 |
 | 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 2004Solder/Sodder
BrE speakers pronounce the 'L' in "solder." AmE speakers pronounce the word "sodder." Sound file here: http://www.bartleby.com/61/54/S0545400.html Etymology: Middle English soudur, from Old French soudure, soldure, from souder, soulder, to solder, from Latin solidre, to make solid, from solidus, solid. See solid. +++ Was it ever pronounced "sodder" in BrE, or as "solder" in AmE? > BrE speakers pronounce the 'L' in "solder." > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Was it ever pronounced "sodder" in BrE, or as "solder" in AmE? I have been brazing and soldering for some sixty years and have never heard it called soddering in either the RAF or in teaching. Peter P > BrE speakers pronounce the 'L' in "solder." > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Was it ever pronounced "sodder" in BrE, or as "solder" in AmE? In Scottish English, quite likely. Soldier is pronounced sodjer. m. >> BrE speakers pronounce the 'L' in "solder." >> AmE speakers pronounce the word "sodder." >> Sound file here: >> http://www.bartleby.com/61/54/S0545400.html >> Etymology: Middle English soudur, from Old French soudure, soldure, >> from souder, soulder, to solder, from Latin solidre, to make solid, >> from solidus, solid. See solid. >> Was it ever pronounced "sodder" in BrE, or as "solder" in AmE? >In Scottish English, quite likely. Soldier is pronounced sodjer. No, in Scots the "l" is usually pronounced. But in all parts of Britain the kind of aristocratic old buffers who talk about "gels" (girls) and "goff" (golf) tend to use the pronunciation "sodder", which suggests it is an older form which got modernised to conform with the (later) spelling. -- Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] > BrE speakers pronounce the 'L' in "solder." > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Was it ever pronounced "sodder" in BrE, or as "solder" in AmE? There's very little evidence of how anything at all was pronounced before the early 20th century, when dictionaries started including pronunciations. The 1936 Merriam-Webster only shows one pronunciation, sod-er. The 1913 Webster, which is on line, refers to two spelling variants, sawder and soder, which I would say indicate pronunciation. The 1828 Noah Webster, also on line, has this note: SOD'ER, v.t. [It has been taken for granted that this is a contracted word, from L. solido, and hence written solder. The fact may be doubted; but if true, the settled pronunciation seems to render it expedient to let the contracted orthography remain undisturbed.] [snip definitions] Under Solder, it says basically to see Soder. So, there's no evidence there that Americans ever said anything else. Noah indicated (above) that putting the "l" in the spelling may be a mistake. You know we don't have expressions like "sod off," so there's no conflict. You might look for when those became popular to understand the British pronunciation. Let's see, Cassell's Dictionary of Slang says that "sod" as a noun and verb, short for "sodomite" and "sodomize," are from the mid-19th century. Long after the Great Divide. "Sod all" and "sod off" are 20th century.  SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > > BrE speakers pronounce the 'L' in "solder." > > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Noah indicated (above) that putting the "l" in the spelling may be a > mistake. *The Century Dictionary,* an American dictionary of 1895 at www.century-dictionary.com , gives two pronunciations each for "solder," "solderer," and "soldering," with the pronunciation without /l/ given first and the pronunciation with /l/ given second. Then the editors appear to have tired of giving two pronunciations :-) , because "soldering" is followed by nine separate entries for compound words beginning with "soldering" which show only the /l/-less pronunciation. These are followed by an entry for "solder-machine" which also shows only an /l/-less pronunciation. As for dictionaries not showing pronunciation before the 20th century--and ignoring the Century, which was published shortly before the turn of the century--the 1828 dictionary by Noah Webster did indeed indicate pronunciation. I have seen a facsimile edition, and Webster used diacritics in the entry word to show its pronunciation. That is how I knew that Noah Webster gave the entry "ant" (now spelled "ain't") the pronunciation /eInt/. > You know we don't have expressions like "sod off," so there's no > conflict. You might look for when those became popular to understand the > British pronunciation. Let's see, Cassell's Dictionary of Slang says > that "sod" as a noun and verb, short for "sodomite" and "sodomize," are > from the mid-19th century. Long after the Great Divide. "Sod all" and > "sod off" are 20th century. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > As for dictionaries not showing pronunciation before the 20th century--and > ignoring the Century, which was published shortly before the turn of the > century-- Right, thanks, I misremembered the date, I thought it might be 1914. >the 1828 dictionary by Noah Webster did indeed indicate > pronunciation. I have seen a facsimile edition, and Webster used diacritics > in the entry word to show its pronunciation. That is how I knew that Noah > Webster gave the entry "ant" (now spelled "ain't") the pronunciation /eInt/. There must be some mistake. I own the facsimile edition, too, and there are no pronunciations. A stress mark is put in the headword, that's all I see. I'm looking at the entry for "ant" which is explained as "in our vulgar dialect, as in the phrases, I ant, you ant, he ant, we ant, &c.," and which he thought were "doubtless legitimate remains of the Gothic dialect' and there is no pronunciation given. I wonder what it was you saw. The title page on mine says "Noah Webster's First Edition of An American Dictionary of the English Language. Republished in Fascimile Edition by Foundation for American Chrisian Education..." The obverse says the original was 1828, and the reprint was made in 1967 and 1980. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > > As for dictionaries not showing pronunciation before the 20th century--and > > ignoring the Century, which was published shortly before the turn of the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Chrisian Education..." The obverse says the original was 1828, and the > reprint was made in 1967 and 1980. The copy I saw is in the reference section of the Wilson Library of the University of Minnesota: See http://tomos.oit.umn.edu/F/K29GCLYRYHXE6S7GJVJB3YP9EIP16PEJFJGT9XAHUIRENT117P-03 704?func=full-set-set&set_number=000079&set_entry=000001&format=999 or http://tinyurl.com/33tdx [quote] Author Webster, Noah, 1758-1843. Title An American dictionary of the English language. With an introd. by Mario Pei. Published New York, Johnson Reprint Corp., 1970. Description 2 v. port. 29 cm. Availability TC Wilson Library Reference Quarto PE1625 .W3 1828ab Non-Circulating Other Series ( Belles lettres in English) Note On spine: A facsim. of Noah Webster's original 1828 ed. Original t.p. reads: An American dictionary of the English language: intended to exhibit, I. The origin, affinities, and primary signification of English words, as far as they have been ascertained. II. The genuine orthography and pronunciation of words, according to general usage, or to just principles of analogy. III. Accurate and discriminating definitions, with numerous authorities and illustrations. To which are prefixed, an introductory dissertation on the origin, history, and connection of the languages of western Asia and of Europe, and a concise grammar of the English language. By Noah Webster, LL.D. New York, S. Converse, 1828. [end quote] Why your edition does not indicate pronunciation and the edition at the U of M does is a mystery. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com >There's very little evidence of how anything at all was pronounced >before the early 20th century, when dictionaries started including >pronunciations. Not so. We have an excellent idea, largely because of poetry or any sort of rhyming verse of the time. Shakespeare gave us loads of clues about the pronunciation of his day, for example. We even know how people in Chaucer's day spoke. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net > >There's very little evidence of how anything at all was pronounced > >before the early 20th century, when dictionaries started including [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > about the pronunciation of his day, for example. We even know how > people in Chaucer's day spoke. Good point. In addition: (1) There would be evidence based upon books written to teach foreigners how to speak English. (2) There would be passages written in pronunciation spelling by English writers who spoke one dialect trying to represent the speech of those who spoke another dialect. (3) Some English writers who took an interest in such things would have mentioned in their writings how some words were pronounced in a way which was at variance to what would be expected from their spelling. Furthermore, I expect some evidence could be found among works discussing the deaf and used to teach them, since one of the goals when teaching the deaf was to teach them to pronounce English words. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > > >There's very little evidence of how anything at all was > > >pronounced before the early 20th century, when dictionaries [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > how some words were pronounced in a way which was at variance to > what would be expected from their spelling. There's also evidence in the range of spellings used for words before it became standardized (and common misspellings afterwards). Strictly speaking, of course, this only gets us to the system of phonemic distinctions they made, not the actual pronunciation. We can be pretty sure that Chaucer used the same vowel in "soote" (sweet) and "roote" (root), but we need other evidence to tell us that the vowel was /o:/. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Yesterday I washed a single sock. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |When I opened the door, the machine Palo Alto, CA 94304 |was empty. | Peter Moylan kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> > >There's very little evidence of how anything at all was >> > >pronounced before the early 20th century, when dictionaries [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> how some words were pronounced in a way which was at variance to >> what would be expected from their spelling. Points (1) and (2) hadn't occurred to me, but I see you're right. >There's also evidence in the range of spellings used for words before >it became standardized (and common misspellings afterwards). For sure. There may be more evidence from that source than the one I mentioned. David Crystal has some interesting things to say about the subject in his seminal work. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net > For sure. There may be more evidence from that source than the one I > mentioned. David Crystal has some interesting things to say about the > subject in his seminal work. Help us out here. Crystal has written so much so well that it is hard to tell which is "his seminal work." In spite of the high quality of much of his work, I am hard-pressed to label any of it as "seminal." Much is popularization, _Who Cares About English Usage_ (1984), _Rediscover Grammar_ (1988), _Language A to Z_ (1991), _Listen to your Child_ (1986). Others are textbooks rehashing the already known, with Varley (1993) or Davy (1969 & 1975). His original work "Generating theological language" (in _Theolinguistics_ 8) has the best claim to "seminal," but it seems hardly related. SignatureMartin Ambuhl >> For sure. There may be more evidence from that source than the one I >> mentioned. David Crystal has some interesting things to say about the >> subject in his seminal work. > >Help us out here. Crystal has written so much so well that it is hard to >tell which is "his seminal work." Fair call. Out of laziness I didn't walk into the other room yesterday to check what the exact title is. _The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language_ is what I was referring to. Was seminal the wrong word to use? Perhaps. I used it because the work has often been cited in this group. I simply assumed it had both wide appeal and no small degree of influence on people interested in the language. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net >>>There's very little evidence of how anything at all was pronounced >>>before the early 20th century, when dictionaries started including [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>about the pronunciation of his day, for example. We even know how >>people in Chaucer's day spoke. Also, linguists have ways of studying and comparing current dialects (and other languages) to determine what the phonetic changes were over time. For details on how it's done, see a good linguistics text, such as the Ohio State Language Files. > >>>There's very little evidence of how anything at all was pronounced > >>>before the early 20th century, when dictionaries started including [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > on how it's done, see a good linguistics text, such as > the Ohio State Language Files. So, show me a poem that uses "solder" in a conclusive way. Or a Ohio State Language File. *My* point was meant to be that we, those of us here in the newsgroup, who have access to the Internet, and to the books in our houses and the libraries in our communities, have very little evidence with which to answer questions on how words were "ever" pronounced. I think we're lucky to have turned up as much as we did, on this one. I admit that the way I posted it, the idea of "accessible to us" didn't make it into the sentence. How nice I have a chance to clarify it. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >> >>>There's very little evidence of how anything at all was pronounced >> >>>before the early 20th century, when dictionaries started including [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >I admit that the way I posted it, the idea of "accessible to us" didn't >make it into the sentence. How nice I have a chance to clarify it. As close as we'll get to a "Whoops!", I suspect. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net > BrE speakers pronounce the 'L' in "solder." > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Was it ever pronounced "sodder" in BrE, or as "solder" in AmE? I can't say that it was ever pronounced "solder" in the US, but I was a US Navy trained solderer, and went to Navy school with sailors from all over the US and it was always pronounced "sodder". I have yet to hear anyone pronounce it "solder", even by people who do not know how to solder. >I can't say that it was ever pronounced "solder" in the US, but I was a US >Navy trained solderer, and went to Navy school with sailors from all over >the US and it was always pronounced "sodder". I have yet to hear anyone >pronounce it "solder", even by people who do not know how to solder. I pronounce it "solder" (Toronto). "Sodder" sounds like something a plumber would say. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com >>I can't say that it was ever pronounced "solder" in the US, but I was a US >>Navy trained solderer, and went to Navy school with sailors from all over [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I pronounce it "solder" (Toronto). "Sodder" sounds like something a > plumber would say. Yeah, that makes sense. A plumber would always mispronounce something he uses every day. Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote, in part: > I pronounce it "solder" (Toronto). "Sodder" sounds like something a > plumber would say. Plumbers or not, native speakers of Canadian English say 'sodder'; I consider anything else to be an error. >Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote, in part: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Plumbers or not, native speakers of Canadian English say 'sodder'; I >consider anything else to be an error. No, we all do not. There may be a relationship with education and age. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com > >Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote, in part: > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No, we all do not. Then some of us are in error, in my opinion. It happens. > There may be a relationship with education and age. I suspect that's just idle speculation but it strikes me as unlikely in any event except the trivial. For what it's worth, neither the Canadian Oxford nor the Gage Canadian recognize any pronunciation other than the one I've asserted. >Then some of us are in error, in my opinion. It happens. It's not a word that I have used rarely over the last 35 or 40 year, as a professional and as a hobbyist. Any objections to the pronunciation have been from lay people. I acknowledge that the "sodder" pronunciation dominates in the latter group. >> There may be a relationship with education and age. > >I suspect that's just idle speculation but it strikes me as unlikely in >any event except the trivial. For what it's worth, neither the Canadian >Oxford nor the Gage Canadian recognize any pronunciation other than the >one I've asserted. Not surprising. There is a general trend for Canadian pronunciations (and, to a lesser extent, spellings) to tend towards standard American English (and less BrE), probably accelerating after the second World War. You hardly ever hear "aluminium" from Canadian mouths any more, "programme" has become "program" and the use of colo[u]rful terms such as "bugger-all" is dying out among the young. Language changes over time. When I die there will be one less Canadian using the "solder" pronunciation. When do those Canadian dictionaries date from? I don't recall any such thing existing except fairly recently. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote, in part: > >For what it's worth, neither the Canadian Oxford nor the Gage Canadian > >recognize any pronunciation other than the one I've asserted. > [...] > > When do those Canadian dictionaries date from? I don't recall any such > thing existing except fairly recently. As if it's not bad enough that I'm discussing nuances of Canadian English with a Torontonian, now I discover that he doesn't even own a Canadian dictionary! In any event, the Canadian Oxford was first published in 1998. Gage is older, being a revision of the /Canadian Senior Dictionary/(1979), which in turn had its roots in a 1967 school dictionary. The latest revision was published in 1997 but you can still find copies of the 1983 edition in most bookstores--for around ten bucks, they'll even let you take one home. (But be warned: you'll get no comfort from the 'solder' entry.) >Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote, in part: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >in most bookstores--for around ten bucks, they'll even let you take one >home. (But be warned: you'll get no comfort from the 'solder' entry.) Is there a Canadian punctuation guide? I sometimes edit stuff for Canadians, and their punctuation usually looks like a mixture of UK and US, though some of them choose one or the other and stick with it. I try to figure out each unique system and go with that, but it's easier to edit US, UK, or even French. Carter Jefferson carterj98@mindspring.com http://carterj.homestead.com/ >>Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote, in part: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>English with a Torontonian, now I discover that he doesn't even own a >>Canadian dictionary! I know how to speak Canadian, no need. Trawna English is the standard, n'est pas? >>In any event, the Canadian Oxford was first published in 1998. Gage is >>older, being a revision of the /Canadian Senior Dictionary/(1979), which [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I try to figure out each unique system and go with that, but it's >easier to edit US, UK, or even French. I have a book called "Canadian Secretary's Handbook, New Edition" (C) 1983, published by Collier Macmillan. Roughly a third of the book is devoted to a word list. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com > >>Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote, in part: > >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I know how to speak Canadian, no need. Trawna English is the standard, > n'est pas? (n'est-ce pas?) J'espère que non. Pour bon nombre de Torontois l'anglais est une deuxième langue. Most Torontonians I know don't speak English as their native tongue, unless they come from another part of Ontario. > >>In any event, the Canadian Oxford was first published in 1998. Gage is > >>older, being a revision of the /Canadian Senior Dictionary/(1979), which [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Best regards, > Spehro Pefhany > > >>Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote, in part: > > >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Most Torontonians I know don't speak English as their native tongue, unless > they come from another part of Ontario. Whether most Torontonians speak English as their native tongue or not, or whether most Torontonians who speak English as their native tongue come from another part of Ontario or not, is irrelevant to the question of whether the English of Toronto is the standard dialect of Canadian English or not. Standard dialects are not determined by the number of their speakers. Take British English, for example. I have read that only one or two percent of British speak with Received Pronunciation, yet it is without doubt a standard accent for British English. (Whether Estuary English has effectively become a second standard accent is a controversial point, but even if it had, it too would be spoken by only a minority of British speakers.) Another mark of the standard dialect is that it is the dialect which is used in government and the courts. That would point to the English of Toronto as at least potentially being the standard. In fact, from what I have read, the standardization of Canadian *spelling* does indeed stem from decisions previously made by the Canadian federal government for standards adopted for its own use. Another mark of the standard dialect is that it is the dialect which is taught in schools. In the US, control of the schools does not come from the central government, as it does, for example, in France. If control of Canadian schools is somewhat centralized--more like France then like the US--then it may well be that Torontonian English will have had a disproportionate effect on the standard dialect of Canadian English which is taught in schools. The case with Canadian French, and what constitutes Standard Canadian French, is of course similar. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > Another mark of the standard dialect is that it is the dialect which is used > in government and the courts. That would point to the English of Toronto as > at least potentially being the standard. In fact, from what I have read, the > standardization of Canadian *spelling* does indeed stem from decisions > previously made by the Canadian federal government for standards adopted for > its own use. Why would Toronto be assumed to have a predominant influence on the language of the federal government? SignatureOdysseus > > Another mark of the standard dialect is that it is the dialect which is used > > in government and the courts. That would point to the English of Toronto as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Why would Toronto be assumed to have a predominant influence on the > language of the federal government? It would do so only if it were the capital of Canada, which it is not--my error. Fortunately, this error has no effect on my main point, which continues to hold true: "Standard dialects are not determined by the number of their speakers." SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com >>>Another mark of the standard dialect is that it is the dialect which is > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > continues to hold true: "Standard dialects are not determined by the number > of their speakers." Why would capital city status affect the result? I don't see Washington or Canberra or, in former days, Bonn having a significant influence on accent. True, in countries like England, France or Italy, where the capital is very large and, for historical reasons, is influential, things are different. SignatureRob Bannister > >>>Another mark of the standard dialect is that it is the dialect which is > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > capital is very large and, for historical reasons, is influential, > things are different. It would affect the result because that is where government and the courts are located and one measure of a standard dialect is that it is the dialect which is used in government and the courts. In the case of Canada, as I pointed out in an earlier post, the standard spelling does indeed seem to have been influenced by spelling standards adopted by the Canadian federal government for its own uses. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com >>Why would capital city status affect the result? I don't see Washington >>or Canberra or, in former days, Bonn having a significant influence on [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > have been influenced by spelling standards adopted by the Canadian federal > government for its own uses. So, would you claim that the Washington DC accent is making inroads into standard American? I realise that people actually live in Washington, whereas Canberra, to some extent, is still a place for temporary residents, but even so, I would be surprised if it were as influential as New York or any number of other big cities. SignatureRob Bannister > >>Why would capital city status affect the result? I don't see Washington > >>or Canberra or, in former days, Bonn having a significant influence on [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > residents, but even so, I would be surprised if it were as influential > as New York or any number of other big cities. First, Standard American English is a standard dialect without a standard accent, so we have to talk about matters other than accent. I get no sense that Washington, DC, is the source of any particular aspect of the standard dialect *except* for matters military and political: "Axis of Evil," "the Coalition of the Willing," "shock and awe" and "weapons of mass destruction" are recent examples. Besides that, I can think of two attempts to change the standard dialect from a basis of power in Washington: The adoption of "flammable" for "inflammable," which succeeded, and the adoption of new spelling during the administration of Theodore Roosevelt, which failed. In the latter case, the Government Printing Office initially refused to go along with Roosevelt's orders, and Congress effectively reversed those orders by denying any money to the GPO to implement them. I don't think there is now a center of change in the standard dialect of American English. Changes begin in Washington, in New York, in Los Angeles, and in other parts of the country. It's not like in the past, when New England constituted a strong influence on what was considered Standard American English (and when the federal government was of relatively little consequence). SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com >Why would Toronto be assumed to have a predominant influence on the >language of the federal government? Toronto has a dominant influence on the culture of English Canada- through publishing, television, radio and, to some extent, movies. I don't know where English-language school textbooks are approved- but if it's done on a provincial basis, it would surely be in the capital (Toronto) for Ontario. Arguably, a strong concentration is necessary to avoid being completely swamped by the cultural imports from south of the border. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com >> >Is there a Canadian punctuation guide? I sometimes edit stuff for >> >Canadians, and their punctuation usually looks like a mixture of UK >> >and US, though some of them choose one or the other and stick with it. >> >I try to figure out each unique system and go with that, but it's >> >easier to edit US, UK, or even French. Most Canadians can't decide if to follow the US or the UK. That must be the reason why some of them put ketchup *and* vinegar on their french fries. Geo > >> >Is there a Canadian punctuation guide? I sometimes edit stuff for > >> >Canadians, and their punctuation usually looks like a mixture of UK [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > must be the reason why some of them put ketchup *and* vinegar on their > french fries. And if they speak French they also add mayonnaise. (Try it, by the way: mayo on fried potatoes is very good. Garlic mayo even better. For variety, here in Wales they offer gravy: try that too.) Mike. >>>>> Is there a Canadian punctuation guide? I sometimes edit stuff for >>>>> Canadians, and their punctuation usually looks like a mixture of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > way: mayo on fried potatoes is very good. Garlic mayo even better. For > variety, here in Wales they offer gravy: try that too.) Curry sauce. m. >> >> >Is there a Canadian punctuation guide? I sometimes edit stuff for >> >> >Canadians, and their punctuation usually looks like a mixture of UK [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> must be the reason why some of them put ketchup *and* vinegar on their >> french fries. >And if they speak French they also add mayonnaise. (Try it, by the >way: mayo on fried potatoes is very good. Garlic mayo even better. For >variety, here in Wales they offer gravy: try that too.) >Mike. The ultimate Canadian snack food, of course, is poutine- french fries topped with cheese curds and smothered in piping-hot gravy. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com >> Most Canadians can't decide if to follow the US or the UK. That >> must be the reason why some of them put ketchup *and* vinegar on their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >way: mayo on fried potatoes is very good. Garlic mayo even better. For >variety, here in Wales they offer gravy: try that too.) I still prefer malt vinegar, but what surprised me is learning you live in Wales. I guess I should have picked up on that before this. I'm going to have to mellow my cracks about Wales since I've been making them largely for Matti's benefit, not thinking anyone else of note actually lived there. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net >>>>Is there a Canadian punctuation guide? I sometimes edit stuff for >>>>Canadians, and their punctuation usually looks like a mixture of UK [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> > Most Canadians can't decide if to follow the US or the UK. Is this a Canadianism? "if to follow"? I would have to write "if they ought to follow" or "whether to follow". SignatureRob Bannister >J'espère que non. Pour bon nombre de Torontois l'anglais est une deuxième >langue. I bow to your superior knowledge of the second official language. The best I can do is a dubious translation of "eh". >Most Torontonians I know don't speak English as their native tongue, unless >they come from another part of Ontario. True, particularly in the last 20 or 30 years, but the cultural heart of English Canada, if anywhere in particular, is surely in Toronto. At Box 500, Station A, and to a lesser extent on King and Queen streets downtown. Also, the demographics in the power structure are changing much more slowly, starting with, it seems, with status-conscious Asian immigrants and those of Asian heritage. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com >>>Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote, in part: >>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >Best regards, >Spehro Pefhany Thanks, Spehro. Anything that old is probably out of date, but I'll see if I can find it. Carter Jefferson carterj98@mindspring.com http://carterj.homestead.com/ > >[...] the Canadian Oxford was first published in 1998. Gage is > >older, being a revision of the /Canadian Senior Dictionary/(1979), which [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I try to figure out each unique system and go with that, but it's > easier to edit US, UK, or even French. The Canadian Oxford has a brief appendix covering the main points of punctuation and spelling. There are several Canadian English style guides--Oxford publishes one--but the only one I'm really familiar with is /Editing Canadian English/, now in a second edition, published by Macfarlane Walter & Ross; it covers punctuation quite thoroughly. Have a look at the reference section at <www.chapters.indigo.ca> for more titles. > Was it ever pronounced "sodder" in BrE, Yes, and also with a long o but no l (which is what the OED gives as the secondary British pronunciation). > or as "solder" in AmE? Not that I have heard. The switchover to pronouncing the l or lengthening the o in Britain seems to have happened within the 20th century. Fowler, in the original MEU (1927), says The only pronunciation I have ever heard, except from the half-educated to whom spelling is a final court of appeal, is [the "sodder" one], which is accordingly here recommended; but the OED gives it only as favoured by American dictionaries.... In 1958, when I was about to go to Britain, an American who had spent some time there warned me against using the American pronunciation, which he said would be heard as containing the slang word "sod" = sodomite. Perhaps, indeed, the two British pronunciations both got their start as escapes from vulgarity. Signature--- Joe Fineman jcf@TheWorld.com ||: A potato without pepper is like a kiss without a moustache. :|| > BrE speakers pronounce the 'L' in "solder." > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Was it ever pronounced "sodder" in BrE, or as "solder" in AmE? I've occasionally heard pronunciations with /l/ from Americans, but I consider them to be incorrect spelling pronunciations (here). SignatureJerry Friedman |
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.