>>>> But even "Bach" is "back" beyond academia and specially trained
>>>> radio announcers, isn't it?
>>> I've never heard "Bach" pronounced as "back" (that may be a French
>>> thing). It's normally pronounced /bA:x/, or /bA:k/ by people who can't
>>> manage the /x/ sound.
>>As I wrote a couple of minutes ago: in English, we not only use the=20
>>wrong consonant, we also use the wrong vowel.
>>"His Bach's worse than his bite".
>Bach is to tree as skin is to rice pudding.
Q: "Do you know who Bach was?"
A: "He's the guy who invented Bock beer."
-- MAD Magazine, ca 1960s
>>> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> Note that "Rachmaninoff" is the standard spelling in English, with
>>>> "Rachmaninov" the more scholarly, less common variant. (Even Evan
>>>> probably won't be able to find examples of "beef Stroganov.")
> > >> >> >> Actually, you probably do know how to make at least one
> > >> >> >> voiceless nasal. Consider saying "mm-hmm". Since you never
> > >> >> >> open your mouth, the sound is coming out your nose, so that "h"
> > >> >> >> is really a voiceless /m/ (/m<o>/). If you say it with your
> > >> >> >> tongue in /n/ position (say, with your lips open), the middle
> > >> >> >> consonant is a voiceless /n/ (/n<o>/).
> > >> >> > Is that a correct use of "voiceless"? I would consider them
> > >> >> > voiced because my vocal chords are vibrating.
> > >> >> In between the two /m/s or /n/s? It's the equivalent of /h/ when you
> > >> >> say "uh-huh", which is the voiceless counterpart of the vowel.
> > >> > But there won't be any sound during the [h], so it doesn't really
> > >> > carry any phonetic features, does it?
> > >> Of course there's a sound. And it phonemically contrasts with the
> > >> glottal stop un "uh-uh" (and nasal variants).
> > >> > Compare the initial sound of "Hmong."
> > >> And find that they are the same sound?
> > > It's an actual voiceless nasal.
> > As opposed to a mere voiceless sound made with the vocal apparatus in
> > the configuration for a nasal?
> If it's voiceless, and there's no frication,
The voiceless nasal in "mm-hmm" definitely has frication at the nostrils, like all voiceless nasals do.
Voiceless nasals (like any voiceless sonorant) may or may not also have frication at the glottis; it's not a necessary feature, but it's not an uncommon side effect of their high volume airflow.
> and no stop-release, then there's no sound!
Voiceless nasals definitely have a sound.
Affirmative "mm-hmm" and contemplative "hmm" both have a voiceless nasal; see Ashby and Maidment's _Introducing Phonetic Science_ (2005:55), Smalley's _Linguistic Diversity and National Unity_ (1994:245), and Herb Stahlke's response on LINGUIST List's Ask-A-Linguist:
"In the affirmative [mhm], the middle portion of the extended bilabial nasal, written as [h], is voiceless."
> On Sep 20, 8:35 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>> And for us non-rhotics, Bach is all too often "bark" which also has the
>> wrong vowel.
> If you're non-rhotic, how can you insert an r there?
> >> We have an ambiguous sentence. Let me try to explain. PTD said
> >> for /v/ was not pointed out -- espcially since it's contrary to
> >> [ German instincts to final-devoice] ?
> >> and it appears people want to read that as
> >> for /v/ was not pointed out -- espcially since it's contrary to
> >> [ German instincts] to final-devoice ?
> >> Flying planes happen.
> >OK, you're right. PTD's sentence was ambiguous and I misread it. My
> >previous post was in error. Apologies to PTD.
> I stripped out sci.lang.
Sensible chap.
> Has there ever been a post similar in acknowledgement and sentiment from > PRD?
Flying pigs don't happen. (I assume you meant PTD there.)
> I don't see the distinction, even with the brackets used to isolate
> differrnt words in the phrase. It seems to me that there are German
> instincts and these are to not voice final <sometings>.
That was the intended meaning. PTD was talking about "German instincts to final-devoice", and saying that the particular example was contrary to those instincts.
> I assume this is
> the meaning of the second bracketed phrase, but I can', despite reading it
> several times see the difference from the 1st bracketed phrase.
What Robert and I (and I think others) took it to mean was "to final-devoice is contrary to German instincts", i.e. with the initial "it" as an anticipatory "it" rather than a pronoun referring to the example. That's the converse of the truth, because to final-devoice *is* the German instinct, so it looked as though PTD had said the opposite of what was intended.
> On Sep 20, 8:06 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>> On 20/09/12 7:46 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > On Sep 20, 12:43 am, Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sep 19, 5:49 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>> >>> On 20/09/12 6:21 AM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>> >>>> "Of" before a consonant is often just a schwa.
>> >>> Like "John o' Groats" or "Three o'clock"?
>> >> Or "both o' them" or "plate o' shrimp".
>> > both of 'em
>> Another very likely possibility, but not one I say (I think).
> You don't have an urge to dissimilate the nearly adjacent interdentals?
Wouldn't "both o' them" accomplish that as well? Indeed, if "'em"
really is a word on its own, then that would appear to be the standard
way to do it. It's what happens whith "their", "these", "those",
"the" (and other consonants, as well). The /v/ disappears, not the
initial consonant of the next word.
-- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |If I am ever forced to make a
SF Bay Area (1982-) |choice between learning and using
Chicago (1964-1982) |win32, or leaving the computer
|industry, let me just say it was
evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com |nice knowing all of you. :-)
| Randal Schwartz
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> writes:
> On 20/09/12 8:27 AM, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>> In article <abv496Fiu0...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>> On 19/09/12 12:34 PM, Joachim Pense wrote:
>>>> Am 19.09.2012 02:54, schrieb Robert Bannister:
>>>>> On 19/09/12 12:26 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>>> for /v/ was not pointed out -- espcially since it's contrary to German
>>>>>> instincts to final-devoice?
>>>>> Back to front. All final consonants are devoiced.
>>>> Only plosives and fricatives.
>>> True. I don't even know how to devoice an "n" or an "r", although no
>>> doubt some language does this.
>> If you're a native speaker of English, you already know how to devoice
>> /r/, because you do it in "try", "pry", "cry", etc.
>> You can make a voiceless /n/ by blowing air out your nose while
>> otherwise articulating /n/ normally, making sure not to let your vocal
>> cords vibrate. It's similar to the initial portion of "hmm", but
>> using a tongue position for /n/.
> All this talk of voicing and devoicing has had me whispering to
> myself. It is amazing how clearly one seems to be able to form all the
> consonants, and how distinctive they all are despite the lack of
> voicing. Aspiration seems to be a lot more important that I thought as
> I can clearly hear the difference in "bad hat" with equal vowel length.
When you do that experiment, make sure you have equal consonant
length, as well. IIRC, not only are vowels longer before voiced
consonants, but the consonants themselves are shorter. (In the case
of stops, less silence before the next syllable starts.)
You might also try recording yourself whispering and see whether you
have the same impression when you hear yourself.
Personally, even listening live, when I whisper "bad hat" trying to
keep the vowels the length of the one in "bad", I hear myself saying
"bad had", and when I whisper it trying to keep the vowels the length
of the one in "hat", I hear myself saying "bat hat".
-- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |There are just two rules of
SF Bay Area (1982-) |governance in a free society: Mind
Chicago (1964-1982) |your own business. Keep your hands
|to yourself.
evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com | P.J. O'Rourke
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
> > On Sep 20, 8:06 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> >> On 20/09/12 7:46 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> > On Sep 20, 12:43 am, Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Sep 19, 5:49 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> >> >>> On 20/09/12 6:21 AM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> >> >>>> "Of" before a consonant is often just a schwa.
> >> >>> Like "John o' Groats" or "Three o'clock"?
> >> >> Or "both o' them" or "plate o' shrimp".
> >> > both of 'em
> >> Another very likely possibility, but not one I say (I think).
> > You don't have an urge to dissimilate the nearly adjacent interdentals?
> Wouldn't "both o' them" accomplish that as well? Indeed, if "'em"
> really is a word on its own, then that would appear to be the standard
> way to do it. It's what happens whith "their", "these", "those",
> "the" (and other consonants, as well). The /v/ disappears, not the
> initial consonant of the next word.
? th and th look pretty interdental, and pretty close together, to me!
That's not dissimilation (unless the resulting [D] is longer than
usual).
On Sep 21, 12:45 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
> Am 21.09.2012 05:25, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
> > On Sep 20, 8:35 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> >> And for us non-rhotics, Bach is all too often "bark" which also has the
> >> wrong vowel.
> > If you're non-rhotic, how can you insert an r there?
>>>>> I think Peter's point (& I'm inclined to agree) is that a word ending
>>>>> in "v" (not "ve") *looks* odd in written English --- not that it
>>>>> sounds odd.
>>>> Only because we're not used to them. There are several abbreviations
>>>> and slang words that end in "v" (rev, spiv, lav, guv). Does anyone know
>>>> the historical reasons why we don't usually end words with "v"?
>>> When the road to standardization of spelling began in Middle English,
>>> some of the principles of French spelling were applied.
>> Inconsistently, of course, along with a mishmash of other principles &
>> non-principles. Here's a review of David Crystal's new books about
>> the history of English spelling:
>I find the prices interesting. Both the Guardian and Amazon.uk give the >recommended price as £12.99 and then go on to "our price". I find >Amazon's three prices quite baffling.
>The Guardian Bookshop: £10.39
> Amazon.co.uk
>Formats Price New Used
>Hardcover £7.53 £6.00 £7.06
The "new" price is the lowest price at which the book is offered,
The "new" link leads to a page listing sellers offering the book at
prices from GBP6.00 to GBP10.56.
The lowest prices might result from discounting to clear the book(s) off
the bookseller's shelves. Advertising relatively low prices for new
books might raise doubts in purchaser's minds. A book may be new and
unused but not necessarily in mint condition.
> On 2012-09-20, CDB wrote:
>> Yeah, and it was the CU that told Columbus to call his ships Drinka,
>> Pinta, and Milka.
>> http://www.bilpo.org/images/00000001/st/00000001.jpg >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpsjSHUeW_E >> I got a large collection of pornographic pictures when I searched for
>> the first URL. Maybe because I used Bing instead of Ggl?
> Must be your search history influencing the results --- that's what
> happens when you let friends ;-) use your computer while you're not
> watching them.
Alas, no such history. Libido only a puzzled memory.
Still, on that point, it might be worth an experiment: what does your history do for an image search in Bing on "drinka pinta milka"? Many of the pictures mine turned up seemed to depict the consumption of opaque white fluids.
> My first lessons in both French and Latin came from a retired Indian
> army colonel. He pronounced Latin in the old-old-fashioned way, with
> English-type vowels, except, oddly, for plural termination "-i"; his
> French, on the other hand, was French, but with an English accent -
> there's no way he knew about a difference between "et" and "est".
If you want to hear something really strange, look up the French TV
interviews with Henry Miller (a few on youtube, but mainly on a French
archive site whose name & domain name escape me at the moment). He
speaks French quite confidently & clearly understands the interviewers
with no difficulty, but says everything with a very strong Brooklyn
accent.
-- And remember, while you're out there risking your life and limb
through shot and shell, we'll be in be in here thinking what a
sucker you are. [Rufus T. Firefly]
> On 20/09/12 6:30 PM, Adam Funk wrote:
>> Inconsistently, of course, along with a mishmash of other principles &
>> non-principles. Here's a review of David Crystal's new books about
>> the history of English spelling:
> I find the prices interesting. Both the Guardian and Amazon.uk give the > recommended price as £12.99 and then go on to "our price". I find > Amazon's three prices quite baffling.
> The Guardian Bookshop: £10.39
> Amazon.co.uk
> Formats Price New Used
> Hardcover £7.53 £6.00 £7.06
You probably get free shipping with the £7.53 option, but not with the
others.
-- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
> On Sep 21, 12:45 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>> Am 21.09.2012 05:25, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>> > On Sep 20, 8:35 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>> >> And for us non-rhotics, Bach is all too often "bark" which also has the
>> >> wrong vowel.
>> > If you're non-rhotic, how can you insert an r there?
>> To lengthen the vowel?
> How does [r] make a vowel longer?
> Longer than what?
I think Robert means "insert an 'r'" (i.e., as if adding a written
'r'), not "insert an [r] sound".
-- To live without killing is a thought which could electrify the world,
if men were only capable of staying awake long enough to let the idea
soak in. --- Henry Miller
>> On Sep 21, 12:45 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>>> Am 21.09.2012 05:25, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>>>> On Sep 20, 8:35 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>>>> And for us non-rhotics, Bach is all too often "bark" which also has the
>>>>> wrong vowel.
>>>> If you're non-rhotic, how can you insert an r there?
>>> To lengthen the vowel?
>> How does [r] make a vowel longer?
>> Longer than what?
> I think Robert means "insert an 'r'" (i.e., as if adding a written
> 'r'), not "insert an [r] sound".
Robert didn't mention 'insert'. He used the label 'bark' to denote a vowel, just as people often talk about 'Mary'.
On 2012-09-21, CDB wrote:
> Alas, no such history. Libido only a puzzled memory.
> Still, on that point, it might be worth an experiment: what does your > history do for an image search in Bing on "drinka pinta milka"? Many of
With "SafeSearch off", Google images turns up mostly milk-related
stuff, a surprising number of pictures of dogs (without milk), and a
couple of thumbnails that appear to be "specialist" porn. And about
the same thing on Bing --- but in both cases, setting SafeSearch to
moderate eliminates the porn.
> the pictures mine turned up seemed to depict the consumption of opaque > white fluids.
> > On Sep 21, 12:45 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
> >> Am 21.09.2012 05:25, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
> >> > On Sep 20, 8:35 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> >> >> And for us non-rhotics, Bach is all too often "bark" which also has the
> >> >> wrong vowel.
> >> > If you're non-rhotic, how can you insert an r there?
> >> To lengthen the vowel?
> > How does [r] make a vowel longer?
> > Longer than what?
> I think Robert means "insert an 'r'" (i.e., as if adding a written
> 'r'), not "insert an [r] sound".
Apparently having overlooked the entire discussion of "Sade" and its
implications.
> >> On Sep 21, 12:45 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
> >>> Am 21.09.2012 05:25, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
> >>>> On Sep 20, 8:35 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> >>>>> And for us non-rhotics, Bach is all too often "bark" which also has the
> >>>>> wrong vowel.
> >>>> If you're non-rhotic, how can you insert an r there?
> >>> To lengthen the vowel?
> >> How does [r] make a vowel longer?
> >> Longer than what?
> > I think Robert means "insert an 'r'" (i.e., as if adding a written
> > 'r'), not "insert an [r] sound".
> Robert didn't mention 'insert'. He used the label 'bark' to denote a vowel,
> just as people often talk about 'Mary'.-
How is "Bach is .... 'bark'" not inserting an r?
The vowel in Mary does not contain an [r], it precedes one. But for a
non-rhotic, the vowel in bark neither contains nor precedes one, so
what is gained by including one in the code for it?
> On 2012-09-21, CDB wrote:
>> Alas, no such history. Libido only a puzzled memory.
>> Still, on that point, it might be worth an experiment: what does your
>> history do for an image search in Bing on "drinka pinta milka"? Many of
> With "SafeSearch off", Google images turns up mostly milk-related
> stuff, a surprising number of pictures of dogs (without milk), and a
> couple of thumbnails that appear to be "specialist" porn. And about
> the same thing on Bing --- but in both cases, setting SafeSearch to
> moderate eliminates the porn.
Yes, I admired the dog but didn't investigate -- thought her name might be Ni~na". I've never needed SafeSearch; maybe my old ISP was protecting me.
>> the pictures mine turned up seemed to depict the consumption of opaque
>> white fluids.
> It's the way you say it.
Maybe just my startled impresssion. There seemed to be a great many of them because I hadn't expected any. There must have been more than a couple, though. About a dozen puzzles and twice as many memories, I thought.
> On Sep 21, 9:03 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>> Adam Funk wrote (21-09-2012 13:58):
>> > On 2012-09-21, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> >> On Sep 21, 12:45 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>> >>> Am 21.09.2012 05:25, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>> >>>> On Sep 20, 8:35 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> And for us non-rhotics, Bach is all too often "bark" which
>> >>>>> also has the wrong vowel.
>> >>>> If you're non-rhotic, how can you insert an r there?
>> >>> To lengthen the vowel?
>> >> How does [r] make a vowel longer?
>> >> Longer than what?
>> > I think Robert means "insert an 'r'" (i.e., as if adding a
>> > written 'r'), not "insert an [r] sound".
>> Robert didn't mention 'insert'. He used the label 'bark' to denote
>> a vowel, just as people often talk about 'Mary'.-
> How is "Bach is .... 'bark'" not inserting an r?
The same way that "hate" isn't "inserting an e" into "hat". It's
inserting an <e> into the orthographic representation to indicate a
change in the vowel, but it's not inserting a vowel.
> The vowel in Mary does not contain an [r], it precedes one. But for a
> non-rhotic, the vowel in bark neither contains nor precedes one, so
> what is gained by including one in the code for it?
-- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |If only some crazy scientist
SF Bay Area (1982-) |somewhere would develop a device
Chicago (1964-1982) |that would allow us to change the
|channel on our televisions......
evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com | --"lazarus"
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 04:23:39 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Sep 21, 12:45 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>> Am 21.09.2012 05:25, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>> > On Sep 20, 8:35 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>> >> And for us non-rhotics, Bach is all too often "bark" which also has the
>> >> wrong vowel.
>> > If you're non-rhotic, how can you insert an r there?
>> To lengthen the vowel?
>How does [r] make a vowel longer?
>Longer than what?
Longer than a shorter vowel.
To a non-rhotic BrE-speaker "ar" represents the sound he/she uses when
saying the "ar" in words such as park, bark and lark: /A/. That is a
longer vowel than in pack, back and lack: /a/. A non-rhotic speaker is
quite likely to use "ar" to represent /A/ without thinking that this
might be confusing to those people who sound their "r"s.
In effect, to a non-rhotic speaker "ar" is a vowel.
>>> Inconsistently, of course, along with a mishmash of other principles &
>>> non-principles. Here's a review of David Crystal's new books about
>>> the history of English spelling:
>> I find the prices interesting. Both the Guardian and Amazon.uk give the >> recommended price as £12.99 and then go on to "our price". I find >> Amazon's three prices quite baffling.
>> The Guardian Bookshop: £10.39
>> Amazon.co.uk
>> Formats Price New Used
>> Hardcover £7.53 £6.00 £7.06
>You probably get free shipping with the £7.53 option, but not with the
>others.
Shipping is free if you choose Free Super Saver Delivery which takes a
few days more.
The paperback edition is more expensive than the hardback. However it
will not be published until 5 Sep 2013.
> On Sep 21, 9:03 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>> Adam Funk wrote (21-09-2012 13:58):
>>> On 2012-09-21, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> On Sep 21, 12:45 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>>>>> Am 21.09.2012 05:25, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>>> On Sep 20, 8:35 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> And for us non-rhotics, Bach is all too often "bark" which also has the
>>>>>>> wrong vowel.
>>>>>> If you're non-rhotic, how can you insert an r there?
>>>>> To lengthen the vowel?
>>>> How does [r] make a vowel longer?
>>>> Longer than what?
>>> I think Robert means "insert an 'r'" (i.e., as if adding a written
>>> 'r'), not "insert an [r] sound".
>> Robert didn't mention 'insert'. He used the label 'bark' to denote a vowel,
>> just as people often talk about 'Mary'.-
> How is "Bach is .... 'bark'" not inserting an r?
Because 'bark' is a label for a vowel, not the word 'bark'.
> The vowel in Mary does not contain an [r], it precedes one. But for a
> non-rhotic, the vowel in bark neither contains nor precedes one, so
> what is gained by including one in the code for it?
The word 'bark' in Robert's dialect is of the form [bVk], where V is the vowel Robert is trying to refer to.
Of course, unless its value is well known to other people, he won't get very far with it.
