 |
 | 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 2010Greek loanwords in English
There is an interesting post and discussion entitled "(H)eureka" at LanguageHat (http://www.languagehat.com/) that bears on a discussion we were having recently. The following words in particular caught my eye: "Ancient Greek words in English came via scholars with no interest in either Byzantium or the modern language." This seems to me to be exactly right, and expresses an idea that I was trying express myself (with conspicuous lack of success, so far as Steve Hayes was concerned).  Signatureathel > There is an interesting post and discussion entitled "(H)eureka" at > LanguageHat (http://www.languagehat.com/) that bears on a discussion we [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > right, and expresses an idea that I was trying express myself (with > conspicuous lack of success, so far as Steve Hayes was concerned). Is it still a loan if we don't return them? Perhaps the "loan" was intended as a figure of speech, more like "used" : P > > There is an interesting post and discussion entitled "(H)eureka" at > > LanguageHat (http://www.languagehat.com/) that bears on a discussion we [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Is it still a loan if we don't return them? It's not a theft so it must be a loan. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > > There is an interesting post and discussion entitled "(H)eureka" at > > LanguageHat (http://www.languagehat.com/) that bears on a discussion we [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Is it still a loan if we don't return them? When we borrow words, we repay in movies and fast food. -- Jerry Friedman >> There is an interesting post and discussion entitled "(H)eureka" at >> LanguageHat (http://www.languagehat.com/) that bears on a discussion we [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Is it still a loan if we don't return them? I think it's like borrowing a kleenex. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The reason that we don't have 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |"bear-proof" garbage cans in the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |park is that there is a significant |overlap in intelligence between the kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |smartest bears and the dumbest (650)857-7572 |humans. | Yosemite Park Ranger http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> There is an interesting post and discussion entitled "(H)eureka" at >>> LanguageHat (http://www.languagehat.com/) that bears on a discussion we [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >I think it's like borrowing a kleenex. Has Kleenex become generic? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>> There is an interesting post and discussion entitled "(H)eureka" >>>> at LanguageHat (http://www.languagehat.com/) that bears on a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Has Kleenex become generic? It's no facial tissue off my nose. >>>>> There is an interesting post and discussion entitled "(H)eureka" >>>>> at LanguageHat (http://www.languagehat.com/) that bears on a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> > It's no facial tissue off my nose. That's not the point at issue. Bless you! SignatureRay UK >>>>>> There is an interesting post and discussion entitled >>>>>> "(H)eureka" at LanguageHat (http://www.languagehat.com/) that [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > That's not the point at issue. Bless you! Duibuqi. >> CDB <bellemarec@sympatico.ca> typed: >>>> Has Kleenex become generic? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > Duibuqi. Koi baat nahin. SignatureRay UK >>>>>> There is an interesting post and discussion entitled "(H)eureka" >>>>>> at LanguageHat (http://www.languagehat.com/) that bears on a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > That's not the point at issue. Bless you! I often wonder whether today's kids think that "atishoo" is a request for a paper handkerchief. SignatureRob Bannister > I often wonder whether today's kids think that "atishoo" is a > request for a paper handkerchief. Do they still say it? We said "ashes" in Chicago in the late '60s and early '70s. When I saw the "atishoo" version, I did indeed think it was a strange pronunciation of "a tissue". Did you guys pronounce it /AtIShu/ or just /AtSu/, like a sneeze? SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |He seems to be perceptive and 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |effective because he states the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |obvious to people that don't seem |to see the obvious. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | (650)857-7572 | Tony Cooper http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> I often wonder whether today's kids think that "atishoo" is a >> request for a paper handkerchief. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > was a strange pronunciation of "a tissue". Did you guys pronounce it > /AtIShu/ or just /AtSu/, like a sneeze? Closer to the former, but we don't have a pure A at the beginning. Ring a-ring o' roses, A pocketful of posies. Atishoo, atishoo, All fall down. The stress in atishoo is firmly on the central syllable, at least in the rhyme. uh-TISH-shoo. SignatureDavid >>> I often wonder whether today's kids think that "atishoo" is a >>> request for a paper handkerchief. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > uh-TISH-shoo. Nevertheless, the sound we make when sneezing is closer to /tSu/ or /@'tSu/. The "atishoo" spelling (and pronunciation) remains common in popular understanding, but it's a poor representation of what people do when sneezing. I'm reminded of the fact that AmE "tsk tsk" and BrE "tut tut" represent precisely the same sound. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. [first, catch your goblin] >> uh-TISH-shoo. >> > Nevertheless, the sound we make when sneezing is closer to /tSu/ or > /@'tSu/. The "atishoo" spelling (and pronunciation) remains common > in popular understanding, but it's a poor representation of what > people do when sneezing. The "ah" is surely the sharply-indrawn breath that precedes expulsion. One of my dogs declined absolutely to be in the same room as a sneeze. The intake of breath would not be over before he vanished through the door. And then the apologies, the pleading .... > I'm reminded of the fact that AmE "tsk tsk" and BrE "tut tut" > represent precisely the same sound. Young folks seem to say those sounds as words. "Tisk" and / tVt/, not to mention "few". > [first, catch your goblin] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The intake of breath would not be over before he vanished through the > door. And then the apologies, the pleading .... I think the schwa is meant to represent that above--the weird thing (to me) is the "i" stuck in the middle. As an American, I've always seen "achoo" (or maybe "atchoo"). As noted above, the kid's ditty ends "ashes, ashes, we all fall down" (and begins with the Americanized "ring around the rosie"). >> [first, catch your goblin] >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I think the schwa is meant to represent that above--the weird thing > (to me) is the "i" stuck in the middle. Ah. Maybe an attempt to hold it back? > As an American, I've always seen "achoo" (or maybe "atchoo"). As > noted above, the kid's ditty ends "ashes, ashes, we all fall > down" (and begins with the Americanized "ring around the rosie"). AOL. > [first, catch your goblin] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I'm reminded of the fact that AmE "tsk tsk" and BrE "tut tut" > > represent precisely the same sound. Precisely? And the same as "tch tch"? People use different clicks with different amounts of sibilance. > Young folks seem to say those sounds as words. "Tisk" and / tVt/, not > to mention "few". And "ahem" and "harrumph". Did "pish" and "tush" originally mean something with a vowel, or the "psshh" and "tsshh" sounds some people make? (The answer "Yes," Arcadian, will not help.) -- Jerry Friedman >> [first, catch your goblin] >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Precisely? And the same as "tch tch"? People use different clicks > with different amounts of sibilance. "Precisely" in the phonemic sense. As far as I understand it, English speakers have three clicks, which only occur in isolation (sometimes repeated): an alveolar click /t!/ to express disapproval or sympathy, a bilabial click /p!/ to express affection (often sarcastically), and a lateral click /l!/ (often accompanied by a head motion) to indicate a desire for someone to move. The precise pronunciation of these will vary from speaker to speaker. >> Young folks seem to say those sounds as words. "Tisk" and / tVt/, not >> to mention "few". > > And "ahem" and "harrumph". Did "pish" and "tush" originally mean > something with a vowel, or the "psshh" and "tsshh" sounds some people > make? (The answer "Yes," Arcadian, will not help.) And "er". It took me a long time to figure out that that was a non- rhotic way of writing /@/. So I have "er" and "uh", pronounced differently. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Now every hacker knows 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | That the secret to survivin' Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Is knowin' when the time is free | And what's the load and queue kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |'Cause everyone's a cruncher (650)857-7572 | And everyone's a user |And the best that you can hope for http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Is a crash when you're through > And "er". It took me a long time to figure out that that was a non- > rhotic way of writing /@/. So I have "er" and "uh", pronounced > differently. I suspect the confusion ran in both directions. It took me a while to realise what left-pondians meant by "uh", as I would usually read that as a short vowel (I think I've seen it rendered "unh", which I find even more puzzling). English really is a most frustrating language for depicting sounds. SignatureRob Bannister >> And "er". It took me a long time to figure out that that was a >> non- rhotic way of writing /@/. So I have "er" and "uh", [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that as a short vowel (I think I've seen it rendered "unh", which I > find even more puzzling). "Uh" is a vocalized pause while speaking. "Unh" is what one "says" when punched in the stomach. Which makes sense, as there's probably a nasalized component to the sound: /@~/. > English really is a most frustrating language for depicting sounds. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Feeling good about government is like 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |looking on the bright side of any Palo Alto, CA 94304 |catastrophe. When you quit looking |on the bright side, the catastrophe kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |is still there. (650)857-7572 | P.J. O'Rourke http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> And "er". It took me a long time to figure out that that was a >>> non- rhotic way of writing /@/. So I have "er" and "uh", [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >when punched in the stomach. Which makes sense, as there's probably a >nasalized component to the sound: /@~/. So "uh", "er" and "um" are more or less equivalent? SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > So "uh", "er" and "um" are more or less equivalent? Generally speaking, AmE "uh"/"um" are "er"/"erm" in BrE. I have, however, seen instances where "er" and "um" are used together (a local poet has even title one of his collections "er, um" http://meritagepress.com/er_um.htm >> So "uh", "er" and "um" are more or less equivalent? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (a local poet has even title one of his collections "er, um" > http://meritagepress.com/er_um.htm In my (rhotic) dialect, the spelling "er" has, I presume, led to a *second* filler: /R/. So "er, uh" would be /R(r)@/ and might well be heard. I don't think there's any real difference in meaning. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |There's been so much ado already 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |that any further ado would be Palo Alto, CA 94304 |excessive. | Lori Karkosky kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> So "uh", "er" and "um" are more or less equivalent? >> Generally speaking, AmE "uh"/"um" are "er"/"erm" in BrE. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > *second* filler: /R/. So "er, uh" would be /R(r)@/ and might well be > heard. I don't think there's any real difference in meaning. It does sound more piratical. SignatureRob Bannister >> "Uh" is a vocalized pause while speaking. "Unh" is what one "says" >> when punched in the stomach. Which makes sense, as there's probably a >> nasalized component to the sound: /@~/. > > So "uh", "er" and "um" are more or less equivalent? In meaning, yes, but I think there's a length difference. If you're punched in the stomach you say a _short_ vowel, which might be either [@] or [V]. "Er" is usually long, tits [V":]. "Um" can be long [V"m] or short [Vm}. (I don't think it's ever {@m].) For some people, "um" and "erm" are the same sound. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. Peter Moylan: > If you're punched in the stomach you say a _short_ vowel... Perhaps this depends on the type of punch. ObSlogan: How'd you like a nice Hawaiian Punch? SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "This is as 'real' as your so-called life gets!" msb@vex.net | "Q Who", ST:TNG, Maurice Hurley > So "uh", "er" and "um" are more or less equivalent? Hmm, I'm not sure. SignatureOh, I am just a student, sir, and I only want to learn But it's hard to read through the rising smoke of the books that you want to burn [Phil Ochs] >>> And "er". It took me a long time to figure out that that was a >>> non- rhotic way of writing /@/. So I have "er" and "uh", [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >> English really is a most frustrating language for depicting sounds. What about the interrogative "uh", the one that means "WHAT did you say?" or "Have you suddenly gone off your head?"? How would you spell that one? I imagine that one must be almost completely nasal. SignatureRob Bannister >> Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com> writes: >>>> And "er". It took me a long time to figure out that that was a >>>> non- rhotic way of writing /@/. So I have "er" and "uh", [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > say?" or "Have you suddenly gone off your head?"? How would you spell > that one? I imagine that one must be almost completely nasal. That one is spelled "huh?" SignatureSkitt (AmE) Skitt filted: >> What about the interrogative "uh", the one that means "WHAT did you >> say?" or "Have you suddenly gone off your head?"? How would you spell >> that one? I imagine that one must be almost completely nasal. > >That one is spelled "huh?" I thought that was "eh?"... Guy I used to work with would cock his head to one side and let out an untranscribable grunt like a bewildered puppy....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Skitt filted: >>> What about the interrogative "uh", the one that means "WHAT did you >>> say?" or "Have you suddenly gone off your head?"? How would you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I thought that was "eh?"... That's in Canada. > Guy I used to work with would cock his head to one side and let out an > untranscribable grunt like a bewildered puppy....r You should have thrown him a bone. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >What about the interrogative "uh", the one that means "WHAT did you >say?" or "Have you suddenly gone off your head?"? How would you spell >that one? I imagine that one must be almost completely nasal. Huh? or Eh? SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk Jerry wrote on Tue, 2 Feb 2010 13:31:23 -0800 (PST): >> [first, catch your goblin] >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >> I'm reminded of the fact that AmE "tsk tsk" and BrE "tut > >> tut" represent precisely the same sound. > Precisely? And the same as "tch tch"? People use different > clicks with different amounts of sibilance. >> Young folks seem to say those sounds as words. "Tisk" and / >> tVt/, not to mention "few". > And "ahem" and "harrumph". Did "pish" and "tush" originally > mean something with a vowel, or the "psshh" and "tsshh" sounds > some people make? (The answer "Yes," Arcadian, will not > help.) I had a short fit of sneezes recently and this thread occurred to me. I find that I use a drawn out /&/, followed by an explosive /SU/ or / tSU/, in other terms, "aaaashoo" or "aaaatshoo". Sometimes, there is the frustrating experience in that the initial /&/ goes on for a while and the /SU/ doesn't happen. Just in passing, does anyone else find that the /SU/ can often be induced by looking at a bright light? SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Jerry wrote on Tue, 2 Feb 2010 13:31:23 -0800 (PST): > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >the /SU/ doesn't happen. Just in passing, does anyone else find that the >/SU/ can often be induced by looking at a bright light? Oh, yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photic_sneeze_reflex Photic sneeze reflex is an autosomal dominant hereditary trait which causes sneezing (due to naso-ocular reflex [1]) when exposed suddenly to bright light, possibly many times consecutively. It is also referred to as photic sneeze response, sun sneezing, photogenic sneezing, the photosternutatory reflex, being photo sensitive, allergic to the sun, ACHOO syndrome, and Achooism,[citation needed] named after the sound made when sneezing, along with its related backronym Autosomal dominant Compelling Helio-Ophthalmic Outburst syndrome. The condition affects 18-35% of the human population and is more common in caucasians. The first mention of the phenomenon is probably in the later work attributed to Aristotle (Problems, book XXXIII).[3] [1] http://allergies.about.com/od/fa1/f/nasoocularrefle.htm [2] Breitenbach RA, "The photic sneeze reflex as a risk factor to combat pilots." Mil Med. Dec 1993, 158:806-9 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8108024 [3] Looking at the Sun Can Trigger a Sneeze, Karen Schrock, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=looking-at-the-sun-can-trigger- a-sneeze SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) James Silverton filted: >> >>> uh-TISH-shoo. >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >the /SU/ doesn't happen. Just in passing, does anyone else find that the >/SU/ can often be induced by looking at a bright light? Back in high school, one of my friends decided it would be funny to train himself to sneeze "Aw sh.t!"...he reasoned that nobody could really do anything about it, since a sneeze is involuntary....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >I'm reminded of the fact that AmE "tsk tsk" and BrE "tut tut" represent >precisely the same sound. Huh? In this Am's E, "tsk tsk" is /tIsk tIsk/. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 >> I'm reminded of the fact that AmE "tsk tsk" and BrE "tut tut" represent >> precisely the same sound. > > Huh? > > In this Am's E, "tsk tsk" is /tIsk tIsk/. Perhaps the language has changed. It used to be a couple of tongue clicks. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>I'm reminded of the fact that AmE "tsk tsk" and BrE "tut tut" represent >>precisely the same sound. > >Huh? > >In this Am's E, "tsk tsk" is /tIsk tIsk/. I've heard that "tsk tsk" is pronounced "c c" (where "c" represents a dental click). But I've always imagined the pronunciation of "tut tut" to be a reduplicated "tut" (being an abbeviation for "tutorial", as in "I can't go to the movies this afternoon, I've got a Physics tut at three"). SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk Peter Moylan: >>> I'm reminded of the fact that AmE "tsk tsk" and BrE "tut tut" represent >>> precisely the same sound. Steve Hayes: > ...I've always imagined the pronunciation of "tut tut" to be a > reduplicated "tut" (being an abbeviation for "tutorial", as in > "I can't go to the movies this afternoon, I've got a Physics tut > at three"). Hang on, what vowel are you using there? For me, "tutorial" has a long U, which is also the sound of the word "you" and consists of a Y followed by a long OO as in "boot". If "tut" was used as an abbreviation of that, I'd expect it to sound either like "tute" (with a long U) or perhaps "toot" (with a long OO). But "tut tut" would obviously have short U's as in "but". SignatureMark Brader "`char **' parameters are packaged in GREEN Toronto envelopes and placed on the FIFTH shelf." msb@vex.net -- Chris Torek My text in this article is in the public domain. > Peter Moylan: >>>> I'm reminded of the fact that AmE "tsk tsk" and BrE "tut tut" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > (with a long U) or perhaps "toot" (with a long OO). But "tut tut" > would obviously have short U's as in "but". For me (and the sound example in M-W Online) it is not like in "but", nor is it like in "tune". It is like in "put". SignatureSkitt (AmE) > > Peter Moylan: > >>>> I'm reminded of the fact that AmE "tsk tsk" and BrE "tut tut" [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > For me (and the sound example in M-W Online) it is not like in "but", nor is > it like in "tune". It is like in "put". Like the first syllable of Tootsie? Weird. To me (AmE) it's as Mark said, like in "but". >>> Peter Moylan: >>>>>> I'm reminded of the fact that AmE "tsk tsk" and BrE "tut tut" >>>>>> represent precisely the same sound. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Like the first syllable of Tootsie? Weird. Not weird at all, according to the M-W Online sound sample. They do also note the "tyu" pronunciation, but that's all. > To me (AmE) it's as Mark said, like in "but". Now, that *is* weird! You talk funny. ;) And Mark is Canadian, right? SignatureSkitt (AmE) > sjdevn...@yahoo.com wrote: > >>> Peter Moylan: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Not weird at all, according to the M-W Online sound sample. They do also > note the "tyu" pronunciation, but that's all. Surely they wouldn't have listed it if they believed it to be weird. It is certainly strange to me, though--I've never heard "tut" pronounced in that manner, and it's a pronunciation that (thanks to the song "Toot, Toot, Tootsie, Goodbye!") would certainly stick with me if I heard it. Indeed, that song immediately sprang to mind upon reading your first quoted post, which is why I compared it to "Tootsie" in the above post. >> sjdevn...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>> Peter Moylan: >>>>>>>> I'm reminded of the fact that AmE "tsk tsk" and BrE "tut tut" >>>>>>>> represent precisely the same sound. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Surely they wouldn't have listed it if they believed it to be weird. Well, it was you who said the "Tootsie" pronunciation was weird. We are talking about "tutorial", right? > It is certainly strange to me, though--I've never heard "tut" > pronounced in that manner, and it's a pronunciation that (thanks to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > quoted post, which is why I compared it to "Tootsie" in the above > post. SignatureSkitt (AmE) > sjdevn...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> sjdevn...@yahoo.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Well, it was you who said the "Tootsie" pronunciation was weird. Right. I did not, by so saying, intend to imply that M-W thought that definition was weird. > We are talking about "tutorial", right? Aha. I was talking about the "tut tut" equivalent of "tsk tsk". There was an interlude about how to discuss "tut" short for "tutorial", but it looked to me like we'd returned to the pronunciation of "tut tut" here, where Mark said that "tut tut" should have short u's as in "but" and you objected: > >>>>> If "tut" was used as > >>>>> an abbreviation of that, I'd expect it to sound either like "tute" > >>>>> (with a long U) or perhaps "toot" (with a long OO). But "tut tut" > >>>>> would obviously have short U's as in "but". > >>>> For me (and the sound example in M-W Online) it is not like in > >>>> "but", nor is it like in "tune". It is like in "put". Apologies for the confusion. > Well, it was you who said the "Tootsie" pronunciation was weird. We are > talking about "tutorial", right? I thought you'd gone off at a tangent. We were talking about "tut", and whether "tut tut" ('but' sound) is in any way related to the apparently valid-in-America word "tut" meaning "tutorial" whose vowel sound theoretically ought to depend on how the speaker pronounces "tutorial". If it comes out with the "put" vowel, then something funny is going on. This does not surprise me. SignatureRob Bannister >> Well, it was you who said the "Tootsie" pronunciation was weird. We >> are talking about "tutorial", right? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "tutorial". If it comes out with the "put" vowel, then something > funny is going on. This does not surprise me. Oh. Things got a bit mixed up, then. As far as the word "tut" being used for "tutorial", thats a new one on me. It just isn't in my vocabulary. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >Oh. Things got a bit mixed up, then. As far as the word "tut" being used >for "tutorial", thats a new one on me. It just isn't in my vocabulary. I'm wondering about "as far as". I'd expect it to be followed by "... is concerned". SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >> Oh. Things got a bit mixed up, then. As far as the word "tut" >> being used for "tutorial", thats a new one on me. It just isn't in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I'd expect it to be followed by "... is concerned". Does it have to be? I didn't think so, but I could be wrong. I found this: as far as conj. To the degree or extent that: They returned at nine, as far as we know. Usage Note: As far as the Usage Panel is concerned, "as far as" had better be followed by both a subject and a form of "go" or "be concerned". ... "As far as" is sometimes used as a preposition meaning "as for" or "regarding," especially in speech, but a large majority of the Panel frowns upon this usage. ... http://www.thefreedictionary.com/as+far+as That seems to support your expectations. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>> Well, it was you who said the "Tootsie" pronunciation was weird. We >>> are talking about "tutorial", right? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > used for "tutorial", thats a new one on me. It just isn't in my > vocabulary. The short form "tute" is so usual in Brit-type E that I didn't know there was any other. Of course, the full word is often, im BrE, litchly pnounced "chitorial". SignatureMike. >>>> Well, it was you who said the "Tootsie" pronunciation was weird. We >>>> are talking about "tutorial", right? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > there was any other. Of course, the full word is often, im BrE, litchly > pnounced "chitorial". Just shows how far BrE has shifted since I left the country. Of course, we had more seminars than tutorials anyway, but we didn't abbreviate any of them. I assumed that "tute" was an Americanism, but it seems I was wrong. How sad. SignatureRob Bannister > > Well, it was you who said the "Tootsie" pronunciation was weird. We are > > talking about "tutorial", right? > > I thought you'd gone off at a tangent. We were talking about "tut", and > whether "tut tut" ('but' sound) is in any way related to the apparently > valid-in-America word "tut" meaning "tutorial" whose vowel sound Steve Hayes is the only one who's mentioned that "tut", so it's apparently valid in South Africa (and maybe England). I've never heard it in America. > theoretically ought to depend on how the speaker pronounces "tutorial". I'm pretty sure there are abbreviations that are pronounced more the way they're spelled than like the corresponding part of the original word, but I can't think of any. > If it comes out with the "put" vowel, then something funny is going on. > This does not surprise me. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tutorial -- Jerry Friedman ... > > We were talking about "tut", and > > whether "tut tut" ('but' sound) is in any way related to the apparently [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > way they're spelled than like the corresponding part of the original > word, but I can't think of any. ... "Bro". Maybe "mob". How would 18th-century toffs have pronounced "mobile vulgus"? -- Jerry Friedman > ... > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Maybe "mob". How would 18th-century toffs have pronounced "mobile > vulgus"? Pronunciations consistently throw me. I'm not a pronunciation person. How would a Canadian pronounce "La donna, eh? mobile"? -- franzi > > ... > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Pronunciations consistently throw me. I'm not a pronunciation person. > How would a Canadian pronounce "La donna, eh? mobile"? How does a Canadian spell "Canada"? -- Jerry Friedman > > > ... > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > How does a Canadian spell "Canada"? Circa "nada", I'd say. -- franzi Jerry Friedman filted: >> I'm pretty sure there are abbreviations that are pronounced more the >> way they're spelled than like the corresponding part of the original [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Maybe "mob". How would 18th-century toffs have pronounced "mobile >vulgus"? And "mic", for some segments of the recording world....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Jerry Friedman filted: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > And "mic", for some segments of the recording world....r Oo, I hate that one, and I'd be glad to hear there are still segments of the recording world that spell it "mike". But "mic" is the opposite of "bro"--the pronunciation matches the original word but doesn't match the spelling. -- Jerry Friedman On 06 Feb 2010, Jerry Friedman wrote >> And "mic", for some segments of the recording world....r > > Oo, I hate that one, and I'd be glad to hear there are still > segments of the recording world that spell it "mike". But "mic" > is the opposite of "bro"--the pronunciation matches the original > word but doesn't match the spelling. A sort of related situation arises for me with "spec", when used as an abbreviation for a building specification. I don't know if this is a pondian thing, but when I started working with architects 30+ years ago in Canada, it was always (AFAIK) pronounced "spek". I usually hear it here in the UK, though as "spess" -- and while that conforms better to the full word, it still sounds very odd to me. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 06 Feb 2010, Jerry Friedman wrote > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "spess" -- and while that conforms better to the full word, it still > sounds very odd to me. Speck, in my hearing and on my lips in the UK. And I'm not hamming it up. -- franzi HVS wrote, in <Xns9D17AD3A92Ewhhvans@news.albasani.net> on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 17:01:44 GMT: > On 06 Feb 2010, Jerry Friedman wrote > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "spess" -- and while that conforms better to the full word, it still > sounds very odd to me. I've never heard it as anything but "speck". SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE >HVS wrote, in <Xns9D17AD3A92Ewhhvans@news.albasani.net> > on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 17:01:44 GMT: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >I've never heard it as anything but "speck". Nor have I. But it occurs to me that we might conceivably be more used to hearing it as an abbreviation for "speculative" rather than "specification". And I can imagine contexts in which it might be wise to be able to distinguish between the two. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >> HVS wrote, in <Xns9D17AD3A92Ewhhvans@news.albasani.net> >> on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 17:01:44 GMT: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > "specification". And I can imagine contexts in which it might be wise > to be able to distinguish between the two. Being deeply involved in recruitment and selection processes at the moment, I hear it often in the context of "person specification". It would indeed be confusing if "on spec" was taken to mean "fulfilling specification" rather than "taking a chance". SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >> Nor have I. But it occurs to me that we might conceivably be more >> used to hearing it as an abbreviation for "speculative" rather than [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >would indeed be confusing if "on spec" was taken to mean "fulfilling >specification" rather than "taking a chance". Speculation is "spec", specifications are "specs". You can build something -- a car, an aeroplane, a ship -- on spec, that is, without an order from a customer. In which case you make up your own specs, which you think a potential customer might like. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>> Nor have I. But it occurs to me that we might conceivably be more >>> used to hearing it as an abbreviation for "speculative" rather than [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >without an order from a customer. In which case you make up your own specs, >which you think a potential customer might like. In this area, at least, there are two categories of new houses: custom and spec. A custom house is a house built for the occupant-to-be, and that occupant-to-be has approved (or even provided)the plans for the house. A spec house is built by a contractor for an occupant yet-to-be-known. A spec house can become a custom house if the house is purchased during the construction stage. Usually, the purchaser will make some changes in the plan or the details. These terms are not the only terms used, and not everyone uses these terms, but people familiar with new house construction would understand "spec" and "custom" as a categories. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida On 07 Feb 2010, tony cooper wrote >>>> Nor have I. But it occurs to me that we might conceivably be >>>> more used to hearing it as an abbreviation for "speculative" [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > these terms, but people familiar with new house construction > would understand "spec" and "custom" as a categories. And the design stage for both the spec house and the custom house would have involved preparing a spec. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >>>> Nor have I. But it occurs to me that we might conceivably be more >>>> used to hearing it as an abbreviation for "speculative" rather than [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > provided)the plans for the house. A spec house is built by a > contractor for an occupant yet-to-be-known. That's "on spec" to me - an ordinary BrE term for any sort of activity undertaken in the hope of benefit, but without a specific commission. I could say that I called in to visit somebody "on spec", but they weren't at home. SignatureDavid >>> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:35:31 +0000, >>> LFS<laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > I could say that I called in to visit somebody "on spec", but they > weren't at home. Australia definitely has "spec houses" - usually built by Italian labourers at weekends. In some cases, when you look at the results, you realise the builder needed specs. SignatureRob Bannister On 07 Feb 2010, Steve Hayes wrote >>> Nor have I. But it occurs to me that we might conceivably be >>> more used to hearing it as an abbreviation for "speculative" [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Speculation is "spec", specifications are "specs". > You can build something -- a car, an aeroplane, a ship -- on > spec, that is, without an order from a customer. In which case > you make up your own specs, which you think a potential customer > might like. It's certainly common in architectural circles to refer to the building "spec" as well as the "specs", though. ("Have they sent us the spec yet? Why not?") SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 07 Feb 2010, Steve Hayes wrote > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >building "spec" as well as the "specs", though. ("Have they sent >us the spec yet? Why not?") I hadn't heard that, perhaps because I don't move in architectural circles, but i would have thought there were several specifications - size of windows; number of plugs per room; pipes, material and diameter etc. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk On 07 Feb 2010, Steve Hayes wrote >> On 07 Feb 2010, Steve Hayes wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > several specifications - size of windows; number of plugs per > room; pipes, material and diameter etc. Indeed there are -- but where I've worked it's not uncommon to refer to the consolidated specifications as either "the spec" or "the specs". (I think I'd use the plural if I was talking about a number of the individual specifications, but the singular for the bound copy that goes out to tender.) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 07 Feb 2010, Steve Hayes wrote ... > >> It's certainly common in architectural circles to refer to the > >> building "spec" as well as the "specs", though. ("Have they [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > of the individual specifications, but the singular for the bound copy > that goes out to tender.) There's also an anarthrous singular version: "according to spec". -- Jerry Friedman >>> Nor have I. But it occurs to me that we might conceivably be more >>> used to hearing it as an abbreviation for "speculative" rather than [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Speculation is "spec", specifications are "specs". Not in my world: we refer to "the person spec". > You can build something -- a car, an aeroplane, a ship -- on spec, that is, > without an order from a customer. In which case you make up your own specs, > which you think a potential customer might like. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >On 06 Feb 2010, Jerry Friedman wrote > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >"spess" -- and while that conforms better to the full word, it still >sounds very odd to me. They may have been saying "specs", which is not at all uncommon. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE On 07 Feb 2010, Chuck Riggs wrote >> On 06 Feb 2010, Jerry Friedman wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > They may have been saying "specs", which is not at all uncommon. That's fairly common, but no -- there was definitely no "k" sound in the unusual-to-me pronunciation. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 07 Feb 2010, Chuck Riggs wrote > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > That's fairly common, but no -- there was definitely no "k" sound > in the unusual-to-me pronunciation. Are you saying you can discern a difference between "specs" and "specks" (or "speks")? They are identical to me. SignatureDavid >> On 07 Feb 2010, Chuck Riggs wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >Are you saying you can discern a difference between "specs" and "specks" >(or "speks")? They are identical to me. Isn't he simply rejecting Chuck's suggestion that perhaps he heard "specs" as "spess"? SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ On 07 Feb 2010, Wood Avens wrote >>> On 07 Feb 2010, Chuck Riggs wrote >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Isn't he simply rejecting Chuck's suggestion that perhaps he > heard "specs" as "spess"? Yup. Come to think of it, the main place I've noticed "spess" is from historic-buildings architects (Surveyors to the Fabric of this and that). I'll try to remember to ask around and see if it's a quirk of that particular sub-category of architecture. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed On 07 Feb 2010, the Omrud wrote >> On 07 Feb 2010, Chuck Riggs wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Are you saying you can discern a difference between "specs" and > "specks" (or "speks")? They are identical to me. Not at all; I'm saying that I wouldn't confuse "spec" pronounced as "spess" with Chuck's suggestion that it might be "specs" (which I also take as identical to "speks"). The odd one to me is "spec-pronounced-as-spess"; I know I'm not simply mis-hearing "specs" as "spess". SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 07 Feb 2010, the Omrud wrote > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >The odd one to me is "spec-pronounced-as-spess"; I know I'm not >simply mis-hearing "specs" as "spess". Then, like you, I am puzzled. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >On 06 Feb 2010, Jerry Friedman wrote > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >"spess" -- and while that conforms better to the full word, it still >sounds very odd to me. "Specks" is what I hear - I have a friend who spends most of her working day working with building specs, and we're hoping to have a new building at work, so the specs are occasionally up for discussion. On 07 Feb 2010, Amethyst Deceiver wrote >> On 06 Feb 2010, Jerry Friedman wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > have a new building at work, so the specs are occasionally up > for discussion. I've certainly heard both singular and plural. As I've just replied to Steve, I think I'd use "specs" if the discussion was about a number of individual specifications, but "the spec" if I was referring to the large, consolidated document that goes out to tender. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 07 Feb 2010, Amethyst Deceiver wrote > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >was referring to the large, consolidated document that goes out to >tender. Agreed. As Laura mentioned, in the recruitment process I find myself asking "yes, but does the candidate fit the spec?" Never pronounced spess, though. >>On 07 Feb 2010, Amethyst Deceiver wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >asking "yes, but does the candidate fit the spec?" Never pronounced >spess, though. All this talk about people and specs makes me want to shout "I am not a spec, I am a free man", but that big bubble might chase me down. SignatureNot the new number two >>>On 07 Feb 2010, Amethyst Deceiver wrote >>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >All this talk about people and specs makes me want to shout "I am not >a spec, I am a free man", but that big bubble might chase me down. Watch out that it does not spess on you. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >> Peter Moylan: >>>>> I'm reminded of the fact that AmE "tsk tsk" and BrE "tut tut" [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >For me (and the sound example in M-W Online) it is not like in "but", nor is >it like in "tune". It is like in "put". It might be said that way in Northern English, and I think I can recall my friend from Sunderland (Soonderland) pronouncing it like that. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > > Peter Moylan: > >>>> I'm reminded of the fact that AmE "tsktsk" and BrE "tut tut" [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > For me (and the sound example in M-W Online) it is not like in "but", nor is > it like in "tune". It is like in "put". I think you're misinterpreting it. They say the first syllable of "tutorial" is like "too". "Put" has a different symbol. The sound file seems somewhere in between the two vowels. -- Jerry Friedman >Peter Moylan: >>>> I'm reminded of the fact that AmE "tsk tsk" and BrE "tut tut" represent [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >(with a long U) or perhaps "toot" (with a long OO). But "tut tut" >would obviously have short U's as in "but". For me (and for most of my fellow students when I was an undergraduate) "tut" rhymed with "but". But "tutorial" was "tyew-torial". SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > In this Am's E, "tsk tsk" is /tIsk tIsk/. That would be one of those jocular literal pronunciations that has been accepted as genuine, then. In the 1960s or so, to actually say "tisk, tisk" was to heap scorn in a playful, exaggerated way-- to deny sympathy. But that was wordplay based on a reading pronunciation. Is that the meaning you are thinking of? Before that it was a more straightforward expression of dismay. Example: Story parade, Volume 15 - 1950 Tsk!' said Peter. 'Take it right off and I'll mend it. ... And before that, the "get-up" noise to you make to a horse. Outline of linguistic analysis - 1942 ... most familiar click is the bilabial, or kiss; other clicks are occasionally used by speakers of English as interjections (tsk tsk; clucking to a horse). ... SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >Before that it was a more straightforward expression of dismay. Example: > > Story parade, Volume 15 - 1950 Tsk!' said Peter. 'Take > it right off and I'll mend it. ... > >And before that, the "get-up" noise to you make to a horse. tsk is c (dental click), the noise *I* make to a horse is x (lateral click). And then there is q, the palatal click, which some Americans may have heard from Miriam Makeba when she sang: Igqira lendlela ngqongqothwane which she explained was called "The click song" by the English, because they cannot say "ngqongqothwane". SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>Before that it was a more straightforward expression of dismay. Example: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > tsk is c (dental click), the noise *I* make to a horse is x (lateral > click). I would've said the same, but thinking about it a bit, I've heard both used with horses, though I doubt contrastively, so perhaps it's just that some speakers (or horses?) don't have a phonemic difference between the two. Objectively, I believe that the lateral click tends to be louder, which may be why it's used with animals. > And then there is q, the palatal click, which some Americans may > have heard from Miriam Makeba when she sang: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > which she explained was called "The click song" by the English, > because they cannot say "ngqongqothwane". Whether I could easily would depend on how it was pronounced. If it was just [n^c!o~n^c!o~Twane], with the "ng" moved to a palatal [n^] in anticipation of the click and the "o" nasalized, it's not too hard. If it's really a fully velar [N] and a non-nasal [o], I think I might sprain something. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Giving money and power to government 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |is like giving whiskey and car keys Palo Alto, CA 94304 |to teenage boys. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>Before that it was a more straightforward expression of dismay. Example: >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >If it's really a fully velar [N] and a non-nasal [o], I think I might >sprain something. I suspect that a native Xhosa speaker would say that I don't pronounce it correctly, so I can't give you those details. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >> In this Am's E, "tsk tsk" is /tIsk tIsk/. > >That would be one of those jocular literal pronunciations that has been >accepted as genuine, then. In the 1960s or so, to actually say "tisk, >tisk" was to heap scorn in a playful, exaggerated way-- to deny >sympathy. But that was wordplay based on a reading pronunciation. Saying tisk, tisk is a joke, IMO, since the actual sound of scorn, denoted by "tsk, tsk", sounds like two clicks of the tongue against the palate, as I've always heard it. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> In this Am's E, "tsk tsk" is /tIsk tIsk/. >> That would be one of those jocular literal pronunciations that has been [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > denoted by "tsk, tsk", sounds like two clicks of the tongue against > the palate, as I've always heard it. I think there are two, separate sounds made in the same position. The louder, clickier one is made by breathing in. A less disapproving one is made breathing out and sounds quite different. Maybe, one is tsk and the other is tut. Add an khamen, and you get a possible curse. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> In this Am's E, "tsk tsk" is /tIsk tIsk/. >>> That would be one of those jocular literal pronunciations that has been [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >made breathing out and sounds quite different. Maybe, one is tsk and the >other is tut. Add an khamen, and you get a possible curse. My tsk, tsk clicks are produced by my tongue against my palate, with the small amount of air movement, to fill my mouth, coming from the outside. Since my lungs are not involved when making this sound, no breathing is, either. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >Closer to the former, but we don't have a pure A at the beginning. > >Ring a-ring o' roses, >A pocketful of posies. >Atishoo, atishoo, >All fall down. [Steps gingerly up to the edge...] In my childhood, like Evan's[1], the third line was "ashes, ashes". I've never before either heard or seen your version. -GAWollman [1] Albeit a decade later. SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 >>Closer to the former, but we don't have a pure A at the beginning. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > In my childhood, like Evan's[1], the third line was "ashes, ashes". > I've never before either heard or seen your version. The earliest versions I see on Google Books are: 1888: Ashem 1891: A maiden's fairy crown 1892: A-tcshm 1898 [a collection]: Hasher A-tisha curchey[1] Husher Tisha Hush, oh Atishm Hist! Hush! Hatch-u Hach-ho Hash-ho! Tzhu-ho! Merrily, cherrily [so pronounced] [note theirs -erk] Ashem 1899: Hush-a [1] With "curchey all together" replacing "all fall down". The OED gives "curchy" as a variant of "curtsy". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If you think health care is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |expensive now, wait until you see Palo Alto, CA 94304 |what it costs when it's free. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> I often wonder whether today's kids think that "atishoo" is a >> request for a paper handkerchief. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > was a strange pronunciation of "a tissue". Did you guys pronounce it > /AtIShu/ or just /AtSu/, like a sneeze? By "atishoo", I meant the sound of a sneeze. There are many variations like "atchoo" - depends how you sneeze, no doubt. Now I'm puzzled as to what "ashes" meant. SignatureRob Bannister >>> I often wonder whether today's kids think that "atishoo" is a >>> request for a paper handkerchief. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > like "atchoo" - depends how you sneeze, no doubt. Now I'm puzzled as > to what "ashes" meant. The only place I can recall seeing "atishoo" written out is in transcriptions of other people's versions of "Ring Around the Rosie". In our version, we had "ashes" in its place. It made little sense, but then again the whole rhyme made little sense. The more learned of us "knew" that it had something to do with the Black Death. In the US, the sound of a sneeze is generally "achoo" or something similar. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |A little government and a little luck 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |are necessary in life, but only a Palo Alto, CA 94304 |fool trusts either of them. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ [...] > In the US, the sound of a sneeze is generally "achoo" or something > similar. In German-speaking countries, people sneeze _hatschi!_ (hah-CHEE), usually stressed on the second syllable. Signature~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~ > [...] >> In the US, the sound of a sneeze is generally "achoo" or something >> similar. >> > In German-speaking countries, people sneeze _hatschi!_ (hah-CHEE), > usually stressed on the second syllable. Glad you brought that up, Rey. I wanted to add the "h' h' hatchoo" for the hesitation sneeze. (And the "-chee" one for the sneeze someone is really trying to repress in the most ladylike fashion. I pity _their_ eardrums and ustatian tubes! Boy, when I try to bury the sneeze, it hurts, and it squirts stuff out of my nose, as well. Messy!) <snip> >In the US, the sound of a sneeze is generally "achoo" or something >similar. With the emphasis on either syllable, I've noticed, but generally consistent with the individual. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > >>> I often wonder whether today's kids think that "atishoo" is a > >>> request for a paper handkerchief. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The only place I can recall seeing "atishoo" written out is in > transcriptions of other people's versions of "Ring Around the Rosie". I first read it as "attishu" in that piece of silliness "A Cold Rendering". http://books.google.com/books?id=rZpYAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194#v=onepage&q=&f=false I had no idea till I read this thread that anyone used it in playing ring around anything. > In our version, we had "ashes" in its place. It made little sense, > but then again the whole rhyme made little sense. The more learned of > us "knew" that it had something to do with the Black Death. Yep. > In the US, the sound of a sneeze is generally "achoo" or something > similar. And I think some Americans deliberately say "achoo" when they sneeze. -- Jerry Friedman >I first read it as "attishu" in that piece of silliness "A Cold >Rendering". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I had no idea till I read this thread that anyone used it in playing >ring around anything. Ring a ring o' roses A pocket full of positrons A fission! A fission! We all fall down. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >> I first read it as "attishu" in that piece of silliness "A Cold >> Rendering". >> >> http://books.google.com/books?id=rZpYAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194#v=onepage&q=&f=false I >> had no idea till I read this thread that anyone used it in playing >> ring around anything. > > Ring a ring o' roses > A pocket full of positrons doesn't scan > A fission! A fission! > We all fall down. Signatureathel >> >>> I often wonder whether today's kids think that "atishoo" is a >> >>> request for a paper handkerchief. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >And I think some Americans deliberately say "achoo" when they sneeze. Yes, some men, in particular, like to make a production out of them. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>> I often wonder whether today's kids think that "atishoo" is a >>>> request for a paper handkerchief. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > In the US, the sound of a sneeze is generally "achoo" or something > similar. Different sneezes, different sounding words. Some people have three or more syllable sneezes. Regarding American "Ring around the Rosie": how does that rhyme with "A pocketful of posies"? SignatureRob Bannister > Different sneezes, different sounding words. Some people have three > or more syllable sneezes. Regarding American "Ring around the > Rosie": how does that rhyme with "A pocketful of posies"? Nearly. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The look on our faces isn't confusion. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |It's disbelief. Palo Alto, CA 94304 | | Jon Stewart kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >The only place I can recall seeing "atishoo" written out is in >transcriptions of other people's versions of "Ring Around the Rosie". >In our version, we had "ashes" in its place. It made little sense, >but then again the whole rhyme made little sense. The more learned of >us "knew" that it had something to do with the Black Death. The even more learned know that that is urban legend. I assume your scare quotes show you know this. http://www.snopes.com/language/literary/rosie.asp SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. >>The only place I can recall seeing "atishoo" written out is in >>transcriptions of other people's versions of "Ring Around the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The even more learned know that that is urban legend. I assume your > scare quotes show you know this. Right. But at the time, when we were children, the cachet was in knowing the explanation. None of us knew that it was almost certainly wrong. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The skinny models whose main job is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to display clothes aren't hired for Palo Alto, CA 94304 |their sex appeal. They're hired |for their resemblance to a kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |coat-hanger. (650)857-7572 | Peter Moylan http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> The only place I can recall seeing "atishoo" written out is in >>> transcriptions of other people's versions of "Ring Around the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > knowing the explanation. None of us knew that it was almost certainly > wrong. More than "almost certainly". AIUI, the rhyme pre-dates the disease by centuries. SignatureDavid >>>> The only place I can recall seeing "atishoo" written out is in >>>> transcriptions of other people's versions of "Ring Around the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > More than "almost certainly". AIUI, the rhyme pre-dates the disease by > centuries. The rhyme first appeared in print in 1881. SignatureJames >>>>> The only place I can recall seeing "atishoo" written out is in >>>>> transcriptions of other people's versions of "Ring Around the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > The rhyme first appeared in print in 1881. Ah, right, I had it the wrong way around. The rhyme is so far behind the plague that it's impossible to consider that it had been passed down orally for 500 years without being written down. SignatureDavid >> More than "almost certainly". AIUI, the rhyme pre-dates the disease by >> centuries. > >The rhyme first appeared in print in 1881. Must be a time warp then, since the disease was at its worst in the mid-14th century. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>> More than "almost certainly". AIUI, the rhyme pre-dates the disease by >>> centuries. >> The rhyme first appeared in print in 1881. > > Must be a time warp then, since the disease was at its worst in the mid-14th > century. David has admitted that he was counting backwards. I was afraid I was being whooshed. SignatureJames >>>> More than "almost certainly". AIUI, the rhyme pre-dates the disease by >>>> centuries. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > David has admitted that he was counting backwards. I was afraid I was > being whooshed. No, I knew there was a matter of centuries involved, but I had misremembered the sequence. SignatureDavid >>>> More than "almost certainly". AIUI, the rhyme pre-dates the disease by >>>> centuries. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >David has admitted that he was counting backwards. I was afraid I was >being whooshed. Ah, like Wehrner von Braun. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>> More than "almost certainly". AIUI, the rhyme pre-dates the disease by >>> centuries. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Must be a time warp then, since the disease was at its worst in the mid-14th >century. A fascinating account of those times is "A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century" by Barbara W. Tuchman. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>> More than "almost certainly". AIUI, the rhyme pre-dates the disease by >>>> centuries. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >A fascinating account of those times is "A Distant Mirror: The >Calamitous 14th Century" by Barbara W. Tuchman. I should look that up. I have another of hers "The March of Folly", an excellent writer. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. >>>>> More than "almost certainly". AIUI, the rhyme pre-dates the disease by >>>>> centuries. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I should look that up. I have another of hers "The March of Folly", an >excellent writer. She really is. What is "The March of Folly" about? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>>> More than "almost certainly". AIUI, the rhyme pre-dates the disease by >>>>>> centuries. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >She really is. What is "The March of Folly" about? Collective stupidity by Governments acting against their own best interest. Specifically America in Vietnam, Britain losing it's American colonies, the Renaissance Popes, and beginning with the prototype of Laocoon's warning being ignored with the Trojan horse. The idea was that to count as folly, it had to be apparent that the policy was stupid and there had to be clear warnings at the time, not with hindsight. Here is a review: http://www.stoneschool.com/Reviews/MarchOfFolly.html SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. >>>>>>> More than "almost certainly". AIUI, the rhyme pre-dates the disease by >>>>>>> centuries. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >http://www.stoneschool.com/Reviews/MarchOfFolly.html Thank you; it sounds very interesting. Amazon.co.uk has promised its delivery to me. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> Is it still a loan if we don't return them? >> >>I think it's like borrowing a kleenex. > > Has Kleenex become generic? For most people, I'd think. Not as far as the legal system is concerned. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |"It makes you wonder if there is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |anything to astrology after all." Palo Alto, CA 94304 | |"Oh, there is," said Susan. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |"Delusion, wishful thinking and (650)857-7572 |gullibility." http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Has Kleenex become generic? > >For most people, I'd think. Not as far as the legal system is >concerned. When I were a lad you could get two brands of tissues: Ponds and Kleenex. I haven't seen either for years, and I'll have to go to the kitchen to see what brand we have in the house.... (returns) they are "Spar rainbow tissues" (had to turn the box over to read it off the bottom). SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>>> Is it still a loan if we don't return them? >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >For most people, I'd think. I think so, too. Even in Ireland, where I'm not so sure it is the dominant brand, few people do a double-take when I ask for a box of it. >Not as far as the legal system is >concerned. I thought that old battle had been fit, long ago. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > >> There is an interesting post and discussion entitled "(H)eureka" at > >> LanguageHat (http://www.languagehat.com/) that bears on a discussion we [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I think it's like borrowing a kleenex. Yuck! Please keep it, no need to return it, at least not the very one you"borrowed". > > There is an interesting post and discussion entitled "(H)eureka" at > > LanguageHat (http://www.languagehat.com/) that bears on a discussion we [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Is it still a loan if we don't return them? No need to borrow [and return], those words are public domain, ergo up for grabs. >There is an interesting post and discussion entitled "(H)eureka" at >LanguageHat (http://www.languagehat.com/) that bears on a discussion we [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >exactly right, and expresses an idea that I was trying express myself >(with conspicuous lack of success, so far as Steve Hayes was concerned). I'm not sure why. It sounds like a perfectly reasonable notion to me, depending on how ancient the Greek words were. But some Greek words were certainly introduced into English that way. What about words like "psychology" and "pneumatic"? SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >> There is an interesting post and discussion entitled "(H)eureka" at >> LanguageHat (http://www.languagehat.com/) that bears on a discussion we [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What about words like "psychology" and "pneumatic"? What about them? In what sense are they "like" one another (other than both having Greek roots)? "Pneumatic" comes from French, so it is irrelevant to whatever point you're trying to make. "Psychology" dates from the 17th century, so it fits perfectly with the idea that it was introduced by a classical scholar with no interest in either Byzantium or the modern language. Much later than that -- well into to our own lifetimes -- "educated" was widely taken to mean "classically educated", and even scientists normally had some grounding in Latin and often in classical Greek as well. Virtually all words formed in English from Greek roots until around the 1950s were based on classical Greek. I'm quite astonished that anyone with an interest in English would want to argue with that. Even now, new words are being coined whose pronunciation follows classical rules: anyone who needs a word like "psychrophilic" (mid-20th century) will pronounce it according to classical conventions if they want to be understood. Of course, we have adopted a few words from Modern Greek (retsina, taverna, bouzouki, etc.) and these, quite naturally, are pronounced in an approximation to the way a modern Greek would say them. Signatureathel On Jan 27, 11:08 am, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> There is an interesting post and discussion entitled "(H)eureka" at > >> LanguageHat (http://www.languagehat.com/) that bears on a discussion we [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > "psychrophilic" (mid-20th century) will pronounce it according to > classical conventions if they want to be understood. ... Well, certain classical conventions. The English pronunciations of "psycho-" and "psychro-" are definitely not the closest English approximations to how a modern classicist would pronounce them in reconstructed Classical Attic Greek. -- Jerry Friedman > On Jan 27, 11:08 am, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel...@yahoo.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > approximations to how a modern classicist would pronounce them in > reconstructed Classical Attic Greek. Who said they were? I certainly didn't! The conventions on how to pronounce English words built on classical Greek (and Latin, for that matter) roots are based on how English scholars pronounced them, at a time when little was known about how they were actually pronounced in the ancient world. It's too late to change the way we say "psycho-", and if "psychro-" were pronounced in a quite different way it would just confuse everyone -- a bit like pronouncing "hoi polloi" as "i polli". Signatureathel On Jan 28, 1:51 am, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote: > > On Jan 27, 11:08 am, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel...@yahoo.co.uk> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Who said they were? I certainly didn't! Yes, that's why I said "certain classical conventions". Those of Renaissance classicists, I guess, not modern ones. I don't know when people started to use "classical pronunciation" to refer to serious attempts at reconstruction rather than the pronunciation that I suppose developed from the Great Vowel Shift. > The conventions on how to > pronounce English words built on classical Greek (and Latin, for that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > just confuse everyone -- a bit like pronouncing "hoi polloi" as "i > polli". Can't argue with any of that. -- Jerry Friedman >>> There is an interesting post and discussion entitled "(H)eureka" at >>> LanguageHat (http://www.languagehat.com/) that bears on a discussion we [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >both having Greek roots)? "Pneumatic" comes from French, so it is >irrelevant to whatever point you're trying to make. Fascinating. You don't know what point I'm trying to make, but you do know that it is irrelevant to this unknown point. Actually, I wasn't trying to "make a point" at all, I was merely soliciting your opinion, but I see that it's not worth the bother seeing that you, like Stan Brown and Rey Aman, seem to be more interested in displays of aggression than in rational discussion. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>>> There is an interesting post and discussion entitled "(H)eureka" at >>>> LanguageHat (http://www.languagehat.com/) that bears on a discussion we [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > You don't know what point I'm trying to make, but you do know that it is > irrelevant to this unknown point. Well maybe I was giving you too much credit and assuming that you were saying something relevant to the discussion of how words invented by classical scholars should be pronounced in English. My apologies if I was wrong and you were just expressing a random thought. In any case you haven't explained the sense in which "psychology" and "pneumatic" are "like" one another. > Actually, I wasn't trying to "make a point" at all, I was merely soliciting > your opinion, but I see that it's not worth the bother seeing that you, like > Stan Brown and Rey Aman, seem to be more interested in displays of aggression > than in rational discussion. Signatureathel |
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.