 |
 | 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 / February 2009Punctiation and pronunciation in AmE and BrE
American to Englishman: Say, what's your job? Englishman: I'm a clerk. American (astonished): You mean you go 'tick-tock, tick-tock-? The above conversation seems to show one of the differences between AmE and BrE as it shows that the "open a" doesn't exists in AmE. But how about the punctiation? I have read that the use of commas in BrE differs from the use of commas in AmE as AmE typically has a comma before the coordinating conjunctions, where BrE has not: yellow, red, gold, and brown. Is this correct or is it the other way round? And are there other pecularities about the differences of the two languages, especially in the "comma business"? Arne H. Wilstrup, if I was in the mood, I'd turn the lights down low and reply with soft music, but you'll have to accept this instead:: > American to Englishman: Say, what's your job? Englishman: I'm a clerk. > American (astonished): You mean you go 'tick-tock, tick-tock-? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > And are there other pecularities about the differences of the two languages, > especially in the "comma business"? That's a bunch of crarp.  SignatureYours, Dan S. the unruly redshirt > Arne H. Wilstrup, if I was in the mood, I'd turn the lights down low > and reply with soft music, but you'll have to accept this instead:: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > That's a bunch of crarp. What is "a bunch of crap"? If you are able to answer, please do, and if you are not, why bother? I am asking in order to become wiser, not to be smeared with hostile and non- substantiated remarks. Arne H. Wilstrup, if I was in the mood, I'd turn the lights down low and reply with soft music, but you'll have to accept this instead:: >> Arne H. Wilstrup, if I was in the mood, I'd turn the lights down low and >> reply with soft music, but you'll have to accept this instead:: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > What is "a bunch of crap"? That an AmE speaker wouldn't be able to understand the word clock v. clerk and vice versa. And the misspelling of crarp was to demonstrate the absurdity of the assertion. > If you are able to answer, please do, and if you are not, why bother? I am > asking in order to become wiser, not to be smeared with hostile and non- > substantiated remarks. SignatureYours, Dan S. the unruly redshirt > That an AmE speaker wouldn't be able to understand the word clock v. > clerk and vice versa. Rubbish - I didn't say anything like that. It was a joke! If you cannot abstract from this, well.... > And the misspelling of crarp was to demonstrate the absurdity of the > assertion. ' I will refrain from any comments here which can be misunderstood as irony or sarcasm. I will just refer to the above sentence from me, which also indicates that the absurdity is not my sentence, but the mere thought that I should imply what Americans can or cannot understand. The joke was intended to be a kind of explanation of the differences between AmE and BrE. In Denmark a poet once said: A person who just takes a joke for a joke and seriousness only serious, he or she had understood both equally bad. My translation might not be elegant, and in Danish it rhymes, but the meaning is very clear. > American to Englishman: Say, what's your job? Englishman: I'm a clerk. > American (astonished): You mean you go 'tick-tock, tick-tock-? > > The above conversation seems to show one of the differences between AmE > and BrE as it shows that the "open a" doesn't exists in AmE. "Doesn't exist". I'm not sure what you mean by "open a". The vowel of RP "clock" doesn't exist in AmE, or only for few speakers. What the joke is based on is that the majority of Americans use a vowel in "clock" that's pretty much the same as the vowel in RP "clerk" (or one pronunciation of "clerk"?). > But how about the punctiation? I have read that the use of commas in BrE > differs from the use of commas in AmE as AmE typically has a comma > before the coordinating conjunctions, where BrE has not: > yellow, red, gold, and brown. I don't see any connection between that and the joke. > Is this correct or is it the other way round? The "serial comma" is controversial in both countries. I suspect it's at least a little more common in American than in Britain, but not common enough to say that Americans typically use it. > And are there other pecularities about the differences of the two > languages, especially in the "comma business"? Yes, though I can't think of any about commas. -- Jerry Friedman On Feb 19, 6:29 pm, "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com" <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > American to Englishman: Say, what's your job? Englishman: I'm a clerk. > > American (astonished): You mean you go 'tick-tock, tick-tock-? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that's pretty much the same as the vowel in RP "clerk" (or one > pronunciation of "clerk"?). Meh. Not really. The RP "clerk" vowel isn't very close to the AmE "clock" vowel at all, certainly not close enough for this joke to work. >On Feb 19, 6:29 pm, "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com" ><jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Meh. Not really. The RP "clerk" vowel isn't very close to the AmE >"clock" vowel at all, certainly not close enough for this joke to work. I hear the UK pronunciation of "clerk" as the same as the shoe maker. I've never heard a Brit say the name of the shoe, though, and wonder how they say that word. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida [ ... ] > I hear the UK pronunciation of "clerk" as the same as the shoe maker. > I've never heard a Brit say the name of the shoe, though, and wonder > how they say that word. Identically. Signatureathel >>Meh. Not really. The RP "clerk" vowel isn't very close to the AmE >>"clock" vowel at all, certainly not close enough for this joke to work. > >I hear the UK pronunciation of "clerk" as the same as the shoe maker. >I've never heard a Brit say the name of the shoe, though, and wonder >how they say that word. English "clerk" is pronounced the same way as Superman's alterego's name. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary >>>Meh. Not really. The RP "clerk" vowel isn't very close to the AmE >>>"clock" vowel at all, certainly not close enough for this joke to work. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >English "clerk" is pronounced the same way as Superman's alterego's >name. Asking for assistance in a British shop might result in someone saying "I kent help you", then. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > Asking for assistance in a British shop might result in someone saying > "I kent help you", then. Funnily enough, Tony, The British Royal Family are often caricatured (by us Brits) as speaking in that very way! Cheers, >David >> Asking for assistance in a British shop might result in someone saying >> "I kent help you", then. > > Funnily enough, Tony, > The British Royal Family are often caricatured (by us Brits) as > speaking in that very way! Especially the Duke and Duchess of Kent. SignatureDavid meal-twit: http://twitter.com/omrud On 20 Feb., 00:29, "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com" <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote: > The "serial comma" is controversial in both countries. I suspect it's > at least a little more common in American than in Britain, but not > common enough to say that Americans typically use it. I once conducted at small informal survey to support a claim I had made that Americans typically use the serial comma. I checked the prominent news items on the websites run by the White House, The New York Times, and the Florida Governor's office. They all used the serial comma consistently. The purpose was to refute a claim that the serial comma was "totally wrong", not to substantiate my own claim of "typically". Hence the modest extent of the survey. However, I just visited The New York Times on the web, and the first list I encountered had no serial comma. Based on that single data point, I have to admit that it is not obvious that American typically use it. >On 20 Feb., 00:29, "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com" ><jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >point, I have to admit that it is not obvious that American typically >use it. And on this side of the Atlantic, Oxford University Press always has the serial comma, as does The Lancet in its Information for Authors. Outside academic contexts, however, I don't think it's very common. James (BrE with a distinctly septentrional flavour) > On 20 Feb., 00:29, "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com" > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > point, I have to admit that it is not obvious that American typically > use it. You need a major lesson in sampling theory, but your conclusion would be right. Yendrick > However, I just visited The New York Times on the web, and the first > list I encountered had no serial comma. That's what I would have expected. Newspapers use space-saving typographical conventions to cram more text into short lines. ¬R [...]> > I'm not sure what you mean by "open a". The vowel of RP "clock" > doesn't exist in AmE, or only for few speakers. What the joke is > based on is that the majority of Americans use a vowel in "clock" > that's pretty much the same as the vowel in RP "clerk" (or one > pronunciation of "clerk"?). Yayss. Yust esk Mr Pockheel. [...] SignatureMike. > American to Englishman: Say, what's your job? Englishman: I'm a clerk. > American (astonished): You mean you go 'tick-tock, tick-tock-? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > And are there other pecularities about the differences of the two > languages, especially in the "comma business"? All of the topics that you've brought up are trivialities that should not concern you at this stage. Explaining them to you would be a waste of time. You've simply got bigger fish to fry, Arne. Furthermore, you have some very non-constructive erroneous beliefs about American English. Just to put things in perspective, the difference between Standard AmE and Standard BrE are about 10% of the difference between Standard Danish and Standard Norwegian Bokmaal, and even less as far as pronunciation is concerned. Differences large enough to seriously impede communication are seen only with non- standard varieties. If you really want to know more about AmE, start by reading more post- war fiction. Anything by Kurt Vonnegut is superb, and "In Cold Blood" by Truman Capote is one of my personal favorites. I'm sure other posters can recommend a lot more books to you if you tell them exactly what kind of literature you are interested in. For now, avoid literature from before, say, 1960. It's more important for you at this point to acquire a feel for contemporary patterns. For spoken Standard AmE, listen to "All Things Considered" on National Public Radio. This is a news program for well-educated Americans. The language is exemplary, and the topics are always interesting. Go to www.npr.org, place the cursor on "Programs", select "All Things Considered", and click on "Listen to today's show". If today's show is not yet available, you can click on "Past shows" in the top right column, pick a date from the calendar, and listen to the show from that date. Another pointer: The ratio of what you write to what you read in this group is inordinately high. You frequently answer a post without properly taking the time to digest it. You have also admitted that you don't take the time to proofread. You could learn a lot by carefully rereading and correcting your posts before you send them. Good luck, Yendrick On Feb 19, 11:10 pm, "Arne H. Wilstrup" <ahw> wrote: > American to Englishman: Say, what's your job? Englishman: I'm a clerk. > American (astonished): You mean you go 'tick-tock, tick-tock-? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > And are there other pecularities about the differences of the two > languages, especially in the "comma business"? All of the topics that you've brought up are trivialities that should not concern you at this stage. Explaining them to you would be a waste of time. You've simply got bigger fish to fry, Arne. Furthermore, you have some very non-constructive erroneous beliefs about American English. Just to put things in perspective, the difference between Standard AmE and Standard BrE are about 10% of the difference between Standard Danish and Standard Norwegian Bokmaal, and even less as far as pronunciation is concerned. Differences large enough to seriously impede communication are seen only with non- standard varieties. If you really want to know more about AmE, start by reading more post- war fiction. Anything by Kurt Vonnegut is superb, and "In Cold Blood" by Truman Capote is one of my personal favorites. I'm sure other posters can recommend a lot more books to you if you tell them exactly what kind of literature you are interested in. For now, avoid literature from before, say, 1960. It's more important for you at this point to acquire a feel for contemporary patterns. For spoken Standard AmE, listen to "All Things Considered" on National Public Radio. This is a news program for well-educated Americans. The language is exemplary, and the topics are always interesting. Go to www.npr.org, place the cursor on "Programs", select "All Things Considered", and click on "Listen to today's show". If today's show is not yet available, you can click on "Past shows" in the top right column, pick a date from the calendar, and listen to the show from that date. Another pointer: The ratio of what you write to what you read in this group is inordinately high. You frequently answer a post without properly taking the time to digest it. You have also admitted that you don't take the time to proofread. You could learn a lot by carefully rereading and correcting your posts before you send them. *I take your advice seriously, but you seem to forget that I am a school teacher and am under a constant look out for supporting my memory in the field of AmE and BrE - and I am to do it according to the contents of the curriculum i English. > American to Englishman: Say, what's your job? Englishman: I'm a clerk. > American (astonished): You mean you go 'tick-tock, tick-tock-? There are American accents that use much the same vowel sound in "clock" as RP does in "clark". Even so, this misunderstanding would be unlikely because the vowel in "clerk" is long and the vowel in "clock" is short. If you want to have some fun with transatlantic vowel shifts, try "cup soccer" and "cop sucker". > The above conversation seems to show one of the differences between AmE > and BrE as it shows that the "open a" doesn't exists in AmE. I am not sure that I understand this assertion. It looks like your "open a" is intended to designate the vowel in RP "start" or "clark". But that vowel is essentially the same in American English "start" and "mark". In rhotic American accents, the vowel would be shorter than in RP; in non-rhotic ones, the main difference between RP and American would be in the aspiration of the consonants t and k. > I am not sure that I understand this assertion. It looks like your > "open a" is intended to designate the vowel in RP "start" or "clark". > But that vowel is essentially the same in American English "start" and > "mark". In rhotic American accents, the vowel would be shorter than in > RP; in non-rhotic ones, the main difference between RP and American > would be in the aspiration of the consonants t and k. I cannot write the phonetics here, but AmE is - like BrE- a variety of English, but is more difficult to pinpoint. This due to the fact that the USA is such an enormous conutry as well as to the existence of many established varieties taht are called Standard American. Standard American English can best be described as the type which is spoken and written by educated native Americans, and which may be heard on major American TV and radio networks such as ABC, CBS, or CNN. When I refer to American English, I mean this type of Standard American English. The differences between AmE and BrE can largely be accounted for by the different history of the British and the American peoples, differences that are of geographical, political, economical, social and religious nature. This is not the place to trace all these, but let us just consider the fact that the first English-speaking settlers landed in Virginia and founded Jamestown in 1607, and that the famous Mayflower landed on the coast of Massachusetts in 1620. These immigrants and those who followed came to America to find the freedom - social, religious and political - that they did not find in their homeland. Britain regarded these and the following settlements as colonies that could be exploited for raw materials. British soldiers were sent to these colonies, allegedly to 'protect' them, but in reality to prevent the colonists from becoming economically independent of Britain. In many ways the colonists were cut off from the rest of the world, which meant, from the point of view of language, that the language which they had used when they came to America sas kept more or less in its original form, simply because they had so little contact with the home country, and the changes that English underwent back in Britain did not take place in American English. One example is the change in eighteenth century English from /æ/ to /a:/ as in /answer/, /grass/ /pass/ etc. which did not occur in AmE. Another example is the BrE disappearance of preconsonantal and final /r/ as in /bird/, /third/, /fur/, /stir/ etc. This /r/ is pronounced in many varieties of AmE. Some words became obsolete in Britain, but not among American settlers; that is why we have /fall/ in AmE for BrE /autumn/. As far as vocabulary is concerned, BrE has not exposed to the many kinds of contact with various Indian languages and with Spanish (in the South). The settlers borrowed words for new phenomena they came across: tortilla and mustang were borrowed from Spanish, and /moose/, /racoon/ and /sequoia/ were borrowed from Indian languages. In other cases the settlers had to make up new words for the realities of their new lives. The characteristic features that distinguish AmE are found in the following fields: Pronunciation. Here, only a few examples will be given: Intervocalic t (as in 'butter', 'letter', 'writer') may be voiced and resemble a BrE intervocalic d as in 'ladder' or 'rider'. 'a' as dance, glass or past is pronounced /æ/ final and preconsonantal r is pronounced as in /letter/, /manner/, /hard/, /word/. The vowel /open a like in English "can't"/ does not exist in AmE - (this doesn't mean that the vowel cannot be pronounced in American, just it doesn't exist in AmE - and therefore the story I wrote earlier. Here BrE clerk /kla:k/ is understood as AmE clock /klo:k/; AmE clerk is /kl3:rk/ Above o: is like BrE /'hod'/ I cannot write phonetic symbols in this newsgroup. > this misunderstanding would be unlikely because the vowel in "clerk" > is long and the vowel in "clock" is short. The distinction wouldn't be obvious to an American, since there's only one vowel we pronounce that way. Even for someone who recognized the long vowel as "ar," the meaning still might not be obvious since we don't have a word we pronounce as "clark" (aside from the name). I'd say the confusion is fairly likely. > If you want to have some fun with transatlantic vowel shifts, try "cup > soccer" and "cop sucker". I can see how some pairs of accents would make these similar enough for a foreigner to confuse, but I can't think of any that would give a native speaker difficulty in distinguishing them. > > The above conversation seems to show one of the differences between AmE > > and BrE as it shows that the "open a" doesn't exists in AmE. Some British reporters certainly seem to believe this; I've been hearing "Obama" pronounced to rhyme with "Alabama" on BBC World Service lately. ¬R >> this misunderstanding would be unlikely because the vowel in "clerk" >> is long and the vowel in "clock" is short. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > don't have a word we pronounce as "clark" (aside from the name). I'd > say the confusion is fairly likely. I'm familiar with the BrE pronunciation of "clerk" and it doesn't sound enough like the AmE "clock" to this left-Pondian for the joke to work. However, I am rhotic. SignatureLew >>> this misunderstanding would be unlikely because the vowel in "clerk" >>> is long and the vowel in "clock" is short. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >like the AmE "clock" to this left-Pondian for the joke to work. However, I am >rhotic. What sounds "enough like" and what doesn't depends on where you are, and what differences your own dialect attaches significance too. Many distinctions which are instantly obvious most Americans just don't exist to a BrE speaker (and, no doubt, vice versa). I have been told often enough, here and elsewhere, that no American could confuse "Don" and "Dawn", or "Bob" and "Barb", but the fact remains, confirmed by much experimentation, that the AmE pronunciations of both pairs are absolutely indistinguishable to my ear. BrE makes the distinction in a completely different way, which relies on the "short o", which Americans wot not of. "Clock" is simply another example of this. SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the From: address is not read. To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com" >>>> this misunderstanding would be unlikely because the vowel in "clerk" >>>> is long and the vowel in "clock" is short. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >completely different way, which relies on the "short o", which >Americans wot not of. "Clock" is simply another example of this. From my extremely limited knowledge of Russian, they also to pronounce the 'a' as an 'o', albeit a short one (well, certainly in words like "spacibo"). SignatureIan >>>>> this misunderstanding would be unlikely because the vowel in "clerk" >>>>> is long and the vowel in "clock" is short. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >the 'a' as an 'o', albeit a short one (well, certainly in words like >"spacibo"). Sorry - the other way around. An 'o' as an 'a'. SignatureIan >>>>> this misunderstanding would be unlikely because the vowel in "clerk" >>>>> is long and the vowel in "clock" is short. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > the 'a' as an 'o', albeit a short one (well, certainly in words like > "spacibo"). Only unstressed ones, and even then, in many people's mouths, they are more like a schwa than an ah. SignatureRob Bannister Don Aitken sez: > I have been told > often enough, here and elsewhere, that no American could confuse "Don" > and "Dawn", Clearly that is not correct; whole stretches of CIC (was that the acronym? Can't rightly remember) speakerdom pronounce those the same. Actually, even among CINCs there can be confusion there. (I have a brother named [= BrE "called"] Don and a cousin named [...] Dawn, and I can recall some relatively recent conversations with my mother where I had to ask her which one she was talking about, although it might be relevant that my mother may have been CIC for the first five or so years of her life.) > or "Bob" and "Barb", but the fact remains, confirmed by > much experimentation, that the AmE pronunciations of both pairs are > absolutely indistinguishable to my ear. BrE makes the distinction in a > completely different way, which relies on the "short o", which > Americans wot not of. "Clock" is simply another example of this. Well, mostly, but that might not be true of some varieties of New York English. My father pronounced "Clark" non-rhotically, and with a vowel similar to the one he used in "clock", but they were not homophones, and vowel length approximates the difference. SignatureRichard Fontana > Don Aitken sez: >> I have been told [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that my mother may have been CIC for the first five or so years of her > life.) Years ago a school filmstrip suggested that one could place the region of origin of an AmE speaker by which of "Mary", "marry" and "merry" were homophones. I restricted my comment > "clerk" ... doesn't sound enough like the AmE "clock" to this left-Pondian > for the joke to work. to a personal observation rather than a general one for such reasons. SignatureLew > Well, mostly, but that might not be true of some varieties of New York > English. My father pronounced "Clark" non-rhotically, and with a vowel > similar to the one he used in "clock", but they were not homophones, and > vowel length approximates the difference. But vowel length is not always obvious in rapid speech. For that reason, American "hot" often sounds like "hut" or even "hat" to me if it's not said slowly. SignatureRob Bannister >> Well, mostly, but that might not be true of some varieties of New York >> English. My father pronounced "Clark" non-rhotically, and with a vowel [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >American "hot" often sounds like "hut" or even "hat" to me if it's not >said slowly. My (American) "hot" doesn't sound anything like "hut" or "hat" no matter how fast I say it. It sounds like "hot". SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>> Well, mostly, but that might not be true of some varieties of New York >>> English. My father pronounced "Clark" non-rhotically, and with a vowel [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > My (American) "hot" doesn't sound anything like "hut" or "hat" no > matter how fast I say it. It sounds like "hot". To you. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> Well, mostly, but that might not be true of some varieties of New York >>>> English. My father pronounced "Clark" non-rhotically, and with a vowel [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >To you. Support that claim, if you can. My claim is that while we all have slightly different accents, most of us hear sounds in the same way. Do your owls sound different to you than mine do to me, assuming the species is the same? I doubt it. Similarly, British Racing Green appears essentially the same way to me as it does to you. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>>>> Well, mostly, but that might not be true of some varieties of New York >>>>> English. My father pronounced "Clark" non-rhotically, and with a vowel [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Similarly, British Racing Green appears essentially the same way to me >as it does to you. We may all hear the same sounds, but our brain classifies them differently depending on which variety of a language we were brought up to speak. There are lots of different possible sounds but not so many phonemes in any one language. To take one example: South Africans say the word "pen" with a vowel that is close to what people in Scotland and Ireland use in the word "pin". It's not normally a problem in communication because words are used in context and you can get used to the systematic differences in the sounds of another dialect. But if you take away the context and imagine a South African suddenly entering a home in Glasgow and saying just the word "pen", the Glaswegian will almost certainly think the visitor wants a pin. So it's not impossible that the way some Americans pronounce "hot" is identical to the way some speakers of northern British English pronounce "hat". The same sound can belong to different phonemes in different varieties of the language. To take an analogy: There are infinite shades of colour but only a limited range of colour words. What some Germans call "red cabbage" is known as "blue cabbage" in other parts of Germany. The cabbage is the same purplish colour everywhere, but before there was a word for purple, people classified it as either blue or red. James (BrE with a distinctly septentrional flavour) >>>>>> Well, mostly, but that might not be true of some varieties of New York >>>>>> English. My father pronounced "Clark" non-rhotically, and with a vowel [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >there was a word for purple, people classified it as either blue >or red. Even after your excellent explanation I remain confused, James. Perhaps the subject will be clearer to me tomorrow when I read your post once more. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>>>>>> Well, mostly, but that might not be true of some varieties of New York >>>>>>> English. My father pronounced "Clark" non-rhotically, and with a vowel [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >Perhaps the subject will be clearer to me tomorrow when I read your >post once more. If you remain confused then it wasn't an excellent explanation. Maybe someone else would like to explain why an identical vowel sound can be heard as different phonemes by speakers of different varieties of the same language? James >>>>>>>> Well, mostly, but that might not be true of some varieties of New York >>>>>>>> English. My father pronounced "Clark" non-rhotically, and with a vowel [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >sound can be heard as different phonemes by speakers of different >varieties of the same language? I'll explain my point again. If we were to describe any particular colour by its wavelength rather than by its name, everyone would know exactly what colour is meant. My point was that that doesn't mean the 5290 Angstrom line colour, for example, appears to your brain the same way it appears to mine. I don't know or care what colour 5290 is, but how do I know my British racing green is your British racing green? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland Chuck wrote on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:45:54 +0000: > I'll explain my point again. If we were to describe any > particular colour by its wavelength rather than by its name, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > mine. I don't know or care what colour 5290 is, but how do I > know my British racing green is your British racing green? -- The sensation, even at a particular wavelength, may be different. I have heard quite intense arguments as to whether a spectral line should be called "red" or "orange" and I think it might apply to other colors. I believe Scottish Gaelic uses the same word for blue and green. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Chuck wrote on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:45:54 +0000: >> I'll explain my point again. If we were to describe any particular [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > other colors. I believe Scottish Gaelic uses the same word for blue > and green. That's not a matter of sensation, but rather perception. (Although the presence of people with various forms of color blindness implies that there are likely differences in sensation as well.) Berlin and Kay established in the '60s that speakers of different languages had different numbers of "basic" colors[1] (from two to eleven), that there is an order to which colors are added to a language[2], and that even among languages at the same level, the boundaries between colors are drawn differently and there will be smaller differences in boundary between speakers of the same language. Languages will also differ (but speakers of a language largely agree) if shown a grid of color tiles and asked to point to "the best example of red". There have been some challenges and tweaks to the theory over the years, but I believe it's still considered to be basically sound. [1] Roughly those that aren't seen by speakers as "a kind of" some other color, tend to be given early when speakers are asked to list colors, and tend not to be names of things. [2] If there are two colors, they will be roughly "light" and "dark". The third color will be roughly "red". The fourth and fifth will be "yellow"(ish) and "green"(ish), in either order. The sixth will be "blue"(ish). The seventh will be "brown"(ish). The rest apparently have no set order. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Politicians are like compost--they 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |should be turned often or they start Palo Alto, CA 94304 |to smell bad. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Chuck wrote on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:45:54 +0000: >>> I'll explain my point again. If we were to describe any particular [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > will be "blue"(ish). The seventh will be "brown"(ish). The rest > apparently have no set order. Colour perception. That's the term psychologists use for what I was talking about, all right. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland [...] >> I believe Scottish Gaelic uses the same word for blue >> and green. The same can apply to Welsh. They have separate words in modern Welsh, but the word now used for "green" doesn't seem (in my of course restricted experience and unreliable recall) to appear in placenames. > That's not a matter of sensation, but rather perception. (Although > the presence of people with various forms of color blindness implies [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > will be "blue"(ish). The seventh will be "brown"(ish). The rest > apparently have no set order. Norman Douglas has a brief reflection on the use of colour words in /Old Calabria/. He argues for the decadence of the local culture from his personal impressions of a decline in the variety of personal given names and colour vocabulary. How reliable he was, I'm not qualified to say; but he claims that in at least one case (I don't remember if there were more) the word for "blue" had disappeared, leaving a speaker able to say only that the sky was "a kind of dead colour". (This seems so unlikely that I'm going to have to read it again; but that's worth doing in its own right.) SignatureMike. > Norman Douglas has a brief reflection on the use of colour words in /Old > Calabria/. He argues for the decadence of the local culture from his [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that I'm going to have to read it again; but that's worth doing in its > own right.) If you like unlikely theories about language, try this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090226/sc_livescience/oldestenglishwordsre vealed Stone Age Scrabble, indeed! SignatureRob Bannister >>>>>>>>> Well, mostly, but that might not be true of some varieties of New York >>>>>>>>> English. My father pronounced "Clark" non-rhotically, and with a vowel [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] >way it appears to mine. I don't know or care what colour 5290 is, but >how do I know my British racing green is your British racing green? If that's was your point, then you have exactly summed up what I was trying to say: my British racing green is not necessarily your British racing green. I was commenting on what you wrote: 'My (American) "hot" doesn't sound anything like "hut" or "hat" no matter how fast I say it. It sounds like "hot".' Agreed. The vowel phonemes are easily distinguishable in your speech, just as they are kept apart in other varieties of the language. But the actual sounds representing the phonemes may differ so much that they can be interpreted differently . Your American "hot" might sound like some Ulsterman's "hat". James > >>>>>>>> Well, mostly, but that might not be true of some varieties of New York > >>>>>>>> English. My father pronounced "Clark" non-rhotically, and with a vowel [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > way it appears to mine. I don't know or care what colour 5290 is, but > how do I know my British racing green is your British racing green? Good point. British racing green is not the same to ME as it is to ME. My left eye sees everything with a slight orangish cast, and the right with a slight greenish cast. The effect is not very strong and I usually don't even pay attention to it. Another obvious phenomenon is colorblindness. Now, about sounds. I teach English in Poland. I'm an American CIC speaker, so the vowel that I use in words like "What", "caught', "cot" and "father" is identical to the Polish vowel "A". The Poles hear and reproduce "A" when I say "father", but hear and return the Polish vowel "O" when I say "what", "caught" or "cot". They have been conditioned by orthography and previous Polish-language instructors to expect "O" here. Polish does not have the sound CINC and BrE speakers use here. To their ear it sounds like Polish "O". Yendrick >> My (American) "hot" doesn't sound anything like "hut" or "hat" no >> matter how fast I say it. It sounds like "hot". > >To you. Barbara Conrad, former weekend meterologist at WLVI-TV (56 Cambridge), back when it was still owned by Tribune, very definitely said "hut". I have no idea what her dialect background was, and can't seem to find any information about her or where she is working now. (Perhaps this was to make up for Barry "Hairicane" Burbank over at WBZ-TV.) -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness > Some British reporters certainly seem to believe this; I've been hearing > "Obama" pronounced to rhyme with "Alabama" on BBC World Service lately. I'm sure you would hear much more often "Alabama" pronounced to rhyme with "Obama" in BrE, ie with an "ah" vowel. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister filted: >> Some British reporters certainly seem to believe this; I've been hearing >> "Obama" pronounced to rhyme with "Alabama" on BBC World Service lately. > >I'm sure you would hear much more often "Alabama" pronounced to rhyme >with "Obama" in BrE, ie with an "ah" vowel. Alabama and the forty thieves?... Never mind...I'm sure more than one headline-writer has pleased himself immensely coming up with that one in the past....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" >> Some British reporters certainly seem to believe this; I've been hearing >> "Obama" pronounced to rhyme with "Alabama" on BBC World Service lately. > >I'm sure you would hear much more often "Alabama" pronounced to rhyme >with "Obama" in BrE, ie with an "ah" vowel. Whoever pronounces "Alabama" that way is pronouncing it wrong. Relatively few people have been there, Americans included, and it isn't a word often heard on British TV, so why would they get it right? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland |
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.