> In article <3716A682.FD376...@POLLUTIONvideotron.ca>, > Mariane Desautels <desautelsmari...@videotron.ca> wrote: > >"Morgan E. Smith" wrote: > >> On 14 Apr 1999, Graydon wrote: > >> > Keith Morrison probably hasn't had spring quite yet; Soiux St. Marie
> >> Soiux? Did you mean Sioux? > >> Actually, it is Sault, in point of fact, but I rather prefer your > >> rendition, as it does make a certain visual sense.
> >Maybe in English, but I have a hard time visualising it. In French, > >"Sault" makes perfect sense for me.
> >The "L" is silent. You do that in English, with the "T" in "often", or > >the W in "answer", for example.
> Not entirely correct. The t in "often" _does_ get pronounced, sometimes.
Rarely. Just as the L might get pronounced in Sault.
M
-- And may I remind you that taking over the universe is against the Motel regulations and local West Midlands by-laws.
In article <7f5ufr$...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>, Morgan E. Smith <mesm...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote:
> Yeah, that part has spring bustin' out all over, but it stills snows, >most mornings. (It is very hard to dress for both -4 AND +15 on the same >day....)
Layers. Or condition oneself not to mind cold. -4 isn't really cold anyway[1].
James Nicoll
1: Unless it's -4, you're wearing shorts and a tshirt because when you went to the gym it was a balm 5 and it's freezing rain.
-- "The initial over-all composition, purporting to traverse the nation, deliberately overlooked a large piece of the nation--Chicago to Cheyenne. [...] For more than a billion years, little to nothing had happened there." _Annals of the Former World_, John McPhee
In article <3716A682.FD376...@POLLUTIONvideotron.ca>, Mariane Desautels <desautelsmari...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>"Morgan E. Smith" wrote: >> On 14 Apr 1999, Graydon wrote: >> > Keith Morrison probably hasn't had spring quite yet; Soiux St. Marie
>> Soiux? Did you mean Sioux? >> Actually, it is Sault, in point of fact, but I rather prefer your >> rendition, as it does make a certain visual sense.
>Maybe in English, but I have a hard time visualising it. In French, >"Sault" makes perfect sense for me.
>The "L" is silent. You do that in English, with the "T" in "often", or >the W in "answer", for example.
Not entirely correct. The t in "often" _does_ get pronounced, sometimes.
>> In article <3716A682.FD376...@POLLUTIONvideotron.ca>, >> Mariane Desautels <desautelsmari...@videotron.ca> wrote: >> >"Morgan E. Smith" wrote: >> >> On 14 Apr 1999, Graydon wrote: >> >> > Keith Morrison probably hasn't had spring quite yet; Soiux St. Marie
>> >> Soiux? Did you mean Sioux? >> >> Actually, it is Sault, in point of fact, but I rather prefer your >> >> rendition, as it does make a certain visual sense.
>> >Maybe in English, but I have a hard time visualising it. In French, >> >"Sault" makes perfect sense for me.
>> >The "L" is silent. You do that in English, with the "T" in "often", or >> >the W in "answer", for example.
>> Not entirely correct. The t in "often" _does_ get pronounced, sometimes.
>Rarely. Just as the L might get pronounced in Sault.
Not _that_ rarely -- I tend to do it when I'm speaking formally, and I'm not the only one.
I believe it's more commonly pronounced in England. I seem to recall a discussion of Gilbert and Sullivan punning on often/orphan saying that it wouldn't be as natural a pun these days.
Mariane Desautels wrote: >> >The "L" is silent. You do that in English, with the "T" in "often", or >> >the W in "answer", for example.
When speaking english, *I* always pronounce the "T" The 'W' in answer is intended to be silent. I do not add additional 'h's to words in horder to hassume ha fhake hupper class haccent. I always pronounce the 't' in twenty as well. :) Samantha.
> > In article <3716A682.FD376...@POLLUTIONvideotron.ca>, > > Mariane Desautels <desautelsmari...@videotron.ca> wrote: > > >"Morgan E. Smith" wrote: > > >> On 14 Apr 1999, Graydon wrote: > > >> > Keith Morrison probably hasn't had spring quite yet; Soiux St. Marie
> > >> Soiux? Did you mean Sioux? > > >> Actually, it is Sault, in point of fact, but I rather prefer your > > >> rendition, as it does make a certain visual sense.
> > >Maybe in English, but I have a hard time visualising it. In French, > > >"Sault" makes perfect sense for me.
> > >The "L" is silent. You do that in English, with the "T" in "often", or > > >the W in "answer", for example.
> > Not entirely correct. The t in "often" _does_ get pronounced, sometimes.
> Rarely. Just as the L might get pronounced in Sault.
> On 14 Apr 1999, Graydon wrote: > > That _part_ of Canada.
> Yeah, that part has spring bustin' out all over, but it stills snows, > most mornings. (It is very hard to dress for both -4 AND +15 on the same > day....)
Oh, I don't know; that's was wind pants are for, over the shorts.
> > Keith Morrison probably hasn't had spring quite yet; Soiux St. Marie
> Soiux? Did you mean Sioux?
Yes.
> Actually, it is Sault, in point of fact, but I rather prefer your > rendition, as it does make a certain visual sense.
Sorry; phonetic word retrival system. It does very badly with old French transliterations of Amerindian words.
> > probably hasn't, either, although that would have been a long drive.
> But you get to visit any number of small towns along the way!
Well, yes, but Jo was here for a rather limited time. -- graydon@ | Hige sceal že heardra, heorte že cenre, lara.on.ca | mod sceal že mare že ure maegen lytlaš. | -- Beorhtwold, "The Battle of Maldon"
Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote: > Not entirely correct. The t in "often" _does_ get pronounced, sometimes.
This is an interesting case, much like the double negative, except with phonetics. The 't' was never pronounced until the spelling became standard (don't ask me why it was there, I don't know) and them people, seeing it, added it. It's a strange case of the spelling modifying the pronunciation of a word.
The funny thing is that the 't' is somehow considered more formal ("We're pronouncing it like it's spelled") and I must admit I rather like the sound of it, but it isn't really. It's rather strange.
And I can probably dig up references if anyone's *really* interested, although all the linguists here can probably find this stuff easier than I.
In article <7f6nqc$l9...@lara.on.ca>, gray...@lara.on.ca (Graydon) wrote: >Morgan E. Smith <mesm...@calcna.ab.ca> writes: [snip] >> Soiux? Did you mean Sioux?
>Yes.
At least you didn't use Soo, unlike a railroad I live near.
>> Actually, it is Sault, in point of fact, but I rather prefer your >> rendition, as it does make a certain visual sense.
>Sorry; phonetic word retrival system. It does very badly with old >French transliterations of Amerindian words.
<smacks forehead> Of course that's where it comes from. I'd always assumed it was some obscure French term, like Marais.
<David wanders off, feeling dopey.>
-- David Owen-Cruise "Blessed are they who learn from their mistakes, for they shall make, if not necessarily fewer of them, different and more interesting ones." Dorothy J. Heydt
>>Not to mention that this part of Canada relapsed into November for a couple >>of days last week. Bluddy snow....
>This part of California did the same sort of thing last week, >though of course not with snow. It rained copiously (April's a >little late for that, but not unheard of) and it was *cold*. >Where'd it get cold from?
That nice fellow I married said it was Alaska. And it was cold, too, by our standards: cold enough to make some flowers drop off.
As for the rainy season: as my children were born on April 18th ( a date of portentous significance: the anniversary of the '06 earthquake) I have been watching the date for almost twnety-one years. 15 out of 20 years it rained on that date, and every year somebody's surprised that it rains that late.
The opposite happens in October: every year, people are surprised that it's still hot and not raining yet.
<desautelsmarianeME...@POLLUTIONvideotron.ca> wrote: >Kristopher/EOS wrote: >> Mariane Desautels wrote: >> > Dan Goodman wrote: >> > > Not entirely correct. The t in "often" _does_ get pronounced, sometimes.
>> > Rarely. Just as the L might get pronounced in Sault.
>> I almost always pronounce the T, but never the L.
>Checked with a dictionary at home (a Larousse)... according to its >phonetic pronunciation guide, the "t" is silent.
Generally I like Webster's. But there is a story here: let's see if I remember it correctly. The t had gone silent in most people's speech for a long time, and came to be pronounced again by newly-literate over-corrected speakers in this century.
I pronounce the t, and when I learned this story, it tickled me.
>> Not entirely correct. The t in "often" _does_ get pronounced, sometimes.
>This is an interesting case, much like the double negative, except with >phonetics. The 't' was never pronounced until the spelling became standard >(don't ask me why it was there, I don't know) and them people, seeing it, >added it. It's a strange case of the spelling modifying the pronunciation >of a word.
>The funny thing is that the 't' is somehow considered more formal ("We're >pronouncing it like it's spelled") and I must admit I rather like the sound >of it, but it isn't really. It's rather strange.
>And I can probably dig up references if anyone's *really* interested, >although all the linguists here can probably find this stuff easier than I.
The Fannish Accent strikes again!
Rachael
-- Rachael M. Lininger | "Some causes of angst have not worn well." lininger@ | virtu.sar.usf.edu | Dr. A. McA. Miller
>At least you didn't use Soo, unlike a railroad I live near.
>>> Actually, it is Sault, in point of fact, but I rather prefer your >>> rendition, as it does make a certain visual sense.
>>Sorry; phonetic word retrival system. It does very badly with old >>French transliterations of Amerindian words.
><smacks forehead> Of course that's where it comes from. I'd always assumed >it was some obscure French term, like Marais.
But I thought it was a French word meaning waterfall or rapids or some such. Or is my irony detector off?
-- Tom
--------------------------------------------------------------- "Do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you for they may have different tastes." G. B Shaw --------------------------------------------------------------- To reply via e-mail remove the x from my address in the header.
>> Not entirely correct. The t in "often" _does_ get pronounced, sometimes.
>This is an interesting case, much like the double negative, except with >phonetics. The 't' was never pronounced until the spelling became standard >(don't ask me why it was there, I don't know) and them people, seeing it, >added it. It's a strange case of the spelling modifying the pronunciation >of a word.
If by "strange" you mean "unusual," it isn't. Spelling pronunciation is fairly common in English.
Examples: pronouncing the g in _ing; pronouncing "creek" to rhyme with week.
>> > >Maybe in English, but I have a hard time visualising it. In French, >> > >"Sault" makes perfect sense for me.
>> > >The "L" is silent. You do that in English, with the "T" in "often", or >> > >the W in "answer", for example.
>> > Not entirely correct. The t in "often" _does_ get pronounced, sometimes.
>> Rarely. Just as the L might get pronounced in Sault.
Rarely by whose regional dialect?
>I almost always pronounce the T, but never the L.
Ditto that.
"Sue San Marie" is how I pronounce Sault Saint Marie. We Michiganders sometimes call it "the sue". I can understand someone mispronouncing "Sault" who either doesn't know French or doesn't live close enough to know better.
> Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote: > > Not entirely correct. The t in "often" _does_ get pronounced, sometimes.
> This is an interesting case, much like the double negative, except with > phonetics. The 't' was never pronounced until the spelling became standard > (don't ask me why it was there, I don't know) and them people, seeing it,
From 'oft', likely as not.
Do that happen oft? (says the man gazing at the huge plume of smoke from the bakery chimney.)
Oh, aye, ofen enow. (says the amused local, who knows perfectly well old Fredrick the Baker _will_ keep trying to make cinnamon buns in a five second oven and lighting the carmel and all else besides that the oven is in.)
Someone presumably wanted to demonstrate the relationship of the words in their spelling, which is how we got rhyme looking so much like rhythm. -- graydon@ | Hige sceal že heardra, heorte že cenre, lara.on.ca | mod sceal že mare že ure maegen lytlaš. | -- Beorhtwold, "The Battle of Maldon"
>"Is that ofen--frequently, or ofen--a person without parents?"
>Sorry, too much G&S lately, and I couldn't resist.
Precisely!
You said ofen frequently only once!!!
:-)
Anthony A. Toohey
BTW, that last line, about "too much..." What does that mean? I know what the words separately mean, but when you put them together in that order, they lose all sense of meaning... :-)
PWrede6492 <pwrede6...@aol.com> writes: > In article <7f81fn$3i...@lara.on.ca>, gray...@lara.on.ca (Graydon) writes:
> >Oh, aye, ofen enow.
> "Is that ofen--frequently, or ofen--a person without parents?"
> Sorry, too much G&S lately, and I couldn't resist.
Quite all right.
There's no way my idiolect would lose the 'r' in 'orphan', though, too much Scots influence, so I guess it has to be 'frequently'.
One of the disadvantages of the medium, you don't have to put up with my Central Canadian accent. -- graydon@ | Hige sceal že heardra, heorte že cenre, lara.on.ca | mod sceal že mare že ure maegen lytlaš. | -- Beorhtwold, "The Battle of Maldon"
Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote: > In article <7f7hhe$nr...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>, > Geoff Wedig <we...@darwin.cwru.edu> wrote: > >Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
> >> Not entirely correct. The t in "often" _does_ get pronounced, sometimes.
> >This is an interesting case, much like the double negative, except with > >phonetics. The 't' was never pronounced until the spelling became standard > >(don't ask me why it was there, I don't know) and them people, seeing it, > >added it. It's a strange case of the spelling modifying the pronunciation > >of a word. > If by "strange" you mean "unusual," it isn't. Spelling pronunciation is > fairly common in English. > Examples: pronouncing the g in _ing; pronouncing "creek" to rhyme with > week.
I'm not sure we're on the same page or not. What I meant is that the pronunciation has been modified by the spelling. Most of the time it goes the other way (spelling comes from pronunciation, not pronunciation from spelling)
Part of the problem comes from the above cases, since I can't find any other way to pronounce them (well, creek is pronounced in some dialects as "crick", but I don't think that's what you were refering to them) If you were saying that the spelling modified the pronunciation in these cases, what was the pronunciation of these before the spelling became unified?
Even if that is the case (and I am seriously curious, actually) it is unusual. There are not many words in English (barring anything ending ing given your above comment should that be correct) that have had their pronunciation modified by their spelling
Graydon <gray...@lara.on.ca> wrote: > Geoff Wedig <we...@darwin.cwru.edu> writes: > > Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote: > > > Not entirely correct. The t in "often" _does_ get pronounced, sometimes.
> > This is an interesting case, much like the double negative, except with > > phonetics. The 't' was never pronounced until the spelling became standard > > (don't ask me why it was there, I don't know) and them people, seeing it, > From 'oft', likely as not.
Ah, yes. Thank you, Graydon. That's so obvious once you mentioned it that I'm surprised I didn't think of it.
>Our winter and spring have been like that for a while too, this is >third century:
>When will my spring come? >When will the swallows dart back with my tongue? >When will the leaves be reborn on the bough >and the colours emerge on the Earth? >My song has chilled into silence, >unstirred by the warmth of Apollo. >Amyklai raised no alarm >in these wintry silences hope can perish. >Let tomorrow erupt with Spring! >Let tomorrow bloom love for the loveless, >and for the lover, love.
>Pervigilium Veneris - oddly one often enough sees the last two lines >quoted but rarely the rest.
It could be the unfortunate image in the second line..... How much tongue can an otherwise unlaiden swallow carry?
It's a wonderful image if taken metaphorically--and a disaster if one visualizes it literally.
Nancy Lebovitz wrote: > In article <924082625...@bluejo.demon.co.uk>, > Jo Walton <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Our winter and spring have been like that for a while too, this is > >third century:
> >When will my spring come? > >When will the swallows dart back with my tongue? > >When will the leaves be reborn on the bough > >and the colours emerge on the Earth? > >My song has chilled into silence, > >unstirred by the warmth of Apollo. > >Amyklai raised no alarm > >in these wintry silences hope can perish. > >Let tomorrow erupt with Spring! > >Let tomorrow bloom love for the loveless, > >and for the lover, love.
> >Pervigilium Veneris - oddly one often enough sees the last two lines > >quoted but rarely the rest.
> It could be the unfortunate image in the second line..... > How much tongue can an otherwise unlaiden swallow carry?
|
