info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Today's random factoid
63 views
Skip to first unread message
James Nicoll
Mar 6, 2012, 9:29:36 AM3/6/12
to
In the 1950s Robert Silverberg was averaging about as many words
as would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it
another way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write
George RR Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished
A Dance with Dragons in September of 1957.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
as would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it
another way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write
George RR Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished
A Dance with Dragons in September of 1957.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Dorothy J Heydt
Mar 6, 2012, 9:34:42 AM3/6/12
to
In article <jj570g$kmk$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
book somewhere in the middle and never picked it up again. (No,
the book did not hit the wall, because it was somebody else's
copy, but I never experienced the urge to finish it.)
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>In the 1950s Robert Silverberg was averaging about as many words
>as would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it
>another way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write
>George RR Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished
>A Dance with Dragons in September of 1957.
And I might have read it. Whereas I put down the first Martin
>In the 1950s Robert Silverberg was averaging about as many words
>as would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it
>another way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write
>George RR Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished
>A Dance with Dragons in September of 1957.
book somewhere in the middle and never picked it up again. (No,
the book did not hit the wall, because it was somebody else's
copy, but I never experienced the urge to finish it.)
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Mar 6, 2012, 10:53:30 AM3/6/12
to
On 3/6/12 9:29 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
> In the 1950s Robert Silverberg was averaging about as many words
> as would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it
> another way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write
> George RR Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished
> A Dance with Dragons in September of 1957.
Was he a full-time writer then, or did he have a Real Job? I could
> In the 1950s Robert Silverberg was averaging about as many words
> as would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it
> another way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write
> George RR Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished
> A Dance with Dragons in September of 1957.
match that if I wrote full-time, but if he did it part-time he was a god.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
James Nicoll
Mar 6, 2012, 11:10:56 AM3/6/12
to
In article <jj5btq$de9$3...@dont-email.me>,
four years, then he didn't so much stop as the field imploded during
a glorious celebration of the inevitable triumph of capitalist
efficiency and he had to switch to another genre (see 'minor
works' at
http://www.majipoor.com/bibliography.php?order=title&form=novel&style=split).
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>On 3/6/12 9:29 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
>> In the 1950s Robert Silverberg was averaging about as many words
>> as would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it
>> another way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write
>> George RR Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished
>> A Dance with Dragons in September of 1957.
>
> Was he a full-time writer then, or did he have a Real Job? I could
>match that if I wrote full-time, but if he did it part-time he was a god.
Full time, I believe. He did a million publishable words a year for
>On 3/6/12 9:29 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
>> In the 1950s Robert Silverberg was averaging about as many words
>> as would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it
>> another way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write
>> George RR Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished
>> A Dance with Dragons in September of 1957.
>
> Was he a full-time writer then, or did he have a Real Job? I could
>match that if I wrote full-time, but if he did it part-time he was a god.
four years, then he didn't so much stop as the field imploded during
a glorious celebration of the inevitable triumph of capitalist
efficiency and he had to switch to another genre (see 'minor
works' at
http://www.majipoor.com/bibliography.php?order=title&form=novel&style=split).
Joy Beeson
Mar 6, 2012, 11:13:34 AM3/6/12
to
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:29:36 +0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:
> In the 1950s Robert Silverberg was averaging about as many words
> as would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it
> another way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write
> George RR Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished
> A Dance with Dragons in September of 1957.
Looks true, albeit undocumented. Are you sure it's not a factlet?
Nicoll) wrote:
> In the 1950s Robert Silverberg was averaging about as many words
> as would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it
> another way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write
> George RR Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished
> A Dance with Dragons in September of 1957.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
James Nicoll
Mar 6, 2012, 11:18:09 AM3/6/12
to
In article <lqdcl7l31s4n6t9u3...@4ax.com>,
It runs aground like a cruise ship captained by a short-sighted
lothario on two shoals of fact: Silverberg wrote SF at that time
and not fantasy and he didn't tackle big projects like that.
lothario on two shoals of fact: Silverberg wrote SF at that time
and not fantasy and he didn't tackle big projects like that.
Dan Goodman
Mar 6, 2012, 11:32:14 AM3/6/12
to
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 14:34:42 +0000, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <jj570g$kmk$1...@reader1.panix.com>, James Nicoll
> <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In the 1950s Robert Silverberg was averaging about as many words as
>>would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it another
>>way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write George RR
>>Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished A Dance with
>>Dragons in September of 1957.
>
> And I might have read it. Whereas I put down the first Martin book
> somewhere in the middle and never picked it up again. (No, the book did
> not hit the wall, because it was somebody else's copy, but I never
> experienced the urge to finish it.)
I enjoyed the prologue.
> In article <jj570g$kmk$1...@reader1.panix.com>, James Nicoll
> <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In the 1950s Robert Silverberg was averaging about as many words as
>>would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it another
>>way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write George RR
>>Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished A Dance with
>>Dragons in September of 1957.
>
> And I might have read it. Whereas I put down the first Martin book
> somewhere in the middle and never picked it up again. (No, the book did
> not hit the wall, because it was somebody else's copy, but I never
> experienced the urge to finish it.)
--
Dan Goodman
http://dsgood.blog.com
http://tcsfdirectory.blog.com
JRStern
Mar 6, 2012, 12:00:26 PM3/6/12
to
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 16:18:09 +0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
correction-paper?
J.
Nicoll) wrote:
>In article <lqdcl7l31s4n6t9u3...@4ax.com>,
>Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>>On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:29:36 +0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>>Nicoll) wrote:
>>
>>> In the 1950s Robert Silverberg was averaging about as many words
>>> as would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it
>>> another way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write
>>> George RR Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished
>>> A Dance with Dragons in September of 1957.
>>
>>Looks true, albeit undocumented. Are you sure it's not a factlet?
>>
>It runs aground like a cruise ship captained by a short-sighted
>lothario on two shoals of fact: Silverberg wrote SF at that time
>and not fantasy and he didn't tackle big projects like that.
And, on a steam-powered typewriter without so much as
>In article <lqdcl7l31s4n6t9u3...@4ax.com>,
>Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>>On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:29:36 +0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>>Nicoll) wrote:
>>
>>> In the 1950s Robert Silverberg was averaging about as many words
>>> as would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it
>>> another way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write
>>> George RR Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished
>>> A Dance with Dragons in September of 1957.
>>
>>Looks true, albeit undocumented. Are you sure it's not a factlet?
>>
>It runs aground like a cruise ship captained by a short-sighted
>lothario on two shoals of fact: Silverberg wrote SF at that time
>and not fantasy and he didn't tackle big projects like that.
correction-paper?
J.
Charles Combes
Mar 6, 2012, 1:05:52 PM3/6/12
to
James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <lqdcl7l31s4n6t9u3...@4ax.com>,
> Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:29:36 +0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>> Nicoll) wrote:
>>
>> Looks true, albeit undocumented. Are you sure it's not a factlet?
>>
> It runs aground like a cruise ship captained by a short-sighted
> lothario on two shoals of fact: Silverberg wrote SF at that time
> and not fantasy and he didn't tackle big projects like that.
I believe she was referring to the definition of factoid: "A factoid is a
> In article <lqdcl7l31s4n6t9u3...@4ax.com>,
> Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:29:36 +0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>> Nicoll) wrote:
>>
>> Looks true, albeit undocumented. Are you sure it's not a factlet?
>>
> It runs aground like a cruise ship captained by a short-sighted
> lothario on two shoals of fact: Silverberg wrote SF at that time
> and not fantasy and he didn't tackle big projects like that.
questionable or spurious (unverified, false, or fabricated) statement
presented as a fact, but with no veracity."
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Mar 6, 2012, 1:09:01 PM3/6/12
to
Dan Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote in
news:4f563c0e$0$74948$8046...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:
I didn't even find the back cover blurb interesting.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
news:4f563c0e$0$74948$8046...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Dorothy J Heydt
Mar 6, 2012, 2:49:49 PM3/6/12
to
In article <4f563c0e$0$74948$8046...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com>,
At this stage in the proceedings, I don't remember the prologue.
All I remember is that Martin, who indeed can write extremely
well, would present well-developed characters and make us care
about them, and then kill them.
Mostly in a nasty fashion.
Yes, I know it's the War of the Roses with magic. I still
disdain to read it.
All I remember is that Martin, who indeed can write extremely
well, would present well-developed characters and make us care
about them, and then kill them.
Mostly in a nasty fashion.
Yes, I know it's the War of the Roses with magic. I still
disdain to read it.
Steve Coltrin
Mar 6, 2012, 5:00:07 PM3/6/12
to
begin fnord
stay away from Stephen King.
--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org Google Groups killfiled here
"A group known as the League of Human Dignity helped arrange for Deuel
to be driven to a local livestock scale, where he could be weighed."
- Associated Press
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> All I remember is that Martin, who indeed can write extremely
> well, would present well-developed characters and make us care
> about them, and then kill them.
You probably already have been told this, but if you don't like that,
> All I remember is that Martin, who indeed can write extremely
> well, would present well-developed characters and make us care
> about them, and then kill them.
stay away from Stephen King.
--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org Google Groups killfiled here
"A group known as the League of Human Dignity helped arrange for Deuel
to be driven to a local livestock scale, where he could be weighed."
- Associated Press
Bill Snyder
Mar 6, 2012, 5:06:08 PM3/6/12
to
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 15:00:07 -0700, Steve Coltrin
<spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>begin fnord
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>
>> All I remember is that Martin, who indeed can write extremely
>> well, would present well-developed characters and make us care
>> about them, and then kill them.
>
>You probably already have been told this, but if you don't like that,
>stay away from Stephen King.
I expect that King is one of those things from which Dorothy is
<spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>begin fnord
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>
>> All I remember is that Martin, who indeed can write extremely
>> well, would present well-developed characters and make us care
>> about them, and then kill them.
>
>You probably already have been told this, but if you don't like that,
>stay away from Stephen King.
shielded by the Five Decade Barrier.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Howard Brazee
Mar 6, 2012, 6:17:18 PM3/6/12
to
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:34:42 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
wrote:
>In article <jj570g$kmk$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In the 1950s Robert Silverberg was averaging about as many words
>>as would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it
>>another way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write
>>George RR Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished
>>A Dance with Dragons in September of 1957.
>
>And I might have read it. Whereas I put down the first Martin
>book somewhere in the middle and never picked it up again. (No,
>the book did not hit the wall, because it was somebody else's
>copy, but I never experienced the urge to finish it.)
I liked the prose, but I stopped much sooner than you did - mainly
because I believed what I read elsewhere, that if I started to care
about a character, he would die. And I have lots of other books in
my queue.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
wrote:
>In article <jj570g$kmk$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In the 1950s Robert Silverberg was averaging about as many words
>>as would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it
>>another way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write
>>George RR Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished
>>A Dance with Dragons in September of 1957.
>
>And I might have read it. Whereas I put down the first Martin
>book somewhere in the middle and never picked it up again. (No,
>the book did not hit the wall, because it was somebody else's
>copy, but I never experienced the urge to finish it.)
because I believed what I read elsewhere, that if I started to care
about a character, he would die. And I have lots of other books in
my queue.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Dorothy J Heydt
Mar 6, 2012, 7:08:46 PM3/6/12
to
In article <m21up59...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
review of something.
Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>begin fnord
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>
>> All I remember is that Martin, who indeed can write extremely
>> well, would present well-developed characters and make us care
>> about them, and then kill them.
>
>You probably already have been told this, but if you don't like that,
>stay away from Stephen King.
Yup, figured that out a while ago. Probably from reading a
>begin fnord
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>
>> All I remember is that Martin, who indeed can write extremely
>> well, would present well-developed characters and make us care
>> about them, and then kill them.
>
>You probably already have been told this, but if you don't like that,
>stay away from Stephen King.
review of something.
Dorothy J Heydt
Mar 6, 2012, 7:11:49 PM3/6/12
to
In article <ee2dl7trlc3fcffgo...@4ax.com>,
Please explain.
Google yielded only an article from JSTOR about how people tend,
or at least prefer, to marry people with similar educational
backgrounds. If that's not what you're talking about ... please
explain.
Google yielded only an article from JSTOR about how people tend,
or at least prefer, to marry people with similar educational
backgrounds. If that's not what you're talking about ... please
explain.
Bill Snyder
Mar 6, 2012, 7:22:04 PM3/6/12
to
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 00:11:49 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:
>In article <ee2dl7trlc3fcffgo...@4ax.com>,
>Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 15:00:07 -0700, Steve Coltrin
>><spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>>
>>>begin fnord
>>>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>>
>>>> All I remember is that Martin, who indeed can write extremely
>>>> well, would present well-developed characters and make us care
>>>> about them, and then kill them.
>>>
>>>You probably already have been told this, but if you don't like that,
>>>stay away from Stephen King.
>>
>>I expect that King is one of those things from which Dorothy is
>>shielded by the Five Decade Barrier.
>
>Please explain.
>
>Google yielded only an article from JSTOR about how people tend,
>or at least prefer, to marry people with similar educational
>backgrounds. If that's not what you're talking about ... please
>explain.
I meant the protective layer which filters out cultural phenomena
Heydt) wrote:
>In article <ee2dl7trlc3fcffgo...@4ax.com>,
>Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 15:00:07 -0700, Steve Coltrin
>><spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>>
>>>begin fnord
>>>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>>
>>>> All I remember is that Martin, who indeed can write extremely
>>>> well, would present well-developed characters and make us care
>>>> about them, and then kill them.
>>>
>>>You probably already have been told this, but if you don't like that,
>>>stay away from Stephen King.
>>
>>I expect that King is one of those things from which Dorothy is
>>shielded by the Five Decade Barrier.
>
>Please explain.
>
>Google yielded only an article from JSTOR about how people tend,
>or at least prefer, to marry people with similar educational
>backgrounds. If that's not what you're talking about ... please
>explain.
of recent origin (for, obviously, a rather liberal value of
"recent").
erilar
Mar 6, 2012, 8:11:43 PM3/6/12
to
In article <cl6dl751t64q8p5k2...@4ax.com>,
mildly liked might not be dragged into the mud or killed. Vain hope. . .
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:34:42 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <jj570g$kmk$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> >James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>In the 1950s Robert Silverberg was averaging about as many words
> >>as would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it
> >>another way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write
> >>George RR Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished
> >>A Dance with Dragons in September of 1957.
> >
> >And I might have read it. Whereas I put down the first Martin
> >book somewhere in the middle and never picked it up again. (No,
> >the book did not hit the wall, because it was somebody else's
> >copy, but I never experienced the urge to finish it.)
>
> I liked the prose, but I stopped much sooner than you did - mainly
> because I believed what I read elsewhere, that if I started to care
> about a character, he would die. And I have lots of other books in
> my queue.
I actually read two of the "Song" books, hoping someone I at least
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:34:42 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <jj570g$kmk$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> >James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>In the 1950s Robert Silverberg was averaging about as many words
> >>as would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it
> >>another way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write
> >>George RR Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished
> >>A Dance with Dragons in September of 1957.
> >
> >And I might have read it. Whereas I put down the first Martin
> >book somewhere in the middle and never picked it up again. (No,
> >the book did not hit the wall, because it was somebody else's
> >copy, but I never experienced the urge to finish it.)
>
> I liked the prose, but I stopped much sooner than you did - mainly
> because I believed what I read elsewhere, that if I started to care
> about a character, he would die. And I have lots of other books in
> my queue.
mildly liked might not be dragged into the mud or killed. Vain hope. . .
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Lynn McGuire
Mar 6, 2012, 8:18:19 PM3/6/12
to
On 3/6/2012 8:29 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
> In the 1950s Robert Silverberg was averaging about as many words
> as would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it
> another way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write
> George RR Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished
> A Dance with Dragons in September of 1957.
Not even close to James Patterson. Of course
> In the 1950s Robert Silverberg was averaging about as many words
> as would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it
> another way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write
> George RR Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished
> A Dance with Dragons in September of 1957.
Patterson has an entire stable of co-writers.
A BIG stable.
Lynn
Dimensional Traveler
Mar 6, 2012, 9:41:21 PM3/6/12
to
out ideas and slaps his name on the results.
Dorothy J Heydt
Mar 6, 2012, 10:36:15 PM3/6/12
to
In article <5cadl7h2om3i4k1ka...@4ax.com>,
/googles
Seems Elvis Presley's career began in 1954, when I would've been
twelve, older than I thought. In any case, that was when I
turned off the radio and generally stopped paying attention to
what my age-mates were interested in.
(Till I ran into fandom, which is another story.)
Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 00:11:49 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) wrote:
>
>>In article <ee2dl7trlc3fcffgo...@4ax.com>,
>>Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 15:00:07 -0700, Steve Coltrin
>>><spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>begin fnord
>>>>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>>>
>>>>> All I remember is that Martin, who indeed can write extremely
>>>>> well, would present well-developed characters and make us care
>>>>> about them, and then kill them.
>>>>
>>>>You probably already have been told this, but if you don't like that,
>>>>stay away from Stephen King.
>>>
>>>I expect that King is one of those things from which Dorothy is
>>>shielded by the Five Decade Barrier.
>>
>>Please explain.
>>
>>Google yielded only an article from JSTOR about how people tend,
>>or at least prefer, to marry people with similar educational
>>backgrounds. If that's not what you're talking about ... please
>>explain.
>
>I meant the protective layer which filters out cultural phenomena
>of recent origin (for, obviously, a rather liberal value of
>"recent").
Oh. Yeah, in my case it is almost fifty years. Let's see,
>On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 00:11:49 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) wrote:
>
>>In article <ee2dl7trlc3fcffgo...@4ax.com>,
>>Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 15:00:07 -0700, Steve Coltrin
>>><spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>begin fnord
>>>>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>>>
>>>>> All I remember is that Martin, who indeed can write extremely
>>>>> well, would present well-developed characters and make us care
>>>>> about them, and then kill them.
>>>>
>>>>You probably already have been told this, but if you don't like that,
>>>>stay away from Stephen King.
>>>
>>>I expect that King is one of those things from which Dorothy is
>>>shielded by the Five Decade Barrier.
>>
>>Please explain.
>>
>>Google yielded only an article from JSTOR about how people tend,
>>or at least prefer, to marry people with similar educational
>>backgrounds. If that's not what you're talking about ... please
>>explain.
>
>I meant the protective layer which filters out cultural phenomena
>of recent origin (for, obviously, a rather liberal value of
>"recent").
/googles
Seems Elvis Presley's career began in 1954, when I would've been
twelve, older than I thought. In any case, that was when I
turned off the radio and generally stopped paying attention to
what my age-mates were interested in.
(Till I ran into fandom, which is another story.)
James Nicoll
Mar 7, 2012, 12:11:33 AM3/7/12
to
Joseph Nebus
Mar 7, 2012, 12:52:31 AM3/7/12
to
or spurous (unverified, false, or fabricated) statement presented as a
fact, but with no veracity'' a factoid, by that definition.
Could soemone check the calendar? Is it about time for the
Descriptivist Versus Prescriptivist argument or are we still too far
in Hard Science Fiction, Putative Existence Of, season?
--
http://nebusresearch.wordpress.com/ Joseph Nebus
Current Entry: The Power Of Near Enough http://wp.me/p1RYhY-6X
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Carnegie
Mar 7, 2012, 6:50:00 AM3/7/12
to
On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 5:52:31 AM UTC, Joseph Nebus wrote:
> In <jj5jnk$ivf$2...@speranza.aioe.org> "Charles Combes" <chukamo...@yahoonospam.com> writes:
>
> >James Nicoll wrote:
> >> In article <lqdcl7l31s4n6t9u3...@4ax.com>,
> >> Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:29:36 +0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
> >>> Nicoll) wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Looks true, albeit undocumented. Are you sure it's not a factlet?
> >>>
> >> It runs aground like a cruise ship captained by a short-sighted
> >> lothario on two shoals of fact: Silverberg wrote SF at that time
> >> and not fantasy and he didn't tackle big projects like that.
>
> >I believe she was referring to the definition of factoid: "A factoid is a
> >questionable or spurious (unverified, false, or fabricated) statement
> >presented as a fact, but with no veracity."
>
> Interestingly, this would make ``a factoid is a questionable
> or spurous (unverified, false, or fabricated) statement presented as a
> fact, but with no veracity'' a factoid, by that definition.
>
>
> Could soemone check the calendar? Is it about time for the
> Descriptivist Versus Prescriptivist argument or are we still too far
> in Hard Science Fiction, Putative Existence Of, season?
<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/factoid>
> In <jj5jnk$ivf$2...@speranza.aioe.org> "Charles Combes" <chukamo...@yahoonospam.com> writes:
>
> >James Nicoll wrote:
> >> In article <lqdcl7l31s4n6t9u3...@4ax.com>,
> >> Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:29:36 +0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
> >>> Nicoll) wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Looks true, albeit undocumented. Are you sure it's not a factlet?
> >>>
> >> It runs aground like a cruise ship captained by a short-sighted
> >> lothario on two shoals of fact: Silverberg wrote SF at that time
> >> and not fantasy and he didn't tackle big projects like that.
>
> >I believe she was referring to the definition of factoid: "A factoid is a
> >questionable or spurious (unverified, false, or fabricated) statement
> >presented as a fact, but with no veracity."
>
> Interestingly, this would make ``a factoid is a questionable
> or spurous (unverified, false, or fabricated) statement presented as a
> fact, but with no veracity'' a factoid, by that definition.
>
>
> Could soemone check the calendar? Is it about time for the
> Descriptivist Versus Prescriptivist argument or are we still too far
> in Hard Science Fiction, Putative Existence Of, season?
says that the term was either invented or
promoted by Norman Mailer in 1973.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoid>
says
"Mailer described a factoid as 'facts which
have no existence before appearing in
a magazine or newspaper'." "The word factoid
is now sometimes also used to mean a small
piece of true but valueless or insignificant
information, in contrast to the original
definition. This has been popularized by
the CNN Headline News TV channel, which,
during the 1980s and 1990s, used to
frequently include such a fact under the
heading 'factoid' during newscasts.
BBC Radio 2 presenter Steve Wright uses
factoids extensively on his show.
As a result of confusion over the meaning
of factoid, some English-language style
and usage guides recommend against its use.
Language expert William Safire in his
On Language column advocated the use of
the word factlet to express a 'little bit
of arcana'." But what's wrong with "fact"?
As for Robert Silverberg's output, presumably
it's documented and can be weighed, and the
calculation performed.
Googling ("Lionel Fanthorpe" and Silverberg)
yields in a Google Books document called
_The Limbo Files_ Robert SHECKLEY's remedy
for writer's block, which was to type 5,000
words a day without particularly caring what
they are. Robert Silverberg appears in the
form of a factoidal quip. There surely will
be something about Isaac Asimov, but all
that factoids to mind is that he had two
typewriters. Or was it that you knew he'd
gone on holiday because he had only brought
two typewriters.
Kip Williams
Mar 7, 2012, 8:08:20 AM3/7/12
to
Joseph Nebus wrote:
> Could soemone check the calendar? Is it about time for the
> Descriptivist Versus Prescriptivist argument or are we still too far
> in Hard Science Fiction, Putative Existence Of, season?
Is it a Descriptivist calendar or a Prescriptivist one?
> Could soemone check the calendar? Is it about time for the
> Descriptivist Versus Prescriptivist argument or are we still too far
> in Hard Science Fiction, Putative Existence Of, season?
Kip W
rasfw
Bill Snyder
Mar 7, 2012, 9:21:15 AM3/7/12
to
always tell the difference.
Kip Williams
Mar 7, 2012, 10:55:38 AM3/7/12
to
Bill Snyder wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 08:08:20 -0500, Kip Williams
> <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Joseph Nebus wrote:
>>
>>> Could soemone check the calendar? Is it about time for the
>>> Descriptivist Versus Prescriptivist argument or are we still too far
>>> in Hard Science Fiction, Putative Existence Of, season?
>>
>> Is it a Descriptivist calendar or a Prescriptivist one?
>
> Either way it's clearly Fantasy, not Science Fiction. You can
> always tell the difference.
That's not my concern. I was only wondering if it was time because the
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 08:08:20 -0500, Kip Williams
> <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Joseph Nebus wrote:
>>
>>> Could soemone check the calendar? Is it about time for the
>>> Descriptivist Versus Prescriptivist argument or are we still too far
>>> in Hard Science Fiction, Putative Existence Of, season?
>>
>> Is it a Descriptivist calendar or a Prescriptivist one?
>
> Either way it's clearly Fantasy, not Science Fiction. You can
> always tell the difference.
calendar said so, or if the calendar would say so because it was time.
Kip W
rasfw
Scott Lurndal
Mar 7, 2012, 11:43:08 AM3/7/12
to
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>In the 1950s Robert Silverberg was averaging about as many words
>as would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it
>another way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write
>George RR Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished
>A Dance with Dragons in September of 1957.
If he'd spent two full years immersed in GRRM's universe, his head
>In the 1950s Robert Silverberg was averaging about as many words
>as would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it
>another way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write
>George RR Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished
>A Dance with Dragons in September of 1957.
would probably explode. Is there a single character in that series
that is _not_ a total asshole?
Lynn McGuire
Mar 7, 2012, 12:23:02 PM3/7/12
to
argue with 63 New York Times bestsellers.
BTW, Stephen King called Patterson a hack. I call
Patterson a RICH hack. And I have read almost half
of Patterson's books. And with many of them being
serious scifi books.
Lynn
Sean O'Hara
Mar 7, 2012, 12:30:00 PM3/7/12
to
In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Steve Coltrin
declared:
>
> begin fnord
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>
> > All I remember is that Martin, who indeed can write extremely
> > well, would present well-developed characters and make us care
> > about them, and then kill them.
>
> You probably already have been told this, but if you don't like that,
> stay away from Stephen King.
King at least allows his characters to be proactive in their deaths.
Martin prefers to turn them into pure victims who die from their own
stupidity.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
<http://armybrat.thecomicseries.com/>
<http://www.savagepulp.com/>
declared:
>
> begin fnord
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>
> > All I remember is that Martin, who indeed can write extremely
> > well, would present well-developed characters and make us care
> > about them, and then kill them.
>
> You probably already have been told this, but if you don't like that,
> stay away from Stephen King.
Martin prefers to turn them into pure victims who die from their own
stupidity.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
<http://armybrat.thecomicseries.com/>
<http://www.savagepulp.com/>
Dan Goodman
Mar 7, 2012, 12:54:44 PM3/7/12
to
Sean O'Hara
Mar 7, 2012, 1:00:14 PM3/7/12
to
In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Joy Beeson declared:
where he talks at great length about how many books he was writing in
the '50s and '60s, and it was insane -- he did one smut novel per month
and still had time for short stories and other novels. My favorite
anecdote is this:
[Coward's Kiss] grew out of an assignment to write a tie-in novel
based on Markham, a television series starring Ray Milland, who
I must say was cut out for better things.
Well, so was I -- and so, as it turned out, was Coward's Kiss.
My agent and I felt the book I wrote deserved to be more than a
tie-in novel, and an editor at Gold Medal Books agreed. We changed
the characters' names and that was that.
Except I still had a book to write. Belmont Books had arranged to
pay me a thousand dollars to write that tie-in for them, and I had
in fact already received half the advance, so what was I to do?
Stiff them? That wouldn't be nice. Pay them back? That wouldn't
be sane.
Obviously all I could do was write the book. And I couldn't let
the fact that I'd already written it once stand in my way.
...It seems to me I must have started work on it as soon as I
finished Coward's Kiss, but I first may have taken a week or so
to write my monthly volume for Bill Hamling at Nightstand Books.
http://www.amazon.com/Afterthoughts-ebook/dp/B005EBAH44/
[1] It's actually a collection of afterwords to Block's novels, but it
serves the purpose of a memoir, albeit a bit repetitive at times.
> > In the 1950s Robert Silverberg was averaging about as many words
> > as would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it
> > another way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write
> > George RR Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished
> > A Dance with Dragons in September of 1957.
>
> > as would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it
> > another way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write
> > George RR Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished
> > A Dance with Dragons in September of 1957.
>
> Looks true, albeit undocumented. Are you sure it's not a factlet?
It's entirely believable -- Lawrence Block put out a memoir recently [1]
where he talks at great length about how many books he was writing in
the '50s and '60s, and it was insane -- he did one smut novel per month
and still had time for short stories and other novels. My favorite
anecdote is this:
[Coward's Kiss] grew out of an assignment to write a tie-in novel
based on Markham, a television series starring Ray Milland, who
I must say was cut out for better things.
Well, so was I -- and so, as it turned out, was Coward's Kiss.
My agent and I felt the book I wrote deserved to be more than a
tie-in novel, and an editor at Gold Medal Books agreed. We changed
the characters' names and that was that.
Except I still had a book to write. Belmont Books had arranged to
pay me a thousand dollars to write that tie-in for them, and I had
in fact already received half the advance, so what was I to do?
Stiff them? That wouldn't be nice. Pay them back? That wouldn't
be sane.
Obviously all I could do was write the book. And I couldn't let
the fact that I'd already written it once stand in my way.
...It seems to me I must have started work on it as soon as I
finished Coward's Kiss, but I first may have taken a week or so
to write my monthly volume for Bill Hamling at Nightstand Books.
http://www.amazon.com/Afterthoughts-ebook/dp/B005EBAH44/
[1] It's actually a collection of afterwords to Block's novels, but it
serves the purpose of a memoir, albeit a bit repetitive at times.
Sean O'Hara
Mar 7, 2012, 1:36:23 PM3/7/12
to
In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Sean O'Hara declared:
>
>
> It's entirely believable -- Lawrence Block put out a memoir recently [1]
> where he talks at great length about how many books he was writing in
> the '50s and '60s, and it was insane -- he did one smut novel per month
> and still had time for short stories and other novels. My favorite
> anecdote is this:
>
<snip>
Oh, and there's a pretty good ObSF in the same chapter:
Some months after that, Markham was published ... and the first
I knew of it was when I got a phone call late one night from a
writer friend of mine named Randall P. Garrett.
Now Randy lived substantially less than a mile from us, around
110th Street and Broadway, and when he wasn't home working he
was around the corner in a neighborhood saloon. But that night
he called me from Boston. I don't know what got him to Boston.
(Well, duh, a train, but why'd he go there? That was never
explained.) What Randy had called to tell me, quite out of the
blue, was that he had picked up a copy of Markham, and that he'd
read it in one sitting and thought it was just plain wonderful.
...I recounted the incident to my friend Don Westlake, who guessed
that sooner or later Randy would hit me up for a small loan and
was laying the groundwork in the meantime. Never happened.
...He was an interesting fellow, Randy Garrett. Back then, before
it became clear that democracy was best served by a drunken
electorate, the bars in New York City were required to close on
Election Day. Everyone knew where to find Randy on the first
Tuesday in November. He'd be in the cocktail lounge of the United
Nations, the only place of public accommodation within the five
boroughs where liquor could legally be sold.
...Randy, an accomplished versifier, took as a personal challenge the
fact that true rhymes don't exist for the words orange or silver,
and he furnished a pair of quatrains to remedy the situation.
Oh, I ate a poisoned orange
And I know I'll soon be dead
For I keep on seeing more ang-
elic forms around my bed.
And:
"Though my hair has turned to silver,"
Said George Washington with pride,
"everyone knows I'm still ver-
acity personified."
Genius, I say! Sheer genius.
>
>
> It's entirely believable -- Lawrence Block put out a memoir recently [1]
> where he talks at great length about how many books he was writing in
> the '50s and '60s, and it was insane -- he did one smut novel per month
> and still had time for short stories and other novels. My favorite
> anecdote is this:
>
Oh, and there's a pretty good ObSF in the same chapter:
Some months after that, Markham was published ... and the first
I knew of it was when I got a phone call late one night from a
writer friend of mine named Randall P. Garrett.
Now Randy lived substantially less than a mile from us, around
110th Street and Broadway, and when he wasn't home working he
was around the corner in a neighborhood saloon. But that night
he called me from Boston. I don't know what got him to Boston.
(Well, duh, a train, but why'd he go there? That was never
explained.) What Randy had called to tell me, quite out of the
blue, was that he had picked up a copy of Markham, and that he'd
read it in one sitting and thought it was just plain wonderful.
...I recounted the incident to my friend Don Westlake, who guessed
that sooner or later Randy would hit me up for a small loan and
was laying the groundwork in the meantime. Never happened.
...He was an interesting fellow, Randy Garrett. Back then, before
it became clear that democracy was best served by a drunken
electorate, the bars in New York City were required to close on
Election Day. Everyone knew where to find Randy on the first
Tuesday in November. He'd be in the cocktail lounge of the United
Nations, the only place of public accommodation within the five
boroughs where liquor could legally be sold.
...Randy, an accomplished versifier, took as a personal challenge the
fact that true rhymes don't exist for the words orange or silver,
and he furnished a pair of quatrains to remedy the situation.
Oh, I ate a poisoned orange
And I know I'll soon be dead
For I keep on seeing more ang-
elic forms around my bed.
And:
"Though my hair has turned to silver,"
Said George Washington with pride,
"everyone knows I'm still ver-
acity personified."
Genius, I say! Sheer genius.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Mar 7, 2012, 1:53:41 PM3/7/12
to
In article <veM5r.15148$b17....@news.usenetserver.com>,
Um, yes?
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Dorothy J Heydt
Mar 7, 2012, 2:17:20 PM3/7/12
to
In article <MPG.29c165277...@news.eternal-september.org>,
I remember reading somewhere, somebody's comment, as follows:
"King is a middle-brow, he writes for middle-brows, and you can't
FAKE that."
I wouldn't call Martin a middle-brow, but he has found a target
audience that is making *him* big bucks. I'm happy for him. I
wish I could make big bucks. I used to make *small* bucks when I
was writing for MZB, but that was a small target audience. (I
sometimes think my target audience consisted of Marion herself,
in pace requiescat: I knew where her buttons were and I knew how
to push 'em.)
Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Steve Coltrin
>declared:
>
>>
>> begin fnord
>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>
>> > All I remember is that Martin, who indeed can write extremely
>> > well, would present well-developed characters and make us care
>> > about them, and then kill them.
>>
>> You probably already have been told this, but if you don't like that,
>> stay away from Stephen King.
>
>King at least allows his characters to be proactive in their deaths.
>Martin prefers to turn them into pure victims who die from their own
>stupidity.
And he makes big bucks with it. This should tell us something.
>In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Steve Coltrin
>declared:
>
>>
>> begin fnord
>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>
>> > All I remember is that Martin, who indeed can write extremely
>> > well, would present well-developed characters and make us care
>> > about them, and then kill them.
>>
>> You probably already have been told this, but if you don't like that,
>> stay away from Stephen King.
>
>King at least allows his characters to be proactive in their deaths.
>Martin prefers to turn them into pure victims who die from their own
>stupidity.
I remember reading somewhere, somebody's comment, as follows:
"King is a middle-brow, he writes for middle-brows, and you can't
FAKE that."
I wouldn't call Martin a middle-brow, but he has found a target
audience that is making *him* big bucks. I'm happy for him. I
wish I could make big bucks. I used to make *small* bucks when I
was writing for MZB, but that was a small target audience. (I
sometimes think my target audience consisted of Marion herself,
in pace requiescat: I knew where her buttons were and I knew how
to push 'em.)
Dorothy J Heydt
Mar 7, 2012, 2:19:58 PM3/7/12
to
In article <MPG.29c17498e...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Oh yes, I knew him a little later on, in the 1960s when he was
living in San Francisco and was active in the SCA. In fact, he
was deacon at my wedding.
Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
living in San Francisco and was active in the SCA. In fact, he
was deacon at my wedding.
Dorothy J Heydt
Mar 7, 2012, 2:20:32 PM3/7/12
to
Cryptoengineer
Mar 7, 2012, 2:51:31 PM3/7/12
to
On Mar 7, 12:30 pm, Sean O'Hara <seanoh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Steve Coltrin
> declared:
>
>
>
> > begin fnord
> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Steve Coltrin
> declared:
>
>
>
> > begin fnord
> > djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>
> > > All I remember is that Martin, who indeed can write extremely
> > > well, would present well-developed characters and make us care
> > > about them, and then kill them.
>
> > You probably already have been told this, but if you don't like that,
> > stay away from Stephen King.
>
> King at least allows his characters to be proactive in their deaths.
> Martin prefers to turn them into pure victims who die from their own
> stupidity.
While on the topic, we should include a nod to Lionel Fanthorpe, who
>
> > > All I remember is that Martin, who indeed can write extremely
> > > well, would present well-developed characters and make us care
> > > about them, and then kill them.
>
> > You probably already have been told this, but if you don't like that,
> > stay away from Stephen King.
>
> King at least allows his characters to be proactive in their deaths.
> Martin prefers to turn them into pure victims who die from their own
> stupidity.
at his peak churned out 89 158-page books in 3 years - one every 12
days.
pt
Kip Williams
Mar 7, 2012, 3:43:55 PM3/7/12
to
Sean O'Hara wrote:
> ...Randy, an accomplished versifier, took as a personal challenge the
> fact that true rhymes don't exist for the words orange or silver,
> and he furnished a pair of quatrains to remedy the situation.
>
> Oh, I ate a poisoned orange
> And I know I'll soon be dead
> For I keep on seeing more ang-
> elic forms around my bed.
>
> And:
>
> "Though my hair has turned to silver,"
> Said George Washington with pride,
> "everyone knows I'm still ver-
> acity personified."
>
> Genius, I say! Sheer genius.
Except for the vowel sounds being different, I guess. Orange has a schwa
> ...Randy, an accomplished versifier, took as a personal challenge the
> fact that true rhymes don't exist for the words orange or silver,
> and he furnished a pair of quatrains to remedy the situation.
>
> Oh, I ate a poisoned orange
> And I know I'll soon be dead
> For I keep on seeing more ang-
> elic forms around my bed.
>
> And:
>
> "Though my hair has turned to silver,"
> Said George Washington with pride,
> "everyone knows I'm still ver-
> acity personified."
>
> Genius, I say! Sheer genius.
in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
The other may work some of the time. Silver has whatever they call a
schwa that runs into an r, while the first syllable of veracity either
rhymes with "bear" or may have the schwa combo, depending upon the speaker.
And now I wait.
Kip W
rasfw
Will in New Haven
Mar 7, 2012, 3:52:10 PM3/7/12
to
On Mar 6, 6:17 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:34:42 GMT, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <jj570g$km...@reader1.panix.com>,
people in sixty-six years and counting. And I have grown to care about
many of them. And they die and die and die in an unending series that
could be divided into threes if one wanted to. People and cats and
dogs. And I don't have any more lives in the queue.
In comparison, aSoIaF is a picnic and Martin a jester. Not one that
will ever be finished but a picnic.
--
Will in New Haven
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:34:42 GMT, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <jj570g$km...@reader1.panix.com>,
> >James Nicoll <jdnic...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>In the 1950s Robert Silverberg was averaging about as many words
> >>as would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it
> >>another way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write
> >>George RR Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished
> >>A Dance with Dragons in September of 1957.
>
> >>In the 1950s Robert Silverberg was averaging about as many words
> >>as would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it
> >>another way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write
> >>George RR Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished
> >>A Dance with Dragons in September of 1957.
>
> >And I might have read it. Whereas I put down the first Martin
> >book somewhere in the middle and never picked it up again. (No,
> >the book did not hit the wall, because it was somebody else's
> >copy, but I never experienced the urge to finish it.)
>
> I liked the prose, but I stopped much sooner than you did - mainly
> because I believed what I read elsewhere, that if I started to care
> about a character, he would die. And I have lots of other books in
> my queue.
Odd how this part of the discussion effects me. I have known a lot of
> >book somewhere in the middle and never picked it up again. (No,
> >the book did not hit the wall, because it was somebody else's
> >copy, but I never experienced the urge to finish it.)
>
> I liked the prose, but I stopped much sooner than you did - mainly
> because I believed what I read elsewhere, that if I started to care
> about a character, he would die. And I have lots of other books in
> my queue.
people in sixty-six years and counting. And I have grown to care about
many of them. And they die and die and die in an unending series that
could be divided into threes if one wanted to. People and cats and
dogs. And I don't have any more lives in the queue.
In comparison, aSoIaF is a picnic and Martin a jester. Not one that
will ever be finished but a picnic.
--
Will in New Haven
Sean O'Hara
Mar 7, 2012, 4:38:58 PM3/7/12
to
In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Dorothy J Heydt
declared:
> I remember reading somewhere, somebody's comment, as follows:
> "King is a middle-brow, he writes for middle-brows, and you can't
> FAKE that."
>
I'll disagree with that. My definition of "middle-brow" is "a low-brow
work with pretentions of being high-brow that makes the reader feel
smart by reinforcing their world view instead of challenging it." King
is pure low-brow -- which is fine. Literary types should take a page
from those French film critics who esteem low-budget films noir more
highly than glitzy (and entirely middle-brow) prestige pictures about
Important Social Issues. I'd rather read a low-brow author like King or
Lawrence Block than some middle-brow book like The Help.
declared:
> I remember reading somewhere, somebody's comment, as follows:
> "King is a middle-brow, he writes for middle-brows, and you can't
> FAKE that."
>
work with pretentions of being high-brow that makes the reader feel
smart by reinforcing their world view instead of challenging it." King
is pure low-brow -- which is fine. Literary types should take a page
from those French film critics who esteem low-budget films noir more
highly than glitzy (and entirely middle-brow) prestige pictures about
Important Social Issues. I'd rather read a low-brow author like King or
Lawrence Block than some middle-brow book like The Help.
Sean O'Hara
Mar 7, 2012, 4:43:52 PM3/7/12
to
In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>
> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>
> > ...Randy, an accomplished versifier, took as a personal challenge the
> > fact that true rhymes don't exist for the words orange or silver,
> > and he furnished a pair of quatrains to remedy the situation.
> >
> > Oh, I ate a poisoned orange
> > And I know I'll soon be dead
> > For I keep on seeing more ang-
> > elic forms around my bed.
> >
> > And:
> >
> > "Though my hair has turned to silver,"
> > Said George Washington with pride,
> > "everyone knows I'm still ver-
> > acity personified."
> >
> > Genius, I say! Sheer genius.
>
> Except for the vowel sounds being different, I guess. Orange has a schwa
> in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
>
Which is why Garrett used "angelic" instead of "angel".
>
> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>
> > ...Randy, an accomplished versifier, took as a personal challenge the
> > fact that true rhymes don't exist for the words orange or silver,
> > and he furnished a pair of quatrains to remedy the situation.
> >
> > Oh, I ate a poisoned orange
> > And I know I'll soon be dead
> > For I keep on seeing more ang-
> > elic forms around my bed.
> >
> > And:
> >
> > "Though my hair has turned to silver,"
> > Said George Washington with pride,
> > "everyone knows I'm still ver-
> > acity personified."
> >
> > Genius, I say! Sheer genius.
>
> Except for the vowel sounds being different, I guess. Orange has a schwa
> in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
>
Kip Williams
Mar 7, 2012, 5:47:14 PM3/7/12
to
Sean O'Hara wrote:
> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>
>>
>> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>>
>>> ...Randy, an accomplished versifier, took as a personal challenge the
>>> fact that true rhymes don't exist for the words orange or silver,
>>> and he furnished a pair of quatrains to remedy the situation.
>>>
>>> Oh, I ate a poisoned orange
>>> And I know I'll soon be dead
>>> For I keep on seeing more ang-
>>> elic forms around my bed.
>>>
>>> And:
>>>
>>> "Though my hair has turned to silver,"
>>> Said George Washington with pride,
>>> "everyone knows I'm still ver-
>>> acity personified."
>>>
>>> Genius, I say! Sheer genius.
>>
>> Except for the vowel sounds being different, I guess. Orange has a schwa
>> in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
>
> Which is why Garrett used "angelic" instead of "angel".
Very well. Then "orange has a schwa in the last syllable, whereas
> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>
>>
>> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>>
>>> ...Randy, an accomplished versifier, took as a personal challenge the
>>> fact that true rhymes don't exist for the words orange or silver,
>>> and he furnished a pair of quatrains to remedy the situation.
>>>
>>> Oh, I ate a poisoned orange
>>> And I know I'll soon be dead
>>> For I keep on seeing more ang-
>>> elic forms around my bed.
>>>
>>> And:
>>>
>>> "Though my hair has turned to silver,"
>>> Said George Washington with pride,
>>> "everyone knows I'm still ver-
>>> acity personified."
>>>
>>> Genius, I say! Sheer genius.
>>
>> Except for the vowel sounds being different, I guess. Orange has a schwa
>> in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
>
> Which is why Garrett used "angelic" instead of "angel".
angelic has a short a."
I appreciate that it makes a difference.
Kip W
rasfw
Scott Lurndal
Mar 7, 2012, 5:59:11 PM3/7/12
to
is what made it hard for me to finish the first novel, and I haven't touched
the rest.
I did pick up the blu-rays yesterday, and find that HBO has done a respectable
job of recreating the time and place - including the less pleasant aspects
(although the clothing while mostly authentic looking, is much cleaner than
it should be, and of course the dental work is a bit incongruous).
They can't do much with the characterizations, tho. I did
like the Imp (mostly) in the first half of the first book, does he die too?
scott
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Mar 7, 2012, 6:35:42 PM3/7/12
to
In article <2LR5r.61388$Qk1....@news.usenetserver.com>,
Samwise Tarley and Brianna the Maid of Tarth are completely sympathetic.
Arya & John Snow are nearly enough so that it makes no neverminds.
(And these are all viewpoint characters)
Eddard and Rob Stark are sympathetic, if not as events reveal, the brightest
bulbs in the socket.
Bran is generally sympathetic -- completely so until very recently.
And, I myself find both Tyrion and Danerys sympathetic though you can certainly
point to some ill things both have done.
Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
>>In article <veM5r.15148$b17....@news.usenetserver.com>,
>>Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>>>>In the 1950s Robert Silverberg was averaging about as many words
>>>>as would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it
>>>>another way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write
>>>>George RR Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished
>>>>A Dance with Dragons in September of 1957.
>>>
>>>If he'd spent two full years immersed in GRRM's universe, his head
>>>would probably explode. Is there a single character in that series
>>>that is _not_ a total asshole?
>>
>>Um, yes?
>
>Some examples would be nice. Like others, the lack of sympathetic characters
>is what made it hard for me to finish the first novel, and I haven't touched
>the rest.
>
Well, off the top of my head,
>t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
>>In article <veM5r.15148$b17....@news.usenetserver.com>,
>>Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>>>>In the 1950s Robert Silverberg was averaging about as many words
>>>>as would fit into a modern SF novel ... per month. Or to put it
>>>>another way, if in January 1956 Silverberg had sat down to write
>>>>George RR Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire series, he'd have finished
>>>>A Dance with Dragons in September of 1957.
>>>
>>>If he'd spent two full years immersed in GRRM's universe, his head
>>>would probably explode. Is there a single character in that series
>>>that is _not_ a total asshole?
>>
>>Um, yes?
>
>Some examples would be nice. Like others, the lack of sympathetic characters
>is what made it hard for me to finish the first novel, and I haven't touched
>the rest.
>
Samwise Tarley and Brianna the Maid of Tarth are completely sympathetic.
Arya & John Snow are nearly enough so that it makes no neverminds.
(And these are all viewpoint characters)
Eddard and Rob Stark are sympathetic, if not as events reveal, the brightest
bulbs in the socket.
Bran is generally sympathetic -- completely so until very recently.
And, I myself find both Tyrion and Danerys sympathetic though you can certainly
point to some ill things both have done.
Moriarty
Mar 7, 2012, 7:11:13 PM3/7/12
to
On Mar 8, 10:35 am, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
> In article <2LR5r.61388$Qk1.22...@news.usenetserver.com>,
<snip>
> >>>If he'd spent two full years immersed in GRRM's universe, his head
> >>>would probably explode. Is there a single character in that series
> >>>that is _not_ a total asshole?
>
> >>Um, yes?
>
> >Some examples would be nice. Like others, the lack of sympathetic characters
> >is what made it hard for me to finish the first novel, and I haven't touched
> >the rest.
>
> Well, off the top of my head,
>
> Samwise Tarley and Brianna the Maid of Tarth are completely sympathetic.
> Arya & John Snow are nearly enough so that it makes no neverminds.
> (And these are all viewpoint characters)
>
> Eddard and Rob Stark are sympathetic, if not as events reveal, the brightest
> bulbs in the socket.
>
> Bran is generally sympathetic -- completely so until very recently.
>
> And, I myself find both Tyrion and Danerys sympathetic though you can certainly
> point to some ill things both have done.
That's SamWELL Tarly. Non total asshole characters also include
Jaime, Varys, Doran Martell and various family members, Berristan
Selmy, Davos, Asha Greyjoy, Grandma Tyrell, plenty of the Night's
watch and folk beyond the wall, etc etc.
Almost all of those listed is still alive as at the end of the latest
book.
-Moriarty
> In article <2LR5r.61388$Qk1.22...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
> >>In article <veM5r.15148$b17.2...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>
>
>
>
> Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
<snip>
> >>>If he'd spent two full years immersed in GRRM's universe, his head
> >>>would probably explode. Is there a single character in that series
> >>>that is _not_ a total asshole?
>
> >>Um, yes?
>
> >Some examples would be nice. Like others, the lack of sympathetic characters
> >is what made it hard for me to finish the first novel, and I haven't touched
> >the rest.
>
> Well, off the top of my head,
>
> Samwise Tarley and Brianna the Maid of Tarth are completely sympathetic.
> Arya & John Snow are nearly enough so that it makes no neverminds.
> (And these are all viewpoint characters)
>
> Eddard and Rob Stark are sympathetic, if not as events reveal, the brightest
> bulbs in the socket.
>
> Bran is generally sympathetic -- completely so until very recently.
>
> And, I myself find both Tyrion and Danerys sympathetic though you can certainly
> point to some ill things both have done.
Jaime, Varys, Doran Martell and various family members, Berristan
Selmy, Davos, Asha Greyjoy, Grandma Tyrell, plenty of the Night's
watch and folk beyond the wall, etc etc.
Almost all of those listed is still alive as at the end of the latest
book.
-Moriarty
Robert Bannister
Mar 7, 2012, 7:19:02 PM3/7/12
to
my audience would hear any rhymes apart from dead-bed and pride-fied,
and I'm not happy with that last one.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Mar 7, 2012, 7:20:34 PM3/7/12
to
On 8/03/12 5:43 AM, Sean O'Hara wrote:
> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>
>>
>> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>>
>>> ...Randy, an accomplished versifier, took as a personal challenge the
>>> fact that true rhymes don't exist for the words orange or silver,
>>> and he furnished a pair of quatrains to remedy the situation.
>>>
>>> Oh, I ate a poisoned orange
>>> And I know I'll soon be dead
>>> For I keep on seeing more ang-
>>> elic forms around my bed.
>>>
>>> And:
>>>
>>> "Though my hair has turned to silver,"
>>> Said George Washington with pride,
>>> "everyone knows I'm still ver-
>>> acity personified."
>>>
>>> Genius, I say! Sheer genius.
>>
>> Except for the vowel sounds being different, I guess. Orange has a schwa
>> in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
>>
>
> Which is why Garrett used "angelic" instead of "angel".
>
Different schwas for me - orange tends to inj; angelic tends to unj or aenj.
> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>
>>
>> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>>
>>> ...Randy, an accomplished versifier, took as a personal challenge the
>>> fact that true rhymes don't exist for the words orange or silver,
>>> and he furnished a pair of quatrains to remedy the situation.
>>>
>>> Oh, I ate a poisoned orange
>>> And I know I'll soon be dead
>>> For I keep on seeing more ang-
>>> elic forms around my bed.
>>>
>>> And:
>>>
>>> "Though my hair has turned to silver,"
>>> Said George Washington with pride,
>>> "everyone knows I'm still ver-
>>> acity personified."
>>>
>>> Genius, I say! Sheer genius.
>>
>> Except for the vowel sounds being different, I guess. Orange has a schwa
>> in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
>>
>
> Which is why Garrett used "angelic" instead of "angel".
>
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Carnegie
Mar 7, 2012, 7:40:36 PM3/7/12
to
ago. So, you shouldn't invest a lot of time in
constructive criticism of whether his joke verses.
Mine likewise (such as they are), because I don't
particularly care.
Sean O'Hara
Mar 7, 2012, 7:55:41 PM3/7/12
to
In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Robert Bannister
declared:
>
> On 8/03/12 5:43 AM, Sean O'Hara wrote:
> > In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
> >
(color)" the "a" gets compressed into oblivion -- "or'nge."
declared:
>
> On 8/03/12 5:43 AM, Sean O'Hara wrote:
> > In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
> >
> >> Except for the vowel sounds being different, I guess. Orange has a schwa
> >> in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
> >>
> >
> > Which is why Garrett used "angelic" instead of "angel".
> >
> Different schwas for me - orange tends to inj; angelic tends to unj or aenj.
I use "enj" for both "angelic" and "orange (fruit)". With "orange
> >> in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
> >>
> >
> > Which is why Garrett used "angelic" instead of "angel".
> >
> Different schwas for me - orange tends to inj; angelic tends to unj or aenj.
(color)" the "a" gets compressed into oblivion -- "or'nge."
Sean O'Hara
Mar 7, 2012, 8:01:32 PM3/7/12
to
In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>
> Sean O'Hara wrote:
> > In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
> >
> > >>
>
> Sean O'Hara wrote:
> > In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
> >
> > >>
> >> Except for the vowel sounds being different, I guess. Orange has a schwa
> >> in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
> >
> > Which is why Garrett used "angelic" instead of "angel".
>
> Very well. Then "orange has a schwa in the last syllable, whereas
> angelic has a short a."
>
> I appreciate that it makes a difference.
>
"Angel" has a long "a".
> >> in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
> >
> > Which is why Garrett used "angelic" instead of "angel".
>
> Very well. Then "orange has a schwa in the last syllable, whereas
> angelic has a short a."
>
> I appreciate that it makes a difference.
>
"Angie" has a short "a".
"Angelic" has a schwa.
Howard Brazee
Mar 7, 2012, 8:06:42 PM3/7/12
to
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 16:43:52 -0500, Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Which is why Garrett used "angelic" instead of "angel".
Ahh, what about Fredric Brown's "The Angelic Angleworm"?
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
wrote:
>Which is why Garrett used "angelic" instead of "angel".
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Kip Williams
Mar 7, 2012, 8:28:47 PM3/7/12
to
Sean O'Hara wrote:
> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>
>>
>> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>>> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Except for the vowel sounds being different, I guess. Orange has a schwa
>>>> in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
>>>
>>> Which is why Garrett used "angelic" instead of "angel".
>>
>> Very well. Then "orange has a schwa in the last syllable, whereas
>> angelic has a short a."
>>
>> I appreciate that it makes a difference.
>>
>
> "Angel" has a long "a".
>
> "Angie" has a short "a".
>
> "Angelic" has a schwa.
This is the first time I've heard of someone pronouncing it that way.
> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>
>>
>> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>>> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Except for the vowel sounds being different, I guess. Orange has a schwa
>>>> in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
>>>
>>> Which is why Garrett used "angelic" instead of "angel".
>>
>> Very well. Then "orange has a schwa in the last syllable, whereas
>> angelic has a short a."
>>
>> I appreciate that it makes a difference.
>>
>
> "Angel" has a long "a".
>
> "Angie" has a short "a".
>
> "Angelic" has a schwa.
Anybody else?
Kip W
rasfw
Dorothy J Heydt
Mar 7, 2012, 8:21:31 PM3/7/12
to
In article <MPG.29c1cef79...@news.eternal-september.org>,
"angelic" with ash, as in cat.
Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>
>>
>> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>> > In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>> >
>> > >>
>> >> Except for the vowel sounds being different, I guess. Orange has a schwa
>> >> in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
>> >
>> > Which is why Garrett used "angelic" instead of "angel".
>>
>> Very well. Then "orange has a schwa in the last syllable, whereas
>> angelic has a short a."
>>
>> I appreciate that it makes a difference.
>>
>
>"Angel" has a long "a".
>
>"Angie" has a short "a".
>
>"Angelic" has a schwa.
Depends on idiolect, I fear. I pronounce the first syllable of
>In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>
>>
>> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>> > In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>> >
>> > >>
>> >> Except for the vowel sounds being different, I guess. Orange has a schwa
>> >> in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
>> >
>> > Which is why Garrett used "angelic" instead of "angel".
>>
>> Very well. Then "orange has a schwa in the last syllable, whereas
>> angelic has a short a."
>>
>> I appreciate that it makes a difference.
>>
>
>"Angel" has a long "a".
>
>"Angie" has a short "a".
>
>"Angelic" has a schwa.
"angelic" with ash, as in cat.
Howard Brazee
Mar 7, 2012, 9:45:20 PM3/7/12
to
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 20:01:32 -0500, Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>"Angel" has a long "a".
>
>"Angie" has a short "a".
>
>"Angelic" has a schwa.
What's a "schwa"?
I've only heard "angelic" pronounced with a short "a".
wrote:
>"Angel" has a long "a".
>
>"Angie" has a short "a".
>
>"Angelic" has a schwa.
I've only heard "angelic" pronounced with a short "a".
David DeLaney
Mar 7, 2012, 10:11:44 PM3/7/12
to
>> Oh, I ate a poisoned orange
>> And I know I'll soon be dead
>> For I keep on seeing more ang-
>> elic forms around my bed.
>
>> And I know I'll soon be dead
>> For I keep on seeing more ang-
>> elic forms around my bed.
>
>Except for the vowel sounds being different, I guess. Orange has a schwa
>in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
..."Angel" does. "Angelic" does not, having the same vowel sound as "an" or
>in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
"Ann".
>And now I wait.
Reporting for service, sir!
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David Dyer-Bennet
Mar 7, 2012, 10:00:59 PM3/7/12
to
Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> writes:
> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>
>>
>> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>> > In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>> >
>> > >>
>> >> Except for the vowel sounds being different, I guess. Orange has a schwa
>> >> in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
>> >
>> > Which is why Garrett used "angelic" instead of "angel".
>>
>> Very well. Then "orange has a schwa in the last syllable, whereas
>> angelic has a short a."
>>
>> I appreciate that it makes a difference.
>>
>
> "Angel" has a long "a".
>
> "Angie" has a short "a".
>
> "Angelic" has a schwa.
Those last two have the *same* "a" in my idiolect.
> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>
>>
>> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>> > In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>> >
>> > >>
>> >> Except for the vowel sounds being different, I guess. Orange has a schwa
>> >> in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
>> >
>> > Which is why Garrett used "angelic" instead of "angel".
>>
>> Very well. Then "orange has a schwa in the last syllable, whereas
>> angelic has a short a."
>>
>> I appreciate that it makes a difference.
>>
>
> "Angel" has a long "a".
>
> "Angie" has a short "a".
>
> "Angelic" has a schwa.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
Kurt Busiek
Mar 7, 2012, 10:09:06 PM3/7/12
to
On 2012-03-08 03:00:59 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:
> Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>>
>>>
>>> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>>>> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Except for the vowel sounds being different, I guess. Orange has a schwa
>>>>> in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
>>>>
>>>> Which is why Garrett used "angelic" instead of "angel".
>>>
>>> Very well. Then "orange has a schwa in the last syllable, whereas
>>> angelic has a short a."
>>>
>>> I appreciate that it makes a difference.
>>>
>>
>> "Angel" has a long "a".
>>
>> "Angie" has a short "a".
>>
>> "Angelic" has a schwa.
>
> Those last two have the *same* "a" in my idiolect.
In mine, too, but it's not what I'd call a short "a."
> Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>>
>>>
>>> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>>>> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Except for the vowel sounds being different, I guess. Orange has a schwa
>>>>> in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
>>>>
>>>> Which is why Garrett used "angelic" instead of "angel".
>>>
>>> Very well. Then "orange has a schwa in the last syllable, whereas
>>> angelic has a short a."
>>>
>>> I appreciate that it makes a difference.
>>>
>>
>> "Angel" has a long "a".
>>
>> "Angie" has a short "a".
>>
>> "Angelic" has a schwa.
>
> Those last two have the *same* "a" in my idiolect.
The short "a," I'd say, is what's in "flat" and "Sally."
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Kip Williams
Mar 7, 2012, 11:23:25 PM3/7/12
to
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 20:01:32 -0500, Sean O'Hara<sean...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Angel" has a long "a".
>>
>> "Angie" has a short "a".
>>
>> "Angelic" has a schwa.
>
> What's a "schwa"?
The neutral vowel represented phonetically by an inverted lower-case
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 20:01:32 -0500, Sean O'Hara<sean...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Angel" has a long "a".
>>
>> "Angie" has a short "a".
>>
>> "Angelic" has a schwa.
>
> What's a "schwa"?
'e'. It represents about the least exertion you can go to while still
making a sound with your mouth open. (I simplify in order to delight
those who love to explain how wrong I am.)
> I've only heard "angelic" pronounced with a short "a".
'a' and a short 'a' with an 'n' after it. Perhaps they will make a case
for their assertion so I'll know if they say "an" like "aunt" or if they
mean something else.
Kip W
rasfw
Dorothy J Heydt
Mar 7, 2012, 11:33:34 PM3/7/12
to
In article <n87gl7dfck2nhv3ip...@4ax.com>,
Also known as The Great Anglo-Saxon Grunt. It's the vowel we use
in modern English for almost every unstressed syllable.
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 20:01:32 -0500, Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"Angel" has a long "a".
>>
>>"Angie" has a short "a".
>>
>>"Angelic" has a schwa.
>
>What's a "schwa"?
Like the "uh" in "under".
>On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 20:01:32 -0500, Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"Angel" has a long "a".
>>
>>"Angie" has a short "a".
>>
>>"Angelic" has a schwa.
>
>What's a "schwa"?
Also known as The Great Anglo-Saxon Grunt. It's the vowel we use
in modern English for almost every unstressed syllable.
Kurt Busiek
Mar 8, 2012, 12:30:17 AM3/8/12
to
On 2012-03-08 04:23:25 +0000, Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> said:
> We have the folks now who say there's some difference between a short
> 'a' and a short 'a' with an 'n' after it. Perhaps they will make a case
> for their assertion so I'll know if they say "an" like "aunt" or if
> they mean something else.
Depends how one pronounces "aunt," doesn't it?
> We have the folks now who say there's some difference between a short
> 'a' and a short 'a' with an 'n' after it. Perhaps they will make a case
> for their assertion so I'll know if they say "an" like "aunt" or if
> they mean something else.
Brian M. Scott
Mar 8, 2012, 4:36:16 AM3/8/12
to
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 19:45:20 -0700, Howard Brazee
<how...@brazee.net> wrote in
<news:n87gl7dfck2nhv3ip...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> What's a "schwa"?
The vowel spelled <a> in <sofa> and <about>, in most
varieties of English. The IPA symbol is [ǝ].
Brian
<how...@brazee.net> wrote in
<news:n87gl7dfck2nhv3ip...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> What's a "schwa"?
varieties of English. The IPA symbol is [ǝ].
Brian
Kip Williams
Mar 8, 2012, 8:47:31 AM3/8/12
to
Kurt Busiek wrote:
> On 2012-03-08 04:23:25 +0000, Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> We have the folks now who say there's some difference between a short
>> 'a' and a short 'a' with an 'n' after it. Perhaps they will make a
>> case for their assertion so I'll know if they say "an" like "aunt" or
>> if they mean something else.
>
> Depends how one pronounces "aunt," doesn't it?
That stands to reason. "Aunt Prunella" would be pronounced differently
> On 2012-03-08 04:23:25 +0000, Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> We have the folks now who say there's some difference between a short
>> 'a' and a short 'a' with an 'n' after it. Perhaps they will make a
>> case for their assertion so I'll know if they say "an" like "aunt" or
>> if they mean something else.
>
> Depends how one pronounces "aunt," doesn't it?
from "Aunt Bea" in a large number of cases.
Kip W
rasfw
Will in New Haven
Mar 8, 2012, 9:40:17 AM3/8/12
to
that sort of thing. On the other hand, the Wildling girl that John
takes up with is totally sympathetic and most of the Wildlings, if one
takes the trouble to stop looking at them as a Westerosi, are
sympathetic.
Howard Brazee
Mar 8, 2012, 9:57:35 AM3/8/12
to
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 04:33:34 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
wrote:
>>>"Angel" has a long "a".
>>>
>>>"Angie" has a short "a".
>>>
>>>"Angelic" has a schwa.
>>
>>What's a "schwa"?
>
>Like the "uh" in "under".
>
>Also known as The Great Anglo-Saxon Grunt. It's the vowel we use
>in modern English for almost every unstressed syllable.
Ungelic??? I can't say I've ever heard that.
>>>"Angel" has a long "a".
>>>
>>>"Angie" has a short "a".
>>>
>>>"Angelic" has a schwa.
>>
>>What's a "schwa"?
>
>Like the "uh" in "under".
>
>Also known as The Great Anglo-Saxon Grunt. It's the vowel we use
>in modern English for almost every unstressed syllable.
Dorothy J Heydt
Mar 8, 2012, 11:03:43 AM3/8/12
to
In article <TL26r.31131$L12....@newsfe23.iad>,
Really? Differently how, and by whom?
There are those who say "ant" and those who say "ahnt," but I've
never heard anyone use different pronunciations with different
names.
There are those who say "ant" and those who say "ahnt," but I've
never heard anyone use different pronunciations with different
names.
Dorothy J Heydt
Mar 8, 2012, 11:06:13 AM3/8/12
to
In article <96ihl7hkhvns2t5q8...@4ax.com>,
The US is large (to say nothing of all the other English-speaking
places on this planet), and dialectal differences not only were
brought over from various parts of England several hundred years
ago, they've had time to differentiate further.
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 04:33:34 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>wrote:
>
>>>>"Angel" has a long "a".
>>>>
>>>>"Angie" has a short "a".
>>>>
>>>>"Angelic" has a schwa.
>>>
>>>What's a "schwa"?
>>
>>Like the "uh" in "under".
>>
>>Also known as The Great Anglo-Saxon Grunt. It's the vowel we use
>>in modern English for almost every unstressed syllable.
>
>Ungelic??? I can't say I've ever heard that.
Me neither, but there are those upthread who claim to use it.
>On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 04:33:34 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>wrote:
>
>>>>"Angel" has a long "a".
>>>>
>>>>"Angie" has a short "a".
>>>>
>>>>"Angelic" has a schwa.
>>>
>>>What's a "schwa"?
>>
>>Like the "uh" in "under".
>>
>>Also known as The Great Anglo-Saxon Grunt. It's the vowel we use
>>in modern English for almost every unstressed syllable.
>
>Ungelic??? I can't say I've ever heard that.
The US is large (to say nothing of all the other English-speaking
places on this planet), and dialectal differences not only were
brought over from various parts of England several hundred years
ago, they've had time to differentiate further.
Dorothy J Heydt
Mar 8, 2012, 11:08:20 AM3/8/12
to
In article <1w0n7o1egwc16.l...@40tude.net>,
Oh dear. I know what a schwa looks like, but what you typed came
out on my screen like capital C-cedilla plus control-].
In vi it looks like backslash-xc7 backslash-x9d.
out on my screen like capital C-cedilla plus control-].
In vi it looks like backslash-xc7 backslash-x9d.
Howard Brazee
Mar 8, 2012, 12:13:56 PM3/8/12
to
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:03:43 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
wrote:
>>That stands to reason. "Aunt Prunella" would be pronounced differently
>>from "Aunt Bea" in a large number of cases.
>
>Really? Differently how, and by whom?
>
>There are those who say "ant" and those who say "ahnt," but I've
>never heard anyone use different pronunciations with different
>names.
I suspect the joke is that it was the name, not the title, that is
pronounced differently.
wrote:
>>That stands to reason. "Aunt Prunella" would be pronounced differently
>>from "Aunt Bea" in a large number of cases.
>
>Really? Differently how, and by whom?
>
>There are those who say "ant" and those who say "ahnt," but I've
>never heard anyone use different pronunciations with different
>names.
pronounced differently.
Brian M. Scott
Mar 8, 2012, 12:19:08 PM3/8/12
to
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:08:20 GMT, Dorothy J Heydt
<djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in
<news:M0Kq5...@kithrup.com> in rec.arts.sf.written:
> In article <1w0n7o1egwc16.l...@40tude.net>,
> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 19:45:20 -0700, Howard Brazee
>><how...@brazee.net> wrote in
>><news:n87gl7dfck2nhv3ip...@4ax.com> in
>>rec.arts.sf.written:
>>[...]
>>> What's a "schwa"?
>>The vowel spelled <a> in <sofa> and <about>, in most
>>varieties of English. The IPA symbol is [ǝ].
> Oh dear. I know what a schwa looks like, but what you
> typed came out on my screen like capital C-cedilla plus
> control-].
> In vi it looks like backslash-xc7 backslash-x9d.
Because it's encoded in UTF-8.
Brian
<djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in
<news:M0Kq5...@kithrup.com> in rec.arts.sf.written:
> In article <1w0n7o1egwc16.l...@40tude.net>,
> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 19:45:20 -0700, Howard Brazee
>><how...@brazee.net> wrote in
>><news:n87gl7dfck2nhv3ip...@4ax.com> in
>>rec.arts.sf.written:
>>[...]
>>> What's a "schwa"?
>>The vowel spelled <a> in <sofa> and <about>, in most
>>varieties of English. The IPA symbol is [ǝ].
> Oh dear. I know what a schwa looks like, but what you
> typed came out on my screen like capital C-cedilla plus
> control-].
> In vi it looks like backslash-xc7 backslash-x9d.
Brian
Brian M. Scott
Mar 8, 2012, 12:30:04 PM3/8/12
to
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 19:09:06 -0800, Kurt Busiek
<ku...@busiek.com> wrote in <news:jj97si$33p$1...@dont-email.me>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
> On 2012-03-08 03:00:59 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:
>> Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
>>> "Angel" has a long "a".
In fact a diphthong, generally in the vicinity of [eɪ].
>>> "Angie" has a short "a".
Typically [æ].
>>> "Angelic" has a schwa.
I've heard that, but I don't think that it's very common.
The careful pronunciation generally has [æ], and a very
rapid pronunciation is quite likely to have vocalic [n] and
no real vowel there at all.
>> Those last two have the *same* "a" in my idiolect.
> In mine, too, but it's not what I'd call a short "a."
> The short "a," I'd say, is what's in "flat" and "Sally."
Which for most Americans is also the vowel in <Angie>, at
least phonemically, though the following [n] often has some
phonetic effects. Similarly, the vowels in <bad> and <bat>
are slightly different, the former being slightly longer,
but the difference is not phonemic.
Brian
<ku...@busiek.com> wrote in <news:jj97si$33p$1...@dont-email.me>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
> On 2012-03-08 03:00:59 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:
>> Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> "Angel" has a long "a".
>>> "Angie" has a short "a".
>>> "Angelic" has a schwa.
I've heard that, but I don't think that it's very common.
The careful pronunciation generally has [æ], and a very
rapid pronunciation is quite likely to have vocalic [n] and
no real vowel there at all.
>> Those last two have the *same* "a" in my idiolect.
> In mine, too, but it's not what I'd call a short "a."
> The short "a," I'd say, is what's in "flat" and "Sally."
least phonemically, though the following [n] often has some
phonetic effects. Similarly, the vowels in <bad> and <bat>
are slightly different, the former being slightly longer,
but the difference is not phonemic.
Brian
Dan Goodman
Mar 8, 2012, 12:36:20 PM3/8/12
to
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:06:13 +0000, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <96ihl7hkhvns2t5q8...@4ax.com>, Howard Brazee
> <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 04:33:34 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>"Angel" has a long "a".
>>>>>
>>>>>"Angie" has a short "a".
>>>>>
>>>>>"Angelic" has a schwa.
>>>>
>>>>What's a "schwa"?
>>>
>>>Like the "uh" in "under".
>>>
>>>Also known as The Great Anglo-Saxon Grunt. It's the vowel we use in
>>>modern English for almost every unstressed syllable.
>>
>>Ungelic??? I can't say I've ever heard that.
>
> Me neither, but there are those upthread who claim to use it.
>
> The US is large (to say nothing of all the other English-speaking places
> on this planet), and dialectal differences not only were brought over
> from various parts of England several hundred years ago, they've had
> time to differentiate further.
Not just from England, but from Scotland and Ireland.
> In article <96ihl7hkhvns2t5q8...@4ax.com>, Howard Brazee
> <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 04:33:34 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>"Angel" has a long "a".
>>>>>
>>>>>"Angie" has a short "a".
>>>>>
>>>>>"Angelic" has a schwa.
>>>>
>>>>What's a "schwa"?
>>>
>>>Like the "uh" in "under".
>>>
>>>Also known as The Great Anglo-Saxon Grunt. It's the vowel we use in
>>>modern English for almost every unstressed syllable.
>>
>>Ungelic??? I can't say I've ever heard that.
>
> Me neither, but there are those upthread who claim to use it.
>
> The US is large (to say nothing of all the other English-speaking places
> on this planet), and dialectal differences not only were brought over
> from various parts of England several hundred years ago, they've had
> time to differentiate further.
--
Dan Goodman
http://dsgood.blog.com
http://tcsfdirectory.blog.com
Kip Williams
Mar 8, 2012, 12:39:04 PM3/8/12
to
Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article<TL26r.31131$L12....@newsfe23.iad>,
> Kip Williams<mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Kurt Busiek wrote:
>>> On 2012-03-08 04:23:25 +0000, Kip Williams<mrk...@gmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>> We have the folks now who say there's some difference between a short
>>>> 'a' and a short 'a' with an 'n' after it. Perhaps they will make a
>>>> case for their assertion so I'll know if they say "an" like "aunt" or
>>>> if they mean something else.
>>>
>>> Depends how one pronounces "aunt," doesn't it?
>>
>> That stands to reason. "Aunt Prunella" would be pronounced differently
>>from "Aunt Bea" in a large number of cases.
>
> Really? Differently how, and by whom?
>
> There are those who say "ant" and those who say "ahnt," but I've
> never heard anyone use different pronunciations with different
> names.
Aunt Prunella would be pronounced "Awnt" or (heaven forbid) "Ant."
> In article<TL26r.31131$L12....@newsfe23.iad>,
> Kip Williams<mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Kurt Busiek wrote:
>>> On 2012-03-08 04:23:25 +0000, Kip Williams<mrk...@gmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>> We have the folks now who say there's some difference between a short
>>>> 'a' and a short 'a' with an 'n' after it. Perhaps they will make a
>>>> case for their assertion so I'll know if they say "an" like "aunt" or
>>>> if they mean something else.
>>>
>>> Depends how one pronounces "aunt," doesn't it?
>>
>> That stands to reason. "Aunt Prunella" would be pronounced differently
>>from "Aunt Bea" in a large number of cases.
>
> Really? Differently how, and by whom?
>
> There are those who say "ant" and those who say "ahnt," but I've
> never heard anyone use different pronunciations with different
> names.
Aunt Bea is pronounced "Aint."
"Andy Griffith was a television show in the 1960s," said Tom seriesly.
Kip W
rasfw
Dorothy J Heydt
Mar 8, 2012, 12:41:40 PM3/8/12
to
In article <e5qhl71jmra1vr0ha...@4ax.com>,
just me.
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:03:43 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>wrote:
>
>>>That stands to reason. "Aunt Prunella" would be pronounced differently
>>>from "Aunt Bea" in a large number of cases.
>>
>>Really? Differently how, and by whom?
>>
>>There are those who say "ant" and those who say "ahnt," but I've
>>never heard anyone use different pronunciations with different
>>names.
>
>I suspect the joke is that it was the name, not the title, that is
>pronounced differently.
That may be. In which case I don't see the point, but that's
>On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:03:43 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>wrote:
>
>>>That stands to reason. "Aunt Prunella" would be pronounced differently
>>>from "Aunt Bea" in a large number of cases.
>>
>>Really? Differently how, and by whom?
>>
>>There are those who say "ant" and those who say "ahnt," but I've
>>never heard anyone use different pronunciations with different
>>names.
>
>I suspect the joke is that it was the name, not the title, that is
>pronounced differently.
just me.
Dorothy J Heydt
Mar 8, 2012, 12:42:11 PM3/8/12
to
In article <rpsqq2tuyy59$.8mqpzn4qu4ot$.d...@40tude.net>,
Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:08:20 GMT, Dorothy J Heydt
><djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in
><news:M0Kq5...@kithrup.com> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>> In article <1w0n7o1egwc16.l...@40tude.net>,
>> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>>>On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 19:45:20 -0700, Howard Brazee
>>><how...@brazee.net> wrote in
>>><news:n87gl7dfck2nhv3ip...@4ax.com> in
>>>rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>>>[...]
>
>>>> What's a "schwa"?
>
>>>The vowel spelled <a> in <sofa> and <about>, in most
>>>varieties of English. The IPA symbol is [ǝ].
>
>> Oh dear. I know what a schwa looks like, but what you
>> typed came out on my screen like capital C-cedilla plus
>> control-].
>
>> In vi it looks like backslash-xc7 backslash-x9d.
>
>Because it's encoded in UTF-8.
Whatever.
>On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:08:20 GMT, Dorothy J Heydt
><djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in
><news:M0Kq5...@kithrup.com> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>> In article <1w0n7o1egwc16.l...@40tude.net>,
>> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>>>On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 19:45:20 -0700, Howard Brazee
>>><how...@brazee.net> wrote in
>>><news:n87gl7dfck2nhv3ip...@4ax.com> in
>>>rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>>>[...]
>
>>>> What's a "schwa"?
>
>>>The vowel spelled <a> in <sofa> and <about>, in most
>>>varieties of English. The IPA symbol is [ǝ].
>
>> Oh dear. I know what a schwa looks like, but what you
>> typed came out on my screen like capital C-cedilla plus
>> control-].
>
>> In vi it looks like backslash-xc7 backslash-x9d.
>
>Because it's encoded in UTF-8.
David Dyer-Bennet
Mar 8, 2012, 12:54:22 PM3/8/12
to
David Dyer-Bennet
Mar 8, 2012, 12:56:03 PM3/8/12
to
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> In article <n87gl7dfck2nhv3ip...@4ax.com>,
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 20:01:32 -0500, Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"Angel" has a long "a".
>>>
>>>"Angie" has a short "a".
>>>
>>>"Angelic" has a schwa.
>>
>>What's a "schwa"?
>
> Like the "uh" in "under".
>
> Also known as The Great Anglo-Saxon Grunt. It's the vowel we use
> in modern English for almost every unstressed syllable.
Like the 'e' in Minnesota.
> In article <n87gl7dfck2nhv3ip...@4ax.com>,
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 20:01:32 -0500, Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"Angel" has a long "a".
>>>
>>>"Angie" has a short "a".
>>>
>>>"Angelic" has a schwa.
>>
>>What's a "schwa"?
>
> Like the "uh" in "under".
>
> Also known as The Great Anglo-Saxon Grunt. It's the vowel we use
> in modern English for almost every unstressed syllable.
David Dyer-Bennet
Mar 8, 2012, 12:57:30 PM3/8/12
to
> In article <1w0n7o1egwc16.l...@40tude.net>,
> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 19:45:20 -0700, Howard Brazee
>><how...@brazee.net> wrote in
>><news:n87gl7dfck2nhv3ip...@4ax.com> in
>>rec.arts.sf.written:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>> What's a "schwa"?
>>
>>The vowel spelled <a> in <sofa> and <about>, in most
>>varieties of English. The IPA symbol is [Ç> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 19:45:20 -0700, Howard Brazee
>><how...@brazee.net> wrote in
>><news:n87gl7dfck2nhv3ip...@4ax.com> in
>>rec.arts.sf.written:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>> What's a "schwa"?
>>
>>The vowel spelled <a> in <sofa> and <about>, in most
Dorothy J Heydt
Mar 8, 2012, 12:45:06 PM3/8/12
to
In article <Y866r.10892$wf....@newsfe09.iad>,
Yes, I knew about that, but I never watched it. You learn
something new every day.
something new every day.
Dorothy J Heydt
Mar 8, 2012, 1:09:29 PM3/8/12
to
In article <ylfkobs7...@dd-b.net>,
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> writes:
>
>> On 2012-03-08 03:00:59 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:
>>
>>> Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>>>>>> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except for the vowel sounds being different, I guess. Orange has a schwa
>>>>>>> in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is why Garrett used "angelic" instead of "angel".
>>>>>
>>>>> Very well. Then "orange has a schwa in the last syllable, whereas
>>>>> angelic has a short a."
>>>>>
>>>>> I appreciate that it makes a difference.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Angel" has a long "a".
>>>>
>>>> "Angie" has a short "a".
>>>>
>>>> "Angelic" has a schwa.
>>>
>>> Those last two have the *same* "a" in my idiolect.
>>
>> In mine, too, but it's not what I'd call a short "a."
>>
>> The short "a," I'd say, is what's in "flat" and "Sally."
>
>Yep. But that's identical to the "a" in my "angelic".
Mine too. (Though I usually compare it to "cat."
>Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> writes:
>
>> On 2012-03-08 03:00:59 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:
>>
>>> Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>>>>>> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except for the vowel sounds being different, I guess. Orange has a schwa
>>>>>>> in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is why Garrett used "angelic" instead of "angel".
>>>>>
>>>>> Very well. Then "orange has a schwa in the last syllable, whereas
>>>>> angelic has a short a."
>>>>>
>>>>> I appreciate that it makes a difference.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Angel" has a long "a".
>>>>
>>>> "Angie" has a short "a".
>>>>
>>>> "Angelic" has a schwa.
>>>
>>> Those last two have the *same* "a" in my idiolect.
>>
>> In mine, too, but it's not what I'd call a short "a."
>>
>> The short "a," I'd say, is what's in "flat" and "Sally."
>
>Yep. But that's identical to the "a" in my "angelic".
Kurt Busiek
Mar 8, 2012, 2:24:36 PM3/8/12
to
On 2012-03-08 17:54:22 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:
> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> writes:
>
>> On 2012-03-08 03:00:59 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:
>>
>>> Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>>>>>> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except for the vowel sounds being different, I guess. Orange has a schwa
>>>>>>> in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is why Garrett used "angelic" instead of "angel".
>>>>>
>>>>> Very well. Then "orange has a schwa in the last syllable, whereas
>>>>> angelic has a short a."
>>>>>
>>>>> I appreciate that it makes a difference.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Angel" has a long "a".
>>>>
>>>> "Angie" has a short "a".
>>>>
>>>> "Angelic" has a schwa.
>>>
>>> Those last two have the *same* "a" in my idiolect.
>>
>> In mine, too, but it's not what I'd call a short "a."
>>
>> The short "a," I'd say, is what's in "flat" and "Sally."
>
> Yep. But that's identical to the "a" in my "angelic".
Not mine.
> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> writes:
>
>> On 2012-03-08 03:00:59 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:
>>
>>> Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>>>>>> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except for the vowel sounds being different, I guess. Orange has a schwa
>>>>>>> in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is why Garrett used "angelic" instead of "angel".
>>>>>
>>>>> Very well. Then "orange has a schwa in the last syllable, whereas
>>>>> angelic has a short a."
>>>>>
>>>>> I appreciate that it makes a difference.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Angel" has a long "a".
>>>>
>>>> "Angie" has a short "a".
>>>>
>>>> "Angelic" has a schwa.
>>>
>>> Those last two have the *same* "a" in my idiolect.
>>
>> In mine, too, but it's not what I'd call a short "a."
>>
>> The short "a," I'd say, is what's in "flat" and "Sally."
>
> Yep. But that's identical to the "a" in my "angelic".
David DeLaney
Mar 8, 2012, 2:41:09 PM3/8/12
to
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>--=-=-=
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>>The vowel spelled <a> in <sofa> and <about>, in most
>>>varieties of English. The IPA symbol is [Ç
>--=-=-=
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>ť].
>Whereas I get i-umlaut inverse-question fraction-1/2 decimal-escape-235.
...BINGO!
...what do we win this round?
- or was that just what it translates to in an Emacs keystroke?
>> In vi it looks like backslash-xc7 backslash-x9d.
Dave "the gostak distims the doshes" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
>--=-=-=
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>>The vowel spelled <a> in <sofa> and <about>, in most
>>>varieties of English. The IPA symbol is [Ç
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>ť].
>>
>> Oh dear. I know what a schwa looks like, but what you typed came
>> out on my screen like capital C-cedilla plus control-].
Uh-oh. THE ASCII IS MUTATING! CARRIAGE-RETURN FOR YOUR LIVES!
>> Oh dear. I know what a schwa looks like, but what you typed came
>> out on my screen like capital C-cedilla plus control-].
>Whereas I get i-umlaut inverse-question fraction-1/2 decimal-escape-235.
...BINGO!
...what do we win this round?
- or was that just what it translates to in an Emacs keystroke?
>> In vi it looks like backslash-xc7 backslash-x9d.
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
gary hayenga
Mar 8, 2012, 4:06:24 PM3/8/12
to
On 2012-03-08 17:41:40 +0000, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:
> In article <e5qhl71jmra1vr0ha...@4ax.com>,
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:03:43 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> That stands to reason. "Aunt Prunella" would be pronounced differently
>>>> from "Aunt Bea" in a large number of cases.
>>>
>>> Really? Differently how, and by whom?
>>>
>>> There are those who say "ant" and those who say "ahnt," but I've
>>> never heard anyone use different pronunciations with different
>>> names.
>>
>> I suspect the joke is that it was the name, not the title, that is
>> pronounced differently.
>
> That may be. In which case I don't see the point, but that's
> just me.
In this rare instance, it's not just you.
> In article <e5qhl71jmra1vr0ha...@4ax.com>,
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:03:43 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> That stands to reason. "Aunt Prunella" would be pronounced differently
>>>> from "Aunt Bea" in a large number of cases.
>>>
>>> Really? Differently how, and by whom?
>>>
>>> There are those who say "ant" and those who say "ahnt," but I've
>>> never heard anyone use different pronunciations with different
>>> names.
>>
>> I suspect the joke is that it was the name, not the title, that is
>> pronounced differently.
>
> That may be. In which case I don't see the point, but that's
> just me.
Moriarty
Mar 8, 2012, 4:49:13 PM3/8/12
to
On Mar 9, 1:40 am, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
wrote:
I did think hard about including Jaime in the list. While he's
certainly an asshole, he's not a total asshole, which was the criteria
set out. From book 2 onwards, when he's a POV character, he displays
various shades of grey, rather than the blackhat he's portrayed as in
book 1.
-Moriarty
wrote:
certainly an asshole, he's not a total asshole, which was the criteria
set out. From book 2 onwards, when he's a POV character, he displays
various shades of grey, rather than the blackhat he's portrayed as in
book 1.
-Moriarty
Suzanne Blom
Mar 8, 2012, 5:26:36 PM3/8/12
to
Robert Carnegie
Mar 8, 2012, 5:28:51 PM3/8/12
to d...@vic.com
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 7:41:09 PM UTC, David DeLaney wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >--=-=-=
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> >djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> >>>The vowel spelled <a> in <sofa> and <about>, in most
> >>>varieties of English. The IPA symbol is [Ç
> >--=-=-=
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >--=-=-=
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> >djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> >>>The vowel spelled <a> in <sofa> and <about>, in most
> >>>varieties of English. The IPA symbol is [Ç
> >--=-=-=
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> > ].
> >>
> >> Oh dear. I know what a schwa looks like, but what you typed came
> >> out on my screen like capital C-cedilla plus control-].
>
> Uh-oh. THE ASCII IS MUTATING! CARRIAGE-RETURN FOR YOUR LIVES!
It's - too late...
> >>
> >> Oh dear. I know what a schwa looks like, but what you typed came
> >> out on my screen like capital C-cedilla plus control-].
>
> Uh-oh. THE ASCII IS MUTATING! CARRIAGE-RETURN FOR YOUR LIVES!
(wait for it)
It's escaped!
I saw a letter e upside down, if anyone wants
to know.
Dorothy J Heydt
Mar 8, 2012, 6:00:41 PM3/8/12
to
In article <6446050.1211.1331245731243.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbfw10>,
its perspicacity.
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, March 8, 2012 7:41:09 PM UTC, David DeLaney wrote:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> >--=-=-=
>> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>>
>> >djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>> >>>The vowel spelled <a> in <sofa> and <about>, in most
>> >>>varieties of English. The IPA symbol is [Ç
>> >--=-=-=
>> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>>
>> >ť].
>On Thursday, March 8, 2012 7:41:09 PM UTC, David DeLaney wrote:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> >--=-=-=
>> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>>
>> >djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>> >>>The vowel spelled <a> in <sofa> and <about>, in most
>> >>>varieties of English. The IPA symbol is [Ç
>> >--=-=-=
>> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>>
>> >>
>> >> Oh dear. I know what a schwa looks like, but what you typed came
>> >> out on my screen like capital C-cedilla plus control-].
>>
>> Uh-oh. THE ASCII IS MUTATING! CARRIAGE-RETURN FOR YOUR LIVES!
>
>It's - too late...
>
>(wait for it)
>
>It's escaped!
>
>I saw a letter e upside down, if anyone wants
>to know.
That's what you should have seen. I congratulate your machine upon
>> >> Oh dear. I know what a schwa looks like, but what you typed came
>> >> out on my screen like capital C-cedilla plus control-].
>>
>> Uh-oh. THE ASCII IS MUTATING! CARRIAGE-RETURN FOR YOUR LIVES!
>
>It's - too late...
>
>(wait for it)
>
>It's escaped!
>
>I saw a letter e upside down, if anyone wants
>to know.
its perspicacity.
Robert Bannister
Mar 8, 2012, 7:43:04 PM3/8/12
to
On 8/03/12 9:28 AM, Kip Williams wrote:
> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>>
>>>
>>> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>>>> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams
>>>> declared:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Except for the vowel sounds being different, I guess. Orange has a
>>>>> schwa
>>>>> in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
>>>>
>>>> Which is why Garrett used "angelic" instead of "angel".
>>>
>>> Very well. Then "orange has a schwa in the last syllable, whereas
>>> angelic has a short a."
>>>
>>> I appreciate that it makes a difference.
>>>
>>
>> "Angel" has a long "a".
>>
>> "Angie" has a short "a".
>>
>> "Angelic" has a schwa.
>
> This is the first time I've heard of someone pronouncing it that way.
> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>>
>>>
>>> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>>>> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams
>>>> declared:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Except for the vowel sounds being different, I guess. Orange has a
>>>>> schwa
>>>>> in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
>>>>
>>>> Which is why Garrett used "angelic" instead of "angel".
>>>
>>> Very well. Then "orange has a schwa in the last syllable, whereas
>>> angelic has a short a."
>>>
>>> I appreciate that it makes a difference.
>>>
>>
>> "Angel" has a long "a".
>>
>> "Angie" has a short "a".
>>
>> "Angelic" has a schwa.
>
>
> Anybody else?
Me sometimes.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Mar 8, 2012, 7:45:56 PM3/8/12
to
On 8/03/12 10:57 PM, Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 04:33:34 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> wrote:
>
>>>> "Angel" has a long "a".
>>>>
>>>> "Angie" has a short "a".
>>>>
>>>> "Angelic" has a schwa.
>>>
>>> What's a "schwa"?
>>
>> Like the "uh" in "under".
>>
>> Also known as The Great Anglo-Saxon Grunt. It's the vowel we use
>> in modern English for almost every unstressed syllable.
>
> Ungelic??? I can't say I've ever heard that.
>
It depends how unstressed it is, which depends on the other words around
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 04:33:34 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> wrote:
>
>>>> "Angel" has a long "a".
>>>>
>>>> "Angie" has a short "a".
>>>>
>>>> "Angelic" has a schwa.
>>>
>>> What's a "schwa"?
>>
>> Like the "uh" in "under".
>>
>> Also known as The Great Anglo-Saxon Grunt. It's the vowel we use
>> in modern English for almost every unstressed syllable.
>
> Ungelic??? I can't say I've ever heard that.
>
it and on how much of a hurry you are in.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Mar 8, 2012, 7:46:55 PM3/8/12
to
On 9/03/12 1:56 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>
>> In article<n87gl7dfck2nhv3ip...@4ax.com>,
>> Howard Brazee<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 20:01:32 -0500, Sean O'Hara<sean...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Angel" has a long "a".
>>>>
>>>> "Angie" has a short "a".
>>>>
>>>> "Angelic" has a schwa.
>>>
>>> What's a "schwa"?
>>
>> Like the "uh" in "under".
>>
>> Also known as The Great Anglo-Saxon Grunt. It's the vowel we use
>> in modern English for almost every unstressed syllable.
>
> Like the 'e' in Minnesota.
I thought that was an "i" - "mini-soda".
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>
>> In article<n87gl7dfck2nhv3ip...@4ax.com>,
>> Howard Brazee<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 20:01:32 -0500, Sean O'Hara<sean...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Angel" has a long "a".
>>>>
>>>> "Angie" has a short "a".
>>>>
>>>> "Angelic" has a schwa.
>>>
>>> What's a "schwa"?
>>
>> Like the "uh" in "under".
>>
>> Also known as The Great Anglo-Saxon Grunt. It's the vowel we use
>> in modern English for almost every unstressed syllable.
>
> Like the 'e' in Minnesota.
--
Robert Bannister
Howard Brazee
Mar 8, 2012, 10:05:13 PM3/8/12
to
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:39:04 -0500, Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Aunt Prunella would be pronounced "Awnt" or (heaven forbid) "Ant."
>
>Aunt Bea is pronounced "Aint."
>
>"Andy Griffith was a television show in the 1960s," said Tom seriesly.
OK, looking it up I find - Aunt Bea is played by Prunella Scales. But
that's the closest I can find about Aunt Prunella. But that doesn't
make sense.
Who calls one aunt "Aint Bea", and another aunt "Awnt Prunella"? A
character? An actor?
wrote:
>Aunt Prunella would be pronounced "Awnt" or (heaven forbid) "Ant."
>
>Aunt Bea is pronounced "Aint."
>
>"Andy Griffith was a television show in the 1960s," said Tom seriesly.
that's the closest I can find about Aunt Prunella. But that doesn't
make sense.
Who calls one aunt "Aint Bea", and another aunt "Awnt Prunella"? A
character? An actor?
Howard Brazee
Mar 8, 2012, 10:06:23 PM3/8/12
to
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 08:45:56 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> Ungelic??? I can't say I've ever heard that.
>>
>It depends how unstressed it is, which depends on the other words around
>it and on how much of a hurry you are in.
No matter how much of a hurry I am in, I can't say I've ever heard
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> Ungelic??? I can't say I've ever heard that.
>>
>It depends how unstressed it is, which depends on the other words around
>it and on how much of a hurry you are in.
that.
Kip Williams
Mar 8, 2012, 10:18:05 PM3/8/12
to
David DeLaney wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> --=-=-=
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>> Oh dear. I know what a schwa looks like, but what you typed came
>>> out on my screen like capital C-cedilla plus control-].
>
> Uh-oh. THE ASCII IS MUTATING! CARRIAGE-RETURN FOR YOUR LIVES!
>
>> Whereas I get i-umlaut inverse-question fraction-1/2 decimal-escape-235.
It's spelt "i-umlaut inverse-question fraction-1/2 decimal-escape-235,"
> David Dyer-Bennet<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> --=-=-=
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>> Oh dear. I know what a schwa looks like, but what you typed came
>>> out on my screen like capital C-cedilla plus control-].
>
> Uh-oh. THE ASCII IS MUTATING! CARRIAGE-RETURN FOR YOUR LIVES!
>
>> Whereas I get i-umlaut inverse-question fraction-1/2 decimal-escape-235.
but it's pronounced "luxury yacht."
Kip W
rasfw
Kip Williams
Mar 8, 2012, 10:22:30 PM3/8/12
to
Robert Carnegie wrote:
> I saw a letter e upside down, if anyone wants
> to know.
Me too, originally. Then in the quotings, it got worser and worser.
> I saw a letter e upside down, if anyone wants
> to know.
Kip W
rasfw
Greg Goss
Mar 9, 2012, 12:11:16 AM3/9/12
to
Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Sean O'Hara wrote:
>> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>>
>>>
>>> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>>>> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Except for the vowel sounds being different, I guess. Orange has a schwa
>>>>> in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
>>>>
>>>> Which is why Garrett used "angelic" instead of "angel".
>>>
>>> Very well. Then "orange has a schwa in the last syllable, whereas
>>> angelic has a short a."
>>>
>>> I appreciate that it makes a difference.
>>>
>>
>Sean O'Hara wrote:
>> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>>
>>>
>>> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>>>> In the Year of the Rabbit, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Except for the vowel sounds being different, I guess. Orange has a schwa
>>>>> in the last syllable, whereas angel has a long a.
>>>>
>>>> Which is why Garrett used "angelic" instead of "angel".
>>>
>>> Very well. Then "orange has a schwa in the last syllable, whereas
>>> angelic has a short a."
>>>
>>> I appreciate that it makes a difference.
>>>
>>
>> "Angel" has a long "a".
>>
>> "Angie" has a short "a".
>>
>> "Angelic" has a schwa.
>
>>
>> "Angie" has a short "a".
>>
>> "Angelic" has a schwa.
>
>This is the first time I've heard of someone pronouncing it that way.
>
>Anybody else?
I'm with dorothy. Angie and Angelic use the same leading vowel.
>
>Anybody else?
--
"Recessions catch what the auditors miss." (Galbraith)
Brian M. Scott
Mar 9, 2012, 6:28:23 AM3/9/12
to
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 22:18:05 -0500, Kip Williams
<mrk...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:MDe6r.10889$HX7...@newsfe11.iad> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> It's spelt "i-umlaut inverse-question fraction-1/2
> decimal-escape-235," but it's pronounced "luxury yacht."
�ë
Okay; so how do you pronounce this?
îßń §ň€Ā¼ ¥⅗ⓢ ĉč₴ Ɯɥ
Brian
<mrk...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:MDe6r.10889$HX7...@newsfe11.iad> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> It's spelt "i-umlaut inverse-question fraction-1/2
> decimal-escape-235," but it's pronounced "luxury yacht."
Okay; so how do you pronounce this?
îßń §ň€Ā¼ ¥⅗ⓢ ĉč₴ Ɯɥ
Brian
David DeLaney
Mar 9, 2012, 7:00:10 AM3/9/12
to
Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> It's spelt "i-umlaut inverse-question fraction-1/2
>> decimal-escape-235," but it's pronounced "luxury yacht."
>
>�ë
>
>Okay; so how do you pronounce this?
>
>îßń §ň€Ā¼ ¥⅗ⓢ ĉč₴ Ɯɥ
I don't - I have to sing in public this weekend, and I'd rather not be
>> decimal-escape-235," but it's pronounced "luxury yacht."
>
>�ë
>
>Okay; so how do you pronounce this?
>
>îßń §ň€Ā¼ ¥⅗ⓢ ĉč₴ Ɯɥ
bleeding while I do it.
Dave
Kip Williams
Mar 9, 2012, 7:22:43 AM3/9/12
to
David DeLaney wrote:
> Brian M. Scott<b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> Kip Williams<mrk...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> It's spelt "i-umlaut inverse-question fraction-1/2
>>> decimal-escape-235," but it's pronounced "luxury yacht."
>>
>> �ë
> Brian M. Scott<b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> Kip Williams<mrk...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> It's spelt "i-umlaut inverse-question fraction-1/2
>>> decimal-escape-235," but it's pronounced "luxury yacht."
>>
>>
>> Okay; so how do you pronounce this?
>>
>> îßń §ň€Ā¼ ¥⅗ⓢ Ä‰Ä â‚´ Ɯɥ
>> Okay; so how do you pronounce this?
>>
>
> I don't - I have to sing in public this weekend, and I'd rather not be
> bleeding while I do it.
I was going to say 'Fanshaw.'
> I don't - I have to sing in public this weekend, and I'd rather not be
> bleeding while I do it.
By the way, for the next couple of weeks, chances are good I'll be
farther from a connection. Nothing personal, but I may not be able to do
much on Usenet for a while. Then again, maybe the place I'm going has
wireless. Can't tell from here.
Kip W
rasfw
Leif Roar Moldskred
Mar 9, 2012, 7:28:44 AM3/9/12
to
> Okay; so how do you pronounce this?
>
> îßń §ň€Ā¼ ¥⅗ⓢ ĉč₴ Ɯɥ
In English? Same as "Ghoti."
>
> îßń §ň€Ā¼ ¥⅗ⓢ ĉč₴ Ɯɥ
--
Leif Roar Moldskred
Michael Stemper
Mar 9, 2012, 8:51:49 AM3/9/12
to
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made from meat?
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages