Other NZ things I noticed
HVS
things that struck me.
One was the use, in what seemed to be a respectable broadsheet, of
"earnt". I wouldn't even have noticed some similar spellings --
"learnt" or "burnt", say -- but "earnt" leapt off the page at me.
Another thing that struck me (again -- I've noticed this one before)
is the pronunciation of "debut" as "day-boo" (rather than rhyming it
with "few"). The "boo" sound is closer to the original French, of
course, but I don't think I've ever heard it pronounced that way in
BrE.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Philip Eden
>
> Another thing that struck me (again -- I've noticed this one before)
> is the pronunciation of "debut" as "day-boo" (rather than rhyming it
> with "few"). The "boo" sound is closer to the original French, of
> course, but I don't think I've ever heard it pronounced that way in
> BrE.
>
it "d'BOO".
pe
Steve Hayes
And then there is "debuted", which, when I've seen it in writing, makes me
think of an operation carried out on goats.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Mark Brader
> Another thing that struck me (again -- I've noticed this one before)
> is the pronunciation of "debut" as "day-boo" (rather than rhyming it
> with "few"). The "boo" sound is closer to the original French, of
I disagree.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "VAX 3 in 1 carpet care -- now 129.95 pounds"
m...@vex.net
HVS
> Harvey Van Sickle:
>> Another thing that struck me (again -- I've noticed this one
>> before) is the pronunciation of "debut" as "day-boo" (rather
>> than rhyming it with "few"). The "boo" sound is closer to the
>> original French, of course...
>
> I disagree.
Fair enough; you must speak an oddly-accented French, though.
annily
> I mentioned in the "gotten" post that there were a couple of other
> things that struck me.
>
> One was the use, in what seemed to be a respectable broadsheet, of
> "earnt". I wouldn't even have noticed some similar spellings --
> "learnt" or "burnt", say -- but "earnt" leapt off the page at me.
>
I generally say "earned", but I would think "earnt" is reasonably common
in Australia as well.
> Another thing that struck me (again -- I've noticed this one before)
> is the pronunciation of "debut" as "day-boo" (rather than rhyming it
> with "few"). The "boo" sound is closer to the original French, of
> course, but I don't think I've ever heard it pronounced that way in
> BrE.
>
It's usually prounounced "day-boo" in Australia too.
--
Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.
Peter Moylan
> HVS wrote:
>> I mentioned in the "gotten" post that there were a couple of other
>> things that struck me.
>>
>> One was the use, in what seemed to be a respectable broadsheet, of
>> "earnt". I wouldn't even have noticed some similar spellings --
>> "learnt" or "burnt", say -- but "earnt" leapt off the page at me.
>
> I generally say "earned", but I would think "earnt" is reasonably
> common in Australia as well.
More than reasonably, I'd say. I think it's the dominant form. The
"earned" version always sounds like an Americanism to me.
Wait, I'll partially retract that. I suspect that a great many
Australians _write_ "earned", but _pronounce_ it as "earnt" anyway.
>> Another thing that struck me (again -- I've noticed this one
>> before) is the pronunciation of "debut" as "day-boo" (rather than
>> rhyming it with "few"). The "boo" sound is closer to the original
>> French, of course, but I don't think I've ever heard it pronounced
>> that way in BrE.
>
> It's usually prounounced "day-boo" in Australia too.
But we do insert a "y" into "debutante", in defiance of its French origin.
TV announcers don't talk of the day-boo of a new show. Instead, they say
that it's premiering. For some reason they never talk of a show derniering.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Steve Hayes
>annily wrote:
>> HVS wrote:
>>> I mentioned in the "gotten" post that there were a couple of other
>>> things that struck me.
>>>
>>> One was the use, in what seemed to be a respectable broadsheet, of
>>> "earnt". I wouldn't even have noticed some similar spellings --
>>> "learnt" or "burnt", say -- but "earnt" leapt off the page at me.
>>
>> I generally say "earned", but I would think "earnt" is reasonably
>> common in Australia as well.
>
>More than reasonably, I'd say. I think it's the dominant form. The
>"earned" version always sounds like an Americanism to me.
Interesting. I'd never heard of the "earnt" version until this thread. Is it
confined to Australia, or used elsewhere as well?
Bream Rockmetteller
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:17:19 +1100, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep> wrote:
>
>> annily wrote:
>>> HVS wrote:
>>>> I mentioned in the "gotten" post that there were a couple of other
>>>> things that struck me.
>>>>
>>>> One was the use, in what seemed to be a respectable broadsheet, of
>>>> "earnt". I wouldn't even have noticed some similar spellings --
>>>> "learnt" or "burnt", say -- but "earnt" leapt off the page at me.
>>>
>>> I generally say "earned", but I would think "earnt" is reasonably
>>> common in Australia as well.
>>
>> More than reasonably, I'd say. I think it's the dominant form. The
>> "earned" version always sounds like an Americanism to me.
>
> Interesting. I'd never heard of the "earnt" version until this thread. Is it
> confined to Australia, or used elsewhere as well?
I've been reading a lot of Edwardian era British novels and "earnt" is
the norm.
--
Bream Rockmetteller
Donaldson's Dog Joy
509-450-0301
Bob Martin
Richie has a French wife and lives in France.
HVS
> annily wrote:
>> HVS wrote:
>>> I mentioned in the "gotten" post that there were a couple of
>>> other things that struck me.
>>>
>>> One was the use, in what seemed to be a respectable
>>> broadsheet, of "earnt". I wouldn't even have noticed some
>>> similar spellings -- "learnt" or "burnt", say -- but "earnt"
>>> leapt off the page at me.
>>
>> I generally say "earned", but I would think "earnt" is
>> reasonably common in Australia as well.
>
> More than reasonably, I'd say. I think it's the dominant form.
> The "earned" version always sounds like an Americanism to me.
>
> Wait, I'll partially retract that. I suspect that a great many
> Australians _write_ "earned", but _pronounce_ it as "earnt"
> anyway.
It was seeing "earnt" in print that struck me as unusual; I'm not
sure I'd even have noticed it as a pronunciation.
annily
Yes, I think I would find it unusual in print too, but I agree with
Peter that many Aussies would pronounce it that way.
Peter Moylan
It's possibly relevant that learnt/learned is in transition in AusE. As
nearly as I can judge, I say "learned" for the simple past, and "learnt"
for the past participle. (There's also a two-syllable learn�d, but
that's rarely heard outside formal speeches.) I don't even dare to guess
what my compatriots say; I think it wanders back and forth.
I have a feeling that I use both forms in alternation, both in writing
and in speech, when using the word as an adjective. It probably depends
on the number of syllables in the following word, or something weird
like that.
Donna Richoux
> On 26 Nov 2009, Mark Brader wrote
>
> > Harvey Van Sickle:
> >> Another thing that struck me (again -- I've noticed this one
> >> before) is the pronunciation of "debut" as "day-boo" (rather
> >> than rhyming it with "few"). The "boo" sound is closer to the
> >> original French, of course...
> >
> > I disagree.
>
> Fair enough; you must speak an oddly-accented French, though.
By what measure do any two people agree that two sounds are "closer" to
each other than a third sound? Do even professional linguisticians have
a measurement scale that assigns numbers?
I am certain Mark distinguishes the three sounds under discussion. What
he disagreed with was how "close" they were. Sounds like a impossibly
subjective topic.
--
Donna Richoux
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
I disagree. Spectrum analyses to a far better resolution than one
hertz are easily done today and most mammalian ears, which our
electronic auditory devices are designed to emulate, are well-designed
to pick out the most subtle differences in pitch, duration and volume.
While humans aren't the best of the mammals at this, our hearing is
amazingly precise, especially among trained musicians.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Pat Durkin
news:gI6dndT0HrulOZLW...@westnet.com.au...
Maybe there is some phonetic rule at bottom. "In some words ending in
"n", if the past participle ends (or might be expected to end) in
"-ned", the "-ed" ending becomes unaspirated:
lend, lended, lent
rend, rended, rent
skin, skinned, skint
bend, bended, bent
lean, leaned, leant,
Funny, though how those "-nd" endings fit in here. And, of course
those that can skip the "-ed" form and go straight to the "-nt" form:
mean, meant.
Fred
"Pat Durkin" <dur...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:hep48e$bcf$1...@news.albasani.net...
lended?
Robert Bannister
I've just realised that we are not discussing "yoo/oo" (as in AmE/BrE
"new"), but some actual vowel difference between "few" and "who". I
believe this has been mentioned before, though I find it difficult to
imagine what this difference could be. That's why I agreed with Harvey
in that "daybyoo" would sound even less French than "day-boo" or "duh-boo".
--
Rob Bannister
Peter Moylan
I thought the difference under discussion was that between the
Australian "debut" (which rhymes with shoe) and the French "d�but"
(which doesn't rhyme with any English word).
Now that you mention it, though there is a vowel difference between
"few" and "who". My "who" is rounded, and my "few" isn't. In fact my
"few" is not terribly far away from the French "u", although it's much
less tense.
As you know, it's not at all easy to teach English speakers how to
pronounce a French "u". One way to do it, though, is to get them to say
"few" after sucking on a lemon.
Peter Moylan
> "Pat Durkin" <dur...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:hep48e$bcf$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Maybe there is some phonetic rule at bottom. "In some words ending in
>> "n", if the past participle ends (or might be expected to end) in "-ned",
>> the "-ed" ending becomes unaspirated:
>> lend, lended, lent
>> rend, rended, rent
>> skin, skinned, skint
>> bend, bended, bent
>> lean, leaned, leant,
> lended?
Sorry, I can't. It's Lent.
HVS
(I may well have the definition of a diphthong wrong in the
following, but it's what I think defines the difference between the
pronunciation of "queue" and "coo".)
In my usage, the second syllable of "debut" matches the sound of
"few" or "queue"; it's not at all similar to the sound of "boo",
"coo", or "who", none of which have a [?diphthong].
In French, the second syllable of "debut" doesn't match "boo" or
"coo" -- but since it lacks a diphthong it's even further away from
"queue" or "few".
That's why I'd say that "day-boo" is closer to the French than
"day-bew-rhymes-with-few": the absence of the diphthong outweighs
any difference in the non-diphthonged vowels of "boo" and the
French pronunciation of "debut".
HVS
Not really: we're arguing as to whether the French "debut-doesn't-
rhyme-with-anything" is closer to the Antipodean "debut-rhymes-with-
shoe", or to the British "debut-rhymes-with-few".
I said (and still maintain) that the French/Antipodean pronunciations
are obviously closer than the French/British ones; in a two-word
response, Mark Brader expressed his disagreement with that statement.
God only knows what Brader's argument is to support the contrary of
what (to me) seems to be self-evidently true.
Mark Brader
> God only knows what Brader's argument is to support the contrary of
> what (to me) seems to be self-evidently true.
To me it seems to be self-evidently false. Looks like Donna had it right.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "We don't use clubs; they weren't invented here.
m...@vex.net | We use rocks." -- David Keldsen
Garrett Wollman
HVS <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:
>Not really: we're arguing as to whether the French "debut-doesn't-
>rhyme-with-anything" is closer to the Antipodean "debut-rhymes-with-
>shoe", or to the British "debut-rhymes-with-few".
Let me try some phonetic transcription...
AmE (mine and AHD3's): [deI'bju(:)]
BrE (how I hear it said on the BBC): ['dEb ju:] or ['deIb ju:]
FrFr (how I learned to say it in French): [de by(:)]
OzE/NZE (gleaned from this thread): [d@'bu:] or [deI'bu:]
>I said (and still maintain) that the French/Antipodean pronunciations
>are obviously closer than the French/British ones; in a two-word
>response, Mark Brader expressed his disagreement with that statement.
>
>God only knows what Brader's argument is to support the contrary of
>what (to me) seems to be self-evidently true.
I agree with Mark (I think). The front vowel [y] is very different
from both [u:] and [ju:].[1] Since [u:] and [ju:] vary freely in many
English dialects, there does not seem to be a principled basis for
claiming that either one is closer to French [y].
(ObTranscription: in which European languages is [y] actually spelled
'y', besides Finnish?)
-GAWollman
[1] Notwithstanding the fact that [u] and [y] are both close rounded
vowels, and in fact in Finnish they are in regular alternation (due to
vowel harmony).
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
James Hogg
So the following classic limerick falls flat because the punch line
doesn't rhyme for you:
The prick of a young man of Kew
Showed veins that were azure of hue.
Its head was quite red
So he waved it and said,
"Three cheers for the red, white and blue."
--
James
Fred
"Peter Moylan" <gro.nalyomp@retep> wrote in message
> Fred wrote:
>> "Pat Durkin" <dur...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:hep48e$bcf$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>>> Maybe there is some phonetic rule at bottom. "In some words ending in
>>> "n", if the past participle ends (or might be expected to end) in
>>> "-ned", the "-ed" ending becomes unaspirated:
>>> lend, lended, lent
>>> rend, rended, rent
>>> skin, skinned, skint
>>> bend, bended, bent
>>> lean, leaned, leant,
>
>> lended?
>
> Sorry, I can't. It's Lent.
>
Not yet. Wait till Easter.
Steve Hayes
>Peter Moylan wrote:
>> Now that you mention it, though there is a vowel difference between
>> "few" and "who". My "who" is rounded, and my "few" isn't. In fact my
>> "few" is not terribly far away from the French "u", although it's
>> much less tense.
>
>So the following classic limerick falls flat because the punch line
>doesn't rhyme for you:
>
>The prick of a young man of Kew
>Showed veins that were azure of hue.
> Its head was quite red
> So he waved it and said,
>"Three cheers for the red, white and blue."
His name wasn't Blewitt, by any chance?
Peter Moylan
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>> Now that you mention it, though there is a vowel difference between
>> "few" and "who". My "who" is rounded, and my "few" isn't. In fact my
>> "few" is not terribly far away from the French "u", although it's
>> much less tense.
>
> So the following classic limerick falls flat because the punch line
> doesn't rhyme for you:
>
> The prick of a young man of Kew
> Showed veins that were azure of hue.
> Its head was quite red
> So he waved it and said,
> "Three cheers for the red, white and blue."
It's near enough for a limerick, but it's true that it's not a perfect
rhyme for me.
Peter Moylan
Pat Durkin
news:heqjhq$3a8$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Or, as Ogden Nash mighta written it:
"...the red, white and bleu". That pretty well invites skewing the
pronunciation, so the limerick works just fine.
Nick
>>> Australian "debut" (which rhymes with shoe) and the French "début"
>>> (which doesn't rhyme with any English word).
>>>
>>> Now that you mention it, though there is a vowel difference between
>>> "few" and "who". My "who" is rounded, and my "few" isn't. In fact
>>> my "few" is not terribly far away from the French "u", although
>>> it's
>>> much less tense.
>>
>> So the following classic limerick falls flat because the punch line
>> doesn't rhyme for you:
>>
>> The prick of a young man of Kew
>> Showed veins that were azure of hue.
>> Its head was quite red
>> So he waved it and said,
>> "Three cheers for the red, white and blue."
>
> Or, as Ogden Nash mighta written it:
> "...the red, white and bleu". That pretty well invites skewing the
> pronunciation, so the limerick works just fine.
Do you pronounce one or both of "Kew" and "hue" to rhyme with "bleu"? I
can't work out if I pronounce them exactly the same as "blue", but it's
far closer (he says, nearly closing the circle).
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
Pat Durkin
news:87ljhqp...@temporary-address.org.uk...
>>>> (which doesn't rhyme with any English word).
>>>>
>>>> Now that you mention it, though there is a vowel difference
>>>> between
>>>> "few" and "who". My "who" is rounded, and my "few" isn't. In fact
>>>> my "few" is not terribly far away from the French "u", although
>>>> it's
>>>> much less tense.
>>>
>>> So the following classic limerick falls flat because the punch
>>> line
>>> doesn't rhyme for you:
>>>
>>> The prick of a young man of Kew
>>> Showed veins that were azure of hue.
>>> Its head was quite red
>>> So he waved it and said,
>>> "Three cheers for the red, white and blue."
>>
>> Or, as Ogden Nash mighta written it:
>> "...the red, white and bleu". That pretty well invites skewing the
>> pronunciation, so the limerick works just fine.
>
> Do you pronounce one or both of "Kew" and "hue" to rhyme with
> "bleu"? I
> can't work out if I pronounce them exactly the same as "blue", but
> it's
> far closer (he says, nearly closing the circle).
>
My mind's eye and ear both work together when I am talking about the
cheese, with all of the associations with France in mind. And, as
"euro" and "eu" (in your sig file) also recall the "you" sound,
then...perhaps that closes your circle?
I am, of course using Midwest US talk.
--
Pat Durkin
durkinpa at msn.com
Wisconsin
Robert Bannister
I had no problem with rural Australians - the ones that pronounce
"ruler" as "r�ler" or "reeler" - but not all Aussies do that.
--
Rob Bannister
Peter Moylan
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>> I thought the difference under discussion was that between the
>> Australian "debut" (which rhymes with shoe) and the French "d�but"
>> (which doesn't rhyme with any English word).
>>
>> Now that you mention it, though there is a vowel difference between
>> "few" and "who". My "who" is rounded, and my "few" isn't. In fact my
>> "few" is not terribly far away from the French "u", although it's much
>> less tense.
>>
>> As you know, it's not at all easy to teach English speakers how to
>> pronounce a French "u". One way to do it, though, is to get them to say
>> "few" after sucking on a lemon.
>>
>
> I had no problem with rural Australians - the ones that pronounce
> "ruler" as "r�ler" or "reeler" - but not all Aussies do that.
Hmm. Perhaps my pronunciation of "few" has been influenced by my rural
upbringing. I don't say "ruler" that way, though; only those words where
a [j] precedes the vowel.