 |
 | 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 / March 2009Plural of "still life"
I know that the plural of "life" is "lives" but A N Wilson (in "After the Victorians") refers to "still lives". This just looks wrong to me, but I can't put my finger on why. Not being an artist, I rarely use the expression in the singular, let alone the plural. But my instinct would be to use "still lifes". What do others feel? Regards Jonathan > Victorians") refers to "still lives". This just looks wrong to me, I agree, and so do the dictionaries. I'd say the general rule is, if the sense of a compound noun isn't similar to that of its final word, it acts like a quoted phrase and forms a regular plural. A still life or a lowlife isn't a kind of life. A half-life, on the other hand, is, so isotopes have half-lives. ¬R >> Victorians") refers to "still lives". This just looks wrong to me, > > I agree, and so do the dictionaries. I'd say the general rule is, if > the sense of a compound noun isn't similar to that of its final word, > it acts like a quoted phrase and forms a regular plural. A still > life or a lowlife isn't a kind of life. Isn't a lowlife a kind of life? It's usually applied to a person. DavidW filted: >>> Victorians") refers to "still lives". This just looks wrong to me, >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Isn't a lowlife a kind of life? It's usually applied to a person. It's life, Captain, but not as we know it....r  SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? "Jonathan Morton" <jonathan.mortonbutignorethispart@btinternet.com> writes: > Not being an artist, I rarely use the expression in the singular, > let alone the plural. But my instinct would be to use "still lifes". > > What do others feel? Regardless of feelings, "still lifes" is right. Even the dictionaries say so. I believe linguists explain that by saying that "life" is not the "head" (whatever that means) of "still life", so the whole phrase, rather than the word "life", gets pluralized. More broadly, however, whenever an irregular noun gets a new & special sense, it gets a chance to have a regular plural. A conspicuous recent example is "mouse" (the computer peripheral), which it comes natural to a lot of people to pluralize as "mouses", tho "mice" has the majority on its side. One might also mention gooses (the rude pokes & the tailors' tools) and the Toronto Maple Leafs. Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: Look if you like, but you will have to leap. :|| Jonathan Morton: > I know that the plural of "life" is "lives" but A N Wilson (in "After the > Victorians") refers to "still lives". This just looks wrong to me... Yes, it's wrong. It's the same sort of error as pronouncing "short-lived" with a short I. SignatureMark Brader | "If the standard says that [things] depend on the Toronto | phase of the moon, the programmer should be prepared msb@vex.net | to look out the window as necessary." -- Chris Torek > Jonathan Morton: >> I know that the plural of "life" is "lives" but A N Wilson (in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yes, it's wrong. It's the same sort of error as pronouncing > "short-lived" with a short I. I agree about "still lives", but would still pronounce "short-lived" as "short-livved". Whatever is being described "livves", or" livved", for a short time. I've never (BrE) heard "short-lived" with the vowel of "life". Alan Jones Alan Jones >> Jonathan Morton: >>> I know that the plural of "life" is "lives" but A N Wilson (in >>> "After the Victorians") refers to "still lives". This just looks [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > for a short time. I've never (BrE) heard "short-lived" with the vowel > of "life". For "short-lived", M-W Online shows both pronunciations, listing the short i one first. That is the one I use, matching "lived-in". SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>> Jonathan Morton: >>>> I know that the plural of "life" is "lives" but A N Wilson (in >>>> "After the Victorians") refers to "still lives". This just looks >>>> wrong to me... >>> Yes, it's wrong. It's the same sort of error as pronouncing >>> "short-lived" with a short I. >> I agree about "still lives", but would still pronounce >> "short-lived" as "short-livved". Whatever is being described >> "livves", or" livved", for a short time. I've never (BrE) heard >> "short-lived" with the vowel of "life". > For "short-lived", M-W Online shows both pronunciations, listing > the short i one first. That is the one I use, matching "lived-in". You're right about general usage, but I agree with Mark on the echt correct pronunciation. The phrase, unlike "lived-in", has to come from the noun. If you have bright eyes, you are bright-eyed; a wide mouth, you are wide-mouthed; a short life, you are / 'SOrt,laIvd/. (Not so sure about the / O/, but.) >>>> Jonathan Morton: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > mouth, you are wide-mouthed; a short life, you are / 'SOrt,laIvd/. > (Not so sure about the / O/, but.) Ah, but those of us who treat the expr. as an analogue of "well-spoken" find the "swyved" rhyme impossible. Not wanting the dispute to go on and on for ever, or anything like that, goodness me no perish the thought, we don't modify the "f" in phrases like "red-roofed". SignatureMike. [desperately but not quietly lived] > Ah, but those of us who treat the expr. as an analogue of > "well-spoken" find the "swyved" rhyme impossible. Not wanting the > dispute to go on and on for ever, or anything like that, goodness > me no perish the thought, we don't modify the "f" in phrases like > "red-roofed". One couldn't agree more or, possibly, less. One won't point out, then, that one would indeed modify the "f" in red-roofed, if one said "red rooves". As for "well-spoken", one will refrain from saying that, while it's a bit of a show-stopper, one feels in their heart that, like "long-livved" it's an exception to a general rule, perhaps in this case a transferred epithet or a mistaken understanding of a phrase like "well-spoken gentleman", intended to mean "of good reputation" and taken to mean "polished in speech"; simply because neither idiom makes a bit of sense. No joy yet searching for origins online, but one would never ask if the OED had any light to shed on the question. Finally, it is not for one to point out that the Urban Dictionary claims the opposite of "well-spoken" to be "wollible". One has already been sufficiently wollible. No one hasn't, quite. Hall's _Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary_ gives "langlîfe" for "long-lived". One need not point out that that's a long "i" followed by a "v" sound, or that the A-S noun is "lîf" and verb is "libban", pp "gelifd" (short "i"). Must think more. Or not. > [desperately but not quietly lived] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > then, that one would indeed modify the "f" in red-roofed, if one said > "red rooves". But, needless to say, one doesn't. > As for "well-spoken", one will refrain from saying that, while it's a > bit of a show-stopper, one feels in their heart that, like [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and taken to mean "polished in speech"; simply because neither idiom > makes a bit of sense. An exception to a general rule, indeed, but it's indubitably well-existed. The origin proposed seems not to be well-been. Or, indeed, well hung. Or (is this the same thing?) well-born. I dare not look up "well-found" in case it turns out to have a rational explanation. SignatureMike. >> [desperately but not quietly lived] >>> Ah, but those of us who treat the expr. as an analogue of >>> "well-spoken" find the "swyved" rhyme impossible. Not wanting the >>> dispute to go on and on for ever, or anything like that, goodness >>> me no perish the thought, we don't modify the "f" in phrases like >>> "red-roofed". >> One couldn't agree more or, possibly, less. One won't point out, >> then, that one would indeed modify the "f" in red-roofed, if one >> said "red rooves". > But, needless to say, one doesn't. No, but one does say "long / laIvz/". >> As for "well-spoken", one will refrain from saying that, while >> it's a bit of a show-stopper, one feels in their heart that, like [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> and taken to mean "polished in speech"; simply because neither >> idiom makes a bit of sense. > An exception to a general rule, indeed, but it's indubitably > well-existed. The origin proposed seems not to be well-been. Or, > indeed, well hung. Or (is this the same thing?) well-born. I dare > not look up "well-found" in case it turns out to have a rational > explanation. Yes, but that's the difficulty. In the two serious and relevant examples above, the object of description has been the object of the transitive verb corresponding to the participle (I exclude the first two as jocular because there neither a transitive verb nor a noun from which the adjectival, participle-like word could be formed (and because, well, they are), and the third as irrelevant because there is a transitive verb to appeal to, cp the cherry-tree; I take [well-] hung to be a regular participle): if you are well-born, it is because someone has born you; if well-found, because someone has found (supplied) you. If you are -lived, long or short, it's not because someone has lived you that way; therefore I can see no other analysis but the one that produces "broad-shouldered" from the noun, to describe someone that you might hesitate to shoulder. I had better apologise again, this time for unwarranted seriousness. The Hour is almost upon us here, and I must work fast. I was babbling a little last night in my reply to Rob, I admit. I now see that there are other useful parallels that might be drawn, although I haven't found a good one yet. If your car is provided with good brakes and is therefore well-braked, I don't see that as meaning that the middle pedal has been well used; but that's my opinion. Still thinking. >>>> Jonathan Morton: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > mouth, you are wide-mouthed; a short life, you are / 'SOrt,laIvd/. > (Not so sure about the / O/, but.) I don't get it. "Eyed", "mouthed" (BTW, is that voiced or unvoiced th? - I think I say either) look like adjectives from verbs - I don't see any noun here. "Lived" is the same: there is no noun "live". SignatureRob Bannister >>>>> Jonathan Morton: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >I think I say either) look like adjectives from verbs - I don't see any >noun here. "Lived" is the same: there is no noun "live". According to OED "live" with "the" does exist: "the live" Living people as a class; the living. Contrasted with "the dead". and: Electr. A live conductor or terminal. Cf. NEUTRAL n. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >noun here. "Lived" is the same: there is no noun "live". The noun from which it's derived (in this particular case) is "life", through a well-known regular phonetic change. -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 >>>>> Jonathan Morton: >>>>>> I know that the plural of "life" is "lives" but A N Wilson (in >>>>>> "After the Victorians") refers to "still lives". This just >>>>>> looks wrong to me... >>>>> Yes, it's wrong. It's the same sort of error as pronouncing >>>>> "short-lived" with a short I. >>>> I agree about "still lives", but would still pronounce >>>> "short-lived" as "short-livved". Whatever is being described >>>> "livves", or" livved", for a short time. I've never (BrE) heard >>>> "short-lived" with the vowel of "life". >>> For "short-lived", M-W Online shows both pronunciations, listing >>> the short i one first. That is the one I use, matching >>> "lived-in". >> You're right about general usage, but I agree with Mark on the echt >> correct pronunciation. The phrase, unlike "lived-in", has to come >> from the noun. If you have bright eyes, you are bright-eyed; a >> wide mouth, you are wide-mouthed; a short life, you are / >> 'SOrt,laIvd/. (Not so sure about the / O/, but.) > I don't get it. "Eyed", "mouthed" (BTW, is that voiced or unvoiced > th? - I think I say either) look like adjectives from verbs - I > don't see any noun here. "Lived" is the same: there is no noun > "live". But "to eye" is to look at. Not much connection with "bright-eyed"; "to mouth" is to use your mouth to manipulate something. What does that have to do with "red-mouthed" (which I would pronounce with / D/, BTW)? The thing about the noun "life" and a few other old Anglo-Saxon words is that it voices the final consonant if an inflectional ending puts another vowel or voiced sound after it, as in the plural "lives" or, says me, in an adjective formed like the past participle of a parallel verb. The problem here is that noun and verb have different vowel-lengths, and that goes back to A-S. The problem is to find an analogue of "life"/"live", noun and verb, in which the verb would clearly be intransitive and the oblique noun forms would voice the final consonant before a vowel-ending, preferably one where the spelling would indicate the change. That really only happens with "f". If you had many cattle, would you be well-beefed or well-beeved? How about "well-wived"? One problem with the first is that there's no verb corresponding with "live" -- same for "loaf" (yeah, yeah); maybe "wife" is as close as we're going to get, and that's kind of archaic sounding. Shakespeare uses it a few times, intransitively, transitively, and with a dummy object (Petruchio comes to "wive it"). The problem with "half" and "thief" is that the corresponding verbs are transitive. That's why I finished my reply to Mike with thoughts of further reflection, after I was done mou/ D/ing (v) off. >>>>>> Jonathan Morton: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > that have to do with "red-mouthed" (which I would pronounce with / D/, > BTW)? You got me thinking about other adjectives that use body parts: left-handed, wrong footed, one-armed, red haired, big-bellied, etc. - one-legged is interesting in that most people give the -ed a syllable of its own. Still, there is no connection between these adjectives and the verbs hand, foot?, arm or leg. SignatureRob Bannister >>>>>>> Jonathan Morton: >>>>>>>> I know that the plural of "life" is "lives" but A N Wilson >>>>>>>> (in "After the Victorians") refers to "still lives". This >>>>>>>> just looks wrong to me... >>>>>>> Yes, it's wrong. It's the same sort of error as pronouncing >>>>>>> "short-lived" with a short I. >>>>>> I agree about "still lives", but would still pronounce >>>>>> "short-lived" as "short-livved". Whatever is being described >>>>>> "livves", or" livved", for a short time. I've never (BrE) heard >>>>>> "short-lived" with the vowel of "life". >>>>> For "short-lived", M-W Online shows both pronunciations, listing >>>>> the short i one first. That is the one I use, matching [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>>> bright-eyed; a wide mouth, you are wide-mouthed; a short life, >>>> you are / 'SOrt,laIvd/. (Not so sure about the / O/, but.) >>> I don't get it. "Eyed", "mouthed" (BTW, is that voiced or unvoiced >>> th? - I think I say either) look like adjectives from verbs - I >>> don't see any noun here. "Lived" is the same: there is no noun >>> "live". >> But "to eye" is to look at. Not much connection with >> "bright-eyed"; "to mouth" is to use your mouth to manipulate >> something. What does that have to do with "red-mouthed" (which I >> would pronounce with / D/, BTW)? > You got me thinking about other adjectives that use body parts: > left-handed, wrong footed, one-armed, red haired, big-bellied, etc. > - one-legged is interesting in that most people give the -ed a > syllable of its own. Still, there is no connection between these > adjectives and the verbs hand, foot?, arm or leg. That's what I find with many of those compounds. Their meaning seems to connect them with the noun, not the verb; or, at least, only with a verb that means "provided with <noun>". The difficulty that arises with "lived" is that you can't ignore the ambiguity, because the change in vowel "length" (sq) forces you to choose. >>> But "to eye" is to look at. Not much connection with >>> "bright-eyed"; "to mouth" is to use your mouth to manipulate [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > that arises with "lived" is that you can't ignore the ambiguity, > because the change in vowel "length" (sq) forces you to choose. On the other hand, someone of high birth is "high-born". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Specifically, I'd like to debate 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |whether cannibalism ought to be Palo Alto, CA 94304 |grounds for leniency in murder, |since it's less wasteful. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Calvin (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>> But "to eye" is to look at. Not much connection with >>>> "bright-eyed"; "to mouth" is to use your mouth to manipulate >>>> something. What does that have to do with "red-mouthed" (which I >>>> would pronounce with / D/, BTW)? >>> You got me thinking about other adjectives that use body parts: >>> left-handed, wrong footed, one-armed, red haired, big-bellied, >>> etc. - one-legged is interesting in that most people give the -ed >>> a syllable of its own. Still, there is no connection between these >>> adjectives and the verbs hand, foot?, arm or leg. >> That's what I find with many of those compounds. Their meaning >> seems to connect them with the noun, not the verb; or, at least, >> only with a verb that means "provided with <noun>". The difficulty >> that arises with "lived" is that you can't ignore the ambiguity, >> because the change in vowel "length" (sq) forces you to choose. > On the other hand, someone of high birth is "high-born". Are you pointing out that the first element isn't "highly", or that the phrase isn't "high-birthed"? IMO the phrase is verb-derived, and it has a transitive verb available to give it sanction. You are high-born because somebody bore you [insert goak here] in or to a high position. As you imply, maybe, the corresponding noun-phrase would be "*high-birthed". I don't suggest that all such compounds are based on nouns, only that there is a class of them that are, and that "short-lived" is a member of that class and ought therefore to be given the corresponding "long" vowel. I think the first element in both classes of compound is adverbial in function, but I haven't searched for counter-examples. "High-" may owe its apparently adjectival form to "hochgeboren", where the German element is presumably an adverb, or it may be an entirely English adverb -- aim high -- dunno. In the second case, it gets the short form because it's the adverb of place or direction, not the highly-delightful intensifier. >>> That's what I find with many of those compounds. Their meaning >>> seems to connect them with the noun, not the verb; or, at least, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Are you pointing out that the first element isn't "highly", or that > the phrase isn't "high-birthed"? The latter. > IMO the phrase is verb-derived, and it has a transitive verb > available to give it sanction. You are high-born because somebody [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > member of that class and ought therefore to be given the > corresponding "long" vowel. The question is whether "short-lived" is something that has a short life or something that lives a short time. I've always interpreted it to be the latter. In all the other examples, there is no verb that relates to providing or possessing the noun. But it appears that there's evidence that when there is such a verb, its participle is the one used. So it would seem reasonable to regard "eyed" and "legged" as nonce-verbs. "Life" on the other hand, has such a verb, and the form chosen is precisely would you'd expect if that verb were used: "lived". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |When you're ready to break a rule, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |you _know_ that you're ready; you Palo Alto, CA 94304 |don't need anyone else to tell |you. (If you're not that certain, kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |then you're _not_ ready.) (650)857-7572 | Tom Phoenix http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>> That's what I find with many of those compounds. Their meaning >>>> seems to connect them with the noun, not the verb; or, at least, >>>> only with a verb that means "provided with <noun>". The >>>> difficulty that arises with "lived" is that you can't ignore the >>>> ambiguity, because the change in vowel "length" (sq) forces you >>>> to choose. >>> On the other hand, someone of high birth is "high-born". >> Are you pointing out that the first element isn't "highly", or that >> the phrase isn't "high-birthed"? > The latter. >> IMO the phrase is verb-derived, and it has a transitive verb >> available to give it sanction. You are high-born because somebody >> bore you [insert goak here] in or to a high position. As you >> imply, maybe, the corresponding noun-phrase would be >> "*high-birthed". >> I don't suggest that all such compounds are based on nouns, only >> that there is a class of them that are, and that "short-lived" is a >> member of that class and ought therefore to be given the >> corresponding "long" vowel. > The question is whether "short-lived" is something that has a short > life or something that lives a short time. I've always interpreted > it to be the latter. > In all the other examples, there is no verb that relates to > providing or possessing the noun. But it appears that there's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > form chosen is precisely would you'd expect if that verb were used: > "lived". Yes, but the verb isn't transitive in that context. It would make some sense to speak of a life as being short-/ lIvd/, since "life" or "time" or some other such word is the only kind of object you can expect to see governed by the transitive form of the verb "to live". [insert refutation here] But a person so described *lives*, not *is lived*; to give the - passive - past participle an active meaning, as you must do to arrive at your analysis above, is a little (but not exactly) like calling a hard-working person "hard-worked" (because there is a possible meaning for that, since you can work a person; but you cannot live one). I consider "-lived" in the compounds under discussion to be exactly the past participle of a nonce-verb, and to mean "provided with a life", because no other interpretation takes into account both the passive nature of the past participle and the meaning of the phrase. Mike's "well-spoken" is the only valid counter-example I've seen that doesn't conform, and I think a mistaken interpretation of the active-verb phrase, quite acceptable, even with the "of" missing, as meaning "well spoken of, of good report", is a plausible explanation for it; it can then be allowed as an idiom. If I were not wary of reproof, I might speculate that Fowler* would call it a "sturdy indefensible", if he considered it. The same explanation will not do for "-lived" because, as I said above, there is no acceptable active use of the ordinary verb that can take a word denoting a person as its object. *Speaking of whom, which I will not do, since I, well, hardly ever make appeals to authority, he didn't call it that; but I find that he has an entry in MEU2 under "-lived", as follows: "In /long-l./ etc. the correct pronunciation is /lîvd/, [circumflex for macron] the words being from /life/ (cf. /-leaved/ from /leaf/ etc.) and not from /live/; but /lìvd/ [i grave for short i] is almost always heard." That is just about what I posted in reply to Skitt. So there. Or not there. Robert Bannister filted: >>>>>>> Jonathan Morton: >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >its own. Still, there is no connection between these adjectives and the >verbs hand, foot?, arm or leg. Have we done "long-winded" yet?...r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Robert Bannister filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Have we done "long-winded" yet?...r Pissed off>>peeowed? P O-ed? can't seem to figure out how to spell it. (No. Not peed off.) >> Robert Bannister filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >Pissed off>>peeowed? P O-ed? can't seem to figure out how to spell it. >(No. Not peed off.) As Big George used to say, "It is better to be pissed off than peed on". SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>> Robert Bannister filted: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > As Big George used to say, "It is better to be pissed off than peed > on". Yes, indeedy. Trickle-down! The then thing in voodoo economics. >>>> Robert Bannister filted: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > >Yes, indeedy. Trickle-down! The then thing in voodoo economics. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>>> Robert Bannister filted: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > >Yes, indeedy. Trickle-down! The then thing in voodoo economics. I associate trickle-down economics with Ronald Reagan, but according to Wiki the term has been attributed to humorist Will Rogers, who said during the Great Depression that "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy." SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>>> Pissed off>>peeowed? P O-ed? can't seem to figure out how to spell >>>> it. (No. Not peed off.) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > during the Great Depression that "money was all appropriated for the > top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy." Oh, I know, but the "voodoo economics" label came from the mouth of (Read My Lips) George H W Bush. (Big George, in other words.) And whether you call it trickle-down or supply side, Big George's, Ronnie's, and Little George's friends were not the peeons. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/270292.stm > Robert Bannister filted: [futher examples] >>> But "to eye" is to look at. Not much connection with >>> "bright-eyed"; "to mouth" is to use your mouth to manipulate >>> something. What does that have to do with "red-mouthed" (which I >>> would pronounce with / D/, BTW)? >> You got me thinking about other adjectives that use body parts: >> left-handed, wrong footed, one-armed, red haired, big-bellied, >> etc. - one-legged is interesting in that most people give the -ed >> a syllable of its own. Still, there is no connection between these >> adjectives and the verbs hand, foot?, arm or leg. > Have we done "long-winded" yet?...r Today, you mean? > You got me thinking about other adjectives that use body parts: > left-handed, wrong footed, one-armed, red haired, big-bellied, etc. - > one-legged is interesting in that most people give the -ed a syllable > of its own. Still, there is no connection between these adjectives and > the verbs hand, foot?, arm or leg. Nor, indeed, for all the figurative ones. Cold-hearted, hard-nosed, lilly-livered, single-handed. Nick, gutted. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu >> Jonathan Morton: >>> I know that the plural of "life" is "lives" but A N Wilson (in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Yes, it's wrong. It's the same sort of error as pronouncing >> "short-lived" with a short I. I'd avoid it by saying "still-life paintings" or "still-life photos", for example. > I agree about "still lives", but would still pronounce "short-lived" as > "short-livved". Whatever is being described "livves", or" livved", for a > short time. I've never (BrE) heard "short-lived" with the vowel of "life". In BrE & AmE, I've only heard "short-lived" pronounced like the participle of "live". Signature| _ | ( ) ASCII Ribbon Campaign | X Against HTML email & news | / \ www.asciiribbon.org |
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.