@Ninja said:

I might not be very clued up on American history, but the american accent as we know it wouldn't have been a thing in 1777? Would it? I mean surely since most of these dudes would have had British accents? I thought ubisoft liked to be historically accurate when they could be?

The Assassin's Creed games are no more then Historical Fiction.

@Jaytow said:

@Kyle: This is a theory, one that isn't shared by anyway near a majority. Please don't state this as fact.

No, it's true. I've discussed this topic on a linguistics forum before. I'm working on finding the link now.

How dare an American have an American accent. The outrage!!!

@Jaytow said:

@Kyle: This is a theory, one that isn't shared by anyway near a majority. Please don't state this as fact. It is way more likely that Americans kept some features of the accent whilest the British kept many more. This whole thing is just another "Wow this is super interesting" and yeah and it is but it's stretching the truth at best, lets not ignore the facts because it's a more impressive story.

If you have any linguistic research countering the theory or can somehow demonstrate that is isn't accepted by a "majority" of linguists I'd be interested to see it.

I like how this thread was intended to be making fun of Ubisoft for being historically inaccurate and it turns out they were right.

@Video_Game_King said:

@Brodehouse:

What about a Northeastern American accent a la JFK? How close would that be?

Hey, not all us Northeasterners talk like that. Just the ones who live around Boston.

@NickL said:

@Kyle said:

@peEtr said:

http://www.nicholasjohnpatrick.com/post/767354896/did-americans-in-1776-have-british-accents

Yep, that's pretty much it. American accents a closer to the British accents of the 1700s than most modern day British accents are. It's strange how few people know this.

Us americans are stubborn folk when it comes to change.

Heck, we still use the imperial system over the metric system.

INCHES FOR LIFE! CELSIUS CAN SUCK A DICK.

@Kyle said:

@peEtr said:

http://www.nicholasjohnpatrick.com/post/767354896/did-americans-in-1776-have-british-accents

Yep, that's pretty much it. American accents a closer to the British accents of the 1700s than most modern day British accents are. It's strange how few people know this.

Us americans are stubborn folk when it comes to change.

Heck, we still use the imperial system over the metric system.

@august said:

@Jaytow said:

@Kyle: This is a theory, one that isn't shared by anyway near a majority. Please don't state this as fact. It is way more likely that Americans kept some features of the accent whilest the British kept many more. This whole thing is just another "Wow this is super interesting" and yeah and it is but it's stretching the truth at best, lets not ignore the facts because it's a more impressive story.

If you have any linguistic research countering the theory or can somehow demonstrate that is isn't accepted by a "majority" of linguists I'd be interested to see it.

But he isn't the one making an extraordinary claim

/AtheistAssClown

@MooseyMcMan:

That's why I said "a la JFK". Believe me, I could have done this:

In fact, I'm not sure why I didn't in the first place.

@Jaytow said:

@august: My majority comment is just from what I've read on the internet, it seems clear that this is an over exageration and that whilest Americans share some things with our early accent that we don't, it is very unlikely that we have less incommon with those accents than modern day Americans do. Although I would argue that a website that looks like it was made in 1992 is hardly a compelling argument to the contrary.

You have to ask yourself why a very conservative nation such as Britain where 80% of it's current population (and much higher than that throughout the 19th and 20th centuary) have strong amounts of English heritage would have less in common with an old English accent than American, a country with the most diverse backgrounds of any nation. Common sense tells you this theory is nonesense. As I've said I have no doubt that Americans have some things in common with our Fathers that we don't but I would argue that we have many more things in common, as far as the way we speak is concerned.

The British had a fucking language council that regulated changes. America was relatively uneducated and stayed linguistically stagant. That is why.

@Jaytow: I'm willing to accept that the theory is bogus, but when you say a "majority" of people I'm hoping you mean linguists or historians or something other than "a bunch of other grumpy Englishmen whose posts I have read on internet forums."

George Washington has an American accent because nobody cares.

edit: Nevermind, I guess some people care a lot. lol ^

I think his accent is far less strange than his use of the term "Americans". Most people back then would have identified themselves by the state/colony they were from: Virginian, Pennsylvanian, etc. I'm fairly certain the concept of being "American" didn't even exist at the time, though I could be wrong.

@Jaytow said:

@Cabbage_TheMan: What? why on Earth are you so angry about this? The American accent has been changed heavily due to immigration over the last 200 years, I'm sure.

Why would you think I'm angry? And how sure are you about that? Because I'm sure that you're talking out of your ass.

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

I think his accent is far less strange than his use of the term "Americans". Most people back then would have identified themselves by the state/colony they were from: Virginian, Pennsylvanian, etc. I'm fairly certain the concept of being "American" didn't even exist at the time, though I could be wrong.

It actually makes sense because at this time they would have been rallying a sense of unity. We're all in this together, sort of thing.

Yeah it makes sense, I mean, English-speaking-Canadian accents sound similar enough to American accents. I'm sure the UK, being closer to a bunch of already populated areas in europe got some mixing done much faster than we Americans and so ours changed slower than theirs. orsomethinglikethati'mnotalinguisticsexpertokay?

@Jaytow:

That's why I'd think you're angry. I've made my point, common sense dictates that this theory from some 90s looking website is a stretched truth. I'm done arguing about assassincs creed.

Oh, well I'm sorry if I misled you. Sometimes 'ass' and 'fucker' slip into my everyday speech.

Well, you've made a point that you don't know how to form an argument for yourself. Yes. You've proven that you can spew bullshit and then not own up to it and leave. Yes.

And it is a blog post by a Harvard grad that cited his sources, not a 90's looking website that is desperate for hits. Here it is again for you.

@mustachioeugene: God, I love that sketch.

@Cabbage_TheMan said:

@Jaytow:

That's why I'd think you're angry. I've made my point, common sense dictates that this theory from some 90s looking website is a stretched truth. I'm done arguing about assassincs creed.

Oh, well I'm sorry if I misled you. Sometimes 'ass' and 'fucker' slip into my everyday speech.

Well, you've made a point that you don't know how to form an argument for yourself. Yes. And it is a blog post by a Harvard grad that cited his sources, not a 90's looking website that is desperate for hits. Here it is again for you.

Don't forget that the webpage is citing one of the most renowned living historians.

@Cabbage_TheMan said:

@Kevin_Cogneto said:

I think his accent is far less strange than his use of the term "Americans". Most people back then would have identified themselves by the state/colony they were from: Virginian, Pennsylvanian, etc. I'm fairly certain the concept of being "American" didn't even exist at the time, though I could be wrong.

It actually makes sense because at this time they would have been rallying a sense of unity. We're all in this together, sort of thing.

Sure, but I'm saying the term wouldn't have been used back then, or at least not the way it's used here. At the time it would've meant all people who lived on either of the American continents. He probably would've said "colonials" or something to that effect.

@Jaytow:

That's why I'd think you're angry. I've made my point, common sense dictates that this theory from some 90s looking website is a stretched truth. I'm done arguing about assassincs creed.

Oh, well I'm sorry if I misled you. Sometimes 'ass' and 'fucker' slip into my everyday speech.

Well, you've made a point that you don't know how to form an argument for yourself. Yes. And it is a blog post by a Harvard grad that cited his sources. Here it is again for you.

@Jaytow, Serious question: Why is it so important to you which modern-day accent is more similar to the 18th century English accent?

@Jaytow: I really am trying to understand your argument but it isn't making sense to me.

Common sense would dictate that around the revolutionary war the american and british accent was about the same.

After that point, there are a number of circumstances that could change an accent. I'm sure neither of the current accents are all that similar to a 1776 british accent.

The biggest thing we know about 1776 british accents is that it was rhotic. (Correct me if i'm wrong and we know something bigger then that, I am by no means a linguist.)

Current (stereotypical) american accents are rhotic. Current (stereotypical) british accents are non-rhotic.

With that in mind, by common sense, we can assume that the current (stereotypical) american accent is closer to a 1776 british accent.

(Again, this doesn't mean by any means at all that either accent is that close to a 1776 british accent.)

So, in my mind, common sense seems to suggest the opposite of what you say it suggests.

@Kevin_Cogneto:

That's a good point. You're probably right.

@Jaytow:

I think my arguments appeal to common sense whilst yours rely on some fringe theory on a seedy website that may or may not give you porn pop ups.

A theory so important is surely all over the internet, right? That's my point.

You really know that you've won an argument when the other person refuses to look at your proof. Read the sources he cited. It is all over.

Congratulations, me. #EmptyInside #WastedMyTime

@Jaytow said:

@Kevin_Cogneto: It isn't, when did I imply this was "so important to me"? I'm just making an argument for common sense, that's all.

And I thought it was just us Americans who didn't trust colleges and book learnin'.

Jaytow, I hope you don't plan on buying this game. You've been offended by literally every detail released so far.

@Ninja: so historically accurate a family heritage somehow went from pure italian to pure native american over the coure of less than 200 years. seriously, how the FUCK does that happen? when did this italian dude manage to bang a native american chick? and his outfit is retarded. and i am seriously disappointed with the setting >=(

@Jaytow said:

@Kevin_Cogneto: It isn't, when did I imply this was "so important to me"? I'm just making an argument for common sense, that's all. From what I can see, this is the only article stated on the internet that supports this theory. As I've said I'm sure it has pockets of truth within it.

It's obviously important to you, or you wouldn't have a dozen posts in this thread arguing about it. A healthy response would've been one or two posts saying "eh, I don't believe that's true" and then you would've moved on. The reason I ask is, between the AC3 box-art thread and this one, you seem to have some serious hangups about Americans, and I'm just trying to get a sense of what exactly is at the root of it all...

@Brodehouse said:

Northeastern American accent (stereotypical WASPy country club accent) is actually closer to 18th century British than modern RP British is. More you know.

Glad someone said this before I could.

He is from the future.

@Jaytow: Ok, I concede that it is very likely that some parts of britain have had very little dialect change, but we are talking about stereotypical british accents vs stereotypical american accents, not accents from some small portion of either country.

And I believe @august is referencing this book.

@Jaytow: I could give a shit, I'm just fascinated by how much it matters to you.

Also: "you people"? It's like your subconscious is trying its hardest to prove my point.

@wealllikepie said:

@Ninja: so historically accurate a family heritage somehow went from pure italian to pure native american over the coure of less than 200 years. seriously, how the FUCK does that happen? when did this italian dude manage to bang a native american chick? and his outfit is retarded. and i am seriously disappointed with the setting >=(

It's obviously isn't "pure" Native American.

And the thought of a white settler boning an Indian chick, isn't exactly unrealistic.

@Meowshi said:

@wealllikepie said:

@Ninja: so historically accurate a family heritage somehow went from pure italian to pure native american over the coure of less than 200 years. seriously, how the FUCK does that happen? when did this italian dude manage to bang a native american chick? and his outfit is retarded. and i am seriously disappointed with the setting >=(

It's obviously isn't "pure" Native American.

And the thought of a white settler boning an Indian chick, isn't exactly unrealistic.

I'm guessing that he thinks Italians aren't white? Although on further rumination, I did discover something odd: how did the leap from Italy to America take place? Italy never really did any colonizing in the Americas, and Italians immigrants wouldn't come for about 100 more years. I'm guessing that Ezio banged some French pussy and that's how his blood got to America? Or Altair fucked an English chick, thus causing some divergence in the lineage?

@wealllikepie said:

@Ninja: so historically accurate a family heritage somehow went from pure italian to pure native american over the coure of less than 200 years. seriously, how the FUCK does that happen? when did this italian dude manage to bang a native american chick? and his outfit is retarded. and i am seriously disappointed with the setting >=(

WTF? Half native american =/= pure native american.

Also, if Altair and Ezio were both his ancestors, then he was never truly pure italian either.

I really hope this is sarcasm and I am just not detecting it...

Edit: NOW IM PISSED, I JUST CHECKED AND APPARENTLY IN 200 YEARS HIS FAMILY HERITAGE WENT FROM PURE SYRIAN TO PURE ITALIAN. WTF! HISTORICALLY ACCURATE MY ASS!

@nohthink said:

Ezio also spoke English. Just saying.

But with an Italian accent. Not saying this is an issue, frankly I don't really care.

@Jaytow: It has more to do with the change from rhotic to non-rhotic. American English is mostly rhotic, older British English is rhotic, and modern British English is non-rhotic. I'm not a linguist myself, but I'll trust someone who spends their life studying it over some anecdotal conjecture on Giant Bomb. Making assumptions based on 'common sense' is not a scholarly stance.