 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004Eats, Shoots and Leaves again
Amazon/Canada finally came through; I read "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" this afternoon, and it's delightful. Yes, she's a little odd in her own usages now and then, but her attitude and style are what make the book so pleasant to read. She's definitely one of us--a punctuation nut. She's a moderate, though, willing, as I am, to give some ground, not too much, to the descriptivists. She's a stout defender of the semicolon, and does a fine job of showing how it differs from the colon. The book is more than just a guide; her forays into historical explanation are informative, and the bibliography shows she's done some reading on the subject. I wish something like it would appear in the US; people might read it. Selling E,S&L as is to Americans would, however, create hopeless confusion, because much of the punctuation she so aggressively defends is very British. The errors she attacks, however, are just as common over here. If you can't handle singular 'they,' stay away from it. She only does it once, though. Carter Jefferson carterj98@mindspring.com http://carterj.homestead.com/ > Amazon/Canada finally came through; I read "Eats, Shoots > and Leaves" this afternoon, and it's delightful. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > carterj98@mindspring.com > http://carterj.homestead.com/ It wouldn't bother me, personally, if Americans simply adopted the British (or European or whatever) standards of English. Seems to me as though it would simplify things somewhat. Oh well, I guess I'm somewhat unusual compared to most Americans. I actually prefer the extra U that ya'll throw in to some of your words :-) -Joe > It wouldn't bother me, personally, if Americans simply adopted the British > (or European or whatever) standards of English. Seems to me as though it > would simplify things somewhat. Oh well, I guess I'm somewhat unusual > compared to most Americans. I actually prefer the extra U that ya'll throw > in to some of your words :-) Ah, I'd be careful about embracing that <u>. First, it goes into only *some* words. So, Brits write 'colour', 'humour', 'splendour', but 'rigor', 'stupor', 'pallor'. Already a memory test. Second, the <u> disappears when certain suffixes are added, but not when other suffixes are added. So, 'humour' but 'humorous' and 'humorist', 'vapour' but 'vaporise' and 'evaporate', 'colour' but 'colourful'. And it's not consistent. The Brits write 'vaporise' but 'colourise', and 'humorist' but 'colourist'. Keeping track of these gyrations is a huge memory test. Get down on your knees and thank Noah Webster for delivering us Yanks from this madness. By the way, I noticed yesterday that Amazon.co.uk had posted a little ad on this newsgroup, or at least on my newsreader, for the Lynne Truss book, which was described as "humourous". Even the Brits can't keep track of these <u>s. Larry Trask larryt@sussex.ac.uk >> It wouldn't bother me, personally, if Americans simply adopted the >> British (or European or whatever) standards of English. Seems to me [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > First, it goes into only *some* words. So, Brits write 'colour', > 'humour', 'splendour', but 'rigor... Only medically, as in rigor mortis. Normally spelt rigour but, as you say, rigorous. (Same as vigour.) m. [LT] > > Ah, I'd be careful about embracing that <u>. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Only medically, as in rigor mortis. Normally spelt rigour but, as you say, > rigorous. (Same as vigour.) My apologies for this dozy slip. This word is in fact an example of a further point, which I failed to make. British English in fact uses *both* spellings, but in different senses. The everyday spelling is 'rigour', but the spelling 'rigor' is used for a range of technical senses in medicine, pathology, botany and zoology -- though not in mathematics. Larry Trask larryt@sussex.ac.uk > [LT] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > is used for a range of technical senses in medicine, pathology, botany > and zoology -- though not in mathematics. In medicine, rigor is often pronounced to rhyme with tiger; rigour, never. m. > > [LT] > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > In medicine, rigor is often pronounced to rhyme with tiger; rigour, never. > m. I was able to find only two dictionaries which made this distinction, and they don't quite agree with you. The first, the British *Collins English Dictionary* at http://www.wordreference.com/english/definition.asp?en=rigor doesn't rhyme "rigor" with "tiger" but with "buy more". The same is true of the 1895 American *Century Dictionary* at www.century-dictionary.com . This pronunciation follows the traditional English method for pronouncing Latin words. See http://www.saltspring.com/capewest/pron.htm which gives the rule that "The vowel of the first syllable is long if followed by a single consonant" and gives "Iris" as an example of this rule used for the pronunciation of "i." The word "virus," mentioned in the beginning of the Web page, also follows this rule. The Collins dictionary shows "rigor" as used in pathology as having only the pronunciation rhyming with "trigger."  SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com >>> [LT] >>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > The Collins dictionary shows "rigor" as used in pathology as having > only the pronunciation rhyming with "trigger." Yes, I should have said, the i in rigor rhymes with the i in tiger. m. >>>> [LT] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >Yes, I should have said, the i in rigor rhymes with the i in tiger. >m. It maykin BrE or medicine, but in ordinary use in the US I've never heard anyone say anything but "rih-gore." Carter Jefferson carterj98@mindspring.com http://carterj.homestead.com/ >>Yes, I should have said, the i in rigor rhymes with the i in tiger. >>m. > >It maykin BrE or medicine, but in ordinary use in the US I've never >heard anyone say anything but "rih-gore." Same in the UK, medical or not. The 'i' in 'rigour' rhymes with the one in 'bigger'. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England On 04 Jan 2004, Larry Trask wrote >> It wouldn't bother me, personally, if Americans simply adopted >> the British (or European or whatever) standards of English. Seems [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > First, it goes into only *some* words. So, Brits write 'colour', > 'humour', 'splendour', but 'rigor', ?? Although the medical term is definitely "rigor", "rigour" is perfectly fine in other contexts. SignatureCheers, Harvey Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years; Southern England for the past 21 years. (for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs) "Harvey Van Sickle" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote... > On 04 Jan 2004, Larry Trask wrote > > "Joe Reynolds" <bigtexan24506@yahoo.com> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > ?? Although the medical term is definitely "rigor", "rigour" is > perfectly fine in other contexts. So is Larry right about the inconsistency of us Brits, or is he right? Matti [snip] > Second, the <u> disappears when certain suffixes are added, but not > when other suffixes are added. So, 'humour' but 'humorous' and > 'humorist', 'vapour' but 'vaporise' and 'evaporate', 'colour' but > 'colourful'. And it's not consistent. The Brits write 'vaporise' but > 'colourise', and 'humorist' but 'colourist'. Keeping track of these > gyrations is a huge memory test. I believe that Fowler recommended and used "humourist", classifying "-ist" among the 'native English' suffixes like "-able". The Gowers and Burchfield editions of _MEU_ both give "humorist" despite maintaining the original classification (which also calls for "colorise/ize"; I think "colourise" is a hypercorrection) in their general "-our- and -or-" articles. SignatureOdysseus In article news:<48c7f19.0401040934.1e4393cf@posting.google.com>, Larry Trask wrote: > ... Brits write 'colour', 'humour', 'splendour', but 'rigor', > 'stupor', 'pallor'. Already a memory test. I'd say "rigour" is about as common as "rigor" - except in the special case of /rigor mortis/ (which phrase is a direct borrowing from Latin, anyway) -- and indeed the NSOED gives "rigor" as an alternative spelling of "rigour", rather than /vice versa/. No "stupour" or "pallour", though, I agree. A memory test indeed. Cheers, Daniel. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.