 |
 | 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 2004"nucular" (gasp) enters the OED
I'm surprised there hasn't been another outbreak of English-is-going- to-hell-in-a-handbasket anguish in the media over this one (yet)... The latest draft entries to the OED (Nipkow disc-nuculoid, added online December 11) includes the following: -------------- nucular, a.2 Brit. /'nju:kjUl@/, U.S. /'n(j)ukj@l@r/ Alteration of NUCLEAR a., representing a colloquial pronunciation (widely criticized by usage guides: see note s.v. NUCLEAR a.). There is no evidence of influence from the earlier word NUCULAR a.1 = NUCLEAR a. (in various senses). 1943 Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 70 460 They..begin the reversion process which results in a 4n restitution nucleus... A nucular membrane begins to form around the whole group or around smaller groups or isolated chromosomes. 1958 Science 25 July 195/1 (heading) Proceedings of the Rehovoth Conference on Nucular Structure. 1983 Freezniks Unite! in net.politics (Usenet newsgroup) 8 Apr., Her speech, which I did not hear, centered mainly around nuclear (nucular, to her) disarmament. 1985 Financial Times (Nexis) 2 Dec. I. 18 The CEGB spent £4m staging a full-scale crash of a nucular fuel transport flask at 100 mph. 2003 OT: Nucular! in rec.crafts.textiles.needlework (Usenet newsgroup) 11 July, It's not just George Bush--some very knowledgeable American professor/Scientist on TV just now, talking about the cold war, just spoke about the 'Nucular threat!' -------------- [new pronunciation note for "nuclear":] The colloquial pronunciation Brit. /'nju:kjUl@/, U.S. /'n(j)ukj@l@r/ (freq. rendered in written form as nucular; cf. NUCULAR a.2) has been criticized in usage guides since at least the mid 20th cent. (see for example Webster (1961) s.v.), although it is now commonly given as a variant in modern dictionaries. See Webster's Dict. Eng. Usage (1989) 673/1 for a discussion of possible origins of the pronunciation. -------------- Note the proud role of Usenet in providing captious commentary (wot, net.politics and rec.crafts.textiles.needlework but not one of 520 "nucular"-related posts to AUE?). > I'm surprised there hasn't been another outbreak of English-is-going- > to-hell-in-a-handbasket anguish in the media over this one (yet)... > The latest draft entries to the OED (Nipkow disc-nuculoid, added online > December 11) includes the following: If a word can have a variant spelling, why can't it have a variant pronunciation? What's a reasonable standard to hold a word to? None? Zimmer: >nucular, a.2 > Brit. /'nju:kjUl@/, U.S. /'n(j)ukj@l@r/ [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There is no evidence of influence from the earlier word > NUCULAR a.1 That makes no sense though. "Nucular" isn't its own word! Ask Strateegery how to spell "nucular" and he'd likely spell it "N-U-C-L-E-A-R". Well, that's given the assumption that he CAN spell the word in the first place, which probably is not the case. So, claiming that "nucular" is a word is like saying "axe" (I KNOW YOU ALL KNOW WHAT I MEAN) is a word or that "yarmulke" without the R and the L is a word. Regional pronunciations and accents doesn't make a word a different word. In fact, it's derogatory to the people with the accent to consider it so, like when people consider "dawg" its own word, rather than just the ghettoized pronunciation of "dog". de781@aol.com spake thus: > Zimmer: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > probably is not the case. So, claiming that "nucular" is a word is like saying > "axe" (I KNOW YOU ALL KNOW WHAT I MEAN) is a word Actually, in this case, I don't. "axe" is most definitely a word. Words don't disappear just because Americans have a strange view of how to spell them. You'll be telling us that "theatre" and "colour" aren't words, next.  SignatureDavid ===== > de781@aol.com spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > how to spell them. You'll be telling us that "theatre" and "colour" > aren't words, next. It's necessary to recall that YJ doesn't always make allowances for Pondian differences. His shouted aside following "axe" was, I believe, intended to indicate that he was quoting the AAVE version of "ask," as in "Don't axe me no questions and I ain't tell ya no lies." Nothing to do with axe vs. ax. Actually, I think YJ has a sound point for once. An alternative pronunciation is not ordinarily considered a new word. SignatureBob Lieblich Will wonders never cease? Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net spake thus: > > de781@aol.com spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > of "ask," as in "Don't axe me no questions and I ain't tell ya no > lies." Nothing to do with axe vs. ax. Ah. I misunderstood. In that case, Joey, I withdraw my objection. Axe is not a word, except when it is. > Actually, I think YJ has a sound point for once. An alternative > pronunciation is not ordinarily considered a new word. I agree. FWIW. SignatureDavid ===== David: >Ah. I misunderstood. In that case, Joey, I withdraw my objection. >Axe is not a word, except when it is. Exactly! > > de781@aol.com spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Actually, I think YJ has a sound point for once. An alternative > pronunciation is not ordinarily considered a new word. However, as I pointed out in another post, <ax> must be given as a separate *dictionary entry word* from <ask>, as in the following entry from *The Century Dictionary*: From www.century-dictionary.com [quote] *ax*3, *axe*3 [...], _v. t._ Obsolete or dialectal forms of _ask_1. For I wol _axe_ if it hir wille be To be my wyf. _Chaucer._ [end quote] It does not have the past tense variant of <asked>, <ast> as a separate entry, however, but lists it under <ask>: [quote] *ask*1 [...], _v._ [E. dial. also _ax_ and _a.s_ (pret. _ast_)[....] [end quote] And no, it does not list <a.s>, in the meaning in question, either. Interestingly enough, however, it has <a.s> as a variant (in both pronunciation and spelling) of another word: [quote] *a.s*2 [...], _n._ [Scotch form of _ash_2.] Ashes. [end quote] I avoided indicating the pronunciation of the <a>s in the words quoted, because I wanted to avoid headaches. But I should note that the Century considers that <fat>, <man>, and <pang> have a different vowel from that in <ask>, <fast>, and <ant>. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > I avoided indicating the pronunciation of the <a>s in the words quoted, > because I wanted to avoid headaches. But I should note that the Century > considers that <fat>, <man>, and <pang> have a different vowel from that in > <ask>, <fast>, and <ant>. In New York English, "fat" has the "be able can" vowel, while "man", "ask", "fast" and "ant" have the "tin can" vowel. I'm not sure where to group "pang" and the like, though I definitely don't regard it as having an /eI/ (which Bob Cunningham classifies his "ankle" as having). Fontana: >In New York English, "fat" has the "be able can" vowel, while "man", >"ask", "fast" and "ant" have the "tin can" vowel. HUH? I always thought New Yorkers pronounced "can" and "can" identically? I say them with different vowels, but I could swear that New Yorkers didn't. >In New York English, "fat" has the "be able can" vowel, while "man", >"ask", "fast" and "ant" have the "tin can" vowel. For me, "ask", "fast", & "fat" have the same vowel (the standard short a), and "man", "ant", and "can" have a different vowel. The other "can" has a short E vowel, even though "can't" has the same vowel as the DIFFERENT "can" vowel. Is this bizarre? <snip> > I avoided indicating the pronunciation of the <a>s in the words quoted, > because I wanted to avoid headaches. But I should note that the Century > considers that <fat>, <man>, and <pang> have a different vowel from that in > <ask>, <fast>, and <ant>. Looking at their preface, though, it seems that their symbol in "ask" etc. is meant to be taken as representing either the vowel of "fat" or that of "father". I didn't know "ant" could have the "father" vowel, though. Jonathan Lieblich: >It's necessary to recall that YJ doesn't always make allowances for >Pondian differences. I don't do this to be a.shole. I honestly don't know much about the British language, other than their funny accents and their oddly-spelled words. Don't tell me "ask" isn't big in Britain though, with Ali G's popularity over there. >His shouted aside following "axe" was, I >believe, intended to indicate that he was quoting the AAVE version Yes, I was. But what's "AAVE"? >Nothing to do with axe vs. ax. I don't even know what "ax" means. >Actually, I think YJ has a sound point for once. An alternative >pronunciation is not ordinarily considered a new word. Thank you, Bob. I do have sound points. I think my problem is most often generational slang and whatnot. > Lieblich: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Yes, I was. But what's "AAVE"? "African American Vernacular English," which is also referred to as "Black English," "Black English Vernacular," "Black Vernacular English," and "Ebonics." The AHD4 has an interesting usage note under its entry for "Black English" at http://www.bartleby.com/61/76/B0297600.html Oddly, *Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, * even in its latest edition, the 11th, makes no mention of African American Vernacular English or AAVE, having only "Black English," "Black English Vernacular," and "Ebonics." > >Nothing to do with axe vs. ax. > > I don't even know what "ax" means. You don't even know it as the most common American spelling for the cutting tool? As it happens, the AHD4 does have an entry for "ax" in the sense of "ask." It also has an interesting note on "Our Living Language" under the entry for that sense of "ax" at http://www.bartleby.com/61/40/A0554050.html > >Actually, I think YJ has a sound point for once. An alternative > >pronunciation is not ordinarily considered a new word. > > Thank you, Bob. I do have sound points. I think my problem is most often > generational slang and whatnot. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com Raymond: >"African American Vernacular English," which is also referred to as "Black >English," "Black English Vernacular," "Black Vernacular English," and >"Ebonics." The AHD4 has an interesting usage note under its entry for >"Black English" at "Ebonics" is easier, I think. >You don't even know it as the most common American spelling for the cutting >tool? No. I've always spelled it "axe". Is this not correct? What's "'axe' vs. 'ax'" anyway? Is there debate as to which is "more correct" or something? >As it happens, the AHD4 does have an entry for "ax" in the sense of "ask." Oddly enough, I've always spelled THIS as "axe" too. Weird. > Raymond: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > "Ebonics" is easier, I think. I look at language from the same point of view as linguists, and many linguists don't care for the term. For one thing, no other language variety ends in "-ics," which has a different use in linguistic terminology. See the discussion at the following (and follow the links for other opinions) http://www.linguistlist.org/~ask-ling/archive-1997.10/msg01672.html "AAVE" and "BEV" are terms which were coined by linguists. "Ebonics" was coined by a psychologist, Robert Williams, who did *not* originally apply it to AAVE, but to a larger linguistic phenomenon of which AAVE was but one example. See below for a repost of a message I wrote on the subject. > >You don't even know it as the most common American spelling for the cutting > >tool? > > No. I've always spelled it "axe". Is this not correct? What's "'axe' vs. > 'ax'" anyway? Is there debate as to which is "more correct" or something? The spelling "ax" is considered incorrect in British English. Both "ax" and "axe" are correct in American English. I made a mistake in my previous message. American dictionaries online do not show "ax" to be more common than "axe," but show the two variants to be used about equally often (in American English, that is). > >As it happens, the AHD4 does have an entry for "ax" in the sense of "ask." > > Oddly enough, I've always spelled THIS as "axe" too. Weird. Repost of message I wrote concerning "Ebonics," originally posted to alt.english.usage and alt.usage.english : http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=47dd044c.0206051819.6306 af97%40posting.google.com&rnum=1 or http://tinyurl.com/zblq [begin quote from Usenet post] [...] I have decided to go back to John Baugh's *Beyond Ebonics: Linguistic Pride and Racial Prejudice," New York: Oxford University Press, (C) 2000, in an attempt to clarify matters concerning the original meaning of "Ebonics." The second chapter of Baugh's book is titled "Ebonic Genesis" (pages 15 to 24). In it, Baugh explains how the term "Ebonics" originated, what it meant to the man who coined the term, and how it underwent a shift in sense from the original meaning to its currently most common meaning of "a nonstandard dialect of American English spoken by African Americans." I erred, it turns out, in referring to Ebonics (in the original meaning) as being a "hemispheric" phenomenon, by which I meant a phenomenon of the Americas. It is, in fact, a phenomenon of the Americas and West Africa. Baugh begins by mentioning the conference in January 1973 at which Robert Williams coined the term "Ebonics": "Cognitive and Language Development of the Black Child." Then he quotes a definition from Williams's 1975 book *Ebonics: The True Language of Black Folks." This definition, which Williams repeated when testifying before a US Senate committee, includes the following: See the transcript of the Senate hearing on Ebonics (a long file) at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=special_hearing_on_ebo nics&docid=f:39641.wais [quote] Ebonics may be defined as the linguistic and paralinguistic features which, on a concentric continuum, represent the communicative competence of the West African, Caribbean, and U.S. slave descendent of African origin. It includes the grammar, various idioms, patois, argots, ideolects, and social dialects of black people. [end quote] It is clear that Williams was not including in his definition all languages spoken by Africans and their descendants. Otherwise, he would have included *all* of Africa in his definition instead of just West Africa. As Baugh says, on page 16: [quote] As this original definition indicates, Ebonics is the linguistic and paralinguistic consequence of the African slave trade. It developed in West Africa, as well as throughout the former European colonies of North and South America wherever slaves were sold into bondage. Ebonics, under this earliest definition, was never intended to apply narrowly to the United States--and therein lies part of the confusion that has resulted from the Ebonics controversy. [end quote] Williams is not a linguist, and Baugh finds his definition wanting from a linguistic point of view. While "quite sympathetic to Williams's desire to include 'paralinguistic features' within his primordial Ebonics definition," Baugh decides that "paralinguistic features" must be excluded because they currently fall outside the "scientific boundaries to which linguists typically adhere." The reason is that they "continue to defy precise measurement" (page 18). On page 19, Baugh notes that the meaning of "Ebonics" drifted, on the one hand, to the narrower interpretation of a dialect of American English, and on the other hand, to all languages spoken by Africans and their descendants. These are certainly linguistic categories. The question is, are they *useful* linguistic categories? When Ebonics is considered in the narrow definition as a dialect of American English, it is a subcategory of English, and thus part of the Germanic family of languages. It is possible that this is the sort of category that Don Phillipson had in mind, but it is by no means clear, since Phillipson had no objection when I identified English- and French-based creoles as being part of Ebonics. From a linguistic point of view, "creoles" form a linguistic category, but they *do not* form part of a language family: English-based creoles are *not* considered part of the Germanic family of languages and French-based creoles are *not* considered part of the Romance family of languages. In this, creoles resemble sign languages, which also do not belong to language families[1]. Phillipson *did* object to the idea of including in Ebonics the speech of Africans and the descendants of Africans when they speak a standard dialect, such as Standard French or Standard Spanish. In this, Baugh agrees with him. He specifically disagrees with Aisha Blackshire-Belay's attempt to include under Ebonics all languages spoken by Africans and their descendants. However, the speech of blacks when they speak a pidgin (as in the past) or a creole *based upon* another language, if that pidgin or creole would never have existed but for the slave trade, *is* something which should be included under the label of Ebonics, in its wider sense. On pages 21 and 22, Baugh says: [quote] In many respects "Ebonics" has suffered the same linguistically misperceived fate as the term "sign language." Linguists are quick to note that American sign language and British sign language are separate and distinct languages. [...] Despite this reality, many nonlinguists tend to use the general term "sign language" without further specification. The same has been true for Ebonics. Since the vast majority of people from all walks of life first encountered Ebonics in news reports, they equate it with "black English." In much the same manner that linguists distinguish among different sign languages, it would have been far more accurate for scholars, Oakland educators, and journalists to refer to (North?) "American Ebonics" rather than "Ebonics"--which, like the term "sign language," has overt international implications. Some Ebonics advocates have reaffirmed the international foundations of the term: Ebonics in the United States, Ebonics in Haiti, Ebonics in Brazil, and Ebonics in Africa should not be equated with a single language. There is no empirical linguistic justification for such consolidation. However, Ebonics, as a linguistic construct derived from the linguistic consequences of the African slave trade, is of considerable scholarly utility--despite inconsistencies in previous accounts, and regardless of its saturation with political and ideological baggage that can no longer be easily disposed of. [end quote] To summarize: Ebonics in the wider sense is a linguistic construct, just as "pidgins," "creole languages," or "sign language" are linguistic constructs. None of these, however, constitute a member of a language family. In the narrower sense of "Black English spoken in the United States," Ebonics is a member of the Germanic family of languages (but Gullah, an English-based creole spoken in America, is not part of the Germanic family of languages). Note: French Sign Language and American Sign Language share a large percentage of words, but I don't believe that any linguist has ever grouped them into the same language family. [end quote from Usenet post] SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > The spelling "ax" is considered incorrect in British English. Both "ax" and > "axe" are correct in American English. I didn't check out any dictionaries, but I would have thought the 'ax' spelling was thought of, not as incorrect, but as an alternative spelling which was either American or old-fashioned. It certainly comes up in British crossword puzzles. SignatureRob Bannister > > The spelling "ax" is considered incorrect in British English. Both "ax" and > > "axe" are correct in American English. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > spelling which was either American or old-fashioned. It certainly comes > up in British crossword puzzles. I almost wrote that "The spelling 'ax' is considered incorrect in British English, since it would be considered an Americanism." But I thought that might mislead some people into thinking that it was an Americanism which some British were using, rather than an Americanism limited to the US. I figured that "considered incorrect in British English" was sufficient. If an American student were to write "labour" or "gaol," I would expect his teacher to mark that as wrong, and I would expect the same would happen to a British student who wrote "ax" in a school paper. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com >>>The spelling "ax" is considered incorrect in British English. Both "ax" > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > teacher to mark that as wrong, and I would expect the same would happen to a > British student who wrote "ax" in a school paper. Strange teachers! Since I taught foreign languages, my primary job was not to correct students' English, but of course I did. If I came across an American spelling, I would only 'correct it if the student had been inconsistent, eg using 'labour' and 'colour' in the same piece. However, because of the heavy influence of American TV on Australian teenagers, I probably would comment on both American spellings and expressions, just to ensure that the student was aware of what he or she was doing. I certainly would never have told them they were incorrect. SignatureRob Bannister David: >Actually, in this case, I don't. "axe" is most definitely a word. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you really didn't get it. "Axe" is the ghetto/Ebonic pronunciation of "ask". It's not a separate word, even though many seem to consider it so. >Words don't disappear just because Americans have a strange view of >how to spell them. You'll be telling us that "theatre" and "colour" >aren't words, next. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying alternate pronunciations don't just become different words with made-up spellings. > Zimmer: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > to consider it so, like when people consider "dawg" its own word, rather than > just the ghettoized pronunciation of "dog". It depends entirely upon what you mean by "word." How many words do the following represent: <once>, <oncet>, and <wunst>? You could consider them all variants of one word, or you could consider that there are two words, <once> and <oncet>, with the latter having the spelling variant <wunst>. Whether they should be entry words in a dictionary depends upon many factors, but if you're going to include the nonstandard variants, then <wunst> has to be included as a separate entry word from <once>. If not, someone seeing <wunst> in a text and looking it up in the dictionary might not be able to find it, because he might not think to look under the entry word <once> or, if a separate entry word, <oncet>. (I consider <wunst> to be the preferable spelling, as a person seeing <oncet> is likely to pronounce it the same as he would <onset>.) For the same reason, <ax>, the nonstandard version of the verb <ask>, should be included as a separate entry word, as should <ho> for <whore>, if these nonstandard usages are included in a dictionary.The spelling <ho> is similar to the spelling <wunst>, in that any other representation of the dialectal pronunciation would be misleading: <who'> might be pronounced the same as <who>, <'ho'> would look like you were using scare quotes, and <who'e> and <'ho'e> would just be puzzling. You are correct that those who use the pronunciation represented by <nucular> are likely to spell it <nuclear>. That is why care should be taken when using it. A reporter writing a quote from President Bush, for example, should not ordinarily use the spelling <nucular> but should usually use the spelling <nuclear> instead. That does not mean that <nucular> should never be used, however. It represents a genuine difference in pronunciation, unlike, for example, the eye dialect <lissen> for <listen>, so that there are occasions when it would be legitimate to use it to represent a speaker's manner of speech. In such a circumstance, it would be pronunciation spelling rather than eye dialect. The word <ax>, for <ask> is not listed in *Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary,* 11th ed., nor is <oncet> or <wunst> , for that matter. But <ho>, for <whore>, is. The OED, being more comprehensive, should have all of them, either now or when the new edition comes out. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > For the same reason, <ax>, the nonstandard version of the verb <ask>, should > be included as a separate entry word, as should <ho> for <whore>, if these [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > <who>, <'ho'> would look like you were using scare quotes, and <who'e> and > <'ho'e> would just be puzzling. "Ho" also has evolved a distinct meaning from that of "whore". Indeed, if we were just trying to represent a traditional Southern US-African-American pronunciation of "whore", I think "who'" might be best, despite the potential for confusion or mispronunciation. > For the same reason, <ax>, the nonstandard version of the verb <ask>, should > be included as a separate entry word, as should <ho> for <whore>, if these [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > <who>, <'ho'> would look like you were using scare quotes, and <who'e> and > <'ho'e> would just be puzzling. Now you've brought it up, how exactly is the word pronounced? I couldn't find it in any online dictionary, and I've always assumed it was pronounced like 'hoe', but I'm guessing it might be more like 'haw'. SignatureRob Bannister > > For the same reason, <ax>, the nonstandard version of the verb <ask>, should > > be included as a separate entry word, as should <ho> for <whore>, if these [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > find it in any online dictionary, and I've always assumed it was > pronounced like 'hoe', but I'm guessing it might be more like 'haw'. Like "hoe". Similarly, stereotypical Southern Black pronunciations of "door" sound like "doe", "more" like "moe" (NTBCW Elizabethan "mo"?), etc. I don't know if this relates at all to the horse/hoarse thing. [...] > Like "hoe". Similarly, stereotypical Southern Black pronunciations of > "door" sound like "doe", "more" like "moe" (NTBCW Elizabethan "mo"?), etc. Appropriate Golden Oldies: Who's shouting "Hoe-dee-doe! Hoe-dee-doe!" -- A black guy running toward a closing elevator door. What's "Foe-fah-foe foe-foe-fah-foe"? -- Jesse Jackson's phone number. Negro woman to doctor: "Ah'm havin' dese here menstrual cramps." Doctor: "What's your flow?" Woman: "Linoleum." SignatureReinhold (Rey) Aman Fontana: >Similarly, stereotypical Southern Black pronunciations of >"door" sound like "doe", "more" like "moe" (NTBCW Elizabethan "mo"?) "Mo'" in "rap-ish", as exemplified in Biggie's "Mo' Money, Mo' Problems". "Do'" for "door" has yet to appear in rap, as far as I know, at least as an "official" spelling. > > > For the same reason, <ax>, the nonstandard version of the verb <ask>, should > > > be included as a separate entry word, as should <ho> for <whore>, if these [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I don't know if this relates at all to the horse/hoarse thing. Well, "door", "more" and "whore" all have the "hoarse" vowel, so possibly. But what are "stereotypical Southern Black pronunciations" of "war" and stressed "for" like? What happens before a consonant - does "court" come out like "coat"? Jonathan Jonathan: >But what are "stereotypical Southern Black pronunciations" >of "war" and stressed "for" Don't tell me you've never heard "fo' sho'"! Fo' sho'? >>Now you've brought it up, how exactly is the word pronounced? I couldn't >>find it in any online dictionary, and I've always assumed it was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I don't know if this relates at all to the horse/hoarse thing. Thanks for the enlightenment. I hate it when I don't know how to pronounce words I read. SignatureRob Bannister Raymond: >It represents a genuine difference in pronunciation, >unlike, for example, the eye dialect <lissen> for <listen>, so that there >are occasions when it would be legitimate to use it to represent a speaker's >manner of speech When and why would it be legitimate to represent words as they are actually spoken, besides for informal writing such as comic books and stuff like that? >But ><ho>, for <whore>, is. I don't like your comparison of "whore" vs. "ho" to "ask" vs. "axe". "Ho" is a special case. It's possibly the ONE word of ghetto origin that was initially just an alternate pronunciation of "whore" but is now a word with a somewhat different meaning than the word it originated from. This is unlike "ask" and "axe", which still have the exact same meaning. Say "whore" on MTV, and it'll be bleeped out. Say "ho", and it's not a problem. I'm too exhausted to get into the subtle differences between the two words now. "Whore" is far more derogatory, to give a very general explanation. > Raymond: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > When and why would it be legitimate to represent words as they are actually > spoken, besides for informal writing such as comic books and stuff like that? When representing informal speech, as in novels. Besides that, much modern writing in English is in the informal register. An example is the writing of many newspaper columnists. In such a case, pronunciation spellings like <gonna>, <coulda>, and <speakin'> are acceptable, because they contrast with the more formal forms <going to>, <could have>, and <speaking>, which represent the pronunciation which the speaker would use when speaking in more formal situations. Writing is a defective representation of speech. It's a sort of code which fails to show all the nuances of speech. We have to help it along, and the judicious use of spelling pronunciation (not to be confused with eye dialect) is one way to do so. As for AAVE, some linguists, including Geneva Smitherman, author of *Talkin and Testifyin: The Language of Black America* and *Talkin That Talk: Language, Culture, and Education in African America,* prefer to represent <ain't> as <ain> and such words as <talking> and <testifying> as <talkin> and <testifyin>. They do this on the grounds that there is nothing being elided, and so there is no justification for the apostrophe. I don't remember whether Smitherman uses the spelling <ax> or <aks>, but I get the impression that usually, linguists representing AAVE in print prefer to use the spelling <aks> instead of <ax>. > >But > ><ho>, for <whore>, is. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > into the subtle differences between the two words now. "Whore" is far more > derogatory, to give a very general explanation. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > > When and why would it be legitimate to represent words as they are > actually [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > judicious use of spelling pronunciation (not to be confused with eye > dialect) is one way to do so. ITYM "pronunciation spelling". http://www.bartleby.com/64/C007/0151.html http://www.bartleby.com/64/C007/0177.html > > > When and why would it be legitimate to represent words as they are > > actually [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > http://www.bartleby.com/64/C007/0151.html > http://www.bartleby.com/64/C007/0177.html Yes, you're right. I have an interest in both pronunciation spelling and spelling pronunciation, have written posts about both, and have confused the terms before, though not the actual phenomena. In the post to which you were replying, I used both terms, once correctly and once incorrectly. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com Raymond: > In such a case, pronunciation spellings like ><gonna>, <coulda>, and <speakin'> are acceptable, because they contrast with >the more formal forms <going to>, <could have>, and <speaking>, which >represent the pronunciation which the speaker would use when speaking in >more formal situations. I've GOT it! So, then, shouldn't something like "nucular" technically be defined not as an "alternate pronunciation", but as a "mocking pronunciation" or something? For example, it seems that whenever people who say "nuclear" DO use "nucular", in writing or in speaking, it's to diss the people who say it that way. >but I >get the impression that usually, linguists representing AAVE in print prefer >to use the spelling <aks> instead of <ax>. I've ALWAYS used "aks" or even "asksksksks", but I thought the "more correct" spelling used here was "axe". I've always spelled the ghetto version of "asks" as "axes" though, and "asked" as "axed". [...] >....Regional pronunciations and accents doesn't make a > word a different word. In fact, it's derogatory to the people with > the accent to consider it so, like when people consider "dawg" its > own word, rather than just the ghettoized pronunciation of "dog". I wish I could hear your pronunciations of "dog" and "dawg." I guess I pronounce "dog" as "dawg." Almost everyone I know does. "Ghettoized"? I don't think so. SignatureMaria Conlon For email: Please don't use "from" address; instead, use tootsie at sprynet dot com > [...] > >....Regional pronunciations and accents doesn't make a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > pronounce "dog" as "dawg." Almost everyone I know does. "Ghettoized"? I > don't think so. Some CIC people sound like they're saying "dahg". In fact, some CINC people in the Upper Midwest do too (witness my mishearing "dog floor" as "dock floor"). OTOH, some CINC people sound to other people like they're saying "dawg" in a way that is more "aw"-y than their own "dog", if you follow me. Joey's CINC, we think. Some CIC people sound like they're saying "dawg"; this might be true, for example, of some Northern Utah speakers. Fontana: >Some CIC people sound like they're saying "dahg". "CIC"? Does this mean "people in Massachusetts"? >In fact, some CINC >people in the Upper Midwest do too (witness my mishearing "dog floor" as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Joey's CINC, we think. What is "CINC" and how do I know if I am it? What's "we think" mean? Why not just ask me if I am? Where'd the people who assumed I was "CINC" get the idea that I was from? Just curious. > I wish I could hear your pronunciations of "dog" and "dawg." I guess I > pronounce "dog" as "dawg." Almost everyone I know does. "Ghettoized"? I > don't think so. HM The Queen and most people around Sloane Square pronounce dog as dawg (not necessarily identically with MC.) -- Don Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) > > I wish I could hear your pronunciations of "dog" and "dawg." I guess I > > pronounce "dog" as "dawg." Almost everyone I know does. "Ghettoized"? I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Square pronounce dog as dawg (not necessarily > identically with MC.) So what words besides "dog" and "off" get this "aw" vowel in the Sloane Square accent? I'd like to see how closely it matches the set of orthographical "short o" words that get the "caught" vowel in, say, New York English (i.e., words in the "dog" class). Maria: >I wish I could hear your pronunciations of "dog" and "dawg." I guess I >pronounce "dog" as "dawg." Almost everyone I know does. "Ghettoized"? I >don't think so. To be honest with you, I think I do too. Although, I might make the vowel in "dawg" a bit more "New Yorkish" than I'd do in "dog". I've never quite understood why "ghetto" people tend to use "dawg" rather than simply "dog". Maybe it's because some people, in some parts of the country, say "dog" with a short "o", to rhyme with "log"? HELP, Fontana! I haven't gotten around to reading those pronunciation symbols yet. I think you'd know what I'm talking about, because you likely pronounce "log" and "dog" differently, like I do. I'm not sure if Maria, or anyone else, does though. So, I'm not positive what I'm trying to say is clear. > To be honest with you, I think I do too. Although, I might make the vowel in > "dawg" a bit more "New Yorkish" than I'd do in "dog". I've never quite [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > reading those pronunciation symbols yet. I think you'd know what I'm talking > about, because you likely pronounce "log" and "dog" differently, like I do. Yes. "Dog" has the "caught" vowel, "log" has the "cot" vowel. I'd guess that Maria uses "caught" in "log" as well as "dog". BTW, what vowel do you use in "cauliflower" and "astronaut"? In New York English we use the "cot" vowel despite the <au> spelling, pronouncing them as though they were spelled "collieflower" and "astronot". These are exceptions, of course. Fontana: >BTW, what vowel do you use in "cauliflower" and "astronaut"? In New York >English we use the "cot" vowel despite the <au> spelling, pronouncing them >as though they were spelled "collieflower" and "astronot". These are >exceptions, of course. Same in NJ. > > To be honest with you, I think I do too. Although, I might make the vowel in > > "dawg" a bit more "New Yorkish" than I'd do in "dog". I've never quite > > understood why "ghetto" people tend to use "dawg" rather than simply "dog". > > Maybe it's because some people, in some parts of the country, say "dog" with a > > short "o", to rhyme with "log"? That may be part of it. Also they may be using a non-standard spelling to indicate that their pronunciation as a whole is non-standard, like "sez" for "says" (even though both /dOg/ and /sEz/ are standard pronunciation). > > HELP, Fontana! I haven't gotten around to > > reading those pronunciation symbols yet. I think you'd know what I'm talking > > about, because you likely pronounce "log" and "dog" differently, like I do. > > Yes. "Dog" has the "caught" vowel, "log" has the "cot" vowel. I'd guess > that Maria uses "caught" in "log" as well as "dog". Jerry does, and Cleveland is pretty close to Detroit. > BTW, what vowel do you use in "cauliflower" and "astronaut"? In New York > English we use the "cot" vowel despite the <au> spelling, pronouncing them > as though they were spelled "collieflower" and "astronot". These are > exceptions, of course. "Collieflower" /'kAli,flaUw@r/ is also the Northern New Mexican Cafeteria Servers' Prestige pronunciation. I don't notice the /A/ much, but the /i/ instead of a schwa is definitely non-standard where I come from, same as in "beautyful". SignatureJerry Friedman > > BTW, what vowel do you use in "cauliflower" and "astronaut"? In New York > > English we use the "cot" vowel despite the <au> spelling, pronouncing them [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > much, but the /i/ instead of a schwa is definitely non-standard where > I come from, same as in "beautyful". Wait, so you say "cauliflower" as "caula-flower"? The way the British say "anything" as "enna-thing"? WWS. I see that M-W gives the pronunciation (converted to KirshAIPA) as /kAlIflaU@r/ and /kOlIflaU@r/ -- they definitely have that second vowel as /I/, while in New York English it's definitely /i/. I had no idea that "collie-flower" with /i/ was not GenAm. WWS. AHD4 also gives /I/, and not /i/. WWS! But I don't see how any red-blooded AmE speaker could sustain that /I/ without it becoming a schwa (as indeed it appears to be for you). If it weren't for "beauty-ful" I'd even wonder whether the dictionaries are correct. I'm going to continue to use /i/ in "cauliflower", anyway. As for New Mexico, I'd expect that many of its native speakers are CIC, it being in the West (in the dialectal sense), but I don't know. > > > BTW, what vowel do you use in "cauliflower" and "astronaut"? In New York > > > English we use the "cot" vowel despite the <au> spelling, pronouncing them [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Wait, so you say "cauliflower" as "caula-flower"? The way the British > say "anything" as "enna-thing"? Oy! > WWS. I see that M-W gives the > pronunciation (converted to KirshAIPA) as /kAlIflaU@r/ and /kOlIflaU@r/ > -- they definitely have that second vowel as /I/, while in New York > English it's definitely /i/. I had no idea that "collie-flower" with > /i/ was not GenAm. I have /'kA.lIflaUr/, but I don't really feel a difference between that and "collie-flower", other than that "flower" is more likely to be two syllables than "cauliflour" is to be four. > WWS. AHD4 also gives /I/, and not /i/. WWS! But > I don't see how any red-blooded AmE speaker could sustain that /I/ > without it becoming a schwa (as indeed it appears to be for you). If > it weren't for "beauty-ful" I'd even wonder whether the dictionaries > are correct. I'm going to continue to use /i/ in "cauliflower", > anyway. Why on earth wouldn't you? Jonathan While it was 16/12/03 11:41 pm throughout the UK, Areff sprinkled little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus: >>> BTW, what vowel do you use in "cauliflower" and "astronaut"? In >>> New York English we use the "cot" vowel despite the <au> >>> spelling, pronouncing them as though they were spelled >>> "collieflower" and "astronot". These are exceptions, of course. I guess enumerating the ways you Americans pronounce "au" is a whole new matter altogether. Speaking of which, the other day I saw Rain Man on TV, and heard what sounded to my ears like "not artistic, artistic". OK, so maybe there was a subtle difference between the two "ar" sounds.... <snip> > Wait, so you say "cauliflower" as "caula-flower"? The way the > British say "anything" as "enna-thing"? <snip> In my part of Britain, they are /'kA.lI,flaU@/ and /'Eni,TIN/ respectively. The usual pronunciation of "au" is /O:/, with a handful of exceptions (aunt, Australia et al). Stewart. SignatureMy e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. <snip> > > Wait, so you say "cauliflower" as "caula-flower"? The way the > > British say "anything" as "enna-thing"? > <snip> > > In my part of Britain, they are /'kA.lI,flaU@/ and /'Eni,TIN/ respectively. I'd go with /'EnI,TIN/, with a variable /g/ on the end, but I think you're from further south than I am. The second and third vowels feel virtually identical. > The usual pronunciation of "au" is /O:/, with a handful of exceptions > (aunt, Australia et al). I think it's fairly consistent in its sound in AmE as well. Indeed, I think they tend to have fewer exceptions than I do(e.g. "fault", "Austin", which don't have /O/ for me). But I wonder how they react to "Dolgellau"? Jonathan > I'd go with /'EnI,TIN/, with a variable /g/ on the end, but I think > you're from further south than I am. Hey, how do you say "Long Island"? > > The usual pronunciation of "au" is /O:/, with a handful of > > exceptions [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > think they tend to have fewer exceptions than I do(e.g. "fault", > "Austin", which don't have /O/ for me). When I was in Austin, Texas, I heard newscasters say "Ah-stin", but that was probably a CIC or vowel shift thing (most likely CICness). I can't think of any other <au> exceptions in my dialect apart from the -naut words and "cauliflower". Harry Caul (Tony Cooper's Dead Ringer) has the caught vowel (and the marry vowel). > > I'd go with /'EnI,TIN/, with a variable /g/ on the end, but I think > > you're from further south than I am. > > Hey, how do you say "Long Island"? The [g] might be there, and it might not be. It's probably less likely there than in most phrases involving "anything", but analysing my own speech isn't easy. FWIW, I think it's most likely between unstressed [IN] and a vowel. I believe that in some accents (mainly in north-west England and the West Midlands), [N] is always followed by [g], except when it's followed by [k]. So Brummies might talk about "Long Goyland", if they ever had cause to talk about some island several thousand miles away. Jonathan > I believe that in some accents (mainly in north-west England and the > West Midlands), [N] is always followed by [g], except when it's > followed by [k]. So Brummies might talk about "Long Goyland", if they > ever had cause to talk about some island several thousand miles away. Hmm. I suppose "Long Goyland" could refer to some of those Irish-American enclaves Coop was recently telling us about. That must be where all those moustachioed Long Island Rail Road [sic] conductors live, not to mention lots of moustachioed New York City cops and firemen (New York's Finest and Bravest, respectively). NTTAWWHAM. Stewart: > the other day I saw Rain Man on >TV, and heard what sounded to my ears like "not artistic, artistic". I will refrain from saying that Brits need to learn how to pronounce the R sound. > I will refrain from saying that Brits need to learn how to pronounce the R > sound. I take it you've never been to Sheffield, Young Joey. > Stewart: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I will refrain from saying that Brits need to learn how to pronounce the R > sound. It's taken us centuries learning how to unsay it. Why would we want to go back? SignatureRob Bannister Bannister: >> I will refrain from saying that Brits need to learn how to pronounce the R >> sound. >It's taken us centuries learning how to unsay it. Why would we want to >go back? Because the queen who forced the pronunciation change was a stupid c.nt. > Bannister: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Because the queen who forced the pronunciation change was a stupid c.nt. It's deja vu all over again. SignatureBob Lieblich Everything old is new again Lieblich: >> Because the queen who forced the pronunciation change was a stupid c.nt. > >It's deja vu all over again. No. Last time I just called the present queen stupid. Now, I'm talking about a whole 'nother queen and calling her a c.nt. > Lieblich: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No. Last time I just called the present queen stupid. Now, I'm talking about > a whole 'nother queen and calling her a c.nt. Well, we now know there's at least one American who doesn't genuflect before the British royals. But I was referring, YJ, to the idiotic idea that some "queen ... forced the pronunciation change" to non-rhotic English. I think that was the very specimen of lunacy that you tried to sell us when first you appeared here, only to have it unanimously rejected. Try not to reopen old wounds, Joey. BTW, have you ever noticed that the world won't end if you don't respond to everyone who responds to you? SignatureBob Lieblich No sig for you, Joe What about soup? SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ > > -- > > Bob Lieblich > > No sig for you, Joe > > What about soup? Poured over his head, maybe. (Did they ever do that on Seinfeld?) No soup for Joey. SignatureBob Lieblich No soap, either Liebs: >But I was referring, YJ, to the idiotic idea that some "queen ... >forced the pronunciation change" to non-rhotic English. I think >that was the very specimen of lunacy that you tried to sell us when >first you appeared here, only to have it unanimously rejected. Try >not to reopen old wounds, Joey. Google it. A professor from Columbia is an expert in Shakespearean English, and KNOWS that they were speaking AMERICAN back then, not BRITISH. Ask DHS. Maybe he knows the prof! >BTW, have you ever noticed that the world won't end if you don't >respond to everyone who responds to you? That would either be rude, if their response was polite; or it would be me running away from my problems and letting evil win, in their response was libelous or insulting. > Liebs: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and KNOWS that they were speaking AMERICAN back then, not BRITISH. Ask DHS. > Maybe he knows the prof! It is the person who advocates the unusual position who must do the heavy lifting to prove that his position has some merit. And you appear to have changed the proposition you put forward, so I will restate it in the following question: What is your evidence that some queen of England forced the change from rhotic to non-rhotic pronunciation? And what was the name of that queen? SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com Raymond: >It is the person who advocates the unusual position who must do the heavy >lifting to prove that his position has some merit. I will, in due time. >And you appear to have >changed the proposition you put forward WHAT? How so? >What is your evidence that some queen of England forced >the change from rhotic to non-rhotic pronunciation? The Shakespeare expert said so, and you people sound gay when you talk. >And what was the name of >that queen? I believe it was Elizabeth I, the original c.nt Queen! > Liebs: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Google it. A professor from Columbia is an expert in Shakespearean English, > and KNOWS that they were speaking AMERICAN back then, not BRITISH. I think it's widely believed that certain features of RP [1] which distinguish it from most American varieties are innovations which developed after the time of Shakespeare. The most commonly referred to examples are the loss of /r/ in certain positions and the use of "ah" instead of "short a" in certain words (such as bath, class, chance, sample, laugh). But this is a very long way from claiming that these changes were "forced" by some queen, a claim I've only seen from you. [1] Which shouldn't be confused with "British English" in general, but often is. Many British people (including me) are missing one or both of the innovations I've mentioned. Jonathan > I think it's widely believed that certain features of RP [1] which > distinguish it from most American varieties are innovations which > developed after the time of Shakespeare. The most commonly referred > to examples are the loss of /r/ in certain positions and the use of > "ah" instead of "short a" in certain words (such as bath, class, > chance, sample, laugh). Those exemplary words have the "tense short a" in New York English (and Joey English?). What a non-koinkidenk! Fontana: >> to examples are the loss of /r/ in certain positions and the use of >> "ah" instead of "short a" in certain words (such as bath, class, >> chance, sample, laugh). > >Those exemplary words have the "tense short a" in New York English >(and Joey English?) In Joey English, the vowel in "bath", "class", & "laugh" are the same. And "chance" and "sample" are the same. I'm MINMINMINMIM, remember? >Liebs: >>But I was referring, YJ, to the idiotic idea that some "queen ... >>forced the pronunciation change" to non-rhotic English. I think >>that was the very specimen of lunacy that you tried to sell us when >>first you appeared here, only to have it unanimously rejected. Try >>not to reopen old wounds, Joey. >Google it. A professor from Columbia is an expert in Shakespearean English, >and KNOWS that they were speaking AMERICAN back then, not BRITISH. You ought to google it again, since you've clearly misunderstood it. [This topic has been discussed at length in aue.] -- 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/] Chris: >You ought to google it again, since you've clearly misunderstood >it. [This topic has been discussed at length in aue.] Chris, LISTEN TO WHAT I'M SAYING: I NEVER googled it. When we were studying Shakespeare, both during senior and sopomore years of high school, the teacher brought in a video casette of a professor from Columbia--a Shakespeare expert--who was speaking at a local college about Shakespeare and Britain during Shakespearean times. He discussed the Globe Theater and how the phrases "underdog" and "box office" came to be and how people threw tomatoes at actors and plays they didn't like. He explained how most people were bored in ancient England, so they'd often go to see plays INTENDING to have fun by throwing a shitload of tomatoes at the people ontage, regardless of whether or not they liked the play. However, NONE of Shakespeare's plays EVER had a single tomato thrown during its production, because people would be so hooked by the first scene of the first act that they WANTED to know how the play ended, ALL THE TIME. His plays appealed to the bitchy whore-Queen (who later made them change their accents), the middle class, and the poor peeps from da ghetto. The ghetto people paid 1 cent. The middle class paid 2. And the upper class paid 4. 4 cents got balcony seats, while 1 cent got to sit on the ground next to the stage, where they'd often be hit by tomatoes and whatnot. What else did he say? Shakespeare's plays were considered ghetto and controversial, but that's why people loved them. Royalty from all over Europe came to Globe to see his plays. But, THE most important topic of his discussion was the accent change. He brought this up to demonstrate that looney Brits are confused when they say ONLY Brits should perform Shakespeare, so it sounds (accent-wise) "AUTHENTIC" to the way it sounded during Shakespeare's time. When, in actuality, OUR accent, in America, is closer to true "Shakespearean English". OUR accent has only been changed slightly, due to influence from our natives, and various cultural groups who've migrated to America over the years. However, we STILL speak "English"--so, it stands to reason, we still speak English pretty damn similarly to how Shakespeare did, accent-wise. And surely that WOULDN'T have been the case for the far more isolated, far less culturally-diverse, far smaller and more insignificant Britain, IF the deliberate accent change never happened. Had the accent change not happened, Britain and America would effectively be speaking THE SAME way right now, accent-wise, just as our eastern cities devloped their accents over time predominantly from BRITISH, namely the NYC-area accent, which Fontana even claims is an exact mimic for British a couple hundred years ago (before the accent-change was thorough). REMEMBER, this thing did not happen overnight. The queen put the mandate into effect, and the upper class followed. It took CENTURIES before the people of the ghetto adapted to the change completely, since it was initially viewed as a snooty upper-class thing. But, obviously, by time India, SA, and Australia were majorly colonized, the bulk of the accent-change had occured. Australian people probably sound more similar to us than Brits do, because of it. BUT, I think Australians and Brits are DEFINITELY closer to each other, in terms of accent, than either group is to us. And, historically, THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE. BTW, to corroborate the info, we also saw Dick Iann McKellan perform a few lines from Hamlet in "proper" Shakespearean English, which even HE admitted had its closest modern-day cousin in AMERICAN. And that bitch can't even do a good accent! Every goddam role he's ever played, he's had his queer British accent. He f.cked up the character of Magneto (an AMERICAN JEW/GYPSY) by giving him a BRITISH accent, rather than a slight Israeli one, like Magneto has ALWAYS had. I just saw LOTR3 last night too. WTF? Since when is Gandolf supposed to be BRITISH? So, basically McKellan can't do any accent well, especially any American accent. So, for HIM to do a "proper Shakespeare accent" in what he THOUGHT was "American" (and it sounded substantially more "American" than he usually sounds, even for him, which means a lot) MUST mean that Shakespearean English was basically "American"! This is the LAST I shall bring this up! This post will be here forever. If,in the future, people have QUESTIONS about the accent change, GOOGLE THIS POST AND READ IT ALL HERE! > When we were studying > Shakespeare, both during senior and sopomore years of high school, the teacher [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > cents got balcony seats, while 1 cent got to sit on the ground next to the > stage, where they'd often be hit by tomatoes and whatnot. So American theatres don't charge different prices for different seats? And all the people who sit in the cheap seats are necessarily 'ghetto'? > But, THE most important topic of his discussion was the accent change. He > brought this up to demonstrate that looney Brits are confused when they say > ONLY Brits should perform Shakespeare, so it sounds (accent-wise) "AUTHENTIC" > to the way it sounded during Shakespeare's time. When, in actuality, OUR > accent, in America, is closer to true "Shakespearean English". Might be closer, but not very close. There was a story going round for years that there was a group of people in some remote American community who spoke pure Elizabethan English. This has now been totally disproved. OUR accent has > only been changed slightly, due to influence from our natives Are you claiming Native Americans influenced the language? You've got to be joking. , and various > cultural groups who've migrated to America over the years. These, of course, did have an influence: speakers of Italian, Yiddish, German, Dutch, Swedish, Polish and even the Irish accent are likely to have had some effect, though how strong, I doubt anyone has been able to determine. However, we STILL > speak "English"--so, it stands to reason, we still speak English pretty damn > similarly to how Shakespeare did, accent-wise. 'Stands to reason'? Why? Accents change all the time - try watching a few old movies and see whether American accents haven't changed in that short time. And surely that WOULDN'T have > been the case for the far more isolated, far less culturally-diverse, far > smaller and more insignificant Britain, IF the deliberate accent change never [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > REMEMBER, this thing did not happen overnight. The queen put the mandate into > effect, and the upper class followed. This is where you are completely wrong. The most plausible explanation is that a group of 'fashionable' people at the time adopted a particular accent and that people copied them. Just like the way people today copy phrases from TV characters and pop stars. There was certainly no decree, and if there had been, people would have done just the opposite like they always do. > I just saw LOTR3 last night too. WTF? Since when is Gandolf supposed to be > BRITISH? This is a bit off topic, but LOTR was written by a British writer. I thought the mix of English, Irish, New Zealand and American accents came off well without distracting in any way. > This is the LAST I shall bring this up! This post will be here forever. If,in > the future, people have QUESTIONS about the accent change, GOOGLE THIS POST AND > READ IT ALL HERE! You have a vivid imagination. From a tape of a Shakespeare professor, you make up a totally different story all your own. SignatureRob Bannister >So American theatres don't charge different prices for different seats? >And all the people who sit in the cheap seats are necessarily 'ghetto'? WHO said that? Surely I didn't. Surely the speaker, who was a SHAKESPEARE EXPERT didn't! Why would America have been brought up? >> But, THE most important topic of his discussion was the accent change. He >> brought this up to demonstrate that looney Brits are confused when they say [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >years that there was a group of people in some remote American community >who spoke pure Elizabethan English. This has now been totally disproved. No American is pure Elizabethan because it's been influenced by Irish, Italians, Asians, Latinos, Ebonics, Native Americans, etc. > OUR accent has >> only been changed slightly, due to influence from our natives > >Are you claiming Native Americans influenced the language? You've got to >be joking. They DID! >, and various >> cultural groups who've migrated to America over the years. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >have had some effect, though how strong, I doubt anyone has been able to >determine. Yup. Not as strong as the effects of your queen's forced change, evidently. > However, we STILL >> speak "English"--so, it stands to reason, we still speak English pretty [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >few old movies and see whether American accents haven't changed in that >short time. Word usage and phrases and sayings have changed. Accent, not really. > And surely that WOULDN'T have >> been the case for the far more isolated, far less culturally-diverse, far [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >and if there had been, people would have done just the opposite like >they always do. Well, regardless of how and why the change happened, it began with the queen and upper class and slowly spread down the classes, over centuries. I don't recall the speaker mentioning a "decree". You seem to have made that up. She wanted the British way of speaking to be as "beautiful" as the Romance Languages. So, she eliminated the final R and replaced it with "aww", which was determined to be "the most beautiful" sound in the language. "Banana" changed from "buhhnahhhnuhh" to "bahhhnawnaww", and then to "bahhhnawnuhrr" because the guy said it's impossible to force people to drop a letter (the R) without it popping up the opposite places of where it used to be. >> I just saw LOTR3 last night too. WTF? Since when is Gandolf supposed to be >> BRITISH? > >This is a bit off topic, but LOTR was written by a British writer. I >thought the mix of English, Irish, New Zealand and American accents came >off well without distracting in any way. Who had American accents? As far as I could tell, they all sounded British. >> This is the LAST I shall bring this up! This post will be here forever. >If,in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >You have a vivid imagination. From a tape of a Shakespeare professor, >you make up a totally different story all your own. WHAT??? I DID NOT! THIS IS WHAT THE GUY f.cking SAID! DO I HAVE TO FRIGGING SNAIL MAIL YOU PEOPLE A COPY OF THIS TAPE BEFORE YOU BELIEVE ME?! > >> I just saw LOTR3 last night too. WTF? Since when is Gandolf supposed to be > >> BRITISH? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Who had American accents? As far as I could tell, they all sounded British. Well, Viggo Mortensen had a PNYPS (Postwar New York Prestige Standard) accent *some* of the time, but other times he drifted into a stagey-thespodian sort of thing that was almost quasi-British. But otherwise, I can't think of any character in these LOTR films who had a *regional* American accent of any sort. By contrast, I think a lot of the Hiberno-Britic type accents in these films were very much regional. It doesn't seem right to me. >Chris: >>You ought to google it again, since you've clearly misunderstood >>it. [This topic has been discussed at length in aue.] >Chris, LISTEN TO WHAT I'M SAYING: I NEVER googled it. When we were studying >Shakespeare, both during senior and sopomore years of high school, the teacher >brought in a video casette of a professor from Columbia--a Shakespeare >expert--who was speaking at a local college about Shakespeare and Britain >during Shakespearean times. >He explained how most people were bored in ancient >England, so they'd often go to see plays INTENDING to have fun by throwing a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >scene of the first act that they WANTED to know how the play ended, ALL THE >TIME. >His plays appealed to the bitchy whore-Queen (who later made them change their >accents), the middle class, and the poor peeps from da ghetto. The ghetto >people paid 1 cent. The middle class paid 2. And the upper class paid 4. 4 >cents got balcony seats, while 1 cent got to sit on the ground next to the >stage, where they'd often be hit by tomatoes and whatnot. >What else did he say? Shakespeare's plays were considered ghetto and >controversial, but that's why people loved them. Royalty from all over Europe >came to Globe to see his plays. >But, THE most important topic of his discussion was the accent change. He >brought this up to demonstrate that looney Brits are confused when they say [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >speak "English"--so, it stands to reason, we still speak English pretty damn >similarly to how Shakespeare did, accent-wise. -- and a lot more similar nonsense. Ok, then, if you can't make the cognitive switch to google, get hold of that video and watch it again. Your memory of it has become considerably rewritten in your mind. >I just saw LOTR3 last night too. WTF? Since when is Gandolf supposed to be >BRITISH? You keep making these remarks which are so stunningly ignorant I can't decide whether you're really that stupid or trolling this newsgroup by pretending to be. Anyone else would be trolling with such remarks, but you have given so much evidence of extraordinarily parochial ignorance that it's possible you really are as ignorant as a literal reading of your posts suggests. -- 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/] Malcolm: >Ok, then, if you can't make the cognitive switch to google, get hold >of that video and watch it again. Your memory of it has become >considerably rewritten in your mind. I watched it TWICE and enjoyed it thoroughly, thank you very much! I REMEMBER EVERYTHING I said. The stuff I don't remember, OBVIOUSLY, I didn't write about! >You keep making these remarks which are so stunningly ignorant I can't >decide whether you're really that stupid or trolling this newsgroup by >pretending to be. Anyone else would be trolling with such remarks, but >you have given so much evidence of extraordinarily parochial ignorance >that it's possible you really are as ignorant as a literal reading of >your posts suggests. Shut up! MAGNETO isn't supposed to be British? Is he?! IS HE??!!! So HTF do I know McKellan wasn't just f.cking up Gandolf too? I'm sure people in a FICTIONAL universe are really supposed to have BRITISH accents, RIGHT?! Just like aliens all have British accents, RIGHT? RIGHT?! > I'm sure people in a > FICTIONAL universe are really supposed to have BRITISH accents, RIGHT?! Just > like aliens all have British accents, RIGHT? RIGHT?! I saw _The Return of the King_ this evening, and I bore in mind your remarks, Young Joey. I have to wonder why the Cockney Community in Britain is not up in arms over the tendency for certain Orcs to be portrayed as having Cockney accents. Now watch, David56 is gonna be like, "Well, all the Cockney-accented people -- Muslims, Hindus, atheists, Wiccans, Lib-Dems, etc. -- in my company have seen _The Lord of the Rings_ and they have no problem, no problem a-tall, with the use of Cockney-accented Orcs in these films". BTW, did you see the scene where Gollum says "Not-ta-tall"? Bwahahaha! Also, what's the deal with Viggo Mortensen? He kept going from rhotic to a sort of pseudo-Britic non-rhotic. We can assume that his natural accent is PNYPS. Aren't you lookin' forward to seeing him in _Hidalgo_? All in all, the auditory experience of these _Lord of the Rings_ films is rather similar to watching a newscast from the BBC. Didn't you think the one who played Pippin looks sort of like Paul McCartney, or do I just think all Hiberno-Britic[TM] people look alike? Oh, and have you noticed that there are no black Hobbits, no black Elves, no black Dwarves, etc.? What is the deal with that? You guys at least have to concede that it's an awkward thing. > > I'm sure people in a > > FICTIONAL universe are really supposed to have BRITISH accents, RIGHT?! Just [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > no black Dwarves, etc.? What is the deal with that? You guys at > least have to concede that it's an awkward thing. I think it would have been awkward if there *had* been black Hobbits, black Elves, or black Dwarves. While the black Vulcans of Star Trek make sense--presumably skin color on the planet Vulcan evolved in a similar manner to that on Earth (except the green blood made the paler Vulcans a different color than red blood made the paler Earthlings), I get no sense that similar conditions existed on Middle Earth, which seems very much like medieval northern Europe to me. (As for the oliphants, there were both elephants and lions in Europe at one time.) I googled "where is middle earth" and came up with the following http://www.stuffucanuse.com/Lotr/where_is_middle_earth.htm Interesting. The Hobbits, it appears, are English: Read the article and you will see what I mean. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com [...] > I googled "where is middle earth" and came up with the following > > http://www.stuffucanuse.com/Lotr/where_is_middle_earth.htm > > Interesting. The Hobbits, it appears, are English: Read the article and you > will see what I mean. This is the kind of thing which doesn't need explaining to Brits, or to those like me who've been largely drug up in the culture and can pass for natives at will (or even at unwill). The aspects of the vision of an ideal England which Tolkien selects to call on are still quite powerful in the national self-image: green and pleasant land, inhabitants correspondingly rural -- even rustic, even bucolic --, cakes-and-ale-loving, not intellectual, rather amiably child-like, unspokenly loving but not very sexy (everybody has his or her own equivalent of hairy toes), living separately from the rest of the continent, mildly but harmlessly at odds among different regions of the Shire, accepting class divisions without snobbery and viewing the few "stuck-up" families with good-natured intolerance, non-militaristic but capable of great feats of dogged valour (the doggedness is important, even if you didn't live through the First World War: the English justly pride themselves on digging their heels and teeth in if they really *have* to stop slobbing around for a while); and most of all, because of their simplicity and an innate love of fair play and minding one's own business, the only group on Middle Earth which can be trusted to hold the Ring of Total Power without falling completely under its spell, and so the only group which might be prepared to destroy it once and for all. One can argue back and forth about this (the contradictions in the whole national self-image are quite as sharp as those of the American or any other; and the nominally Celtic nations, like most others, may proffer similar self-images on occasion; though I find, for example, that they're more ready to admit to *anger* as part of their psychology -- the wonderfully tolerant Welsh smirk with delight when you accuse them of having genetic short tempers) but I do think it's a little of what was going on in Tolkien's war-scarred mind. Another writer -- equally cultured -- of the period gave us not Sam and Frodo but Bunter and Wimsey; yet another gave us Jeeves and Bertie. I reflect on a Scotsman's delightful 1933 book, *England, Their England*, which Anglophiles and Anglophobes alike should enjoy: I suppose most on AUE already have. I've said before that LOTR can be seen as a sort of English-speaking *Bhagavad Gita*: the Bible, if it ever did, no longer quite speaks English, however hard you try to translate it, and so perhaps people needed something newer as a supplement. As literature, in words, on paper, it has glaring faults; and the films are in some ways better than the book; but the message is clear. JRRT may have had one nationality in mind, because a writer has to come from *somewhere*; but good books belong to their readers, not to their authors, and his readers don't have to read him that way. [Literary bit: Peter Jackson, like most readers, cuts out the songs. But until 1950ish, Kipling was a live presence in readers' minds; and he had pioneered a literary form in which a prose story was inextricably linked with a verse introduction, counterpoint, summary, or moral. Kipling tended to versify with a familiar *tune* in his head: this, at least in part, is why his versification is so skilful and sometimes so glib. Tolkien cannot have been unfamiliar with Kipling's verse-prose stories; and is one of the few writers who to my knowledge tried to develop the form.] What kind of English name is "Tolkien", anyhow? Mike. >> I googled "where is middle earth" and came up with the following >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to those like me who've been largely drug up in the culture and can > pass for natives at will (or even at unwill). < True stuff snipped> The obsession with the quality of beer (and the failure to insist it be served at a low temperature) is part of the same 'Englishness', as is the love of a pipe of good tobacco. There's no question the Hobbits are English, and that they are very specifically *rural* English, the type that Kipling admired so much and depicted in such verses as: << When Julius Fabricius, Sub-Prefect of the Weald, In the days of Diocletian owned our Lower River-field, He called to him Hobdenius - a Briton of the Clay, Saying: "What about that River-piece for layin'' in to hay?" And the aged Hobden answered: "I remember as a lad My father told your father that she wanted dreenin' bad. An' the more that you neeglect her the less you'll get her clean. Have it jest as you've a mind to, but, if I was you, I'd dreen." >> leading up to ... << Georgii Quinti Anno Sexto, I, who own the River-field, Am fortified with title-deeds, attested, signed and sealed, Guaranteeing me, my assigns, my executors and heirs All sorts of powers and profits which-are neither mine nor theirs, I have rights of chase and warren, as my dignity requires. I can fish - but Hobden tickles -- I can shoot -- but Hobden wires. I repair, but he reopens, certain gaps which, men allege, Have been used by every Hobden since a Hobden swapped a hedge.>> And I sometimes wonder if 'Hobden' had an influence on 'hobbit' And of course, the wisdom of the dying Norman Baron ... "The Saxon is not like us Normans, His manners are not so polite. But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right. When he stands like an ox in the furrow with his sullen set eyes on your own, And grumbles, 'This isn't fair dealings,' my son, leave the Saxon alone. "You can horsewhip your Gascony archers, or torture your Picardy spears, But don't try that game on the Saxon; you'll have the whole brood round your ears. From the richest old Thane in the county to the poorest chained serf in the field, They'll be at you and on you like hornets, and, if you are wise, you will yield. > What kind of English name is "Tolkien", anyhow? > > Mike. Apparently German in origin. Genealogists suggest the family came from Saxony where they were Tolkiehn (maybe originally Tollkühn). It had become Tolkien by the time JRR's Grandad John Benjamin Tolkien was born in Middlesex in 1807. The name suggests the German ancestors were both wild and bold, if not actually barking. -- John 'Has Kippled and liked it. Will do it again' Dean Oxford De-frag to reply Wise: > I get no sense >that similar conditions existed on Middle Earth, which seems very much like >medieval northern Europe to me. Who ever said it was SUPPOSED TO BE anything like medieval Europe? Personally, I think the people who made the movies just decided to take liberties that they had no right to take. All we know, Tolkein could have intended Middle Eart to be similar to futuristic Africa! >Who ever said it was SUPPOSED TO BE anything like medieval Europe? Personally, >I think the people who made the movies just decided to take liberties that they >had no right to take. All we know, Tolkein could have intended Middle Eart to >be similar to futuristic Africa! But we do know. He's on record as saying (among much else) that he envisaged TLOTR as an epic myth for Europe, set in the mythical past. (And when I say "on record as saying", I mean I have a CD of a BBC radio programme which contains archive recordings of him talking, and he says so.) SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove number to reply Fontana: >BTW, did you see the scene where Gollum says "Not-ta-tall"? Bwahahaha! I had too much trouble understanding Gollum with his heavy accent, that I didn't know WHAT he was saying half the time. Yet another reason why thick British accents SHOULDN'T be used in movies. Hell, a TEXAN Gollum would have been easier to understand. I know where to find Ozzy Osbourne when I want unintelligible British. >Also, what's the deal with Viggo Mortensen? He kept going from rhotic to >a sort of pseudo-Britic non-rhotic. We can assume that his natural accent >is PNYPS. What is this PNYPS? Is Viggo from NYC? To me, he sounded British pretty much throughout the movie. > Aren't you lookin' forward to seeing him in _Hidalgo_? What's Hidalgo? >Didn't you think the >one who played Pippin looks sort of like Paul McCartney, A bit, I guess. >Oh, and have you noticed that there are no black Hobbits, no black Elves, >no black Dwarves, etc.? Yes!! What was up with that? I'm sure Tolkein didn't specify that EVERYONE in his book was white, did he? > What is the deal with that? You guys at >least have to concede that it's an awkward thing. Maybe it was that they wanted it to seem like it really did take place in Britain (which it DIDN'T!), and since there is hardly any racial diversity in Britain, they just made everyone white? > >Oh, and have you noticed that there are no black Hobbits, no black Elves, > >no black Dwarves, etc.? > > Yes!! What was up with that? I'm sure Tolkein didn't specify that EVERYONE in > his book was white, did he? As a matter of fact, no. Tolkien was pretty careful to have evil or bad characters be darker-skinned. I think at best you have to concede that Tolkien was racially insensitive by today's standards. >>>Oh, and have you noticed that there are no black Hobbits, no black Elves, >>>no black Dwarves, etc.? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > characters be darker-skinned. I think at best you have to concede that > Tolkien was racially insensitive by today's standards. Don't forget there would have been almost no dark-skinned people in England at the time Tolkien began writing. I saw my first person of African descent some short time before 1950. SignatureRob Bannister RF: >As a matter of fact, no. Tolkien was pretty careful to have evil or bad >characters be darker-skinned. That's horrible! What a racist f.ck! At least the movie creators were sensible enough to make that nasty old thing sheet-white. If there's anything worse than making an entire cast of characters of fictional races white-skinned, it'd be making only the "good" people white, with the bad people "black". > RF: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > white-skinned, it'd be making only the "good" people white, with the bad people > "black". We in the UK observe sadly that the really evil characters in many Hollywood films have English accents. Not exactly racism, but ... Alan Jones > We in the UK observe sadly that the really evil characters in many > Hollywood films have English accents. Not exactly racism, but ... My own theory about that is it's lazy writing. It's an easy way of classing up the bad guy which requires no thought or additional writing. SignatureDena Jo Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. >> RF: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >people >> "black". I must have missed this on the first posting, so I'm piggy-backing on Alan's posting. Tolkien does *not* go to any care to have evil or bad characters be dark-skinned. Saruman the White, for instance, is as unpleasant a character as you could want, but he is no swarthier than Gandalf. The Druadan chieftain, Ghan-buri-Ghan, is short, dark, and ugly, but he's one of the Good Guys. The Haradrim are dark-skinned, but I don't think it entirely unreasonable to have people from equatorial regions be dark-skinned. Similarly the Rohirrim are almost all blond, but, again, it's not an unreasonable description of Nordic folk. SignatureGraeme Thomas > At least the movie creators were > sensible enough to make that nasty old thing sheet-white. Who, Saruman? That's why he was called "Saruman the White". The cloak, you know. (Though later on he had a Cloak of Many Colors -- not shown in the LOTR films, IIRC.) R F filted: >> At least the movie creators were >> sensible enough to make that nasty old thing sheet-white. > >Who, Saruman? That's why he was called "Saruman the White". The cloak, >you know. (Though later on he had a Cloak of Many Colors -- not shown in >the LOTR films, IIRC.) They never get things like that right...Munchkins wear blue...no other colors, just blue...period...and the slippers were silver, not ruby.... Television was worse...when the second season of "My Favorite Martian" came out in color, one episode sent the O'Haras to the 1920s to keep Martin from starring in a silent movie he had done on an earlier visit to Earth, a movie that was to be televised that evening, revealing that Martin hadn't aged in forty years...when they returned to their own time and watched the movie (now starring a different actor) on their little living-room set, it was in Technicolor....r [...] > Maybe it was that they wanted it to seem like it really did take place in > Britain (which it DIDN'T!), Which is no doubt why they filmed it in New Zealand. > and since there is hardly any racial diversity in > Britain, [..] Er...are you bucking for P. Schultz's job, by any chance? Mike. > Fontana: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > been easier to understand. I know where to find Ozzy Osbourne when I want > unintelligible British. I was almost certain the actor who did Gollum's voice was American. I'll have to check my set of DVDs again - I remember the bit where he was interviewed for the job and he had a whole range of weird voices. SignatureRob Bannister DE781 filted: >I'm sure people in a >FICTIONAL universe are really supposed to have BRITISH accents, RIGHT?! Just >like aliens all have British accents, RIGHT? RIGHT?! All alien planets look like a rock quarry in Dorset, no?... (That's the BBC version, of course...here in the States, all alien planets look like Vasquez Rocks State Park near Acton)....r Draney: >All alien planets look like a rock quarry in Dorset, no?... > >(That's the BBC version, of course...here in the States, all alien planets >look >like Vasquez Rocks State Park near Acton)....r The other thing that makes no sense is that ALL aliens have human-like forms. Huh?? DE781 filted: >Draney: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >The other thing that makes no sense is that ALL aliens have human-like forms. >Huh?? And except for occasional lip-service ("five of what your people call...") they measure things in miles and minutes....r An Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:41:35 -0500, sgrìobh Areff <rf243@sparky.cs.nyu.edu>: > Wait, so you say "cauliflower" as "caula-flower"? The way the British > say "anything" as "enna-thing"? I love these crazy generalisations. Maybe 10% of British English speakers have a schwa for the second vowel of "anything", but I'd be surprised if so (I guess less than 1%, because less than 1% of the British population are immigrants from the parts of the US and the Carribean where they pronounce it like that). Your generalisation is nonsense, just like the idea amongst some of the British that all Americans (a) are Yankees and (b) pronounce bird to rhyme with (British) "oil" and "oil" to rhyme with (British) "bird" and (c) would inspire some playwright to invent Mrs Malaprop if it hadn't already been done (that last is a more recent idea, of course, with fairly obvious cause). And by the way, the first vowel in cauliflower in Britain can be same as "dawg" or "dog" - I think the isogloss is a good way south and east of the Tees-Exe line (which is where people tend to think most short/long vowel isoglosses lie). I don't recall ever hearing a schwa for the second vowel, so I guess that's a purely US phenomenon. Tom [my real email address has no no in it] > Yes. "Dog" has the "caught" vowel, "log" has the "cot" vowel. > I'd guess that Maria uses "caught" in "log" as well as "dog". Yes. > BTW, what vowel do you use in "cauliflower" and "astronaut"? In New > York English we use the "cot" vowel despite the <au> spelling, > pronouncing them > as though they were spelled "collieflower" and "astronot". >These are exceptions, of course. For both of those words, I'd use the "caught" vowel. SignatureMaria Conlon For email: Please don't use "from" address; instead, use tootsie at sprynet dot com While it was 15/12/03 5:45 am throughout the UK, DE781 sprinkled little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus: <snip> > Maybe it's because some people, in some parts of > the country, say "dog" with a short "o", to rhyme with "log"? <snip> That's indeed the standard British pronunciation. FTM I've seen /bA:b/ as a phonemic transcription of Bob. Do some people pronounce "cot" either identically to "cart", or identically to the British pronunciation of "cart"? Stewart. SignatureMy e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. <snip> > FTM I've seen /bA:b/ as a phonemic transcription of Bob. Do some people > pronounce "cot" either identically to "cart", or identically to the > British pronunciation of "cart"? Which British pronunciation of "cart" might that be? Most Americans, I understand, rhyme "bother" and "father", and they tend to use the /A/ symbol for the merged vowel. Jonathan > FTM I've seen /bA:b/ as a phonemic transcription of Bob. Do some people > pronounce "cot" either identically to "cart", or identically to the > British pronunciation of "cart"? I think my pronunciation of "cot" is pretty close to RP "cart" as far as the vowel goes, except that the vowel's shorter in "cot". Most Americans have short o/ah merger (the principal exception being Eastern New England speakers, who maintain the bother/father vowel distinction). (However, in at least some non-rhotic American accents, like New York Traditional, "cart" and "cot" are distinct, though father and bother rhyme.) Fontana: >Most Americans >have short o/ah merger (the principal exception being Eastern New England >speakers, who maintain the bother/father vowel distinction). Based on my experience in New England, isn't their short O actually our "awww" and vice-versa, so that "bother" becomes "bawwwther"? A bitch from Massachusetts who tried to tell me that *I* had a "weird accent" claimed I said "laundry" and some other words like that weirdly. She said that her pronunciation was right and mine was wrong. I then explained that she pronounced the "au" in "laundry" as if it were an O, which is wrong. She then got pissed off at me and shouted, "WTF! YOU pronounce it like an O!" WTF is she smoking? Well, I know the answer to that question. But, still, EVERYONE knows a short O is an "ahh" sound! > Fontana: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Based on my experience in New England, isn't their short O actually our "awww" > and vice-versa, so that "bother" becomes "bawwwther"? That's pretty much how I hear it most of the time, though sometimes it also sounds to me like Bostonians and the like switch my "cot" and my "caught" (as if they didn't actually merge it). That is, in words where I use "cot", it sounds to me like Bostonians are using my "caught" vowel, and in words where I use "caught", it sounds like Bostonians are using my "cot" vowel. For example, some time ago there was a commercial on TV or radio that featured a Boston-accented man who said what sounded to me like "Bahston Red Swaux". (As a New York Speaker, I use the "caught" vowel in "Boston" but the "cot" vowel in "Sox".) I suspect that this might be an aural illusion, that maybe the Bostonian is typically using a vowel that's in between my "cot" and my "caught". Note, though, that the "wau" diphthong is not quite my "caught". I'm sure you know what I mean by this -- the Bostonian sounds to us like he's saying "Bwob" or "Bwaub" or "Bwau-ub" (instead of "Bob") -- I think this has something to do with a bit of initial rounding of their cot/caught diphthong. Maybe it's actually a triphthong, something like [uA.@]. I think our man Dinkin has said that he doesn't do this "wau" or "wah" thing, but he probably has a somewhat prestigious variety of Boston accent. But yes, in general Boston speakers are using a low rounded back vowel for their merged cot/caught. Probably somewhere in the vicinity of [A.], ignoring the issue of diphthongization or triphthongization. > > Fontana: > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > "caught" vowel, and in words where I use "caught", it sounds like > Bostonians are using my "cot" vowel. Isn't that what Joey was saying? > For example, some time ago there > was a commercial on TV or radio that featured a Boston-accented man who [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Bostonian is typically using a vowel that's in between my "cot" and my > "caught". We've discussed this before, but this sort of aural illusion seems to be quite common. The other classic example is the New York "oi"/"er" merger, often perceived as a reversal. Another example I've mentioned before is with people who merge "air" and "ear" - I'll often hear their "air" as "ear" and (less often, however) hear their "ear" as "air". I think I've noticed another example of this in a Sri Lankan cricket commentator's accent. To me, his /v/ often sounds like /w/ (e.g. the England captain Michael Vaughan's surname can sound like "wawn") and vice versa. Jonathan Jonathan: >That is, in words >> where I use "cot", it sounds to me like Bostonians are using my >> "caught" vowel, and in words where I use "caught", it sounds like >> Bostonians are using my "cot" vowel. > >Isn't that what Joey was saying? Yes. >The other classic example is the New York "oi"/"er" >merger, often perceived as a reversal. No. There are DEFINITELY New Yorkers (from the Bronx, I think) who reverse "oi" and "er", as in "earl" for "oil". They're also the people who call NJ "Joisey", not us. > Jonathan: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reverse "oi" and "er", as in "earl" for "oil". They're also the > people who call NJ "Joisey", not us. You're sure of this? Do you suppose that you could get some data to show that all the linguists who've studied this are wrong. They all seem to think that what's happening is that the dialects in question use a single phoneme, /UI/, for both contexts, which is, as Jonathan said, perceived by speakers who distinguish as being "the other one" in both contexts. Much as Japanese speakers, who use their retroflex /r./ for both /r/ and /l/ when speaking English are perceived as "reversing" the two sounds. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If I may digress momentarily from 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |the mainstream of this evening's Palo Alto, CA 94304 |symposium, I'd like to sing a song |which is completely pointless. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Tom Lehrer (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > Jonathan: > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > /r./ for both /r/ and /l/ when speaking English are perceived as > "reversing" the two sounds. I meant to add that the traditional way of establishing this was to have speakers say a sentence that used both words and note that they sounded "reversed". Then you physically snipped the two words out of the tape, swapped them, and spliced them back in. When you played the resulting tape for speakers of other dialects, they *still* sounded "reversed". If they had truly been swapping the phonemes, then the resulting tape would have sounded fine, but it didn't--it was the hearers' expectations that were being violated. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |You may hate gravity, but gravity 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |doesn't care. Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Clayton Christensen kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > Fontana: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > she smoking? Well, I know the answer to that question. But, still, EVERYONE > knows a short O is an "ahh" sound! Not here it isn't - "bomb" has a short O, "balm" has an "ahh" sound (not to be confused with an "ar" sound, even though I'm British). They're different, and the only difference is the vowel. Jonathan Jonathan: >Not here it isn't - "bomb" has a short O, "balm" has an "ahh" sound >(not to be confused with an "ar" sound, even though I'm British). >They're different, and the only difference is the vowel. > >Jonathan So what's your short O sound then, and how come we learn it's "ahh"? > Jonathan: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So what's your short O sound then, The sound in "cot", "wash", "bother", "cloth", "long", "bomb". A short low, back, rounded vowel. It's probably more like your "aw" than your "short O". The "ah", which doesn't have lip-rounding and is a much longer vowel, is the sound in "father", "calm", "balm" and a few other words. Southerners use it in "bath" and a lot more, but I don't. > and how come we learn it's "ahh"? Because for you it is. Maybe Thomas Jefferson forced Americans to pronounce short O words with the "ah" sound. Jonathan > > and how come we learn it's "ahh"? > > Because for you it is. Maybe Thomas Jefferson forced Americans to pronounce > short O words with the "ah" sound. Now you've gone and wook up Kirsh. "R F" <rfontana@alumni.wesleyan.edu> wrote... > > [...] Maybe Thomas Jefferson forced Americans to > > pronounce short O words with the "ah" sound. > > Now you've gone and wook up Kirsh. Do you do New Year's Resolutions, RF? If so, please make one to forsake this infantilism. Matti > "R F" <rfontana@alumni.wesleyan.edu> wrote... > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Do you do New Year's Resolutions, RF? If so, please make one to > forsake this infantilism. If you BrE people agree to forsake one of yours, I'll stop using this one (though I can't force other AmEs to do so). "R F" <rfontana@alumni.wesleyan.edu> wrote... > > "R F" <rfontana@alumni.wesleyan.edu> wrote... > > > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If you BrE people agree to forsake one of yours, I'll stop using this > one (though I can't force other AmEs to do so). I can't think of another (in AUE) who uses it; and the only responses I've seen to it have been negative, so I don't think the antipathy is mine alone. Which of the myriad British infantilisms is at the top of your wish-away list, then? Matti > "R F" <rfontana@alumni.wesleyan.edu> wrote... > > > "R F" <rfontana@alumni.wesleyan.edu> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I've seen to it have been negative, so I don't think the antipathy is > mine alone. I haven't noticed any other negative reactions to this, seriously. > Which of the myriad British infantilisms is at the top of your wish-away > list, then? How about no more "said the actress to the archbishop" jokes, and also no more Mornington Crescent-type stuff or whatever it's called. Deal? "R F" <rfontana@alumni.wesleyan.edu> wrote... > > "R F" <rfontana@alumni.wesleyan.edu> wrote... > > > > "R F" <rfontana@alumni.wesleyan.edu> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > How about no more "said the actress to the archbishop" jokes, and also > no more Mornington Crescent-type stuff or whatever it's called. Deal? So you want to swap two funny ones for a single shite one? YMBFJ. Matti > "R F" <rfontana@alumni.wesleyan.edu> wrote... >>> "R F" <rfontana@alumni.wesleyan.edu> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > So you want to swap two funny ones for a single shite one? YMBFJ. Not only that. He wants all Brits to give them up in exchange for his. m. >> "R F" <rfontana@alumni.wesleyan.edu> wrote... >>>> "R F" <rfontana@alumni.wesleyan.edu> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> > Not only that. He wants all Brits to give them up in exchange for his. A solution: We stop Bignall posting in exchange for Fontana using the regular past participle of "wake". SignatureSimon R. Hughes > R F wrote... >>> Which of the myriad British infantilisms is at the top of your >>> wish-away list, then? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So you want to swap two funny ones for a single shite one? YMBFJ. Funny? Hmm. I guess one has to be Rightpondian... or Leftpondian, in the case of "wook." Or maybe Ambipondian for the lot. So how about moderation and tolerance on both sides? [Thinks.] Nah. Forget I said that. Just carry on, please, and forgive me for the interruption. I wasn't thinking. SignatureMaria Conlon Please send any email to the Hot Mail address. >> "R F" <rfontana@alumni.wesleyan.edu> wrote... >> > > "R F" <rfontana@alumni.wesleyan.edu> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >How about no more "said the actress to the archbishop" jokes, and also no >more Mornington Crescent-type stuff or whatever it's called. Deal? Hey! I like the actress/bishop jokes and references. If they have to give up something, make them give up some part of the Empire. They're used to that. >>> Which of the myriad British infantilisms is at the top of your wish-away >>> list, then? >>How about no more "said the actress to the archbishop" jokes, and also no >>more Mornington Crescent-type stuff or whatever it's called. Deal? >Hey! I like the actress/bishop jokes and references. If they have to >give up something, make them give up some part of the Empire. They're >used to that. Wasn't America big enough for you? -- 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/] "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote... > >>> Which of the myriad British infantilisms is at the top of your > >>> wish-away list, then? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Wasn't America big enough for you? To be fair, they only got part of it. According to Adrian, we've recently mislaid Berkshire. Has DJ bought up her old stamping-ground, and helicoptered it over to Prescott? Matti >>>> Which of the myriad British infantilisms is at the top of your wish-away >>>> list, then? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Wasn't America big enough for you? I was thinking of something like the British Antarctic Territory. Really, is it at all useful to you? There's no indigenous population, so it's not like Sainsbury will be wanting to open branches there. The weather is a bit too harsh for sheep. Penguins don't add much to the economy, and they do tend to vote Green and spoil the balance of things. The crew of the HMS Endurance would certainly appreciate being re-stationed to somewhere like the Canaries where they can get a little warm sun once in a while. In alt.usage.english, Tony Cooper wrote: >>>Hey! I like the actress/bishop jokes and references. If they have to >>>give up something, make them give up some part of the Empire. They're [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I was thinking of something like the British Antarctic Territory. Something *like* the British Antarctic Territory? What else is there like that? >Really, is it at all useful to you? There's no indigenous population, >so it's not like Sainsbury will be wanting to open branches there. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >being re-stationed to somewhere like the Canaries where they can get a >little warm sun once in a while. Who do you suggest the British Government gives it away *to*? The penguins? SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >In alt.usage.english, Tony Cooper wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Something *like* the British Antarctic Territory? What else is there >like that? Unfair OY! Protest filed. "Something like" in this context means something comparable. In this case, a part of the Empire that could be considered not particularly valuable to the Empire or to Sainsbury. Surely, there are other bits and pieces of the Empire that have been overlooked and are not held in particular high regard by the people that keep track of things. It's not like everything was India, you know. >>Really, is it at all useful to you? There's no indigenous population, >>so it's not like Sainsbury will be wanting to open branches there. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Who do you suggest the British Government gives it away *to*? The >penguins? Chile wants it. Argentina wants it. The three of you are fussing over it. It may not be front page news, but I assure you it's a constant topic of conversation in The Explorer's Club. I'm not particularly in favor of granting home rule to the penguins. There are the seals there too, you know. If you allow the penguins to be in power, first thing you know there will be civil unrest and even civil war. Either the seals or the penguins will claim that the land is rightfully theirs and start some sort of ethnic cleansing. Then, NATO troops will have to be brought in and some sort of wall built to divide the land so the penguins have one part and the seals another. It's all too familiar a pattern. I'd think you'd know that by now. > > > and how come we learn it's "ahh"? > > > > Because for you it is. Maybe Thomas Jefferson forced Americans to pronounce > > short O words with the "ah" sound. > > Now you've gone and wook up Kirsh. So is Evan the wookee? > Fontana: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Based on my experience in New England, isn't their short O actually our > "awww" and vice-versa, so that "bother" becomes "bawwwther"? Not vice-versa, but yes, mainly. I gather from what Richard has said that the prestige NY "aw" is usually a low back rounded [A.] of one kind or another; the Boston merged "short o"/"aw" is also something like a long [A.:], although a little bit less round and perhaps a little bit lower. > But, still, EVERYONE knows a short O is an "ahh" sound! Um, no. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > > Fontana: > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > another; the Boston merged "short o"/"aw" is also something like a long > [A.:], although a little bit less round and perhaps a little bit lower. Poisonally, I believe that the standard Boston short-o/aw is more rounded than Postwar Prestige NY "aw", BWDIKIJATP. I mean, it's [uA.@], you see. As for Jersey, though, the only Jersey accent I've heard that resembles PNYPS in Prestige qualities is that of a native of one of the Oranges. > Poisonally, I believe that the standard Boston short-o/aw is more rounded > than Postwar Prestige NY "aw", BWDIKIJATP. I mean, it's [uA.@], you see. You have an interesting idea of "standard". I don't know where you get that [u] from, although I'll accept the emendation of the schwa offglide. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > > Poisonally, I believe that the standard Boston short-o/aw is more rounded > > than Postwar Prestige NY "aw", BWDIKIJATP. I mean, it's [uA.@], you see. > > You have an interesting idea of "standard". I don't know where you get > that [u] from, although I'll accept the emendation of the schwa offglide. Come on, everyone knows this is there in Boston accents. It's time to acknowledge this. Why do you think Boston-accented persons sound like they say "Bwahston"? What's that "w"? It's there I tell you. There. >> > Poisonally, I believe that the standard Boston short-o/aw is more rounded >> > than Postwar Prestige NY "aw", BWDIKIJATP. I mean, it's [uA.@], you see. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Come on, everyone knows this is there in Boston accents. It's time to > acknowledge this. I've never heard of this in my life. > Why do you think Boston-accented persons sound like they say "Bwahston"? The same reason New York-accented persons sound like they say "Bwooston"? -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom Fontana/Dinkin: >> Why do you think Boston-accented persons sound like they say "Bwahston"? > >The same reason New York-accented persons sound like they say "Bwooston"? You're BOTH wrong. There are NO W's in either pronunciations. Boston people call it "Bahhhstahhn". People from the Tri-State Area say "BAW-ston" The "Bw", in BOTH pronunciations, is just nonsense! BTW, when a cousin of a cousin, from AZ, celebrated Easter with my family last year, she commented that we "ALL" had "the weirdest accents she'd ever heard in her life". To her, those of us from NJ AND NY seemed to sound exactly the same, and the relatives from MA still had a "weird" accent to her, but less weird than everyone else's. WTF?! I think New England accents are BIZARRE-sounding. > Boston people call it "Bahhhstahhn". Not so. People with a Boston accent use a different vowel in "Boston" than they would to pronounce something spelled "Bahstahn". > BTW, when a cousin of a cousin, from AZ, celebrated Easter with my > family last year, she commented that we "ALL" had "the weirdest accents > she'd ever heard in her life". To her, those of us from NJ AND NY > seemed to sound exactly the same, and the relatives from MA still had a > "weird" accent to her, but less weird than everyone else's. WTF?! I > think New England accents are BIZARRE-sounding. One reason New England accents might sound less bizarre to an Arizonan than does a New York accent is that New England accents, like western U.S. accents, merge "caught" and "cot". New England accents keep the "father" class distinct from the "bother" class, and western accents don't, but this affects a smaller class of words and therefore might be less likely for casual listeners to notice. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom Aaron: >One reason New England accents might sound less bizarre to an Arizonan >than does a New York accent is that New England accents, like western >U.S. accents, merge "caught" and "cot". New England accents keep the >"father" class distinct from the "bother" class, and western accents >don't, but this affects a smaller class of words and therefore might be >less likely for casual listeners to notice. Interesting. Thanks. But what about her lumping together everyone in the house from NY & NJ as simply sounding "weird"? This included the grandparents' generation, who were all originally from NYC. > But what about her lumping together everyone in the house from NY & NJ > as simply sounding "weird"? This included the grandparents' > generation, who were all originally from NYC. Even insofar as they differ at all, urban New York and suburban northern New Jersey accents are sufficiently similar to be justifiably lumpable together, I'd say. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom Fontana: >As for Jersey, though, the only Jersey accent I've heard that resembles >PNYPS in Prestige qualities is that of a native of one of the Oranges. I live right near there. But what is this "PNYPS"? And what does it sound like? I can't believe that natives of ALL five Oranges would sound the same, as some of the towns are mad ghetto and some aren't. At least one of them borders Newark. Aaron: >> Based on my experience in New England, isn't their short O actually our >> "awww" and vice-versa, so that "bother" becomes "bawwwther"? > >Not vice-versa, but yes, mainly. Yes, vice-versa, or else I wouldn't be told I say "laundry", "caught", "thought", etc, "wrong" by people from Massachusetts. They DEFINITELY say those words as if they were spelled and pronounced with short O's. It's Fontana's CIC thing, LITERALLY. They tried to tell me "caught" should be said as "cot"! WTF?! >> But, still, EVERYONE knows a short O is an "ahh" sound! > >Um, no. Then what's a short O? It's the O as in "octopus". > Aaron: [DE781 wrote:] >>> Based on my experience in New England, isn't their short O actually our >>> "awww" and vice-versa, so that "bother" becomes "bawwwther"? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yes, vice-versa, or else I wouldn't be told I say "laundry", "caught", > "thought", etc, "wrong" by people from Massachusetts. This I can't explain without hearing the way you say these words. It may be that your pronunciation of the "aw" vowel is noticeably different from the usual Boston merged "aw"/"short o". > They DEFINITELY say those words as if they were spelled and pronounced > with short O's. It's Fontana's CIC thing, LITERALLY. Definitely. But this makes your vice-versa claim impossible. "Caught"-words and "cot"-words are pronounced with the _same_ vowel. It's not the case that Boston accents pronounce "cot"-words the way you pronounce "caught"-words *and vice versa*, since if that were true, Bostonians would be using different vowels in "cot" and "caught". And they don't. >>> But, still, EVERYONE knows a short O is an "ahh" sound! >> >>Um, no. > > Then what's a short O? It's the O as in "octopus". Exactly. In Boston, the short o (as in "octopus" and "cot") is pronounced differently from "ah" (as in "father" and "spa"). This is also true in Rightpondia. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom Aaron: >Definitely. But this makes your vice-versa claim impossible. >"Caught"-words and "cot"-words are pronounced with the _same_ vowel. It's >not the case that Boston accents Right. My bad. I see where the confusion comes in. BOSTON accents and HEAVY Massachusetts accents seem to be CINC, with the reversal of what's normal in the Tri-State Area. BUT, certain people from OTHER areas in MA and NE at my school definitely are CIC, and they use the short O ("ahh") sound. > Aaron: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Massachusetts accents seem to be CINC, with the reversal of what's normal in > the Tri-State Area. That's (probably) the aural illusion we were talking about -- I hear it too. They're CIC. (It might not be completely an illusion -- cf. R.J. Valentine's and my analysis of Donna Richoux's recording of her pronunciation, which is somewhere in the Archives.) > BUT, certain people from OTHER areas in MA and NE at my school definitely are > CIC, and they use the short O ("ahh") sound. That's possible, since my sister's kids (Generation Z) are from Fairfield County, Connecticut, and they're as CIC as any Richoux or Cunningham, without having any of the dialect features of Eastern New England. By "the short O ("ahh") sound", you clearly mean a central, low, unrounded vowel. That's the sort of cot/caught vowel my sister's kids use, never using the back and semi-rounded vowel of Eastern New England. I don't think that this "new CIC" dialect has been acknowledged as existing yet by the Authorities, but it's something Young Aaron might want to look into. > > Aaron: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Valentine's and my analysis of Donna Richoux's recording of her > pronunciation, which is somewhere in the Archives.) I think Donna is genuinely CIC. But some of these apparent reversals may be due to hypercorrection. If somebody has a tendency to merge, say, /OI/ and /@r/, but is trying to get rid of it, then it wouldn't be surprising if they sometimes use the "wrong" sound. I've certainly heard "thief" as /fiT/. I don't know what is going on with the claim that some people in Utah switch "barn" and "born". I don't think they did this in Salt Lake City in 1984. Jonathan > I think Donna is genuinely CIC. > > But some of these apparent reversals may be due to hypercorrection. > If somebody has a tendency to merge, say, /OI/ and /@r/, but is trying > to get rid of it, then it wouldn't be surprising if they sometimes use > the "wrong" sound. I've certainly heard "thief" as /fiT/. What I mean though is that in some CIC dialects there may be (for simplicity) two allophones of the merged vowel (call it /A/), and let's say these two allophones are [A<central>] and [A<back>]. R.J. Valentine (a CINC speaker) and I both had the same reaction to Donna's pronunciation (aside from her being "One of Us"): she wasn't using the same phone in all the sample words. Now what I'm suggesting is this: in these CIC dialects, most cot/caught words *have no homophone*. And what I'm further suggesting is that for a significantly large set of these non-homophone words, the allophone used -- the choice of central or back allophone -- may correlate with either (a) the phonemically-significant vowel chosen by the standard US CINC speaker, OR (b) pavoisely, the *opposite* of the vowel used by the CINC speaker. I further suggest that in Eastern New England accents what's going on is (b). No one's suggesting that Boston-accented persons don't merge "cot" and "caught" in a real Praaaatable sense. But what I'm suggesting is that maybe Joey and I aren't just hearing things, that maybe Boston-accented speakers really *are* saying [bA<central>st@n rEd sOA.@ks] for "Boston Red Sox" ("Bahstun Red Swau-ux"). And continuing with the "pavoisely" theme, maybe on some level they -- or rather, their dialect-innovating predecessors -- are doing this on poipose. To make their accents distinct from, say, 19th Century East Coast Norms, they started switching "cot" and "caught" vowels around. Who knows, maybe first-gen (or is that second-gen?) Irish Bostonians wanted to distinguish themselves from the Brahmin overlords. Oh, someone recently mentioned recordings of Brahmins, didn't they? Well, the Brahmins *were* (are?) CINC, yes? > I don't know what is going on with the claim that some people in Utah > switch "barn" and "born". I don't think they did this in Salt Lake > City in 1984. Also, a native speaker of Prewar Northern Utah Prestige Standard in this newsgroup has, IIRC, scoffed (caught vowel for me) at this claim, but apparently the Linguists believe it. > But some of these apparent reversals may be due to hypercorrection. > If somebody has a tendency to merge, say, /OI/ and /@r/, but is trying > to get rid of it, then it wouldn't be surprising if they sometimes use > the "wrong" sound. I don't think this is likely to be true for "caught"/"cot" class words. As far as I can tell, speakers of CIC accents are for the most part unaware that accents exist in which these two classes are distinguished, and certainly don't accord any prestige to such a distinction. (Even someone who's aware of the difference between CIC and CINC might not be able to tell which a given speakers is; contrast e.g. the difference between rhotic and non-rhotic accents, which are easily distinguishable I think even to an uneducated listener.)So I don't see how any hypercorrection could occur; there's no effort at "correction" being made in the first place. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > > But some of these apparent reversals may be due to hypercorrection. > > If somebody has a tendency to merge, say, /OI/ and /@r/, but is trying [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > hypercorrection could occur; there's no effort at "correction" being made > in the first place. Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that _that_ apparent reversal was due to hypercorrection, just that some might be. I don't believe in the claimed "cot"/"caught" reversals any more than you do. On the BBC's "Dead Ringers" programme last night, someone doing an impression of Dubya pronounced "Saddam" in a way that sounded like a rhotic "Saddarm" to me. I can think of a couple of other reasons for this, but the obvious one is a non-rhotic speaker hypercorrecting when imitating Bush's rhotic accent. Jonathan Jonathan: >Dubya pronounced "Saddam" in a way that sounded like a rhotic >"Saddarm" to me. I can think of a couple of other reasons for this, but the >obvious one is a non-rhotic speaker hypercorrecting when imitating Bush's >rhotic accent. Yet ANOTHER example of how Brits and their accent are moronic. WHY THE f.ck would a "rhotic" (i.e. "correct") speaker add an R to the R-less word, "Saddam"? If ANYTHING the crazy people who don't know where R's belong and where they don't (the Brits and the New Yorkers with heavy, heavy accents) would be the ones to ADD an R into "Saddam", just like they do with "datahhrrr", "ideahhrrr", "warrrsh", etc, even despite dropping R's from words like "car" and "fever"! Go figure! Well, at least Stupid Strateegery has the foreigner naysayers beat here! > On the BBC's "Dead Ringers" programme last night, someone doing an > impression of Dubya pronounced "Saddam" in a way that sounded like a rhotic > "Saddarm" to me. I can think of a couple of other reasons for this, but the > obvious one is a non-rhotic speaker hypercorrecting when imitating Bush's > rhotic accent. Oy, that's as bad as when _The Guardian_ had that letter from Dubya in which he mentioned a liking for "savoury snacks" (probably a reference to Bush's choking on a pretzel shortly before that time). > > On the BBC's "Dead Ringers" programme last night, someone doing an > > impression of Dubya pronounced "Saddam" in a way that sounded like a rhotic [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > which he mentioned a liking for "savoury snacks" (probably a reference to > Bush's choking on a pretzel shortly before that time). I don't see what's particularly "bad" about it. I'm sure impressionists make plenty of worse mistakes than that one when putting on accents - and I don't know if it even was a hypercorrection, anyway. What I do detect is a tendency for you to particularly lay into anyone who appears to be opposed to Bush. Jonathan [...] > > Oy, that's as bad as when _The Guardian_ had that letter from Dubya in > > which he mentioned a liking for "savoury snacks" (probably a reference to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What I do detect is a tendency for you to particularly lay into anyone who > appears to be opposed to Bush. Oh, come! RF wouldn't lay into anyone who opposes one of the biggest disadvantages the United States has to labour under, would he? Mike. Aaron: >I don't think this is likely to be true for "caught"/"cot" class words. >As far as I can tell, speakers of CIC accents are for the most part [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >between rhotic and non-rhotic accents, which are easily distinguishable I >think even to an uneducated listener.) Based on my experience, people in New England (the ones who are CIC and use the short O for both; not the ones who have the CINC with the vowel reversal) seem to equate "CINC" with a "New York accent". And, if I've learned anything from this freaky place, NYC isn't the only area where "CINC" is done. > Aaron: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > use the short O for both; not the ones who have the CINC with the vowel > reversal) Again, I believe this latter category is a chimera. > seem to equate "CINC" with a "New York accent". ...and people in New England aren't aware of the existence of a CINC category. If they hear a CINC accent which is similar to old-fashioned New York's in that the "caught" class is comparatively high, back, and rounded, they'll probably associate it with New York even if it's from, I don't know, Rhode Island or Philadelphia or somewhere. But if they hear one in which the "caught" class is low and less rounded, like in the Midwest, they won't attribute it to New York. > And, if I've learned anything from this freaky place, NYC isn't the > only area where "CINC" is done. No, CINC is prevalent (except for some islands) throughout the eastern, southern, and central United States, to say nothing of virtually all of Rightpondia. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > Aaron: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and HEAVY Massachusetts accents seem to be CINC, with the reversal of > what's normal in the Tri-State Area. No, I assure you that this isn't the case. The heaviest eastern Massachusetts accents, including Boston and elsewhere, are not only "cot"-is-"caught", but they're even "con"-is-"corn": that is, they're non-rhotic, and the former "short o before r" category has merged with both the former "short o" and "aw" categories. ("Corn" might not be a correct example. The "short o before r" and "long o before r" are merged in my own speech, so I don't properly know which category "corn" is in.) -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > No, I assure you that this isn't the case. The heaviest eastern > Massachusetts accents, including Boston and elsewhere, are not only [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > o before r" are merged in my own speech, so I don't properly know which > category "corn" is in.) I once witnessed a conversation between a working-class-Boston-raised father and his near-Boston-raised daughter, the father having a much stronger accent, in which the daughter mentioned "Conn College" (nickname of Connecticut College) and the father thought she was talking about some place called "Corn College", which he considered to be a ridiculous name for a college. Fontana: > the father having a >much stronger accent, in which the daughter mentioned "Conn College" >(nickname of Connecticut College) and the father thought she was talking >about some place called "Corn College" Shouldn't the father have realized that his daughter was rhotic and therefore didn't pronounce "corn" as "cawn"? BTW, Fontana, I'm guessing this is indeed how she said "Conn"--as we'd say "cawn" (rhyming with "fawn" or "dawn")? > Fontana: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Shouldn't the father have realized that his daughter was rhotic and therefore > didn't pronounce "corn" as "cawn"? The funny thing is, she was only partially rhotic, or semi-rhotic. I think she reverted to a greater degree of non-rhoticism when she spent time with her parents. So her father may well not have even been aware that the daughter was rhotic. > BTW, Fontana, I'm guessing this is indeed how she said "Conn"--as we'd say > "cawn" (rhyming with "fawn" or "dawn")? Kind of. Maybe more like "kwaw-un", though, if you know what I mean. "Kwon" may actually be a better rendering of it than "cawn". Whether that's the offglide the good Doctor of Philadelphia was talking about, or something else entirely, I can't say. No, seriously, I think she probably said it like my "kawn" -- her accent wasn't that thick, except right after she came back from school vacations (= BrE "university holidays"). Fontana: >> BTW, Fontana, I'm guessing this is indeed how she said "Conn"--as we'd say >> "cawn" (rhyming with "fawn" or "dawn")? > >Kind of. Maybe more like "kwaw-un", though, if you know what I mean. Yup, got it, except for that odd first "w", which I didn't understand the first time you wrote it either. I tend to hear "kawn" or a slight "kaw'n", sometimes. It's not quite 2 syllables, but it's not just one either. So, the apostrophe seems to fit. >No, seriously, I think she probably said it like my "kawn" -- her accent >wasn't that thick, except right after she came back from school vacations >(= BrE "university holidays"). Who's this? <snip> > No, I assure you that this isn't the case. The heaviest eastern > Massachusetts accents, including Boston and elsewhere, are not only [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > o before r" are merged in my own speech, so I don't properly know which > category "corn" is in.) Assuming the traditional Boston "short o before r" and "long o before r" classes are the same as the ones in my speech, "corn" is OK. It doesn't rhyme with long-vowelled "worn", "torn", "sworn", however. If you have access to the OED (1st or 2nd editions) the classes are distinguished. In the 2nd edition the "oar" vowel is transcribed as /O@/ and the "or" one is /O:/. I'm only aware of a very few cases where I disagree with it, which are probably either due to regional variation or spelling pronunciation on my part. Jonathan >> The "short o before r" and "long o before r" are merged in my own >> speech, so I don't properly know which category "corn" is in.) > > Assuming the traditional Boston "short o before r" and "long o before r" > classes are the same as the ones in my speech, "corn" is OK. It doesn't > rhyme with long-vowelled "worn", "torn", "sworn", however. Interesting. There seems to be a rule in the urban mid-Atlantic U.S. accents that have the distinct "short a" and "tense a" classes that irregular verbs, even if they would otherwise be expected to have "tense a", have "lax a" (e.g., "swam", "ran"). I wonder if there might be a rule putting "long o before r" into irregular verbs in the same way. I don't know to what extent the traditional Boston classes line up with yours, though, or with the historically likely ones. I do know that my grandfather distinguishes "four" from stressed "for", but since I'm not in general attuned to this distinction I couldn't tell you where else he makes the distinction. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom Aaron: >Interesting. There seems to be a rule in the urban mid-Atlantic U.S. >accents that have the distinct "short a" and "tense a" I've seen you and Fontana mention these "short a" and "tense a" pronunciations quite a bit. I'm guessing these are probably "marry" vs. "Mary", respectively? Aaron, are you MINMINMINM (can you understand the different sounds, like Fontana & I can?)? >classes that >irregular verbs, even if they would otherwise be expected to have "tense >a", have "lax a" (e.g., "swam", "ran"). I say "lax" with "marry"; "swam" and "ran" with "Mary". Everyone else? Does that fit your assumption? >I do know that my >grandfather distinguishes "four" from stressed "for", but since I'm not >in general attuned to this distinction I couldn't tell you where else he >makes the distinction. Are you from Mass? What part? > Aaron: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > pronunciations quite a bit. I'm guessing these are probably "marry" > vs. "Mary", respectively? Not necessarily. In particular, urban mid-Atlantic dialects (notably New York and Philadelphia) show a split in the historic "short a" class which causes some words in this class ("class", "laugh") to have a tenser ( = higher, fronter) vowel than others ("cat"). In non-Northeastern U.S. accents, all these words have the same vowel phoneme, but in N.Y. and Phila, they've split into two distinct phonemes. In some, but not necessarily in all, of these dialects, the "tense a" sounds the same as the "long a before r" (as in "Mary"). Southern England and old-fashioned Boston also have a "tense a" class; however, this doesn't always consist of the same words as the N.Y. and Phila. "tense a"; and moreover the "tense a" words have a lower and backer vowel than the "short a" words in these dialects. > Aaron, are you MINMINMINM (can you understand the different sounds, like > Fontana & I can?)? I don't know where you get four different M's there, but I certainly distinguish "Mary", "marry", and "merry". > I say "lax" with "marry"; "swam" and "ran" with "Mary". Everyone > else? Does that fit your assumption? It doesn't. That suggests you use "tense a" (merged with "long a before r") in "swam" and "ran"; my belief was that irregular verbs tend to use "short a" ( = "lax a"). > Are you from Mass? What part? The North Shore - about 15 or 20 miles northeast of Boston. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > Not necessarily. In particular, urban mid-Atlantic dialects (notably New > York and Philadelphia) show a split in the historic "short a" class which [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > necessarily in all, of these dialects, the "tense a" sounds the same as > the "long a before r" (as in "Mary"). My "tin can tense a" allophone seems to be about the same as my "Mary" allophone. > > I say "lax" with "marry"; "swam" and "ran" with "Mary". Everyone > > else? Does that fit your assumption? > > It doesn't. That suggests you use "tense a" (merged with "long a before > r") in "swam" and "ran"; my belief was that irregular verbs tend to use > "short a" ( = "lax a"). "Ran" definitely has the "tense a". I think "swam" also has "tense a", but I'm not sure (quantum pronunciation effects as well as my general tendency to overstate the case for the "lax a" have taken over). >I don't know where you get four different M's there, but I certainly >distinguish "Mary", "marry", and "merry". My bad. I only meant to write three. It's harder to type the whole "MINM" thing than it should be. >> I say "lax" with "marry"; "swam" and "ran" with "Mary". Everyone >> else? Does that fit your assumption? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >-Aaron J. Dinkin >Dr. Whom Aaron: >but they're even "con"-is-"corn": I'm with you there. Both are pronounce as if spelled "cawn". I.E. like NJ "corn" without the R ("non-rhotic"). And, BTW, since NJ is resposible for 50% of the world's corn, "corn" should ALWAYS be said the proper, NJ way of saying it. Ditto for "eggplant" and "tomato" and "blueberries". >The heaviest eastern >Massachusetts accents, including Boston and elsewhere, are not only >"cot"-is-"caught" This is what I don't agree with. I've DEFINITELY heard "caught" as "cahhht" and "cot" as "cawwt", in Massachusetts. There's definitely some kind of wacky reversal going on because the people who made fun of me for not saying "laundry" as "lahhhhndry" were the same people who will say a short O as "aww". I told you, when I explained that "laundry" WOULD be correctly pronounced as "lahhhndry" IF it was spelled "londry" (i.e., with a short O), and explained that they were using the short O sound for a word without an O in it, someone then told me, "No! YOU say 'laundry' with a short O," which I most definitely don't. >("Corn" might not be a correct example. The "short o before r" and "long >o before r" are merged in my own speech I say "corn" with the "aw" sound. It's neither the short O (ahh) or the long O (Oh). I'm guessing you do the same? > Aaron: > >>but they're even "con"-is-"corn": > > I'm with you there. Both are pronounce as if spelled "cawn". As is the non-word "cawn", of course. > NJ is resposible for 50% of the world's corn I thought Iowa was the biggest corn-producing state. >>The heaviest eastern Massachusetts accents, including Boston and >>elsewhere, are not only "cot"-is-"caught" > > This is what I don't agree with. I've DEFINITELY heard "caught" as > "cahhht" and "cot" as "cawwt", in Massachusetts. I still think this is your own ear hypercorrecting itself, as Richard has described. > There's definitely some kind of wacky reversal going on because the > people who made fun of me for not saying "laundry" as "lahhhhndry" were [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > someone then told me, "No! YOU say 'laundry' with a short O," which I > most definitely don't. Well, this suggests something more subtle going on than what I've supposed. But rest assured that this is not typical eastern New England talk - "short o" and "aw" are merged; the people you talked to must have been weirdos. >>("Corn" might not be a correct example. The "short o before r" and "long >>o before r" are merged in my own speech > > I say "corn" with the "aw" sound. It's neither the short O (ahh) or > the long O (Oh). I think you misunderstand. The "short o before r" is only historically related to the "short o"; in most dialects nowadays it has nothing to do with it. It looks like your "short o before r" is merged with "aw". > I'm guessing you do the same? Nope. I merge "aw" and "short o" but keep "short o before r" distinct. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > > Aaron: > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I thought Iowa was the biggest corn-producing state. I'm surprised to see NJ in the rankings. For years, Illinois produced more corn than Iowa. The state with most agricultural output is California. http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/factsheets/WTO/states/ca.html Illinois is second in this category and first among corn producers. http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/factsheets/WTO/states/il.html > > > Aaron: > > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I'm surprised to see NJ in the rankings. For years, Illinois produced > more corn than Iowa. Well, if "50% of the world's corn" means "nearly as much as Arizona" (and you really SHOULD HAVE KNOWN what he meant), then YJ's claim completely doesn't suck. -- rzed >Well, if "50% of the world's corn" means "nearly as much as Arizona" (and >you really SHOULD HAVE KNOWN what he meant), then YJ's claim completely >doesn't suck. OK, so I confused corn with tomatoes! So? Suck my dick! I made a mistake, o flawless one! >>>Aaron: >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I'm surprised to see NJ in the rankings. For years, Illinois produced > more corn than Iowa. He didn't say 50% of America's corn. He said "the world's". As far as I can see, while the US produces more maize than any other country, China and Brazil both produce more than any single American state. SignatureRob Bannister >I thought Iowa was the biggest corn-producing state. Maybe. I'll have to look that up. I think the 50% figure might actually be NJ's tomato production. >>>The heaviest eastern Massachusetts accents, including Boston and >>>elsewhere, are not only "cot"-is-"caught" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I still think this is your own ear hypercorrecting itself, as Richard has >described. I'll have to find out what Fontana means by that. >> There's definitely some kind of wacky reversal going on because the >> people who made fun of me for not saying "laundry" as "lahhhhndry" were [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >talk - "short o" and "aw" are merged; the people you talked to must have >been weirdos. Well, yeah, the girl who used to make fun of my "accent" is a major bitch and whore now. >>>("Corn" might not be a correct example. The "short o before r" and "long >>>o before r" are merged in my own speech [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >-Aaron J. Dinkin >Dr. Whom [DE781 wrote:] >>> I've DEFINITELY heard "caught" as "cahhht" and "cot" as "cawwt", in >>> Massachusetts. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I'll have to find out what Fontana means by that. What he means is that Boston speakers use a sound intermediate between your "short o" and your "aw" for their own "short o"/"aw". When you hear a Bostonian "cot" (and you know already that the word you're hearing is "cot"), it's different enough from your own "cot" for you to notice, and so your brain goes: "It's different from the way I would say 'cot'. How? Well, the vowel is more rounded than the way I say it. So it sounds more like 'caught'." By the same token, a Bostonian's "caught" is less rounded than the vowel you expect "caught" to have, so you interpret it as sounding similar to "cot". So even though the Bostonian has the same vowel in both cases, in the two cases it differs from the vowel you're expecting in opposite directions, so to speak, and it's those differences that you pick up on. (I used roundedness here just as an example; I don't know in your particular case what the particular phonetic difference between "cot" and "caught" is.) -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > NJ is resposible for 50% > of the world's corn LOL. Ages since I heard a real corny joke. SignatureRob Bannister > I'm surprised there hasn't been another outbreak of English-is-going- > to-hell-in-a-handbasket anguish in the media over this one (yet)... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > nucular membrane begins to form around the whole group or > around smaller groups or isolated chromosomes. [snip] In light of the subsequent newsgroup discussion about whether a variant pronunciation -- even one that is talked *about* a great deal -- is a word or not... Ben, do they do this for any other word pair? Like, many people say "pitcher" for "picture." Does the OED make any note of this under the headword "pitcher"? I'm wondering if this is a radical departure for the OED or something they've found advisable to do in the past. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > In light of the subsequent newsgroup discussion about whether a variant > pronunciation -- even one that is talked *about* a great deal -- is a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'm wondering if this is a radical departure for the OED or something > they've found advisable to do in the past. Oh sure, there are plenty of other pronunciation spellings that have been given separate entries, including "pitcher": pitcher 4 repr. a vulgar or colloq. pronunciation of PICTURE n. [cites from 1916 to 1977] As long as there are enough attestations of a given spelling, they don't have any qualms about including it. Some other examples: allers, allus (always) bokay (bouquet) bruvver (brother) che-ild (child) cuss, cussed (curse, cursed) dahn (down) dat (that) fella (fellow) Gawd (God) gemman (gentleman) gonna (going to) gotcha (got you) gotta (got to) gwan (go on) gwine (going) hadda (had to) hafta (have to) heah (here) innit (isn't it) lak (like) leggo (let go) liddle (little) loverly (lovely) lurve (love) mouf (mouth) musta (must have) muvver (mother) nemmind (never mind) nigga (nigger) nuthin (nothing) offa (off of) orright (all right) oughta (ought to) partickler (particular) po' (poor) prolly (probably) purty (pretty) reely (really) seegar (cigar) shaddup (shut up) sho' (sure) siddown (sit down) sireen (siren) s'pose (suppose) stummick (stomach) sump'n (something) termorrer, tomorrer (tomorrow) thang (thing) thar (there) 'ullo (hello) veddy, velly, vurry (very) wanna, wanta (want to) wassat (what's that) whaddaya (what do you) whassa (what is) whatcha (what do/are/have you) what'sa matter (what's the matter) wid (with) widda (widow) willya (will you) winder (window) wunnerful (wonderful) yassuh (yes sir) Yurrup (Europe) 'zackly (exactly) There are many other entries for non-standard spellings that are simply "eye-dialect" forms rather than representing variant pronunciations, e.g., "kulchur", "speshul", and "wimmin". What strikes me as unique about the case of "nucular" is that its written use has thus far seemed to be either accidental (see cites from Science, Financial Times, etc.) or as part of derisive commentary *about* the variant pronunciation. Its non-accidental use, in other words, is almost entirely metalinguistic ("mention" rather than "use"). > As long as there are enough attestations of a given spelling, they don't > have any qualms about including it. Some other examples: How about fuggedaboudit? (fug-ged-a-bou-dit) > > In light of the subsequent newsgroup discussion about whether a variant > > pronunciation -- even one that is talked *about* a great deal -- is a [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > Yurrup (Europe) > 'zackly (exactly) Thank you for that. So it is right in line with their policy. I'm tickled to see "gonna" and "wanna" -- I do think those will be "real words" in the future (whatever "real" means). > There are many other entries for non-standard spellings that are simply > "eye-dialect" forms rather than representing variant pronunciations, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > *about* the variant pronunciation. Its non-accidental use, in other > words, is almost entirely metalinguistic ("mention" rather than "use"). I don't quite get your point. There are only three possibilities I can think of. (1) "Metalinguistic" -- talking about the word. "I can't believe the guy says 'nucular' all the time." (2) Conveying pronunciation in reported or invented dialog. "The man said, 'I think we're gonna have a nucular war.'" (3) Written use, indicating that the writer thinks that it is the correct spelling or a word, to the best of his or her knowledge. If you take, say, "pitcher" as an example, how are they distributed? Are they mostly (2)? SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > > What strikes me as unique about the case of "nucular" is that its > > written use has thus far seemed to be either accidental (see cites from [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > If you take, say, "pitcher" as an example, how are they distributed? Are > they mostly (2)? Yes, that's right-- sorry if I was a bit unclear. The first OED cite for "pitcher", for instance, is from B.M. Bower's western novel _The Phantom Herd_ (1916): "That pit'cher's a humdinger!" More examples of its use to convey dialectal pronunciation appear in another 1916 novel by Bower, _The Heritage of the Sioux_: "Well, now, I calc'late my prope'ty is might' nigh as important as Luck's pitcher-making." http://www.classicreader.com/read.php/sid.1/bookid.932/sec.1/ "Why didn't yuh break a laig fer me, sos't I kin show some five-cent bunch in a pitcher-show how bad I'm off?" http://www.classicreader.com/read.php/sid.1/bookid.932/sec.9/ And these are from Ring Lardner's _Gullible's Travels, Etc._ (1917): "I always thought they was only twelve pitcher cards in the deck till I seen them hands you saved up to-night." http://www.classicreader.com/read.php/bookid.762/sec.2/ "We quit attendin' pitcher shows because the rest o' the audience wasn't the kind o' people you'd care to mix with." http://www.classicreader.com/read.php/sid.1/bookid.762/sec.4/ "I suppose if a reporter come out here and ast for your pitcher to stick in the society columns, you'd pick up the carvin' knife and run him ragged." http://www.classicreader.com/read.php/bookid.762/sec.6/ As with many other pronunciation spellings, "pitcher" was used by these writers to represent a kind of "folksy" dialect in reported speech. But with "nucular", the spelling variant almost always occurs in explicitly metalinguistic discussion *about* the stigmatized pronunciation it represents-- thus it invariably appears in quotation marks and out of context (e.g., "Bush keeps saying 'nucular' instead of 'nuclear'"). And when it does function as "use" rather than "mention", the writer still usually maintains an ironic detachment (e.g., "Carter was a 'nucular' (sic!) physicist"). There's something, oh I don't know, *postmodern* about a major dictionary creating an entry for a lexical item used so self-consciously. > > > In light of the subsequent newsgroup discussion about whether a variant > > > pronunciation -- even one that is talked *about* a great deal -- is a [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > I'm tickled to see "gonna" and "wanna" -- I do think those will be "real > words" in the future (whatever "real" means). Well, it has been argued that in some speech they are single morphemes, which would be enough for me to qualify them as "real words." In children's speech especially, "gonna" and "wanna" and "hafta" and "gotta," to give some examples from among those listed in the OED, are a special class of verbs called "catenatives." See http://www.indiana.edu/~sphss333/lsa/oneortwo.html SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com >> > Gawd (God) >> > gemman (gentleman) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > gwan (go on) >> > gwine (going) Hmmm...did they miss "gimme" or did you just leave it off your list?...that and "druthers" have become so common that they've begun migrating into other parts of speech....r > >> > Gawd (God) > >> > gemman (gentleman) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "druthers" have become so common that they've begun migrating into other parts > of speech....r I made no claims to comprehensiveness-- I just did a basic search for words that are defined as a "pronunciation of..." something else (e.g., "Gawd" is a "vulgar or slang pronunciation of GOD"). Here's how they handle "gimme" and "druther(s)": _gimme_ Colloq. contraction of _give me_ (occas. of _give it to me_). [cites from 1883 to 1958] Hence as n., acquisitiveness; greed; a desire for gifts; freq. pl., in _to have_ or _get the gimmes_. Also attrib. slang. [cites from 1927 to 1963] _druther_ U.S. dialectal alteration of (_I_, _you_, etc.) _would rather_. Hence _druther(s)_, _ruther(s)_, a choice, preference. [cites from 1876 to 1941] > > >> > Gawd (God) > > >> > gemman (gentleman) [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Hence _druther(s)_, _ruther(s)_, a choice, preference. > [cites from 1876 to 1941] I wonder if "kinda" and "sorta" will be in the 12th edition of the _Collegiate_. While it was 13/12/03 6:28 pm throughout the UK, Ben Zimmer sprinkled little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus: > I'm surprised there hasn't been another outbreak of English-is-going- > to-hell-in-a-handbasket anguish in the media over this one (yet)... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > pronunciation (widely criticized by usage guides: see note > s.v. NUCLEAR a.). <snip> Help indeed! No doubt "Febuary", "Antartic", "asterix", "dimunition", "geneology", "somethink" and many others are soon to follow. Hang on ... or are these in already? Stewart. SignatureMy e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. > While it was 13/12/03 6:28 pm throughout the UK, Ben Zimmer sprinkled > little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > "geneology", "somethink" and many others are soon to follow. Hang on > ... or are these in already? Nope, although "antartic" is given as a spelling variant dating to the 16-18th centuries, from the Middle English spelling "antartik". The word was originally borrowed from Old French "antartique" and only in the 17th century began to be spelled with the extra "c" to accord with the original Greek spelling (Modern French made a similar change to "antarctique"). Here's a thread on the topic from back in '98... http://groups.google.com/groups?th=9745b98753c2db69 |
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.