian writing system, because I was way into all things to do with Ancient Egypt. Emphasis on &#8230; </p>
<p class="link-more"><a href="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/cool-stuff-about-writing-systems-today-egyptian-hieroglyphs/" class="more-link">Continue reading<span class="screen-reader-text"> "Cool stuff about Writing Systems Today: Egyptian Hieroglyphs"</span></a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/cool-stuff-about-writing-systems-today-egyptian-hieroglyphs/">Cool stuff about Writing Systems Today: Egyptian Hieroglyphs</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com">The Historical Linguist Channel</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p><strong>or how I tried to teach myself hieroglyphs and failed hilariously</strong><br></p>



<div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter"><img src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/fjoSvGaH2j1tHCvxYSxIpA2lQxS61JktK-G10XUaJw-LgQ2QlBEZPqC2E6DI96aM6iEQsvQpCumulvhyYg5I9y6JANqg-ZNGWt0QN-wcA8c9Xt2o52HJYBpLUembJubMsvDitAcp" alt=""/><figcaption>(Papyrus scroll, book of the dead, collection: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Inv. 10466)</figcaption></figure></div>



<p>Once upon a time when I was still wee and less annoying (&lt;- lie) than today, I tried to teach myself how to read hieroglyphs, the ancient Egyptian writing system, because I was way into all things to do with Ancient Egypt. </p>



<p>Emphasis on ‘tried’. Here is how I screwed up:<br></p>



<p><strong>1) I assumed each of those little pictures is either a word or a letter. <br></strong>Well, good guess for a 12 year old, not completely wrong, but also not how hieroglyphs work. <br>Hieroglyphs are both <em>logographic</em> (meaning each picture is a word, actually a <em>morpheme</em>), <em>alphabetic</em> (each picture is a letter) and <em>syllabic</em> (each picture is a syllable). <br></p>



<p>Wait, what?! Okay, let’s back up a bit: </p>



<p><strong>What is the origin of written language? </strong></p>



<p>If you have no writing system whatsoever but you want to “write”, the most natural thing to do is: you draw a picture. <br>How do we know that? Because every single writing system started off that way, and it still happens: What do you get if you leave a kid alone with crayons (I mean aside from the need to buy new wallpaper)? The first love letters they write don’t have letters in them, they have the mum and a heart as pictures. It’s the obvious thing to do if you want to put your idea on paper and don’t know a writing system: you draw the thing. <br>In fact, if you go to foreign places and want to communicate, you can buy dictionaries without words even today, looking something like this:</p>



<div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter"><img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ND_WSWTo54UOQ5GWcydl_hU3u2zdxQMfh3eB6hxRnQZAN6sXm82d8tHj1VzOviRfie0HQ9dZ_zf-02eFXeUH6GQ18wBXcZJ-8UuB6DCzKQCwcNZIl7SAWmCBJS9Uf9oaPh6Qw2kr" alt=""/><figcaption>(pssst, if you want one: ISBN 978-3-468-29840-0, Langenscheidt OhneWörterBuch) ﻿</figcaption></figure></div>



<p>Back to ancient writing systems.<br>So, you have your wee sun symbol for “sun”. You soon figure out that you can also use that symbol for ‘bright’, ‘day’ &nbsp;and ‘light’. So, now your sun symbols stands in for many words, and context will tell you which one is right. Boom! Congratulations, you now have a logographic writing system. <br>Nice. But soon you realise that you need words you can’t find a symbol for, like the name of that new foreign merchant in town. You have a bright idea: let’s just use the symbol for a word that starts with the same sound I need for that word. </p>



<p>Like “fish”. You can use your ‘fish’ symbol for /f/, /fɪ/ or maybe /fɪʃ/. <br>So, the symbol becomes either <em>alphabetic</em> /f/ (like in Latin, Greek, English), or <em>syllabic</em> /fɪ/ (open syllable (i.e. ending in the core vowel only) like Japanese <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kana"><em>kana</em></a> or Indian <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devanagari"><em>devanagari</em></a>), or <em>syllabic</em> (closed syllable (i.e. a consonant follows the core vowel, also known as a <em>coda),</em> like in Babylonian and Hittite <a href="https://www.ancient.eu/cuneiform/"><em>cuneiform</em></a>)  </p>



<p>Well, guess what the people in Ancient Egypt did:<br><br></p>



<div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter"><img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/uZrmuhYc0wa9e8WfYcHc7buFdzQFdlvn2RhSMS-ZVAYzWg-uJ6uwFXQXlI9imykYZpUBX_c6CkiCFyZUloSbzvdSK6tEJU2wYlAV3cqi_9QqcmSZBGcfFwaXLPrOpg6pqd4h4i8l" alt=""/></figure></div>



<p>Yeah&#8230; so, each wee picture could be a word, a letter, or a full syllable. <br>But, most of the time, the wee pictures are letters. So that should have meant I could get most of the words, right? Nooope.<br></p>



<p><strong>Mistake #2 I made: </strong><strong><br></strong>I boldly assumed every sound would be written down. But I ended up with a salad of consonants. <br>Bscll lk ths. Smbd frgt t b vwl.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image"><img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/yW_pKLY9TnhDZ-ojrSxZ35CGnuAs2Plq7MwpFgi0vELaK_f4q_clqJ5azjtpgjGgDiIjOZd0fusV8PRZ7lgpQ-RQl3KTBGU-wg_nTIgge_6z24YJidEl5wCl7_Xkv7Yis5hBXvkV" alt=""/></figure>



<p>Either the Ancient Egyptians were really bad at Wheel of Fortune or I made a mistake, unlikely as the latter is. </p>



<p>So, here is the problem: Turns out Egyptian Hieroglyphs are something we call an ‘Abjad’, meaning the consonants were written out, but the vowels were actively put in by the speaker and not written. Arabic and Hebrew still use systems like that. Why? It makes sense for them because their vowels change to provide the morphology (&lt;- yes, I oversimplified that a lot): <br>Imagine that <em>sing</em>, <em>sang</em>, <em>sung</em> were all spelled <em>sng</em>. You’d know which one is which from context; “Today I sng”, “Yesterday I sng.” <br>That, of course, doesn’t work for English across the board, but it’s the closest you can get to seeing how it works if you don’t speak Arabic or Hebrew.</p>



<p>Okay, actually all three systems, Egyptian hieroglyphs, Arabic script, and Hebrew script, are “impure Abjads”. They sometimes spell out the vowels, or put a wee marker on a letter to give you a hint which vowel it is, but most vowels are still missing and you just have to know. <br></p>



<p>And, on top of that, you have to know which of the symbols are meant to be pronounced, and which are not. <br></p>



<p><strong>This is point 3 I screwed up back then:</strong><br>Determiners. I thought every wee picture is meant to be pronounced. Nope.<br>A determiner is a symbol that tells you which of the possible meanings of the next symbol to use. </p>



<p>For example, “Robin” could be a personal name or a bird. If you don’t want to wait for context to tell you, you could do this:</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image"><img src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/4iL1FwySr4xG1xgtdFXt7iN5vYDsnzIGKBucLcdrCv4acVbrGOtYhFHLXgOZVnvO7S90Uq2kcRvHJF1VjZNQuK8SIWO9wCXr3QLsqu6J_RlKS-Os0IC4HFKueuJ7jBSV94w4wNZL" alt=""/></figure>



<p>Sorted. And that is what Egyptian Hieroglyphs expanded into a full system. <br>You would put a wee lad at the end of male names and a wee lass at the end of female names. <br>Like this:</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image"><img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_jOHwpMGRKD7SOBhbq9-_kzhWTsApQlzfLpZrs-hDOdZqCUg3bARlSkiwZR_hh10X7Af2D0g_WWtDlb1tRRKvwXRvG5yjqmE1PbRccGfSGse5l7qlyUJuisOZUDXSCvrFnjT5uoQ" alt=""/></figure>



<p>That’s Bibi and Bob. Yeah, not the most common female first name, give me a break.<br>Oh, by the way, hieroglyphs are usually read from right to left, sometimes from left to right, and sometimes they are a bit mixed up. But the determiners give you a good hint: the wee people and animals always look towards the beginning of the word.</p>



<p>Now guess what ‘family’ (Middle Egyptian: <em>mhw.t</em>) looks like? </p>



<figure class="wp-block-image"><img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/Fho-y2yVqL2LgsmTIaReacbzJWlq_vZcndtaHTtjYSXRhypMqLMir6PHWOGr643J8FroLMPpBIezpYPUdesDdTvuu5h9TnpcQ_qejONlSB4joXzZMg_ISTJmd88GNcdSaM_JyDnx" alt=""/></figure>



<p>Yep, the entire thing in the red circle is the determiner; a mum and a dad and the plural symbol. I guess that’s an Ancient Egyptian family: first parents, and then you make a few more humans. </p>



<p>You can easily see how such a system developed: <br>Let’s pretend English was an Abjad once more. So, only consonants are written down. <br>What could str be?<br></p>



<figure class="wp-block-image"><img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/70NE-m7ijlE__lRs_czpFWYTRGMfhEgBwUJ2BeJf9Mg21K7HEg_Qkv2QpyvLfuILVVz0qV3WnV4zb4vDa4t9hQLsbfcbDtbX5paS07V7YfmVYX3d-r3KSC3zozNG5x2FLwg2RJfs" alt=""/></figure>



<p>Getting that it is <em>straw</em>, <em>star</em>, <em>satire</em>, <em>stray</em> and <em>stir</em> is a lot easier with determiners, right?</p>



<p>This system was used so extensively that the Egyptians even came up with a marker that tells you when they mean the actual thing and not the symbol’s determiner function: a wee vertical line under the symbol would tell you it’s not a determiner: <br></p>



<figure class="wp-block-image"><img src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/LcpclNSbKuKPto7szPmU23sN8rwoQQLKYUsK1vbBJlCnJek0amHbP1ECb6NlVG-BdJ36qF2QFAjdhKbKZh_lzbh753H4PDqeZspEVaF_7oyiQfDxvxnTmE7_n-rtnUQHbrfFAqN5" alt=""/></figure>



<p>No, I mean it this time, it’s star proper, a star star.</p>



<p>Cool, eh?</p>



<p>I wish I had known all this back then. But you know better than me now. <br></p>



<p><strong>Want more hieroglyphs? Read this:</strong><br>Zauzich, Karl-Theodor (1992). <em>Discovering Egyptian Hieroglyphs: A Practical Guide</em></p>



<p></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/cool-stuff-about-writing-systems-today-egyptian-hieroglyphs/">Cool stuff about Writing Systems Today: Egyptian Hieroglyphs</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com">The Historical Linguist Channel</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/cool-stuff-about-writing-systems-today-egyptian-hieroglyphs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">691</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Eh: What’s the Big Deal, eh?</title>
		<link>https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/eh-whats-the-big-deal-eh/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=eh-whats-the-big-deal-eh</link>
					<comments>https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/eh-whats-the-big-deal-eh/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Guest]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2019 09:00:08 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Archive - Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[English]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scots]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sociolinguistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canadian english]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[maori]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dialect formation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tags]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discourse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sociolinguistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Zealand English]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/?p=679</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>You may have heard the word eh being used before. Often, it’s found at the end of sentences; for example, you might hear someone say ‘nice day, eh?’. Usually, eh serves to mark a question or initiate some kind of response from the listener, though it can also be used to signal agreement or inclusiveness. &#8230; </p>
<p class="link-more"><a href="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/eh-whats-the-big-deal-eh/" class="more-link">Continue reading<span class="screen-reader-text"> "Eh: What’s the Big Deal, eh?"</span></a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/eh-whats-the-big-deal-eh/">Eh: What’s the Big Deal, eh?</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com">The Historical Linguist Channel</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>You may have heard the word <em>eh</em> being used before. Often, it’s found
at the end of sentences; for example, you might hear someone say ‘nice day,
eh?’. Usually, <em>eh</em> serves to mark a
question or initiate some kind of response from the listener, though it can
also be used to signal agreement or inclusiveness. We call these kinds of words
‘tag particles’ – they have no set meaning on their own but are often used for
a particular communicative function. </p>



<p>The tag particle <em>eh</em> has a long history, dating back in literature to the 1600s. It has been noted across a far-ranging spread of dialects and varieties, including Scottish English, Canadian English, Guernsey English and New Zealand English, suggesting a common British origin. In each variety it shares several semantic and social functions and it is frequently associated with national identity and vernacular use. However, over time these different varieties have also developed dialect-specific uses of <em>eh</em>. Today we’re going to focus particularly on the use of <em>eh</em> in New Zealand English, where it has the shortest but nonetheless very interesting history. But first, we cannot talk about <em>eh</em> without briefly mentioning its prominent role in Canadian English.</p>



<p><strong>Canadian
English</strong></p>



<p><em>Eh</em> has long been recognised as a typical feature of Canadian English,
and it is so prevalent and so well-known that it is often the subject of jokes
or caricatures of the Canadian accent. Already in the 1970s and 80s it was
being used in advertisements, indicating that this particle was becoming
widespread and nationally recognised. </p>



<div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter"><img data-attachment-id="680" data-permalink="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/eh-whats-the-big-deal-eh/sarah1/" data-orig-file="https://i0.wp.com/thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Sarah1.jpg?fit=500%2C447&amp;ssl=1" data-orig-size="500,447" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-meta="{&quot;aperture&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;credit&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;camera&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;caption&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;created_timestamp&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;copyright&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;focal_length&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;iso&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;shutter_speed&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;title&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;orientation&quot;:&quot;0&quot;}" data-image-title="Sarah1" data-image-description="" data-image-caption="" data-medium-file="https://i0.wp.com/thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Sarah1.jpg?fit=300%2C268&amp;ssl=1" data-large-file="https://i0.wp.com/thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Sarah1.jpg?fit=500%2C447&amp;ssl=1" loading="lazy" width="500" height="447" src="//i1.wp.com/thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Sarah1.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-680" srcset="https://i0.wp.com/thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Sarah1.jpg?w=500&amp;ssl=1 500w, https://i0.wp.com/thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Sarah1.jpg?resize=300%2C268&amp;ssl=1 300w" sizes="(max-width: 500px) 100vw, 500px" /><figcaption><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Franklin-Motor-Syracuse-Canadian-Pacific/dp/B010FDU8X0">Source</a></figcaption></figure></div>



<p>Canadian <em>eh</em> has with time become associated with national identity, and this
has endowed it with the status of a purely Canadian feature, or ‘Canadianism’,
despite the fact that <em>eh</em> also plays
this role in a number of other accents. The Canadian variant is typically pronounced
as the short, front, mid-high vowel [e], and has a rising intonation. The main
function of <em>eh</em> is to mark informality
and inclusiveness, as well as seek agreement from the listener. <em>Eh</em> has been found to be widespread
across Canada geographically and socially, although it is more frequently used by
the lower classes, who tend to make more use of addressee-oriented devices in
general. Though it has several functions, Canadian <em>eh</em> is most commonly found in:</p>



<p>Opinions: ‘nice day, eh?’<br>Statements of fact: ‘it goes over there, eh’<br>Exclamations: ‘what a game, eh?’ <br>and fixed expressions, such as: ‘I know, eh’ and ‘thanks, eh’. </p>



<p>It is also found in questions, requests for
repetition, insults, accusations, and narrative functions, although the
questioning and narrative function of <em>eh</em>
is often seen by speakers as uneducated, lower class, and rural.</p>



<p><strong>New
Zealand English</strong></p>



<p>To jump forward a few centuries to a more
recently developed English accent, <em>eh</em>
is commonly found in New Zealand English as well. New Zealand English (NZE) speakers
tend to prefer <em>eh</em> to other possible
tags, leading to its highly salient nature. As in Canadian English, <em>eh</em> is a well-recognised feature, and is
also showing signs of growing national awareness, exemplified in its use in a
nationwide advert promoting New Zealand’s national soft drink; L&amp;P. This
soft drink is an iconic feature of New Zealand, originating and being produced there,
and it is partially named after the small town it was created in.</p>



<div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter"><img data-attachment-id="681" data-permalink="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/eh-whats-the-big-deal-eh/sarah2/" data-orig-file="https://i0.wp.com/thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Sarah2.jpg?fit=500%2C500&amp;ssl=1" data-orig-size="500,500" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-meta="{&quot;aperture&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;credit&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;camera&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;caption&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;created_timestamp&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;copyright&quot;:&quot;\u00a9 Images in Space Ltd, all rights reserved&quot;,&quot;focal_length&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;iso&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;shutter_speed&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;title&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;orientation&quot;:&quot;0&quot;}" data-image-title="Sarah2" data-image-description="" data-image-caption="" data-medium-file="https://i0.wp.com/thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Sarah2.jpg?fit=300%2C300&amp;ssl=1" data-large-file="https://i0.wp.com/thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Sarah2.jpg?fit=500%2C500&amp;ssl=1" loading="lazy" width="500" height="500" src="//i1.wp.com/thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Sarah2.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-681" srcset="https://i0.wp.com/thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Sarah2.jpg?w=500&amp;ssl=1 500w, https://i0.wp.com/thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Sarah2.jpg?resize=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1 150w, https://i0.wp.com/thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Sarah2.jpg?resize=300%2C300&amp;ssl=1 300w, https://i0.wp.com/thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Sarah2.jpg?resize=100%2C100&amp;ssl=1 100w" sizes="(max-width: 500px) 100vw, 500px" /><figcaption><a href="https://shop.countdown.co.nz/shop/productdetails?stockcode=742189">Source</a></figcaption></figure></div>



<p>Notice that the spelling here is <em>aye</em> rather than <em>eh</em>. This is most likely because in NZE <em>eh</em> is realised as the diphthong [æe], as in ‘face’, with a slight <em>palatal approximant gesture</em> (meaning that
the vowel is followed by a slight ‘y’ sound), unlike Canadian <em>eh</em> which is realized as [e] in IPA. New
Zealand speakers generally pronounce <em>eh</em>
with a falling intonation, which distinguishes <em>eh</em> from most other varieties of English who typically have a rising
intonation, Canadian English included. <em>Eh</em>
most commonly occurs at the end of sentences, but is also likely to occur
mid-utterance, unlike in most other varieties. For example:</p>



<p>‘the phone will be non-stop eh with all the
girls ringing him up and stuff’</p>



<p><em>Eh</em> performs a number of functions in New Zealand English and tends to
be used to a greater extent by working-class speakers and in informal contexts,
which overlaps with the patterning we find for Canadian English. The array of semantic
roles <em>eh</em> has acquired are both New
Zealand-specific and share significant overlap with the Canadian variant. In
New Zealand English its most common purpose is to signal, recheck or establish
common ground with the interlocutor, but <em>eh</em>
can also be used to checking the comprehension of information, confirm shared
background knowledge or seek reassurance of the listener’s continued attention.
However, question and answer sentences discourage <em>eh</em>, quite unlike the Canadian variant. This wide range of usage may
be partially due to the historical developments it has undergone since it
arrived on New Zealand’s shores.&nbsp; </p>



<p><strong>But
where did this <em>eh</em> in New Zealand
English come from exactly?</strong></p>



<p>Whilst we cannot know for sure with the
current information we have, it seems very likely that <em>eh</em> came from Scots, where it is still found today. Previously, the
general assumption was that New Zealand English was generally derived from the
English of South East England, but now we know that a surprising number of words
came from the north of Britain, particularly from Scots. The use of Scottish <em>eh</em>, or rather <em>e</em> (as it is commonly transcribed), is prevalent in some Scots varieties
such as Hawick Scots and also in Edinburgh. Just like New Zealand English, it
too has a falling intonation, although it is pronounced [e] rather than [æe]. <em>E</em> typically occurs with<em> be</em> and <em>have</em>, for example:</p>



<p>‘he had a stroke, e?’</p>



<p>There are a number of significant overlaps
between use of <em>eh</em> in NZE and use of <em>e</em> in Scots. <em>E</em> can be used to confirm shared background knowledge, which matches
its usage in NZE, where <em>eh</em>
acknowledges the shared understanding between speakers. For example: </p>



<p>‘we know him quite well by now, e?</p>



<p>Furthermore, both <em>eh</em> and <em>e</em> can also be used
as a positive politeness feature to make a statement, opinion, or request less
sharp and more polite. For example; </p>



<p> ‘Put it down there, e’<br> ‘I like Sambuca, e’ </p>



<p>However Scots <em>e</em> is also noticeable in question and answer sentences, unlike NZE. For
example: </p>



<p>‘he’s coming, e?’  <br>‘he isnae coming, e?’ </p>



<p>We can see here that Scots <em>e</em> performs a number of functions, some
of which have significant similarities with <em>eh</em>
in NZE, and some which differ. So, if NZE <em>eh
</em>possibly comes from <em>e</em>, how did it
get into the accent? </p>



<p>Scottish <em>e</em> contributed to the rise of <em>eh</em>
in New Zealand English through process of <em>new
dialect formation</em>. Historical dialect formation is (often) the result of a
number of different dialects being brought into close proximity with one
another in unique, isolated circumstances. Through various processes these form
a new dialect. These processes have been categorized into five distinct periods
by Peter Trudgill. Initially there is <em>reduction</em>
and <em>accommodation</em> between the
different dialects; the most dialectal features are discarded and ‘half-way’ features
are frequently chosen. The next two steps involve further <em>levelling</em> (so removing the strongest dialectal features) and <em>modification through speaker convergence</em>
(speakers adapt their speech to make themselves more comprehensible). During
this process one feature is chosen and becomes <em>standardised</em>; in this case it was <em>eh</em> rather than other tags that was chosen as the agreement marker.
The final components to dialect formation are <em>focussing</em> and <em>adoption</em> by
the wider community. These last steps are still ongoing today; use of <em>eh </em>is led by the youth in the NZE
community. </p>



<p>One of the great things about the New
Zealand dialect is that we actually have recordings from the very first British
settlers setting foot on New Zealand soil, right up until present day NZE.
These recordings, stored in what is known as the ONZE (Origins of New Zealand
English) corpus (https://www.canterbury.ac.nz/nzilbb/research/onze/), have
allowed researchers to see (or rather hear) these processes of dialect
formation in action. In the corpus, we found that use of <em>eh </em>was significantly higher in the region of Otago, which historically
saw a high concentration of Scottish settlers. Unlike the rest of New Zealand,
the dialect from this local area has a number of Scottish-inspired features,
including Scots vocabulary items and rhoticity. Furthermore, speakers with Scottish
parents showed greater usage of <em>eh</em>, regardless
of where they had settled in New Zealand. Small numbers of <em>e</em> were in fact present in the first wave of recordings (1860-1900),
but this becomes gradually replaced by <em>eh</em>
after 1900. So here we can see the stages of dialect formation taking off; initially
<em>e</em> is present in the dialect, but with
<em>reduction</em>, <em>accommodation</em>, and <em>levelling,</em>
<em>eh</em> was chosen and has become widely
adopted into everyday NZE during the last fifty years. However, this might not
be the whole story. </p>



<p>Whilst it seems likely that <em>eh</em> came into NZE from Scots and pre-colonial
varieties of English, the difference in pronunciation between the two is more
difficult to account for. However, there is some precedent for minority
language influence on New Zealand <em>eh</em>;
various studies have found that Maori speakers, particularly males, were the most
frequent users of <em>eh</em>. The particle <em>eh</em> is very similar both in pronunciation
and function to the Maori tag particle <em>nē</em>
(pronounced [næe]. It is possible that once <em>eh</em>
was adopted by Maori speakers if would have been influenced by <em>nē</em> to produce a form similar in phonetic
quality. The functions of <em>eh</em> also
appear to have expanded, again through influence from <em>nē</em>. </p>



<p>This change in turn possibly influenced young
Pakeha (non-Maori) speakers, who have shown increasing use of <em>eh</em> by from around 1940 onwards. This gives
us the particular ‘ay-ye’ pronunciation that is now in wide circulation, as
well as the new meanings associated with <em>eh</em>.
We can see this change happening shortly after increasing numbers of Maori were
migrating to the cities in search of work, bringing them into greater contact with
Pakeha speakers. The New Zealand Government also practiced a policy of ‘pepper
potting’- the scattering of individual Maori families among Pakeha neighbours,
in an effort to prevent the Maori community from clustering together in the
cities. This naturally brought the two speaker groups into closer contact with
one another, allowing for cross-dialectal influence. </p>



<p>So it appears that eh came initially from
Scots and influenced the New Zealand English dialect. It was chosen as the
invariant tag of choice, and was in use within the post-colonial population in
New Zealand. This tag was then adopted by Maori speakers acquiring English and
influenced by their own particular tag particle, <em>nē</em>. The pronunciation changed, as well the particular uses of <em>eh.</em> This new form of the variant was
then adopted by younger, Pakeha speakers, and is now spreading through the
society, led by the youth. </p>



<p><strong>But
what about Canadian eh?</strong></p>



<p>Again, there are similar possible links
between the Scots <em>e</em> and Canadian <em>eh</em>. In 1851-61 there were several waves
of British settlers to Canada, especially Scots and Irish immigrants as part of
a concerted effort by the British government to populate Canada. In 1901-11
another wave of British migrants settled in Canada, particularly Scottish. In
the unsettled areas of Ottawa Valley, the colonial lineage of Scottish and
Irish accents remains to this day and can still be heard in the speech of some
local speakers in the Ottawa basin.</p>



<p>So, it seems that <em>eh</em> could have spread via Scottish immigration during the colonial
period. It concurrently underwent linguistic changes through <em>new dialect formation</em> to produce the form
that has surfaced in several colonial countries over time. Both the New Zealand
and Canadian dialects have developed their own version of <em>eh</em>, but it seems that the roots of this particle in both dialects
stems from the same source; Scots. Pretty cool, eh?</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/eh-whats-the-big-deal-eh/">Eh: What’s the Big Deal, eh?</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com">The Historical Linguist Channel</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/eh-whats-the-big-deal-eh/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">679</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
