Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
St. Louis is a different place for accents. The "or" syllable sounds very nasaly like you'd expect up in the Northeast. When I was a kid I used to laugh at the newscasters talk about traffic on I-64. ("We've got a big backup on Highway Farty.") I know St. Louisans can say "or" properly, since they say they "worsh" their hands. Very few people outside of St. Louis County and especially outside of I-270 talked like that.
Yep, it's a unique accent, and a better linguist than I would be needed to say where it came from. I love "highway farty-far," and aside from church functions I sometimes attend with my in-laws, the most prevalent place I still hear the accent is on some of the commercials on KMOX, like for cars or siding. Almost all of my in-laws have to stop and think about what I'm talking about if I mention Interstate 64. "Ohhhhh," they say, "you mean highway farty." And of course they love their park steaks.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,092,866 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrano
Yep, it's a unique accent, and a better linguist than I would be needed to say where it came from. I love "highway farty-far," and aside from church functions I sometimes attend with my in-laws, the most prevalent place I still hear the accent is on some of the commercials on KMOX, like for cars or siding. Almost all of my in-laws have to stop and think about what I'm talking about if I mention Interstate 64. "Ohhhhh," they say, "you mean highway farty." And of course they love their park steaks.
The St. Louis accent to me sounds pretty Midwestern. St. Louis is far from the only city in the Midwest to have its own dialect. Chicago has a very distinct dialect. That 'ar' pronounciation is really the only "Northeast" characteristic of STL dialect.
The St. Louis accent to me sounds pretty Midwestern. St. Louis is far from the only city in the Midwest to have its own dialect. Chicago has a very distinct dialect. That 'ar' pronounciation is really the only "Northeast" characteristic of STL dialect.
As far as the Stl accent I dunno why it's like this.
One theory I have is because of the location. Where the East meets the west, and north meets the south. We are smack dab in the middle. Go just hour half south on 55 and you're in Cape and entering Dixieland, and not too far north is Iowa, the midwest core.
St. Louis was a border southern city 150 years ago with a lot of southerners, then the european immigrants from Germany moved in as well, and others from other areas of the country.
So you had people from all over the place coming into St. Louis and mixing together with different speech patterns, hence why I think St. Louis has the dialect.
Again we have no certain why to know for sure, but I think it's central location bordering on the south, and west and east is a large factor.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,092,866 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by onegoalstl
As far as the Stl accent I dunno why it's like this.
One theory I have is because of the location. Where the East meets the west, and north meets the south. We are smack dab in the middle. Go just hour half south on 55 and you're in Cape and entering Dixieland, and not too far north is Iowa, the midwest core.
St. Louis was a border southern city 150 years ago with a lot of southerners, then the european immigrants from Germany moved in as well, and others from other areas of the country.
So you had people from all over the place coming into St. Louis and mixing together with different speech patterns, hence why I think St. Louis has the dialect.
Again we have no certain why to know for sure, but I think it's central location bordering on the south, and west and east is a large factor.
I agree with most of what you are saying.
The only problem I have with that theory is that there really are no southern features associated with the St. Louis dialect. It is VERY distinct from a southern accent, lacking the phrases "y'all", "coke", "fixin'," etc. I also typically consider St. Louis to be on the very southern edge of the Midwest core. As far as being a southern city, I'm not sure St. Louis ever truly fit that description. A border city? Before the Civil War, yes, certainly. However, during and after the Civil War, St. Louis was a decisively pro-Union city. St. Louis County actually cast the majority of its votes for Lincoln in the 1860 election. Today, St. Louis is an undebatably Midwestern city in basically every respect. In my opinion, the Midwest core consists of a line connecting the cities of Kansas City to Topeka to Lincoln to Omaha to Minneapolis, to Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, southwest through Columbus to Cincinnati, then west to St. Louis and back to Kansas City. I might even go so far as to say you could put Indianapolis as a place to extend that line to from Cincinnati before connecting it to St. Louis. Any rural area that would fall between the area with the boundaries I just described constitutes the Midwest core..this whole area is Midwestern beyond debate..also any city on or within these boundaries is decisively Midwestern: any part of the Midwest outside of these boundaries represents a transition zone to either the west (Great Plains), to the south (Ozarks), or towards more Canadian influences (the Northwoods of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan)
I agree with most of what you are saying.
The only problem I have with that theory is that there really are no southern features associated with the St. Louis dialect. It is VERY distinct from a southern accent, lacking the phrases "y'all", "coke", "fixin'," etc. I also typically consider St. Louis to be on the very southern edge of the Midwest core. As far as being a southern city, I'm not sure St. Louis ever truly fit that description. A border city? Before the Civil War, yes, certainly. However, during and after the Civil War, St. Louis was a decisively pro-Union city. St. Louis County actually cast the majority of its votes for Lincoln in the 1860 election. Today, St. Louis is an undebatably Midwestern city in basically every respect. In my opinion, the Midwest core consists of a line connecting the cities of Kansas City to Topeka to Lincoln to Omaha to Minneapolis, to Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, southwest through Columbus to Cincinnati, then west to St. Louis and back to Kansas City. I might even go so far as to say you could put Indianapolis as a place to extend that line to from Cincinnati before connecting it to St. Louis. Any rural area that would fall between the area with the boundaries I just described constitutes the Midwest core..this whole area is Midwestern beyond debate..also any city on or within these boundaries is decisively Midwestern: any part of the Midwest outside of these boundaries represents a transition zone to either the west (Great Plains), to the south (Ozarks), or towards more Canadian influences (the Northwoods of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan)
Btw in 1860 St. Louis city was part of the county! It wasn't until 1877 the Stl city became its own entity. I hear it was because a lot of the county residents were pro southern hence while the city went on it's own.
Now people in the city want it to become part of the county again. No way I want that! Look at all the money the city loses it would be a huge drain on St. Louis county and it's tax base.
The county can't afford it.
the Midwest Core I consider MN, IA, NE, SD, ND, WI, northern IL, but IL as a whole isn't the midwest core because they have southern influences in some of the southern parts of the state.
I guess the Midwest core you can say is the most midwestern just like the deep south is the most southern culturally.
Just going by some of my textbooks in college before the civil war times considered St. Louis a southern city.
St. Louis in 1850 was NOT like it is today and most on here will agree. MO back then was totally different.
Also st. Louisan's did fight for the south. A couple thousand Irish people even fought for the Stars and Bars.
If Sterling Price were to been able to secure St. Louis the outcome of the CIvil war could have been quite different.
While do you think Lincoln had to install 1/4 of the union in Missouri to keep it occupied so Claiborne Jackson couldn't reclaim the state? If Lincoln didn't do that and we were under Confederate control it would have been a major blow and the south would have an advantage.
St. Louis was a key city and lincoln wanted it union at any cost. There is a good New York TImes article from back in May detailing how important it was to keep St. Louis occupied by the Union forces. St. Louis was a major river port city.
I agree with most of what you are saying.
The only problem I have with that theory is that there really are no southern features associated with the St. Louis dialect. It is VERY distinct from a southern accent, lacking the phrases "y'all", "coke", "fixin'," etc. I also typically consider St. Louis to be on the very southern edge of the Midwest core. As far as being a southern city, I'm not sure St. Louis ever truly fit that description. A border city? Before the Civil War, yes, certainly. However, during and after the Civil War, St. Louis was a decisively pro-Union city. St. Louis County actually cast the majority of its votes for Lincoln in the 1860 election. Today, St. Louis is an undebatably Midwestern city in basically every respect. In my opinion, the Midwest core consists of a line connecting the cities of Kansas City to Topeka to Lincoln to Omaha to Minneapolis, to Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, southwest through Columbus to Cincinnati, then west to St. Louis and back to Kansas City. I might even go so far as to say you could put Indianapolis as a place to extend that line to from Cincinnati before connecting it to St. Louis. Any rural area that would fall between the area with the boundaries I just described constitutes the Midwest core..this whole area is Midwestern beyond debate..also any city on or within these boundaries is decisively Midwestern: any part of the Midwest outside of these boundaries represents a transition zone to either the west (Great Plains), to the south (Ozarks), or towards more Canadian influences (the Northwoods of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan)
The area encompassed by the Mississippi Hills region is also thoroughly Midwestern, with the exception of southern Cape and northern Scott counties.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,092,866 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by onegoalstl
Btw in 1860 St. Louis city was part of the county! It wasn't until 1877 the Stl city became its own entity. I hear it was because a lot of the county residents were pro southern hence while the city went on it's own.
Now people in the city want it to become part of the county again. No way I want that! Look at all the money the city loses it would be a huge drain on St. Louis county and it's tax base.
The county can't afford it.
the Midwest Core I consider MN, IA, NE, SD, ND, WI, northern IL, but IL as a whole isn't the midwest core because they have southern influences in some of the southern parts of the state.
I guess the Midwest core you can say is the most midwestern just like the deep south is the most southern culturally.
Just going by some of my textbooks in college before the civil war times considered St. Louis a southern city.
St. Louis in 1850 was NOT like it is today and most on here will agree. MO back then was totally different.
Also st. Louisan's did fight for the south. A couple thousand Irish people even fought for the Stars and Bars.
If Sterling Price were to been able to secure St. Louis the outcome of the CIvil war could have been quite different.
While do you think Lincoln had to install 1/4 of the union in Missouri to keep it occupied so Claiborne Jackson couldn't reclaim the state? If Lincoln didn't do that and we were under Confederate control it would have been a major blow and the south would have an advantage.
St. Louis was a key city and lincoln wanted it union at any cost. There is a good New York TImes article from back in May detailing how important it was to keep St. Louis occupied by the Union forces. St. Louis was a major river port city.
I'm not getting deep into debate over this simply because for the most part St. Louis was never a decidedly southern city. Just because slavery was legal in a state didn't make it necessarily. St. Louis had strong economic ties to both the North and South prior to the Civil War. Many more St. Louisans fought for the Union than for the South. Also, the reason for the county seceding was that the city saw no need to maintain a rural area that wasn't expected to grow. There isn't a single source I can find substantiating people in St. Louis County being decidely pro-Southern...that was largely an irrelevant issue by that time anyway. Most of the textbooks I've read depicted antebellum St. Louis as a very divided city, a border city. Many freed blacks complimented enslaved ones, and industrially it was tied to the west, north, and south.
I'm not getting deep into debate over this simply because for the most part St. Louis was never a decidedly southern city. Just because slavery was legal in a state didn't make it necessarily. St. Louis had strong economic ties to both the North and South prior to the Civil War. Many more St. Louisans fought for the Union than for the South. Also, the reason for the county seceding was that the city saw no need to maintain a rural area that wasn't expected to grow. There isn't a single source I can find substantiating people in St. Louis County being decidely pro-Southern...that was largely an irrelevant issue by that time anyway. Most of the textbooks I've read depicted antebellum St. Louis as a very divided city, a border city. Many freed blacks complimented enslaved ones, and industrially it was tied to the west, north, and south.
Actually the Stl county thing is from what other people have posted on here, and I've read a few other places.
to this day most county people still bash St. Louis city basically now calling the city delapadated, and an economic drain. When the city last year came up with the idea of wanting to rejoin the county there was a lot of county people p*ssed off.
One thing look at the high crime in Stl city. The Counts courts would be CLOGGED with cases if the city comes under the juristiction of the county. Then you have the tax base. The city keeps losing tax base. Heck they have a city payroll income tax and they still fall short on cash. The county residents have a hard enough time with property taxes.
If that happend, you would see a lot of people moving into surrounding counties, but I can never see the state letting that happen.
Thinking about it, Baltimore is VERY similar to St. Louis then and now. Both border cities. In the Civil war the Union army also invaded and had riots just like the St. Louis Masacre. However as most historians agree even if Lincoln didn't jail the Maryland state lawmakers there still wouldn't have been enough votes likely to have seceeded from the union. Unlike Missouri who a majority of the state reps and state senators were for secession as well as the gov and lt Governor. Luckily they fled before Lyons could capture them. Then there is the debate if the state lawmakers can entact a ordinance of secession themselves. or if the constitutional convention has to.
At that time MO was more southern than Maryland.
Probably the deciding factor in Missouri staying under Union control was the battle of Pea Ridge. If the union army was demolished there, the confederates would have gained control of our state and our elected lawmakers would have been reinstalled.
Most people don't know much about Pea Ridge, but that basically was the difference in MO being under Union or Confederate Control.
Many say Prices Raid in 1864 was the last chance to rescue MO from the yankee invaders, but that had little odds of working. the union had firm control by then. The best thing that could have happend was when Price detoured from Stl because it was too heavily protected, was to been able to reclaim jefferson City and reinstall the elected government. While it wouldn't have helped much by then, the history books might consider Missouri an official Confederate state at least. Wouldn't mean much today except might see few more Confederate memorials in the state, more to honor the Confederates in MO.
If Missouri today was undisputingly considered a Confederate state, would more people today call Missouri a southern state? IMO it's mute because Confederate congresss admitted us as the 12th confederate state.
Pea Ridge was a debacle. The Confederates outnumbered the union soilders and got whooped. Many overlook it, but this was probably the deciding battle that determined if MO would remain in control of the Union. If Confederates won, the flood gates would have been opened for them to move in.
Actually the Stl county thing is from what other people have posted on here, and I've read a few other places.
to this day most county people still bash St. Louis city basically now calling the city delapadated, and an economic drain. When the city last year came up with the idea of wanting to rejoin the county there was a lot of county people p*ssed off.
One thing look at the high crime in Stl city. The Counts courts would be CLOGGED with cases if the city comes under the juristiction of the county. Then you have the tax base. The city keeps losing tax base. Heck they have a city payroll income tax and they still fall short on cash. The county residents have a hard enough time with property taxes.
If that happend, you would see a lot of people moving into surrounding counties, but I can never see the state letting that happen.
Thinking about it, Baltimore is VERY similar to St. Louis then and now. Both border cities. In the Civil war the Union army also invaded and had riots just like the St. Louis Masacre. However as most historians agree even if Lincoln didn't jail the Maryland state lawmakers there still wouldn't have been enough votes likely to have seceeded from the union. Unlike Missouri who a majority of the state reps and state senators were for secession as well as the gov and lt Governor. Luckily they fled before Lyons could capture them. Then there is the debate if the state lawmakers can entact a ordinance of secession themselves. or if the constitutional convention has to.
At that time MO was more southern than Maryland.
Probably the deciding factor in Missouri staying under Union control was the battle of Pea Ridge. If the union army was demolished there, the confederates would have gained control of our state and our elected lawmakers would have been reinstalled.
Most people don't know much about Pea Ridge, but that basically was the difference in MO being under Union or Confederate Control.
Many say Prices Raid in 1864 was the last chance to rescue MO from the yankee invaders, but that had little odds of working. the union had firm control by then. The best thing that could have happend was when Price detoured from Stl because it was too heavily protected, was to been able to reclaim jefferson City and reinstall the elected government. While it wouldn't have helped much by then, the history books might consider Missouri an official Confederate state at least. Wouldn't mean much today except might see few more Confederate memorials in the state, more to honor the Confederates in MO.
If Missouri today was undisputingly considered a Confederate state, would more people today call Missouri a southern state? IMO it's mute because Confederate congresss admitted us as the 12th confederate state.
Pea Ridge was a debacle. The Confederates outnumbered the union soilders and got whooped. Many overlook it, but this was probably the deciding battle that determined if MO would remain in control of the Union. If Confederates won, the flood gates would have been opened for them to move in.
Trying to write intelligently at 4 am probably isn't the best idea. Besides the material you have borrowed from other readers on here, did you have a point to make? Or is this more of a your constant drum roll of historical inaccuracies in your misguided attempt to prove we are all just a bunch of Confederate's being held against our will under Federal occupation.
Quote:
If Missouri today was undisputingly considered a Confederate state, would more people today call Missouri a southern state? IMO it's mute because Confederate congresss admitted us as the 12th confederate state.
So, you base your assessment that we are a Southern state on the fact that the Confederate congress admitted us as their 12th state. There are a few 'facts' that you might want to consider that you will not read on the web sites you like to quote from.
#1 The Missouri populace did not vote to secede from the union. In fact, no matter how much you like to claim otherwise, the state constitutional convention voted nearly unanimously NOT to secede. 98 to 1 is a pretty clear message. Regardless of this, Governor Claiborne Fox Jackson, was already and continued to secretly negotiate with the Confederate Congress.
#2 This state constitutional convention had been given the authority to secede, because the state legislation knew they did not have the right under the Missouri constitution, to pass a secession ordinance themselves. (to be fair - this has been and remains legally debatable) Whether they had a full quorum or not, those members of Congress that fled South with the Missouri State Guard and Governor Jackson, voted to secede in Neosho. By that time, the Missouri State Convention had replaced those members who had fled, once again, without Constitutional authority. Thus it could be argued that Missouri had no legitimate government that represented the state as a whole, and instead had two governments representing 'factions' of the state. Condition of war I suppose.
#3 The Supreme Court held in Texas vs White, 1869, that regardless of populace support, a state did not, and does not, have the constitutional right to secede. That was kind of what we fought an entire war over. Well over 600,000 American's lost their lives because of this question, and among them, thousand's of Missourians, both soldier and civilian alike.
#4 Historically, the Civil War years are some of the most fascinating to study and analyze. Your fascination with the period is understandable. However, it is increasingly apparent that, based on remarks you have made on this forum, that you have fallen into the trap of looking at history thru ideologically clouded glasses - which only allows you to see history as the present day neo-Confederate revisionist faction wants you too. It is time to stop parroting what others tell you, and stop reading web sites with agenda's.
By your 'we were on their flag so we must be one of them' reasoning, I would remind you that we were already on a flag before, remained on the same during the war, and are still on it 150 years later. Under this same flag, Missouri has moved on, entered two new centuries, offering its citizens a place to raise a family, and pursuit the inalienable rights of life, liberty and happiness. Under this flag, now adorned with 50 stars, it has sent many of its finest to fight and die in foreign countries representing Missouri and a "United" States. Under this flag, boys your age, are serving both of us, as well as Missouri and the United States, in combat today.
So while you are reading that "the South is still being held against its will by Northern aggression" nonsense, you might remember that while you are worrying about things like how do I talk to that cute girl in class, there are men and boys overseas at this very moment, who haven't seen their wives, sweethearts and children in months, who have more important things to 'worry' about - like is that rock in the road a bomb, or does that kid have a gun.
And that flag flying over their base, and stitched to their uniform - Missouri has been on that flag for 190 years now. Here is some history you can revise. Or maybe I should say some future that we all wish we could revise. The odds are regrettably high, that more of those men and boys who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan from Missouri could come home wrapped in a bag and a flag.
to this day most county people still bash St. Louis city basically now calling the city delapadated
Yourself being one of the bashers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Very few people outside of St. Louis County and especially outside of I-270 talked like that.
