 |
 | 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 / British English / June 2004"I'm coffee and he's espresso." -- facially nonsensical
Two guys go into a coffee shop and order coffee and espresso. The waiter delivers the first order to the wrong guy, so he says, "No, I'm coffee and he's espresso." This is facially nonsensical, but I think this is uttered pretty often by educated adults. Do you agree? What are some other examples of such facially nonsensical utterances? I'm interested in examples in other languages as well. Thanks. > Two guys go into a coffee shop and order coffee and > espresso. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > uttered pretty often by educated adults. Do you > agree? The only thing nonsensical about it is that espresso *is* coffee, yet the statement seems to assume otherwise, so to say. . > Two guys go into a coffee shop and order coffee and > espresso. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I'm interested in examples in other languages as well. > Thanks. The use of "facially" here is unusual, I think. Is it meant as "on the face of it"? That is, "on the face of it, this seems nonsensical"? Anyway, "I'm coffee and he's espresso" would not surprise me, but I think it's generally "I'm the regular[1] coffee and he's the espresso." [1] In view of Areff's comment. (At first I thought this was going to be a joke. ["Two guys go into a bar..."]) Maria Conlon We could use a good joke right about now. > > Two guys go into a coffee shop and order coffee and > > espresso. > > > > The waiter delivers the first order to the wrong guy, > > so he says, > > "No, I'm coffee and he's espresso." [snip] > (At first I thought this was going to be a joke. ["Two guys go into a > bar..."]) > > Maria Conlon > We could use a good joke right about now. OK: "Two guys walk into a bar..., one says 'OW! That really hurt!'" Alright, I'll get my coat. > OK: "Two guys walk into a bar..., one says 'OW! That really hurt!'" In Italian we use the same word, "caffe`", for both the drink (cup of coffee) and the place (coffee bar). So, the joke is that entering a "caffe`", one makes a... splash sound ;) I wonder if one could use the word "coffee" in the same way in English. For instance: "Let go to a coffee." instead of "Let go to a coffee bar." ? BTW, are there any coffee bars in the UK? :)  SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood > > OK: "Two guys walk into a bar..., one says 'OW! That really hurt!'" > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I wonder if one could use the word "coffee" in the same way in > English. No. > For instance: "Let go to a coffee." instead of "Let go to a coffee > bar." > ? The English for that is "Starbucks." > BTW, are there any coffee bars in the UK? :) SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> For instance: "Let go to a coffee." instead of "Let go to a coffee >> bar." >> ? > > The English for that is "Starbucks." I thought that was American English ;-) X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood > >> For instance: "Let go to a coffee." instead of "Let go to a coffee > >> bar." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I thought that was American English ;-) Been to London lately? SignatureLiebs And while you're at it, have a look at the fast-food joints in Piccadilly > >> For instance: "Let go to a coffee." instead of "Let go to a coffee > >> bar." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I thought that was American English ;-) Is there any other kind? Anyway, the Brits are apparently infested with them too. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net On Wednesday, in article <40C70A72.1F6@worldnet.att.net> > > For instance: "Let go to a coffee." instead of "Let go to a coffee > > bar." > > ? > > The English for that is "Starbucks." You keep your nasty colonial products to yourself, please. Signaturefix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". In uk.culture.language.english Enrico C <use_replyto_address@despammed.com> wrote: > In Italian we use the same word, "caffe`", for both the drink (cup of > coffee) and the place (coffee bar). So, the joke is that entering a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > bar." > ? An unpretentious eating place in England is called a "cafe" (sorry can't do the accent on the 'e' where I am), which is sometimes pronounced as the French word it cm word it comes from, and sometimes as "caff". But the connection with "coffee" is forgotten. A cafe would quite likely only have instant coffee available. One would say "let's go to a cafe" or "let's go for a coffee", but "coffee" would not be used to mean a place that sold coffee. However, the words "Indian" and "Chinese" can be used to mean a person of that race, a restaurant selling meals of their cuisine (or at least something approximating to it adopted to the English market) or the meal itself. Which is sometimes the source of inane jokes such as the one made recently by the (ex?) Tory MP Anne Winterton (Google on "Chinese" and "Anne Winterton" if you must). > BTW, are there any coffee bars in the UK? :) A small number of long-established independent businesses (sometimes also called "milk bars"), and a much larger number established only in the past few years when there has been a craze for them, the recent ones generally being part of a chain, particular the American chain "Starbucks". It's been said a lot recently that the American television programme called "Friends" was the thing which sparked off the craze for them. Since I've never watched that programme, I wouldn't know. The traditionally English thing would be the "tea shop", which is actually a place serving a light meal with tea. There aren't many of these around, and those that exist generally trade on an image of being quaint and genteel. Matthew Huntbach >A small number of long-established independent businesses (sometimes also called >"milk bars"), and a much larger number established only in the past few [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the thing which sparked off the craze for them. Since I've never watched >that programme, I wouldn't know. Is a chain an "American chain" because the company originated in the United States? If there are several locations in the UK, and the ownership of the locations is held by UK firms, would "American chain" still be applicable? If an English or Australian publisher owns several US newspapers, would they be a British chain of newspapers or an Australian chain of newspapers? If the ownership is by a British or Australian firm, they might be an "Australian-owned chain". However, if the owner sets up a US corporation for ownership, the chain would a US chain, but the holding corporation an Australian-owned entity. Of course, it's possible that the Starbucks in the UK are directly owned by the Starbucks corporation here, and my question is moot. >> A small number of long-established independent businesses (sometimes >> also called "milk bars"), and a much larger number established only in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > ownership of the locations is held by UK firms, would "American chain" > still be applicable? Depends who owns the "UK firms". > If an English or Australian publisher owns several US newspapers, > would they be a British chain of newspapers or an Australian chain of > newspapers? If the ownership is by a British or Australian firm, they > might be an "Australian-owned chain". However, if the owner sets up a > US corporation for ownership, the chain would a US chain, but the > holding corporation an Australian-owned entity. Maybe, maybe not. Remember that Rupert Murdoch was forced to take US citizenship. > Of course, it's possible that the Starbucks in the UK are directly > owned by the Starbucks corporation here, and my question is moot. What difference does it make if it is directly or indirectly owned? Tower Records was "incorporated ... under the laws of California", which didn't help, of course, when they were affected by adverse trading conditions in the USA. SignatureJohn Briggs >>> A small number of long-established independent businesses (sometimes >>> also called "milk bars"), and a much larger number established only in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Depends who owns the "UK firms". I would think that without further indication that a "UK firm" would be a firm based in the UK and owned primarily by UK shareholders or individuals in the UK. There's the possibility that a majority of the shares are held by Samoans, but in a non-legal or non-published context you can pretty much count on the writer meaning owned by UK residents. >> If an English or Australian publisher owns several US newspapers, >> would they be a British chain of newspapers or an Australian chain of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Maybe, maybe not. Remember that Rupert Murdoch was forced to take US >citizenship. I deliberately avoided naming Murdoch for this reason. It's a hypothetical example up for examination. >> Of course, it's possible that the Starbucks in the UK are directly >> owned by the Starbucks corporation here, and my question is moot. > >What difference does it make if it is directly or indirectly owned? You did follow the line of questioning? By "directly", you mean by the US Starbucks corporate entity, and by "indirectly" you evidently mean a UK firm owns the locations, but the American firm owns the UK firm. That, then, leads back to the essence of the question, so it does make a difference. When is a chain an American chain and when is it a UK chain? >>> Of course, it's possible that the Starbucks in the UK are directly >>> owned by the Starbucks corporation here, and my question is moot. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > does make a difference. When is a chain an American chain and when is > it a UK chain? I maintain that it makes no difference whether ownership is direct or indirect. In fact, control is more important than ownership, but that's a separate question. SignatureJohn Briggs In uk.culture.language.english Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote: >> A small number of long-established independent businesses (sometimes also called >> "milk bars"), and a much larger number established only in the past few [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> the thing which sparked off the craze for them. Since I've never watched >> that programme, I wouldn't know. > Is a chain an "American chain" because the company originated in the > United States? If there are several locations in the UK, and the > ownership of the locations is held by UK firms, would "American chain" > still be applicable? "Starbucks" is perceived as American, and this is part of its attraction. Because it is American, it is supposed to make people think of the glamorous lifestyle as portrayed in the aforementioned television programme. I suppose if a chain of tea shops were to open up in the USA, based on a similar British chain, and trading off a "quaint little Britain" image, people would think of it as a "British chain" whatever the structure of ownership was. The fact is that about five or so years ago there was no such thing as a "Starbucks" in Britain. Now there seems to be one wherever you look, that's an exaggeration, but not much of an exaggeration in central London. I remember when the first ones opened people said "Look - that's a coffee bar just like they have in the USA, so it must sell proper USA style coffee". Matthew Huntbach ["Starbucks" in Britain] > remember when the first ones opened people said "Look - that's a coffee bar > just like they have in the USA, so it must sell proper USA style coffee". And half of their beverage list is in Italian, natch ;-) | Cappuccino | Espresso, steamed milk and foamed milk [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] | Espresso con Panna | Espresso topped with whipped cream X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood > "Starbucks" is perceived as American, and this is part of its attraction. > Because it is American, it is supposed to make people think of the glamorous > lifestyle as portrayed in the aforementioned television programme. Which makes no sense, because I'm well over 90% certain that the characters on "Friends" never went into a Starbucks; their "local", as it were, was an independent place called "Central Perk". Then again, marketing has never been about making sense, I suppose... > The fact is that about five or so years ago there was no such thing as a > "Starbucks" in Britain. Now there seems to be one wherever you look, that's > an exaggeration, but not much of an exaggeration in central London. I > remember when the first ones opened people said "Look - that's a coffee bar > just like they have in the USA, so it must sell proper USA style coffee". I'm told by my friends who drink coffee that it's crap coffee, but I can't say for sure. I *do* like their chai; all the other places around here make it far too sweet, where Starbucks' actually has a bit of spice to it. Naturally, I am crucified by my co-workers for ever suggesting there's a reason to set foot in that union-busting, unfair-trading, masses-oppressing, owned-by-the-Devil-himself place. -=Eric SignatureCome to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare. -- Blair Houghton. > > "Starbucks" is perceived as American, and this is part of its attraction. > > Because it is American, it is supposed to make people think of the glamorous [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it were, was an independent place called "Central Perk". Then again, > marketing has never been about making sense, I suppose... And Frasier's crew hung out at Café Nervosa, in Seattle, the very home of Starbucks. > > The fact is that about five or so years ago there was no such thing as a > > "Starbucks" in Britain. Now there seems to be one wherever you look, that's [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > suggesting there's a reason to set foot in that union-busting, > unfair-trading, masses-oppressing, owned-by-the-Devil-himself place. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > "Starbucks" is perceived as American, and this is part of its attraction. > > Because it is American, it is supposed to make people think of the > > glamorous lifestyle as portrayed in the aforementioned television > > programme. > Which makes no sense, because I'm well over 90% certain that the > characters on "Friends" never went into a Starbucks; their "local", as > it were, was an independent place called "Central Perk". Then again, > marketing has never been about making sense, I suppose... Well yes, but that's how chains work, particularly when taking a concept and marketing it out of its original environment. One can imagine the same thing happening in reverse - one of the British soap operas where the pub plays a major part gains a big following in the USA, and a chain of pubs with an "English soap opera" feel opens up in the USA. The fact that the soap opera pub was not part of a chain would not alter the fact that the chain might sell itself on some sort of "Britishness" image. In fact we have chains of pubs in Britain these days selling an "Irishness" image, supposedly based on traditional Irish pubs, although of course a traditional Irish pub wouldn't be part of such a chain. Matthew Huntbach >>> "Starbucks" is perceived as American, and this is part of its >>> attraction. Because it is American, it is supposed to make people think [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > traditional Irish pubs, although of course a traditional Irish pub > wouldn't be part of such a chain. Funnily enough, when I was in Dublin a couple of years ago, I discovered that the "Irish-themed pub" had spread there! SignatureJohn Briggs > Is a chain an "American chain" because the company originated in the > United States? If there are several locations in the UK, and the > ownership of the locations is held by UK firms, would "American chain" > still be applicable? Well, at least people aren't using that tiresome '60s-ish New Left-smacking-of phrase "multinational [corporation]" as much as they used to. I'm fairly comfortable with calling Starbuck's an American-based chain, but I suppose I am not so comfortable calling them an "American chain", for the reasons you give, Coop. A true "American chain" would have to exist only in the US. And remember, lots of American chains are owned by powerful British, French, German, Australian, and even Nottinghamian corporate entities. > If an English or Australian publisher owns several US newspapers, > would they be a British chain of newspapers or an Australian chain of > newspapers? It's an American chain, owned by a British or Australian publisher. > If the ownership is by a British or Australian firm, they > might be an "Australian-owned chain". However, if the owner sets up a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Of course, it's possible that the Starbucks in the UK are directly > owned by the Starbucks corporation here, and my question is moot. Seems really unlikely to me, Coop. I think in most cases such companies have to set up BrE subsidiaries and the loike. The real extreme case is China, where you have to set up a jernt venture with the state, AIUI. > >A small number of long-established independent businesses (sometimes also called > >"milk bars"), and a much larger number established only in the past few [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Is a chain an "American chain" because And this is why cross-posts from a.u.e. are so annoying. They will now be arguing about corporate ownership for weeks, but they'll never stop posting the thread to sci.lang. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > An unpretentious eating place in England is called a "cafe" (sorry can't do > the accent on the 'e' where I am), which is sometimes pronounced as the French word it cm > word it comes from, and sometimes as "caff". But the connection with > "coffee" is forgotten. A cafe would quite likely only have instant coffee > available. Seriously? In the US counterpart, the greasy spoon/diner/Western US 'cafe'/Newyorkais "coffeeshop", the sort of basic coffee that's traditionally served is *bad* coffee, but it's not instant. To serve instant coffee in such a place would really violate cultural norms. Is it that the BrE are a nation of tea-drinkers, normatively speaking? , and a much larger number established only in the past few > years when there has been a craze for them, the recent ones generally being > part of a chain, particular the American chain "Starbucks". More precisely, a Seattle-based chain that was founded by a native of Brooklyn (Fourth Largest City in America). Coinkidenk? I think not. > It's been said > a lot recently that the American television programme called "Friends" was > the thing which sparked off the craze for them. That's the most bathetic thing I've heard in at least three days. Oy! > > An unpretentious eating place in England is called a "cafe" (sorry can't do > > the accent on the 'e' where I am), which is sometimes pronounced as the > > French word it comes from, and sometimes as "caff". But the connection with > > "coffee" is forgotten. A cafe would quite likely only have instant coffee > > available. > Seriously? In the US counterpart, the greasy spoon/diner/Western US > 'cafe'/Newyorkais "coffeeshop", the sort of basic coffee that's > traditionally served is *bad* coffee, but it's not instant. To serve > instant coffee in such a place would really violate cultural norms. Is it > that the BrE are a nation of tea-drinkers, normatively speaking? Yes. The cultural norm in Britain is that coffee is instant coffee. Non-instant coffee has become more commonplace than it used to be, but it is still the case that if you go into the sort of unpretentious place that calls itself a "cafe", and ask for coffee, the chances are it will be made by taking a spoonful out of a catering sized tin of instant and pouring boiling water on it. > > It's been said > > a lot recently that the American television programme called "Friends" was > > the thing which sparked off the craze for them. > That's the most bathetic thing I've heard in at least three days. Oy! The last issue of this televions programme was broadcast recently, and received a lot of press coverage. A lot of the press coverage did suggest it was responsible, at least partly, for the recent boom in coffee shops. It was also suggested that it influenced the way we speak - such things as saying "like" where the British usage would be "er". Matthew Huntbach > Yes. The cultural norm in Britain is that coffee is instant coffee. > Non-instant coffee has become more commonplace than it used to be, but > it is still the case that if you go into the sort of unpretentious > place that calls itself a "cafe", and ask for coffee, the chances are > it will be made by taking a spoonful out of a catering sized tin of > instant and pouring boiling water on it. At least it's a step up from the Camp coffee of my youth. SignatureRob Bannister > > > It's been said > > > a lot recently that the American television programme called "Friends" was [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > speak - such things as saying "like" where the British usage would be > "er". I should've mentioned that *Frasier*'s Café Nervosa was on the air a season earlier than *Friends*'s Central Perk. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > An unpretentious eating place in England is called a "cafe" Is that the same as a "coffee shop"? X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C > > An unpretentious eating place in England is called a "cafe" > Is that the same as a "coffee shop"? No. It's a place where you get baked beans on toasted tea cakes. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/joachim/02-0.htm When Joachim was born, on the stroke of midnight, it took the midwife no more than a single look to restore her wavering faith in the Adversary. > > > An unpretentious eating place in England is called a "cafe" > > > Is that the same as a "coffee shop"? > > No. It's a place where you get baked beans on toasted tea cakes. The toasted teacakes I know have raisins in them - not what I'd have with my beans. Adrian At 20:40:19 on Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Adrian Bailey <dadge@hotmail.com> wrote in <8IJxc.18$Wg.5@pathologist.blueyonder.net>: >The toasted teacakes I know have raisins in them - not what I'd have with my >beans. But _ever_ so good for your system. SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) > At 20:40:19 on Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Adrian Bailey <dadge@hotmail.com> > wrote in <8IJxc.18$Wg.5@pathologist.blueyonder.net>: > >The toasted teacakes I know have raisins in them - not what I'd have > >with my beans. > But _ever_ so good for your system. Not that good as they're usually white. Don't like toasted tea cakes, anyway. Now, toasted muffins with bilberry jam...Mmmmmmmmm! Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/aureole/40-0.htm Sic Transit Gloria Mundi On Thursday, in article <4cbc945701david@dacha.freeuk.com> > > At 20:40:19 on Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Adrian Bailey <dadge@hotmail.com> > > wrote in <8IJxc.18$Wg.5@pathologist.blueyonder.net>: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Not that good as they're usually white. Notwithstanding the fact that I prefer brown bread to white, if only on taste/texture grounds, apparently sliced white bread can actually be better for you. This is because the manufacturers include various vitamins and trace elements artificially, and do so to a level greater than the natural occurrence in brown or wholemeal bread; all the same, to my mind most white bread is pappy and tasteless. (I don't know if this translates to teacakes.) Signaturefix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". "Brian {Hamilton Kelly}" <bhk@dsl.co.uk> wrote... > Notwithstanding the fact that I prefer brown bread to white, if only > on taste/texture grounds, apparently sliced white bread can actually > be better for you. This is because the manufacturers include various > vitamins and trace elements artificially, and do so to a level greater > than the natural occurrence in brown or wholemeal bread; all the same, > to my mind most white bread is pappy and tasteless. Use a breadmaker -- the results are a lot fresher and tastier. I can't remember when I last bought bread. Matti "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-nospam@totally-official.com> wrote... > "Brian {Hamilton Kelly}" <bhk@dsl.co.uk> wrote... > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Matti By the way -- do those trace elements I'm missing out on assist with memory loss? Just wondering. Matti >"Matti Lamprhey" <matti-nospam@totally-official.com> wrote... >> "Brian {Hamilton Kelly}" <bhk@dsl.co.uk> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >By the way -- do those trace elements I'm missing out on assist with >memory loss? Just wondering. I can't remember whether my inability to absorb vitamin B12 does. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Hertfordshire England > Notwithstanding the fact that I prefer brown bread to white, if only on > taste/texture grounds, apparently sliced white bread can actually be > better for you. This is because the manufacturers include various > vitamins and trace elements artificially, and do so to a level greater > than the natural occurrence in brown or wholemeal bread; all the same, to > my mind most white bread is pappy and tasteless. I'm afraid I'm never going to be converted to the processed-food-is-better-for-you-because-of-all-the-vitamins-and-minerals-th ey-add-to-it school of nutrition. Processed food is also full of preservatives, salt, emulsifiers, colouring, E621, sweeteners and/or added sugar, etc. etc., is prepared god-knows-where by god-knows-who and some of it is even carcinogenic. Oreos, Cheerios and NutriGrain are never going to be part of a good diet. Period. Adrian >> > > An unpretentious eating place in England is called a "cafe" >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >The toasted teacakes I know have raisins in them - not what I'd have with my >beans. I find that toasted teacakes go nicely with eggs and bacon. Nice contrast in flavours. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin 'just another British weirdo' Bignall Hertfordshire England >>> An unpretentious eating place in England is called a "cafe" > >> Is that the same as a "coffee shop"? > > No. It's a place where you get baked beans on toasted tea cakes. Can't you have a soup or a light meal in a coffee shop, anyway? X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood > > > An unpretentious eating place in England is called a "cafe" > > > Is that the same as a "coffee shop"? > > No. It's a place where you get baked beans on toasted tea cakes. "Baked beans on toast" is utterly unknown in the US, and certainly would not be found in a coffeeshop (see Areff's earlier posting). SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > > > An unpretentious eating place in England is called a "cafe" > > > > > Is that the same as a "coffee shop"? > > > > No. It's a place where you get baked beans on toasted tea cakes. > "Baked beans on toast" is utterly unknown in the US, and certainly > would not be found in a coffeeshop (see Areff's earlier posting). Well, I did say a cafe wasn't the same as a coffee shop. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/joachim/06-0.htm "Apsu, apsu, every where, nor any mead to drink..." sighed Noah, as he gazed across the unfathomable face of the deep. >> > > > An unpretentious eating place in England is called a "cafe" >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Well, I did say a cafe wasn't the same as a coffee shop. Nevertheless, a UK 'caff' seems to be a close analogue of a newyorkais 'coffeeshop'. But, yes, "baked beans on toast", while it might be something Coop would eat for a midnight snack, would not be on the extensive menu of your typical coffeeshop. >> > > An unpretentious eating place in England is called a "cafe" >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >"Baked beans on toast" is utterly unknown in the US, and certainly would >not be found in a coffeeshop (see Areff's earlier posting). Nor would it be found in a coffeeshop in the UK, but it _would_ be found in a cafe, which I think is what David was trying to say. SignatureJohn Hall "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened." Winston Churchill (1874-1965) > >> > > An unpretentious eating place in England is called a "cafe" > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >"Baked beans on toast" is utterly unknown in the US, and certainly > >would not be found in a coffeeshop (see Areff's earlier posting). > Nor would it be found in a coffeeshop in the UK, but it _would_ be > found in a cafe, which I think is what David was trying to say. No, it's not what I was trying to say; it's what I did say. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/yds/5sb-0.htm The Yorkshire Dialect Society: Summer Bulletin > > > > An unpretentious eating place in England is called a "cafe" > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "Baked beans on toast" is utterly unknown in the US, and certainly would > not be found in a coffeeshop (see Areff's earlier posting). The newsgroup alt.2eggs.sausage.beans.tomatoes.2toast.largetea.cheerslove is known to its regulars as "the caff". At a previous workplace the canteen, which was intensely and justly loathed, was dubbed by management "the café", but it served only bad, pretentious and ostensibly healthy food (and no coffee at all, sigh). We retaliated by pronouncing "café" with exaggerated stress on the second syllable. Des now gets his breakfast lattes from Caffè Nero, hoorah! Signature"[T]he structural trend in linguistics which took root with the International Congresses of the twenties and early thirties [...] had close and effective connections with phenomenology in its Husserlian and Hegelian versions." -- Roman Jakobson > > An unpretentious eating place in England is called a "cafe" > Is that the same as a "coffee shop"? No. As I said, a "cafe" is an unpretentious eating place. The word has completely lost any connotations of coffee. Its main menu items would probably be fried food. A "coffee shop", however, would be a place where coffee features prominently, and its main menu items might be things like cake to go with coffee. Matthew Huntbach > The traditionally English thing would be the "tea shop", which is actually a > place serving a light meal with tea. There aren't many of these around, and > those that exist generally trade on an image of being quaint and genteel. There are lots of tea shops in tourist areas. Godshill on the Isle of Wight is a village comprised almost entirely of tea shops, souvenir shops and pubs and at least one of the pubs also serves cream teas. Then there is that cynosure of tea shops, Betty's. (http://www.bettysandtaylors.co.uk/frame.asp) SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) "Laura F Spira" <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote... > There are lots of tea shops in tourist areas. Godshill on the Isle of > Wight is a village comprised almost entirely of tea shops, souvenir > shops and pubs and at least one of the pubs also serves cream teas. > Then there is that cynosure of tea shops, Betty's. > (http://www.bettysandtaylors.co.uk/frame.asp) Oi! Bettys is consistently adamant about it's apostrophe-avoidance. Matti > "Laura F Spira" <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Oi! Bettys is consistently adamant about it's apostrophe-avoidance. Oy yourself! Or are you being knowingly skittish? SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) At 22:20:48 on Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Laura F Spira <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in <40C77F30.9050901@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk>: >> "Laura F Spira" <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote... >>>Then there is that cynosure of tea shops, Betty's. >>>(http://www.bettysandtaylors.co.uk/frame.asp) >> Oi! Bettys is consistently adamant about it's >>apostrophe-avoidance. > >Oy yourself! Or are you being knowingly skittish? I suspect he is complying with Rule 47 of Usenet. That's the one immediately after the one that says that every spelling flame must itself contain a spelling mistook. SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) > At 22:20:48 on Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Laura F Spira > <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > immediately after the one that says that every spelling flame must > itself contain a spelling mistook. Known in aue as Skitt's Law. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >There are lots of tea shops in tourist areas. Godshill on the Isle of >Wight is a village comprised almost entirely of tea shops, souvenir >shops and pubs and at least one of the pubs also serves cream teas. Then >there is that cynosure of tea shops, Betty's. >(http://www.bettysandtaylors.co.uk/frame.asp) 'comprised of' in ucle and no comments. Has this usage now reached acceptance? Don. > 'comprised of' in ucle and no comments. Has this usage now reached > acceptance? This topic has been done to death on aue. Most dictionaries list it. Some warn that a few pedants may object. Some aue members hate it. Live with it - there are far worse abuses of the English language. SignatureRob Bannister >> 'comprised of' in ucle and no comments. Has this usage now reached >> acceptance? > >This topic has been done to death on aue. Most dictionaries list it. >Some warn that a few pedants may object. Some aue members hate it. Live >with it - there are far worse abuses of the English language. Agreed - and I did ask rather than try to pontificate. (It does grate for me.) Don. > > The traditionally English thing would be the "tea shop", which is actually a > > place serving a light meal with tea. There aren't many of these around, and > > those that exist generally trade on an image of being quaint and genteel. > There are lots of tea shops in tourist areas. Godshill on the Isle of > Wight is a village comprised almost entirely of tea shops, souvenir > shops and pubs and at least one of the pubs also serves cream teas. Yes, but only genteel tourist areas. Pretty villages, small historic towns, up-market seaside resorts, yes. Blackpool, no. Neither would you find them in a big city setting, or a non-historic high street. There is somehow a certain sort of location where a tea shop seems right and proper, I had been trying to avoid putting it this way, but essentially only places where those of middle age and middle class gather. Matthew Huntbach >A small number of long-established independent businesses (sometimes also called >"milk bars"), and a much larger number established only in the past few [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the thing which sparked off the craze for them. Since I've never watched >that programme, I wouldn't know. There have been previous British crazes for coffee bars. There was one when coffee was first imported, but that was a year or two before my time. There was another in the 1950s, around the time when Elvis became revealed to us. They sprang up almost overnight, and were more popular than pubs for a while. That's the time when I first heard of 'espresso' (which most people used to pronounce and spell as 'expresso') and 'froffy coffee', a sort of cappuccino. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Hertfordshire England >> A small number of long-established independent businesses (sometimes >> also called "milk bars"), and a much larger number established only in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > used to pronounce and spell as 'expresso') and 'froffy coffee', a sort of > cappuccino. I expect you are thinking of Sir Cliff Richard and "Expresso Bongo" (1960) . SignatureJohn Briggs >>> A small number of long-established independent businesses (sometimes >>> also called "milk bars"), and a much larger number established only in [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >I expect you are thinking of Sir Cliff Richard and "Expresso Bongo" (1960) . No I'm not. Mid-1950s. Elvis, Lonnie Donegan with "Rock Island Line" and Buddy Holly were all hitting the charts round about then. Cliff came later, in 1958. Few people in my home town had heard of espresso before, or ever seen an espresso machine, unless they'd been abroad. In my stratum of society, few had ever had 'real' (as opposed to instant) coffee, except in a café. We had a percolator at home, but it was never used and just stood on a shelf. Scooping ground coffee out of a tin and then pulling a lever on a hissing machine was 'express' delivery. The coffee bars were so crowded that one could make one drink last a whole evening; something quite impossible in a pub. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Hertfordshire England >>>>A small number of long-established independent businesses (sometimes >>>>also called "milk bars"), and a much larger number established only in [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > could make one drink last a whole evening; something quite impossible in a > pub. Plus, by the time I got to uni in 1959, most of them served real spaghetti - something which hitherto we had supposed only came out of Heinz tins. This is almost certainly the time when the 'bo-log-nayz' pronunciation was adopted. 'Spag-bog' is a relatively recent invention. SignatureRob Bannister > >A small number of long-established independent businesses (sometimes also > >called "milk bars"), and a much larger number established only in the past > >few years when there has been a craze for them, the recent ones generally > >being part of a chain, particular the American chain "Starbucks". > There have been previous British crazes for coffee bars. There was one when > coffee was first imported, but that was a year or two before my time. There > was another in the 1950s, around the time when Elvis became revealed to us. > They sprang up almost overnight, and were more popular than pubs for a > while. Yes, the "long-established" ones I wrote of were those established in that time. It seems to have been a short-lived phase, because they were already a rarity a decade or so later. Matthew Huntbach On 10 Jun, in article <a0dde83b.0406101020.4ba4ad7e@posting.google.com> > > There have been previous British crazes for coffee bars. There was one when > > coffee was first imported, but that was a year or two before my time. There [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that time. It seems to have been a short-lived phase, because they > were already a rarity a decade or so later. Another fad was the "Milk Bar" (usually with the big blue E logo of Express Dairies); they seemed to survive into the late '60s (and some even still served "froffy coffee"). Signaturefix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". Brian {Hamilton Kelly} typed thus: > On 10 Jun, in article > <a0dde83b.0406101020.4ba4ad7e@posting.google.com> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Express Dairies); they seemed to survive into the late '60s (and some > even still served "froffy coffee"). Milk Bars live on in Wales. I've been to two in the last five years or so. Excellent value, and very good breakfasts. SignatureDavid ===== > In uk.culture.language.english Enrico C <use_replyto_address@despammed.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > An unpretentious eating place in England is called a "cafe" (sorry can't do > the accent on the 'e' where I am), Why not? SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> In uk.culture.language.english Enrico C >> <use_replyto_address@despammed.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Why not? No "alt" key, probably. :-) SignatureJohn Briggs <snip> >>> An unpretentious eating place in England is called a "cafe" >>> (sorry can't do the accent on the 'e' where I am), >> >> Why not? > > No "alt" key, probably. :-) The method of typing special characters isn't a constant of nature. It depends on the machine and operating system. WIM, some OSs have more than one method. Some applications also have additional methods programmed in. Stewart. SignatureMy e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. > The method of typing special characters isn't a constant of nature. It > depends on the machine and operating system. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Stewart. Or you could use the apostrophe [ ' ] or the accent sign [ ` ALT+096 on the numeric keypad] just after the vowel, in place of the accented vowel itself. X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood <snip> > Or you could use the apostrophe [ ' ] or the accent sign [ ` ALT+096 > on the numeric keypad] just after the vowel, in place of the accented > vowel itself. The alt-code method is one of those techniques that's system-specific. And UK and US (at least) PC keyboards have the makeshift grave accent on them anyway. The easy way to type 'é' in Windows is AltGr+E or Ctrl+Alt+E. The same applies to other acute accented letters, but other accents don't have special shortcuts (unless you're using one of those keyboard drivers with dead keys), so you'll have to use the Alt-code or c&p from Character Map. (Or from another block of text that happens to have that character in it....) The easy way to type 'é' in Mac OS is Alt+E followed by E. Other accents have other special keys (Alt+I, Alt+U, Alt+N, Alt+`....) As for the old Sun boxes, they have the Compose key that's meant to do that IIRC.... Stewart. SignatureMy e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. If you have a number pad keyboard, make yourself a table, typing successively ALT 128 ALT 129 .... ALT 179 or so (hold ALT and type the three _NUMBER PAD_ digits in succession) eg. ALT 130 gives the é in cliché It doesn't print correctly for everybody however. SignatureRon Hardin rhhardin@mindspring.com On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk. > If you have a number pad keyboard, make yourself a table, As Character Map does for you. Unless you want a table big enough to read more clearly.... > typing successively > ALT 128 ALT 129 .... ALT 179 or so (hold ALT and type the three _NUMBER PAD_ digits > in succession) <snip> But be warned - without the leading zeros it refers to the IBM/MS-DOS character set, rather than the ANSI/Windows set. But most fonts don't have the IBM characters that aren't common with the ANSI set. Stewart. SignatureMy e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. > > If you have a number pad keyboard, make yourself a table, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > But most fonts don't have the IBM characters that aren't common with the > ANSI set. A kind soul has a ready-made chart at: http://devrijehuisarts.org/test/alt.asp Mike. <snip> > A kind soul has a ready-made chart at: > > http://devrijehuisarts.org/test/alt.asp Oh dear, yet another page that someone neglected to test in more than one browser and configuration thereof. And written by someone who inexplicably thinks there's such a thing as an HTML programmer. Stewart. SignatureMy e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. > <snip> > > A kind soul has a ready-made chart at: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And written by someone who inexplicably thinks there's such a thing as > an HTML programmer. Oh, sorry: I did notice that his earlier version had printed better, but assumed it was just my haste. On the secondary matter, not my problem, guv'nor. Mike. <snip> > Oh, sorry: I did notice that his earlier version had printed better, > but assumed it was just my haste. Well, if you hadn't noticed, the person who made that page tried to make it actually do something, not just print. > On the secondary matter, not my problem, guv'nor. That's OK then. Stewart. SignatureMy e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. [...] > > On the secondary matter, not my problem, guv'nor. > > That's OK then. Glad we see eye to eye on this. Mike. [...] SignatureRon Hardin rhhardin@mindspring.com On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk. Ron, please don't take this personally, but my experience is that for some of us at least the net often tends if anything to bring out, rather than to suppress, one's innate jerkiness (jerkhood?). Where's your evidence? Mike. > The easy way to type 'é' in Windows is AltGr+E € I get the euro sign that way. > or Ctrl+Alt+E. The same € Euro sign again. X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C on Win2000 Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood >> The easy way to type 'é' in Windows is AltGr+E > ¤ [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ¤ > Euro sign again. It launches one of my programs if I do that :-) On my keyboard (and OS) it's AltGr+4 for the Euro sign (?). I can't see your Euro sign - can you see mine? SignatureJohn Briggs >>> The easy way to type 'é' in Windows is AltGr+E >> ¤ >> I get the euro sign that way. : >I can't see your Euro sign - can you see mine? I can't. Enrico's E-sign, which was visible in his message, changed into something else when quoted in yours. At least, that's how it looks to me. R. >>>> The easy way to type 'é' in Windows is AltGr+E >>> ¤ [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > At least, that's how it looks to me. It must be the 7-bit/8-bit problem. How about this: ? ? SignatureJohn Briggs >>>>> The easy way to type 'é' in Windows is AltGr+E >>>> ¤ [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >It must be the 7-bit/8-bit problem. How about this: ? ? Actually, it's the character set problem. Look at the headers of the posts. The euro sign is part of ISO-8859-15, and usually appears correctly in a message containing the appropriate charset header, as Enrico's did. If quoted by somebody else in a message which *doesn't* have that header, it doesn't. Many newsreaders will automatically include a charset header which will allow all characters in the message to be correctly reproduced, but OE is bad at this. I believe it can handle ISO-8859-15, but you have to set it up manually. SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com". On Thursday, in article <55ihc0p1l2q3t6uf7ku0tp48ru1srca4nq@4ax.com> > >It must be the 7-bit/8-bit problem. How about this: ? ? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > message to be correctly reproduced, but OE is bad at this. I believe > it can handle ISO-8859-15, but you have to set it up manually. And, of course, John's posts (like mine) say NOTHING about any character set encoding. Therefore they default to the original standards (for both net news and e-mail) which is SEVEN-bit plain ASCII. Signaturefix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". >It must be the 7-bit/8-bit problem. How about this: ? ? After the colon I see a space, a question mark, a space, and a second question mark. R. >>It must be the 7-bit/8-bit problem. How about this: ? ? > >After the colon I see a space, a question mark, >a space, and a second question mark. As do I. I can get an accented e by typing Alt-130, thus: é But it may appear differently on someone else's screen. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk Stewart Gordon wrote on 10 Jun 2004: > <snip> >> Or you could use the apostrophe [ ' ] or the accent sign [ ` [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The easy way to type 'é' in Windows is AltGr+E What is the "AltGr" key? I don't have such a thing on my keyboard. > or Ctrl+Alt+E. € is what I get for that. "é" appears after I type Alt+0233. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. > Stewart Gordon wrote on 10 Jun 2004: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > > is what I get for that. That was an Euro symbol, right? Anyway, you should have posted your message declaring a charset including the Euro sign, such as iso-8859-15, so that it can be correctly read by any standards compliant newsreader. There is an add-on for X-News [your newsreader, I used it for a while too] that might help :) http://digilander.libero.it/xnews/mimeproxy/mime.html Or you could have a go at my favourite newsreader, which is in my signature line :) > "é" appears after I type Alt+0233. Yep, an acute e. X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C 40tude Dialog - www.40tude.com/dialog freeware newsreader with multilingual GUI in English, Italian, French, German, Dutch, Croatian, Greek and Polish Enrico C wrote on 10 Jun 2004: >> Stewart Gordon wrote on 10 Jun 2004: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> What is the "AltGr" key? I don't have such a thing on my keyboard. I still don't know what an "AltGr" key is. >>> or Ctrl+Alt+E. >> >> € is what I get for that. > > That was an Euro symbol, right? Yes, but it's "a Euro sign". "Euro" begins with a "glide" (type of consonant), not a vowel. > Anyway, you should have posted your message declaring a charset > including the Euro sign, such as iso-8859-15, so that it can be > correctly read by any standards compliant newsreader. > There is an add-on for X-News [your newsreader, I used it > for a while too] that might help :) > http://digilander.libero.it/xnews/mimeproxy/mime.html Thank you, I'll check it out. > Or you could have a go at my favourite newsreader, which is in my > signature line :) I dislike 40tude and all the other newsreaders I've tried that look something like it. I really prefer Pine, the first one I used back in 1994, but Xnews is a step up from that.. >> "é" appears after I type Alt+0233. > > Yep, an acute e. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. > Enrico C wrote on 10 Jun 2004: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I still don't know what an "AltGr" key is. It's the Alt key on the right side of the space bar. I think Alt-Gr stands for ALTernate GRaphics (key). [don't ask what graphics!] Alt-Gr should have the same effect as pressing both the Ctrl and Alt keys. On my Italian PC keyboard, the Alt-Gr key allows a third character to be assigned to some of the keys. These characters are special symbols, such as € (Euro sign) @ { [ ] } # >>>> or Ctrl+Alt+E. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yes, but it's "a Euro sign". "Euro" begins with a "glide" (type of > consonant), not a vowel. Oops! :/ Anyway, they say trouble shared is trouble halved . Let me share it with the London Chamber of Commerce [a headline on their web site] ;) http://www.londonchamber.co.uk/lcc_public/default.asp?id=148 | what is an Euro Info Centre? X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood Enrico C wrote on 10 Jun 2004: >> Enrico C wrote on 10 Jun 2004: >> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > http://www.londonchamber.co.uk/lcc_public/default.asp?id=148 >| what is an Euro Info Centre? London has a lot of greengrocers, it seems. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. In alt.usage.english, CyberCypher wrote: >I still don't know what an "AltGr" key is. It has been discussed several times in this group. Foreign-language keyboards (such as this UK English keyboard), and "US International" keyboards, have only one Alt key, which is to the left of the spacebar. To the right of the spacebar, instead of a duplicate Alt key, there's the AltGr key, which is used for foreign characters and the like, e.g. AltGr 4 produces the Euro symbol (€). SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > In alt.usage.english, CyberCypher wrote: > >I still don't know what an "AltGr" key is. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the AltGr key, which is used for foreign characters and the like, e.g. > AltGr 4 produces the Euro symbol (â¬). (Did you mean to type (a-circumflex comma logical-not)? SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Macintosh; I; PPC) > > (Did you mean to type (a-circumflex comma logical-not)? Probably not. But your Netscape is a bit dated and UTF-8-impaired. On your Power Macintosh, I suggest at least Netscape 4.8. If you run Mac OS 9, then get Mozilla 1.3 <http://www.wamcom.org/> SignatureTop-posting. What's the most irritating thing on Usenet? <snip> >> AltGr 4 produces the Euro symbol (€). > > (Did you mean to type (a-circumflex comma logical-not)? He didn't. Some newsreaders don't seem to quite know what a character encoding is. Mozilla manages to correctly identify it as UTF-8. But since yours has misinterpreted it as (presumably) ISO-8859-1, and reposted it as ISO-8859-1, the garbledness is here as I look at it on your post and this reply. Stewart. SignatureMy e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. Mike Barnes wrote on 11 Jun 2004: > In alt.usage.english, CyberCypher wrote: >>I still don't know what an "AltGr" key is. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > foreign characters and the like, e.g. AltGr 4 produces the Euro > symbol (€). I have a Logitech wireless keyboard that looks as if it works with Macs as well as with PCs. It has two identical "Alt" keys with an apple on the bottom left and cloverish thingy that on all Mac Alt keys. The right one produces the same text or other actions as the left one. I also have two identical Windows "start"/"alt option" keys, and two identical Ctrl keys. My keyboard is Chinese (but it has the English alphabet on it as well as the traditional Chinese phonetic symbols and radicals required to input Chinese one way or another), not international. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. > Mike Barnes wrote on 11 Jun 2004: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > radicals required to input Chinese one way or another), not > international. The cloverish thing is on the Command key, not the Option key. A Control key was added to the Mac keyboard early on, but not many apps take advantage of it. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net <snip> > I have a Logitech wireless keyboard that looks as if it works with Macs > as well as with PCs. It has two identical "Alt" keys with an apple on > the bottom left and cloverish thingy that on all Mac Alt keys. <snip> Yes, it seems that they can't make up their mind which key to call "alt". The usual name for the key you're describing is "command", though according to FOLDOC "feature key" is the proper name. Stewart. SignatureMy e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. > <snip> > > I have a Logitech wireless keyboard that looks as if it works with Macs [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "alt". The usual name for the key you're describing is "command", > though according to FOLDOC "feature key" is the proper name. What is FOLDOC, and where in Apple's 20 years of literature has "feature key" ever been used for one of the two (or three, including Shift, or four, now including Control) keys that access special features? SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net <snip> > What is FOLDOC, Free On-Line Dictionary of Computing. http://www.foldoc.org/ > and where in Apple's 20 years of literature has "feature > key" ever been used for one of the two (or three, including Shift, or > four, now including Control) keys that access special features? No idea. I didn't write that definition. Stewart. SignatureMy e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. 10 Jun 2004 23:40:31 GMT: CyberCypher <cybercypher@19-16-25-13-01-03.com>: in sci.lang: >>>> The easy way to type 'é' in Windows is AltGr+E >>> What is the "AltGr" key? I don't have such a thing on my keyboard. >I still don't know what an "AltGr" key is. The right one (= not the left one) of the two ALT keys. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com/index/whatsnew.htm 10 Jun 2004 15:48:28 GMT: CyberCypher <cybercypher@19-16-25-13-01-03.com>: in sci.lang: >> The easy way to type 'é' in Windows is AltGr+E >What is the "AltGr" key? I don't have such a thing on my keyboard. The rightmost Alt key. >> or Ctrl+Alt+E. >> is what I get for that. "é" appears after I type Alt+0233. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com/index/whatsnew.htm Ruud Harmsen wrote on 10 Jun 2004: >>> The easy way to type 'é' in Windows is AltGr+E >>What is the "AltGr" key? I don't have such a thing on my keyboard. > > The rightmost Alt key. Not on my keyboard. It may depend on which character set one is using. I have a Logitech cordless Chinese/English keyboard and use ISO-8859-1. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. 10 Jun 2004 15:48:28 GMT: CyberCypher <cybercypher@19-16-25-13-01-03.com>: in sci.lang: >> The easy way to type 'é' in Windows is AltGr+E >What is the "AltGr" key? I don't have such a thing on my keyboard. >> or Ctrl+Alt+E. >> is what I get for that. Depends on the keyboard layout. There are hundreds of different ones, for Windows alone: http://www.microsoft.com/globaldev/reference/keyboards.aspx SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com/index/whatsnew.htm >Stewart Gordon wrote on 10 Jun 2004: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >€ is what I get for that. "é" appears after I type Alt+0233. Ctrl+Alt+E does nothjing for me. But Alt+130 = é Alt+0233 = é And they look identical on my screen, e with an accent sloping to the right. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > Ctrl+Alt+E does nothjing for me. Seems to only work in the subject line area in Outlook Express. You can then copy it into the body thusly... € Not sure how that comes out. > >Stewart Gordon wrote on 10 Jun 2004: > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > And they look identical on my screen, e with an accent sloping to the right. I see e's with acute accents, and they don't slope at all. They're fine. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:37:27 +0100: Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998@yahoo.com>: in sci.lang: >The easy way to type 'é' in Windows is AltGr+E or Ctrl+Alt+E. In Windows, if it has the US-international keyboard configured. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com/index/whatsnew.htm > The easy way to type 'é' in Mac OS is Alt+E followed by E. Other > accents have other special keys (Alt+I, Alt+U, Alt+N, Alt+`....) (Is there a hard way?) Macs don't have an Alt key. They have an Option key. (Though manufacturers have taken to adding "Alt" in little letters to the Option key, in order to baby ex-Windows users who are beginning to see the light but need some handholding.) SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >>The easy way to type 'é' in Mac OS is Alt+E followed by E. Other >>accents have other special keys (Alt+I, Alt+U, Alt+N, Alt+`....) > > (Is there a hard way?) (You could write a state-of-the-art program to parse an arbitrary expression describing a character, and then send the character to the application of the user's choice.) > Macs don't have an Alt key. They have an Option key. (Though > manufacturers have taken to adding "Alt" in little letters to the Option > key, in order to baby ex-Windows users who are beginning to see the > light but need some handholding.) Apple has put the word "alt" on keyboards for its own line of computers, so it's the alt key isn't it? How to pronounce that funny little graphic that's also on the key isn't exactly common knowledge. But yes, it tends to be called "option" in software.... Stewart. SignatureMy e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. > >>The easy way to type 'é' in Mac OS is Alt+E followed by E. Other > >>accents have other special keys (Alt+I, Alt+U, Alt+N, Alt+`....) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Apple has put the word "alt" on keyboards for its own line of computers, > so it's the alt key isn't it? No, it's the Option key. > How to pronounce that funny little graphic that's also on the key isn't > exactly common knowledge. But yes, it tends to be called "option" in > software.... It's the Command key that has a "funny little graphic" (a four-leaf clover sort of thing); drop-down menus that show keyboard shortcuts use a symbol that seems to depict 'choice' for the Option key, but it's always derogated as uninterpretable by the usual range of users. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net <snip> > No, it's the Option key. So, if you think you're the expert, what is Apple's rationale for calling a key what it isn't called? <snip> > It's the Command key that has a "funny little graphic" (a four-leaf > clover sort of thing); I don't think either graphic makes me laugh more than the other really. > drop-down menus that show keyboard shortcuts use > a symbol that seems to depict 'choice' for the Option key, but it's > always derogated as uninterpretable by the usual range of users. The symbol I see on both Mac OS X menus and the keyboard itself looks like it's supposed to be some circuit diagram representation of a two-way switch. Stewart. SignatureMy e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. ><snip> >> No, it's the Option key. > > So, if you think you're the expert, what is Apple's rationale for > calling a key what it isn't called? Didn't he answer that already? To hold the hands of former Windows users. >> drop-down menus that show keyboard shortcuts use >> a symbol that seems to depict 'choice' for the Option key, but it's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > like it's supposed to be some circuit diagram representation of a > two-way switch. I've never seen this symbol on a keyboard. I'll take your word for it. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom <snip> >> So, if you think you're the expert, what is Apple's rationale for >> calling a key what it isn't called? > > Didn't he answer that already? To hold the hands of former Windows users. <snip> I did kind of hear that. But it seems a rather random choice of key to print those letters on, considering that it doesn't seem to serve the role that Alt tends to serve in Windows. And it also seems stupid to go from labelling one random key "alt" to labelling another one "alt". Keys labelled "extra" among others don't seem to've gone far - obviously nobody considered Amstrad PCW users' hands worth holding. Stewart. SignatureMy e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. > <snip> > > No, it's the Option key. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I don't think either graphic makes me laugh more than the other really. "Funny little graphic" was your phrase. > > drop-down menus that show keyboard shortcuts use > > a symbol that seems to depict 'choice' for the Option key, but it's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > like it's supposed to be some circuit diagram representation of a > two-way switch. That's the symbol for the Option key. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net <snip> >> I don't think either graphic makes me laugh more than the other really. > > "Funny little graphic" was your phrase. <snip> Nor do I think either graphic makes me laugh less than the other really. So I wouldn't've singled out either as being the funnier, only as being identified by the key being talked about. Stewart. SignatureMy e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. ... > > How to pronounce that funny little graphic that's also on the key isn't > > exactly common knowledge. But yes, it tends to be called "option" in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a symbol that seems to depict 'choice' for the Option key, but it's > always derogated as uninterpretable by the usual range of users. Hrm. Looking at my keyboard I see two graphics on the command key (the clover and an apple), and one graphic on the option key, together with the text "alt". The latter grpahic looks exactly like a switch as you would find it on a railway. Seems appropriate for "alt". Signaturedik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ > ... > > > How to pronounce that funny little graphic that's also on the key isn't [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > with the text "alt". The latter grpahic looks exactly like a switch > as you would find it on a railway. Seems appropriate for "alt". I haven't yet seen a Mac keyboard with the Option glyph on the key. But the glyph seems equally appropriate for "Option." SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > An unpretentious eating place in England is called a "cafe" (sorry can't do > > the accent on the 'e' where I am), > Why not? I probably can when posting as I am now - é - there you are. However, when posting from work I use some old-fashioned software that doesn't enable me to, somewhere along the line it restricts the character set. Matthew Huntbach <snip> > An unpretentious eating place in England is called a "cafe" (sorry can't do > the accent on the 'e' where I am), <snip> Where is that, exactly? Stewart. SignatureMy e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. On 9 Jun, in article <1be4q6m40n6qv.dlg@news.lillathedog.net> > BTW, are there any coffee bars in the UK? :) Pretty few and far between, nowadays. There was a great fad for them in the mid-1950s, when everyone was impressed by the "expressiveness" of the Gaggia machine. This was used to make "froffy coffee", usually served in little, wide-mouthed glass cups (on glass saucers). IIRC, "The Two I's", where Tommy Steele first gave the British his own brand of rock'n'roll (skiffle), ca.1955, was a "coffee bar". So think of girls in sugar-starched petticoats under full skirts, and Teddy Boys. BTW, for the benefit of furriners: "froffy" indicates the London pronunciation of "frothy". Signaturefix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". > > OK: "Two guys walk into a bar..., one says 'OW! That really hurt!'" > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > bar." > ? "Let's go to a coffee" is perfectly grammatical and understandable, but for native speakers only a poet would come up with such a thing. I like the expression. It just isn't in use, and usage rules. How about the expression "take a sh*t," which is the exact opposite of what actually happens. The European who pointed this out to me added, "Shouldn't that be 'leave a sh*t?'" > How about the expression "take a sh*t," which is the exact opposite of > what actually happens. The European who pointed this out to me added, > "Shouldn't that be 'leave a sh*t?'" Shouldn't that be "emit a sh*t"? I suppose other words could be substituted, their desirability depending on the velocity of the sh*t as it leaves. I prefer "fire". P.S. Why the asterisk? Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/wfolly/ The Wentworth Follies: A Stitch in Time > > How about the expression "take a sh*t," which is the exact opposite of > > what actually happens. The European who pointed this out to me added, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > P.S. Why the asterisk? So that net-nannies won't block the posting. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > > How about the expression "take a sh*t," which is the exact > > > opposite of what actually happens. The European who pointed this [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > P.S. Why the asterisk? > So that net-nannies won't block the posting. Why? What's wrong with "shot"? Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/aureole/60-mandy.htm The eyes pop out in agony, The legs collapse at hip and knee, The backbone shatter into three... > > > OK: "Two guys walk into a bar..., one says 'OW! That really hurt!'" > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > "Let's go to a coffee" is perfectly grammatical and understandable, It's neither. > but for native speakers only a poet would come up with such a thing. > I like the expression. It just isn't in use, and usage rules. > > How about the expression "take a sh*t," which is the exact opposite of > what actually happens. The European who pointed this out to me added, > "Shouldn't that be 'leave a sh*t?'" SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net [ ... ] > > "Let's go to a coffee" is perfectly grammatical and understandable, > > It's neither. Except perhaps in an environment where "coffee" can be defined as "An informal social gathering at which coffee and other refreshments are served" (quoted verbatim from online AHD4). It helps to imagine a situation in which two or more groups are conducting such events simultaneously. [ ... ] SignatureBob Lieblich Strong, black and caffeinated (that's how I take my coffee; what *were* you thinking?) > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a situation in which two or more groups are conducting such events > simultaneously. Oh -- right -- but even there, even in the US, it's usually called a "tea," even if no tea is served. (As at the Chicago Linguistic Society's weekly Thursday Tea, where wine and cheese and soda were on offer.) And in that sense of "coffee," I don't think you could say "Let's go to a ________," as if a number of them were on offer and you could simply decide to crash one of them as the spirit moved you. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > [ ... ] > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > a ________," as if a number of them were on offer and you could simply > decide to crash one of them as the spirit moved you. God forgive me, the situation that came to mind was sorority rush at a college that actually enforced its anti-alcohol rules. It's pretty attenuated, but I think it will support at least a claim of grammaticality. SignatureBob Lieblich Sorry he butted in > > > [ ... ] > > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > pretty attenuated, but I think it will support at least a claim of > grammaticality. Though at the places with that sort of rule, coffee and tea can be considered stimulants as well ... SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > Oh -- right -- but even there, even in the US, it's usually called a > "tea," even if no tea is served. (As at the Chicago Linguistic Society's > weekly Thursday Tea, where wine and cheese and soda were on offer.) Soda? Surely you mean "pop" (= Chicago [pa:p]). > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a situation in which two or more groups are conducting such events > simultaneously. "Go for a coffee" makes more sense to me. We do "go to" events, but they tend to be pre-arranged or already happening events rather than ones called on the spot. And if the event takes on the name of what is consumed in its proceedings, then we seldom "go to" it, even if it is pre-arranged (like the curry that my tenpin bowling club traditionally goes for after participating in certain competitions). Stewart. SignatureMy e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. <snip> > And if the event takes on the name of what is consumed in its > proceedings, then we seldom "go to" it, even if it is pre-arranged (like > the curry that my tenpin bowling club traditionally goes for after > participating in certain competitions). OK, so there seem to be one or two exceptions, like "go to lunch" at least if it's a regular catering provision as in an educational institution.... Stewart. SignatureMy e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. > <snip> > > And if the event takes on the name of what is consumed in its [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > least if it's a regular catering provision as in an educational > institution.... You're misunderstanding the person you're responding to -- they're saying that "go to coffee" means going to a place, the interpretation that can be saved by connecting it with a "coffee party." But "going to lunch" isn't the same as "going to the lunchcounter"; it's like "going to dinner," which can't be mistaken for "going to a restaurant." SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net On Friday, in article <cacf92$o8l$1@sun-cc204.lut.ac.uk> > > [ ... ] > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > they tend to be pre-arranged or already happening events rather than > ones called on the spot. Then again "Do you want to come up for a coffee?" often means something else entirely. Signaturefix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". > "Let's go to a coffee" is perfectly grammatical and understandable, *I* don't understand it. > How about the expression "take a sh*t," which is the exact opposite of > what actually happens. It's called "idiom". Adrian >(At first I thought this was going to be a joke. ["Two guys go into a >bar..."]) > >Maria Conlon >We could use a good joke right about now. John Kerry walks into a bar and the bartender says "Hey, buddy, why the long face?" Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com At 22:30:07 on Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Maria Conlon <mariaconlon001@hotmail.com> wrote in <2inb7bFpcd8gU1@uni-berlin.de>: >We could use a good joke right about now. Waiter to diner: "Are you the breaded haddock, sir?" Diner: "No, I'm the poor sole with an empty plaice looking for something to fillet." SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) > At 22:30:07 on Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Maria Conlon > <mariaconlon001@hotmail.com> wrote in <2inb7bFpcd8gU1@uni-berlin.de>: > >We could use a good joke right about now. > Waiter to diner: "Are you the breaded haddock, sir?" > Diner: "No, I'm the poor sole with an empty plaice looking for > something to fillet." And the service was necessarily slow because they only served kippers. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/gay/02-0.htm My dog has no nose! My cat has no claws... > Anyway, "I'm coffee and he's espresso" would not surprise me, but I > think it's generally "I'm the regular[1] coffee and he's the > espresso." > [1] In view of Areff's comment. One assumes that the term "regular" as used here is a USism meaning "plain" but what if this establishment regularly serves espresso? Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/yds/5sb-0.htm The Yorkshire Dialect Society: Summer Bulletin | http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/yds/5sb-0.htm | The Yorkshire Dialect Society: Summer Bulletin Oops You reorganised the web site, but forgot about the sig links SignatureDave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> Killfile and Anti Troll FAQs at http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile. > | http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/yds/5sb-0.htm The Yorkshire Dialect > | Society: Summer Bulletin > Oops You reorganised the web site, but forgot about the sig links No, I didn't forget: I'm just a lazy old so-and-so. (And, for what it's worth, Pace sold RISC OS to Castle quite a while ago and I still haven't changed my free stuff page.) Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/free/ Vale RISC OS: Requiescat In Pace (aka Free Stuff) - Free Desktop Software, Font, Playing Cards and Mah-Jong Tiles > One assumes that the term "regular" as used here is a USism meaning > "plain" but what if this establishment regularly serves espresso? Order a "regular" coffee in Boston and it will arrive with cream already added. Elsewhere, a "regular" coffee means not decaffeinated and the cream on the side. SignatureJohn Varela (Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.) I apologize for munging the address but the spam was too much. In article <ZKRm3c4Ddl7U-pn2-pGpRdXwdFEoH@dialup-4.249.0.23.Dial1.Washington2.Level3.net>, > > One assumes that the term "regular" as used here is a USism meaning > > "plain" but what if this establishment regularly serves espresso? > > Order a "regular" coffee in Boston and it will arrive with cream > already added. Elsewhere, a "regular" coffee means not > decaffeinated and the cream on the side. I have milk in mine, as a rule[1]. [1] 10 mm in a standard mug. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/aureole/20-pyro.htm Prometheus stood with his fronds of gut... > In article > <ZKRm3c4Ddl7U-pn2-pGpRdXwdFEoH@dialup-4.249.0.23.Dial1.Washington2.Level3.net>, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I have milk in mine, as a rule[1]. Cream, milk, half-and-half: I don't use any of them so I use the terms interchangeably with respect to coffee. > [1] 10 mm in a standard mug. Is that 10 millimeters? Explain. SignatureJohn Varela (Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.) I apologize for munging the address but the spam was too much. > > In article <ZKRm3c4Ddl7U-pn2-pGpRdXwdFEoH@dialup-4.249.0.23.Dial1.Washington2.Level3.ne t>, > > > > One assumes that the term "regular" as used here is a USism meaning > > > > "plain" but what if this establishment regularly serves espresso? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Cream, milk, half-and-half: I don't use any of them so I use the terms > interchangeably with respect to coffee. I believe "coffee Boston" was a standard diner order in much of the country way back when. As I understand it, it was regular coffee served up with a double shot of cream (or milk, or condensed milk-- what have you.) >> I have milk in mine, as a rule[1]. >> [1] 10 mm in a standard mug. > > Is that 10 millimeters? Explain. I guess he meant 10 ml, that means a couple of teaspoons according to the conversion table for cooking on botanical.com X'Posted to: alt.usage.english,uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood > John Varela | alt.usage.english,uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang >>> I have milk in mine, as a rule[1]. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I guess he meant 10 ml, that means a couple of teaspoons according to > the conversion table for cooking on botanical.com Maybe a "standard mug" is 3.57cm in diameter. Seems a bit narrow to me, but so does A4 paper. 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 have milk in mine, as a rule[1]. > >> [1] 10 mm in a standard mug. > > > > Is that 10 millimeters? Explain. > I guess he meant 10 ml, that means a couple of teaspoons according to > the conversion table for cooking on botanical.com No, I meant 10 millimetres, as a rule. I've no idea how many millilitres that would be as I've no idea of the diameter of my mug and I'm not going to measure it because it's currently being washed up by me missus. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/zodiac/cpis-0.htm Pisces (February 20th - March 20th) Mina - the Fishes Anpu (Anubis) > > >> I have milk in mine, as a rule[1]. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I'm not going to measure it because it's currently being washed up by > me missus. I infer that you pour 10 mm of milk into the mug, then top up with coffee from the pot. I'm used to seeing the milk poured into the coffee. (Thus obeying the rule to always add acid to water, not water to acid.) SignatureJohn Varela (Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.) I apologize for munging the address but the spam was too much. >> > >> I have milk in mine, as a rule[1]. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >the pot. I'm used to seeing the milk poured into the coffee. (Thus obeying >the rule to always add acid to water, not water to acid.) If so, he's not alone. I use cream and sugar in coffee, and put both in the cup before pouring in the coffee. It mixes the cream and sugar better with the coffee, and doesn't require a spoon or stirrer stick. Been doing so for years. Others must do it, because when I order from the coffee bar at Borders Bookstore, I ask for the cup to put the cream and sugar in first and most servers do so without blinking an eye. In article <ZKRm3c4Ddl7U-pn2-e5qd8civlX0m@dialup-4.249.0.64.Dial1.Washington2.Level3.net>, > > No, I meant 10 millimetres, as a rule. I've no idea how many > > millilitres that would be as I've no idea of the diameter of my mug > > and I'm not going to measure it because it's currently being washed > > up by me missus. > I infer that you pour 10 mm of milk into the mug, then top up with > coffee from the pot. I'm used to seeing the milk poured into the > coffee. (Thus obeying the rule to always add acid to water, not > water to acid.) You have no grounds for such an inference. If I have instant coffee, I sometimes mix the coffee granules and sugar with the milk before adding hot water. The only reason for that order being that I've forgotten that I'm not having tea -- when I do put the milk in first (no sugar) -- and have already poured the milk in my mug. I do have different mugs for tea and coffee but I'm somewhat absent minded and don't always notice which is which. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/pedant/ Uranus: To avoid embarrassment when speaking to the hard of hearing or to classical scholars, pronounce this "Oo-ran-us" and not "You-rain-us". On 9 Jun, in article <c8b6ayipgdne.dlg@news.lillathedog.net> > John Varela | alt.usage.english,uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang > in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I guess he meant 10 ml, that means a couple of teaspoons according to > the conversion table for cooking on botanical.com No (as he himself has already replied). To me, it was obvious that he was referring to having milk in his mug to a depth of 1cm. His use of the word "rule" was a give-away, in that rules measure only lengths and not volumes. About 1cm depth of milk in a mug of coffee (or tea) seems about right to me, too. Signaturefix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". "Maria Conlon" <mariaconlon001@hotmail.com> wrote in news:2inb7bFpcd8gU1 @uni-berlin.de: [snip] >> This is facially nonsensical, but I think this is >> uttered pretty often by educated adults. Do you >> agree? [snip] > The use of "facially" here is unusual, I think. I parse it as "factually". > We could use a good joke right about now. A doctor goes shopping. He's at the checkout and goes to sign his cheque when he realizes that he's holding a rectal thermometer. "That's just great" he says, "some arsehole's got my pen". (Kind re-writing and punctuation advice welcomed.) > "Maria Conlon" <mariaconlon001@hotmail.com> wrote in news:2inb7bFpcd8gU1 > @uni-berlin.de: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I parse it as "factually". It can't be "factually" - how would "factually nonsensical" differ from "Non-factually nonsensical". The nearest I can get is "on the face of it", but what is really meant is anyone's guess. I don't think you mean "parse". SignatureJohn Briggs >> I parse it as "factually". > > It can't be "factually" - how would "factually nonsensical" differ > from "Non-factually nonsensical". The nearest I can get is "on the > face of it", but what is really meant is anyone's guess. I don't > think you mean "parse". What do you think I mean? >>> I parse it as "factually". >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What do you think I mean? "Read" would make sense. As would "interpret". "Construe", perhaps. SignatureJohn Briggs "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in news:w8Kxc.93$sV4.32 @newsfe5-win: >>>> I parse it as "factually". >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > "Read" would make sense. As would "interpret". "Construe", perhaps. Why not parse? > "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in news:w8Kxc.93$sV4.32 > @newsfe5-win: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Why not parse? Parse usually means analysing the grammatical structure of a sentence. Strictly speaking, describing the individual parts, of course. Hence the name. SignatureJohn Briggs >>>> I parse it as "factually". >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > "Read" would make sense. As would "interpret". "Construe", perhaps. IMO "gloss" would be best of all. -- Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.yk Old grammarians never die, they simply parse away. In uk.culture.language.english on Wed, 9 Jun 2004 13:18:45 +0100, "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote: }Demetrius Zeluff wrote: }> I parse it as "factually". }> [...] }I don't think you mean "parse". Why the hell not ? {R} At 20:09:50 on Wed, 9 Jun 2004, {R} <me@privacy.net> wrote in <40c7607e$0$58822$bed64819@news.gradwell.net>: >In uk.culture.language.english on Wed, 9 Jun 2004 13:18:45 +0100, "John >Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Why the hell not ? As far as I remember from my primary schooldays (almost, but not exactly, as long ago as yours), parsing was a matter of scribbling down something like: "I": first person pronoun "parse": verb, present tense singular, first person "it": third person pronoun, accusative "as": [no, I can't remember what to say for that one] "Factually": adverb, modifying verb blahblah [if it had been used in a sentence itself, rather than just quoted, of course] On the other hand, "parsing-and-analysis" sit inextricably entwined in my memory, so maybe the above process is analysis rather than parsing. Whatever, I seem to remember being rather good at it at the time; I usually find that I am rather good at anything totally pointless. SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) > At 20:09:50 on Wed, 9 Jun 2004, {R} <me@privacy.net> wrote in > <40c7607e$0$58822$bed64819@news.gradwell.net>: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Whatever, I seem to remember being rather good at it at the time; I > usually find that I am rather good at anything totally pointless. That's parsing. But it's not the activity that the original sentence describes. SignatureJohn Briggs On Wednesday, in article <A8Exc.155$Uf2.130@newsfe6-gui.server.ntli.net> ["facially"] > It can't be "factually" - how would "factually nonsensical" differ from > "Non-factually nonsensical". The nearest I can get is "on the face of it", > but what is really meant is anyone's guess. I don't think you mean "parse". Superficially? Signaturefix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". > On Wednesday, in article > <A8Exc.155$Uf2.130@newsfe6-gui.server.ntli.net> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Superficially? How about "prima facie"? Or perhaps "on its face". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |"Algebra? But that's far too 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |difficult for seven-year-olds!" Palo Alto, CA 94304 | |"Yes, but I didn't tell them that kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |and so far they haven't found out," (650)857-7572 |said Susan. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > On Wednesday, in article > > <A8Exc.155$Uf2.130@newsfe6-gui.server.ntli.net> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > Superficially? > How about "prima facie"? Or perhaps "on its face". I'd expect that suggestion to fall flat. I've no idea about the "real English" they use in the US but the language we use here in little old England would see a distinct difference between "on its face" and "on the face of it". Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/joachim/09-0.htm The vet wiped the anal thermometer across the brown sleeve of his old tweed jacket... >> > ["facially"] >> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > language we use here in little old England would see a distinct > difference between "on its face" and "on the face of it". What would that difference be? MWCD11 gives 4 a (2) : the aspect of something that is perceptible or obvious upon superficial examination <the theory is absurd on its face -- Kim Neely> SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Other computer companies have spent 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |15 years working on fault-tolerant Palo Alto, CA 94304 |computers. Microsoft has spent |its time more fruitfully, working kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |on fault-tolerant *users*. (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> How about "prima facie"? Or perhaps "on its face". > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > language we use here in little old England would see a distinct > > difference between "on its face" and "on the face of it". > What would that difference be? MWCD11 gives > 4 a (2) : the aspect of something that is perceptible or obvious > upon superficial examination <the theory is absurd on > its face -- Kim Neely> "The theory is absurd on its face" wouldn't be a great deal different from "the theory is absurd on its head". As I said, it falls down flat which is the image presented in English English. It is not the image of looking only at the face and not in depth but at something so ill prepared that it actually has fallen over. "On the face of it", "(taken) at face value", or "at first look" all convey the sense of superficial examination. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/photo/0y12-0.htm A Climb at Brimham Rocks This climb is booby-trapped [...] > > I've no idea about the "real English" they use in the US but the > > language we use here in little old England would see a distinct [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > upon superficial examination <the theory is absurd on > its face -- Kim Neely> I've heard both here in Merrie England; but "on the face of it" is certainly commoner. Mike. > "Maria Conlon" <mariaconlon001@hotmail.com> wrote in news:2inb7bFpcd8gU1 > @uni-berlin.de: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I parse it as "factually". The "English" would be _prima facie_, and the English would be "on the face of it." SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >Maria Conlon >We could use a good joke right about now. An unsuccessful fisherman takes refuge in a monastery. Come dinnertime, in anticipation, he asks a cowled figure "Are you the fish fryer?" "No, I'm the chip monk." Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Hertfordshire England <snip> > The use of "facially" here is unusual, I think. Is it meant as "on the > face of it"? That is, "on the face of it, this seems nonsensical"? The word that comes to my mind is "superficially". Stewart. SignatureMy e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. They take on the identity of their orders. SignatureRon Hardin rhhardin@mindspring.com On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk. In uk.culture.language.english T. Z. <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote: > Two guys go into a coffee shop and order coffee and > espresso. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > What are some other examples of such facially > nonsensical utterances? Ignoring the coffee/espresso issue, what is actually happening here is that "I'm coffee" is a shortening of "I'm the one who's having coffee". For the waiter, the only thing that matters about the customers is what they have ordered, so the waiter is going to see them as essentialy "coffee" and "espresso" i.e. in terms of what they ordered. Similarly, a medical practitioner will see patients in terms of their diseases. One can imagine a doctor in a urology ward asking "Are you the kidney stone or the bladder infection?". That wouldn't be good bedside manners, but they certainly do talk like that amongst themselves. Matthew Huntbach > In uk.culture.language.english T. Z. <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > kidney stone or the bladder infection?". That wouldn't be good bedside > manners, but they certainly do talk like that amongst themselves. Other languages: in a similar vein, in a French butcher's shop: Butcher, to his assistant: Veux-tu découper madame (who has asked for her chicken to be jointed) Or in another store: Cécile, viens emballer monsieur (gift-wrap his purchases). Keith Edgerley > What are some other examples of such facially > nonsensical utterances? > > I'm interested in examples in other languages as well. > Thanks. I'm not sure if this qualifies, but here goes: In Danish it is quite common to say "The price is xxx per nose" instead of "The price is xxx per person". I presume it started as a joke, but it has become so common that hardly anybody considers it weird any longer. -- Claus Tondering, Denmark > In Danish it is quite common to say "The price is xxx per nose" > instead of "The price is xxx per person". I presume it started as a > joke, but it has become so common that hardly anybody considers it > weird any longer. Is's much the same in German, providing cartoonist Martin Perscheid with the basis for what could be called a 'graphic pun': http://www.martin-perscheid.de/shop/ci-pages/mp2053.html Michael >> What are some other examples of such facially >> nonsensical utterances? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >joke, but it has become so common that hardly anybody considers it >weird any longer. We used to say "a (k)nob" in Britain to indicate "per person" though I can't say I've heard it recently. An entry fee of "a bob a nob" meant "a shilling each". I assume this referred to the head though, for all I know, ladies may have got in free. SignaturePhil C. On Wednesday, in article <k4rdc0lsb606gtufoebrpkvrdldner62dt@4ax.com> > "a shilling each". I assume this referred to the head though, for all > I know, ladies may have got in free. Errm, your punctuation is at variance with the import of your message; Shirley, you meant to write: > "a shilling each". I assume this referred to the head, though for all > I know, ladies may have got in free. Signaturefix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". At 00:46:28 on Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Brian {Hamilton Kelly} <bhk@dsl.co.uk> wrote in <20040609.2346.56606snz@dsl.co.uk>: >On Wednesday, in article > <k4rdc0lsb606gtufoebrpkvrdldner62dt@4ax.com> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> "a shilling each". I assume this referred to the head, though for all >> I know, ladies may have got in free. Hmmm. If one treats the commas as brackets, the contents of which may be omitted without altering the meaning of the sentence, then Phil's version works just fine. If, alternatively, one treats them as marking a breathing opportunity, then perhaps the best would be: I assume this referred to the head, though for all I know ladies may have got in free. SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) > At 00:46:28 on Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Brian {Hamilton Kelly} > <bhk@dsl.co.uk> wrote in <20040609.2346.56606snz@dsl.co.uk>: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I assume this referred to the head, though for all I know ladies > may have got in free. In this case, there are multiple phrases to set off, so the orthography becomes more complicated. The base sentence would be: I assume this referred to the head, though ladies may have got in free. To throw in the qualifier is to add an unconnected phrase, so it should be set off parenthetically: I assume this referred to the head, though, for all I know, ladies may have got in free. But that leads to a surfeit of commas. They can't simply be yanked out, though. There are other ways of parenthesizing: I assume this referred to the head, though (for all I know) ladies may have got in free. ... or: I assume this referred to the head, though -- for all I know -- ladies may have got in free. ... or even: I assume this referred to the head -- though, for all I know, ladies may have got in free. I think I prefer that last, overall. Signaturerzed >>>What are some other examples of such facially >>>nonsensical utterances? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "a shilling each". I assume this referred to the head though, for all > I know, ladies may have got in free. I think, in those days, 'knob' mainly meant 'head'. I never heard sniggering about it until at least the 50s. SignatureRob Bannister <snip> > In Danish it is quite common to say "The price is xxx per nose" > instead of "The price is xxx per person". I presume it started as a > joke, but it has become so common that hardly anybody considers it > weird any longer. "Per head" is the English equivalent. At least it gets used here in Britain - don't know about elsewhere. I find it a silly expression, but it does have the virtue of making me glad I'm not Zaphod Beeblebrox. Stewart. SignatureMy e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. Stewart Gordon skrev: >> In Danish it is quite common to say "The price is xxx per nose" >> instead of "The price is xxx per person". > "Per head" is the English equivalent. At least it gets used here in > Britain - don't know about elsewhere. I find it a silly expression, but > it does have the virtue of making me glad I'm not Zaphod Beeblebrox. Yeah, they would make you pay through your nose. SignatureTorsten Claus Tondering (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message <ufz95t504.fsf@tondering.dk>: >> What are some other examples of such facially >> nonsensical utterances? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > -- > Claus Tondering, Denmark "Are you the sweet one?" - A question I frequently ask of pretty young ladies handing out glasses of wine. None of them has ever said "no" or pointed to another pretty young lady with a different tray ;) SignaturePaul Townsend I put it down there, and when I went back to it, there it was GONE! Interchange the alphabetic elements to reply In alt.usage.english, T. Z. wrote: >Two guys go into a coffee shop and order coffee and >espresso. Is espresso not coffee? >The waiter delivers the first order to the wrong guy, >so he says, >"No, I'm coffee and he's espresso." > >This is facially nonsensical, Simple metonymy, no? Substitution of the order for the orderer. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > In alt.usage.english, T. Z. wrote: > >Two guys go into a coffee shop and order coffee and > >espresso. > > Is espresso not coffee? Semantically, yes, but pragmatically (in certain contexts, like coffee shops), no. If I want a large, non-espresso coffe at Starbucks, I order a "large coffee". In fact, whenever I've ordered coffee from any restaurant that also served espresso, I've never once had a server ask for clarification, so this isn't particular to coffee shops. In certain other situations, many people use other generic terms to refer to a set that excludes a particular salient thing it would normally include: bread/toast, PC/Mac, wine/champagne, etc. This seems to have a typical Gricean explanation: in the context of a coffee shop, if I want espresso, I would ask for it. Therefore, if I ask for coffee, I must not want espresso. The only type of coffee that isn't espresso is non-espresso coffee, so that must be what I mean when I order coffee (assuming, as usual, that all parties involved in the conversation are cooperative). Nathan SignatureTo contact me, replace verizon.net with aol.com > In certain other situations, many people use other generic terms to > refer to a set that excludes a particular salient thing it would > normally include: bread/toast, PC/Mac, wine/champagne, etc. I agree that champagne is a wine and toasts are slices of toasted bread, but I am not sure that you call a Mac a kind of PC. A Mac is a computer for personal use, actually, but I believe that the acronym PC usually refers only to the so-called "IBM compatible" personal computer. Correct me if I am wrong. X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood > > In certain other situations, many people use other generic terms to > > refer to a set that excludes a particular salient thing it would > > normally include: bread/toast, PC/Mac, wine/champagne, etc. > > I agree that champagne is a wine and toasts are slices of toasted > bread, Er, no they aren't. > but I am not sure that you call a Mac a kind of PC. > A Mac is a computer for personal use, actually, but I believe that the > acronym PC usually refers only to the so-called "IBM compatible" > personal computer. Correct me if I am wrong. You're wrong. Adrian >> I agree that champagne is a wine and toasts are slices of toasted >> bread, > > Er, no they aren't. My Oxford Adv. L. Dictionary says | champagne | a French SPARKLING white wine (= one with bubbles) that is drunk on | special occasions: | toast | 1. slices of bread that have been made brown and crisp by heating | them on both sides in a toaster or under a GRILL: >> but I am not sure that you call a Mac a kind of PC. >> A Mac is a computer for personal use, actually, but I believe that the >> acronym PC usually refers only to the so-called "IBM compatible" >> personal computer. Correct me if I am wrong. > > You're wrong. Some more words to shed light on the topic would be appreciated. Anyway, if the PC acronym doesn't refer to "IBM compatible" personal computers, what does the "PC vs. Mac debate" stand for? ;) X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood At 21:57:10 on Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Enrico C <use_replyto_address@despammed.com> wrote in <1patyas6kae7r.dlg@news.lillathedog.net>: >>> I agree that champagne is a wine and toasts are slices of toasted >>> bread, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >| 1. slices of bread that have been made brown and crisp by heating >| them on both sides in a toaster or under a GRILL: Yes, that's toast. But, in that sense, it is never used in the plural. "We had five slices of toast." "We ate a lot of toast". "Toasts", in the plural, always refers to glasses of wine (or champagne!) being raised, and drunk "to" something or someone. SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) > At 21:57:10 on Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Enrico C > <use_replyto_address@despammed.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > "Toasts", in the plural, always refers to glasses of wine (or > champagne!) being raised, and drunk "to" something or someone. Thank you Molly for the explanation. My bad! I should have noticed that little "U" in the dictionary. "U" as uncountable! X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood > At 21:57:10 on Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Enrico C > <use_replyto_address@despammed.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > "Toasts", in the plural, always refers to glasses of wine (or > champagne!) being raised, and drunk "to" something or someone. Thank you Molly for the explanation. My bad! I should have noticed that little "U" in the dictionary. "U" for Uncountable! X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood > Anyway, if the PC acronym doesn't refer to "IBM compatible" personal > computers, what does the "PC vs. Mac debate" stand for? ;) "Personal computer" and "PC" were used to mean a small computer suitable for one person (as opposed to, say, huge mainframes) before IBM ever got around to producing theirs (and after Apple and others had begun theirs). Because IBM's PC ("IBM PC") came to dominate the market (which was no surprise), the shortened "PC" became identified with its model or the compatible clone knockoffs. Not every bit of nomenclature is dictated by the legal departments or the public relations departments -- "PC" as a name for an IBM-compatible appeared to arise from the grass-roots. When this was discussed a few years ago on a.u.e, evidence was produced showing the age of the term. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux At 00:34:28 on Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Donna Richoux <trio@euronet.nl> wrote in <1gf52nm.1qg7a0n1c36dfwN%trio@euronet.nl>: >"Personal computer" and "PC" were used to mean a small computer suitable >for one person (as opposed to, say, huge mainframes) before IBM ever got >around to producing theirs (and after Apple and others had begun >theirs). Maybe so, but AFAIR the predominant term in those days was "micro-computer" or just "micro". I only remember "PC" becoming usual - in spoken English, at least - after the introduction of the first IBM PC. SignatureMolly Mockford I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be! (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) > At 00:34:28 on Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Donna Richoux <trio@euronet.nl> wrote > in <1gf52nm.1qg7a0n1c36dfwN%trio@euronet.nl>: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > in spoken English, at least - after the introduction of the first IBM > PC. I don't think there was a hyphen in "microcomputer" - just as there wasn't in minicomputer. The term "microcomputer" probably dates to the May 1975 issue of "Scientific American". SignatureJohn Briggs > At 00:34:28 on Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Donna Richoux <trio@euronet.nl> wrote > in <1gf52nm.1qg7a0n1c36dfwN%trio@euronet.nl>: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > usual in spoken English, at least - after the introduction of the > first IBM PC. Except, of course, to those who had the Sharp PC-1201, first released in 1977, or its descendents (relabeled as Tandy PC-1, etc. in 1980). Of course, there it stood for "Pocket Computer". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |As the judge remarked the day that 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | he acquitted my Aunt Hortense, Palo Alto, CA 94304 |To be smut |It must be ut- kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |Terly without redeeming social (650)857-7572 | importance. | Tom Lehrer http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > At 00:34:28 on Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Donna Richoux <trio@euronet.nl> wrote > in <1gf52nm.1qg7a0n1c36dfwN%trio@euronet.nl>: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "micro-computer" or just "micro". I only remember "PC" becoming usual - > in spoken English, at least - after the introduction of the first IBM PC. I used to read Byte, and Jerry Pournelle called them PCs long before IBM thought of making them. SignatureRob Bannister >> At 00:34:28 on Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Donna Richoux <trio@euronet.nl> >> wrote in <1gf52nm.1qg7a0n1c36dfwN%trio@euronet.nl>: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I used to read Byte, and Jerry Pournelle called them PCs long before > IBM thought of making them. That surprises me. I only appear to have saved three pre-1982 issues, and none of them seem to have Chaos Manor columns. But glancing through them, I do see some uses of the term ("personal computer", not "PC"). In particular, there's an ad (p. 257) in the November, 1980, issue for the new _onComputing_ magazine which says "_onComputing_ explains in nontechnical language what personal computers are, how they work, and how you can use them at home, for fun and profit". (It also lists a Jerry Pournelle article entitled "Writing With a Microcomputer", so he must not have exclusively used "PC".) There's also, in the September, 1981 issue (after the IBM PC had been announced), an article on the Xerox Alto that begins In the mid-1970s, the personal-computer market blossomed with the introduction of the Altair 8800. Each year since has brought us personal computers with more power, faster execution, larger memory, and better mass storage... In 1972, Xerox Corporation decided to produce a personal computer to be used for research. The result was the Alto computer... Their calling the Altair 8800 a "personal computer" surprises me, but it's manifestly there. Poking around, I find an article entitled "Personal Computers" from the 1977 _Best of Creative Computing, v2_, revising a 1975 _Datamation_ article with the same name, but it's treating them as either expensive or theoretical. http://www.atariarchives.org/bcc2/showpage.php?page=11 There's another article there, written in 1974 by Terry Winograd, which just appears to use the term in contrast with "time-sharing systems". In volume 3 (1980), there's an article by David Ahl described as "a lightly edited transcript of a presentation originally given at the 'Man and the Computer' symposium at Dartmouth in December, 1976", which includes Today there are over 100 manufacturers of personal computers and peripherals. At _Creative Computing_ we can't possibly keep up with all the new-product announcements for new hobbyist computer kits and peripheral. We started a new-product secion in early 1975 and the hardware portion was about one page. In the Jan-Feb 1977 issue it ran 9 pages of closely-spaced descriptions of new hardware. http://www.atariarchives.org/bcc3/showpage.php?page=18 That's clearly talking about micros, so it obviously was used that way. "PC" doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere, though. That archive, http://www.atariarchives.org/ has quite a number of early microcomputer books. Unfortunately, they're page images, so only the tables of contents are searchable. 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 >>I used to read Byte, and Jerry Pournelle called them PCs long before >>IBM thought of making them. > > That surprises me. I only appear to have saved three pre-1982 issues, > and none of them seem to have Chaos Manor columns. I wish I had kept mine. But glancing > through them, I do see some uses of the term ("personal computer", not > "PC"). In particular, there's an ad (p. 257) in the November, 1980, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > also lists a Jerry Pournelle article entitled "Writing With a > Microcomputer", so he must not have exclusively used "PC".) I think he gradually worked his way from micro to personal. He might even have been the person who popularised the term. I agree he didn't start out using "PC". I am impressed by your research. SignatureRob Bannister >> Anyway, if the PC acronym doesn't refer to "IBM compatible" personal >> computers, what does the "PC vs. Mac debate" stand for? ;) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > When this was discussed a few years ago on a.u.e, evidence was produced > showing the age of the term. I reckon that "personal computer" just means a computer designed to be used by one person at a time, as opposed to the large multi-user mainframes and "minicomputers" of the Seventies. It seems to me that "microcomputer" was the more usual definition for one-user machines in those pre-IBM8086 years, though: I mean machines like Tandy TSR-80, Commodore or Sinclair Z80 and so on. Anyhow, ISTM that in recent years the term PC by convention generally refers to "IBM-compatible" machines. X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C - not a native English speaker Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood > I mean machines like Tandy TSR-80, Commodore or Sinclair Z80 and so > on. That's "TRS" for "Tandy/Radio Shack". TSRs came later. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Pious Jews have a category of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |questions that can harmlessly be Palo Alto, CA 94304 |allowed to go without an answer |until the Messiah comes. I suspect kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |that this is one of them. (650)857-7572 | Joseph C. Fineman http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> I mean machines like Tandy TSR-80, Commodore or Sinclair Z80 and so >> on. > > That's "TRS" for "Tandy/Radio Shack". TSRs came later. My happy fingers! :/ X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood >>I mean machines like Tandy TSR-80, Commodore or Sinclair Z80 and so >>on. > > That's "TRS" for "Tandy/Radio Shack". TSRs came later. How much later? The TSR 2 was cancelled in 1965. Fran >>>I mean machines like Tandy TSR-80, Commodore or Sinclair Z80 and so >>>on. >> That's "TRS" for "Tandy/Radio Shack". TSRs came later. > > How much later? The TSR 2 was cancelled in 1965. I had to google that one. Okay, that came first. I was thinking of the "terminate/stay resident" programs, which I *think* were first so-named in DOS. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The misinformation that passes for 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |gospel wisdom about English usage Palo Alto, CA 94304 |is sometimes astounding. | Merriam-Webster's Dictionary kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | of English Usage (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >I reckon that "personal computer" just means a computer designed to be >used by one person at a time, as opposed to the large >multi-user mainframes and "minicomputers" of the Seventies. The first computer I worked on was a "personal computer" as defined above. It occupied a room. That was in 1959. Multi-user computers were embryonic at that time. SignaturePeter Duncanson UK (posting from u.c.l.e) "Donna Richoux" <trio@euronet.nl> wrote... > "Personal computer" and "PC" were used to mean a small computer > suitable for one person (as opposed to, say, huge mainframes) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > When this was discussed a few years ago on a.u.e, evidence was > produced showing the age of the term. In Britain, during the years leading up to the introduction of the IBM Personal Computer, the standard term was "microcomputer" or "micro". The phrase "personal computer" might have been spotted here and there with its natural meaning, but it was not a term of art -- and "PC" was unambiguously a Police Constable. Were there any protests back in 1982 about IBM's hi-jacking the term "Personal Computer" or "PC"? I certainly don't recall any which originated in Britain. Also, I have a vague recollection that IBM themselves strongly disapproved of the "PC" contraction. Matti > Also, I have a vague recollection that IBM themselves strongly > disapproved of the "PC" contraction. I can't see it clearly, but wasn't that a "PC" under the "IBM" logo in this picture of the first IBM Personal Computer? http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/pc/pc_1.html X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood "Enrico C" <use_replyto_address@despammed.com> wrote... > > Also, I have a vague recollection that IBM themselves strongly > > disapproved of the "PC" contraction. > > I can't see it clearly, but wasn't that a "PC" under the "IBM" logo in > this picture of the first IBM Personal Computer? > http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/pc/pc_1.html No -- it's "Personal Computer" in italics. Image-google on "ibm_pc_logo.jpg" to see a readable version of that badge. Matti > "Enrico C" <use_replyto_address@despammed.com> wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Image-google on "ibm_pc_logo.jpg" to see a readable version of that > badge. Great! I found it :-) It's on this page http://www.computercloset.org/IBMPC.htm And there is an interesting list of classic microcomputers there too http://www.computercloset.org/compindex.htm X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood > In Britain, during the years leading up to the introduction of the IBM > Personal Computer, the standard term was "microcomputer" or "micro". > The phrase "personal computer" might have been spotted here and there > with its natural meaning, but it was not a term of art I'd say that was pretty much true here, too. > -- and "PC" was unambiguously a Police Constable. That was not. As an adjective it would have been more commonly "printed circuit". As a noun, "program counter". > Were there any protests back in 1982 about IBM's hi-jacking the term > "Personal Computer" or "PC"? I certainly don't recall any which > originated in Britain. I think I remember some, but not much until the pc/mac religious wars started. > Also, I have a vague recollection that IBM themselves strongly > disapproved of the "PC" contraction. Not enough to not advertise the "PC Jr." Looking at the Usenet archives, which go back to May, 1981, the first use of "PC" in the sense of "micro" is on June 13, 1981 http://tinyurl.com/3aj3o where it refers to an Apple. There's one other, in July, whose referent is unclear ("Berkeley's pc"), and then in August people start talking about the new IBM machine. The next mention of "PC" for a non-IBM machine is an announcement of the Timex/Sinclair 1000 PC in net.micro in April, 1982. Then in May, it's used (by somebody who doesn't know about the product and is asking for information) to refer to the forthcoming "DEC PC" (the Rainbow 100, which, it turned out, was to run CP/M). The name was sufficiently attached to IBM's product that in August, 1982, the "Info-PC" mailing list was started to discuss "the IBM Personal Computer and related 8086/8088/PC-DOS/CPM-86 micro-computers". The "/CPM-86" shows that it was the label attached to the architecture, not the "OS". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |In the beginning, there were no 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |reasons, there were only causes. Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Daniel Dennet kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> In Britain, during the years leading up to the introduction of the IBM >> Personal Computer, the standard term was "microcomputer" or "micro". >> The phrase "personal computer" might have been spotted here and there >> with its natural meaning, but it was not a term of art > > I'd say that was pretty much true here, too. ISTR reading some early stuff by Alan Kay where he used "personal computer" in connection with the Xerox Alto, but it might have actually been a reminiscinatory thing. > > In certain other situations, many people use other generic terms to > > refer to a set that excludes a particular salient thing it would > > normally include: bread/toast, PC/Mac, wine/champagne, etc. > I agree that champagne is a wine and toasts are slices of toasted > bread, but I am not sure that you call a Mac a kind of PC. > A Mac is a computer for personal use, actually, but I believe that the > acronym PC usually refers only to the so-called "IBM compatible" > personal computer. Correct me if I am wrong. You're wrong. I'm typing this on a RiscPC which is neither an "IBM compatible" type nor an Apple Mac type. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/aureole/30-0.htm here endeth the lessen of the iron icon to genesis >> I agree that champagne is a wine and toasts are slices of toasted >> bread, but I am not sure that you call a Mac a kind of PC. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You're wrong. I'm typing this on a RiscPC which is neither an "IBM > compatible" type nor an Apple Mac type. As Wikipedia puts it, "Personal computer" has three possible meanings: 1. IBM's range of PCs that led to the use of the term - see IBM PC. 2. A generic term used to describe microcomputers that are compatible with IBM's specification - (discussed here) 3. A generic term sometimes used to describe all microcomputers My point is that meaning no. 3 is the most usual :-) X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood >> I agree that champagne is a wine and toasts are slices of toasted >> bread, but I am not sure that you call a Mac a kind of PC. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You're wrong. I'm typing this on a RiscPC which is neither an "IBM > compatible" type nor an Apple Mac type. As Wikipedia puts it, "Personal computer" has three possible meanings: 1. IBM's range of PCs that led to the use of the term - see IBM PC. 2. A generic term used to describe microcomputers that are compatible with IBM's specification - (discussed here) 3. A generic term sometimes used to describe all microcomputers My point is that meaning no. 2 is the most usual :-) X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood > I agree that champagne is a wine and toasts are slices of toasted > bread, but I am not sure that you call a Mac a kind of PC. > A Mac is a computer for personal use, actually, but I believe that the > acronym PC usually refers only to the so-called "IBM compatible" > personal computer. Correct me if I am wrong. It is often used to mean either type of personal computer. Not everyone bothers to say "Macs and PCs." SignatureMichael West >>In certain other situations, many people use other generic terms to >>refer to a set that excludes a particular salient thing it would [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > acronym PC usually refers only to the so-called "IBM compatible" > personal computer. Correct me if I am wrong. They were all called PCs long before IBM realised that sticking to mainframes wasn't all that clever. Modern Macs are still officially called "PowerPCs" to distinguish them from the older type. SignatureRob Bannister >>>In certain other situations, many people use other generic terms to >>>refer to a set that excludes a particular salient thing it would [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >mainframes wasn't all that clever. Modern Macs are still officially >called "PowerPCs" to distinguish them from the older type. PowerPC is a registered trademark of IBM, which originated the POWER CPU architecture. POWER is an acronym - Performance Optimization With Enhanced RISC. The PowerPC was further developed by IBM, Apple and Motorola. In a very real sense, although not the customary one, Macs are IBM-compatible. SignaturePeter Duncanson UK (posting from u.c.l.e) >> I agree that champagne is a wine and toasts are slices of toasted >> bread, but I am not sure that you call a Mac a kind of PC. A Mac [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > They were all called PCs long before IBM realised that sticking to > mainframes wasn't all that clever. Can you document that? All I've been able to find (and which accords with my memory) is that "PC" was used for "program counter" and "printed circuit" and, in the names of products, for "portable computer" and "pocket computer". Before the IBM PC was announced in 1981, "personal computer" was a descriptive term for what later became known as "workstations", machines that were cheap enough to be allocated to a single person for their job, but which were an order of magnitude more expensive than what were then called "micros", which is what the IBM PC was and which the term became attached to. "PC" in this sense was a new term and was very quickly attached to the particular hardware architecture. I don't recall anybody claiming that "the Mac is a PC" until the late '80s. (The first hit for that phrase in the Usenet archive is 1989.) SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |To express oneself 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |In seventeen syllables Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Is very diffic | Tony Finch kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> I agree that champagne is a wine and toasts are slices of toasted >>> bread, but I am not sure that you call a Mac a kind of PC. A Mac [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >magnitude more expensive than what were then called "micros", which is >what the IBM PC was and which the term became attached to. At least in the UK, the term "personal computer" was sometimes applied to micros well in advance of IBM producing its PC. As evidence, I offer the title of the magazine "Personal Computer World", which was launched in 1978. SignatureJohn Hall "The beatings will continue until morale improves." Attributed to the Commander of Japan's Submarine Forces in WW2 >>> They were all called PCs long before IBM realised that sticking to >>> mainframes wasn't all that clever. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > evidence, I offer the title of the magazine "Personal Computer > World", which was launched in 1978. Right. In other articles, I've posted other evidence of "personal computer" being used in ways that included micros before 1982. I haven't found any evidence of "PC" being used as an abbreviation, though. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |You cannot solve problems with the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |same type of thinking that created Palo Alto, CA 94304 |them. | Albert Einstein kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >>> They were all called PCs long before IBM realised that sticking to > >>> mainframes wasn't all that clever. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > haven't found any evidence of "PC" being used as an abbreviation, > though. The earliest citation in the (soon to be updated) OED2 entry for "PC" is from 1978 (proceedings from a 1977 symposium): 1978 Proc. Internat. Symposium Mini & Micro Computers 1977 264/2 The *PC stores complex patterns of investment information and synthesizes them into investment decisions. > The earliest citation in the (soon to be updated) OED2 entry for "PC" is > from 1978 (proceedings from a 1977 symposium): > > 1978 Proc. Internat. Symposium Mini & Micro Computers 1977 > 264/2 The *PC stores complex patterns of investment > information and synthesizes them into investment decisions. It would be nice to have an author or title to try to check it out and see whether they treated it as an abbreviation they expected their readers to already know. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |When correctly viewed, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | Everything is lewd. Palo Alto, CA 94304 |I could tell you things | about Peter Pan, kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |and the Wizard of Oz-- (650)857-7572 | there's a dirty old man! | Tom Lehrer http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > The earliest citation in the (soon to be updated) OED2 entry for "PC" is > > from 1978 (proceedings from a 1977 symposium): [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > see whether they treated it as an abbreviation they expected their > readers to already know. The "MIMI 77" proceedings are not archived on the ACM digital library, unfortunately. But the archive does have examples of "PC" being used as an abbreviation for "personal computer" (in its "workstation" sense) in 1979-80. One example comes from an article by Dorothy E. Denning, "Secure personal computing in an insecure network" in _Communications of the ACM archive_, Vol 22, Issue 8, Aug 1979, 476-482: Figure 1 shows how the device would be used to encipher and decipher data transmitted between a user's personal computer (PC) and the CF [central facility]. A message X originating from the user's PC passes through the enciphering unit ... before it is transmitted to the CF. The use of "PC" in this article seems somewhat ad-hoc, but responses to the article ("Technical correspondence: on secure personal computing" in _Communications of the ACM archive_, Vol 23, Issue 1, Jan 1980, 35-40) follow Denning and use "PC" as well. Another 1980 reference is R. L. Gordon's "The application of token rings to local networks of personal computers" in _Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSMALL symposium and the first SIGPC symposium on Small systems_, which has the subheadings "Super PC's and Rings" and "Local Community PC Networks". The earliest Usenet cite on Google Groups is from June '81 (a month after the earliest archived post and two months before the IBM PC was announced): http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=anews.Aucbvax.1696 One quality that a personal computer has to have is that is has to tackle non baby problems. [...] Conclusion: PCs have to have a "daddy" machine to toss the problems to when the PC cannot handle the size of the data (either in address space or in quantity of processing). >> > The earliest citation in the (soon to be updated) OED2 entry for "PC" is >> > from 1978 (proceedings from a 1977 symposium): [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > _Communications of the ACM archive_, Vol 23, Issue 1, Jan 1980, 35-40) > follow Denning and use "PC" as well. Interesting. Denning's use looks likely to be just an abbreviation chosen for a figure label, but the responses would indicate that it caught on. > Another 1980 reference is R. L. Gordon's "The application of token > rings to local networks of personal computers" in _Proceedings of > the 3rd ACM SIGSMALL symposium and the first SIGPC symposium on > Small systems_, which has the subheadings "Super PC's and Rings" and > "Local Community PC Networks". Note that these are all talking about network communication, so the "personal computers" they refer to are doubtless things like Altos and other "biggish" small machines. > The earliest Usenet cite on Google Groups is from June '81 (a month > after the earliest archived post and two months before the IBM PC was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > size of the data (either in address space or in > quantity of processing). Yeah, I mentioned that one. I wasn't quite sure what to make of it. It refers to an Apple (presumably an Apple II, but maybe a III), but talks about the PC needing to be "on a common network" with a larger machine, and I didn't think that Apple II's could be networked back then. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If to "man" a phone implies handing 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |it over to a person of the male Palo Alto, CA 94304 |gender, then to "monitor" it |suggests handing it over to a kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |lizard. (650)857-7572 | Rohan Oberoi http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > Can you document that? All I've been able to find (and which accords > with my memory) is that "PC" was used for "program counter" and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > this sense was a new term and was very quickly attached to the > particular hardware architecture. I did a search of the ACM digital library for pre-1982 usages of "PC" and "personal computer" and found nothing relevant (in particular no usages of "PC" as an abbreviation of "personal computer"), though most of the hits I got confirm your statement that in general "personal computer" meant "workstation". But here are a couple of 1980 usages that seem to use "personal computer" as a synonym for 'hobbyist micro': Since the most exciting (to me) breakthrough in computer accessability [sic] is the advent of the home or personal computer, the following comment by Don Tarbell is relevant: "Perhaps the single worst problem that the computer hobbyist faces right now is the lack of a really good high-level language." (1980) Second, I bought a personal computer and turned it into a text editing system. When I did this in late 1975 personal computers were a novelty and were used primarily by computer hobbyists. Now, text editing and word processing systems are available at local stores. The system used to write this article, for example, can be purchased from any dealer who sells Apple Computers. (1980) I also saw a bibliographic reference to a 1975 issue of _Datamation_ having an article titled "Personal Computers", but we'll have to check with R.J. Valentine for details on that. On Wednesday, in article <nathansanders-9BFF8F.11500509062004@news.verizon.net> > Semantically, yes, but pragmatically (in certain contexts, like coffee > shops), no. If I want a large, non-espresso coffe at Starbucks, I > order a "large coffee". In fact, whenever I've ordered coffee from > any restaurant that also served espresso, I've never once had a server > ask for clarification, so this isn't particular to coffee shops. The most annoying aspect of this new rash of American-originated coffeeshops[1] in the UK is the utter pretentiousness of their serving staff. In particular, they pronounce "latte" as "lah-tay"; an Italian would not say the word that way. [1] Which, to my mind, includes Starbucks, Costa Coffee, etc. Signaturefix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". > On Wednesday, in article > <nathansanders-9BFF8F.11500509062004@news.verizon.net> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > [1] Which, to my mind, includes Starbucks, Costa Coffee, etc. Why do you suggest Costa Coffee is "American-originated"? How would you pronounce "latte"? What reason was there for introducing the word into English anyway? SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >On Wednesday, in article > <nathansanders-9BFF8F.11500509062004@news.verizon.net> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >staff. In particular, they pronounce "latte" as "lah-tay"; an Italian >would not say the word that way. Do I not understand the meaning of "pretentiousness"? It seems to me that pronouncing "latte" as the Italians do, rather than the way the average Starbucks customer does, would be the pretentious version. Frankly, I don't know how an Italian would pronounce the word. However, if some non-Italian would be ahead of me in line and ask for a latte without pronouncing it "lah-tay", I'd think "Whoo! Aren't you the pretentious one. Just back from your tour of the continent, are you?" > >On Wednesday, in article > > <nathansanders-9BFF8F.11500509062004@news.verizon.net> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Frankly, I don't know how an Italian would pronounce the word. I would assume LAH-teh. But English speakers don't like ending words with a straight -e or -o. Hence lah-tay, for-tay, pron-toh-oo* etc. etc. I'm not sure how the OP expects non-pretentious people (presumably the serving staff in non-Starbucks coffee shops?) to pronounce it. Dylan * I guess I should learn ASCII IPA but how many people actually understand it anyway... > > Frankly, I don't know how an Italian would pronounce the word. > > I would assume LAH-teh. Interestingly, www.wordreference.com has both LATT-ay and LAH-tay as English pronunciations. I've never heard the former personally, but hearing it probably wouldn't completely surprise me, and makes some amount of sense as part of caf[f]e latte, where I've only ever heard caffe pronounced with a short 'a' (as in cat). OTOH, m-w.com gives it as 'CAH-fay LAH-tay' which definitely sounds pretentious to me (is this really standard in the US?) > Interestingly, www.wordreference.com has both LATT-ay and LAH-tay as English > pronunciations. I've never heard the former personally, but hearing it > probably wouldn't completely surprise me, and makes some amount of sense as > part of caf[f]e latte, where I've only ever heard caffe pronounced with a > short 'a' (as in cat). OTOH, m-w.com gives it as 'CAH-fay LAH-tay' which > definitely sounds pretentious to me (is this really standard in the US?) I haven't heard the "caffe" part used much at all since the whole Starbucks-and-friends fad started around 1990. I was, I think, the one person in the US to insist on adding the "caffe" part, but I gave up after a while (1992?). But I'd be shocked to hear "CAH-fay". The existence of the established word "cafe" /k&'feI/ (cat vowel) alone is enough to demand its use in "caffe". I would, I suppose, expect the stress to be on the "CA" in combined phrases like "caffe latte". But, as I said, no one in Lamerica says it. > I would assume LAH-teh. But English speakers don't like ending words with a > straight -e or -o. Hence lah-tay, for-tay, pron-toh-oo* etc. etc. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > * I guess I should learn ASCII IPA but how many people actually understand > it anyway... Since your "phonetic" transcriptions are hopelessly opaque, you damn well should learn to use ASCII IPA instead. > > I would assume LAH-teh. But English speakers don't like ending words with a > > straight -e or -o. Hence lah-tay, for-tay, pron-toh-oo* etc. etc. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Since your "phonetic" transcriptions are hopelessly opaque, you damn > well should learn to use ASCII IPA instead. I thought I could just copy from m-w.com...but... 'prän-"tO Hmm...ok ä isn't ascii ('a' with dieresis)...I suppose that should 'prA:n-"tO? At any rate it's not the sound I use (m-w uses the same symbol for 'father' - a completely different vowel for me. Maybe 'prA.n-"tO) But more to the point the upper-case 'O' doesn't adequate emphasize the difference between an English "O" (that has a diphthong) and the Italian o (that doesn't). Dylan > "Tony Cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> Frankly, I don't know how an Italian would pronounce the word. > > I would assume LAH-teh. But English speakers don't like ending words > with a straight -e or -o. Hence lah-tay, for-tay, pron-toh-oo* etc. > etc. In Oz I hear "la-day", heavily diphonged, from the country folks, though the more common pronunciation is "flat white". SignatureMichael West > > "Tony Cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > country folks, though the more common pronunciation > is "flat white". Not the same thing though. Lattes are often served in glasses, and it's just hot milk + coffee, whereas flat whites are always served in cups and may contain hot water and/or cold milk. They are also often not all that 'flat', in that they have an amount of froth to them, just not as much as a cappucino. Dylan >>> "Tony Cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > not all that 'flat', in that they have an amount of froth to them, > just not as much as a cappucino. I know that and you know that ... but .... SignatureMichael West >>"Tony Cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > country folks, though the more common pronunciation > is "flat white". Whoops! I slipped up in an earlier post where I said it was "plain white". "Flat white" is indeed what I drink. "La-day" is what 20 year old girls drink. SignatureRob Bannister On Thursday, in article <2iq5dlFphuhrU1@uni-berlin.de> > > >The most annoying aspect of this new rash of American-originated > > >coffeeshops[1] in the UK is the utter pretentiousness of their serving [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I would assume LAH-teh. But English speakers don't like ending words with a > straight -e or -o. Hence lah-tay, for-tay, pron-toh-oo* etc. etc. Then you assume wrongly; the 'a' is short, and the 'e' is a schwa; therefore the word sounds almost exactly like the English "latter". > I'm not sure how the OP expects non-pretentious people (presumably the > serving staff in non-Starbucks coffee shops?) to pronounce it. Since the word is a borrowing from another language, then I would hope that both customers and servers could at least attempt to pronounce the word as speakers of that language do, and not to come up with something totally alien, based in part upon their misconception of which language is actually involved. Another place where this happens is people using an Italian stress- pattern on the Greek dish "moussaka", saying "moo-SAH-car". In Greek, that word is stressed on the final syllable. Signaturefix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". > > > Frankly, I don't know how an Italian would pronounce the word. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Then you assume wrongly; the 'a' is short, and the 'e' is a schwa; > therefore the word sounds almost exactly like the English "latter". I find that rather hard to believe. > Another place where this happens is people using an Italian stress- > pattern on the Greek dish "moussaka", saying "moo-SAH-car". In Greek, > that word is stressed on the final syllable. In English, it's stressed on the first. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 02:42:55 GMT "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in <news:40C91C2F.71F1@worldnet.att.net> in uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] >> Another place where this happens is people using an Italian stress- >> pattern on the Greek dish "moussaka", saying "moo-SAH-car". In Greek, >> that word is stressed on the final syllable. > In English, it's stressed on the first. Or on the second; AHD3 gives that pronunciation first. Brian > On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 02:42:55 GMT "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Or on the second; AHD3 gives that pronunciation first. Is AHD3 edited in a land of Greek diners? [restaurants, not eaters] SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 02:42:55 GMT "Peter T. Daniels" >> <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Is AHD3 edited in a land of Greek diners? [restaurants, not eaters] If Dr. Daniels is saying that "MOU-ssaka" is a commonly-heard pronunciation in the U.S. of A., I have never heard that stress pattern to the best of my recollection. Most often the second syllable is stressed; I only started stressing the final syllable after a Greek-speaking person told me that that was how it was done in Greek. I suppose I can see "MOU-ssaka" being used in those AmE dialect regions which have "UM-brella" and "IN-surance". > >> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 02:42:55 GMT "Peter T. Daniels" > >> <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > -- I gained an appreciation for this dish while in Germany, and so learned it as "MOU-ssaka". But the second-syllable stress is more common in the US, and the third-syllable stress sounds more like proper Greek. SignatureChris Green On 12 Jun, in article <c31fa7b1.0406121453.10a343d1@posting.google.com> > common in the US, and the third-syllable stress sounds more like > proper Greek. Which, of course, it is! (M'aresei parapoli o moussakas.) Signaturefix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". On Friday, in article <40C91C2F.71F1@worldnet.att.net> > > Then you assume wrongly; the 'a' is short, and the 'e' is a schwa; > > therefore the word sounds almost exactly like the English "latter". > > I find that rather hard to believe. Ask an Italian (and I mean one who hails from Italy, not the Bronx). Most certainly the -te syllable is NOT pronounced -tay (which was my principle criticism of the "Starbucks Affectation"). I believe Enrico has confirmed this. Of course, your pronunciation of "latter" will be dangerously close to our "ladder"; hence your incredulity? > > Another place where this happens is people using an Italian stress- > > pattern on the Greek dish "moussaka", saying "moo-SAH-car". In Greek, > > that word is stressed on the final syllable. > > In English, it's stressed on the first. I presume you're speaking of AmEnglish? I've never heard a BrEnglish speaker put the stress on the first syllable (but most, unfortunately, put it on the penultimate). I heard another common mispronunciation last night in a restaurant, with customers and waiting staff referring to "Strawberry Pav-LO-va". Anna Pavlova stressed the antepenultimate syllable of her surname. Signaturefix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". > On Friday, in article <40C91C2F.71F1@worldnet.att.net> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ask an Italian (and I mean one who hails from Italy, not the Bronx). You can hear "latte" pronounced by an Italian in Sebapop's wav file. | http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/sebapop/Languages/Italian.wav | | The words are: caffé, latte and caffelatte X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood On 12 Jun, in article <1to87e2bvp5sx$.dlg@news.lillathedog.net> > > Ask an Italian (and I mean one who hails from Italy, not the Bronx). > > You can hear "latte" pronounced by an Italian in Sebapop's wav file. Yes, I've since listened to that, and am grateful to him for posting it. Oddly enough, to my ear the -te sounds more like -ti (with a *very* short i sound) rather than -ten with the 'n' removed. The Italian whom I asked about this very word six months ago hailed from Turin, and the final vowel seemed much less pure. But then again, I could have mentally amalgamated it with my pronunciation of the English "latter", purely for convenience. Whichever, it *certainly* shouldn't be LAAH-tay, as heard in Starbucks. Signaturefix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". > On 12 Jun, in article > <1to87e2bvp5sx$.dlg@news.lillathedog.net> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > "latter", purely for convenience. Whichever, it *certainly* shouldn't be > LAAH-tay, as heard in Starbucks. And again I ask, HOW ELSE would you pronounce the English word "latte"? SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > On 12 Jun, in article > > <1to87e2bvp5sx$.dlg@news.lillathedog.net> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > And again I ask, HOW ELSE would you pronounce the English word "latte"? In case you've really missed the answer to this: Smith-Trager: /'l&tey/ Ad hoc pronunciation spelling: LAT-ay That's how I pronounce it (i.e. the English word), and how most people I know (in the UK) pronounce it. But I'm not implying that this is the only BrE pronunciation. BHK seems to have suggested a schwa for the final vowel; I'm not familiar with that. Jonathan > > > On 12 Jun, in article > > > <1to87e2bvp5sx$.dlg@news.lillathedog.net> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > I know (in the UK) pronounce it. But I'm not implying that this is > the only BrE pronunciation. I did miss that answer. It reflects the British tendency to disrespect the native sound pattern of recently borrowed words, as in "garridge" vs. "ga-RAHZH" (US). Hence the pronunciation at Starbucks -- at Cafe Nervosa, actually -- is LAH-tay. (That reminds me: English doesn't have short vowels in open syllables, so you had to write LAT, but surely you realize that the second syllable is -tay and not -ay; which means you must be doing a highly unEnglish long consonant in the middle? English allows long consonants only at morpheme boundaries, as in "bookcase.") > BHK seems to have suggested a schwa for the final vowel; I'm not > familiar with that. "BNK" to me means the first scholarly edition of the Hebrew Bible published in Stuttgart, Biblia Hebraica edd. Kittel. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net <snip> > > > > The Italian whom I asked about this very word six months ago > > hailed from [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > vs. "ga-RAHZH" (US). Hence the pronunciation at Starbucks -- at Cafe > Nervosa, actually -- is LAH-tay. I disagree. To my ears, the first vowel in the Italian word (e.g. in the recordings made by "Sebapop") sounds like my "cat" vowel, not the "father" vowel either of my accent or of RP. It's clear that many other British people hear it the same way. There are quite a lot of recent loanwords with a similar pattern. I'll grant you "garage", though. > (That reminds me: English doesn't have > short vowels in open syllables, so you had to write LAT, but surely you > realize that the second syllable is -tay and not -ay; which means you > must be doing a highly unEnglish long consonant in the middle? English > allows long consonants only at morpheme boundaries, as in "bookcase.") That (LAT-tay) is what the Italian pronunciation sounds like to me, but in English (in my experience) it usually has a single /t/. > > BHK seems to have suggested a schwa for the final vowel; I'm not > > familiar with that. > > "BNK" to me means the first scholarly edition of the Hebrew Bible > published in Stuttgart, Biblia Hebraica edd. Kittel. I wrote BHK, meaning Brian {Hamilton Kelly} (as he writes his name), one of the contributors to this thread. Jonathan > > > Smith-Trager: /'l&tey/ > > > Ad hoc pronunciation spelling: LAT-ay [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > That (LAT-tay) is what the Italian pronunciation sounds like to me, That suggests that you, or BrE, don't distinguish /&/ and /a/? or that It. /a/ is enormously farther forward than BrE /a/? > but in English (in my experience) it usually has a single /t/. [l&.tej] ?? But [&] isn't possible in an open syllable. > > > BHK seems to have suggested a schwa for the final vowel; I'm not > > > familiar with that. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I wrote BHK, meaning Brian {Hamilton Kelly} (as he writes his name), > one of the contributors to this thread. In Courier, H and N are very similar, so the typo is less than obvious. Why does he use braces? (What does it matter if his pan --er, trousers -- fall down at the computer?) SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > > > Smith-Trager: /'l&tey/ > > > > Ad hoc pronunciation spelling: LAT-ay [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > That suggests that you, or BrE, don't distinguish /&/ and /a/? or that > It. /a/ is enormously farther forward than BrE /a/? I'm assuming that by /&/ and /a/ you mean the vowels of "cat" and "father" respectively. Most BrE accents do distinguish them - if we didn't then there wouldn't be an issue about the first vowel of "latte". I think there are two points: one is that the "cat" vowel tends towards [a] rather than [&], particularly in the north, where I'm from, and the other is that the "father" vowel tends to be long and back [A:], which makes it sound (to my ears) very unlike a short [a]. > > but in English (in my experience) it usually has a single /t/. > > [l&.tej] ?? But [&] isn't possible in an open syllable. Why are you trying to force the [t] into the second syllable? Jonathan > > > > > Smith-Trager: /'l&tey/ > > > > > Ad hoc pronunciation spelling: LAT-ay [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > Why are you trying to force the [t] into the second syllable? Because there's no glottal stop after the t. If you want the second syllable to start with a vowel, you'll have to flap the /t/, or something, and that's not done in BrE. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net <about the pronunciation of "latte"> > > > [l&.tej] ?? But [&] isn't possible in an open syllable. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > syllable to start with a vowel, you'll have to flap the /t/, or > something, and that's not done in BrE. Well, I'm not sure about the actual phonetics, though I think you're right that the /t/ isn't flapped. But it seems to be parallel to BrE "latter", which also doesn't have a flap, and presumably you would put the [t] there in the first syllable? Jonathan > <about the pronunciation of "latte"> > > > > [l&.tej] ?? But [&] isn't possible in an open syllable. > > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > syllable to start with a vowel, you'll have to flap the /t/, or > > something, and that's not done in BrE. > Well, I'm not sure about the actual phonetics, though I think you're > right that the /t/ isn't flapped. But it seems to be parallel to BrE > "latter", which also doesn't have a flap, and presumably you would put > the [t] there in the first syllable? Which only goes to demonstrate that phonetic descriptions are always less than perfect. I've never had a "latte" in my life, although I have had a "milky coffee". Now, can we have as much argument about the various English, Yanklish and Italian pronunciations (particularly the last syllable) of "milky" and "coffee" as of "latte"? Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/gay/14-0.htm I think I'll just sit down and ponder, What I'd do with a much longer tail... On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:44:45 +0100 "Jonathan Jordan" <jonathan.jordan@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote in <news:2j62vtFu150jU1@uni-berlin.de> in uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > <about the pronunciation of "latte"> >>> > [l&.tej] ?? But [&] isn't possible in an open syllable. >>> Why are you trying to force the [t] into the second syllable? >> Because there's no glottal stop after the t. If you want the second >> syllable to start with a vowel, you'll have to flap the /t/, or >> something, and that's not done in BrE. > Well, I'm not sure about the actual phonetics, though I think you're > right that the /t/ isn't flapped. But it seems to be parallel to BrE > "latter", which also doesn't have a flap, and presumably you would put > the [t] there in the first syllable? I hear most varieties of BrE <latter> as having the /t/ in the second syllable, usually strongly aspirated, sometimes to the point of assibilation. Brian Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:05:11 -0400: "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu>: in sci.lang: >I hear most varieties of BrE <latter> as having the /t/ in >the second syllable, How can you hear that? How would it sound different if the t were in the first syllable? What is the phonetic, articulatory reality behind syllable boundaries? Aren't syllables abstractions without much reality value? >usually strongly aspirated, sometimes >to the point of assibilation. OK, the aspiration is a factor, only in English, and only with /k/, /t/ and /p/. But more in general, I wouldn't know how to determine, in a VCVC sequence, whether the second V belonged to syllable 1 or 2. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 20:23:39 +0200 Ruud Harmsen <realemailseesite01@rudhar.com> wrote in <news:l7rrc09nb2q37j5tbn9tps2ri4k5aa2ll7@4ax.com> in uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:05:11 -0400: "Brian M. Scott" > <b.scott@csuohio.edu>: in sci.lang: >>I hear most varieties of BrE <latter> as having the /t/ in >>the second syllable, > How can you hear that? How would it sound different if the t were in > the first syllable? For one thing, the vowel would be shorter. Secondly, I sometimes hear a break in the voicing, even a pre-aspiration, before the /t/. > What is the phonetic, articulatory reality behind > syllable boundaries? Who knows? If there is any, I rather suspect that it depends on one's theory. > Aren't syllables abstractions without much > reality value? What kind of reality? They certainly can have psychological reality, which is the only sort that I actually had in mind when I made the original comment. [...] Followups to sci.lang. Brian > <about the pronunciation of "latte"> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > "latter", which also doesn't have a flap, and presumably you would put > the [t] there in the first syllable? A big difference is that "latter" has a fully reduced vowel, "latte" doesn't. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net [snip pronunciation of "latte"] > > but in English (in my experience) it usually has a single /t/. > > [l&.tej] ?? But [&] isn't possible in an open syllable. catamaran is [k& t@ m@ r&n] batting is [b& tIN] daiquiri is [d& k@ ri] pacifier is [p& sI faI R] What am I missing? SignatureAl in Dallas > [snip pronunciation of "latte"] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What am I missing? Well, probably that Peter would parse those as /k&t @ m@ r&n/, /b&t IN/, /d&k @ ri/, and /p&s @ faI R/. There's some fairly convincing arguments in favor of supposing that English stressed syllables try to maximize their codas at the expense of onsets of unstressed syllables, based on evidence from things like vowel-shortening before voiceless obstruents. However, the generalization that [&] isn't possible in an open syllable isn't quite valid even under that analysis; we still have to account for words like "tattoo". Here the length of the [&] and the fact that the /t/ is aspirated and not flappable indicate /t& tu/, not /t&t u/. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > > [snip pronunciation of "latte"] > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > "tattoo". Here the length of the [&] and the fact that the /t/ is aspirated and > not flappable indicate /t& tu/, not /t&t u/. And it's "[+foreign]." Which would account for the two primary stresses. You might be able to slip "latte" into that rubric, too. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> However, the generalization that [&] isn't possible in an open >> syllable isn't quite valid even under that analysis; we still have to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And it's "[+foreign]." Which would account for the two primary stresses. > You might be able to slip "latte" into that rubric, too. "[+foreign]"? I'm not sure I'm convinced by that; I doubt that "tattoo" is perceived synchronically as a foreign or foreignesque word by anywhere near as many speakers as, say, "latte" is. Besides, shouldn't [+foreign] words have /a/, not /&/, in U.S. English, the way "latte" and "Tanya" do? (Also: two primary stresses? Really? I'd call it one secondary and one primary, in that order.) How about "marry", in dialects that distinguish it from "Mary"? It has to be /m& ri/ because */&r/ is blocked as a syllable rime. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > >> However, the generalization that [&] isn't possible in an open > >> syllable isn't quite valid even under that analysis; we still have to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > near as many speakers as, say, "latte" is. Besides, shouldn't [+foreign] > words have /a/, not /&/, in U.S. English, the way "latte" and "Tanya" do? Why? > (Also: two primary stresses? Really? I'd call it one secondary and one > primary, in that order.) No, two equal stresses. > How about "marry", in dialects that distinguish it from "Mary"? It has to > be /m& ri/ because */&r/ is blocked as a syllable rime. Well, I'm one of those dialects, and "marry" and "merry" have /mVr./ (because they're short vowels), "Mary" has /meh./ because it's long. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:34:45 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang: >Well, I'm one of those dialects, and "marry" and "merry" have /mVr./ >(because they're short vowels), "Mary" has /meh./ because it's long. An h before r? Cool. Could you repeat that transcription in (some ASCII guise of) IPA? SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:34:45 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > An h before r? Cool. > Could you repeat that transcription in (some ASCII guise of) IPA? No, because I've never met a phonetician from New York City. Dale Terbeek insisted that I transcribe "Mary" with [&], even though that's the IPA for "marry." ("merry," of course, has [E].) SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net Tue, 15 Jun 2004 12:23:38 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang: >> >Well, I'm one of those dialects, and "marry" and "merry" have /mVr./ >> >(because they're short vowels), "Mary" has /meh./ because it's long. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Dale Terbeek insisted that I transcribe "Mary" with [&], even though >that's the IPA for "marry." ("merry," of course, has [E].) Mary is /mE@rI/, merry /merI/ and marry /m&rI/ in my book(s). SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Tue, 15 Jun 2004 12:23:38 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Mary is /mE@rI/, merry /merI/ and marry /m&rI/ in my book(s). OTOH, you asked for IPA, not for phonemes; and OTOH, we can see from your final <I> that you're transcribing RP, not my language. "Mary" starts much higher than [E], but it doesn't seem diphthongized at all -- it's certainly not the Midwestern variety that's nearly [ij@]. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> >> However, the generalization that [&] isn't possible in an open >> >> syllable isn't quite valid even under that analysis; we still have to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Why? It seems like the done thing - for foreign words to contain the "foreign a" phoneme. On reflection, however, I can think of several very probably "[+foreign]" words that even in AmE have /&/ regularly - e.g., "baguette" - so I guess I withdraw this particular objection. >> (Also: two primary stresses? Really? I'd call it one secondary and one >> primary, in that order.) > > No, two equal stresses. On what basis do you say that? I certainly hear and feel a heavier stress on the second syllable. And whatever became of the constraint/rule requiring every phonological word to have a unique maximum stress? >> How about "marry", in dialects that distinguish it from "Mary"? It has to >> be /m& ri/ because */&r/ is blocked as a syllable rime. > > Well, I'm one of those dialects, and "marry" and "merry" have /mVr./ > (because they're short vowels), "Mary" has /meh./ because it's long. Ah, perhaps you're using a different theory than I thought you were. In the one I'm tentatively adopting at least for the purpose of this argument, all stressed syllables pull following consonants into their codas when possible, not just syllables with short vowels. Indeed, I'd say that the /r/ is definitely part of the first syllable in "Mary"; the /r/ is necessary to license what you're writing as /eh/ at all. If the /r/ were in the second syllable, the first syllable would have to have /ey/. Compare "payroll" /pey.rol/ with "pairing" /pehr.iN/, where the syllable boundaries are forced by the morpheme boundaries. On the other hand, there's independent motivation for forbidding /r/ to be in a coda after a short vowel at all, since there's no cases of e.g. /&r#/ or /&rC/, so this suggests that in "marry" there's a syllable boundary between the /&/ and the /r/ (in order to avoid having separate rules for prevocalic and pre-{pause/consonantal} /r/). Furthermore, supposing that unmerged "marry" is /m&.ri/ gives us an explanation for why nonrhotic varieties of English are significantly less likely to develop "marry"/"merry"/"Mary" merger. Namely: because stressed syllables attract following consonants into their codas, there is some pressure for the /r/ in "marry" to migrate into the first syllable. In non-rhotic varieties, this pressure is resisted by the blanket constraint against /r/ in codas at all. In rhotic varieties, the /r/ can be attracted into the first syllable, which then becomes subject to the constraint against tautosyllabic /&r/, and so the vowel is replaced by something that can occur before /r/, namely /eh/. (In some rhotic varieties, the constraint against /&r/ prevents the /r/ from moving into the first syllable in the first place; but the point is that in rhotic varieties this _can_ happen, but in nonrhotic varieties it can't.) -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > >> >> However, the generalization that [&] isn't possible in an open > >> >> syllable isn't quite valid even under that analysis; we still have to [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > argument, all stressed syllables pull following consonants into their > codas when possible, not just syllables with short vowels. I've never heard of such a thing; it sounds like one of the "rules" discussed in Gussmann's Cambridge Red *Phonology*, which are far more ad hoc than anything found in SPE (and where he finds it necessary to deny that there are voiced stop clusters within an English morpheme). > Indeed, I'd say that the /r/ is definitely part of the first syllable in > "Mary"; the /r/ is necessary to license what you're writing as /eh/ at Ah. "License" indicates you're operating in one of those current phonological theories that have invented all sorts of "levels" to get away from segments -- but go ahead and used "C" and "V" segments anyway. > all. If the /r/ were in the second syllable, the first syllable would have > to have /ey/. Compare "payroll" /pey.rol/ with "pairing" /pehr.iN/, where > the syllable boundaries are forced by the morpheme boundaries. On the I don't know where that can come from; I'd need some examples without [r] to know what the claim is. > other hand, there's independent motivation for forbidding /r/ to be in a > coda after a short vowel at all, since there's no cases of e.g. /&r#/ or > /&rC/, so this suggests that in "marry" there's a syllable boundary > between the /&/ and the /r/ (in order to avoid having separate rules for > prevocalic and pre-{pause/consonantal} /r/). A very specious reason. Bending facts to fit theories. > Furthermore, supposing that unmerged "marry" is /m&.ri/ gives us an > explanation for why nonrhotic varieties of English are significantly less [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > non-rhotic varieties, this pressure is resisted by the blanket constraint > against /r/ in codas at all. In rhotic varieties, the /r/ can be attracted "Blanket constraint against /r/ in codas." What a lot of theoretical baggage! > into the first syllable, which then becomes subject to the constraint > against tautosyllabic /&r/, and so the vowel is replaced by something that > can occur before /r/, namely /eh/. (In some rhotic varieties, the > constraint against /&r/ prevents the /r/ from moving into the first > syllable in the first place; but the point is that in rhotic varieties > this _can_ happen, but in nonrhotic varieties it can't.) You don't think "Harold" is /h&.r@ld/, do you? SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> >> How about "marry", in dialects that distinguish it from "Mary"? It >> >> has to be /m& ri/ because */&r/ is blocked as a syllable rime. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > hoc than anything found in SPE (and where he finds it necessary to deny > that there are voiced stop clusters within an English morpheme). The theory I'm adopting for the purpose of this argument is in essence that of J.C. Wells's article "Syllabification and Allophony", which is linked to from <http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/>. I don't find all of the arguments Wells makes or conclusions he reaches in that article convincing - indeed, he assumes that /r/ in "marry" is a coda, which is exactly contrary to my basic assumption - but the basic idea is highly reasonable. (I've had some trouble getting Wells's article to load properly in certain browsers; Explorer doesn't like it but Safari and Lynx are fine with it. I haven't tried Mozilla.) >> Indeed, I'd say that the /r/ is definitely part of the first syllable in >> "Mary"; the /r/ is necessary to license what you're writing as /eh/ at > > Ah. "License" indicates you're operating in one of those current > phonological theories that have invented all sorts of "levels" to get > away from segments -- but go ahead and used "C" and "V" segments anyway. Eh, it indicates nothing of the kind; it was just the shorthand that came to my fingertips most readily. If you like, I can rephrase it as follows: it's necessary for the /r/ to be part of the first syllable in "Mary" for the underlying /e:/ (or SPE-type /&:/ or whatever you suppose the underlying representation of that vowel is) to appear as /eh/ rather than /ey/. That is to say: I hold (I hope uncontroversially) that the vowels of "may" and "mare", which I gather are conventionally written as /ey/ and /eh/ by phonemicists of English, are actually one and the same underlying segment; and that there is a phonological rule that operates somewhere in the derivation, possibly but not necessarily post-lexically, to cause this underlying element to appear as /eh/ before tautosyllabic /r/ and as /ey/ syllable-finally. >> all. If the /r/ were in the second syllable, the first syllable would have >> to have /ey/. Compare "payroll" /pey.rol/ with "pairing" /pehr.iN/, where >> the syllable boundaries are forced by the morpheme boundaries. On the > > I don't know where that can come from; I'd need some examples without > [r] to know what the claim is. I'm sorry, where what can come from? The claim, or Wells's claim, is that the location of a morpheme boundary can influence the location of a syllable boundary; that, absent morpheme boundaries, consonants prefer to syllabify as codas to stressed syllables rather than onsets to unstressed syllables; and that these principles allow various phonological rules to refer only to syllable structure, whereas otherwise they would have to refer explicitly to morpheme boundaries. One of the first examples in Wells's paper is "selfish" versus "shellfish". He states, and I agree, that the /l/ in "shellfish" is much longer than that in "selfish". He argues that this is because of the different syllabic structures of the two words, namely self.ish and shell.fish, and that in particular the rule which shortens syllables before an voiceless consonant applies to "selfish" but not to "shellfish" because in "selfish" the /lf/ is tautosyllabic but in "shellfish" it isn't. >> other hand, there's independent motivation for forbidding /r/ to be in a >> coda after a short vowel at all, since there's no cases of e.g. /&r#/ or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > A very specious reason. Bending facts to fit theories. Not at all. The syllable membership of a single intervocalic consonant is not a pre-theoretic fact. The only place where we can be pre-theoretically confident of what syllable (if any) a single consonant belongs to is the onset of an initial syllable or the coda of a final syllable. Since we can see no /r/ following /&/ in an environment where we can be _certain_ the /r/ would have to be the coda (i.e., word-finally), we can adopt as a working hypothesis the notion that /r/ is not permitted as a coda after /&/. Then, if we see a string such as /m&ri/, in which it is possible to analyze the /r/ as either onset or coda, we will, in keeping with our hypothesis, consider it to be an onset as long as it's consistent with our other hypotheses to do so. >> Furthermore, supposing that unmerged "marry" is /m&.ri/ gives us an >> explanation for why nonrhotic varieties of English are significantly less [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "Blanket constraint against /r/ in codas." What a lot of theoretical > baggage! What theoretical baggage? This is pure extrapolation from empirical data, viz.: In the one place we can be 100% certain that something's a coda - i.e., word-finally - there is no /r/ at all. Furthermore, there's no /r/ in other places where we're inclined to regard something as a coda - e.g., before consonants. All that leaves is intervocalic /r/, which we can assign to a syllable in whatever way best suits our theory. Isn't it virtually tautological to say that a non-rhotic variety of English has a blanket constraint against /r/ in codas? >> into the first syllable, which then becomes subject to the constraint >> against tautosyllabic /&r/, and so the vowel is replaced by something that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You don't think "Harold" is /h&.r@ld/, do you? Sure I do. I'd be inclined to think most phonologists agree with me, but not for the same reason. I sense this discussion is getting perhaps a bit technical. I'd be happy to move it into sci.lang exclusively, but let me know if you intend to do that because I'm following it in a.u.e. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > That is to say: I hold (I hope uncontroversially) that the vowels of "may" > and "mare", which I gather are conventionally written as /ey/ and /eh/ by > phonemicists of English, are actually one and the same underlying segment; Forgive my silly question: what does that mean? Do both diphthongs begin with exactly the same /e/ sound? X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood > > That is to say: I hold (I hope uncontroversially) that the vowels of "may" > > and "mare", which I gather are conventionally written as /ey/ and /eh/ by > > phonemicists of English, are actually one and the same underlying segment; > > Forgive my silly question: what does that mean? > Do both diphthongs begin with exactly the same /e/ sound? It means they can be analyzed as beginning with the same phoneme. (Note / / rather than [ ].) SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >>> That is to say: I hold (I hope uncontroversially) that the vowels of "may" >>> and "mare", which I gather are conventionally written as /ey/ and /eh/ by [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It means they can be analyzed as beginning with the same phoneme. (Note > / / rather than [ ].) I beg your pardon, would that mean a yes or a no? :-) X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood > >>> That is to say: I hold (I hope uncontroversially) that the vowels of "may" > >>> and "mare", which I gather are conventionally written as /ey/ and /eh/ by [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I beg your pardon, would that mean a yes or a no? > :-) No, it wouldn't! SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net On 16-Jun-2004, Enrico C <use_replyto_address@despammed.com> wrote in message <fqoz8lf0tgt0.dlg@news.lillathedog.net>: >> That is to say: I hold (I hope uncontroversially) that the vowels of >> "may" and "mare", which I gather are conventionally written as /ey/ and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Forgive my silly question: what does that mean? > Do both diphthongs begin with exactly the same /e/ sound? Mine (native Southern Californian accent) don't. <may> ~ [mej] and <mare> ~ [mEr]. SignatureJim Heckman >> That is to say: I hold (I hope uncontroversially) that the vowels of "may" >> and "mare", which I gather are conventionally written as /ey/ and /eh/ by >> phonemicists of English, are actually one and the same underlying segment; > > Forgive my silly question: what does that mean? > Do both diphthongs begin with exactly the same /e/ sound? Mmmh. I should say, first of all, that (upon reflection) I probably should have restricted what I wrote above to apply only to rhotic accents (that is, those that actually have an audible [r] in words like "mare"). It's not _necessarily_ the case that it doesn't apply to nonrhotic accents, but to suppose so would require many more less natural assumptions. I'm going to assume in what follows that you have a rhotic accent. I'm also going to assume you have no background in linguistics; I apologize if that's not true. It means the following, abstracted away from as much technical linguistic terminology as possible: Somewhere in your memory, you have memorized how to pronounce the words "may" and "mare". Now, it may be the case that you actually pronounce different vowels in "may" and "mare", but this difference in vowels is not part of what you've memorized about the words; the only difference you've memorized is that one ends in /r/ and the other does not. The fact that you actually pronounce the vowels differently isn't because you've memorized different vowels; it's because of a collection of rules that determine how, in practice, to actually pronounce what you've memorized, in different contexts. So the difference between the vowels of "may" and "mare" isn't because your vocabulary says one has this-vowel and one has that-vowel; rather, your vocabulary says they both have the same vowel, but something else determines that what your vocabulary regards as one vowel is pronounced this-way before /r/ and that-way at the end of a word. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom >>> That is to say: I hold (I hope uncontroversially) that the vowels of "may" >>> and "mare", which I gather are conventionally written as /ey/ and /eh/ by [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I'm going to assume in what follows that you have a rhotic accent. Me? I am Italian. So, yes, we do pronounce our Rs! ;-) > I'm also going to assume you have no background in linguistics; I apologize > if that's not true. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > your vocabulary regards as one vowel is pronounced this-way before /r/ > and that-way at the end of a word. I see. I believe that what you've just explained corroborates my ideas about the /e/ sounds. I noticed that some dictionaries use just the same /e/ symbol in both /ei/ /e@/ diphthongs. For instance, the CALD has /mei/ for may and /me@(r)/ or /mer/ (US) for mare http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?dict=CALD&key=48797&ph=on On the other hand, if I listen to those two words, I can hear their /e/ sounds are quite different. And some other dictionaries, in fact, use two different symbols. My English-Italian Zanichelli Dictionary, for instance, shows something like may /mei/ mare /mE@(r)/ So, I draw the conclusion that the former [the dictionaries that have just one /e/ symbol] use the same symbol to refer to more than one sound, counting on the fact that the something else [the diphthongs they are forming, in this case] determines all the difference in pronunciation. What you said makes me think I was right :-) Am i right? X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood >>> That is to say: I hold (I hope uncontroversially) that the vowels of "may" >>> and "mare", which I gather are conventionally written as /ey/ and /eh/ by [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I'm going to assume in what follows that you have a rhotic accent. Me? I am Italian. So, yes, we do pronounce our Rs! ;-) > I'm also going to assume you have no background in linguistics; I apologize > if that's not true. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > your vocabulary regards as one vowel is pronounced this-way before /r/ > and that-way at the end of a word. I see. I believe that what you've just explained corroborates my ideas about the /e/ sounds. I noticed that some dictionaries use just the same /e/ symbol in both /ei/ /e@/ diphthongs. For instance, the CALD has /mei/ for may and /me@(r)/ or /mer/ (US) for mare http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?dict=CALD&key=48797&ph=on On the other hand, if I listen to those two words, I can hear their /e/ sounds are quite different. And some other dictionaries, in fact, use two different symbols. My English-Italian Zanichelli Dictionary, for instance, shows something like may /mei/ mare /mE@(r)/ So, I drew the conclusion that the former [the dictionaries that have just one /e/ symbol] use the same symbol to refer to more than one sound, counting on the fact that something else [the diphthongs they are forming, in this case] determines all the difference in pronunciation. What you said makes me think I was right :-) Am i right? X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood > So, I drew the conclusion that the former [the dictionaries that have > just one /e/ symbol] use the same symbol to refer to more than one [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What you said makes me think I was right :-) > Am i right? Nearly. It's not specifically the diphthongs they are forming that determines the difference in pronunciation - in fact, from one perspective, the diphthongs they are forming _are_ the difference in pronunciation that is determined. What determines the difference in this case is the following consonant, if any. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > It means the following, abstracted away from as much technical linguistic > terminology as possible: Somewhere in your memory, you have memorized how [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the only difference you've memorized is that one ends in /r/ and the other > does not. Perhaps for some, but it had never occured to me to consider the two vowels related at all (other than orthographically) until I came across these newsgroups (and yes, I'm rhotic). I'd always considered the "mare" vowel to be the same as in "man" (which is distinct from the vowel in "cat"). If I were to tack an "r" onto "may", it would come out sort of like "mayor", but with an awkward attempt to squeeze it into one syllable. The same applies to the "mail" vowel; dictionaries tend to represent it as the same vowel as in "main", but it also sounds like the "man" vowel to me. I have "scaler/scalar" as a minimal pair here. -Scott >> It means the following, abstracted away from as much technical linguistic >> terminology as possible: Somewhere in your memory, you have memorized how [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the "mare" vowel to be the same as in "man" (which is distinct from > the vowel in "cat"). Are you from a metropolitan area in the U.S. Mid-Atlantic region - that is, between New York City and roughly Baltimore? The reason I ask is because these dialects, and no others, have a phonemic distinction between the vowels in "man" and "cat". Now, for my part, my vowel in "mare" is _phonetically_ way more similar to that in "man" than "mare" is to "may" or "man" is to "mat". But I still have always considered the "mare" vowel to be the same as in "may" and the "man" vowel to be the same as in "cat". The difference in our outlooks may be explainable if you've got the separate phonemic category that can accept "man" and "mare"; I don't have such a category. Also, note that I was talking about _underlying_ representations, not _phonemic_ representations, which is what the foregoing paragraph is about. By "underlying" representations, I mean the highly abstract representations that are the input to all the morphophonemic processes, the level at which "hymn" ends in an /n/ because it has to be there to be pronounced in "hymnal". By "phonemic", I mean something that's not necessarily well-defined at the level of the individual speaker, but to the extent that it is, it resides after the application of lexical phonological rules and before post-lexical rules. > If I were to tack an "r" onto "may", it would come out sort of like > "mayor", but with an awkward attempt to squeeze it into one syllable. Well, me too. But if I did this, I'd be trying to add the "r" to the surface realization of "may", not the underlying form or even the phonemic form. (Also, note that some people pronounce "mayor" the same as "mare", though I don't know if that proves anything with respect to the question at hand.) > The same applies to the "mail" vowel; dictionaries tend to represent > it as the same vowel as in "main", but it also sounds like the "man" > vowel to me. I agree with both of you. That is, with you as to what it sounds like; with the dictionaries as to what it is underlyingly/phonemically. > I have "scaler/scalar" as a minimal pair here. Dude! I think I do too! I never noticed that before! ...Well, not quite. For me - I think - "scaler" can only be [e@] as in "mare", but "scalar" can be either [e@] or [ej] as in "main". So I guess it's a minimal pair between free and restricted phonetic variation, which has to indicate a phonemic differentiation anyway. (Or, more congenially to me, a difference in syllable structure.) I've got another one of those, actually: "shirr" [SR] versus "sure" either [SR] or [Sur]. Your "scaler"/"scalar" probably presents a problem for Wells's analysis of syllable structure, which I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, if anyone's keeping score: Wells would predict "scaler" and "scalar" to have the same syllable structure. However, the problem might be dodgeable if we can portray "scaler" and "scalar" as having different underlying vowels to begin with, anyway. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 04:49:12 +0000 (UTC) "Aaron J. Dinkin" <dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote in <news:car7s8$22r9$1@netnews.upenn.edu> in uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] > Also, note that I was talking about _underlying_ representations, not > _phonemic_ representations, which is what the foregoing paragraph is > about. By "underlying" representations, I mean the highly abstract > representations that are the input to all the morphophonemic processes, > the level at which "hymn" ends in an /n/ because it has to be there to be > pronounced in "hymnal". Which is a good example of why I don't really believe in these underlying representations. If the noun <hymn> were to be verbed ('to create a hymn'), I'd bet that <hymning> would turn out to be ['hImIN], not ['hImnIN]. <Hymnal> is a fossilized derivative of <hymn>; insisting on an artificial underlying phonemic representation of <hymn> in order to make <hymnal> a synchronic derivative is a game not worth my candles, I'm afraid. [...] Brian > On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 04:49:12 +0000 (UTC) "Aaron J. Dinkin" > <dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > these underlying representations. If the noun <hymn> were > to be verbed ('to create a hymn'), Which indeed it already has been (e.g. "to hymn someone's praises"). > I'd bet that <hymning> > would turn out to be ['hImIN], not ['hImnIN]. Other examples: damn, damnation; solemn, solemnity. ><Hymnal> is a > fossilized derivative of <hymn>; insisting on an artificial > underlying phonemic representation of <hymn> in order to > make <hymnal> a synchronic derivative is a game not worth my > candles, I'm afraid. I agree with Brian. An example which Aaron might consider appropriate to his point is that of final "r" or "re" which, in a non-rhotic accent, is generally *not* pronounced with an [r], but *is*, if a vowel sound follows. > "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> wrote... > > [...] > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > in a non-rhotic accent, is generally *not* pronounced with > an [r], but *is*, if a vowel sound follows. Unfortunately, this doesn't work well either, since most non-rhotic speakers pronounce "r" at the end of all morphemes ending in [E:, @, a:] if a vowel sound follows, even when the morpheme isn't spelt with "-r" or "-re" -- the so-called "intrusive 'r'" phenomenon. As in Laura Norder. J. [...] > Which is a good example of why I don't really believe in > these underlying representations. See my last para below. > If the noun <hymn> were > to be verbed ('to create a hymn'), I'd bet that <hymning> > would turn out to be ['hImIN], not ['hImnIN]. I'm sure you'll remember, now that I'm jogging, that we do have such a verb already. And, yes, we do pronounce the -ing form 'himming'. > <Hymnal> is a > fossilized derivative of <hymn>; insisting on an artificial > underlying phonemic representation of <hymn> in order to > make <hymnal> a synchronic derivative is a game not worth my > candles, I'm afraid. [...] I take that point (unless I've catastrophically misunderstood, which happens). But the fact is that in most similar cases you've got to do it, so why not just find ways of enjoying it? We have the same sort of thing with the 'column' family and others, and it doesn't hurt. Not believing in these things is fair enough; but I assume you're not arguing strongly for the replacement of 'hymn' with 'him' or, maybe, even the very reasonable compromise 'hym'. I'm not pretending to give you information when I mention that the practical scope for spelling reform is limited. Mike. > [...] [...] > > <Hymnal> is a > > fossilized derivative of <hymn>; insisting on an artificial > > underlying phonemic representation of <hymn> in order to > > make <hymnal> a synchronic derivative is a game not worth my > > candles, I'm afraid. > [...] > I take that point (unless I've catastrophically misunderstood, which > happens). You can have my share of that point. It sounds like nonsense to me. English consistently handles derivatives of "-mn" words that way. There are the ordinary words "damnation", "solemnity", "columnar", "autumnal", "condemnation", all with the "n" after "m" pronounced. Are they all fossils? (Rhetorical question.) Then there's the less ordinary "limnic". >> [...] > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Then there's the less ordinary "limnic". How about hymnody? http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=hymnody ------- GC On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:53:03 GMT Bob Cunningham <exw6sxq@earthlink.net> wrote in <news:lsl3d0prcevkrek4e704m970glanrunq6s@4ax.com> in uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] > There are the ordinary words "damnation", "solemnity", > "columnar", "autumnal", "condemnation", all with the "n" > after "m" pronounced. Are they all fossils? Yes. [...] Brian > > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > nonsense to me. English consistently handles derivatives of > "-mn" words that way. If Brian thinks that a small spelling reform would make his own life easier, it's hard to disagree. His "a game not worth my candles" seems to imply that he's done it already, unilaterally; which would be...er...courageous. I went on to suggest that we manage well without it, and that he might consider finding the positive side of our conventions. > There are the ordinary words "damnation", "solemnity", > "columnar", "autumnal", "condemnation", all with the "n" > after "m" pronounced. Are they all fossils? (Rhetorical > question.) If he were calling the n in the forms where it's _not_ sounded a "fossil", then (given a suitable definition of "fossil") it would again be hard to disagree. I don't see how he can move to the position of calling "hymnal" a "fossil": and I take the liberty of assuming he meant it the other way round. But I happen to like fossils, in language as much as in the rocks; and even if I didn't, it would in real life be cranky and absurd to respell "hymn" as "him" or "hym". Somebody called Palsgrave seems to have tried "hymme" and "imme" in the same book in 1530, with conspicuous lack of success. It's time we heard from Brian again, with amplification. > Then there's the less ordinary "limnic". Is that about lakes, or painting? Mike. > > > [...] > > [...] > > > > <Hymnal> is a > > > > fossilized derivative of <hymn>; insisting on an artificial > > > > underlying phonemic representation of <hymn> in order to > > > > make <hymnal> a synchronic derivative is a game not worth my > > > > candles, I'm afraid. > > > [...] > > > I take that point (unless I've catastrophically misunderstood, which > > > happens). > > You can have my share of that point. It sounds like > > nonsense to me. English consistently handles derivatives of > > "-mn" words that way. > If Brian thinks that a small spelling reform would make his own life > easier, it's hard to disagree. His "a game not worth my candles" seems > to imply that he's done it already, unilaterally; which would > be...er...courageous. I went on to suggest that we manage well without > it, and that he might consider finding the positive side of our > conventions. > > There are the ordinary words "damnation", "solemnity", > > "columnar", "autumnal", "condemnation", all with the "n" > > after "m" pronounced. Are they all fossils? (Rhetorical > > question.) He later said yes, that all of those words are fossils. That's obviously nonsense. Based on that, he should be prepared to say that any English word, derived from any language, that preserves to any extent the pronunciation of the word in the source language, is a fossil. He may tell us next that "cat" is a fossil, because it has the "t" sound of the probable etymon, Latin "cattus". > If he were calling the n in the forms where it's _not_ sounded a > "fossil", then (given a suitable definition of "fossil") it would > again be hard to disagree. But he didn't say that. He said 'Hymnal' is a fossilized derivative of 'hymn' And he's dead wrong. > I don't see how he can move to the position > of calling "hymnal" a "fossil": and I take the liberty of assuming he > meant it the other way round. For his sake, I suppose it's too bad he didn't. That would have made a certain amount of sense. Saying that "'hymnal' is a fossilized derivative of 'hymn'" is simply false. > But I happen to like fossils, in language as much as in the rocks; and > even if I didn't, it would in real life be cranky and absurd to > respell "hymn" as "him" or "hym". Somebody called Palsgrave seems to > have tried "hymme" and "imme" in the same book in 1530, with > conspicuous lack of success. > It's time we heard from Brian again, with amplification. I have no great desire to hear from Brian again. He's demonstrated that he lets malice, based on poorly remembered history, cloud his thought. Again, he said <Hymnal> is a fossilized derivative of <hymn>; It's not. "Hymnal" in English is not a derivative of "hymn", fossilized or not. It entered Middle English as "hymnale", which was formed in Latin on the word "hymnus". It appears that Brian Scott gets out of his depth when he attempts to write about words descended from Latin. If anything is "fossilized", it's the "n" in "hymn". But if it's a fossil, it's a useful one, because it helps to make evident the etymological relationship to words in which the "n" is not silent. > > Then there's the less ordinary "limnic". > Is that about lakes, or painting? Good question. All I knew was that it popped up in a wild-card search for words containing "-mn-". I see now (in _NSOED_) that "limn" pertains to painting, with no associated "limnic" mentioned, and "limnic" is about lakes, with no stated association with a word "limn". [...] > > > Then there's the less ordinary "limnic". > > Is that about lakes, or painting? > Good question. All I knew was that it popped up in a > wild-card search for words containing "-mn-". I see now (in > _NSOED_) that "limn" pertains to painting, with no > associated "limnic" mentioned, and "limnic" is about lakes, > with no stated association with a word "limn". I've looked again in _NSOED_, and I see that "limnic" is from a German word "limnisch", which is in turn from a Greek word. I suppose Brian Scott would call "limnic" triply a fossil because it has the "l" sound, the "m" sound, and the "n" sound from the German word. He has demonstrated that he gets out of his depth when he tries to discuss words descended from Latin. Maybe he's better with German etyma. For anyoone who tuned in late, Brian Scott said in a recent posting <Hymnal> is a fossilized derivative of <hymn> That's false. "Hymnal" is from Latin "hymnale", which was derived from Latin "hymnus". His confusion seems to be related in some obscure way to the fact that the "n" in "hymn", but not in "hymnal", is silent. >On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 04:49:12 +0000 (UTC) "Aaron J. Dinkin" ><dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote in ><news:car7s8$22r9$1@netnews.upenn.edu> in >uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> Also, note that I was talking about _underlying_ representations, not >> _phonemic_ representations, which is what the foregoing paragraph is >> about. By "underlying" representations, I mean the highly abstract >> representations that are the input to all the morphophonemic processes, >> the level at which "hymn" ends in an /n/ because it has to be there to be >> pronounced in "hymnal". >Which is a good example of why I don't really believe in >these underlying representations. If the noun <hymn> were [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >make <hymnal> a synchronic derivative is a game not worth my >candles, I'm afraid. On this question, I am afraid I disagree. I believe that the prevalence of literacy, especially among those who would be using "hymning", would cause the n after the m to be pronounced. But I might be wrong; I have always heard the n after the m in damnation, but not in damning. SignatureThis address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 > On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 04:49:12 +0000 (UTC) "Aaron J. Dinkin" > <dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > make <hymnal> a synchronic derivative is a game not worth my > candles, I'm afraid. What about 'autumnal'? I don't think of these words as 'fossilized derivatives', but as examples of words with silent letters, of whose presence we are sufficiently aware to be able to reinsert them when necessary. Rather like the final letters of French words which reappear when a liaison is made. Of course, for those of us who have an intrusive r, we have taken this one step farther. SignatureRob Bannister > > On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 04:49:12 +0000 (UTC) "Aaron J. Dinkin" > > <dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > reappear when a liaison is made. Of course, for those of us who have > an intrusive r, we have taken this one step farther. you mean, appropriately place r, no? AS >>What about 'autumnal'? I don't think of these words as 'fossilized >>derivatives', but as examples of words with silent letters, of whose [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > you mean, appropriately place r, no? That was a 7-day (ie week) joke. I meant that we intrusives stick our Rs where they're not wanted and that a more advanced step would be to say "Damnit" for "Dam it (the river)". SignatureRob Bannister > >>What about 'autumnal'? I don't think of these words as 'fossilized > >>derivatives', but as examples of words with silent letters, of whose [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Rs where they're not wanted and that a more advanced step would be to > say "Damnit" for "Dam it (the river)". ah, got yer idear at last; > On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 04:49:12 +0000 (UTC) "Aaron J. Dinkin" ><dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > make <hymnal> a synchronic derivative is a game not worth my > candles, I'm afraid. But we can carry out synchronic derivations that would result in the [n] being pronounced. If someone were to coin "hymnophobia" (one Google hit of doubtful validity) or "hymnoscopy" (no Google hits), both of which are semantically transparent from their morphemes, I have no doubt that both would contain a [n]. I assume you do regard "hymn"~"hymnal", "damn"~"damnation", "autumn"~"autumnal", "column"~"columnar", etc. as at least synchronically _related_ pairs, don't you? If so, how do explain that some forms contain a [n] and some don't, without recourse to an analysis that isn't isomorphic to postulating a level of representation on which they do contain /n/ which is then deleted in some situations? -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 04:09:26 +0000 (UTC) "Aaron J. Dinkin" <dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote in <news:catptm$32f2$5@netnews.upenn.edu> in uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 04:49:12 +0000 (UTC) "Aaron J. Dinkin" >><dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote in >><news:car7s8$22r9$1@netnews.upenn.edu> in >> uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> [...] >>> Also, note that I was talking about _underlying_ representations, not >>> _phonemic_ representations, which is what the foregoing paragraph is >>> about. By "underlying" representations, I mean the highly abstract >>> representations that are the input to all the morphophonemic processes, >>> the level at which "hymn" ends in an /n/ because it has to be there to be >>> pronounced in "hymnal". >> Which is a good example of why I don't really believe in >> these underlying representations. If the noun <hymn> were [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> make <hymnal> a synchronic derivative is a game not worth my >> candles, I'm afraid. > But we can carry out synchronic derivations that would result in the [n] > being pronounced. If someone were to coin "hymnophobia" (one Google hit > of doubtful validity) or "hymnoscopy" (no Google hits), both of which > are semantically transparent from their morphemes, I have no doubt that > both would contain a [n]. So what? They're obviously constructions by analogy. I have no trouble imagining someone less knowledgeable coining /'hIm@,fowb(i)y@/. > I assume you do regard "hymn"~"hymnal", "damn"~"damnation", > "autumn"~"autumnal", "column"~"columnar", etc. as at least > synchronically _related_ pairs, don't you? If so, how do explain that > some forms contain a [n] and some don't, without recourse to an analysis > that isn't isomorphic to postulating a level of representation on which > they do contain /n/ which is then deleted in some situations? History and analogy, the latter possibly also aided by widespread literacy and consequent familiarity with the historical spellings of <hymn>, etc. And no, it's not isomorphic at the level of psychological reality. Brian This discussion and the realted one on espresso and coffee are swamping ucle (none of the regular posters seems to be participating in any of these discussions) and are now completely OT there. Could I request participants in this discussion to restrict it to sci.lang and aue. Regards, Einde O'Callaghan (posting from ucle) > Are you from a metropolitan area in the U.S. Mid-Atlantic region - that > is, between New York City and roughly Baltimore? I grew up in Orange County, NY, which is apparently considered part of the New York metropolitan area. > Also, note that I was talking about _underlying_ representations, not > _phonemic_ representations, which is what the foregoing paragraph is > about. By "underlying" representations, I mean the highly abstract > representations that are the input to all the morphophonemic processes, > the level at which "hymn" ends in an /n/ because it has to be there to be > pronounced in "hymnal". Are there any derived words in which the "mare" vowel of the base word becomes [e], [ej], or similar? If not, what are the criteria for deciding what the underlying representation of a given vowel is? -Scott > >> It means the following, abstracted away from as much technical linguistic > >> terminology as possible: Somewhere in your memory, you have memorized how [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > outlooks may be explainable if you've got the separate phonemic category > that can accept "man" and "mare"; I don't have such a category. <snip bit about underlying representations> > > If I were to tack an "r" onto "may", it would come out sort of like > > "mayor", but with an awkward attempt to squeeze it into one syllable. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > (Also, note that some people pronounce "mayor" the same as "mare", though > I don't know if that proves anything with respect to the question at hand.) They're the same for me, but I don't know whether it proves anything either. If I tried to put an /r/ onto "may", I think it would come out disyllabic, like "layer" or "player". > > The same applies to the "mail" vowel; dictionaries tend to represent > > it as the same vowel as in "main", but it also sounds like the "man" > > vowel to me. > > I agree with both of you. That is, with you as to what it sounds like; > with the dictionaries as to what it is underlyingly/phonemically. My accent is different here - the "mail" vowel is probably similar to yours, [e@], but the "mare" vowel is much more open - at least [E:] and I think usually [&:]. Except for "nah" and the odd obvious loanword, [E:] or [&:] only occurs before /r/ and is in complimentary distribution with the "may" vowel. I think my "man" vowel is [a], like my "cat" vowel. Certainly I think of "man" as having the same vowel as "marry", not "Mary". > > I have "scaler/scalar" as a minimal pair here. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > portray "scaler" and "scalar" as having different underlying vowels to > begin with, anyway. For me Wells's analysis doesn't work with /l/. I think that, for my accent, you have to have a special rule that an /l/ followed by a vowel (within the same word) tends to go into the same syllable as that vowel, ignoring the morpheme boundary and other conditions. Hence (approximately): "feel" [fi@l] but "feeling" [fi: lIN(g)] "scale" [ske@l] but "scaler" (and "scalar") [ske: l@r] "Charles" [tSA@lz] but "Charlie" [tSAr lI] For the second one, compare the way that things work with /r/: "scare" [sk&:r] and "scarer" [sk&:r @r]. It does depend on the previous vowel though: "roll" is different, and with, say, "fall" or "fell", I'm really not sure. Jonathan > (Also, note that some people pronounce "mayor" the same as "mare", though > I don't know if that proves anything with respect to the question at hand.) *Time* (I think it was *Time*; might possibly have been *Newsweek*) falsely claimed that Chicagoans were disrespecting Jane Byrne by referring to her as Da Mare. Dick Daley had been Da Mare, too. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net On 16-Jun-2004, Scott Wood <nospam@buserror.net> wrote in message <slrncd267t.2ep.nospam@odin.buserror.net>: > Perhaps for some, but it had never occured to me to consider the two > vowels related at all (other than orthographically) until I came > across these newsgroups (and yes, I'm rhotic). I'd always considered > the "mare" vowel to be the same as in "man" (which is distinct from > the vowel in "cat"). Another data point: I (again, native Southern Californian accent) consider <man> and <cat> to have the same vowel, but <mare> to have the vowel of <men> (and <met>). [...] SignatureJim Heckman > Another data point: I (again, native Southern Californian > accent) consider <man> and <cat> to have the same vowel, but > <mare> to have the vowel of <men> (and <met>). Sounds pretty close to what I have (though I'd need to do phonetic measurements to be certain). I'm a Southerner by birth and upbringing, but I have lived in California and New England for the past 12 years, so I can't tell if my pronunciation for these words is "original", or from my new-ish non-Southern accent. Nathan SignatureTo contact me, replace verizon.net with aol.com > On 16-Jun-2004, Scott Wood <nospam@buserror.net> > wrote in message <slrncd267t.2ep.nospam@odin.buserror.net>: > > I'd always considered > > the "mare" vowel to be the same as in "man" (which is distinct from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > accent) consider <man> and <cat> to have the same vowel, but > <mare> to have the vowel of <men> (and <met>). > On 16-Jun-2004, Scott Wood <nospam@buserror.net> > wrote in message <slrncd267t.2ep.nospam@odin.buserror.net>: > > I'd always considered > > the "mare" vowel to be the same as in "man" (which is distinct from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > accent) consider <man> and <cat> to have the same vowel, but > <mare> to have the vowel of <men> (and <met>). I agree, and find Scott's vowels somewhat astonishing. Well, maybe my <mare> vowel is _slightly_ different from my <men> vowel, but it's nothing at all like <man>. I grew up in Northeast Missouri, where Mary/marry/merry all pretty much share a vowel. I think /r/'s and /l/'s modify (at least some) preceding vowels in my speech. I can imagine, though, speakers retaining the vowel of <may> in <mare>. I can even imagine <mare> being pronounced pretty much identically with <mayor>--although I would expect such speakers to reduce <mayor> pretty much to one syllable, rather than expanding <mare> to two. If one says that <mare> has the vowel of <man>, does that mean that it has the vowel of <marry> (where the vowel is distinctive from that of <merry>)? Gary Williams > Well, maybe my ><mare> vowel is _slightly_ different from my <men> vowel, but it's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] ><mayor>--although I would expect such speakers to reduce <mayor> > pretty much to one syllable, rather than expanding <mare> to two. > If one says that <mare> has the vowel of <man>, does that mean that it > has the vowel of <marry> (where the vowel is distinctive from that of ><merry>)? Not in my MINMINM accent (New York Postwar Prestige Standard[TM]), where 'mare' and 'man' do have similar if not identical vowels, phonetically speaking. But this is sort of complicated by my having the cat/man distinction, maybe. Phonetically speaking I use a vowel like my "cat" vowel in "marry", and a vowel like my "man" vowel in "Mary". Actually, my pronunciations of these vowels can be heard by accessing a couple of files that are or were somewhere on the AUE website. > > It means the following, abstracted away from as much technical linguistic > > terminology as possible: Somewhere in your memory, you have memorized how [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > it as the same vowel as in "main", but it also sounds like the "man" > vowel to me. I have "scaler/scalar" as a minimal pair here. Exactly. And now I'll look at the prior responses to this posting ... SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > The same applies to the "mail" vowel; dictionaries tend to represent > it as the same vowel as in "main", but it also sounds like the "man" > vowel to me. Really? Seems very strange to me (being more familiar with British accents than with American ones). I don't manage to imagine how these three words could sound in AmE to make this statement true. >I have "scaler/scalar" as a minimal pair here. I don't understand. IPA? In what way do they sound different? SignatureRuud Harmsen <rha@rudhar.com> - http://rudhar.com >> The same applies to the "mail" vowel; dictionaries tend to represent >> it as the same vowel as in "main", but it also sounds like the "man" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > accents than with American ones). I don't manage to imagine how these > three words could sound in AmE to make this statement true. I think he means something like this: man [me@n] /m&n/ mail [me@l] /meIl/ main [meIn] /meIn/ Broadly speaking this is also true of my New York (New York Postwar Prestige Standard[TM]) accent. I have the cat/man distinction, note. (I think my allophones in 'man' and 'mail' might be more like [&:] or [&@], but I'm not sure.) > > The same applies to the "mail" vowel; dictionaries tend to represent > > it as the same vowel as in "main", but it also sounds like the "man" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I don't understand. IPA? In what way do they sound different? IPA is pants. Mike. >> The same applies to the "mail" vowel; dictionaries tend to represent >> it as the same vowel as in "main", but it also sounds like the "man" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I don't understand. IPA? In what way do they sound different? I've recorded "man mail main mare scaler scalar" and placed it at <http://www.buserror.net/aue/scaler-scalar.mp3>. -Scott > >> That is to say: I hold (I hope uncontroversially) that the vowels of "may" > >> and "mare", which I gather are conventionally written as /ey/ and /eh/ by [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > your vocabulary regards as one vowel is pronounced this-way before /r/ > and that-way at the end of a word. Sorry, but the native speaker takes precedence over the phonological theorist. They are different and unmergeable vowels -- no more conflatable than /h/ and /N/. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:18:52 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang: >Sorry, but the native speaker takes precedence over the phonological >theorist. Most native speakers haven't a clue as to what phonology of phonetics might be. And those that do can easily be misguided by their being native. Like not hearing differences that do exist and vice versa. I'm not talking about all native speakers, clearly. SignatureRuud Harmsen <rha@rudhar.com> - http://rudhar.com > Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:18:52 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > might be. And those that do can easily be misguided by their being > native. Like not hearing differences that do exist and vice versa. If they don't hear differences, the differences don't exist. In English, [k] is not different from [q] -- they are /k/. > I'm not talking about all native speakers, clearly. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> It means the following, abstracted away from as much technical linguistic >> terminology as possible: Somewhere in your memory, you have memorized how [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Sorry, but the native speaker takes precedence over the phonological > theorist. In what? I made a statement of phonological theory. Enrico asked what it meant; I paraphrased it in laymen's terms. Surely the native speaker doesn't take precedence over the phonological theorist in explaining questions of phonological theory. > They are different and unmergeable vowels -- no more conflatable than > /h/ and /N/. Native speakers can disagree on this point. I can say with as much authority as you that they are a single and indivisible vowel, no more distinct than [t<o>] and [t<h>]. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > >> >> How about "marry", in dialects that distinguish it from "Mary"? It > >> >> has to be /m& ri/ because */&r/ is blocked as a syllable rime. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > that of J.C. Wells's article "Syllabification and Allophony", which is > linked to from <http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/>. I don't find all Is it _published_ somewhere? (Yes, the Gimson Festschrift.) I get a blank screen. I suppose I could ask him to send it to me. > of the arguments Wells makes or conclusions he reaches in that article > convincing - indeed, he assumes that /r/ in "marry" is a coda, which is > exactly contrary to my basic assumption - but the basic idea is highly > reasonable. He's a phonetician, hence has to bend the theory to fit the facts. > (I've had some trouble getting Wells's article to load properly in > certain browsers; Explorer doesn't like it but Safari and Lynx are fine [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > underlying element to appear as /eh/ before tautosyllabic /r/ and as /ey/ > syllable-finally. That is to say: you bend the facts to fit the theory. It is indeed very Gussmannian. > >> all. If the /r/ were in the second syllable, the first syllable would have > >> to have /ey/. Compare "payroll" /pey.rol/ with "pairing" /pehr.iN/, where [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > before an voiceless consonant applies to "selfish" but not to "shellfish" > because in "selfish" the /lf/ is tautosyllabic but in "shellfish" it isn't. I'd attribute it to the different morpheme structure rather than the different syllable structure. (Yes, there's a _big_ difference in those two claims.) > >> other hand, there's independent motivation for forbidding /r/ to be in a > >> coda after a short vowel at all, since there's no cases of e.g. /&r#/ or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Not at all. The syllable membership of a single intervocalic consonant is > not a pre-theoretic fact. The only place where we can be pre-theoretically Of course it is. > confident of what syllable (if any) a single consonant belongs to is the > onset of an initial syllable or the coda of a final syllable. Since we can [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > hypothesis, consider it to be an onset as long as it's consistent with > our other hypotheses to do so. But as Gussmann inadvertently shows, the notion espoused above -- that syllable edges mimick word edges -- doesn't hold. > >> Furthermore, supposing that unmerged "marry" is /m&.ri/ gives us an > >> explanation for why nonrhotic varieties of English are significantly less [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What theoretical baggage? This is pure extrapolation from empirical data, The notions of "constraint," "blanket," "coda," and "/ /" are all theoretical baggage. > viz.: In the one place we can be 100% certain that something's a coda - > i.e., word-finally - there is no /r/ at all. Furthermore, there's no /r/ > in other places where we're inclined to regard something as a coda - > e.g., before consonants. All that leaves is intervocalic /r/, which we > can assign to a syllable in whatever way best suits our theory. Facts be damned! > Isn't it virtually tautological to say that a non-rhotic variety of > English has a blanket constraint against /r/ in codas? I wouldn't have the slightest idea about non-rhotic varieties. > >> into the first syllable, which then becomes subject to the constraint > >> against tautosyllabic /&r/, and so the vowel is replaced by something that > >> can occur before /r/, namely /eh/. (In some rhotic varieties, the > >> constraint against /&r/ prevents the /r/ from moving into the first > >> syllable in the first place; but the point is that in rhotic varieties > >> this _can_ happen, but in nonrhotic varieties it can't.) Then all this time you haven't even been talking about the same language as I. > > You don't think "Harold" is /h&.r@ld/, do you? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to move it into sci.lang exclusively, but let me know if you intend to do > that because I'm following it in a.u.e. Are you suggesting that _I_ would prefer to post in aue? If you were to continue excluxively there, I would of course not see any of the discussion. I've no idea whether your aue buddies would be interested in the continuation or not. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> >> >> How about "marry", in dialects that distinguish it from "Mary"? It >> >> >> has to be /m& ri/ because */&r/ is blocked as a syllable rime. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Is it _published_ somewhere? (Yes, the Gimson Festschrift.) I get a > blank screen. I suppose I could ask him to send it to me. Or you could try reading it in Safari or Lynx. I tried Mozilla this afternoon, in some Linux window-manager, and it worked there too. >> of the arguments Wells makes or conclusions he reaches in that article >> convincing - indeed, he assumes that /r/ in "marry" is a coda, which is >> exactly contrary to my basic assumption - but the basic idea is highly >> reasonable. > > He's a phonetician, hence has to bend the theory to fit the facts. What's wrong with that? >> >> Indeed, I'd say that the /r/ is definitely part of the first >> >> syllable in "Mary"; the /r/ is necessary to license what you're [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > That is to say: you bend the facts to fit the theory. How so? I'm not bending the facts (i.e., the phonetic realization of the vowels in "may" and "mare") to fit a theory; I'm presenting a theory which, it seems to me, accounts for the facts (to the degree necessary for this discussion). > It is indeed very Gussmannian. I never heard of Gussmann before this thread. Are you saying that it's implausible and ad hoc to suppose that the vowels in "may" and "mare" have the same underlying representation, at least in rhotic varieties of English? Or that (given that) the difference between the surface realizations of those vowels is due to the presence of a following /r/ in one of them? Or that the influence of the following /r/ is contingent on the /r/ being in the same syllable as the vowel? If the last, I agree it's nontraditional, but that doesn't make it ad hoc. >> >> all. If the /r/ were in the second syllable, the first syllable >> >> would have to have /ey/. Compare "payroll" /pey.rol/ with "pairing" [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > different syllable structure. (Yes, there's a _big_ difference in those > two claims.) Of course there is. Wells's claim, however, is that the syllable structure is determined by the morpheme structure (at least in these cases). Read his paper for more detail. I'm not sure I find his arguments terribly convincing, but it's on the right track enough to offer a partial explanation for the relative distribution of nonrhoticity and "marry"/"merry"/"Mary" merger. Furthermore, his analysis is aesthetically appealing because it doesn't make the application of phonological rules contingent on nonphonological criteria. I don't know if his analysis is actually supportable on its own merits as it stands, but to me that is a point in its favor. >> >> other hand, there's independent motivation for forbidding /r/ to be >> >> in a coda after a short vowel at all, since there's no cases of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Of course it is. As Michael Palin put it, argument's not the same as contradiction. However, I shall soldier on. How? The very _existence_ of syllables, let alone the nature of their internal structure, is not a pre-theoretic fact. If it's part of our theory for syllable to exist at all, which I presume we want it to be, any particular consonant can be part of the syllable to its left, the syllable to its right, both, or no syllable at all; which it's going to be is of necessity dependent on the theory of syllable structure we adopt. >> confident of what syllable (if any) a single consonant belongs to is the >> onset of an initial syllable or the coda of a final syllable. Since we can [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > But as Gussmann inadvertently shows, the notion espoused above -- that > syllable edges mimick word edges -- doesn't hold. Ah! Tell me more; how does he (inadvertently) show this? But surely a word edge must constitute a _possible_ syllable edge, since a word edge may be discourse-final and so there can't be any more syllables after that; or might such discourse-final consonants end up completely extrasyllabic? >> >> Furthermore, supposing that unmerged "marry" is /m&.ri/ gives us an >> >> explanation for why nonrhotic varieties of English are [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The notions of "constraint," "blanket," "coda," and "/ /" are all > theoretical baggage. "Coda" I will accept as theoretical baggage. "Constraint" I will not; I wasn't using the word in a technical OT-style sense, but merely as a descriptive generalization. "Blanket" also. I can easily replace "/ /" with "[ ]" without changing the point of the claim in any relevant way. >> viz.: In the one place we can be 100% certain that something's a coda - >> i.e., word-finally - there is no /r/ at all. Furthermore, there's no /r/ [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Facts be damned! What empirical non-theory-dependent facts can dictate what syllable an intervocalic /r/ belongs to? >> Isn't it virtually tautological to say that a non-rhotic variety of >> English has a blanket constraint against /r/ in codas? > > I wouldn't have the slightest idea about non-rhotic varieties. I mean, that's practically the definition of non-rhotic, isn't it? >> >> into the first syllable, which then becomes subject to the constraint >> >> against tautosyllabic /&r/, and so the vowel is replaced by [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Then all this time you haven't even been talking about the same language > as I. What language are you talking about? I'm talking about English, in which (a) some varieties are rhotic, and some are not; (b) some merge "marry" with "Mary", and some do not; but (c, and most important) only *very few if any* merge "marry" and "Marry" but are nonrhotic. >> I sense this discussion is getting perhaps a bit technical. I'd be happy >> to move it into sci.lang exclusively, but let me know if you intend to do >> that because I'm following it in a.u.e. > > Are you suggesting that _I_ would prefer to post in aue? No, quite the contrary. I'm suggesting that you might prefer _not_ to post in a.u.e; but if you do decide to take this thread out of a.u.e, please alert me before you do so. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > >> >> >> How about "marry", in dialects that distinguish it from "Mary"? It > >> >> >> has to be /m& ri/ because */&r/ is blocked as a syllable rime. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Or you could try reading it in Safari or Lynx. I tried Mozilla this > afternoon, in some Linux window-manager, and it worked there too. No I couldn't. > >> of the arguments Wells makes or conclusions he reaches in that article > >> convincing - indeed, he assumes that /r/ in "marry" is a coda, which is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What's wrong with that? You seem to find it objectionable. > >> >> Indeed, I'd say that the /r/ is definitely part of the first > >> >> syllable in "Mary"; the /r/ is necessary to license what you're [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > the same underlying representation, at least in rhotic varieties of > English? Native speakers consider them absolutely distinct, so they _are_ absolutely distinct. > Or that (given that) the difference between the surface > realizations of those vowels is due to the presence of a following /r/ in [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > discourse-final and so there can't be any more syllables after that; or > might such discourse-final consonants end up completely extrasyllabic? I already mentioned that he insists there are no voiced stop clusters within a morpheme. I forget the ordinary-word example that occurred to me immediately (and I don't feel like getting up to consult my margin), but see "Edgar." Gussmann uses his specious claim to back his assertion that there are no initial clusters, or final clusters, or something; they're produced by deleting nuclei or codas or something from theoretical tiers. > >> >> Furthermore, supposing that unmerged "marry" is /m&.ri/ gives us an > >> >> explanation for why nonrhotic varieties of English are [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > descriptive generalization. "Blanket" also. I can easily replace "/ /" > with "[ ]" without changing the point of the claim in any relevant way. In that case, there's no talking to you whatsoever. > >> viz.: In the one place we can be 100% certain that something's a coda - > >> i.e., word-finally - there is no /r/ at all. Furthermore, there's no /r/ [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What empirical non-theory-dependent facts can dictate what syllable an > intervocalic /r/ belongs to? The pronunciations of the words. > >> Isn't it virtually tautological to say that a non-rhotic variety of > >> English has a blanket constraint against /r/ in codas? > > > > I wouldn't have the slightest idea about non-rhotic varieties. > > I mean, that's practically the definition of non-rhotic, isn't it? I wouldn't know. You still haven't commented on "Cuber." > >> >> into the first syllable, which then becomes subject to the constraint > >> >> against tautosyllabic /&r/, and so the vowel is replaced by [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > with "Mary", and some do not; but (c, and most important) only *very few > if any* merge "marry" and "Marry" but are nonrhotic. I'm talking about GenAm. > >> I sense this discussion is getting perhaps a bit technical. I'd be happy > >> to move it into sci.lang exclusively, but let me know if you intend to do [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > post in a.u.e; but if you do decide to take this thread out of a.u.e, > please alert me before you do so. I don't think sci.lang is interested in posters who won't distinguish / / from [ ]. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> What empirical non-theory-dependent facts can dictate what syllable an >> intervocalic /r/ belongs to? Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:13:28 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang: >The pronunciations of the words. [...] Peter T. Daniels: >I don't think sci.lang is interested in posters who won't distinguish / >/ from [ ]. ??? SignatureRuud Harmsen <rha@rudhar.com> - http://rudhar.com >> >> >> >> How about "marry", in dialects that distinguish it from >> >> >> >> "Mary"? It has to be /m& ri/ because */&r/ is blocked as a [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > You seem to find it objectionable. I don't. I don't know where you get that idea. >> >> That is to say: I hold (I hope uncontroversially) that the vowels >> >> of "may" and "mare", which I gather are conventionally written as [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Native speakers consider them absolutely distinct, so they _are_ > absolutely distinct. I remind you that I'm not talking (in the above paragraph) about phonemic realization. I'm talking about the phonological underlying representation, in the sense of the abstract representation which is the input to morphophonemic derivational rules: the level at which "hymn" and "damn" end with a /n/. I'm not talking about a level that native speakers are expected to have conscious access to. An alternative response to the same thing: I assure you I am a native speaker, and for my entire life have considered them exactly the same. Ergo they _are_ exactly the same. >> > But as Gussmann inadvertently shows, the notion espoused above -- that >> > syllable edges mimick word edges -- doesn't hold. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > they're produced by deleting nuclei or codas or something from > theoretical tiers. I don't quite follow how this demonstrates that syllable edges mimic word edges. >> >> >> Furthermore, supposing that unmerged "marry" is /m&.ri/ gives us an >> >> >> explanation for why nonrhotic varieties of English are [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > In that case, there's no talking to you whatsoever. See below. >> >> viz.: In the one place we can be 100% certain that something's a coda - >> >> i.e., word-finally - there is no /r/ at all. Furthermore, there's [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > The pronunciations of the words. Please be more specific. What empirical phonetic fact about the pronunciation of a word can demonstrate what syllable an intervocalic consonant belongs to, without reference to particular theories of phonology? >> >> Isn't it virtually tautological to say that a non-rhotic variety of >> >> English has a blanket constraint against /r/ in codas? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I wouldn't know. You still haven't commented on "Cuber." This has been taken up elsewhere in the thread, so I'll respond to it there to try to keep this post shorter. >> > Then all this time you haven't even been talking about the same language >> > as I. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I'm talking about GenAm. I hope you'll agree that English encompasses "GenAm". At any rate, I'm not quite sure what the characteristic of GenAm are; in particular, is it Mary/marry/merry-distinguishing? In general, how does GenAm differ from your own dialect? >> >> I sense this discussion is getting perhaps a bit technical. I'd be >> >> happy to move it into sci.lang exclusively, but let me know if you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I don't think sci.lang is interested in posters who won't distinguish / > / from [ ]. I didn't say I don't distinguish / / from [ ]. I'm sure there will be many in a.u.e who will happy confirm that I'm a pest about insisting on the distinction. I said that switching one for the other didn't change my willingness to endorse one particular claim; that is still true. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > I remind you that I'm not talking (in the above paragraph) about phonemic > realization. I'm talking about the phonological underlying representation, > in the sense of the abstract representation which is the input to > morphophonemic derivational rules: the level at which "hymn" and "damn" > end with a /n/. I'm not talking about a level that native speakers are > expected to have conscious access to. Some of us don't believe in "phonological underlying representations." > An alternative response to the same thing: I assure you I am a native > speaker, and for my entire life have considered them exactly the same. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I don't quite follow how this demonstrates that syllable edges mimic word > edges. Nor, I'm sure, do any of his readers. But he thinks he's shown this. > >> What empirical non-theory-dependent facts can dictate what syllable an > >> intervocalic /r/ belongs to? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > consonant belongs to, without reference to particular theories of > phonology? Once again, the native speakers. They generally agree on syllabification. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net Fri, 18 Jun 2004 04:14:47 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang: >> Please be more specific. What empirical phonetic fact about the >> pronunciation of a word can demonstrate what syllable an intervocalic [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Once again, the native speakers. They generally agree on >syllabification. In my experience, they don't. E.g. "I fetch" is "ik haal" in Dutch. The plural is "wij halen". For spelling purposes, to explain why the double aa changes to single, although the sound does not change, this is divided as "ha-len". But morphologically and grammatically, "haal" being the verb's stem, it should clearly be "hal-en" or "haal-en". But it is never done that way, because it conflicts with the traditional spelling system. So this is a case where I as a native speaker don't agree with the syllabification shown in dictionaries and word-lists. English historically has remnants of this too: "liking" should be parsed as "li-king" in order to not wreck the spelling system, although "lik(e)-ing" makes much more sense. In this light, 'make' and 'male' and 'mare' all have the same vowel: a long a. SignatureRuud Harmsen <rha@rudhar.com> - http://rudhar.com > Fri, 18 Jun 2004 04:14:47 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > In this light, 'make' and 'male' and 'mare' all have the same vowel: a > long a. There's no need for morpheme boundaries and syllable boundaries to coincide. And hyphenation points can got with both or either, depending on language. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net Fri, 18 Jun 2004 12:46:04 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang: >There's no need for morpheme boundaries and syllable boundaries to >coincide. And hyphenation points can got with both or either, depending >on language. But life is so much easier if they do. There is a language that has this: Esperanto. SignatureRuud Harmsen <rha@rudhar.com> - http://rudhar.com On Friday, in article <9os5d0tkehtndo8d41f88psnbtm93jgobc@4ax.com> > Fri, 18 Jun 2004 12:46:04 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > But life is so much easier if they do. There is a language that has > this: Esperanto. Do they not have the heli-copter vs helico-pter problem, then? Signaturefix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". >> I remind you that I'm not talking (in the above paragraph) about phonemic >> realization. I'm talking about the phonological underlying representation, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Some of us don't believe in "phonological underlying representations." Fair enough, though I'm pretty sure most of us do. And whether it exists or not, it's the level I was talking about; it's a straw man to criticize what I wrote for not addressing the issues raised at a _different_ level of phonological representation. >> >> > But as Gussmann inadvertently shows, the notion espoused above -- >> >> > that syllable edges mimick word edges -- doesn't hold. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Nor, I'm sure, do any of his readers. But he thinks he's shown this. Aagh! Not a good week for my proofreading. I _meant_, how this demonstrates that syllable edges don't mimic word edges, which is what you said it did. >> >> What empirical non-theory-dependent facts can dictate what syllable an >> >> intervocalic /r/ belongs to? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Once again, the native speakers. They generally agree on > syllabification. Well, in that case, all I can say is that native speakers can disagree, and at this point I'm just stacking up my own native-speaker intuition against yours. So, I assure you, for me the /r/ in "Mary" is unambiguously part of the first syllable, whether it is for you or not. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > >> I remind you that I'm not talking (in the above paragraph) about phonemic > >> realization. I'm talking about the phonological underlying representation, [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > demonstrates that syllable edges don't mimic word edges, which is what > you said it did. He claimed, in effect, that the reason a word can't start or end with bd- or -bd is that -bd- doesn't occur within a word (me, I don't know how to pronounce "bdellium," and he has lots of ways to get around "nabbed"). > >> >> What empirical non-theory-dependent facts can dictate what syllable an > >> >> intervocalic /r/ belongs to? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > against yours. So, I assure you, for me the /r/ in "Mary" is > unambiguously part of the first syllable, whether it is for you or not. And ... there's such a thing as ambisyllabic /r/. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net [...] > He [Gussman, I think?] claimed, in effect, that the reason a word can't start or end with > bd- or -bd is that -bd- doesn't occur within a word (me, I don't know > how to pronounce "bdellium," and he has lots of ways to get around > "nabbed"). How does he get around "abdominal" or "obdurate"? (I'm sure there must be more.) Alan Jones > [...] > > He [Gussman, I think?] claimed, in effect, that the reason a word can't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > How does he get around "abdominal" or "obdurate"? (I'm sure there must be > more.) He doesn't seem to realize that the former exists; the latter contains (synchronically slightly arguably) a morpheme boundary. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> >> Please be more specific. What empirical phonetic fact about the >> >> pronunciation of a word can demonstrate what syllable an intervocalic [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > And ... there's such a thing as ambisyllabic /r/. That's true... at least in some theories of syllabification. Is there ambisyllabic /r/ in naive native-speaker intuition? That is, are there cases in which you can ask a natie speaker with no linguistic education "What syllable is that sound in?" and they'll say "Well, it's kinda in both?" -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom >> >> Please be more specific. What empirical phonetic fact about the >> >> pronunciation of a word can demonstrate what syllable an intervocalic [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > And ... there's such a thing as ambisyllabic /r/. That's true... at least in some theories of syllabification. Is there ambisyllabic /r/ in naive native-speaker intuition? That is, are there cases in which you can ask a natie speaker with no linguistic education "What syllable is that sound in?" and they'll say "Well, it's kinda in both"? -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:13:28 GMT "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in <news:40D18AE5.2121@worldnet.att.net> in uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] >>>> confident of what syllable (if any) a single consonant belongs to is the >>>> onset of an initial syllable or the coda of a final syllable. Since we can [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>>> hypothesis, consider it to be an onset as long as it's consistent with >>>> our other hypotheses to do so. >>> But as Gussmann inadvertently shows, the notion espoused above -- that >>> syllable edges mimick word edges -- doesn't hold. >> Ah! Tell me more; how does he (inadvertently) show this? But surely a word >> edge must constitute a _possible_ syllable edge, since a word edge may be >> discourse-final and so there can't be any more syllables after that; or >> might such discourse-final consonants end up completely extrasyllabic? > I already mentioned that he insists there are no voiced stop clusters > within a morpheme. I forget the ordinary-word example that occurred to > me immediately (and I don't feel like getting up to consult my margin), > but see "Edgar." Probably <abdomen>; you used that and <Ogden> as examples when you were complaining about Gussmann last winter. [...] >>> The notions of "constraint," "blanket," "coda," and "/ /" are all >>> theoretical baggage. >> "Coda" I will accept as theoretical baggage. "Constraint" I will not; I >> wasn't using the word in a technical OT-style sense, but merely as a >> descriptive generalization. "Blanket" also. I can easily replace "/ /" >> with "[ ]" without changing the point of the claim in any relevant way. > In that case, there's no talking to you whatsoever. He's not saying that they're generally interchangeable; he's just saying that in this particular case he's willing to make either claim. [...] Brian <Jättesnip> > Isn't it virtually tautological to say that a non-rhotic variety of > English has a blanket constraint against /r/ in codas? Surely not. Lots of non-rhotic dialects allow syllable final /r/ in liason forms, at least. Des has never been to Africa/r/ Or India Signature"[T]he structural trend in linguistics which took root with the International Congresses of the twenties and early thirties [...] had close and effective connections with phenomenology in its Husserlian and Hegelian versions." -- Roman Jakobson > <Jättesnip> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Des > has never been to Africa/r/ Or India JFK I (if Kerry is going to be JFK II) said "Cuber" utterance-finally all the time. (<Cuba>.) SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net ><Jättesnip> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Surely not. Lots of non-rhotic dialects allow syllable final /r/ in > liason forms, at least. What's the motivation for considering those liaison /r/s to be syllable-final? That is, why not consider "spa is" to be /spA.rIz/ rather than /spAr.Iz/? -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > ><Jättesnip> > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What's the motivation for considering those liaison /r/s to be syllable-final? > That is, why not consider "spa is" to be /spA.rIz/ rather than /spAr.Iz/? My "Cuber" example would be relevant. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> ><Jättesnip> >> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > My "Cuber" example would be relevant. I take it you mean "Cuber" when not followed by a vowel? That's a point, and it would have to be regarded as a syllable-final /r/. However, note that this is a hypercorrection of a rhotic accent to conform to a rhotic prestige variety. That is, a syllable-final /r/ might appear in what is ordinarily a rhotic dialect, but specifically when that dialect is trying to abandon its non-rhoticity (i.e., its rule against coda /r/). -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > >> ><Jättesnip> > >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > ordinarily a rhotic dialect, but specifically when that dialect is trying > to abandon its non-rhoticity (i.e., its rule against coda /r/). Presumably you intended "hypercorrection of a non-rhotic accent to conform to a rhotic prestige variety." Do I really need to remind you that the Kennedys were about as prestigious as a Boston family could be? The old-money Lowells and Cabots and Lodges were no more rhotic than the fairly nouveau-riche Kennedys. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> >> ><Jättesnip> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Presumably you intended "hypercorrection of a non-rhotic accent to > conform to a rhotic prestige variety." Right, thanks. > Do I really need to remind you that the Kennedys were about as > prestigious as a Boston family could be? The old-money Lowells and > Cabots and Lodges were no more rhotic than the fairly nouveau-riche > Kennedys. Was the pan-USA prestige variety rhotic by the early 1960s? Anyway: conventional wisdom as I understand it is that it's an urban legend that Kennedy tended to say "Cubar" and "idear" even when those words weren't followed by a vowel, although I don't have a citation for this and I am willing to be proved wrong. But note that in Kennedy's most memorable moments, he was speaking to a presumably predominantly rhotic audience - namely, the whole country. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > >> >> ><Jättesnip> > >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Was the pan-USA prestige variety rhotic by the early 1960s? There is no such thing. > Anyway: conventional wisdom as I understand it is that it's an urban > legend that Kennedy tended to say "Cubar" and "idear" even when those > words weren't followed by a vowel, although I don't have a citation for > this and I am willing to be proved wrong. But note that in Kennedy's most > memorable moments, he was speaking to a presumably predominantly rhotic > audience - namely, the whole country. Yet that didn't influence him in the least toward rhoticism. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > Anyway: conventional wisdom as I understand it is that it's an urban > legend that Kennedy tended to say "Cubar" and "idear" even when those > words weren't followed by a vowel, although I don't have a citation for > this and I am willing to be proved wrong. But note that in Kennedy's most > memorable moments, he was speaking to a presumably predominantly rhotic > audience - namely, the whole country. I just listened to JFK's address on the Cuban Missile Crisis on October 22, 1962 <http://www.cs.umb.edu/jfklibrary/j102262.htm>. I only noticed three instances of "Cubar", and all three occur before a vowel: ...Soviet assistance to Cuba [r], and I quote... ...any nuclear missile launched from Cuba [r] against any nation... ...which has turned Cuba [r] against your friends and neighbors... All other instances sound like [kyub@] to me. Interestingly, there are some places where I expected to hear the [r] liaison, but JFK managed to insert a pause after "Cuba" even when it wasn't prosodically necessary: This urgent transformation of Cuba [pause] into an important strategic base... In that sense, missiles in Cuba [pause] add to an already clear and present danger... It's possible that JFK's aides made him aware of his "intrusive r" and trained him to avoid using it after "Cuba". It would be interesting to compare the speech to his unprepared comments. > ><Jättesnip> > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > syllable-final? That is, why not consider "spa is" to be /spA.rIz/ > rather than /spAr.Iz/? That's how they're always described, in my experience. And imitating this pronunciation (I have speak a non-rhotic dialect, but not the relevant one) "Africar and" is pronounced differently from "Africa rand". Des has reservations about the ontological status of syllables anyway Signature"[T]he structural trend in linguistics which took root with the International Congresses of the twenties and early thirties [...] had close and effective connections with phenomenology in its Husserlian and Hegelian versions." -- Roman Jakobson Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:14:02 GMT: Des Small <des.small@bristol.ac.uk>: in sci.lang: >That's how they're always described, in my experience. And imitating >this pronunciation (I have speak a non-rhotic dialect, but not the >relevant one) "Africar and" is pronounced differently from "Africa >rand". Yes, in "Africar and" teh second a is a shwa and the word has no (secondary stress". In "(south) Africa rand" 'af' and 'rand' are stressed. SignatureRuud Harmsen <rha@rudhar.com> - http://rudhar.com > Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:14:02 GMT: Des Small <des.small@bristol.ac.uk>: in > sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > (secondary stress". In "(south) Africa rand" 'af' and 'rand' are > stressed. Yes, but that's because "rand" is an actual noun and carries stress and "and" is a reducible conjunction, not anything to do with syllable boundaries. It's like comparing "Africa's an..." with "Africa's Anne...". -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 04:48:07 +0000 (UTC) "Aaron J. Dinkin" <dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote in <news:caoje7$103l$1@netnews.upenn.edu> in uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] > The theory I'm adopting for the purpose of this argument is in essence > that of J.C. Wells's article "Syllabification and Allophony", which is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > exactly contrary to my basic assumption - but the basic idea is highly > reasonable. > (I've had some trouble getting Wells's article to load properly in > certain browsers; Explorer doesn't like it but Safari and Lynx are fine > with it. I haven't tried Mozilla.) Firefox has no problem with it. >>> Indeed, I'd say that the /r/ is definitely part of the first syllable in >>> "Mary"; the /r/ is necessary to license what you're writing as /eh/ at >> Ah. "License" indicates you're operating in one of those current >> phonological theories that have invented all sorts of "levels" to get >> away from segments -- but go ahead and used "C" and "V" segments anyway. > Eh, it indicates nothing of the kind; it was just the shorthand that came > to my fingertips most readily. If you like, I can rephrase it as follows: > it's necessary for the /r/ to be part of the first syllable in "Mary" for > the underlying /e:/ (or SPE-type /&:/ or whatever you suppose the underlying > representation of that vowel is) to appear as /eh/ rather than /ey/. > That is to say: I hold (I hope uncontroversially) that the vowels of "may" > and "mare", which I gather are conventionally written as /ey/ and /eh/ by > phonemicists of English, are actually one and the same underlying segment; It may be uncontroversial amongst phonologists -- I wouldn't know -- but it seems rather arbitrary. > and that there is a phonological rule that operates somewhere in the > derivation, possibly but not necessarily post-lexically, to cause this > underlying element to appear as /eh/ before tautosyllabic /r/ and as /ey/ > syllable-finally. [...] > One of the first examples in Wells's paper is "selfish" versus > "shellfish". He states, and I agree, that the /l/ in "shellfish" is much [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > before an voiceless consonant applies to "selfish" but not to "shellfish" > because in "selfish" the /lf/ is tautosyllabic but in "shellfish" it isn't. I would rather attribute it to the secondary stress on '-fish' in 'shellfish', which probably has to do with the fact that '-ish' is bound and 'fish' isn't. And I'd like to know how he deals with pronunciations like ['k&?tSIN] 'catching'. [...] Brian > On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 04:48:07 +0000 (UTC) "Aaron J. Dinkin" ><dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It may be uncontroversial amongst phonologists -- I wouldn't > know -- but it seems rather arbitrary. Well, I have two reasons for saying so. One, it seems to me intuitively as a native speaker that "mare" contains the same so-called "long a" phoneme as "may" does. Probably more relevantly, this /eh/ before /r/ undergoes the same synchronic phonological alternations as /ey/ does elsewhere, or at least it does in non-M/M/M-merging dialects: compare "comp/eh/r" and "comp/&/rative" with "expl/ey/n" and "expl/&/natory". Actually, even in M/M/M-merging dialects this analysis might work, if you consider /eh/ to appear not only before /r/ but also before /l/ as in "male". (Phonetically, at least, my vowel in "male" is more like that in "mare" than like that in "may".) >> One of the first examples in Wells's paper is "selfish" versus >> "shellfish". He states, and I agree, that the /l/ in "shellfish" is much [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > '-fish' in 'shellfish', which probably has to do with the > fact that '-ish' is bound and 'fish' isn't. That's a good point, but not all of his morpheme-boundary examples can be reduced to stress differences. "Toe-strap" and "toast-rack", for instance, are both compounds of two free morphemes with the same stress properties, but (he argues) the first syllable of "toast-rack" undergoes shortening because it has a voiceless coda, and the first syllable of "toe-strap" doesn't. > And I'd like to know how he deals with pronunciations like > ['k&?tSIN] 'catching'. Hmm, me too. (Though that pronunciation doesn't seem familiar to me, even modulo the fact that I seem to have [E], not [&], in "catch".) Actually, he'd probably take it as confirmation, arguing that glottalization doesn't occur when the consonant is in the onset, and regard [?t] as a mis-timed glottalized [t]. But that's just a guess. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 03:02:25 +0000 (UTC) "Aaron J. Dinkin" <dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote in <news:car1k1$1ti1$1@netnews.upenn.edu> in uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 04:48:07 +0000 (UTC) "Aaron J. Dinkin" >><dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote in >><news:caoje7$103l$1@netnews.upenn.edu> in >> uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>> That is to say: I hold (I hope uncontroversially) that the vowels of "may" >>> and "mare", which I gather are conventionally written as /ey/ and /eh/ by >>> phonemicists of English, are actually one and the same underlying segment; >> It may be uncontroversial amongst phonologists -- I wouldn't >> know -- but it seems rather arbitrary. > Well, I have two reasons for saying so. One, it seems to me intuitively as > a native speaker that "mare" contains the same so-called "long a" phoneme > as "may" does. It would never have occurred to me to classify the vowel of <mare> as 'long a', either in my native variety (essentially my parents' rhotic Pacific Northwest variety) or in the very different variety that's been my normal speech for over half my life (non-rhotic, different vowels): [mEr] then, [mE(:)@] now. > Probably more relevantly, this /eh/ before /r/ undergoes > the same synchronic phonological alternations as /ey/ does elsewhere, or > at least it does in non-M/M/M-merging dialects: compare "comp/eh/r" and > "comp/&/rative" with "expl/ey/n" and "expl/&/natory". But not with the M/M/M-merger: in my original variety <compare> and <comparative> have the same second vowel. I had to teach myself to make that conversion. (And now I'd have to concentrate hard *not* to make it.) But then I don't really believe in underlying phonemic representations anyway. [...] >>> One of the first examples in Wells's paper is "selfish" versus >>> "shellfish". He states, and I agree, that the /l/ in "shellfish" is much [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> before an voiceless consonant applies to "selfish" but not to "shellfish" >>> because in "selfish" the /lf/ is tautosyllabic but in "shellfish" it isn't. >> I would rather attribute it to the secondary stress on >> '-fish' in 'shellfish', which probably has to do with the >> fact that '-ish' is bound and 'fish' isn't. > That's a good point, but not all of his morpheme-boundary examples can be > reduced to stress differences. "Toe-strap" and "toast-rack", for > instance, are both compounds of two free morphemes with the same stress > properties, but (he argues) the first syllable of "toast-rack" undergoes > shortening because it has a voiceless coda, and the first syllable of > "toe-strap" doesn't. I'm not at all sure that I actually have different vowel lengths in these; the most salient difference is in the release of the second /t/. >> And I'd like to know how he deals with pronunciations like >> ['k&?tSIN] 'catching'. > Hmm, me too. (Though that pronunciation doesn't seem familiar to me, even > modulo the fact that I seem to have [E], not [&], in "catch".) Actually, > he'd probably take it as confirmation, arguing that glottalization doesn't > occur when the consonant is in the onset, and regard [?t] as a mis-timed > glottalized [t]. But that's just a guess. Whereas to me there's an obvious syllable boundary between [?] and [tS]. Brian > On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 03:02:25 +0000 (UTC) "Aaron J. Dinkin" ><dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] ><mare> as 'long a', either in my native variety (essentially > my parents' rhotic Pacific Northwest variety) Well, how surprising. It would never occur to me to do otherwise in a rhotic variety. But of course I can't tell other native speakers what intuitions to have. Perhaps it's because I learned to read early that I identify "made" and "mare" as having a single phoneme. > or in the very different variety that's been my normal speech for over half > my life (non-rhotic, different vowels): [mEr] then, [mE(:)@] now. Whoa, how did that happen? > But then I don't really believe in underlying phonemic > representations anyway. I'm not sure what you mean. I believe in phonemic representations, and I'm pretty sure I believe in underlying representations, but I don't believe they're the same thing. Do you mean you don't believe in either, or in both, or that they're identified? >> That's a good point, but not all of his morpheme-boundary examples can be >> reduced to stress differences. "Toe-strap" and "toast-rack", for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > lengths in these; the most salient difference is in the > release of the second /t/. Well, Wells would say that that's dictated by syllable boundaries too. I do recommend the article; it's interesting even if you don't agree with his methods and/or conclusions. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 03:47:46 +0000 (UTC) "Aaron J. Dinkin" <dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote in <news:catol2$32f2$2@netnews.upenn.edu> in uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 03:02:25 +0000 (UTC) "Aaron J. Dinkin" >><dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote in >><news:car1k1$1ti1$1@netnews.upenn.edu> in >> uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 04:48:07 +0000 (UTC) "Aaron J. Dinkin" >>>><dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote in >>>><news:caoje7$103l$1@netnews.upenn.edu> in >>>> uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>>>> That is to say: I hold (I hope uncontroversially) that the vowels of >>>>> "may" and "mare", which I gather are conventionally written as /ey/ >>>>> and /eh/ by phonemicists of English, are actually one and the same >>>>> underlying segment; >>>> It may be uncontroversial amongst phonologists -- I wouldn't >>>> know -- but it seems rather arbitrary. >>> Well, I have two reasons for saying so. One, it seems to me intuitively as >>> a native speaker that "mare" contains the same so-called "long a" phoneme >>> as "may" does. >> It would never have occurred to me to classify the vowel of >><mare> as 'long a', either in my native variety (essentially >> my parents' rhotic Pacific Northwest variety) > Well, how surprising. Note, though, that I'm not the only one: Jim Heckman (Southern California) also makes it [E] and identifies it with the vowel of <men> and <met>. > It would never occur to me to do otherwise in a > rhotic variety. But of course I can't tell other native speakers what > intuitions to have. Perhaps it's because I learned to read early that I > identify "made" and "mare" as having a single phoneme. >> or in the very different variety that's been my normal speech for over half >> my life (non-rhotic, different vowels): [mEr] then, [mE(:)@] now. > Whoa, how did that happen? Deliberate choice. Made easier by the fact that I've actually listened to myself at least since I was ten or so. (I'm now 56.) >> But then I don't really believe in underlying phonemic >> representations anyway. > I'm not sure what you mean. I believe in phonemic representations, and > I'm pretty sure I believe in underlying representations, but I don't > believe they're the same thing. Do you mean you don't believe in either, > or in both, or that they're identified? Phonemic representations are a useful abstraction; I've no problem with them. Underlying representations distinct from (surface) phonemic representations for the most part strike me as ingenious but artificial game-playing. [...] Brian > > On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 04:48:07 +0000 (UTC) "Aaron J. Dinkin" > ><dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > at least it does in non-M/M/M-merging dialects: compare "comp/eh/r" and > "comp/&/rative" with "expl/ey/n" and "expl/&/natory". What, you rhyme "pan" and "pain"?? "Compare" and "explain" simply do not have the same vowel. > Actually, even in > M/M/M-merging dialects this analysis might work, if you consider /eh/ to > appear not only before /r/ but also before /l/ as in "male". > (Phonetically, at least, my vowel in "male" is more like that in "mare" > than like that in "may".) Mergerers, of course, have comp/eh/rative and expl/eh/natory. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:27:23 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang: >> Well, I have two reasons for saying so. One, it seems to me intuitively as >> a native speaker that "mare" contains the same so-called "long a" phoneme [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >What, you rhyme "pan" and "pain"?? "Compare" and "explain" simply do not >have the same vowel. Clearly, the don't. But to me, the question is, "do they have the same vowel phoneme? Cf. Dutch, where we have the words "mee" and "meer". The vowel are quite different (in many accents, but not all). But they are generally considered to belong to the same phoneme. Cf. "meerijden" and "meer rijden", where the vowels are different, despite the r phoneme that follows in both. SignatureRuud Harmsen <rha@rudhar.com> - http://rudhar.com > Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:27:23 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > rijden", where the vowels are different, despite the r phoneme that > follows in both. Uh-oh, a cultural problem! Kind of like 'liberal' and 'liberal'. This could turn out to be fun. Mike. >> One, it seems to me intuitively as a native speaker that "mare" >> contains the same so-called "long a" phoneme as "may" does. Probably [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What, you rhyme "pan" and "pain"?? No. Please try to follow: In "pan", I have the vowel phoneme /&/ - i.e., that's the category that I, as a naive native speaker, regard the vowel as belonging to - which is phonetically realized as [e@]. In "pain", I have the vowel phoneme that I will identify ad hoc as /e:/, which is phonetically realized as [ej]. In "pair", I have the vowel phoneme /e:/, which is phonetically realized as [e@]. > "Compare" and "explain" simply do not have the same vowel. Phonetically, that's true. Underlyingly, I believe that it's not. Phonemically (for the definition of "phonemically" being employed in this post), it's going to differ from native speaker to native speaker. > Mergerers, of course, have comp/eh/rative and expl/eh/natory. Not necessarily. They may have comp/eh/rative and expl/&/natory. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > >> One, it seems to me intuitively as a native speaker that "mare" > >> contains the same so-called "long a" phoneme as "may" does. Probably [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Not necessarily. They may have comp/eh/rative and expl/&/natory. No, by definition. If they've merged /eh/ and /&/, they have only one of them, and the one they have is [eh] (or however you want to represent that sound), not [&]. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 04:21:03 GMT "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in <news:40D26DAE.34BE@worldnet.att.net> in uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] >>> Mergerers, of course, have comp/eh/rative and expl/eh/natory. >> Not necessarily. They may have comp/eh/rative and expl/&/natory. > No, by definition. If they've merged /eh/ and /&/, they have only one of > them, and the one they have is [eh] (or however you want to represent > that sound), not [&]. I suspect that Aaron, like me, understood 'Mergerers' here to refer simply to those who have the same vowel in <Mary>, <marry>, and <merry>. It's entirely possible to have [E] in all three of those and <comparative> while still having [&] in <explanatory>; that's what I grew up hearing, in fact. Brian >> > Mergerers, of course, have comp/eh/rative and expl/eh/natory. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > them, and the one they have is [eh] (or however you want to represent > that sound), not [&]. They haven't merged /eh/ and /&/; they've merged /eh/ and /&/ before /r/. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > >> > Mergerers, of course, have comp/eh/rative and expl/eh/natory. > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > They haven't merged /eh/ and /&/; they've merged /eh/ and /&/ before /r/. They're the same folk who don't distinguish "can" from "can." SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> >> > Mergerers, of course, have comp/eh/rative and expl/eh/natory. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > They're the same folk who don't distinguish "can" from "can." Not distinguishing "can" from "can" (in the way you intend) isn't a symptom of a merger. It's a symptom of not having created a new distinction. Those are two different things. Moreover, _having_ a distinction between "can" and "can" in such a way that "[tin] can" has /eh/ _is_ a symptom of a merger, namely a merger between /&h/ and /eh/. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > >> >> > Mergerers, of course, have comp/eh/rative and expl/eh/natory. > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > in such a way that "[tin] can" has /eh/ _is_ a symptom of a merger, namely a > merger between /&h/ and /eh/. I have no idea what you just said. Modal "can" has /&/, tin "can" has /eh/. (Marry and Mary, respectively; Merry is "ken.") SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > I have no idea what you just said. Modal "can" has /&/, tin "can" has > /eh/. (Marry and Mary, respectively; Merry is "ken.") For those of us who have the Mary merger, can you illustrate that sentence with, say, "bat", "bet", "bit", etc.? I would certainly say that both "can"s have the same phoneme, as shows up when the word is stressed. ("The tin *can* hit the ground" is identical for me under both readings.) In unstressed contexts, the noun has that vowel, which I'd call /&/ and is perceptually the same one as in "cat" and "bat". The modal is reduced to something like [I"] (a central vowel higher than [@]). But it looks as though you're claiming the opposite. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The General Theorem of Usenet 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Information: If you really want to Palo Alto, CA 94304 |know the definitive answer, post |the wrong information, and wait for kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |someone to come by and explain in (650)857-7572 |excruciating detail precisely how |wrong you are. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Eric The Read >> I have no idea what you just said. Modal "can" has /&/, tin "can" has >> /eh/. (Marry and Mary, respectively; Merry is "ken.") > > For those of us who have the Mary merger, can you illustrate that > sentence with, say, "bat", "bet", "bit", etc.? Modal "can" has /&/ as in "bat"; "[tin] can" has, for Peter, /eh/ as in "bare" (without, you know, the /r/); I'd guess something like [e@]. > I would certainly say that both "can"s have the same phoneme, as shows > up when the word is stressed. ("The tin *can* hit the ground" is > identical for me under both readings.) I don't have the split-/&/ system that Peter does, but for me, modal "can" is identical to "ken". Similarly "am" is identical to "em". -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom Sat, 19 Jun 2004 01:30:22 +0000 (UTC): "Aaron J. Dinkin" <dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu>: in sci.lang: >I don't have the split-/&/ system that Peter does, but for me, modal >"can" is identical to "ken". Similarly "am" is identical to "em". And your native language is? American English? I am surprised. I always thought this "mistake" was only made by us Dutch! Are "bad" and "bed", "bat" and "bet" also the same in your speech? If not, it looks like the phonology of American English should be completely rewritten, and will then be drastically different from all of the other Englishes in the world. SignatureRuud Harmsen <rha@rudhar.com> - http://rudhar.com > Sat, 19 Jun 2004 01:30:22 +0000 (UTC): "Aaron J. Dinkin" ><dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And your native language is? American English? I am surprised. I > always thought this "mistake" was only made by us Dutch! Ah but you see, when a native speaker does it, it's not a mistake. > Are "bad" and "bed", "bat" and "bet" also the same in your speech? Not at all. This sound change only affects stressed versions of usually unstressed function words that originally had /&/ followed by a nasal - which pretty much restricts the category to "am" and "can". I guess "than" also, but it's stressed so infrequently that I don't really have much intuition for how I would pronounce it when stressed. > If not, it looks like the phonology of American English should be > completely rewritten, and will then be drastically different from all > of the other Englishes in the world. How's that then? -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > Sat, 19 Jun 2004 01:30:22 +0000 (UTC): "Aaron J. Dinkin" ><dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And your native language is? American English? I am surprised. I > always thought this "mistake" was only made by us Dutch! Ah but you see, when a native speaker does it, it's not a mistake. > Are "bad" and "bed", "bat" and "bet" also the same in your speech? Not at all. This sound change only affects stressed versions of usually unstressed function words that originally had /&/ followed by a nasal - which pretty much restricts the category to "am" and "can". I guess "than" also, but it's stressed so infrequently that I don't really have much intuition for how I would pronounce it when stressed. > If not, it looks like the phonology of American English should be > completely rewritten, and will then be drastically different from all > of the other Englishes in the world. How's that then? -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > Sat, 19 Jun 2004 01:30:22 +0000 (UTC): "Aaron J. Dinkin" > <dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu>: in sci.lang: > >I don't have the split-/&/ system that Peter does, but for me, modal > >"can" is identical to "ken". Similarly "am" is identical to "em". > And your native language is? American English? I am surprised. I > always thought this "mistake" was only made by us Dutch! That probably explains the Yanklish phenomenon. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/pedant/ Venus: The correct adjectival form of Venus is "Venereal". The common use of the term "Venusian" is due entirely to faintheartedness. > > I have no idea what you just said. Modal "can" has /&/, tin "can" has > > /eh/. (Marry and Mary, respectively; Merry is "ken.") > > For those of us who have the Mary merger, can you illustrate that What's the Mary merger? > sentence with, say, "bat", "bet", "bit", etc.? I would certainly say bat /b&t/ (marry) bet /bet/ (merry) bad /behd/ (Mary) (bit /i/ mirror, beat /iy/ mere) (*/beht/, */b&d/) > that both "can"s have the same phoneme, as shows up when the word is > stressed. ("The tin *can* hit the ground" is identical for me under [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > higher than [@]). But it looks as though you're claiming the > opposite. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net Evan Kirshenbaum: > For those of us who have the Mary merger, can you illustrate that Sat, 19 Jun 2004 11:44:06 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang: >What's the Mary merger? Mary, marry and merry sounding alike? SignatureRuud Harmsen <rha@rudhar.com> - http://rudhar.com > Evan Kirshenbaum: > > For those of us who have the Mary merger, can you illustrate that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Mary, marry and merry sounding alike? I don't think so, because we already have names for that. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net Sat, 19 Jun 2004 12:24:23 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang: >> Evan Kirshenbaum: >> > For those of us who have the Mary merger, can you illustrate that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >I don't think so, because we already have names for that. Which are? SignatureRuud Harmsen <rha@rudhar.com> - http://rudhar.com > Sat, 19 Jun 2004 12:24:23 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Which are? MIMIM, for instance. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> Sat, 19 Jun 2004 12:24:23 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels" >> <grammatim@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > MIMIM, for instance. Hey! Everyone in sci.lang should know that I, Areff, am the kerner and owner of "MIMIM", "MINMINM", and "MIMBMID", not to mention "CIC", "CINC", "PIP", and "PINP". "FINB" is the property of Aaron Dinkin. Use these acronyms properly and with due regard to their kerner and owner, or cease and desist! > >> Sat, 19 Jun 2004 12:24:23 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels" > >> <grammatim@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > acronyms properly and with due regard to their kerner and owner, or cease > and desist! Has Areff appeared in sci.lang before this thread? SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > bat /b&t/ (marry) bet /bet/ (merry) bad /behd/ (Mary) > > (bit /i/ mirror, beat /iy/ mere) Hang on, you regard /eh/ "bear" and /ey/ "bait" as irrevocably distinct, but you regard /iy/ "meat" and /ih/ "mere" as the same phoneme? Bizarre. I guess it's probably because you merge /&h/~/eh/. Thus you have /eh/ without /r/ in other places in your phonology to contrast with /ey/, like "bad", whereas the same hasn't happened to /ih/ so you're still free to regard it as the same as /ih/. I regard /eh/~/ey/ as a single phoneme, and /ih/~/iy/ as very nearly a single phoneme (possible marginal counterexample: "idea"), and they have the same distribution: /*h/ before /l/ and /r/, unless a morpheme boundary or quasi-boundary (or Wellsian syllable boundary) intervenes; /*y/ elsewhere. Minimal pair: the common first name "Shira" /Sihr@/, the 1980's cartoon superhero She-Ra /Siyr@/ (also /'Siy,rah/, but the version with the reduced second syllable is available to me). -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom >> > I have no idea what you just said. Modal "can" has /&/, tin "can" >> > has /eh/. (Marry and Mary, respectively; Merry is "ken.") >> >> For those of us who have the Mary merger, can you illustrate that > > What's the Mary merger? I would have said "who are MIMIM", but I wasn't sure if that bit of AUE jargon would be understood in sci.lang. For us, using "Mary" and "marry" as an example of a contrast doesn't help much. >> sentence with, say, "bat", "bet", "bit", etc.? I would certainly say > > bat /b&t/ (marry) bet /bet/ (merry) bad /behd/ (Mary) Damn. That doesn't help, since I have the same phoneme in "bat" and "bad", as well. Do most people who distinguish "marry" and "marry" have different vowels for "bat" and "bad" (besides, of course, the regular lengthening of the vowel before a voiced consonant, which I presume isn't what you meant, because you used slashes). >> that both "can"s have the same phoneme, as shows up when the word is >> stressed. ("The tin *can* hit the ground" is identical for me under >> both readings.) Do you distinguish between those two? The two readings are "It turns out to be possible for the tin to hit the ground" and "It's the can, not the cup, that hit the ground". I'm fairly certain I wouldn't do better than chance at identifying samples of myself reading them. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |We never met anyone who believed in 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |fortune cookies. That's astounding. Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Belief in the precognitive powers |of an Asian pastry is really no kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |wackier than belief in ESP, (650)857-7572 |subluxation, or astrology, but you |just don't hear anyone preaching http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |Scientific Cookie-ism. | Penn and Teller >> bat /b&t/ (marry) bet /bet/ (merry) bad /behd/ (Mary) > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > regular lengthening of the vowel before a voiced consonant, which I > presume isn't what you meant, because you used slashes). No. Having different vowels for "bat" and "bad" is a result of the so-called short-a split, which is restricted to the region between New York and Baltimore. "Mary" and "marry" are distinct in that region, eastern New England, and as far as I know all of Rightpondia. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom Sat, 19 Jun 2004 23:22:07 +0000 (UTC): "Aaron J. Dinkin" <dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu>: in sci.lang: >No. Having different vowels for "bat" and "bad" is a result of the >so-called short-a split, which is restricted to the region between New >York and Baltimore. "Mary" and "marry" are distinct in that region, >eastern New England, and as far as I know all of Rightpondia. Where Rightpondia is with your head heading north, and including South-Africa, Nigeria, Tanzania, Kenia, Pakistan, India, and Hong-Kong, Australia, New-Zealand, I suppose. All those places where they speak what to me is "normal" English (:-) (Although I must admit some Indians and Nigerians speak a kind of English that I can't understand, while I do understand AmE). So Rightpondia is largely anything outside Leftpondia. Just to unjustly simplify things (;-) SignatureRuud Harmsen <rha@rudhar.com> - http://rudhar.com > "Aaron J. Dinkin" <dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu>: in sci.lang: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Hong-Kong, Australia, New-Zealand, I suppose. All those places where > they speak what to me is "normal" English (:-) In Rightpondia*, "varied" has a retracted [&] [v&_ri:d]/[v&_rId] that's audibly distinct from the [E] in "ferried" [fEri:d] and the [a]/[&] in "carried" [kari:d]/[k&rId]. I fancy that the merger of the vowels in Mary and marry resulted in a vowel similar to the [&_] in Rightpondian "varied". * In Indian English, it's more typically [ve:ri:d.] 26 Jun 2004 10:55:20 -0700: ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com (M. Ranjit Mathews): in sci.lang: >In Rightpondia*, "varied" has a retracted [&] [v&_ri:d]/[v&_rId] >that's audibly distinct from the [E] in "ferried" [fEri:d] and the >[a]/[&] in "carried" [kari:d]/[k&rId]. My dictionaries show that as: [vE@ri:d], [feri:d] and [k&ri:d]. Porbably means the same. SignatureRuud Harmsen <rha@rudhar.com> - http://rudhar.com > ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com (M. Ranjit Mathews): in sci.lang: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > My dictionaries show that as: [vE@ri:d], [feri:d] and [k&ri:d]. > Probably means the same. [vE@ri:d] is one of the pronunciations, but I've also heard it with a monophthong in the triangle between [&:], [E:] and [V":], which is what I called [&_:]. Surely you mean [fEri:d] rather than [feri:d]. Sun, 27 Jun 2004 18:15:27 GMT: "M. Ranjit Mathews" <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>: in sci.lang: >>>... "ferried" ... >Surely you mean [fEri:d] rather than [feri:d]. I don't. It's /e/, usually sounding like something in between [E] and [e], but closer to [e]. /&/ usually follows suit, tending to [E]. Concise Oxford, Daniel Jones, Van Dale Dutch-English, Ten Bruggencate English-Dutch, Nolst-Trenité, they all use /e/ for the phoneme in men, set, ferried, merry etc. SignatureRuud Harmsen <rha@rudhar.com> - http://rudhar.com > >> > I have no idea what you just said. Modal "can" has /&/, tin "can" > >> > has /eh/. (Marry and Mary, respectively; Merry is "ken.") [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > AUE jargon would be understood in sci.lang. For us, using "Mary" and > "marry" as an example of a contrast doesn't help much. I thought a "Mary merger" might mean that "Mary" merged with one or the other of its examplemates. > >> sentence with, say, "bat", "bet", "bit", etc.? I would certainly say > > > > bat /b&t/ (marry) bet /bet/ (merry) bad /behd/ (Mary) > > Damn. That doesn't help, since I have the same phoneme in "bat" and > "bad", as well. Do most people who distinguish "marry" and "marry" ... and _who_ would those people be? > have different vowels for "bat" and "bad" (besides, of course, the > regular lengthening of the vowel before a voiced consonant, which I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > not the cup, that hit the ground". I'm fairly certain I wouldn't do > better than chance at identifying samples of myself reading them. Certainly -- the tin c/eh/n hit the ground when you tossed it out the window, but the tinpot dictator's fall was stopped by his crowd of supporters. The tin c/&/n hit the ground because you used up all the protective covering under the silver dump! SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net Sun, 20 Jun 2004 11:35:09 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang: >Certainly -- the tin c/eh/n hit the ground when you tossed it out the >window, but the tinpot dictator's fall was stopped by his crowd of >supporters. > >The tin c/&/n hit the ground because you used up all the protective >covering under the silver dump! Isn't this just a phonetic, not phonemic, difference as a result of stress? In the first example, 'tin' hardly has any stress, and 'can' is heavily stressed. In the second, 'tin' is stressed and 'can' has a secondary stress at most. In British English, I think these examples will sound very different too, even though the vowel of 'can' is the same each time. SignatureRuud Harmsen <rha@rudhar.com> - http://rudhar.com > Sun, 20 Jun 2004 11:35:09 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels" ><grammatim@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Isn't this just a phonetic, not phonemic, difference as a result of > stress? No - the hypothesis was that "can" and "can" were to be equally stressed. (That's why Evan wrote "The tin *can* hit the ground.") This distinction is authentic, and made by speakers from the mid-Atlantic area of the northeastern U.S. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom >> They haven't merged /eh/ and /&/; they've merged /eh/ and /&/ before /r/. > > They're the same folk who don't distinguish "can" from "can." Not necessarily. I distinguish "can" from "can" (though I use tin-can in explanatory), but I don't distinguish between "Mary", "marry", and "merry". I can hear and produce the distinction with no problem (at least with "Mary"/ "marry"; "merry"/"Mary" is a little harder), but it would feel like an affectation to pronounce them that way. The /&r/ pronunciation has been creeping into my thoughts a bit after reading about it, though. -Scott Fri, 18 Jun 2004 03:54:15 +0000 (UTC): "Aaron J. Dinkin" <dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu>: in sci.lang: >In "pan", I have the vowel phoneme /&/ - i.e., that's the category that >I, as a naive native speaker, regard the vowel as belonging to - which is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >In "pair", I have the vowel phoneme /e:/, which is phonetically realized >as [e@]. OK, in (some kinds of) American English. But that's just a deviant dialect to me. ((;-). In "real" English, nothing of the sort is happening. So I think the "pan" vowel and the "pare" vowel should still be regarded as separate. Otherwise BrE and AmE are no longer one language. (Are they?) SignatureRuud Harmsen <rha@rudhar.com> - http://rudhar.com > OK, in (some kinds of) American English. But that's just a deviant > dialect to me. ((;-). In "real" English, nothing of the sort is > happening. All dialects are deviant, relative to an arbitrary historical "standard". > So I think the "pan" vowel and the "pare" vowel should still be > regarded as separate. Otherwise BrE and AmE are no longer one > language. (Are they?) The fact that we're communicating without much difficulty right now, and could do so verbally as well, indicates that they should probably be considered the same language. Should we start considering "father" and "bother" to have different vowels (even though they don't, for us) to keep the language "the same"? Or should you start considering "caught" and "court" to be pronounced differently for the same reason? As I understand it, neither merger would have taken place a few hundred years ago, even in England, home of Real English(tm). -Scott Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:36:47 -0500: Scott Wood <nospam@buserror.net>: in sci.lang: >The fact that we're communicating without much difficulty right now, >and could do so verbally as well, indicates that they should probably [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >place a few hundred years ago, even in England, home of Real >English(tm). OK, I agree. BTW, as you no doubt know, there are large rhotic areas in Britain too, in the south-west, in Scotland, and in Ireland (which is not Britian of course). SignatureRuud Harmsen <rha@rudhar.com> - http://rudhar.com On Friday, in article <jfn6d05lrhrk6p0k3udam45u5p78fus71h@4ax.com> > BTW, as you no doubt know, there are large rhotic areas in Britain > too, in the south-west, in Scotland, and in Ireland (which is not > Britian of course). But nevertheless part of the British Isles. Signaturefix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". > >> However, the generalization that [&] isn't possible in an open > >> syllable isn't quite valid even under that analysis; we still have to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > How about "marry", in dialects that distinguish it from "Mary"? It has to > be /m& ri/ because */&r/ is blocked as a syllable rime. Maybe (probably) this is just my ignorance, but I would guess that most (English speaking) people couldn't distinguish among [t&t tu], [t& tu], and [t&? tu] when spoken at a normal speed. SignatureAl in Dallas > > >> However, the generalization that [&] isn't possible in an open > > >> syllable isn't quite valid even under that analysis; we still have to [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > that most (English speaking) people couldn't distinguish among > [t&t tu], [t& tu], and [t&? tu] when spoken at a normal speed. They would hear them as different ways to say the same word, but they wouldn't know what the differences were. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > > [snip pronunciation of "latte"] > > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > And it's "[+foreign]." Which would account for the two primary stresses. > You might be able to slip "latte" into that rubric, too. "Tattoo" is still [+foreign] in a more than etymological sense? I checked my Concise OED for the pronunciations of "pâté" (a kind of heaven that pigs' livers go to) and "satay" (a peanut sauce justly feared by chickens) which are perfect rhymes for my pronunciation of "latte" as an English word, which it is, and it gave /'p&teI/ and /'s&teI/ - including the slashes, tut tut. (The edition I have predates _le nouveau café_, hélas.) If you ask me, this [+foreign] went native quite some time ago. Des speaks fluent [+foreign], for sure. Signature"[T]he structural trend in linguistics which took root with the International Congresses of the twenties and early thirties [...] had close and effective connections with phenomenology in its Husserlian and Hegelian versions." -- Roman Jakobson > > > > [snip pronunciation of "latte"] > > > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > "Tattoo" is still [+foreign] in a more than etymological sense? How else to account for two strong stresses in a single morpheme? > I checked my Concise OED for the pronunciations of "pâté" (a kind of > heaven that pigs' livers go to) and "satay" (a peanut sauce justly > feared by chickens) which are perfect rhymes for my pronunciation of > "latte" as an English word, which it is, and it gave /'p&teI/ and > /'s&teI/ - including the slashes, tut tut. (The edition I have > predates _le nouveau café_, hélas.) Both have [a]. They're /pa.'tey/ and /'sa.tey/. > If you ask me, this [+foreign] went native quite some time ago. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > close and effective connections with phenomenology in its Husserlian > and Hegelian versions." -- Roman Jakobson SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:36:40 GMT "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in <news:40CEDF47.6690@worldnet.att.net> in uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] >> I checked my Concise OED for the pronunciations of "pâté" (a kind of >> heaven that pigs' livers go to) and "satay" (a peanut sauce justly >> feared by chickens) which are perfect rhymes for my pronunciation of >> "latte" as an English word, which it is, and it gave /'p&teI/ and >> /'s&teI/ - including the slashes, tut tut. (The edition I have >> predates _le nouveau café_, hélas.) > Both have [a]. They're /pa.'tey/ and /'sa.tey/. Haven't heard <satay> often enough to have an opinion, but for <pâté> I've often heard [,p&'teI] or the same with equal stresses. [...] Brian >> I checked my Concise OED for the pronunciations of "pâté" (a kind of >> heaven that pigs' livers go to) and "satay" (a peanut sauce justly [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Both have [a]. They're /pa.'tey/ and /'sa.tey/. I don't know from "satay", but "pate" is definitely with /&/ for me. I see that AHD agrees with you; this surprises me, since I've never heard it other than with /&/, that I know of. On Monday, in article <40CD9DF6.7B46@worldnet.att.net> > > I wrote BHK, meaning Brian {Hamilton Kelly} (as he writes his name), > > one of the contributors to this thread. > > In Courier, H and N are very similar, so the typo is less than obvious. > Why does he use braces? (What does it matter if his pan --er, trousers > -- fall down at the computer?) I did it mainly to assist Americans, who seem totally ignorant of the concept of a double-barrelled surname *without* an embedded hyphen[1]. I first started using e-mail internationally around 1983--4ish, contemporaneously with first using the TeX typesetting language. In the latter, braces are used to group entities; so in the context of TeX- related mailing-lists, I added the braces to my name, in an attempt to obviate people erroneously referring to me as "Brian Kelly" (or even, a great Merkin affectation, "Brian H. Kelly"). It seemed to work in that limited sphere, so I've used them in public ever since (going back to 1986ish on Usenet). [1] Double-barrelled surnames without a hyphen are the original form; the hyphen was mostly used from the C19th onwards, with impoverished aristocracy marrying the daughters of wealthy manufacturers. Signaturefix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". > On Monday, in article <40CD9DF6.7B46@worldnet.att.net> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > obviate people erroneously referring to me as "Brian Kelly" (or even, a > great Merkin affectation, "Brian H. Kelly"). Why is it an "affectation" to distinguish myself from Peter Daniels, Lainie Kazan's boyfriend and Barbra Streisand's accompanist/arranger? Why is it an "affectation" to distinguish the Presidents Bush (George H. W. and George W.)? These "double-barreled" surnames seem a far higher affectation. At least Spanish surname-compounding denotes genealogy and is interpretable, but the British forms are merely confounding. > It seemed to work in that limited sphere, so I've used them in public > ever since (going back to 1986ish on Usenet). SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >>> I wrote BHK, meaning Brian {Hamilton Kelly} (as he writes his name), >>> one of the contributors to this thread. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > concept of a double-barrelled surname *without* an embedded > hyphen[1]. "Totally ignorant" is a bit strong, I think, even when using "seem." However, your efforts to make your name clear are appreciated. It would be wonderful if all people were so considerate, especially when there are so many varieties of names in English-speaking parts of the world. >...... I first started using e-mail internationally around > 1983--4ish, contemporaneously with first using the TeX typesetting > language. In the latter, braces are used to group entities; so in > the context of TeX- related mailing-lists, I added the braces to my > name, in an attempt to obviate people erroneously referring to me as > "Brian Kelly" (or even, a great Merkin affectation, "Brian H. Kelly"). I'm curious: why is "Brian H. Kelly" an American "affectation"? Main Entry: af·fec·ta·tion Pronunciation: "a-"fek-'tA-sh&n Function: noun 1 a : the act of taking on or displaying an attitude or mode of behavior not natural to oneself or not genuinely felt b : speech or conduct not natural to oneself : ARTIFICIALITY 2 obsolete : a striving after Does "affectation" mean something else in BrE? And what is this "Merkin" business all about? Just a little term of endearment? (Must be.) > It seemed to work in that limited sphere, so I've used them in public > ever since (going back to 1986ish on Usenet). > > [1] Double-barrelled surnames without a hyphen are the original form; > the hyphen was mostly used from the C19th onwards, with impoverished > aristocracy marrying the daughters of wealthy manufacturers. So, if the hyphen is more common now, is there any mistunderstanding in your own country about your name? Does anyone there ever ask if it's your middle name? Does anyone there ever mistakenly address something to "Brian H Kelly"? Or... is it the period ("full stop") that you see as an affectation? I realize you don't use the "full stop" in the UK the same way the US does. But that doesn't mean that other usages are wrong, especially on Usenet. Agreed? Posting from alt.usage.english, Maria Conlon "Some guy hit my fender the other day, and I said unto him, 'Be fruitful and multiply.' But not in those words." (Woody Allen) On Tuesday, in article <2j8fqiFu7abeU1@uni-berlin.de> > >...... I first started using e-mail internationally around > > 1983--4ish, contemporaneously with first using the TeX typesetting [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I'm curious: why is "Brian H. Kelly" an American "affectation"? Because Americans seem to *insist* that everyone has a "middle name" (and, of course, a "middle initial"). SFAIK, those stories about WWII recruits ending up with "Firstname NMI Surname" in their service records are not apocryphal. > And what is this "Merkin" business all about? Just a little term of > endearment? (Must be.) I've seen it used, and used it myself, (in aue and afc) for more than a decade; it is, as you surmise, a term of endearment :-) > So, if the hyphen is more common now, is there any mistunderstanding in > your own country about your name? Does anyone there ever ask if it's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > way the US does. But that doesn't mean that other usages are wrong, > especially on Usenet. Agreed? Yes, people do have similar difficulty; in writing (e.g. the subscription on a letter) I will tend to write my forename in lower-case (obviously with an initial capital), and my surname in "caps & small caps". This usually has the desired effect (although some minion in the Prime Minister's office managed to miss the import a month or so ago). On the telephone, I tend to say "that's double-barrelled, but withOUT a hyphen". They usually manage to get the computer records right (but then fail to perform later lookups correctly, so I'm used to suggest "look under Kelly, if you're already looking under Hamilton, or vice versa"). > Posting from alt.usage.english, In which case I'm surprised that you've not met Merkin before! Signaturefix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". > Yes, people do have similar difficulty; in writing (e.g. the subscription > on a letter) I will tend to write my forename in lower-case (obviously [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > fail to perform later lookups correctly, so I'm used to suggest "look > under Kelly, if you're already looking under Hamilton, or vice versa"). In other words, you deliberately make yourself a pain in the a.s. (Or arse, for you aueers.) SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> Yes, people do have similar difficulty; in writing (e.g. the subscription >> on a letter) I will tend to write my forename in lower-case (obviously [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > In other words, you deliberately make yourself a pain in the a.s. (Or > arse, for you aueers.) I must have missed the memo where it's considered deliberately making yourself a pain in the a.s to courteously try to get people to spell your name correctly. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > >> Yes, people do have similar difficulty; in writing (e.g. the subscription > >> on a letter) I will tend to write my forename in lower-case (obviously [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > yourself a pain in the a.s to courteously try to get people to spell your > name correctly. The pain is caused by the difficult name in the first place, and by the lack of grace regarding people's attempts to cope with it. Why NOT simply be Kelly? Or if he's commemorating Lady Hamilton or something, hyphenate? SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 22:08:05 GMT, Peter T. Daniel > > <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > making yourself a pain in the a.s to courteously try to get people > > to spell your name correctly. > The pain is caused by the difficult name in the first place, and by > the lack of grace regarding people's attempts to cope with it. Why > NOT simply be Kelly? Or if he's commemorating Lady Hamilton or > something, hyphenate? Does this person really get out of bed each morning with the intention of being such an obnoxious prat throughout the day? Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/zodiac/acap-0.htm Capricorn (December 22nd - January 20th) Images, Associations, Qualities, Careers, Health > > > On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 22:08:05 GMT, Peter T. Daniel > > > <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Does this person really get out of bed each morning with the intention > of being such an obnoxious prat throughout the day? Not every day, from what I've seen. What he's good at, he is actually good at; but he seems to think it's transferable. And there may well be a dyspepsia problem; or maybe gastric reflux, for which (speaking merely for myself) I find Gaviscon (TM) quite sovereign. The tunnel vision is less amenable to conventional treatment. Mike. On Wednesday, in article <40CFACF0.591F@worldnet.att.net> > The pain is caused by the difficult name in the first place, and by the > lack of grace regarding people's attempts to cope with it. Why NOT > simply be Kelly? Or if he's commemorating Lady Hamilton or something, > hyphenate? My name (double-barrelled, without a hyphen) has been used in my family since the early C17th; Lady Hamilton was considerably later. I tried to explain earlier that hyphenation was a [mostly] Victorian invention, but you don't listen. Signaturefix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". > On Wednesday, in article <40CFACF0.591F@worldnet.att.net> > > The pain is caused by the difficult name in the first place, and by > > the lack of grace regarding people's attempts to cope with it. Why > > NOT simply be Kelly? Or if he's commemorating Lady Hamilton or > > something, hyphenate? > My name (double-barrelled, without a hyphen) has been used in my > family since the early C17th; Lady Hamilton was considerably later. > I tried to explain earlier that hyphenation was a [mostly] Victorian > invention, but you don't listen. Nay, Brian, how-on-earth can you expect a High-Assed-Person like Pete Daniels to listen to mere foot-plodding-mortals? Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/joachim/02-0.htm When Joachim was born, on the stroke of midnight, it took the midwife no more than a single look to restore her wavering faith in the Adversary. > On Wednesday, in article <40CFACF0.591F@worldnet.att.net> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > explain earlier that hyphenation was a [mostly] Victorian invention, but > you don't listen. The Dear Old Queen's been gone a while now, but hyphenation is still around. SignatureMichael West Melbourne, Australia > > On Wednesday, in article <40CFACF0.591F@worldnet.att.net> > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I tried to explain earlier that hyphenation was a [mostly] > > Victorian invention, but you don't listen. > The Dear Old Queen's been gone a while now, but hyphenation is still > around. So is the Prince Albert but I wouldn't recommend it. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/yds/4tr-0.htm The Yorkshire Dialect Society: Transactions > On Wednesday, in article <40CFACF0.591F@worldnet.att.net> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > explain earlier that hyphenation was a [mostly] Victorian invention, but > you don't listen. You did not, however, "explain" why you use a double barreled un-hyphenated name, nor why you don't simply add a hyphen if the Kelly (or Hamilton) hoi polloi are just too common for you. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > My name (double-barrelled, without a hyphen) has been used in my > > family since the early C17th; Lady Hamilton was considerably later. > > I tried to explain earlier that hyphenation was a [mostly] > > Victorian invention, but you don't listen. > You did not, however, "explain" why you use a double barreled > un-hyphenated name, nor why you don't simply add a hyphen if the > Kelly (or Hamilton) hoi polloi are just too common for you. Why should he have to? It's his name, For God's Sake. Your name reminds me of Paul Daniels (who happens to be a right little pain in the American, as far as I'm concerned) so why don't you change it just to please my whim? Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/cook/ Chris's Yorkshire Yummies - Yorkshire Recipes: Curd Tart, Oatcakes, Dumpling, Parkin, Yorkshire Pudding On Thursday, in article <40D188AA.2343@worldnet.att.net> > You did not, however, "explain" why you use a double barreled > un-hyphenated name, nor why you don't simply add a hyphen if the Kelly > (or Hamilton) hoi polloi are just too common for you. Because "Hamilton Kelly" is my surname, and has been that of my antecedents for almost four hundred years. Were I to use a hyphen, it could perhaps be interpreted (by those that understand these things) that I was one of the nouveau-riche (whom you have disparaged in a different sub-thread). Signaturefix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". > On Thursday, in article <40D188AA.2343@worldnet.att.net> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I was one of the nouveau-riche (whom you have disparaged in a different > sub-thread). Define "explanation." SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > On Thursday, in article <40D188AA.2343@worldnet.att.net> > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > things) that I was one of the nouveau-riche (whom you have > > disparaged in a different sub-thread). > Define "explanation." Please, someone assure me that this Daniels is not some spotty schoolkid troll. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/cook/11mp-0.htm Microwave Parkin > Please, someone assure me that this Daniels is not some spotty > schoolkid troll. Well, the bio on his writing systems book says Peter T. Daniels holds degrees in linguistics from Cornell University and the University of Chicago he has taught at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Chicago State University. He has published numerous articles and reviews on writing systems, Semitic languages, and languages of the world. That speaks to the "schoolkid", at least. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Code should be designed to make it 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |easy to get it right, not to work Palo Alto, CA 94304 |if you get it right. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Please, someone assure me that this Daniels is not some spotty >> schoolkid troll. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > University and the University of Chicago he has taught at the > University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Wait, isn't that better known as "Dungheap U."? Did Dr. Daniels and Dr. Aman, another expert on matters linguistic, ever cross paths, to kern a phrase? > > Please, someone assure me that this Daniels is not some spotty > > schoolkid troll. > Well, the bio on his writing systems book says > Peter T. Daniels holds degrees in linguistics from Cornell > University and the University of Chicago he has taught at the > University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Chicago State University. > He has published numerous articles and reviews on writing systems, > Semitic languages, and languages of the world. > That speaks to the "schoolkid", at least. Thanks. Strange, is it not, that someone so well educated, so literate, so knowledgeable, so published, so venerated, so blessed, should feel the need to slag off some innocent because of their name? No wonder I got the impression he was just some yah boo schoolkid. The last time I remember anyone making fun of someone else's name, the offensive smell was a schoolkid. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/yds/8bt-0.htm The Yorkshire Dialect Society: Booklets > > Please, someone assure me that this Daniels is not some spotty > > schoolkid troll. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > He has published numerous articles and reviews on writing systems, > Semitic languages, and languages of the world. Surely there's more punctuation in it than that? > That speaks to the "schoolkid", at least. You can add Section Editor for Writing Systems, Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (new edition). SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >On Thursday, in article <40D188AA.2343@worldnet.att.net> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I was one of the nouveau-riche (whom you have disparaged in a different >sub-thread). You didn't have to sell the manor and move into the gate-house, did you? Was the guy that bought the manor a greengrocer that hyphenated double-barrelled names? >>On Thursday, in article <40D188AA.2343@worldnet.att.net> >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > you? Was the guy that bought the manor a greengrocer that hyphenated > double-barrelled names? Bedrich Polouvicka didn't hyphenate his new surname. Audrey's was already hyphenated, with extra class added by the lower case double f. I used to work with a man whose first name was ffolliot. He called himself Don. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>> On Thursday, in article <40D188AA.2343@worldnet.att.net> >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I used to work with a man whose first name was ffolliot. He called > himself Don. I bet he fflowed quietly. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>>>On Thursday, in article <40D188AA.2343@worldnet.att.net> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > I bet he fflowed quietly. I thought about adding a suitably riparian reference but thought it might be wasted in a group where Bloomsday went almost unnoticed. This spurious connection gives me the opportunity to post this link which I found entertaining: http://www.bway.net/~hunger/ch1-ulys.html SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > >>>>On Thursday, in article <40D188AA.2343@worldnet.att.net> > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > spurious connection gives me the opportunity to post this link which I > found entertaining: http://www.bway.net/~hunger/ch1-ulys.html Re: Bloomsday. Now I can recall some character's dreaming. Molly Bloom, that is. But that is only from having read some quotation. I have read one or two Joyce works. To tell the truth, though, upon seeing Bloomsday I thought more about a comic strip here in the US: Bloom County. I can't say I am much more familiar with it than with Molly's or her husband's adventures. >>>>> On Thursday, in article <40D188AA.2343@worldnet.att.net> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > spurious connection gives me the opportunity to post this link which I > found entertaining: http://www.bway.net/~hunger/ch1-ulys.html Very appropriate. Very entertaining. A poster on another group introduced the topic of Bloomsday by asking what posters thought he might do in commemoration, what with being stuck in America. He said he'd asked his wife and she'd offered to cuckold him but he'd decided that wouldn't be necessary. Wouldn't it be wonderful if Don ffoliot was the first child of a woman whose maiden name was Quarto? SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>>>>On Thursday, in article <40D188AA.2343@worldnet.att.net> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >I thought about adding a suitably riparian reference You could have brought up Pooh sticks. On Friday, in article <p1r5d05mvbeqhch138ntr9vpg1cpjm4sba@4ax.com> > >Because "Hamilton Kelly" is my surname, and has been that of my > >antecedents for almost four hundred years. Were I to use a hyphen, it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you? Was the guy that bought the manor a greengrocer that hyphenated > double-barrelled names? No; that was Audrey fforbes-Hamilton ("To the Manor Born") and her family had presumably already gone through that embarrassment, since she *did* have a hyphen in her name. (Besides, greengrocer's have spurious apostrophe's, not hyphen's :-) Signaturefix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". > bhk@dsl.co.uk (Brian Hamilton Kelly}) wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You didn't have to sell the manor and move into the gate-house, did > you? No; under the pseudonymn of Psmith Hamilton Beach, he became the butler of Matchingham Hall, serving a family surnamed Parsloe Parsloe. > Was the guy that bought the manor a greengrocer that hyphenated > double-barrelled names? Neither a greengrocer nor a Green-Grocer. He was a Green Grocer by surname:-) > On Thursday, in article <40D188AA.2343@worldnet.att.net> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > things) that I was one of the nouveau-riche (whom you have > disparaged in a different sub-thread). So it looks as though you get your choice of ambiguities. The one manifestly misleads people, and the other you're not willing to risk. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If I may digress momentarily from 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |the mainstream of this evening's Palo Alto, CA 94304 |symposium, I'd like to sing a song |which is completely pointless. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Tom Lehrer (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > Because "Hamilton Kelly" is my surname, and has been that of my > > antecedents for almost four hundred years. Were I to use a hyphen, > > it could perhaps be interpreted (by those that understand these > > things) that I was one of the nouveau-riche (whom you have > > disparaged in a different sub-thread). > So it looks as though you get your choice of ambiguities. The one > manifestly misleads people, and the other you're not willing to risk. Misleads? How? Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/penny/ do not click this link if you are in the 1st or 3rd trimester of pregnancy (thin women) in the 1st or 7th trimester of pregnancy (elephants) >> > Because "Hamilton Kelly" is my surname, and has been that of my >> > antecedents for almost four hundred years. Were I to use a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Misleads? How? People are misled by the similarity to other names into assuming that his last name is "Kelly" and that "Hamilton" is his middle name. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |English is about as pure as a 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |cribhouse whore. We don't just Palo Alto, CA 94304 |borrow words; on occasion, English |has pursued other languages down kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |alleyways to beat them unconscious (650)857-7572 |and rifle their pockets for new |vocabulary. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | --James D. Nicoll > > Misleads? How? > People are misled by the similarity to other names into assuming that > his last name is "Kelly" and that "Hamilton" is his middle name. Then they're easily mislead. Hamilton would be a very unusual forename but not entirely unknown as a surname. Anyway, strictly speaking, his last name is Kelly, and Hamilton is the middle name of the three, isn't it? So, what's the problem? I have a greater problem in trying to understand why Al Dallas (upthread) writes his middle name with a lower case initial. But I don't moan about it. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/joachim/02-0.htm When Joachim was born, on the stroke of midnight, it took the midwife no more than a single look to restore her wavering faith in the Adversary. >> > Misleads? How? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Then they're easily mislead. Hamilton would be a very unusual forename > but not entirely unknown as a surname. I dunno from that. Here in Lamerica there are subcultures in which 'Hamilton' is an uncommonly common forename (= BrE 'Christian name'). Typically white, Northeast-coastal, upper-middle-class to upper-class, Episcopalian, having membership in at least one country club, fond of martinis, attended an elite Northeastern boarding school and an eliter Ivy League college, and either the surname is 'Fish' or else 'Fish' is the middle name and probably represents the maiden name of the mother. >> > Misleads? How? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Then they're easily mislead. Hamilton would be a very unusual forename >but not entirely unknown as a surname. Hamilton Jordon crosses my mind. > >> > Misleads? How? > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > Hamilton Jordon crosses my mind. Now, that does sound to me like someone called Jordan Hamilton but written without the comma usual in the west to separate surname from forename when written surname first. And what about those cultures which do write the family name before the personal name? Come to think of it, given that all of Brian, Hamilton and Kelly can be either forename or surname, how do you know that Mr Brian isn't having you lot on and that his forenames aren't Hamilton Kelly (or even, were the pair hyphenated, his forename wasn't the hyphenated Hamilton-Kelly)? You don't. This whole subthread is just a troll by that spotty Daniels kid who's been drinking too much of that milky coffee stuff. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/colour/4r-0.htm As Tuesday's Sword of Iron Mars the Redden Earth, Twin Sacraments - of Fire and Blood - dishonour Birth. > > > Misleads? How? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Then they're easily mislead. Hamilton would be a very unusual forename > but not entirely unknown as a surname. New York State has had several generations of congressmen called Hamilton Fish. > Anyway, strictly speaking, his last name is Kelly, and Hamilton is the > middle name of the three, isn't it? So, what's the problem? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > But I don't moan about it. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > Then they're easily mislead. Hamilton would be a very unusual > > forename but not entirely unknown as a surname. > New York State has had several generations of congressmen called > Hamilton Fish. Ah! That explains Areff's curious post (which, incidentally, had, without due notice, its Followup set to aue so even I don't know what I wrote in response). What were their first names? And did you ask any of them why they didn't hyphenate their surnames? Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/penny/1d-01.htm Matron took an anticipatory sip of her Madeira and wished that she hadn't laced the sexy Basque bodice quite so tightly. > > > Then they're easily mislead. Hamilton would be a very unusual > > > forename but not entirely unknown as a surname. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > What were their first names? And did you ask any of them why they > didn't hyphenate their surnames? Hamilton Fish, Hamilton Fish, Jr., Hamilton Fish III, Hamilton Fish IV. I don't know whether they had a middle name; presumably if they did, it would have appeared as an initial. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > > > Then they're easily mislead. Hamilton would be a very unusual > > > > forename but not entirely unknown as a surname. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What were their first names? And did you ask any of them why they > > didn't hyphenate their surnames? > Hamilton Fish, Hamilton Fish, Jr., Hamilton Fish III, Hamilton Fish > IV. > I don't know whether they had a middle name; presumably if they did, > it would have appeared as an initial. I asked what their first names were and not only do you not tell me but proceed to inform me that three of them extended this multiple non-hyphenated surname farrago into triplets. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/gay/99-0.htm A plenitude of noses gay, A merry nasal band. > > > > > Then they're easily mislead. Hamilton would be a very unusual > > > > > forename but not entirely unknown as a surname. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > proceed to inform me that three of them extended this multiple > non-hyphenated surname farrago into triplets. Hey, the guy was a senator, a governor, and a cabinet secretary for two terms -- he ain't no farrago. Hamilton Fish, born 1808, was named after/for his father's friend, Alexander Hamilton. If he'd been born a couple of decades later, I would expect him to be named Alexander Hamilton Fish. I looked at the Ancestry World Tree site to see if it would shed any light. It didn't really, but I thought these two lists would illustrate the typical changing trends concerning middle names. The first one is a family from among Fish's ancestors, born in Scotland: 1. JOHN LIVINGSTON b: 26 APR 1680 2. MARGARET LIVINGSTON b: 5 DEC 1681 3. PHILIP LIVINGSTON b: 9 JUL 1686 4. ROBERT LIVINGSTON b: 24 JUL 1688 5. GILBERT LIVINGSTON b: 3 MAR 1689 in ANCRUM, SCOTLAND 6. WILLIAM LIVINGSTON b: 17 MAR 1692 7. JOANNA LIVINGSTON b: 10 DEC 1694 8. CATHARINE LIVINGSTON b: 1698 And this one, Fish's children, about a hundred years later, in the US, is full of middle names: 1. SARAH MORRIS FISH b: 25 FEB 1838 2. ELIZABETH STUYVESANT FISH b: 11 MAR 1839 3. JULIA KEEN FISH b: 2 MAY 1841 4. SUSAN LEROY FISH b: 31 AUG 1844 5. NICHOLAS FISH b: 19 FEB 1846 6. HAMILTON FISH , JR. b: 27 APR 1849 in ALBANY, NEW YORK 7. STUYVESANT FISH b: 24 JUN 1851 in NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK 8. EDITH LIVINGSTON FISH b: 30 APR 1856 In this family, it seems to be only the girls who got middle names. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > Hey, the guy was a senator, a governor, and a cabinet secretary for two > terms -- he ain't no farrago. Hamilton Fish, born 1808, was named > after/for his father's friend, Alexander Hamilton. If he'd been born a > couple of decades later, I would expect him to be named Alexander > Hamilton Fish. I am surprised that he was not named "Alexander Hamilton Fish". A governor of Connecticut - and a member of one of the major iron-smelting families in north west CT, was Alexander Hamilton Holley. He was born in 1804. His father was John Milton Holley. One of his (AHH's) sisters was named Sally Porter Holley, after her mother who was Sally Porter before her marriage. When I was researching the Salisbury iron business families a few years ago, I came across many people who were given someone else's entire name as a given name. I don't know (I wasn't taking note of such things at the time) when the practice first became popular. Here is a fun site: http://politicalgraveyard.com/ It includes names of politicians named for famous politicians, and for other famous people. Benjamin Franklin seems to be the winner. Fran > Here is a fun site: > http://politicalgraveyard.com/ > > It includes names of politicians named for famous politicians, and for > other famous people. Benjamin Franklin seems to be the winner. For example, there was Captain Benjamin Franklin "Hawkeye" Pierce, M.D., who was named both for Franklin and for the hapless President Pierce (whose descendant has become or became a minor and annoying character on _The West Wing_). On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:49:42 +0100 David <david@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote in <news:4cc19a2072david@dacha.freeuk.com> in uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>> > > Then they're easily mislead. Hamilton would be a very unusual >>> > > forename but not entirely unknown as a surname. >>> > New York State has had several generations of congressmen called >>> > Hamilton Fish. >>> Ah! That explains Areff's curious post (which, incidentally, had, >>> without due notice, its Followup set to aue so even I don't know >>> what I wrote in response). >>> What were their first names? And did you ask any of them why they >>> didn't hyphenate their surnames? >> Hamilton Fish, Hamilton Fish, Jr., Hamilton Fish III, Hamilton Fish >> IV. >> I don't know whether they had a middle name; presumably if they did, >> it would have appeared as an initial. > I asked what their first names were and not only do you not tell me but > proceed to inform me that three of them extended this multiple > non-hyphenated surname farrago into triplets. No. All had the forename <Hamilton> and the surname <Fish>. You misunderstood Peter's response to your comment that <Hamilton> would be a very unusual forename: he was giving you an example of a family in which it was in fact a traditional forename. (The first one was apparently named after Alexander Hamilton.) Brian > On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:49:42 +0100 David <david@dacha.freeuk.com> > wrote in <news:4cc19a2072david@dacha.freeuk.com> in > uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > >>> > > Then they're easily mislead. Hamilton would be a very unusual > >>> > > forename but not entirely unknown as a surname. > >>> > New York State has had several generations of congressmen > >>> > called Hamilton Fish. > >>> Ah! That explains Areff's curious post (which, incidentally, had, > >>> without due notice, its Followup set to aue so even I don't know > >>> what I wrote in response). > >>> What were their first names? And did you ask any of them why they > >>> didn't hyphenate their surnames? > >> Hamilton Fish, Hamilton Fish, Jr., Hamilton Fish III, Hamilton > >> Fish IV. > >> I don't know whether they had a middle name; presumably if they > >> did, it would have appeared as an initial. > > I asked what their first names were and not only do you not tell me > > but proceed to inform me that three of them extended this multiple > > non-hyphenated surname farrago into triplets. > No. All had the forename <Hamilton> and the surname <Fish>. You > misunderstood Peter's response to your comment that <Hamilton> would > be a very unusual forename: he was giving you an example of a family > in which it was in fact a traditional forename. (The first one was > apparently named after Alexander Hamilton.) Ah! Thanks. Quite misleading, really. Did their birth certificates have to have the "III" and "IV" part of their surname? Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/aureole/50-ravens.htm Upon the hill, within the stones, among the scattering of bones... > > On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:49:42 +0100 David <david@dacha.freeuk.com> > > wrote in <news:4cc19a2072david@dacha.freeuk.com> in [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Did their birth certificates have to have the "III" and "IV" part of > their surname? Presumably. Though it's not "part of their surname." When "Sr." dies, "Jr." drops the suffix, but since Jr. is still alive, III can't swith to Jr. or something like that. (There are examples of III being nicknamed "Third," just as Jr. is often called "Bud.") SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > > No. All had the forename <Hamilton> and the surname <Fish>. You > > > misunderstood Peter's response to your comment that <Hamilton> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Did their birth certificates have to have the "III" and "IV" part > > of their surname? > Presumably. Though it's not "part of their surname." When "Sr." dies, > "Jr." drops the suffix, but since Jr. is still alive, III can't swith > to Jr. or something like that. (There are examples of III being > nicknamed "Third," just as Jr. is often called "Bud.") So, you don't object to their using "Sr", "Jr", "III", etc., to aid unserstanding but do find Brian's bracketing to aid understanding a donkey problem? Curious. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/tdm/ The Toro-danyo Mandala: Inspiration of the Tree of Life > > > > No. All had the forename <Hamilton> and the surname <Fish>. You > > > > misunderstood Peter's response to your comment that <Hamilton> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Curious. It's got nothing to do with "aiding understanding"; it's been in use for centuries to distinguish multiple generations. How do George Forman's sons know which of them he's calling? SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >How do George Forman's sons know which of them he's calling? They all ignore him because they don't want to be grilled. > >How do George Forman's sons know which of them he's calling? > > They all ignore him because they don't want to be grilled. OBaue etc.: This is what is called a "groaner." It's a bad one, too -- but as groaners go, not quite bad enough to be good. Work on that, eh, Tony? Maria Conlon >> >How do George Forman's sons know which of them he's calling? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Work on that, eh, Tony? Look, I have to work with the straight lines provided. Peter T. Daniels is not exactly a font of good material. Usually, he's a balloon to be pricked or a prick that balloons. > > >How do George Forman's sons know which of them he's calling? > > > > They all ignore him because they don't want to be grilled. > OBaue etc.: This is what is called a "groaner." It's a bad one, too -- > but as groaners go, not quite bad enough to be good. George Forman is a chef? Would someone please explain? Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/ How to make people and influence fiends >>>>How do George Forman's sons know which of them he's calling? >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Would someone please explain? He markets a kitchen appliance: http://www.jordanmarketing.com/george.foreman.grill.htm Fran > > George Forman is a chef? > > > > Would someone please explain? > He markets a kitchen appliance: > http://www.jordanmarketing.com/george.foreman.grill.htm Thanks. Is that all it takes to be famous in aue? Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/zodiac/1ari-0.htm Aries (March 21st - April 20th) Mesha - the Ram Anhur (Onouris) David typed thus: > > > George Forman is a chef? > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thanks. Is that all it takes to be famous in aue? How old are you? http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=390001 for a short article of somebody who was once one of the most famous men in the world. SignatureDavid ===== > How old are you? 55 Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/aureole/50-frog.htm DEATH accosted the frog one day in the form of a snake. One must assume it was a hooded cobra. David typed thus: > > How old are you? > > 55 Have your children not explained to you that George Foreman now makes kitchen appliances? SignatureDavid ===== "david56" <bass.c.voice@ntlworld.com> wrote... > David typed thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Have your children not explained to you that George Foreman now makes > kitchen appliances? AFAIK he neither "markets" them nor "makes" them; he promotes them. Matti > "david56" <bass.c.voice@ntlworld.com> wrote... > > David typed thus: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > AFAIK he neither "markets" them nor "makes" them; he promotes them. You distinguish "promote" from "market"? (That was my word.) SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> "david56" <bass.c.voice@ntlworld.com> wrote... >> > David typed thus: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >You distinguish "promote" from "market"? (That was my word.) I certainly would. To market something means to be involved in the distribution process. One can promote something by just appearing in advertisements for the product, by providing a testimonial about the product, or by endorsing the product. Race car drivers, for example, promote a product by affixing that product's name to their cars or their uniforms. They in no way market the product by doing this even though that advertisement is part of the marketing process. I don't know if Foreman promotes the products or markets them. If his participation is limited to appearances in advertisements or "infomercials", he's just a promoting the products. If he owns all or part of a company that distributes the products, then he would be considered to be marketing the product as well as promoting the product. "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote... > > "david56" <bass.c.voice@ntlworld.com> wrote... > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You distinguish "promote" from "market"? (That was my word.) Certainly. "Marketing" now usually refers to making arrangements for optimal selling; one of the marketer's tools is getting a celebrity to help promote the product. In Foreman's case they've taken this a step further by using his name as the brand. Matti > David typed thus: > > > How old are you? > > > > 55 > Have your children not explained to you that George Foreman now makes > kitchen appliances? They probably wouldn't know who he was or what he was or even what he now does. Wrong part of the entertainment industry for our family. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/gay/05-0.htm Compassion David typed thus: > > David typed thus: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > They probably wouldn't know who he was or what he was or even what he > now does. Wrong part of the entertainment industry for our family. OK. I also have no interest in boxing, but it's difficult to avoid when it leaks into News. SignatureDavid ===== > David typed thus: > > > David typed thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > he now does. Wrong part of the entertainment industry for our > > family. > OK. I also have no interest in boxing, but it's difficult to avoid > when it leaks into News. Lots of stuff leaks into the news; nearly as much leaks out of the brain. Why have you capitalised "News"? Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/aureole/50-0.htm 2 lb of spuds, 1 lb of mince, some cotton buds, a colour rinse David typed thus: > > David typed thus: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Why have you capitalised "News"? I'm not really sure, although I noticed myself doing it and decided not to fight the impulse. SignatureDavid ===== > David typed thus: > >> Why have you capitalised "News"? > > I'm not really sure, although I noticed myself doing it and decided > not to fight the impulse. Maybe it's because of that imperious way the BBC announcers say it. "Here is the NEWS - with blahblah blahblahblah, and bebop bebopbop". ------- GC >>>George Forman is a chef? >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thanks. Is that all it takes to be famous in aue? I don't think that's why people might have heard of George Foreman. I think it is the fact that people have heard of him made it useful to have his name on the appliance. Fran > >>>George Forman is a chef? > >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > Thanks. Is that all it takes to be famous in aue? > I don't think that's why people might have heard of George Foreman. I > think it is the fact that people have heard of him made it useful to > have his name on the appliance. With you now. I was thinking it was George Forman. (I wonder how I got that idea?) Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/joachim/13-0.htm The lamb's Navy rum hadn't gone down by so much as one eighth of an inch in the last half hour. >> > George Forman is a chef? >> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Thanks. Is that all it takes to be famous in aue? Try to keep up. The Forman reference originated with Peter Daniels. Peter's posts originate from some newsgroup netherworld where much is made of nothing, nothing can be considered everything, and everything is examined in great - but boring - detail. He appears in aue only through wonders of cross-posting. His function here seems to be the nipping of the heels of Bob Cunningham. If you want him back, jerk his leash. We can do without his shrill yapping. [...] > If you want him back, jerk his leash. We can do without his shrill > yapping. I dunno. Peter T. D. boosts my self-esteem, and I can always do with a bit of that. Since he's always sniffing around, why don't we keep him as a pet? Doesn't cost much to feed him, and we don't have to let him in the house. Might probably scare off a few of the more intesticulate juvenile burglars, too. Mike. >> > George Forman is a chef? >> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thanks. Is that all it takes to be famous in aue? Not knowing how to use Google gets your name known too. >>>>> How do George Forman's sons know which of them he's calling? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Fran And it's not to be confused with the George Formby grill, which someone I know swears she heard a customer in Manchester ask for. Turned out nice again. DC In sci.lang Django Cat <nospam@please.com> wrote: > And it's not to be confused with the George Formby grill, which someone I > know swears she heard a customer in Manchester ask for. George Forman appeared on a chat show (Frank Skinner's, I think) a year or two ago accompanied by some George Formby music. I don't think anybody commented on the joke though. On Sunday, in article <1087746630.951102@scooby.ox.compsoc.net> > George Forman appeared on a chat show (Frank Skinner's, I think) a year > or two ago accompanied by some George Formby music. I don't think > anybody commented on the joke though. At least that was [probably] deliberate; back when Dexy's Midnight Runners had a hit with "Jackie Wilson Said" (gulp: way back; 1982), they appeared "live" on Top of the Pops. Behind them the producers had placed a projected photo- and movie-montage, which included shots of the fat slob Jocky Wilson (who was famed at the time as a darts player). Signaturefix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". > >>>>How do George Forman's sons know which of them he's calling? > >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > http://www.jordanmarketing.com/george.foreman.grill.htm I've never encountered one, but I suspect kitchen use is contraindicated. Sorry about the misspelling. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >>He markets a kitchen appliance: >> >>http://www.jordanmarketing.com/george.foreman.grill.htm > > I've never encountered one, but I suspect kitchen use is > contraindicated. I wondered what you menat by this, until I saw you describe it elsewhere as an "outdoor grilling device". It is an electrical appliance, intended for use in the kitchen. Fran > > So, you don't object to their using "Sr", "Jr", "III", etc., to aid > > unserstanding but do find Brian's bracketing to aid understanding a > > donkey problem? > > > > Curious. > It's got nothing to do with "aiding understanding"; it's been in use > for centuries to distinguish multiple generations. So, distinguishing multiple generations isn't aiding understanding? My, my! What a strange use of English you seem to have. > How do George Forman's sons know which of them he's calling? I don't know. How do George Forman's sons know which of them he's calling? and who's George Forman? Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/ada/09-0.htm ...the few remaining haddocks were indistinguishable from halibut. > > > So, you don't object to their using "Sr", "Jr", "III", etc., to aid > > > unserstanding but do find Brian's bracketing to aid understanding a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I don't know. How do George Forman's sons know which of them he's > calling? and who's George Forman? George Foreman is known for three things. (1) Heavyweight Champion of the World, who defeated Mohammed Ali. (Didn't he? I do know there was an "Ali-Foreman fight.") (2) Named all his sons George. (That's the relevant one.) (3) Markets an outdoor grilling device of some sort. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > David wrote: >> I don't know. How do George Forman's sons know which of them he's >> calling? and who's George Forman? > > George Foreman is known for three things. (1) Heavyweight Champion of > the World, who defeated Mohammed Ali. (Didn't he? I do know there was > an "Ali-Foreman fight.") No, he didn't. Ali KO'd Foreman in the eighth round. > (2) Named all his sons George. (That's the > relevant one.) (3) Markets an outdoor grilling device of some sort. Promotes an indoor grilling device. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ >> (2) Named all his sons George. (That's the >> relevant one.) (3) Markets an outdoor grilling device of some sort. > > Promotes an indoor grilling device. There's at least a dozen variations on the theme, at least one of which is an "Indoor/Outdoor Grill". But yeah, the basic model is an indoor-only one. -=Eric SignatureCome to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare. -- Blair Houghton. > > No. All had the forename <Hamilton> and the surname <Fish>. You > > misunderstood Peter's response to your comment that <Hamilton> would [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Did their birth certificates have to have the "III" and "IV" part of > their surname? No, it's merely a social custom, for convenience. See, for example, http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=53990 I can find one reference that implies that these suffixes might appear on some birth certificates, but that's it. Laws for this sort of thing vary by state, and I can find very little written regulation about what a baby may or may not be named, except for the stuff about whether it can have the father's name or what if it has no name when the birth certificate must be filed. There's probably more guidance in sections about legally changing one's name, but I didn't look there. In some European countries, I'm told, there are fixed lists of what babies may or may not be named. The Ancestry World records imply that each of the four men was named simply Hamilton Fish. You could probably retrieve a photocopy of their birth certificates for a small fee... SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > >> > Because "Hamilton Kelly" is my surname, and has been that of my > >> > antecedents for almost four hundred years. Were I to use a > >> > hyphen, it could perhaps be interpreted (by those that understand > >> > these things) that I was one of the nouveau-riche (whom you have > >> > disparaged in a different sub-thread). > >> So it looks as though you get your choice of ambiguities. The one > >> manifestly misleads people, and the other you're not willing to > >> risk. > > Misleads? How? > People are misled by the similarity to other names into assuming that > his last name is "Kelly" and that "Hamilton" is his middle name. Brian spells his name "{Hamilton Kelly}". Is anyone really too dense to understand the significance of the braces? > > >> > Because "Hamilton Kelly" is my surname, and has been that of my > > >> > antecedents for almost four hundred years. Were I to use a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Brian spells his name "{Hamilton Kelly}". Is anyone really > too dense to understand the significance of the braces? How did he spell it before he got a computer that allowed him to type braces? SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net [...] > > Brian spells his name "{Hamilton Kelly}". Is anyone really > > too dense to understand the significance of the braces? > How did he spell it before he got a computer that allowed him to type > braces? The answer to that question is so obvious that I don't want to waste time with it. Maybe Daniels could ask one of the older children to help him with it. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > to waste time with it. Maybe Daniels could ask one of the > older children to help him with it. Yes, Mr. Cunningham is so out of his depth that he is unable to recognize the tone -- the "pragmatics," to use the no doubt unfamiliar technical term -- of an utterance. (Maybe that's why he couldn't understand that he'd asked some 40 questions, some time in the distant past.) SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > [...] > > > > Brian spells his name "{Hamilton Kelly}". Is anyone really > > > > too dense to understand the significance of the braces? > > > How did he spell it before he got a computer that allowed him to type > > > braces? > > The answer to that question is so obvious that I don't want > > to waste time with it. Maybe Daniels could ask one of the > > older children to help him with it. > Yes, Mr. Cunningham is so out of his depth that he is unable to > recognize the tone -- the "pragmatics," to use the no doubt unfamiliar > technical term -- of an utterance. Wow! That's really a snow job. Daniels tries to take a very simple question and divert attention from it to terms he hopes no one will understand. That's what a snow job does. He's too dense to perceive that before Brian {Hamilton Kelly} had a keyboard with braces on it, and in the 400 years in which his family has had that name, there were obviously various ways to make marks that would have the same effect. > (Maybe that's why he couldn't > understand that he'd asked some 40 questions, some time in the distant > past.) Yeah, sure. > > > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > obviously various ways to make marks that would have the > same effect. And Bob Cunninham has no idea what the correct answer is, from among the "various ways," but he responded anyway. > > (Maybe that's why he couldn't > > understand that he'd asked some 40 questions, some time in the distant > > past.) > > Yeah, sure. Well, I'm certainly not going to hunt down whatever you're talking about and rehash it. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net [...] > > He's too dense to perceive that before Brian {Hamilton > > Kelly} had a keyboard with braces on it, and in the 400 > > years in which his family has had that name, there were > > obviously various ways to make marks that would have the > > same effect. > And Bob Cunninham has no idea what the correct answer is, > from among the "various ways," but he responded anyway. What in the world could have led this fogbound P T Daniels to imagine that there's only one "correct" way to bracket a compound name? Is there any reader who could not think of half a dozen without trying very hard? > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Is there any reader who could not think of half a dozen > without trying very hard? The question was not "What ways might he have done it?" but "How did he do it?" SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > [...] > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > The question was not "What ways might he have done it?" but "How did he > do it?" Your question "How did he do it?" has the strong implication that it would have been difficult for him. A reasonable answer was that he could have done it in any of several ways. If you want to know exactly how he did it, ask him. Why are you bothering me about it? It should think it would be unnecessary to explain these simple things to you. > > > [...] > > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > If you want to know exactly how he did it, ask him. Why are > you bothering me about it? He seems to prefer not to enter the discussion. Why are you bothering _yourself_ about it? I certainly haven't e-mailed you asking you to consider the question. > It should think it would be unnecessary to explain these > simple things to you. So far, no fact has been adduced that might, or might not, require an explanation. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net [on the subject of how Brian {Hamilton Kelly} punctuated his name before he had a keyboard with braces on it (a typically asinine P T Daniels topic)] [...] > Why are you bothering _yourself_ about it? I certainly haven't e-mailed > you asking you to consider the question. If you were more familiar with Usenet customs, you would know that a posting in response to that of another participant's is to be regarded as a personal communication in addition to being intended to be read by the general readership. If you respond to a posting of mine and ask a question, it would be discourteous of me not to try to answer it as well as I can. But you've made it clear that courteous behavior is not something you care to practice. > > It should think it would be unnecessary to explain these > > simple things to you. > So far, no fact has been adduced that might, or might not, require an > explanation. I attempted to show you the courtesy of answering your question in the best way I could. Your behavior suggested that you needed that explained to you. > [on the subject of how Brian {Hamilton Kelly} punctuated his > name before he had a keyboard with braces on it (a typically [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > would be discourteous of me not to try to answer it as well > as I can. Even when the posting to which I respond was irrelevant, and I was objecting to the irrelevance? > But you've made it clear that courteous behavior is not > something you care to practice. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > question in the best way I could. Your behavior suggested > that you needed that explained to you. Your way, clearly, offered no information or explanation, and this metaresponse is just stoopid. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net On Saturday, in article <40D4A8C4.3D7F@worldnet.att.net> > The question was not "What ways might he have done it?" but "How did he > do it?" I believe I mentioned before that I'd been using the braces from roughly the time that I first started using both TeX and e-mail, namely the early 1980s. Before that date, I didn't need to communicate my name via a computer. (Well, it did appear, within comments, in the source code of my programs: then usually as B. HAMILTON KELLY [since the computers in question didn't have lower-case].) Before that date, if I was completing any sort of form, I would enter the "Hamilton Kelly" in the "Surname" box, and either "Brian" or "B" in the forename/initials box. In the case of [handwritten] correspondence, I'd print "Brian HAMILTON KELLY" under my signature, where the recipient could be expected to be unfamiliar with my name. After I started using a computer to write my letters, I'd use caps-and-small-caps for the words of my surname, with lower-case, except for the initial letter, for my forename. Telephonically, I'd always have to resort to the "double-barrelled, without a hyphen" (unless, of course, I was asked separately for my surname). Signaturefix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". On Friday, in article <fz8so8hn.fsf@hpl.hp.com> > People are misled by the similarity to other names into assuming that > his last name is "Kelly" and that "Hamilton" is his middle name. Hmm; in *England*, Hamilton is not much used as a middle name; YMMV. Signaturefix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". > On Friday, in article <fz8so8hn.fsf@hpl.hp.com> > >> People are misled by the similarity to other names into assuming that >> his last name is "Kelly" and that "Hamilton" is his middle name. > > Hmm; in *England*, Hamilton is not much used as a middle name; YMMV. Perhaps I read too much into your ] I added the braces to my name, in an attempt to obviate people ] erroneously referring to me as "Brian Kelly" (or even, a great ] Merkin affectation, "Brian H. Kelly"). If nobody actually *did* refer to you that way, then nobody was misled. Without the braces, I certainly would have been, because *in the US* middle names are not infrequently drawn from the "surname" pool. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Theories are not matters of fact, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |they are derived from observing Palo Alto, CA 94304 |fact. If you don't have data, you |don't get good theories. You get kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |theology instead. (650)857-7572 | --John Lawler http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > Without the braces, I certainly would have been, because *in > the US* middle names are not infrequently drawn from the "surname" > pool. Most often, by far, such middle names are drawn from *Hiberno-Britic*[TM] surnames, though I can think of some exceptions. In fact, in this regard, unlike the case for contemporary baby girls' names, the surname pool is heavily biased in the Britic direction. How many babies are given the middle name "Kirshenbaum", say? J'accuse! On Sunday, in article <y8mhliar.fsf@hpl.hp.com> > > On Friday, in article <fz8so8hn.fsf@hpl.hp.com> > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the US* middle names are not infrequently drawn from the "surname" > pool. Aha! The "people" to whom I was referring in that "> ]" paragraph above were non-British; it was only when my name "travelled internationally" that I realized that I had a problem, and the {} solution fell readily to hand (from \TeX). Signaturefix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". > On Sunday, in article <y8mhliar.fsf@hpl.hp.com> > > If nobody actually *did* refer to you that way, then nobody was > > misled. Without the braces, I certainly would have been, because > > *in the US* middle names are not infrequently drawn from the > > "surname" pool. > Aha! The "people" to whom I was referring in that "> ]" paragraph > above were non-British; it was only when my name "travelled > internationally" that I realized that I had a problem, and the {} > solution fell readily to hand (from \TeX). And provided a great talking point for the glassering chatters. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/photo/0y04-0.htm Melting Icicles > On Thursday, in article <40D188AA.2343@worldnet.att.net> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I was one of the nouveau-riche (whom you have disparaged in a different > sub-thread). Double surnames didn't come into use until the eighteenth century. Perhaps the best known are the Spencer Churchills, when the Spencer family added "Churchill" to their surname (having inherited the dukedom of Marlborough), becoming "Spencer Churchill", rather than "Churchill-Spencer" as they might have done at a slightly later date. (Earl Spencer belongs to a junior branch who dropped the "Churchill".) Sir Winston Churchill further confused the issue by calling himself "Winston S. Churchill" :-) SignatureJohn Briggs >>> ...... I first started using e-mail internationally around >>> 1983--4ish, contemporaneously with first using the TeX typesetting [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > recruits ending up with "Firstname NMI Surname" in their service > records are not apocryphal. But "insisting" (your term) that everyone have a middle name is not what I'd call an "affectation," which is why I included the American definition in my original post. Is the usage different in Britain? Actually, the "middle initial" question is more in aid of filling out a form than anything else. The form wants it. You must provide it. End of story. And Firstname NMI Surname simply indicates that there is No Middle Initial. Lots of people have no middle name or initial; leaving the space blank would not make that clear. Perhaps you have read here of R. B. Jones, who joined the US Army some years ago. In filling out the needed forms, he handled the fact that his first and middle names were *initials only* by writing "R.(only) B.(only) Jones." When the lists were printed, there he was -- "Ronly Bonly Jones."[1] >> And what is this "Merkin" business all about? Just a little term of >> endearment? (Must be.) [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > suggest "look under Kelly, if you're already looking under Hamilton, > or vice versa"). Well, I'm glad to hear your problems are not caused solely by Americans. >> Posting from alt.usage.english, > > In which case I'm surprised that you've not met Merkin before! Oh, I have, and often, too. It's just that it sounds... well, not quite friendly, sort of like me calling you "Brattish" or "Brutish" rather than "British." (I was just being optimistic with "term of endearment.") [1] I've heard the same story with different last names, different branches of the service, and even different countries. It may be an Urban Legend with no basis in fact. Or not. Maria Conlon OBediting: I've edited this post a few times for clarity. It may now contain some inexplicable errors. (MConlon 2004) > >>> ...... I first started using e-mail internationally around > >>> 1983--4ish, contemporaneously with first using the TeX typesetting [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I'd call an "affectation," which is why I included the American > definition in my original post. Is the usage different in Britain? The late Sumerologist Jeremy Black insisted that his name be listed as Jeremy Black or as J. A. Black, but never as Jeremy A. Black. > Actually, the "middle initial" question is more in aid of filling out a > form than anything else. The form wants it. You must provide it. End of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > B.(only) Jones." When the lists were printed, there he was -- "Ronly > Bonly Jones."[1] I never heard that from R. B. Jones, Jr. (my Historical Linguistics professor at Cornell, whom I forgot to mention to Eugene), a specialist in Burmese and in Thai tones. > >> And what is this "Merkin" business all about? Just a little term of > >> endearment? (Must be.) [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > friendly, sort of like me calling you "Brattish" or "Brutish" rather > than "British." (I was just being optimistic with "term of endearment.") A merkin is a wig for the pubic region; apparently they were necessitated by symptoms of some venereal disease or other. It's thus an extremely rude and repugnant way to refer to a nationality, and he does it on purpose to offend Americans. > [1] I've heard the same story with different last names, different > branches of the service, and even different countries. It may be an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > OBediting: I've edited this post a few times for clarity. It may now > contain some inexplicable errors. (MConlon 2004) SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >Yes, people do have similar difficulty; in writing (e.g. the subscription >on a letter) I will tend to write my forename in lower-case (obviously [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >In which case I'm surprised that you've not met Merkin before! We know the origin and meaning of "merkin". It's an old joke that is occasionally "discovered" by someone who thinks they can slyly slip it by. It no longer has an edge to it, and is a bit boring because of the repeated "discoveries". Is Brian Hamilton Kelly your entire name? On Tuesday, in article <oj4vc01j3i3855163phdhp419tpr3ccd4l@4ax.com> > Is Brian Hamilton Kelly your entire name? Yes. Signaturefix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". >On 12 Jun, in article > <1to87e2bvp5sx$.dlg@news.lillathedog.net> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >"latter", purely for convenience. Whichever, it *certainly* shouldn't be >LAAH-tay, as heard in Starbucks. Why? People in Starbucks aren't ordering an Italian drink. They are ordering an American beverage that has evolved from an Italian beverage. That American beverage has come to be called "lah-tay" by most Americans that order it. The beverage has lost all ties with whatever Italian beverage that inspired it. Only a pretentious American thinks that if he pronounces "latte" as the Italians do that he will be served latte as the Italians drink in a Starbucks. Then, he goes home and makes himself a salsiccia di Bologna sandwich. >The Italian whom I asked about this very word six months ago hailed from >Turin, and the final vowel seemed much less pure. I do speak really fast, so I had to force myself in order to slow down. I've just said "latte" at least twenty times in a row and the final e is always quite short. > Whichever, it *certainly* shouldn't be >LAAH-tay, as heard in Starbucks. In Italy. In an English speaking country it is indeed. I am Italian and in NY I used to say LAAH-tay. I use the Italian pronunciation when I speak Italian, and the English one when I speak English. There are lots of English words in Italian and their pronunciations are "italianized". That's not a mistake, that's how we use those words is our language. They are listed in the dictionaries, with their "italianized" pronunciation. The same with latte. It's on English dictionaries with its correct English pronunciation because it is now an English word, a borrowing from the Italian language. Who cares about the Italian pronunciation of it. And I am Italian. :) If I were to pronounce "Manhattan" as they do in the US while speaking in Italian, I don't think people would understand me. Sebastiano >>The Italian whom I asked about this very word six months ago hailed from >>Turin, and the final vowel seemed much less pure. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Sebastiano I completely agree with Sebastiano. X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C from Rome Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood > If I were to pronounce "Manhattan" as they do in the US while speaking > in Italian, I don't think people would understand me. I hope you are aware of the two pronunciations of "Manhattan": the authentic New York pronunciation, with a schwa in the first syllable, and the Bogus Out-of-Towner Pronunciation, which has secondarily-stressed /&/ in the first syllable. > > If I were to pronounce "Manhattan" as they do in the US while speaking > > in Italian, I don't think people would understand me. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the Bogus Out-of-Towner Pronunciation, which has secondarily-stressed /&/ > in the first syllable. Of course we don't talk about it much; we just call it "New York." SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >Of course we don't talk about it much; we just call it "New York." I went to Lodi, NJ, and I said to a friend of mine "so, you're a bat". Damn, I didn't know it could be that offensive. :) Sebastiano >I hope you are aware of the two pronunciations of "Manhattan": the >authentic New York pronunciation, with a schwa in the first syllable, and >the Bogus Out-of-Towner Pronunciation, which has secondarily-stressed /&/ >in the first syllable. You mean, the true one and the bat one? ;) The one you can find on the Merriam Webster is the "bat" one, right? www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=manhattan (listen to the wave file) Sebastiano > I heard another common mispronunciation last > night in a restaurant, with customers and waiting staff referring to > "Strawberry Pav-LO-va". Anna Pavlova stressed the antepenultimate > syllable of her surname. The pav may have invented in honour of Anna, but AFAIK, it is an Australian invention and here it is always stressed on the 'lo'. SignatureRob Bannister W Australia > > I heard another common mispronunciation last > > night in a restaurant, with customers and waiting staff referring to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The pav may have invented in honour of Anna, but AFAIK, it is an > Australian invention and here it is always stressed on the 'lo'. In the Anglo-Saxon world, names ending in -ova are invariably mispronounced. Adrian >>> I heard another common mispronunciation last >>>night in a restaurant, with customers and waiting staff referring to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > In the Anglo-Saxon world, names ending in -ova are invariably mispronounced. Once they move into our world, they're fair game. SignatureRob Bannister > >>> I heard another common mispronunciation last > >>>night in a restaurant, with customers and waiting staff referring to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Once they move into our world, they're fair game. Sure, but I do think that TV and radio commentators, many of whom know, or are acquainted with, many of the people they commentate on, and who are paid large sums of money mainly for stating the bleeding obvious, could at least make an effort to pronounce names correctly, if only because it would set a good example to children learning languages at school. Adrian [...] > > > In the Anglo-Saxon world, names ending in -ova are invariably > mispronounced. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > make an effort to pronounce names correctly, if only because it would set a > good example to children learning languages at school. The British have a curious relationship with precision: in spite of producing a disproportionate number of world-class musicians, engineers, scientists, etc, they maintain a public culture of contempt for accuracy. Can you name another nation which bandies about the word "anal" with such imprecision and such regularity? They _invented_ the secondary meaning of the word "anorak". Is there another nation which makes a _point_ of not teaching her children her history? (Do you detect a rant coming on? Yes, me too. I'll stop.) Mike. > The British [snip] > Is there another nation which > makes a _point_ of not teaching her children her history? And those who forget their history... ------- GC > Is there another nation which > makes a _point_ of not teaching her children her history? I learnt about British history in school, and, as far as I can see, today's children do too. Adrian In uk.culture.language.english Adrian Bailey <dadge@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Is there another nation which >> makes a _point_ of not teaching her children her history? > I learnt about British history in school, and, as far as I can see, today's > children do too. It is a matter of regret that they don't. It seems common fashion in British schools is to pick themes or periods from British history, so schoolchildren end up learning just about some small aspect of the country's history, but not to have an overall picture of it. Recently it has been the case that history teaching has been obsessed with European 20th century dictators. I read somewhere that something like 60% of those taking History GCSE (a qualification taken at the age of 16) have specialised in this theme. It is said that a British choild can easily learn "Nazis" as history in primary school, Nazis in the first years of secondary school, Nazis in the later years, Nazis if they specialise in history for pre-university education, and Nazis if they do a history degree. So what started off as the admirable idea that childen should be warned of the dangers of all that the Nazis were about, and was introduced in history teaching when this became far back enough to be considered as "history" has now effectively wrecked the subject. Very few children learn anything much about mediaeval history, or the 17th century civil war, or the founding of democracy in the 18th and 19th century. When I was at school in Britain, history was a broader subject. But in those days it seemed to start with the earliest period covered in the first years of secondary school and went on through time each year, so if you didn't take History at O-level (the predecessor to GCSE) you never went beyond the Tudors. Matthew Huntbach > When I was at school in Britain, history was a broader subject. But in those > days it seemed to start with the earliest period covered in the first years > of secondary school and went on through time each year, so if you didn't take > History at O-level (the predecessor to GCSE) you never went beyond the Tudors. In V Form, studying for GCE, we did European History 1815-1914. We must have covered the rest, starting from Ancient Britons, a bit faster than in your school. SignatureRob Bannister In uk.culture.language.english Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> wrote: >> When I was at school in Britain, history was a broader subject. But in those >> days it seemed to start with the earliest period covered in the first years [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have covered the rest, starting from Ancient Britons, a bit faster than > in your school. No, you seem to be agreeing with me. European History 1815-1914 was covered in V Form. Therefore you would never cover it if you didn't take History to O-level. Matthew Huntbach > In uk.culture.language.english Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > in V Form. Therefore you would never cover it if you didn't take History to > O-level. What you studied for 'O'-level didn't necessarily depend on what you'd studied of history before that time anyway. I studied British economic history for 'O'-level - I think the period covered was from the 1750s to 1914 - despite having studied only up to the Tudors before that. When I did 'A-level History, we took a period of European history and a period of British history - and we studied the Tudors yet again. I always thought the Stuarts would be really interesting to study - probably because I never actually studied them. Fran In uk.culture.language.english Frances Kemmish <fkemmish@optonline.net> wrote: > Matthew Huntbach wrote: >> In uk.culture.language.english Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> wrote: >>>>When I was at school in Britain, history was a broader subject. But in those >>>>days it seemed to start with the earliest period covered in the first years [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>have covered the rest, starting from Ancient Britons, a bit faster than >>>in your school. >> No, you seem to be agreeing with me. European History 1815-1914 was covered >> in V Form. Therefore you would never cover it if you didn't take History to >> O-level. > What you studied for 'O'-level didn't necessarily depend on what you'd > studied of history before that time anyway. I studied British economic > history for 'O'-level - I think the period covered was from the 1750s to > 1914 - despite having studied only up to the Tudors before that. Yes, that's what I'm saying. Earlier history was covered in the years before O-level, and later history was covered in O-level. Thus if you didn't take History O-level, you never got to cover the later years. Matthew Huntbach > In uk.culture.language.english Frances Kemmish <fkemmish@optonline.net> wrote: >>What you studied for 'O'-level didn't necessarily depend on what you'd >>studied of history before that time anyway. I studied British economic [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > O-level, and later history was covered in O-level. Thus if you didn't take > History O-level, you never got to cover the later years. I was agreeing with you; and wondering why we spent so much time on the Tudors. We regarded (and I think it is still seen as a watershed) the year 1485 as the change from Medieval to Modern. Of corse, it is so close to 1492, and all that follows from that, that it makes a convenient breakpoint for studying English history. Do Scottish children stduy Scottish history? Fran > In uk.culture.language.english Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > in V Form. Therefore you would never cover it if you didn't take History to > O-level. Whoops! My bad reading. I'm glad I did O-Level. SignatureRob Bannister > > Is there another nation which > > makes a _point_ of not teaching her children her history? > > I learnt about British history in school, and, as far as I can see, today's > children do too. Not for very long. Unless things have changed again, it isn't a National Curriculum "core subject". They appear to have little notion of how the four countries came to be as they are today, or of the interesting little historical anecdotes which make a culture; and there seems to be a seriously unhealthy fixation on a very weak coverage of the rise and fall of Hitler. History-teaching seems to me to have slipped into a sort of "mathematics fallacy": just as maths-teaching now, in theory, tries to stress the principles of the subject rather than mere manipulation, so in history there's too great an emphasis on how to "do history" at the expense of learning what happened. Yes, of course children should be given an understanding of how we find things out in any subject: but a citizen should know what we _have_ found out. A youngster can even study "sports history", which is plain daft. I speak as a parent (and, a long time ago, as a school and college governor), not as an expert. Mike. > > > Is there another nation which > > > makes a _point_ of not teaching her children her history? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Not for very long. Unless things have changed again, it isn't a > National Curriculum "core subject". This will really only affect education after year 10, aka the third form. > They appear to have little notion > of how the four countries came to be as they are today, or of the > interesting little historical anecdotes which make a culture; You've backtracked. > and > there seems to be a seriously unhealthy fixation on a very weak > coverage of the rise and fall of Hitler. This is true, but only of education after year 10. > History-teaching seems to me to have slipped into a sort of > "mathematics fallacy": just as maths-teaching now, in theory, tries to > stress the principles of the subject rather than mere manipulation, so > in history there's too great an emphasis on how to "do history" at the > expense of learning what happened. I'm afraid this is nonsense. In an age where information was expensive it might have been necessary to spoon-feed history, but times have changed. Nowadays information is cheap and it's essential that teachers spend much more time educating children in how to analyse it. > Yes, of course children should be > given an understanding of how we find things out in any subject: but a > citizen should know what we _have_ found out. And of course they still do. > A youngster can even > study "sports history", which is plain daft. Don't see why. Adrian > > > > Is there another nation which > > > > makes a _point_ of not teaching her children her history? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > This will really only affect education after year 10, aka the third > form. You clearly aren't the only person who thinks that's ok, as you have officialdom on your side. But I think it's a disaster: that's far too young to stop, expecially given the content of what's been taught before. > > They appear to have little notion > > of how the four countries came to be as they are today, or of the > > interesting little historical anecdotes which make a culture; > > You've backtracked. Sorry, don't get you. I said, I thought, that British children don't know much about their own country/ies. > > and > > there seems to be a seriously unhealthy fixation on a very weak [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > changed. Nowadays information is cheap and it's essential that > teachers spend much more time educating children in how to analyse it. Well, 'nonsense' seems a bit harsh. If what you say were true, youngsters would have a better knowledge of history than they do. All classroom subjects should be teaching children how to handle evidence to some degree or another. > > Yes, of course children should be > > given an understanding of how we find things out in any subject: but a > > citizen should know what we _have_ found out. > > And of course they still do. But they don't. > > A youngster can even > > study "sports history", which is plain daft. > > Don't see why. Because it's trivial. Learning historical method is fine, and you can do it with sport or almost anything else as a focus; but I think you should use the limited time available to learn it through important things, and (see above) gain a good idea of what makes the country tick. Mike. >>>>> Is there another nation which >>>>>makes a _point_ of not teaching her children her history? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > young to stop, expecially given the content of what's been taught > before. It isn't a new phenomenon though. When I was at grammar school in the 1960s, you could drop history after third form. We were offered a choices something like: History or Physics; Geography or Chemistry; Latin or Biology. Fran > It isn't a new phenomenon though. When I was at grammar school in the > 1960s, you could drop history after third form. We were offered a > choices something like: History or Physics; Geography or Chemistry; > Latin or Biology. One of our choices was between Ancient Greek and Physics & Chemistry. Pity, I would have liked to have done AG, but I couldn't quite face up to doing without all my lower school science. SignatureRob Bannister >>>>> I heard another common mispronunciation last >>>>>night in a restaurant, with customers and waiting staff referring to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > make an effort to pronounce names correctly, if only because it would set a > good example to children learning languages at school. I have to agree. OTOH, it is sometimes hard to know, in particular with Russian names, exactly where the stress goes. I can't, off-hand, think of a Russian surname where the stress does go on the first o of -ova, although when it's -eva (with 2 dots on the e) it's pretty clear, nevertheless, I think there may be some. SignatureRob Bannister > I have to agree. OTOH, it is sometimes hard to know, in particular with > Russian names, exactly where the stress goes. I can't, off-hand, think > of a Russian surname where the stress does go on the first o of -ova, You mean where Russian speakers place the stress, or where English speakers place it? Or are Aussie pronunciations of, say, Kournikova & Navratilova (czech, but presumably from a similar linguistic source) unusual? (www.wtatour.com suggests otherwise). > > I have to agree. OTOH, it is sometimes hard to know, in particular with > > Russian names, exactly where the stress goes. I can't, off-hand, think [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (czech, but presumably from a similar linguistic source) unusual? > (www.wtatour.com suggests otherwise). Russian and Czech have very different stress rules; Russian stress can be anywhere, depending on the word in question. Czech stress is always initial, though weak enough that English speakers often mishear it (often picking on some other syllable, particularly one containing a long vowel, and stressing that instead). I have _never_ heard a sports commentator using the original Czech pronunciation, with stressed first syllable and long vowels in the second and last syllables. > > > I have to agree. OTOH, it is sometimes hard to know, in particular with > > > Russian names, exactly where the stress goes. I can't, off-hand, think [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > long vowel, and stressing that instead). I have _never_ heard a sports > commentator using the original Czech pronunciation, of 'Navratilova' (sorry I forgot to specify) > with stressed > first syllable and long vowels in the second and last syllables. > > > > I have to agree. OTOH, it is sometimes hard to know, in particular with > > > > Russian names, exactly where the stress goes. I can't, off-hand, think [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > commentator using the original Czech pronunciation, > of 'Navratilova' (sorry I forgot to specify) I thought, how clever, you meant it apply to both names. Does it not equally apply to Kournikova? Both second (-ni-) and the last syllable (-va) are long. :-) When spelled with the correct diacritics :-) It's not only the different stress rules, it's also the different syllable lengths that make Russian and Czech sound so different. (The -va syllables in -ova suffixes are short in Russian). It so happens that for an average English speaker it is easier to achieve approximate Russian pronunciation than mediocre Czech one. Paul JK > > with stressed > > first syllable and long vowels in the second and last syllables. [...][on 'Navratilova'] > I have _never_ heard a sports > commentator using the original Czech pronunciation, with stressed > first syllable and long vowels in the second and last syllables. There was a time when they tried quite hard, as she made a bit of an issue of it; but it's nearly impossible for a non-linguist English-speaker (I'm using 'linguist' in its ordinary sense), as it conflicts with the patterns of the rest of an English sentence. I don't hold their failure against them, or even take it as evidence for Anglophone hopelessness with foreign languages. Mike. > [...][on 'Navratilova'] >> I have _never_ heard a sports [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > don't hold their failure against them, or even take it as evidence for > Anglophone hopelessness with foreign languages. I just realized why Anglophones trying to pronounce Latvian words sound so foreign to a Latvian. Latvian vowels have several different durations and inflections. While a longer than the short duration is indicated with a macron, the finer distinctions in duration and inflection are what throw the foreign speaker, as there is no written indication for them. In fact, those who have tried to duplicate my examples verbally have always failed miserably and are unable to hear the difference. Failure, of course, would instantly mark them as a foreigners in Latvia. Spies, beware! Let's not even talk about the grammar ... The inflection variation is somewhat like what is encountered in Vietnamese. I can copy Vietnamese speech, as I can hear the subtle differences, but most Anglophones have great difficulties in doing so. Hungarians have marveled how well I duplicated their tongue-twisters, although I didn't understand anything I was saying. Their sounds are pretty much the same as encountered in either Latvian or German -- the languages I spoke in my youth. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:02:28 -0700: "Skitt" <skitt99@comcast.net>: in sci.lang: >The inflection variation is somewhat like what is encountered in Vietnamese. >I can copy Vietnamese speech, as I can hear the subtle differences, but most >Anglophones have great difficulties in doing so. What exactly do you mean by inflection? It seems you don't mean "change word endings due to grammatical functions", because AFAIK, Vietnamese does not have this. Do you mean 4-way distinctions in vowel height? SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:02:28 -0700: "Skitt" <skitt99@comcast.net>: in > sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Vietnamese does not have this. > Do you mean 4-way distinctions in vowel height? He probably means "intonation." That's often called "inflection" by non-linguists. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> "Skitt" wrote in sci.lang: >>> The inflection variation is somewhat like what is encountered in >>> Vietnamese. I can copy Vietnamese speech, as I can hear the subtle [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > He probably means "intonation." That's often called "inflection" by > non-linguists. Yeah, that could well be it. See my other post, please. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ > "Skitt" wrote in sci.lang: >> The inflection variation is somewhat like what is encountered in >> Vietnamese. I can copy Vietnamese speech, as I can hear the subtle [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Vietnamese does not have this. > Do you mean 4-way distinctions in vowel height? I am not familiar with any of the linguistic terms, so forgive me if I misuse them. I meant a subtle change in the vowel at something like the midpoint of it. A drop in pitch, or something like that. I don't know how to describe it. It is almost like a diphthong, except that the second part is not really a different vowel, yet different from the first part. It also has to be understood that in Latvian there are vowels long in duration that have not the slightest hint of variation, some of which are not encountered in English, but are present in some dialects of Irish, I believe. I have heard an Irishman pronouce "gate" with such a vowel (no trace of a diphthong for the "a"). By the way, I didn't write my previous post in sci.lang, as I have no business there, being totally uneducated in linguistics. My contribution was crossposted because of my inattention, for which I apologize. I have to let this posting to be crossposted also, so that my apology would be seen by those it is meant for. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ > By the way, I didn't write my previous post in sci.lang, as I have no > business there, being totally uneducated in linguistics. My contribution > was crossposted because of my inattention, for which I apologize. I have to > let this posting to be crossposted also, so that my apology would be seen by > those it is meant for. You're certainly not a stranger to sci.lang! (Yes, you're talking about pitch changes at a level below the clause, so it's called "tone" rather than "intonation.") SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > > [...][on 'Navratilova'] [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > who have tried to duplicate my examples verbally have always failed > miserably and are unable to hear the difference. [...] Interesting: I think English is timed between stresses (look at Gerard Manley Hopkins), rather than giving each syllable equal time, so that should be a sort of similarity. Perhaps our greatest difficulty is that we don't have many unstressed long vowels? The Greek derivative I posted yesterday, 'callipedilous', has the principal stress on the short e, but the following i is long: it takes me an effort to pronounce. I'm sure that if the word became common the i would be shortened. Mike. 16 Jun 2004 04:20:47 -0700: mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Lyle): in sci.lang: >The Greek derivative I >posted yesterday, 'callipedilous', has the principal stress on the >short e, but the following i is long: it takes me an effort to >pronounce. In Classical Greek, I presume? Modern Greek has no long vowels. SignatureRuud Harmsen <rha@rudhar.com> - http://rudhar.com Telephone: +31.30.60.66457 (also fax, by prior arrangement) > 16 Jun 2004 04:20:47 -0700: mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Lyle): in > sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > In Classical Greek, I presume? Modern Greek has no long vowels. We may be using conflicting definitions here. MG certainly has sounds I'd call long if they were in English. Eta, for example. Mike. 16 Jun 2004 15:16:28 -0700: mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Lyle): in sci.lang: >> >The Greek derivative I >> >posted yesterday, 'callipedilous', has the principal stress on the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >We may be using conflicting definitions here. MG certainly has sounds >I'd call long if they were in English. Eta, for example. In Modern Greek, eta, ypsilon, and iota, and also ei, yi, oi sound exactly the same: as iota. A short vowel, like English ee or ea, but short. Eta may have been long in Classical Greek, but it certainly is no longer in Modern Greek. SignatureRuud Harmsen <rha@rudhar.com> - http://rudhar.com > 16 Jun 2004 15:16:28 -0700: mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Lyle): in > sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > short. Eta may have been long in Classical Greek, but it certainly is > no longer in Modern Greek. Classical Greek had short and long vowels. It even had tones. It lost length (and tone) distinctions during/after the classical period. No fewer than 11 vowels and diphthongs merged into a single phoneme /i/. Z. > 16 Jun 2004 15:16:28 -0700: mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Lyle): in > sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > short. Eta may have been long in Classical Greek, but it certainly is > no longer in Modern Greek. When I speak of the length of a vowel, I'm not referring to duration. I'll bow to anybody's superior knowledge of modern Greek, but for example /i/ is a long vowel to me, and /e/ a short one. Mike. >> In Modern Greek, eta, ypsilon, and iota, and also ei, yi, oi sound >> exactly the same: as iota. A short vowel, like English ee or ea, but >> short. Eta may have been long in Classical Greek, but it certainly is >> no longer in Modern Greek. 17 Jun 2004 07:32:29 -0700: mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Lyle): in sci.lang: >When I speak of the length of a vowel, I'm not referring to duration. >I'll bow to anybody's superior knowledge of modern Greek, but for >example /i/ is a long vowel to me, and /e/ a short one. Sorry, this is beyond me. SignatureRuud Harmsen <rha@rudhar.com> - http://rudhar.com > >> In Modern Greek, eta, ypsilon, and iota, and also ei, yi, oi sound > >> exactly the same: as iota. A short vowel, like English ee or ea, but [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Sorry, this is beyond me. Sorry, I'm not putting it very clearly, then. (And, as you've already guessed, my modern Greek is even worse than my ancient.) I mean that however quickly I say the English 'beat', it still has a long vowel, distinct from the short one in 'bit'. To me (and perhaps this is old-fashioned: there was always a case here for new terminology), 'long' and 'short' refer to sound quality, not to measurable length in time. I notice that 'long' has the short vowel, while 'short' has a long one. Prosodically, in my lexicon diphthongs are long, if that helps to make my meaning clear. Mike. > > >> In Modern Greek, eta, ypsilon, and iota, and also ei, yi, oi sound > > >> exactly the same: as iota. A short vowel, like English ee or ea, but [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > long one. Prosodically, in my lexicon diphthongs are long, if that > helps to make my meaning clear. He's been reading Holman, and using words however he wants. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > > >> In Modern Greek, eta, ypsilon, and iota, and also ei, yi, oi sound > > > >> exactly the same: as iota. A short vowel, like English ee or ea, but [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > He's been reading Holman, and using words however he wants. No, merely however I was taught them. More recently, however, I find that Chalker & Weiner, _The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar_ , 1993, say under the headword *Length* QUOTE/...length differences in actual articulation are conditioned by phonetic context. For example, the final voiceless /t/ in _beat_ has a shortening effect on the preceding long vowel, whereas the short vowel in _bid_, being followed by a voiced consonant, is not shortened, with the result that the vowel lengths in these two words may be objectively the same. A distinction can therefore be made between 'linguistic' length, as the listener perceives it, and 'real world' length (or _duration_), as acoustically measured./ENDQUOTE I was pleased to find that ODEG used 'beat', one of the examples I had chosen myself; but their more expert selection of 'bid' makes the case better than my 'bit'. I infer, possibly wrongly, from a note under *Long* in OED1 that the expression 'long' as applied to English 'long vowels' was recognised a century ago as not referring necessarily to duration. In the passage quoted from ODEG, 'long' and 'short' etc are used in both senses, supporting my suggestion above that "there was always a case for new terminology". My comment that diphthongs are long in prosody seemed unremarkable even to pointlessness. But I find that, for reasons which no doubt feel good to them, students of linguistics have abandoned the former principal meaning of 'prosody', which is the one I had in mind; so the comment may not have been helpful to all readers, if to any. Mike. 18 Jun 2004 09:11:44 -0700: mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Lyle): in sci.lang: >QUOTE/...length differences in actual articulation are conditioned by >phonetic context. For example, the final voiceless /t/ in _beat_ has a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >expression 'long' as applied to English 'long vowels' was recognised a >century ago as not referring necessarily to duration. I don't agree. The expression "long vowel", of a phoneme, does refer to duration. But the road to phoneme to sound is via context, and context, as explained in what you quote, influences duration = length too, in addition to the intrinsic duration the phoneme already had. Two different effects, but both involve duration = length, and nothing else. SignatureRuud Harmsen <rha@rudhar.com> - http://rudhar.com > 18 Jun 2004 09:11:44 -0700: mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Lyle): in > sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Two different effects, but both involve duration = length, and nothing > else. Well, you don't have to agree with me or my teachers; but you'll need to work hard to disprove the statement I quoted from an impartial and not inexpert source: it inescapably says "the vowel lengths in these words may be objectively the same". "Lengths" here means measurable duration, and isn't the purely conventional use in reference to sound-quality. Have a look and see if OED2 or 3 still says the same as my first edition: it's under *Length*, and I'm pretty sure you'll agree with my interpretation of it even if you think the OED got it wrong. But the few mistakes I've ever found in OED were a lot smaller than that. Mike. >> >When I speak of the length of a vowel, I'm not referring to duration. >> >I'll bow to anybody's superior knowledge of modern Greek, but for >> >example /i/ is a long vowel to me, and /e/ a short one. >> >> Sorry, this is beyond me. 17 Jun 2004 11:44:31 -0700: mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Lyle): in sci.lang: >Sorry, I'm not putting it very clearly, then. (And, as you've already >guessed, my modern Greek is even worse than my ancient.) I mean that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >long one. Prosodically, in my lexicon diphthongs are long, if that >helps to make my meaning clear. OK, in English, length and timbre of /i/ and /I/ are coupled. That is, in British English, although I think I read in Daniel Jones's book that American English has no distinctive length difference, which may add to the confusion. But in many other languages, Modern Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian too I think etc. it works differently, and all vowels are the same length, and only differ in timbre. Listening to them with English-influenced ears then only obscures thing. SignatureRuud Harmsen <rha@rudhar.com> - http://rudhar.com >>> >When I speak of the length of a vowel, I'm not referring to duration. >>> >I'll bow to anybody's superior knowledge of modern Greek, but for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>however quickly I say the English 'beat', it still has a long vowel, >>distinct from the short one in 'bit'. Do you find it necessary to pronounce "piccolo" with an [i:] like in "peek-a-boo"? Do you find yourself unable to make it as short as the [I] in "pickle"? >> To me (and perhaps this is >>old-fashioned: there was always a case here for new terminology), [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Russian too I think etc. it works differently, and all vowels are the > same length, Does any Russian say Aleksandr with two <a>s of the same length? > and only differ in timbre. Listening to them with > English-influenced ears then only obscures thing. Listening to them with Indian-influenced ears, I hear a short vowel in [njEt] and a long vowel in [dA]. > >>> >When I speak of the length of a vowel, I'm not referring to duration. > >>> >I'll bow to anybody's superior knowledge of modern Greek, but for [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > "peek-a-boo"? Do you find yourself unable to make it as short as the [I] in > "pickle"? [...] Not that it's relevant, but the letter i in my 'piccolo' is the same as the one in my 'pickle': /I/. We can say the ee in 'peek-a-boo' in the same length of time. As I showed, there's nothing revolutionary about this well-attested observation, and I was surprised to discover that some contributors to the thread seemed to be unaware of it, or perhaps unfamiliar with my unoriginal way of expressing it. Mike. > Does any Russian say Aleksandr with two <a>s of the same length? I think all of them do. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ On 15 Jun, in article <3fa4d950.0406151140.25a49ca5@posting.google.com> > [...][on 'Navratilova'] > > I have _never_ heard a sports [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > don't hold their failure against them, or even take it as evidence for > Anglophone hopelessness with foreign languages. ISTR that the newsreader Angela Rippon[1] used to make a good attempt at pronouncing Martina's name correctly. [1] Yes, she of the excessively-articulated "guerrilla". (I was going to try writing that in ASCII IPA, but couldn't identify the first vowel, let alone the over-trilled /r/ or the Spanish -illa; at least, not in a 1995 copy I have of Evan's regular posting of that to aue.) Signaturefix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". >>I have to agree. OTOH, it is sometimes hard to know, in particular with >>Russian names, exactly where the stress goes. I can't, off-hand, think [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (czech, but presumably from a similar linguistic source) unusual? > (www.wtatour.com suggests otherwise). I meant Russian speakers. I think Czech follows different rules; I know some other Slavonic languages do. Sports commentators, whether Australian or whatever, follow no rules at all. To tell the truth, I wouldn't know how to stress Kournikova; my inclination with Navratilova is to stress the second a, but our Aussie commentators stick with stressing the o and pronouncing it as 'owe'. SignatureRob Bannister > > In the Anglo-Saxon world, names ending in -ova are invariably mispronounced. > > Once they move into our world, they're fair game. It works both ways of course. My name is invariably pronounced by the crowd of native Spanish speakers I occasional socialize with as 'dee-LAHN'. Actually I kinda like it. Apparently the "proper" Welsh pronunciation is DULL-n, but only real mispronuncation that gets to me is "Dialin'". But now the name is about as common as muck, most people seem to get it right. Eventually they'll learn how to spell it too. Dylan > > > I heard another common mispronunciation last > > > night in a restaurant, with customers and waiting staff referring to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > In the Anglo-Saxon world, names ending in -ova are invariably mispronounced. > Adrian They get badly mispronounced even in the Slavic world, when pronouncing each other's -ova names. :-) Paul JK > On Thursday, in article <2iq5dlFphuhrU1@uni-berlin.de> > > > Do I not understand the meaning of "pretentiousness"? It seems to me > > > that pronouncing "latte" as the Italians do, rather than the way the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Then you assume wrongly; the 'a' is short, and the 'e' is a schwa; > therefore the word sounds almost exactly like the English "latter". Huh? Since when was 'a' in Italian ever short? As I understand it, all Italian vowels are 'pure' (ah eh oh {no diphthong} ee oo), like Spanish vowels. Which means no schwas either. I can't find a single source that backs you up, but I don't speak Italian. Can we get an Italian speaker's opinion on this? > > I'm not sure how the OP expects non-pretentious people (presumably the > > serving staff in non-Starbucks coffee shops?) to pronounce it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > totally alien, based in part upon their misconception of which language > is actually involved. Plenty of (and possibly most) words borrowed from other languages end up having their pronunciation adapted to the 'host' language. This is just as true in English as in many other languages. To attempt anything else is most definitely being pretentious. > Another place where this happens is people using an Italian stress- > pattern on the Greek dish "moussaka", saying "moo-SAH-car". In Greek, > that word is stressed on the final syllable. Would you consider the word 'computer' (or for that matter 'consider') to have an "Italian stress pattern"? Moussaka follows the same pattern, precisely (there we go again) because it is natural to an English speaker, whereas emphasis on the final syllable of a 3+ syllable word is generally not (unless the first two syllables are a regular prefix like 'over'). Dylan In alt.usage.english, Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote: >On Thursday, in article <2iq5dlFphuhrU1@uni-berlin.de> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Then you assume wrongly; the 'a' is short, and the 'e' is a schwa; >therefore the word sounds almost exactly like the English "latter". Really? I'm amazed. To me the "e" is short, as in "ten", and has slight stress. The two "t"s are separately pronounced. Imagine "lat TEN" but don't say the "N". No English word ends with that short "e" sound, hence the English-speaker's tendency to add the "ee" sound that Dylan quite correctly referred to. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >> Frankly, I don't know how an Italian would pronounce the word. > > I would assume LAH-teh. Mind you, the final vowel in Italian "latte" is a "wide", "open" sound, like an English e in "send", "tent", "hen". You can listen to it here http://www.geocities.com/f_pollett/I-E-GR.WAV And the double "t" is a strong, distinct sound. Finally, we pronounce our "t"s with our tongue nearer to the teeth. [I am not a linguist, anyway] X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C from Italy Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood > >> Frankly, I don't know how an Italian would pronounce the word. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You can listen to it here > http://www.geocities.com/f_pollett/I-E-GR.WAV That's what I was trying to convery with 'teh'. It's definitely not a diphthong, nor a schwa, as one poster seemed to think. > And the double "t" is a strong, distinct sound. > Finally, we pronounce our "t"s with our tongue nearer to the teeth. > [I am not a linguist, anyway] Fair enough, but I think if you weren't fluent in Italian and you tried to pronounce it like that while speaking English it would definitely sound contrived and somewhat pretentious. As an bilingual speaker, how do you pronounce 'latte' as part of English sentence? What about if it's in the plural - presumably the Italian plural is not lattes...latti? Dylan > As an bilingual speaker, I wish that were true ;) > how do you pronounce 'latte' as part of > English sentence? I would [try to] pronounce it as English speakers do, not to sound affected or [in my case] a tourist ;) One more reason would be that the English "latte" does not mean <latte> in Italian. > What about if it's in the plural - presumably the > Italian plural is not lattes...latti? "Latte", just like milk, is uncountable, but countable in certain usages. In an Italian coffee bar "latti" will do, as well as "biccheri di latte" (glasses of milk). Mind you, if you say "latte" in Italy you just get a glass of plain milk [warm, if you like]. You won't get any coffee in it unless you ask for "caffellatte" or "cappuccino" or "latte macchiato". X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood > > >The most annoying aspect of this new rash of American-originated > > >coffeeshops[1] in the UK is the utter pretentiousness of their serving [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I'm not sure how the OP expects non-pretentious people (presumably the > serving staff in non-Starbucks coffee shops?) to pronounce it. I think the point here is that the naive British and naive American adaptations of 'latte' produce different results. The final syllable presumably ends up as 'tay' (rhyming with 'day') in both; but to British ears, the stressed shortened Italian 'a' before a geminate 'tt' definitely makes the first syllable rhyme with British English 'bat'. 'Lah-tay' is therefore an attempt to imitate an American version of an Italian original rather than adapting the original directly, which is something some Britons may wish to avoid. (Which of the versions is closest to the Italian is another matter entirely, of course). > > > >The most annoying aspect of this new rash of American-originated > > > >coffeeshops[1] in the UK is the utter pretentiousness of their serving [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > (Which of the versions is closest to the Italian is another matter > entirely, of course). There was a woman on TV the other night called Tanya, except she wasn't called Tanya, she was called "Tahnya". That kind of affected pronunciation makes the toes curl of anyone born north of Watford, and "latte" is in the same class. Adrian > There was a woman on TV the other night called Tanya, except she wasn't > called Tanya, she was called "Tahnya". That kind of affected pronunciation > makes the toes curl of anyone born north of Watford, and "latte" is in the > same class. "Tanya" is always "Tahnya" /tAnj@/ (or ENE /tanj@/) in these United States, i.e., it always has the 'father vowel'. No affectedness -- indeed, if anything /t&nj@/ has the danger of perceived affectedness (since it sounds like it could be a Britishish pronunciation). I've seen a less common spelling 'Tonya'. BTW, "Tanya" is a first name (= BrE 'Christian name, but Jews and Muslims can play too'). > There was a woman on TV the other night called Tanya, except she wasn't > called Tanya, she was called "Tahnya". That kind of affected pronunciation > makes the toes curl of anyone born north of Watford, and "latte" is in the > same class. Well -- how else would you pronounce "Tanya"? Don't you remember the notorious Tonya [I think] Harding? SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > There was a woman on TV the other night called Tanya, except she wasn't > > called Tanya, she was called "Tahnya". That kind of affected pronunciation > > makes the toes curl of anyone born north of Watford, and "latte" is in the > > same class. > > Well -- how else would you pronounce "Tanya"? With the TRAP/BATH vowel (referring to Wells's vowel classes), which, "north of Watford" [1], is typically [a]. Look it up in Wells. Simliarly with "latte" - we would use [a], as in "latter", for the first vowel, and [A:] sounds to me to be not only affected but also less like the genuine Italian sound. > Don't you remember the notorious Tonya [I think] Harding? I would think that hardly anyone in Britain would pronounce "Tanya" and "Tonya" the same. The latter would have the LOT vowel, typically [A.]. Remember that in Britain Wells's LOT and PALM classes are usually distinguished, and "ah" can only suggest PALM (or maybe START), while an <o> spelling often suggests LOT but never PALM. [1] Used to mean Northern England and most of the English Midlands, and not to be taken too literally. Jonathan >>> There was a woman on TV the other night called Tanya, except she wasn't >>> called Tanya, she was called "Tahnya". That kind of affected pronunciation [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > first vowel, and [A:] sounds to me to be not only affected but also > less like the genuine Italian sound. The more I read of this sort of thing, the less convincing it is. People, I think, have the right to pronounce their names (or anyone else's names) the way they think they should be pronounced without opening themselves to charges of "affectation." I can think of cases where someone might be putting on airs by embellishing a common name with "exotic" vowels, but that's hardly the case in "Tanya" or "Latte". These are garden-variety regional differences, or ethnic differences. This "anyone who doesn't talk the way my family talks is ignorant of affected" attitude is almost comical. Some people need to get out more. SignatureMichael West Melbourne, Australia > >>> There was a woman on TV the other night called Tanya, except she wasn't > >>> called Tanya, she was called "Tahnya". That kind of affected pronunciation [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > family talks is ignorant of affected" attitude is almost > comical. Some people need to get out more. Or less? I wish people wouldn't resort to strawman rhetoric when making their case. Believe me, coming from the north of England, I am usually aware when someone is putting on an RP accent. My negative reaction to such affectation is not itself an affectation, it's just a natural reaction which I admit to, though not with any pride. Adrian > Simliarly with "latte" - we would use [a], as in "latter", for the > first vowel, and [A:] sounds to me to be not only affected but also > less like the genuine Italian sound. Affected it may well be, but /a:/ is just the Italian "a " in latte, spot-on :) We only have one "a" sound, that sounds like the English "a" in "car". Duration may be different, though. It is uttered a tad quicker in unaccented syllables. Even then, the kind of sound remains just the same, just shorter. In the Italian word "Latte", the accent is on "la", anyway. X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C from Rome Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood > > Simliarly with "latte" - we would use [a], as in "latter", for the > > first vowel, and [A:] sounds to me to be not only affected but also [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > We only have one "a" sound, that sounds like the English "a" in "car". > Duration may be different, though. I was talking about English accents from northern England, though, not American ones or traditional RP. To my ears, the Italian "a" vowel sounds more like the one in "cat" (which is nothing like any sort of "e" sound) than the one in "car". Jonathan >> We only have one "a" sound, that sounds like the English "a" in "car". >> Duration may be different, though. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sounds more like the one in "cat" (which is nothing like any sort of > "e" sound) than the one in "car". Is there really only one Italian "a" vowel? My impression is that in the Italian pronunciation of "café latte", the first "a" is the "cat" vowel and the second "a" is the "father" vowel. SignatureMichael West Melbourne, Australia Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:20:21 GMT: "Michael West" <mbwest@bigpond.com>: in sci.lang: >My impression is that in the Italian pronunciation of >"café latte", the first "a" is the "cat" vowel and the >second "a" is the "father" vowel. The Australian father vowel, or the rest of the world facther vowel? The Australian cat vowel, of the Northern-English of Scottish cat vowel? SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com/index/whatsnew.htm > Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:20:21 GMT: "Michael West" <mbwest@bigpond.com>: in > sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The Australian cat vowel, of the Northern-English of Scottish cat > vowel? The Australian 'father' vowel seems pretty close to my New York 'cat' vowel, FWIW. > Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:20:21 GMT: "Michael West" <mbwest@bigpond.com>: in > sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The Australian cat vowel, of the Northern-English of Scottish cat > vowel? For simplicity's sake, let's say a BBC radio announcer's "a" vowels -- but it's really irrelevant. My question is about the change in vowel quality between "café" and "latte" in Italian pronunciation. SignatureMichael West Melbourne, Australia > Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:20:21 GMT: "Michael West" <mbwest@bigpond.com>: in > sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The Australian father vowel, or the rest of the world facther vowel? I don't believe there is even a rest-of-the-world father vowel. There are so many variations - from aw to e. SignatureRob Bannister > Is there really only one Italian "a" vowel? Yep! It can be a bit shorter sometimes, but it retains the same sound. > My impression is that in the Italian pronunciation of > "café latte", the first "a" is the "cat" vowel and the > second "a" is the "father" vowel. The second "a" is a bit shorter, the second is stressed and a tad longer, but both "a"s are the "father" vowel. We have been talking about this very topic in it.cultura.linguistica.inglese [a bilingual group where you can post either in English or Italian] recently, and an English person who is fluent in Italian said just what you are saying, about the two "a"s in "captare" [to catch]. Italian posters in the NG replied as I have just done, though. X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C ~ No native speaker 11 Jun 2004 14:19:34 GMT: Enrico C <use_replyto_address@despammed.com>: in sci.lang: >> My impression is that in the Italian pronunciation of >> "café latte", the first "a" is the "cat" vowel and the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >"captare" [to catch]. Italian posters in the NG replied as I have just >done, though. If there is a difference, Italians are unable to hear it, because it is irrelevant to them. If there is no difference, English speakers will still think they hear it, because they interpret what they hear within the phnological framework of their own language. Not a very fruitfull discussion. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com/index/whatsnew.htm > 11 Jun 2004 14:19:34 GMT: Enrico C > <use_replyto_address@despammed.com>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > If there is a difference, Italians are unable to hear it, because it > is irrelevant to them. There is a [slight] difference in stress and duration, not in sound or intonation, so to speak [I am not a linguist, so I am not sure about the correct terms]. That's why it is said to be just one "a" http://www.geocities.com/f_pollett/I-A.WAV [audio sample] and just one IPA International phonetic alphabet symbol is needed to represent the Italian "a", while different symbols are needed to represent the English "a"s :-) Here is a table with all Italian vowels in IPA symbols. http://classweb.gmu.edu/accent/nl-ipa/nl-ipagifs/italianipavowels.gif The "a" is Front - Open. We have two "e" sounds (an open "e", sounds like the a in may, and a closed one, like the e in send), two "o" sounds (open and closed), an "i" [sounds like "ee"] and a "u". Other people would explain all that much better :) > If there is no difference, English speakers will still think they hear > it, because they interpret what they hear within the phnological > framework of their own language. Yes, they hear a short "a" sound so they identify it as the "a" of "cat" rather than the long vowel of "car" or "father" (RP). But, if I pronounced "cat" using my Italian "a", you would notice something doesn't add up ;) The fact is that the Italian "a" is actually the same "a" sound of "car" or "father" (RP), but in certain cases it's shorter, so there is no immediate English equivalent. > Not a very fruitfull discussion. On the contrary. That made me aware of aspects of my own language I wouldn't have noticed otherwise in , and i hope it was useful for someone else as well. X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood 11 Jun 2004 17:16:34 GMT: Enrico C <use_replyto_address@despammed.com>: in sci.lang: >But, if I pronounced "cat" using my Italian "a", you would notice >something doesn't add up ;) Sure, you'd sound like a Scotsman, except for the non-aspirated k, and the dental t. >The fact is that the Italian "a" is actually the same "a" sound of >"car" or "father" (RP), But fronter, clearer. >but in certain cases it's shorter, so there is >no immediate English equivalent. Right. >> Not a very fruitfull discussion. > >On the contrary. That made me aware of aspects of my own language I >wouldn't have noticed otherwise in , and i hope it was useful for >someone else as well. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com/index/whatsnew.htm > 11 Jun 2004 17:16:34 GMT: Enrico C > <use_replyto_address@despammed.com>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Sure, you'd sound like a Scotsman, except for the non-aspirated k, and > the dental t. He he, we also have "Scottish" rolling Rs :) >>The fact is that the Italian "a" is actually the same "a" sound of >>"car" or "father" (RP), > > But fronter, clearer. Yes, a more "open" sound. >>but in certain cases it's shorter, so there is >>no immediate English equivalent. > > Right. A thing that has be said is that length is not as relevant as it is in English vowels. If you utter very long vowels, speaking Italian, you may sound slow and maybe weird, but you will still say the same vowels, and everybody will understand you. On the contrary, I believe that vowels' length is more relevant in English. I mean, for instance, that the "i" in "ship", the "u" in put and the "a" in cat are definitely short sounds, aren't they? as opposite to the long sounds in "sheep", "pool" and "cart". Correct me if I am wrong :) X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood > A thing that has be said is that length is not as relevant as it is in > English vowels. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the long sounds in "sheep", "pool" and "cart". > Correct me if I am wrong :) Well, you're not exactly right.... Although the vowels in "ship" and "pull" are probably inherently shorter than those in "sheep" and "pool", they're also (more significantly) different in quality. If you prolong your utterance of "ship" and "pull", you sound slow and weird, but they don't become "sheep" and "pool". The vowels of "ship" and "pull" are what's called "lax". That is to say, the tongue and lips move in the same directions to produce the vowels of "ship" and "pull" as they do for the so-called tense vowels of "sheep" and "pool" respectively, but they don't move as _far_ from their neutral position. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom >> A thing that has be said is that length is not as relevant as it is in >> English vowels. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > than those in "sheep" and "pool", they're also (more significantly) > different in quality. > Although the vowels in "ship" and "pull" are probably inherently shorter > than those in "sheep" and "pool", they're also (more significantly) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and "pool" respectively, but they don't move as _far_ from their neutral > position. Yes, I can hear those differences in quality too. I didn't mean to say that length is the *only* difference in those vowels. Maybe my post didn't make that clear, anyway, so you are right to remind me about that :) Anyway, my point was that the "inherent" length may help in telling an English vowel from another, somehow. For instance, you think of the "a" sound in father or car [RP] as a long sound, don't you? And the "i" in ship is a short "i", isn't it? On the contrary, Italian vowels don't have at all an "inherent length", so to speak. They can be sometimes longer or shorter according to the word, they can be stressed or not stressed, but we just tell them for their quality, not for duration. X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood > We have two "e" sounds (an open "e", sounds like the a in may, and a > closed one, like the e in send) Are you sure about that? The names "open" and "closed" are usually assigned the other way round, since the "e" in "send" is generally produced with the jaw relatively more open than that of "may". -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:56:08 +0000 (UTC): "Aaron J. Dinkin" <dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu>: in sci.lang: >> We have two "e" sounds (an open "e", sounds like the a in may, and a >> closed one, like the e in send) > >Are you sure about that? The names "open" and "closed" are usually assigned >the other way round, since the "e" in "send" is generally produced with the >jaw relatively more open than that of "may". Depends on the accent. English simply doesn't have comparable vowels. If they are as difficult to identify in Italian as they are in Portuguese, this may help (or confuse?): http://rudhar.com/foneport/en/noteport.htm#Note8 SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com/index/whatsnew.htm >> We have two "e" sounds (an open "e", sounds like the a in may, and a >> closed one, like the e in send) > > Are you sure about that? The names "open" and "closed" are usually assigned > the other way round, since the "e" in "send" is generally produced with the > jaw relatively more open than that of "may". You are right, of course. I meant open like"send" and closed like "may". X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood >>> We have two "e" sounds (an open "e", sounds like the a in may, and a >>> closed one, like the e in send) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You are right, of course. I meant open like"send" and closed like > "may". Interesting. I have been trying to test this, and I find absolutely no difference in the jaw position for both words. I can put a finger between my upper and lower teeth, and the pressure on that finger remains the same for both words, especially if I change the "may to "ney" for ease of measurement. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ > >>> We have two "e" sounds (an open "e", sounds like the a in may, and a > >>> closed one, like the e in send) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > for both words, especially if I change the "may to "ney" for ease of > measurement. It's tongue height, not jaw position. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >>>>> We have two "e" sounds (an open "e", sounds like the a in may, >>>>> and a closed one, like the e in send) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > It's tongue height, not jaw position. Aha! That's better. Thanks. <pokes finger in mouth, tries to say the words, gags> Never mind. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ >Interesting. I have been trying to test this, and I find absolutely no >difference in the jaw position for both words. I can put a finger between >my upper and lower teeth, and the pressure on that finger remains the same >for both words, especially if I change the "may to "ney" for ease of >measurement. And the rates of blood loss are the same too? R. >> Interesting. I have been trying to test this, and I find absolutely >> no difference in the jaw position for both words. I can put a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And the rates of blood loss are the same too? I don't bite. Usually. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ > 11 Jun 2004 14:19:34 GMT: Enrico C > <use_replyto_address@despammed.com>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > If there is a difference, Italians are unable to hear it, because it > is irrelevant to them. There is a [slight] difference in stress and duration, not in sound or intonation, so to speak [I am not a linguist, so I am not sure about the correct terms]. That's why it is said to be just one "a" http://www.geocities.com/f_pollett/I-A.WAV [audio sample] and just one IPA International phonetic alphabet symbol is needed to represent the Italian "a", while different symbols are needed to represent the English "a"s :-) Here is a table with all Italian vowels in IPA symbols. http://classweb.gmu.edu/accent/nl-ipa/nl-ipagifs/italianipavowels.gif The "a" is Front - Open. We have two "e" sounds (an open "e", sounds like the a in send, and a closed one, like the e in may), [corrected version] two "o" sounds (open and closed), an "i" [sounds like "ee"] and a "u". Other people would explain all that much better :) > If there is no difference, English speakers will still think they hear > it, because they interpret what they hear within the phnological > framework of their own language. Yes, they hear a short "a" sound so they identify it as the "a" of "cat" rather than the long vowel of "car" or "father" (RP). But, if I pronounced "cat" using my Italian "a", you would notice something doesn't add up ;) The fact is that the Italian "a" is actually the same "a" sound of "car" or "father" (RP), but in certain cases it's shorter, so there is no immediate English equivalent. > Not a very fruitfull discussion. On the contrary. That made me aware of aspects of my own language I wouldn't have noticed otherwise in , and i hope it was useful for someone else as well. X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood > > Is there really only one Italian "a" vowel? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The second "a" is a bit shorter, the second is stressed and a tad > longer, but both "a"s are the "father" vowel. Not the BrE "father" vowel! The Italian "a" is shorter and further forward. > We have been talking about this very topic in > it.cultura.linguistica.inglese [a bilingual group where you can post > either in English or Italian] recently, and an English person who is > fluent in Italian said just what you are saying, about the two "a"s in > "captare" [to catch]. Italian posters in the NG replied as I have just > done, though. Hmm. It's not unknown for a German to claim that the "a" in "Vater" is the same as the "a" in "Katze". I think the point is, and this holds true in Italian, that even if vowel length may vary (clearly more so in Italian than in German), the position of the sound in the mouth is the same. Adrian >>> Is there really only one Italian "a" vowel? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Not the BrE "father" vowel! The Italian "a" is shorter and further forward. I agree it's not exactly the same. But it sounds to me as the nearest approximation. I think the "a" sound in "cat" is more distant than that, as it's not as wide as the Italian "a", though their length may be alike. >> We have been talking about this very topic in >> it.cultura.linguistica.inglese [a bilingual group where you can post [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Italian, that even if vowel length may vary (clearly more so in Italian than > in German), the position of the sound in the mouth is the same. Yes, that's what I was trying to say. X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood >I agree it's not exactly the same. But it sounds to me as the nearest >approximation. I think the "a" sound in "cat" is more distant than >that, as it's not as wide as the Italian "a", though their length may >be alike. Here I am. The thread is way to long, and I don't have time to read it right now. I wanted to record a couple of words in order to help you with this Italian pronunciation issue. I couln't find the mic, damn it. So, I recorded myself with the cellphone, but the file's extension was .amr. I downloaded an amr converted and got a .wav file out of it. Here it is: http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/sebapop/Languages/Italian.wav The words are: caffé, latte and caffelatte North East accent. Hope this helps. Sebastiano Fri, 11 Jun 2004 21:07:02 +0200: Sebapop <sebapopFREEME@libero.it>: in sci.lang: >http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/sebapop/Languages/Italian.wav > >The words are: caffé, latte and caffelatte In the isolated caffé the vowel a is darker (backer) than in the combined caffelatte. But it's a very slight difference. Any [a] or [A] will do, it seems, more like [a] than [A]. The e's seem closest to [E]. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com/index/whatsnew.htm > Fri, 11 Jun 2004 21:07:02 +0200: Sebapop <sebapopFREEME@libero.it>: in > sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > will do, it seems, more like [a] than [A]. The e's seem closest to > [E]. To me (northern England), all the <a> vowels would pass as reasonable "cat" vowels (and they're too short and not back enough for RP "father" vowels). Americans might feel differently, though. Jonathan >In the isolated caffé the vowel a is darker (backer) than in the >combined caffelatte. They are two different phonemes. The first one is è, the other one is é. > But it's a very slight difference. Any [a] or [A] >will do, it seems, more like [a] than [A]. The e's seem closest to >[E]. I'll record some words with è and é. In Italian we have 7 vowel sounds. a è é i ò ó u. Sebastiano Sat, 12 Jun 2004 10:36:24 +0200: Sebapop <sebapopFREEME@libero.it>: in sci.lang: >>In the isolated caffé the vowel a is darker (backer) than in the >>combined caffelatte. > >They are two different phonemes. The first one is è, the other one is >é. In fact I was talking about the a, not e. There is probably just one phoneme /a/. >I'll record some words with è and é. In Italian we have 7 vowel >sounds. a è é i ò ó u. Right. RH >In fact I was talking about the a, not e. There is probably just one >phoneme /a/. You're right, sorry. And yes, we do have only one phoneme for the vowel a. Sebastiano >I'll record some words with è and é. In Italian we have 7 vowel >sounds. a è é i ò ó u. http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/sebapop/Languages/Italian2.wav Here the words: cane càne dog fame fàme hunger cena céna dinner seno séno breast festa fèsta party foresta forèsta forest filo fìlo wire, thread isola ìsola isle, island, ait orca òrca killer whale porto pòrto harbor corto córto short pozzo pózzo well, pit uva ùva grape uccello uccèllo bird We don't write accents in the middle of words. We only write them on vowel ending words when the stress is on the last syllable. No accent on monosyllables. There are some exceptions, like when you have two monosyllables that carries two different meanings. You put the accent on one, and not in the other. I don't remember them all. :) Vowel analysis * when stressed cane a* the only one we have e the "close" one fame a* the only one we have e the "close" one cena e* the "close" one a the only one we have seno e* the "close" one o the "close" one festa e* the "open" one a the only one we have foresta o the "close" one e* the "open" one a the only one we have filo i* the only one we have o the "close" one isola i* the only one we have o the "close" one a the only one we have orca o* the "open" one a the only one we have porto o* the "open" one o the "close" one corto o* the "close" one o the "close" one pozzo o* the "close" one o the "close" one uva u* the only one we have a the only one we have uccello u the only one we have e* the "open" one o the "close" one Oh, here's the difference between RP English vowels and Italian vowels. http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/sebapop/Languages/italian-english%20vowels.jpg Hope this helps. Sebastiano >> Is there really only one Italian "a" vowel? > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "captare" [to catch]. Italian posters in the NG replied as I have just > done, though. By "shorter" and "longer" should I assume you're referring to duration? It really seems a different placement to me, but I'll defer to the Italians on that one. SignatureMichael West Melbourne, Australia >>> Is there really only one Italian "a" vowel? >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > placement to me, but I'll defer to the Italians > on that one. Yes, different stress and duration, same placement. Someone on it.cultura.linguistica.inglese pointed out that Latin had long and short vowels, BTW :-) X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood > > > There was a woman on TV the other night called Tanya, except she wasn't > > > called Tanya, she was called "Tahnya". That kind of affected pronunciation [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > first vowel, and [A:] sounds to me to be not only affected but also > less like the genuine Italian sound. TRAP and BATH have the same vowel in AmE, [&], but not in BrE, so your assertion is incoherent. "latter" doesn't have [a] (as in *"lotter" or "cotter" or "Kotter") but [&]. "Latte," of course, has [a]. > > Don't you remember the notorious Tonya [I think] Harding? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > usually distinguished, and "ah" can only suggest PALM (or maybe > START), while an <o> spelling often suggests LOT but never PALM. There's no difference whatsoever between <Tanya> and <Tonya> (and cf. <Tatiana>, and the name has the PALM vowel (as, of course, does LOT). > [1] Used to mean Northern England and most of the English Midlands, > and not to be taken too literally. Having no idea what or where Watford is, I have to suppose you're referring to some dialectal pronunciation rather than RP (or GenBr). SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > > > There was a woman on TV the other night called Tanya, except she wasn't > > > > called Tanya, she was called "Tahnya". That kind of affected pronunciation [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > TRAP and BATH have the same vowel in AmE, [&], but not in BrE, so your > assertion is incoherent. This is nonsense, unless by "BrE" you mean "RP". (And if you did, your comment is irrelevant.) I didn't think they had the same vowel in all of AmE either. > "latter" doesn't have [a] (as in *"lotter" or "cotter" or "Kotter") but > [&]. "Latte," of course, has [a]. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > There's no difference whatsoever between <Tanya> and <Tonya> (and cf. > <Tatiana>, and the name has the PALM vowel (as, of course, does LOT). This bit and the one above suggest that you didn't read my post. > > [1] Used to mean Northern England and most of the English Midlands, > > and not to be taken too literally. > > Having no idea what or where Watford is, I have to suppose you're > referring to some dialectal pronunciation rather than RP (or GenBr). Watford is a town on the northern edge of the London conurbation, but the idiom "north of Watford" is used to refer to northern England and the Midlands, and sometimes Scotland and Wales as well. I never suggested that I was referring to RP; neither did Adrian Bailey. Most people in Britain use "some dialectal pronunciation" rather than RP. Jonathan >> TRAP and BATH have the same vowel in AmE, [&], but not in BrE, so > your [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I didn't think they had the same vowel in all of AmE either. I'm surprised to see Dr. Daniels saying that, since in New York English (of which, as I recall, he is a native speaker), "trap" has the be-able-can vowel, while "bath" has the tin-can vowel, if my own dialect (Postwar New York Prestige Standard) is any guide. If I use my tin-can vowel in "trap" I start to sound dangerously like I'm on the Road to Chicagodom. On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:46:22 GMT "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in <news:40C99B8E.1598@worldnet.att.net> in uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] > There's no difference whatsoever between <Tanya> and <Tonya> (and cf. > <Tatiana>, and the name has the PALM vowel (as, of course, does LOT). Even when I was a kid and still spoke my parents's Pacific Northwest variety of AmE, I distinguished the PALM and LOT vowels. It's been a long time, but I believe that they were roughly [A]~[A.] and [a]~[A], respectively. (Now I have [O] and [A.]. I'd have pronounced <Tanya> with LOT and <Tonya> with PALM. [...] Brian > "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > > > > Well -- how else would you pronounce "Tanya"? > > With the TRAP/BATH vowel (referring to Wells's vowel classes), How can saying such a thing possibly make any sense. I know not who this 'Wells' is, but surely a very significant fraction of the English speakers of the world, including about 19 million Australians, do not use the same vowel for TRAP and BATH. Dylan > > "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of the world, including about 19 million Australians, do not use the same > vowel for TRAP and BATH. I suppose I should have been clearer, but a) Wells is Professor of Phonetics at University College London, who wrote a book _Accents of English_ (1982). b) I was referring to accents, using Adrian Bailey's phrase, "north of Watford", in which they do have the same vowel. Jonathan > > There was a woman on TV the other night called Tanya, except she wasn't > > called Tanya, she was called "Tahnya". That kind of affected pronunciation > > makes the toes curl of anyone born north of Watford, and "latte" is in the > > same class. > > Well -- how else would you pronounce "Tanya"? The first "a" as in "man", the second, a shwa. > Don't you remember the notorious Tonya [I think] Harding? Yes I do, but what of it? Adrian > > > There was a woman on TV the other night called Tanya, except she wasn't > > > called Tanya, she was called "Tahnya". That kind of affected pronunciation [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Yes I do, but what of it? The pronunciation of her name. Do try to keep up. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> > > There was a woman on TV the other night called Tanya, except she >> > > wasn't called Tanya, she was called "Tahnya". That kind of affected [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > The pronunciation of her name. Do try to keep up. What does the pronunciation of "Tonya" have to do with it? It's not the same as "Tanya". -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > >> > > There was a woman on TV the other night called Tanya, except she > >> > > wasn't called Tanya, she was called "Tahnya". That kind of affected [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > What does the pronunciation of "Tonya" have to do with it? It's not the > same as "Tanya". It's exactly the same. Like Lynn and Lynne, Jackie and Jacqi, John and Jon, and on and on and on. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> What does the pronunciation of "Tonya" have to do with it? It's not the >> same as "Tanya". > > It's exactly the same. Like Lynn and Lynne, Jackie and Jacqi, John and > Jon, and on and on and on. And Dawn and Don and on and on.... -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > >> What does the pronunciation of "Tonya" have to do with it? It's not the > >> same as "Tanya". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And Dawn and Don and on and on.... No, "Dawn" and "Don" are neither variant spellings of the same name, nor pronounced the same. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> >> What does the pronunciation of "Tonya" have to do with it? It's not the >> >> same as "Tanya". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No, "Dawn" and "Don" are neither variant spellings of the same name, nor > pronounced the same. "John" and "Jon" aren't variant spellings of the same name, so that can't be a necessary criterion for inclusion on your list. Furthermore, variant spellings of the same name are not necessarily pronounced the same, either. ("Morris" and "Maurice" are variant spellings of the same name.) So pointing to a different version of the same name does not automatically indicate anything about the proper pronunciation of the version at hand. But what I am trying to ever-so-subtly indicate to you is that it's a bad idea, especially in a.u.e but probably in sci.lang as well, to assume that other speakers of English have a phonology that is isomorphic to yours. I assure you that I pronounce "Don" and "Dawn" exactly the same; and that I pronounce "Tanya" (with "ah" as in "father") and "Tonya" (with "o" as in "bother") differently. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom [...] > Furthermore, variant spellings of the same name are not necessarily > pronounced the same, either. ("Morris" and "Maurice" are variant spellings > of the same name.) In BrE the two are pronounced identically: /'mA.rIs/ . Alan Jones > [...] >> Furthermore, variant spellings of the same name are not necessarily >> pronounced the same, either. ("Morris" and "Maurice" are variant spellings >> of the same name.) > > In BrE the two are pronounced identically: /'mA.rIs/ . Even if the name is regarded as French, as, say, with "Maurice Ravel" or "Maurice Chevalier"? > >> >> What does the pronunciation of "Tonya" have to do with it? It's not the > >> >> same as "Tanya". [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "John" and "Jon" aren't variant spellings of the same name, so that can't > be a necessary criterion for inclusion on your list. Of course they are. And pronounced the same. > Furthermore, variant spellings of the same name are not necessarily > pronounced the same, either. ("Morris" and "Maurice" are variant spellings > of the same name.) So pointing to a different version of the same name > does not automatically indicate anything about the proper pronunciation of > the version at hand. "Maurice" has two pronunciations, one of which (more common in Britland, where they seem afraid to use French-like pronunciations of any French word?) is the same as the pronunciation of "Morris." > But what I am trying to ever-so-subtly indicate to you is that it's a bad > idea, especially in a.u.e but probably in sci.lang as well, to assume that > other speakers of English have a phonology that is isomorphic to yours. I > assure you that I pronounce "Don" and "Dawn" exactly the same; and that I > pronounce "Tanya" (with "ah" as in "father") and "Tonya" (with "o" as in > "bother") differently. I have already bitched about this idiotic thread having been crossposted to sci.lang in the first place; and you have my utmost sympathy for being a cot/caught mergerer. "Father" and "bother" are, of course, identical but for the initial consonant. And no one would know how to spell Tonya Harding's name just from hearing her, or anyone else, say it. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > I have already bitched about this idiotic thread having been crossposted > to sci.lang in the first place; and you have my utmost sympathy for > being a cot/caught mergerer. So, why did you crosspost there too? ;) If you don't want to crosspost just delete the newsgroup(s) you don't want in the newsgroups list, in the message composition window. That should apply more or less for any newsreader. X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:03:52 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang: >> "John" and "Jon" aren't variant spellings of the same name, so that can't >> be a necessary criterion for inclusion on your list. > >Of course they are. They're not. Jon is from Jonathan, and John isn't. >And pronounced the same. That much is true. >"Father" and "bother" are, of course, identical but for the initial >consonant. They're not. But maybe that's what you meant too. RH >> "John" and "Jon" aren't variant spellings of the same name, so that can't >> be a necessary criterion for inclusion on your list. > > Of course they are. And pronounced the same. No, they're simply not. Not only do they have completely different etymologies, but "Jon" is a nickname for "Jonathan", and "John" is a name in its own right. Well, they are on the comparatively rare occasions that someone is called "John" as a nickname for "Johnathan", the latter of which is a variant spelling for "Jonathan". But most of the time they're just different names that are pronounced the same. >> Furthermore, variant spellings of the same name are not necessarily >> pronounced the same, either. ("Morris" and "Maurice" are variant spellings [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > where they seem afraid to use French-like pronunciations of any French > word?) is the same as the pronunciation of "Morris." This is true. But you will observe that I said "Morris" and "Maurice" are not necessarily pronounced the same, which is the case. >> But what I am trying to ever-so-subtly indicate to you is that it's a bad >> idea, especially in a.u.e but probably in sci.lang as well, to assume that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "Father" and "bother" are, of course, identical but for the initial > consonant. Well, in that case, I extend to you my deepest condolence not only for being a "(f)ather"/"(b)other" mergerer but also for not even knowing what mergers you have. I am beginning to have a sneaky suspicion I may be being trolled, and feel like the courteous thing to do would be to reciprocate; does anyone have an elementarily inaccurate misstatement that that I could use about, say, Aramaic writing systems, or something like that? > And no one would know how to spell Tonya Harding's name just from > hearing her, True. > or anyone else, False. > say it. That proves that she has the father/bother merger, and that you do; but referring to "Tonya" to try to explain to father/bother non-mergerers how to pronounce "Tanya" (which is what you were doing) is not likely to be successful. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > > I have already bitched about this idiotic thread having been crossposted > > to sci.lang in the first place; and you have my utmost sympathy for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I am beginning to have a sneaky suspicion I may be being trolled [...] Or perhaps you both just have short attention spans? Here's a thread from Aug. '03 (crossposted to a.u.e/sci.lang) where you and PTD discussed the Boston-area non-merger of "father" and "bother": http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=3F338462.23B2@worldnet.att.net And here's something I wrote in Dec. '03 in a sci.lang thread to which PTD also contributed: Also, Eastern New England speakers with the cot/caught merger usually lack the father/bother merger that is found in most US dialects. So they would keep the "father" vowel distinct from their merged "cot/caught" vowel, while Western US speakers would use the same vowel for all three words. (Hmm, is there a good minimal triplet to illustrate this? I've seen "cot/caught/cart", or "Don/Dawn/darn", but those only work for non-rhotic speakers.) http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=3FCF9741.63BBC64D@midway.uchicago.edu > >> "John" and "Jon" aren't variant spellings of the same name, so that can't > >> be a necessary criterion for inclusion on your list. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > etymologies, but "Jon" is a nickname for "Jonathan", and "John" is a name > in its own right. The (Helden)tenor Jon Vickers is not a Jonathan, and neither are a very large number of other Jons. > Well, they are on the comparatively rare occasions that someone is called > "John" as a nickname for "Johnathan", the latter of which is a variant [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > to pronounce "Tanya" (which is what you were doing) is not likely to be > successful. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> >> "John" and "Jon" aren't variant spellings of the same name, so that can't >> >> be a necessary criterion for inclusion on your list. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The (Helden)tenor Jon Vickers is not a Jonathan, and neither are a very > large number of other Jons. True (although the number is not large in comparison to the number of Jons who are Jonathans). But it remains that case that "Jon" has a completely independent origin from "John", and is therefore not a variant spelling of it. If those Jons had been named Jon in the absence of a preexisting name "Jon" as a nickname for "Jonathan", then we could consider "Jon" to be a variant spelling of "John"; but that is not the case in real life. But this is a distraction. Anything else regarding "Tanya"? -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > >> >> "John" and "Jon" aren't variant spellings of the same name, so that can't > >> >> be a necessary criterion for inclusion on your list. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > But this is a distraction. Anything else regarding "Tanya"? "Else"? If someone is unfamilar with the name <Tanya> or <Tonya>, then presumably one imagines that the two spellings indicate two pronunciations. They don't. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> But this is a distraction. Anything else regarding "Tanya"? > > "Else"? You know, "else". In addition to the various statements you have already made regarding "Tanya"... > If someone is unfamilar with the name <Tanya> or <Tonya>, then > presumably one imagines that the two spellings indicate two > pronunciations. They don't. ...I guess not. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > If someone is unfamilar with the name <Tanya> or <Tonya>, then > presumably one imagines that the two spellings indicate two > pronunciations. They don't. Bit like Tam & Tom, then. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/joachim/02-0.htm When Joachim was born, on the stroke of midnight, it took the midwife no more than a single look to restore her wavering faith in the Adversary. > > If someone is unfamilar with the name <Tanya> or <Tonya>, then > > presumably one imagines that the two spellings indicate two > > pronunciations. They don't. > > Bit like Tam & Tom, then. I suppose there might be Israelis spelled <Tam>, and they would indeed be pronounced like <Tom>. The Scottish hat, <tam>, isn't, though. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > If someone is unfamilar with the name <Tanya> or <Tonya>, then > > presumably one imagines that the two spellings indicate two > > pronunciations. They don't. > > Bit like Tam & Tom, then. For one as accomplished in the linguistics art-form as Peter, he always displays an extraordinary inability to perceive what real people actually say. Or maybe it's just another case of harmless redneck Americanism: if it don't happen in Dogshit, Nebraska, then it ain't real. Colonel Edmund J. Burke, Decorated War Hero and Philosopher, would unhesitatingly concur. You Limeys are just yaller: didn we whup your sorry a.s back in, in, in ... hey, long time back, who cares?. Irish damn catholic scarlet womans tryin to get mah precious bodily fluids! Ostrayleeya? never heard of it: they Jewish or sumpn? Oh ya mean where Hitler borned: jus plain krauts. South Africky? Buncha bare-a.s Hottentots. New ZealWHERE? Mike. > > > If someone is unfamilar with the name <Tanya> or <Tonya>, then > > > presumably one imagines that the two spellings indicate two [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > people actually say. Or maybe it's just another case of harmless > redneck Americanism: if it don't happen in Dogshit, Nebraska, then it I have never been to Nebraska. > ain't real. Colonel Edmund J. Burke, Decorated War Hero and > Philosopher, would unhesitatingly concur. You Limeys are just yaller: > didn we whup your sorry a.s back in, in, in ... hey, long time back, We seem to have done a pretty good job of making you our poodle just this past year or two. > who cares?. Irish damn catholic scarlet womans tryin to get mah > precious bodily fluids! Ostrayleeya? never heard of it: they Jewish or > sumpn? Oh ya mean where Hitler borned: jus plain krauts. South > Africky? Buncha bare-a.s Hottentots. New ZealWHERE? You really are a little sh.t, aren't you. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > > > > If someone is unfamilar with the name <Tanya> or <Tonya>, then > > > > presumably one imagines that the two spellings indicate two [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I have never been to Nebraska. I fear we all nurse a regret or two. > > ain't real. Colonel Edmund J. Burke, Decorated War Hero and > > Philosopher, would unhesitatingly concur. You Limeys are just yaller: > > didn we whup your sorry a.s back in, in, in ... hey, long time back, > > We seem to have done a pretty good job of making you our poodle just > this past year or two. 'Fraid so. I doubt if it's yellowness on Blair's or Howard's part to blame, though. > > who cares?. Irish damn catholic scarlet womans tryin to get mah > > precious bodily fluids! Ostrayleeya? never heard of it: they Jewish or > > sumpn? Oh ya mean where Hitler borned: jus plain krauts. South > > Africky? Buncha bare-a.s Hottentots. New ZealWHERE? > > You really are a little sh.t, aren't you. Yeah, but disappointing. You just can't get a good flite these days. I had hoped for a more rumbustious reply: ah, well, my own fault for dragging the "Colonel" in, since he scarcely measures up. Mike. [snip] > For one as accomplished in the linguistics art-form as Peter, he > always displays an extraordinary inability to perceive what real > people actually say. Or maybe it's just another case of harmless > redneck Americanism: if it don't happen in Dogshit, Nebraska, [snip again] There is no "Dogshit" in Nebraska. I doubt if there's one in the entire USofA. Sure, it may have been considered somewhere in redneck country at one time, but it would have been rejected for sounding much too juvenile. We have our standards, you know. Maria Conlon > If someone is unfamilar with the name <Tanya> or <Tonya>, then > presumably one imagines that the two spellings indicate two > pronunciations. They don't. I once taught a girl called "Tonia" and another called "Tonja". They both used the short BrE 'o' sound, quite different from the two possible 'a' sounds of Tanya. SignatureRob Bannister > > If someone is unfamilar with the name <Tanya> or <Tonya>, then > > presumably one imagines that the two spellings indicate two [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > both used the short BrE 'o' sound, quite different from the two possible > 'a' sounds of Tanya. [o] doesn't exist in US English, of course. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:37:20 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang: >> I once taught a girl called "Tonia" and another called "Tonja". They >> both used the short BrE 'o' sound, quite different from the two possible >> 'a' sounds of Tanya. > >[o] doesn't exist in US English, of course. [o] does, in some. [O] doesn't, in most. US Englishes, that is. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:37:20 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > [o] does, in some. [O] doesn't, in most. US Englishes, that is. No, the cot/caught merger has, mercifully, not almost entirely swept US English. But "father" and "bother" rhyme nearly everywhere. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:55:16 +0200 Ruud Harmsen <realemailseesite01@rudhar.com> wrote in <news:sf4rc0h743lb95q5if7e5997tf2d8m80if@4ax.com> in uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:37:20 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang: [...] >>[o] doesn't exist in US English, of course. > [o] does, in some. [O] doesn't, in most. US Englishes, that is. Just backwards. [O] is not uncommon; [o] is exceedingly rare. Brian [...] > But this is a distraction. Anything else regarding "Tanya"? Why ask? He doesn't reply once he realises he's wrong. Mike. >>> What does the pronunciation of "Tonya" have to do with it? It's not the >>> same as "Tanya". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >And Dawn and Don and on and on.... I've seen some silly names for kids, but who would name their kids "On" and "On"? > >>> What does the pronunciation of "Tonya" have to do with it? It's not the > >>> same as "Tanya". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I've seen some silly names for kids, but who would name their kids > "On" and "On"? It was either that or Kun and Kun. Where, incidentally, do you see capital letters on "on and on"? SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> >>> What does the pronunciation of "Tonya" have to do with it? It's not the >> >>> same as "Tanya". [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Where, incidentally, do you see capital letters on "on and on"? Where do *you* see capital, or lower case, letters on a word? Do words over in sci.lang wear letters like a rapper wears bling? Over here in aue we are polite and refined people. Rather than brashly correct a poster, we often reply with the correct form as gentle notice of the error. Aaron is quite sensitive and often sulks if you publicly correct him. So, I used the proper form for a proper noun. Aaron's a quick learner, and will pick it up. >> > The pronunciation of her name. Do try to keep up. >> >> What does the pronunciation of "Tonya" have to do with it? It's not the >> same as "Tanya". Sat, 12 Jun 2004 02:18:49 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang: >It's exactly the same. But that works only in (most kinds of) Americann English. Not in Britian, not in Australia. >Like Lynn and Lynne, Jackie and Jacqi, John and >Jon, and on and on and on. Except that all of these are also the same outside AmE. > > >> > > There was a woman on TV the other night called Tanya, except she > > >> > > wasn't called Tanya, she was called "Tahnya". That kind of affected [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > It's exactly the same. Like Lynn and Lynne, Jackie and Jacqi, John and > Jon, and on and on and on. Except that it isn't. Tatiana and Antonia, chalk and cheese, oil and water, whatever. Mike. In uk.culture.language.english Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > It's exactly the same. Like Lynn and Lynne, Jackie and Jacqi, John and > Jon, and on and on and on. Isn't "Jon" properly a shortening of "Jonathan" and hence a different thing from "John"? Matthew Huntbach > In uk.culture.language.english Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Isn't "Jon" properly a shortening of "Jonathan" and hence a different thing > from "John"? Of course it is. "Exactly the same" has a special meaning to Peter T. Daniels. It means "exactly" what he wants it to mean. SignatureMichael West Melbourne, Australia In uk.culture.language.english Michael West <mbwest@bigpond.com> wrote: >>> It's exactly the same. Like Lynn and Lynne, Jackie and Jacqi, John and >>> Jon, and on and on and on. >> Isn't "Jon" properly a shortening of "Jonathan" and hence a different thing >> from "John"? > Of course it is. "Exactly the same" has a special > meaning to Peter T. Daniels. It means "exactly" > what he wants it to mean. To be fair, the modern custom where it seems to be considered cute to give someone a name which is not spelt in the conventional manner may lead to people these days being given the name "Jon" directly and for it to be seen by those giving it as a cute form of "John". Matthew Huntbach > In uk.culture.language.english Michael West <mbwest@bigpond.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > people these days being given the name "Jon" directly and for it to be seen > by those giving it as a cute form of "John". Jon Vickers, albeit Canadian, must be in his mid to late 70s now. Is 1930ish "modern"? SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> To be fair, the modern custom where it seems to be considered cute >> to give someone a name which is not spelt in the conventional [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Jon Vickers, albeit Canadian, must be in his mid to late 70s now. Is > 1930ish "modern"? 1926, but Vickers, Jon (Jonathan Stewart). Tenor, b Prince Albert, Sask, 29 Oct 1926 http://tinyurl.com/2ybrz <URL:http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm? PgNm=TCE&Params=U1ARTU0003594> You might want to choose another example. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |You gotta know when to code, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | Know when to log out, Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Know when to single step, | Know when you're through. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |You don't write your program (650)857-7572 | When you're sittin' at the term'nal. |There'll be time enough for writin' http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | When you're in the queue. > >> To be fair, the modern custom where it seems to be considered cute > >> to give someone a name which is not spelt in the conventional [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > 1926, but Hm. He wore his age well. > Vickers, Jon (Jonathan Stewart). Tenor, b Prince Albert, Sask, 29 > Oct 1926 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You might want to choose another example. I suppose you call Benjamin Britten Edward and Havergal Brian William? SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > In uk.culture.language.english Michael West <mbwest@bigpond.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > people these days being given the name "Jon" directly and for it to be seen > by those giving it as a cute form of "John". How modern is 'modern'? My late brother-in-law was christened Jon in 1941. SignatureRob Bannister > In uk.culture.language.english Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Isn't "Jon" properly a shortening of "Jonathan" and hence a different thing > from "John"? Etymologically, perhaps, but etymology is, as always, irrelevant. Especially in proper names! Are "ear" and "ear" "different" because they have different etymologies? Surely the corn thing is perceived as an extension of the hearing thing by anyone who doesn't happen to know Old English. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> In uk.culture.language.english Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Surely the corn thing is perceived as an extension of the hearing thing > by anyone who doesn't happen to know Old English. Surely. But "Jon" is perceived as a shortening of "Jonathan" synchronically as well as historically, I'd argue even in the case of people whose full name is "Jon" (just as there are people whose full name is "Kate", which is nonetheless perceived as being short for "Katherine"). -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > > > > There was a woman on TV the other night called Tanya, except she wasn't > > > > called Tanya, she was called "Tahnya". That kind of affected pronunciation [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > The pronunciation of her name. Do try to keep up. Don't be cheeky. What's the pronunciation of "Tonya" got to do with the pronunciation of "Tanya"? Neither of the two BrE pronunciations of "Tanya" (short a, long a) is the same as the pronunciation of "Tonya" (short o). Adrian > > > > > There was a woman on TV the other night called Tanya, except she wasn't > > > > > called Tanya, she was called "Tahnya". That kind of affected pronunciation [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > pronunciation of "Tanya"? Neither of the two BrE pronunciations of "Tanya" > (short a, long a) is the same as the pronunciation of "Tonya" (short o). A number of you Brits have claimed never to have encountered the name under either spelling over there anyway, so it would seem you're going strictly by spelling in the first place. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > A number of you Brits have claimed never to have encountered the name > under either spelling over there anyway, so it would seem you're going > strictly by spelling in the first place. Did someone other than me say that they'd never encountered the name in the UK? Since I now live in Connecticut, and I have met girls here called "Tanya", your comment doesn't apply. Fran > There was a woman on TV the other night called Tanya, except she wasn't > called Tanya, she was called "Tahnya". That kind of affected pronunciation > makes the toes curl of anyone born north of Watford, and "latte" is in the > same class. Hmm, I wouldn't be surprised to hear either Tan-ya or Tahn-ya here, but I would probably assume a Tahn-ya to have a (continental) European, or some other exotic background. More often than not it ends up sounding more like 'Tunya'. Dylan >>There was a woman on TV the other night called Tanya, except she wasn't >>called Tanya, she was called "Tahnya". That kind of affected pronunciation [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > other exotic background. More often than not it ends up sounding more like > 'Tunya'. I know two young women called Tanya, pronounced "tahn-ya". I assumed that it was the usual US pronunciation. One is the daughter of a Rusian immigrant; the other was named after a Russian lady (both have "Tatiana" as their official name). I don't recall ever meeting a "Tanya" (of either pronunciation) in England. Fran "Frances Kemmish" <fkemmish@optonline.net> wrote... > I don't recall ever meeting a "Tanya" (of either pronunciation) in > England. In Bristol during the 1980s it was impossible to find a barber's which didn't have at least one Tanya, sometimes several of the things. Believe me, I tried. Matti <snip> > I don't recall ever meeting a "Tanya" (of either pronunciation) in England. I've known a Tan-ya or two in my time. Variously spelled Tanya or Tania. Tahn-ya, OTOH, is a character in C&C Red Alert game series. Stewart. SignatureMy e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. >>On Wednesday, in article >> <nathansanders-9BFF8F.11500509062004@news.verizon.net> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > the pretentious one. Just back from your tour of the continent, are > you?" Besides, "latte" is present in several English dictionaries. Mostly American dictionaries, actually. So, I would think "latte" has now got an English pronunciation of its own, that comes from the original Italian pronunciation but has been adjusted to the English sounds. The vice versa happens all the time. The Italian word for "computer", for instance, is... "computer", and that's pronounced in a way that somehow resembles the English pronunciation [mainly, the "u" is pronounced "ju:" instead of the Italian u:]. But it's not how English speaking people would utter it. Rightly so, I dare say :) X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood > Semantically, yes, but pragmatically (in certain contexts, like coffee > shops), no. If I want a large, non-espresso coffe at Starbucks, I > order a "large coffee". In fact, whenever I've ordered coffee from > any restaurant that also served espresso, I've never once had a server > ask for clarification, so this isn't particular to coffee shops. Don't try that in Australia. The correct phrase is "a plain white". SignatureRob Bannister > In alt.usage.english, T. Z. wrote: > >Two guys go into a coffee shop and order coffee and > >espresso. > > Is espresso not coffee? In Engleesh-speaking establishments an order of "a coffee" means specifically an "americano" - expresso diluted down with water, and (if white) some milk. Similarly "a latte" means a "caffè latte" - expresso diluted with hot milk, but without the froth and powdered chocolate that tends to afflict the cappuccino. In Italian, OTOH, "latte" just means milk, so the "caffè" is not optional, and only tourists would order one after, say, 10am, when the acceptible choice is reduced to "caffè", which means an expresso. [...] Des did like the Venetians, when in Venice Signature"[T]he structural trend in linguistics which took root with the International Congresses of the twenties and early thirties [...] had close and effective connections with phenomenology in its Husserlian and Hegelian versions." -- Roman Jakobson > In Italian, OTOH, "latte" just means milk, so the "caffè" is not > optional, and only tourists would order one after, say, 10am, when the > acceptible choice is reduced to "caffè", which means an expresso. Oy! > expresso diluted with hot milk, but without the froth and powdered > chocolate that tends to afflict the cappuccino. Afflict? Benefit! A matter of taste, natch :-) > In Italian, OTOH, "latte" just means milk, so the "caffè" is not > optional, and only tourists would order one after, say, 10am, when the > acceptible choice is reduced to "caffè", which means an expresso. Well, cappuccino is fine even at 11 - 11.30 am, maybe with a croissant, for a quick snack. "Caffe`" (espresso coffee) is the only possible choice after lunch, that usually means some time between 12.30 and 2.30 pm, earlier in the North later in the South. X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C from Rome Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood > > In alt.usage.english, T. Z. wrote: > > >Two guys go into a coffee shop and order coffee and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > optional, and only tourists would order one after, say, 10am, when the > acceptible choice is reduced to "caffè", which means an expresso. "Coffee" is certainly not 'espresso diluted with water'. Espresso requires a fancy apparatus; coffee is brewed in a coffee-maker (and in previous decades, in a percolator, a vacuum system, etc.). No American making their morning coffee would prepare espresso and add water to it. (And I doubt the result would resemble coffee anyway.) SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > "Coffee" is certainly not 'espresso diluted with water'. Espresso > requires a fancy apparatus; coffee is brewed in a coffee-maker (and > in previous decades, in a percolator, a vacuum system, etc.). No > American making their morning coffee would prepare espresso and add > water to it. (And I doubt the result would resemble coffee anyway.) I make mine in a little earthenware jug. Pour on off-the-boil water, stir, wait 4 minutes and pour carefully into me mug, leaving the grounds behind. Of course, when I'm feeling lazy, I make it straight in the mug and just drink carefully. It's the preferable method when having coconut macaroons. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/pedant/ Uranus: To avoid embarrassment when speaking to the hard of hearing or to classical scholars, pronounce this "Oo-ran-us" and not "You-rain-us". > "Coffee" is certainly not 'espresso diluted with water'. That's exactly what it is in fancy specialist coffee shops. I am shocked - shocked I tell you - to discover that coffee is prepared elsewhere. [...] > No American making their morning coffee would prepare espresso and > add water to it. (And I doubt the result would resemble coffee > anyway.) The other name for this concoction is "americano". Des drinks tea at home Signature"[T]he structural trend in linguistics which took root with the International Congresses of the twenties and early thirties [...] had close and effective connections with phenomenology in its Husserlian and Hegelian versions." -- Roman Jakobson >>> In alt.usage.english, T. Z. wrote: >>>> Two guys go into a coffee shop and order coffee and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > making their morning coffee would prepare espresso and add water to it. > (And I doubt the result would resemble coffee anyway.) You really do know, don't you, that "espresso" is a *method* of making coffee? And you're just being pugnacious about your preferred method of brewing? It's all coffee. You'll find, in fact, that coffee made in an espresso machine and diluted with water and/or milk makes a very satisfying, flavoursome cup in the morning. *Mucho* better, in all respects, than some cheap drip-brewed coffee that been sitting around on a hot plate for an hour two, which is what most American joints fob off on their patrons -- most of whom use coffee only as a way of getting sugar and imitation milk-products into the bloodstream, and most of whom don't really like the taste of coffee because they've never had good, strong espresso-brewed coffee fresh from the machine. SignatureMichael West Melbourne, Australia > >>> In alt.usage.english, T. Z. wrote: > >>>> Two guys go into a coffee shop and order coffee and [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > because they've never had good, strong espresso-brewed > coffee fresh from the machine. Have you ever actually _been_ in a NY coffee shop (the sort of establishment specifically under consideration)? Usually they can't keep coffee in the pots -- the moment it's finished dripping, it's whisked away and brought back empty. It's probably fairly similar at any truck stop, fast food, or fine dining establishment around the contry. And there happen to be special roasts sold for espresso, and the elaborate machinery involves superheated water and high pressure, so espresso is very much not just "all coffee." SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > Have you ever actually _been_ in a NY coffee shop (the sort of > establishment specifically under consideration)? Usually they can't keep [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's probably fairly similar at any truck stop, fast food, or fine > dining establishment around the contry. I wish. "Fine dining" establishments excluded, if you get to your truck stop or coffee shop at a busy time, you might get lucky and have coffee brewed within the past couple of minutes. Otherwise, order at your own risk. Maybe you have to be a black-coffee drinker to notice. This used to be the only reason I'd ever go near a MacDonald's unless I felt faint from hunger -- unlike most places, they had a standard procedure (which not all outlets honored) for dumping out and re-filling coffee pots after a certain interval. > And there happen to be special roasts sold for espresso, and the > elaborate machinery involves superheated water and high pressure, so > espresso is very much not just "all coffee." Sorry, but it is coffee. Extraction under pressure results in a more concentrated flavor, as does the dark-roasting of beans (which I also use for filtered coffee, by the way) but it's still coffee. You can make "espresso" coffee from any sort of beans, but people who are looking for full flavor-- the true aficionados--prefer the darker roasts. Most American coffee drinkers are really in it for the caffeine, cream and sugar, anyway. And yes, I've "actually" been in coffee shops in NYC and everywhere else in America, where I lived and drank four or five cups of coffee habitually for fifty years. SignatureMichael West Melbourne, Australia > > Have you ever actually _been_ in a NY coffee shop (the sort of > > establishment specifically under consideration)? Usually they can't keep [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > of beans (which I also use for filtered coffee, by the way) > but it's still coffee. And vodka is just alcohol and water. > You can make "espresso" coffee from any > sort of beans, but people who are looking for full flavor-- > the true aficionados--prefer the darker roasts. Where are these "people"? > Most American coffee drinkers are really in it for the caffeine, > cream and sugar, anyway. And you know this because ...? > And yes, I've "actually" been in coffee shops in NYC and > everywhere else in America, where I lived and drank four > or five cups of coffee habitually for fifty years. > -- > Michael West > Melbourne, Australia How long ago? Your America was very different from America. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> Sorry, but it is coffee. Extraction under pressure results >> in a more concentrated flavor, as does the dark-roasting >> of beans (which I also use for filtered coffee, by the way) >> but it's still coffee. > > And vodka is just alcohol and water. Most vodkas include flavoring agents, either added or derived from the fruit or grain used in the fermentation. How does that relate to coffee-making? Surely you're not thinking of those bogus concoctions sold at Starbucks as representative of "espresso coffee"? >> You can make "espresso" coffee from any >> sort of beans, but people who are looking for full flavor-- >> the true aficionados--prefer the darker roasts. > > Where are these "people"? Where are the people who prefer Italian-style coffee to the watery brown liquid sold in the American heartland? Gee, I'll have to think about that one for a while. There might be one or two in Europe, Australia and Japan. >> Most American coffee drinkers are really in it for the caffeine, >> cream and sugar, anyway. > > And you know this because ...? Because if it was about coffee flavor, they wouldn't drink weak coffee with all that crap in it. >> And yes, I've "actually" been in coffee shops in NYC and >> everywhere else in America, where I lived and drank four >> or five cups of coffee habitually for fifty years. > How long ago? Your America was very different from America. Unless everyone in America woke up and smelled the coffee since last year, things aren't very different. I'll check it out in a few months. SignatureMichael West Melbourne, Australia On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 04:07:40 GMT "Michael West" <mbwest@bigpond.com> wrote in <news:gkvyc.5381$sj4.1995@news-server.bigpond.net.au> in uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] >>> You can make "espresso" coffee from any >>> sort of beans, but people who are looking for full flavor-- >>> the true aficionados--prefer the darker roasts. >> Where are these "people"? > Where are the people who prefer Italian-style coffee > to the watery brown liquid sold in the American > heartland? Gee, I'll have to think about that one > for a while. There might be one or two in Europe, > Australia and Japan. I have no idea what you mean by 'Italian-style', but I assure you that there are plenty of us here in the American heartland with no use for watery brown liquid -- a minority, I expect, but a fairly considerable one. >>> Most American coffee drinkers are really in it for the caffeine, >>> cream and sugar, anyway. >> And you know this because ...? > Because if it was about coffee flavor, they wouldn't > drink weak coffee with all that crap in it. Ignoring the large numbers who *don't* drink weak coffee. Also ignoring the considerable influence of habit, availability, and even ignorance of anything better. And finally, ignoring those who do *not* like strong coffee but *do* insist on *good* coffee. (Don't understand it myself, but I've a great weakness for strong flavors.) [...] Brian >> Where are the people who prefer Italian-style coffee >> to the watery brown liquid sold in the American [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I have no idea what you mean by 'Italian-style', In coffee bars in Italy coffee means espresso, made with espresso coffee machines. Strong and small cup. At home coffee is usually made with mocha machines. Strong and small cup as well, but a slightly different flavour. X'Posted to: uk.culture.language.english,sci.lang,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood > >> Sorry, but it is coffee. Extraction under pressure results > >> in a more concentrated flavor, as does the dark-roasting [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > not thinking of those bogus concoctions sold at Starbucks > as representative of "espresso coffee"? I wouldn't know. I used to be able to say I've never been in a Starbucks, but someone once insisted at rendezvousing at one. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net Peter T. Daniels wrote on 09 Jun 2004: [...] > "Coffee" is certainly not 'espresso diluted with water'. Espresso > requires a fancy apparatus; coffee is brewed in a coffee-maker > (and in previous decades, in a percolator, a vacuum system, etc.). > No American making their morning coffee would prepare espresso and > add water to it. (And I doubt the result would resemble coffee > anyway.) Funny you should mention this, Peter. Here at my university in Taiwan, we have a Starbucks. About half the time I visit, they are fresh out of the coffee of the day and ask me to wait "four minutes" while they brew another pot. I usually want my coffee immediately. When I can't wait, they make two cups of espresso and dilute it with water. It's always better than the coffee of the day. And I will testify that it does taste like coffee, only significantly better than the brown liquid that passes for coffee in most of the USA. In Japan, there are plenty of coffee shops that sell what they call "American coffee". It is diluted house blend. They don't make it in an espresso machine, but the difference between the house blend and American is only the greater percentage of water in the latter. I don't know what coffee tastes like in NYC anymore. The last time I was there (30 years ago), I had coffee in a Chock Full O' Nuts, I think, but the only place one can get real coffee in California is at a coffee shop like Starbucks or a restaurant that specializes in coffee. In Far East Asia, coffee is brewed in a variety of ways, but in coffee shops in Taiwan and Japan, it is rarely, if ever, brewer in a coffee- maker. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. > Two guys go into a coffee shop and order coffee and > espresso. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I'm interested in examples in other languages as well. > Thanks. The normal way to say it is "I'm the coffee and he's the espresso." SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > The waiter delivers the first order to the wrong guy, > so he says, "No, I'm coffee and he's espresso." A clear and plain example of metonymy. > This is facially nonsensical That sounds wrong to me. If you want an adverb with a similar meaning to the idiom "on the face of it", try "clearly" or "patently". SignatureGareth Rees > Two guys go into a coffee shop and order coffee and > espresso. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > uttered pretty often by educated adults. Do you > agree? <snip> They say you are what you eat. Can you be what you drink as well? Stewart. SignatureMy e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. > They say you are what you eat. Can you be what you drink as well? Only if you drink water. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/joachim/02-0.htm When Joachim was born, on the stroke of midnight, it took the midwife no more than a single look to restore her wavering faith in the Adversary. > Two guys go into a coffee shop and order coffee and > espresso. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > What are some other examples of such facially > nonsensical utterances? 'Snot nonsense, 'sidiom, unlike your use of the word "facially". Adrian Hi. The comments so far have been most interesting. I should come here more often. re: "facially" In the US we often talk about "facially neutral" laws with discriminatory intent or impact. Re: 2 versions SIMPLE: "I'm coffee and he's espresso." THE: "I'm the coffee and he's the espresso." The SIMPLE-version seems more common than the THE-version. In my mind, The SIMPLE-version is just sloppy English, and the THE-version is correct metonymy. Isn't it true that correct metonymy requires use of such "THE"? "the Crown" "Then the press descended on the scene." "The pen is mightier than the sword." BUT "Washington responded swiftly to the invasion." (which is ok; not a counter-example) > Two guys go into a coffee shop and order coffee and > espresso. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > well. Thanks. > > Two guys go into a coffee shop and order coffee and espresso. > > The waiter delivers the first order to the wrong guy, so he says, > "No, I'm coffee and he's espresso." I'd put "the" in front of both. > This is facially nonsensical, but I think this is uttered pretty > often by educated adults. Do you agree? It's straightforward metonymy (or synecdoche, take your pick). The same as talking about "the readhead" or "the BMW". "I'm the second door on the right." "I got a new set of wheels." "The White House announced..." "These lands belong to the Crown." Etc. In this case, the patron is using himself to stand for his order. It can go the other way, as when the waiter tells the busboy "The espresso at table three wants a straw." There the order is standing for the patron. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It is error alone which needs the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |support of government. Truth can Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stand by itself. | Thomas Jefferson kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Michael West wrote: > In Oz I hear "la-day", heavily diphonged Sorry -- "heavily diphthonged" SignatureMichael West <snip> > What are some other examples of such facially > nonsensical utterances? <snip> I just got an email, sent at 12:41, stating that something is "NOW STARTING AT 2.00pm". Stewart. SignatureMy e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. > <snip> > > What are some other examples of such facially [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I just got an email, sent at 12:41, stating that something is "NOW > STARTING AT 2.00pm". Did that mean something other than 'the start time has recently been changed'? SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net <snip> >> I just got an email, sent at 12:41, stating that something is "NOW >> STARTING AT 2.00pm". > > Did that mean something other than 'the start time has recently been > changed'? Probably not intentionally. Stewart. SignatureMy e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. |
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.