Twart's Syndrome
Willie Eckerslyke
amongst BBC employees.
Twart's Syndrome ( also known, in some quarters, as Toffee-Noseditis )
was once though to exist only south of Watford, but has now proven
NOT to be purely a regional disease, but now commonplace throughout
most English speaking areas.
Although there are NO such places as Barth, Newcarstle, Irarq, Parkistarn,
Doncarster, Irarn or Afgharnistarn ... Twart's Syndrome sufferers are
frequently
heard referring to such non-existent places.
There are no such words as charnce, exarmple, carst, parst or darnce. These
words
do, however, have meaning to Twart's Syndrome sufferers. Sadly, these
wretched,
afflicted souls are rarely taken seriously by their peers & sniggered at
behind their backs.
For most, their only chance of employment is with companies like the BBC,
where
Twart's is widely acceptable.
So, pity these poor souls & please try not to laugh at them. Next time you
hear one
of these poor wretches asking for a "Daily Telegrarph" in your local
newsagents .. just
try to think *there, but for the grace of God, go I*.
Thank you.
Sir Willie Eckerslyke.
Bill McCray
I have heard a recording of one of the songs from "The Music Man" with
"There were birds in the sky, but I never sawr them winging ..."
Those with this condition often don't pronounce "r"s that are present.
Generally, letters omitted like that often show up in places that they
aren't.
Bill in Kentucky (who wonders where his dropped "g"s go)
Robert Lieblich
None of this makes any sense to me, because I don't know whether
you're supposed to read it with your mind's ear set on rhotic or
non-rhotic. Consider, for example, those of you who are rhotic, that
there is no "r" sound in Burma, which in American English would be
better spelled "Buhma."
Clarifications, anyone?
--
Bob Lieblich
Rhotic as all get-out
Bill McCray
Well, yeah, we should specify that. Here in Kentucky our American
English accent has a definite "R" sound in "Burma" (contrary to what you
wrote) and "car", but not in "law" or "Cuba". I think that is what you
mean by rhotic.
Bill in Kentucky
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> Well, yeah, we should specify that. Here in Kentucky our American
> English accent has a definite "R" sound in "Burma" (contrary to what you
> wrote) and "car", but not in "law" or "Cuba". I think that is what you
> mean by rhotic.
That's basically it. Standard Midwestern pronunciation is rhotic. RP
and Estuary English are nonrhotic and I think that at least some
speakers of both also use intrusive "r" as in "I sawr him last
night." I'm open to correction from the many knowledgeable speakers
of those dialects.
To most Americans, "Burma" comes out rhotically, i.e., with the "r"
pronounced. But the transliteration was originally made by Brits who
were non-rhotic, and the "ur" indicates an "uh" kind of sound (I'm not
clear on the exact value of the vowel). Similarly, it takes a while
for most American participants here and in AUE to realize that "erm"
and "um" are the same temporizing syllable -- in non-rhotic and rhotic
spellings, respectively.
Non-rhotic actors report that one of their most difficult tasks in
mastering an American pronunciation is getting the hang of spoken "r".
--
Bob Lieblich
Not only rhotic but new-rhotic
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> Bill McCray wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> Well, yeah, we should specify that. Here in Kentucky our American
>> English accent has a definite "R" sound in "Burma" (contrary to what you
>> wrote) and "car", but not in "law" or "Cuba". I think that is what you
>> mean by rhotic.
>
> That's basically it. Standard Midwestern pronunciation is rhotic. RP
> and Estuary English are nonrhotic and I think that at least some
> speakers of both also use intrusive "r" as in "I sawr him last
> night." I'm open to correction from the many knowledgeable speakers
> of those dialects.
>
> To most Americans, "Burma" comes out rhotically, i.e., with the "r"
> pronounced. But the transliteration was originally made by Brits who
> were non-rhotic, and the "ur" indicates an "uh" kind of sound (I'm not
> clear on the exact value of the vowel). Similarly, it takes a while
> for most American participants here and in AUE to realize that "erm"
> and "um" are the same temporizing syllable -- in non-rhotic and rhotic
> spellings, respectively.
In my youth it took me a while to realize that when I saw "uh" in an
American pronunciation guide it meant the same as "er" in a British
one. It always seemed to me that "uh" suggested something like a long
"oo". (In contrast, your "um" makes me think of "hum" without the h.)
Drifting a bit from the topic, it's always struck me as odd that
although Americans don't usually drop their h's they do drop it from
"herb" (the plant, not when short for "Herbert"), which BrE speakers
pronounce with h (unless they are the sort of BrE speakers who drop all
their h's). Is it because it's regarded as an import from French?
>
> Non-rhotic actors report that one of their most difficult tasks in
> mastering an American pronunciation is getting the hang of spoken "r".
Non-rhotic non-actors tend to think that imitating an American accent
is mainly a matter of pronouncing a lot more r's. No doubt we exggerate
it though, in some words, forget about it in others, and get it plain
wrong in the rest.
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> [ ... ]
> To most Americans, "Burma" comes out rhotically, i.e., with the "r"
> pronounced. But the transliteration was originally made by Brits who
> were non-rhotic, and the "ur" indicates an "uh" kind of sound (I'm not
> clear on the exact value of the vowel).
I have a cousin who grew up in Burma and who still goes there
regularly. I'll probably be seeing her next week and if I remember I'll
ask her. I think the modern name of Myanmar is not so much a change in
name as a more accurate representation of the sound. The Burmah Oil
Company was written with a final h, and I think (but don't know) that
that was because the final a is long (as Myanmar suggests also to a
non-rhotic person).
--
athel
Pat Durkin
news:7nk585F...@mid.individual.net...
> On 2009-11-30 23:21:16 +0100, Robert Lieblich
> <r_s_li...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>> Bill McCray wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>> Well, yeah, we should specify that. Here in Kentucky our American
>>> English accent has a definite "R" sound in "Burma" (contrary to
>>> what you
>>> wrote) and "car", but not in "law" or "Cuba". I think that is
>>> what you
>>> mean by rhotic.
>>
>> That's basically it. Standard Midwestern pronunciation is rhotic.
>> RP
>> and Estuary English are nonrhotic and I think that at least some
>> speakers of both also use intrusive "r" as in "I sawr him last
>> night." I'm open to correction from the many knowledgeable
>> speakers
>> of those dialects.
Mr Lieblich is generalizing too far here, or his inclusion of "both"
is confusing, when discussing the "intrusive 'r'". Is he talking
about the RP and Estuary English? I didn't reply yesterday when I saw
this claim, since I was confused about the antecedent.
There may be a few occasions, (warsh for wash, for example) when
there is an intrusive "r" in Midwest speech, but it is not standard or
common. I had a college roommate from Missouri who said "warsh", and
some cousins from NE Iowa, but no others since my childhood. I
conclude that at least the Upper Midwest dialect does _not_ include
the intrusive "r". (Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, and probably most
of Iowa and Illinois.
The addition of a final "r" to Cuba, Korea, idea and raw (my
brother-in-law from Long Island says "rawr" after 40 years in
Wisconsin) is something I associate with Massachusetts (the Kennedys,
after all) and other states in that area.
>>
>> To most Americans, "Burma" comes out rhotically, i.e., with the "r"
>> pronounced. But the transliteration was originally made by Brits
>> who
>> were non-rhotic, and the "ur" indicates an "uh" kind of sound (I'm
>> not
>> clear on the exact value of the vowel). Similarly, it takes a
>> while
>> for most American participants here and in AUE to realize that
>> "erm"
>> and "um" are the same temporizing syllable -- in non-rhotic and
>> rhotic
>> spellings, respectively.
Robert seemingly doesn't recognize that there are standard "non-um
(erm)" spacers in American talk--"er","ah" and "uh".
>
> In my youth it took me a while to realize that when I saw "uh" in an
> American pronunciation guide it meant the same as "er" in a British
> one. It always seemed to me that "uh" suggested something like a
> long "oo". (In contrast, your "um" makes me think of "hum" without
> the h.)
Now here, there is some confusion of terms, since many US speakers
would not call "oo" (variants in boot, look) a long "o". Some (as I)
reserve "long" for "o" as in "owe, open". I suppose that is why we
are urged to use IPA.
>
> Drifting a bit from the topic, it's always struck me as odd that
> although Americans don't usually drop their h's they do drop it from
> "herb" (the plant, not when short for "Herbert"), which BrE speakers
> pronounce with h (unless they are the sort of BrE speakers who drop
> all their h's). Is it because it's regarded as an import from
> French?
The first time I heard Julia Child (The French Chef) aspirate the "h"
in "herb", I thought it was just her own need to separate herself from
French pronunciation. I think I was taught the silent "h" as part of
the "honor, hotel, after an". Of course, we drop the "h" in herb at
all other times, too, just like "honor". I have since found that the
aspirated "h" (in herb) is retained in some Appalachian dialects and
maybe among the folk in Maine.
>>
>> Non-rhotic actors report that one of their most difficult tasks in
>> mastering an American pronunciation is getting the hang of spoken
>> "r".
Robert doesn't tell us which non-rhotic actors are reporting this, and
doesn't give an example of the "spoken 'r'".
>
> Non-rhotic non-actors tend to think that imitating an American
> accent is mainly a matter of pronouncing a lot more r's. No doubt we
> exggerate it though, in some words, forget about it in others, and
> get it plain wrong in the rest.
I guess I don't hear non-actors trying to imitate the American accent.
Have you ever heard a Spaniard learning to say the "r"? Without the
flap or trill that the symbol calls for in Spanish, I mean.
Bill McCray
I grew up in Frankfort in central Kentucky, and my family said it as
"warsh", also "Warshington". When I turned 10, we moved to the D.C.
area, and I quickly corrected my pronunciation to "wash" and
"Washington". 2.5 years later we moved back to Frankfort. Other than
this change, I don't think my time there affect my speech much.
I had an aunt that would "warsh" and "rinch" the dishes. I've heard
"rinch" from only a few people here.
> The addition of a final "r" to Cuba, Korea, idea and raw (my
> brother-in-law from Long Island says "rawr" after 40 years in
> Wisconsin) is something I associate with Massachusetts (the Kennedys,
> after all) and other states in that area.
President Kennedy was the first person I ever heard do that. My first
thought was that I was mistaken about his being educated. It certainly
sounded strange. Of course he sounded strange in other ways, too, among
them omitting "R"s.
Bill in Kentucky
John Varela
<acor...@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote:
> I think the modern name of Myanmar is not so much a change in
> name as a more accurate representation of the sound. The Burmah Oil
> Company was written with a final h, and I think (but don't know) that
> that was because the final a is long (as Myanmar suggests also to a
> non-rhotic person).
Interesting. Evidently M and B are somehow similar in that region,
if "Burma" is really "Myanmar" and "Bombay" is really "Mumbai".
--
John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:29:30 UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden
><acor...@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote:
>
>> I think the modern name of Myanmar is not so much a change in
>> name as a more accurate representation of the sound. The Burmah Oil
>> Company was written with a final h, and I think (but don't know) that
>> that was because the final a is long (as Myanmar suggests also to a
>> non-rhotic person).
>
>Interesting. Evidently M and B are somehow similar in that region,
FSV of "region". Mumbai and Myanmar are 1500 miles apart. More
importantly the Burmese language is related to Tibetan and Chinese
(according to WikiP) not to the languages spoken in Mumbai.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma#Language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma#Name
The name "Burma" is derived from the Burmese word "Bamar" (???),
which in turn is the colloquial form of Myanmar (??????) (or Mranma
in old Burmese), both of which historically referred to the majority
Burmans (or the Bamar). Depending on the register used the
pronunciation would be �Bama� or Myanmah
I can't vouch for the accuracy of the WikiP artcile on Mumbai, however I
suspect it is a reasonable reflection of the confusion about Mumbai vs
Bombay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai#Toponymy
>if "Burma" is really "Myanmar" and "Bombay" is really "Mumbai".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)
Glenn Knickerbocker
> if "Burma" is really "Myanmar" and "Bombay" is really "Mumbai".
"Burma" is "Bama." "Myanmar" is an entirely different name.
�R
John Varela
Not according to what has been posted earlier in this thred, q.v.