extremely pernicious homonymy
Peter T. Daniels
noted that many of the men devote their lives to the study of "the
Bible and Jewish [lO:]."
What was he saying?
Craoi...@gmail.com
Jewish law, probably. I guess it means Halacha.
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:899ace1c-2e2b-4584...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
> What was he saying?
Judging by the little I know of the Haredim, 'law' seems
much more likely.
Brian
Craoi...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 07:17:26 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <news:899ace1c-2e2b-4584...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
> in sci.lang:
>
> > In a story about the Haredi community in Israel, the BBC
> > reporter noted that many of the men devote their lives to
> > the study of "the Bible and Jewish [lO:]."
> > What was he saying?
>
> Judging by the little I know of the Haredim, 'law' seems
> much more likely.
I am probably very bad at English or lead a sheltered life, but what
is the other possibility?
Harlan Messinger
Lore.
Craoi...@gmail.com
Padraic Brown
Possible. I am 99 and 44/100% certain it is "law". It is not at all
uncommon for religious Jews to study Jewish Law. I've never heard of a
Jew studying "Jewish Lore".
Unless the Jew in question has that particular set (law / lore) as a
homophone!
Padraic
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
António Marques
I don't think anyone has any doubts it's 'law'. Peter's question looks
more like a jab at non-rhotic people.
--
António Marques
--
This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase
Peter T. Daniels
> Padraic Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, 08 May 2008 11:52:12 -0400, Harlan Messinger
>
> >> Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On May 8, 6:24 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 8 May 2008 07:17:26 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >>>> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in
> >>>> <news:899ace1c-2e2b-4584...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
> >>>> in sci.lang:
>
> >>>>> In a story about the Haredi community in Israel, the BBC
> >>>>> reporter noted that many of the men devote their lives to
> >>>>> the study of "the Bible and Jewish [lO:]."
> >>>>> What was he saying?
> >>>> Judging by the little I know of the Haredim, 'law' seems
> >>>> much more likely.
> >>> I am probably very bad at English or lead a sheltered life, but what
> >>> is the other possibility?
> >> Lore.
>
> > Possible. I am 99 and 44/100% certain it is "law". It is not at all
> > uncommon for religious Jews to study Jewish Law. I've never heard of a
> > Jew studying "Jewish Lore".
>
> > Unless the Jew in question has that particular set (law / lore) as a
> > homophone!
>
> I don't think anyone has any doubts it's 'law'. Peter's question looks
> more like a jab at non-rhotic people.
If it's a "jab" at anyone, it's at all you folk who know so little
about Jewish literature.
There is far, far more to it than TaNaKh and Talmud, and indeed my
first interpretation of the announcer's (not a Jew's) statement was
"lore."
António Marques
>>>>>>> In a story about the Haredi community in Israel, the BBC
>>>>>>> reporter noted that many of the men devote their lives to
>>>>>>> the study of "the Bible and Jewish [lO:]."
>>
>> I don't think anyone has any doubts it's 'law'. Peter's question
>> looks more like a jab at non-rhotic people.
>
> If it's a "jab" at anyone, it's at all you folk who know so little
> about Jewish literature.
I ashamedly admit I know very little about jewish literature, apart from
an Amos Oz book which doesn't count.
> There is far, far more to it than TaNaKh and Talmud, and indeed my
> first interpretation of the announcer's (not a Jew's) statement was
> "lore."
But would an orthodox jewish community approve the term 'lore' - which
all peoples have and may include God knows which profanities - to refer
to something so unique and sacred in their eyes as jewish lore?
(Supposing as I do - though I seldom watch it - that in its stories
about such communities the BBC takes care to use only language vetted by
the interviewees.)
Herman Rubin
>> What was he saying?
Or is it Jewish lore?
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Herman Rubin
>>Lore.
There are writings which are almost strictly on law,
but there are a large number which combine that with
anecdotes, stories, philosophical exegeses, etc.
Some of the writings are "stories" based on the Torah
for the purposes of exposition; they would definitely
be studies. Major works quoted in arriving at Jewish
law contain stories about what various important rabbis
stated, not all of which is law.
The question is not how the Jew spoke, but about how
the BBC reporter spoke.
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>>>>>> In a story about the Haredi community in Israel, the BBC
> >>>>>>> reporter noted that many of the men devote their lives to
> >>>>>>> the study of "the Bible and Jewish [lO:]."
>
> >> I don't think anyone has any doubts it's 'law'. Peter's question
> >> looks more like a jab at non-rhotic people.
>
> > If it's a "jab" at anyone, it's at all you folk who know so little
> > about Jewish literature.
>
> I ashamedly admit I know very little about jewish literature, apart from
> an Amos Oz book which doesn't count.
>
> > There is far, far more to it than TaNaKh and Talmud, and indeed my
> > first interpretation of the announcer's (not a Jew's) statement was
> > "lore."
>
> But would an orthodox jewish community approve the term 'lore' - which
> all peoples have and may include God knows which profanities - to refer
> to something so unique and sacred in their eyes as jewish lore?
> (Supposing as I do - though I seldom watch it - that in its stories
> about such communities the BBC takes care to use only language vetted by
> the interviewees.)
What an Orthodox Jew might have said is entirely irrelevant to what a
BBC reporter might have said.
BBC reporters are very different from American reporters: they feel
quite free to have a point of view of their own, and even to question
interviewees as to the legitimacy of their assertions.
Peter T. Daniels
> In article <cko624pdcjbgkkokiceinvbj8i0jcjl...@4ax.com>,
> Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Thu, 08 May 2008 11:52:12 -0400, Harlan Messinger
Precisely.
Whart he said was perfectly clear -- and perfectly ambiguous.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> In article <cko624pdcjbgkkokiceinvbj8i0jcjl...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
> >On Thu, 08 May 2008 11:52:12 -0400, Harlan Messinger
But nor is it "lore" as far as I'm concerned. "Lore" is unstructured,
dispersed, probably oral tradition, and of uncertain credibility. Not
the sort of thing I would expect many men of a community to spend most
of their time studying.
Ross Clark
mb
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On May 8, 6:05�pm, Ant�nio Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
...
> > I don't think anyone has any doubts it's 'law'. Peter's question looks
> > more like a jab at non-rhotic people.
>
> If it's a "jab" at anyone, it's at all you folk who know so little
> about Jewish literature.
>
> There is far, far more to it than TaNaKh and Talmud, and indeed my
> first interpretation of the announcer's (not a Jew's) statement was
> "lore."
Oh, what extremely pernicious confusion, probably with malice
aforethought on the part of the Beeb! The non-rhotic comedy-Englishman
was there just on purpose to confuse the millions of listeners who had
been gnawing the bedpost in the expectation of a vital piece of
information: Is that muffy book read by the bearded old geezer about
some ridiculous religious law, or about equally obsolete Upper
Bessarabian folk-lore? We still don't have the answer! As if the BBC
couldn't hire Midwesterners when she runs short of Scots.
Craoi...@gmail.com
> Padraic Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, 08 May 2008 11:52:12 -0400, Harlan Messinger
>
> >> Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On May 8, 6:24 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 8 May 2008 07:17:26 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >>>> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in
> >>>> <news:899ace1c-2e2b-4584...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
> >>>> in sci.lang:
>
> >>>>> In a story about the Haredi community in Israel, the BBC
> >>>>> reporter noted that many of the men devote their lives to
> >>>>> the study of "the Bible and Jewish [lO:]."
> >>>>> What was he saying?
> >>>> Judging by the little I know of the Haredim, 'law' seems
> >>>> much more likely.
> >>> I am probably very bad at English or lead a sheltered life, but what
> >>> is the other possibility?
> >> Lore.
>
> > Possible. I am 99 and 44/100% certain it is "law". It is not at all
> > uncommon for religious Jews to study Jewish Law. I've never heard of a
> > Jew studying "Jewish Lore".
>
> > Unless the Jew in question has that particular set (law / lore) as a
> > homophone!
>
> I don't think anyone has any doubts it's 'law'. Peter's question looks
> more like a jab at non-rhotic people.
Is a word ending in -r non-rhotic even in pausa? As I said, I know
nothing about English, but being taught my first English words at
school when I was eight years old, I was left with the impression that
in pausa (of course I didn't know it was called pausa) you were
supposed to pronounce the final r sound.
We were taught a non-rhotic dialect, and our textbooks were UK
oriented.
Harlan Messinger
Jewish "lore" is not what normally goes hand in hand with "Bible" when
explaining what Haredi community members spend their lives studying. You
just did it yourself: "TaNaKh and Talmud"; to the gentile "Bible and
Jewish law".
John Atkinson
[...]
>
> > Possible. I am 99 and 44/100% certain it is "law". It is not at all
> > uncommon for religious Jews to study Jewish Law. I've never heard of
> > a
> > Jew studying "Jewish Lore".
>
> > Unless the Jew in question has that particular set (law / lore) as a
> > homophone!
>
> I don't think anyone has any doubts it's 'law'. Peter's question looks
> more like a jab at non-rhotic people.
> Is a word ending in -r non-rhotic even in pausa?
Yes.
> As I said, I know
> nothing about English, but being taught my first English words at
> school when I was eight years old, I was left with the impression that
> in pausa (of course I didn't know it was called pausa) you were
> supposed to pronounce the final r sound.
You were taught wrong.
> We were taught a non-rhotic dialect, and our textbooks were UK
> oriented.
You may have been taught that the "r" appears when the next word starts
with a vowel ("linking R"). However, though it's sometimes depreciated,
for most speakers (including most RP speakers) the same occurs even when
there's no final <r> in the spelling -- as in [lO:r&ndO:d@] --
("intrusive R").
John.
Peter T. Daniels
That's an eisegesis:
11th Collegiate: "1 archaic : something that is taught : lesson 2 :
something that is learned: a : knowledge gained through study or
experience b : traditional knowledge or belief 3 : a particular
body of knowledge or tradition"
António Marques
> Is a word ending in -r non-rhotic even in pausa?
Imagine having to ask a statistics teacher 'is it R, or R^2?'.
> You may have been taught that the "r" appears when the next word starts
> with a vowel ("linking R"). However, though it's sometimes depreciated,
> for most speakers (including most RP speakers) the same occurs even when
> there's no final <r> in the spelling -- as in [lO:r&ndO:d@] --
> ("intrusive R").
Which sounds horrible to me (no offense intended). David McCallum plays
this uppity character in 'Sapphire and Steel' and it hurts my ears when
I hear him use it.
--
António Marques
--
This signature does not a prefab parting phrase include
António Marques
>> But would an orthodox jewish community approve the term 'lore' -
>> which all peoples have and may include God knows which profanities
>> - to refer to something so unique and sacred in their eyes as
>> jewish lore? (Supposing as I do - though I seldom watch it - that
>> in its stories about such communities the BBC takes care to use
>> only language vetted by the interviewees.)
>
> What an Orthodox Jew might have said is entirely irrelevant to what a
> BBC reporter might have said.
Entirely irrelevant, no less? Reminds one of 'Absolutely null and
utterly void'.
If someone writes a story on sucha community, odds are that the
community shouldn't be disrespected for no reason - otherwise, they may
not be forthcoming when the time comes for the next story. (This is not
about the 'lore' part; it's about the 'entirely irrelevant' part.)
> BBC reporters are very different from American reporters: they feel
> quite free to have a point of view of their own, and even to question
> interviewees as to the legitimacy of their assertions.
Which is only good if done with knowledge and the respect that may be
due, however little. Most of such reporters I see (not on BBC, as I
mentioned previously) just like being the star of the interview
themselves and merely seek to daze their intreviewees with base
soundbites which really show nothing other than uninformed opinion. I
even suppose you know a man named O'Reilly who also likes to challenge
his intreviewees; he doesn't quite fit this picture, of course.
It isn't much of a piece that goes out of its way to make poor choices
in vocabulary, now, is it? 'Lore' is not the word most would expect to
find there - and that the public is ignorant is no excuse, isn't the
point of such stories precisely to offer knowledge?
Peter T. Daniels
> Which is only good if done with knowledge and the respect that may be
> due, however little. Most of such reporters I see (not on BBC, as I
> mentioned previously) just like being the star of the interview
> themselves and merely seek to daze their intreviewees with base
> soundbites which really show nothing other than uninformed opinion. I
> even suppose you know a man named O'Reilly who also likes to challenge
> his intreviewees; he doesn't quite fit this picture, of course.
Not a reporter/journalist. (Doesn't even claim to be.)
jimbo...@gmail.com
Dunno, it's very odd. While for most Haredi men study of Talmud is a
big part of their lives (and not just halacha...) the study of the
Bible is not usually the focus of much study at all.
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
Those who went on and on about BBC reporters taking the point of view
and sensitivities of those they report on into account might take note
of this posting.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
"eisegesis" means not agreeing with the 11th Collegiate?
>
> 11th Collegiate: "1 archaic : something that is taught : lesson 2 :
> something that is learned: a : knowledge gained through study or
> experience b : traditional knowledge or belief 3 : a particular
> body of knowledge or tradition"
I'll see you, and raise you the NODE:
a body of traditions and knowledge on a subject or held by a
particular group, typically passed from person to person by word of
mouth: "the jinns of Arabian lore" "baseball lore".
That's getting a little closer to my understanding of the word. I'll
go further and say that it seems a little odd to talk about the
holders of lore "studying" that lore. An outside folklorist might
study their lore. What the holders do is hear it, repeat it, maybe
argue about it, pass it on, but they don't study it.
Just trying to explain why in this particular case I would find the
"lore" interpretation unlikely. However I must say I am sure I have
come across worse "law/lore" confusions than this. Wish I could think
of one now.
Ross Clark
Padraic Brown
It was about the most ineffectual jab I've ever seen you try to make!
The best way to find out what Jewish men "devote their lives" to
studying is to ask Jews. I did. "Lore" isn't what Jewish men devote
their lives to studying. Jewish "Law" is something that studious Jews
study. "Lore" might include various legends and similar, like any
other people's folk lore; what is contained in the scriptures is the
"Law", and that, along with the various commentaries and explanations,
is what is studied.
>There is far, far more to it than TaNaKh and Talmud, and indeed my
>first interpretation of the announcer's (not a Jew's) statement was
>"lore."
If that's what he said, then that's what he said! He could either use
a little more basic research into his topic or else an accent coach.
Padraic
Peter T. Daniels
I don't need to "find out" that. I want to "find out" what the BBC
reporter said.
Have you not read any of the messages in this thread?
> I did. "Lore" isn't what Jewish men devote
> their lives to studying. Jewish "Law" is something that studious Jews
> study. "Lore" might include various legends and similar, like any
> other people's folk lore; what is contained in the scriptures is the
> "Law", and that, along with the various commentaries and explanations,
> is what is studied.
Yes. You don't know what you're talking about.
They can study Targum. They can study the Haggadic portions of Talmud
in addition to the Halakhic. They can study Kabbalah. They can study
Zohar. All examples of lore that is not law.
> >There is far, far more to it than TaNaKh and Talmud, and indeed my
> >first interpretation of the announcer's (not a Jew's) statement was
> >"lore."
>
> If that's what he said, then that's what he said! He could either use
> a little more basic research into his topic or else an accent coach.
In what "accent" of RP are "lore" and "law" distinguished?
Richard Wordingham
news:018acd5a-1653-484e...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> In what "accent" of RP are "lore" and "law" distinguished?
Early 20th century, it would seem. The former was still a diphthong.
Richard.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:018acd5a-1653-484e...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > In what "accent" of RP are "lore" and "law" distinguished?
>
> Early 20th century, it would seem. The former was still a diphthong.
[lo@] vs. [lO:]?
> Richard.
mb
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 2:24 am, "Richard Wordingham" <jrw0...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:018acd5a-1653-
> > > In what "accent" of RP are "lore" and "law" distinguished?
> > Early 20th century, it would seem. The former was still a diphthong.
> [lo@] vs. [lO:]?
That's how my first English teacher had it.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
So did mine. He went to college in England in the 20s or 30s. Although
he reportedly spent more time at dog races and pubs than in class, he
seemed to have learnt a thing or two. He didn't have any use for (or
understanding of) modern slang like "stash" and would take points off
for calling pudding dessert in English composition and would insist
that any Indian dishes mentioned had to explain what the items were
eg., when I wrote "idlis" he said I didn't explain that they were rice
cakes. (Pudding couldn't be called dessert because it is part of a
meal in England. It's not in India, but he wouldn't take the point.)
So, I once decided to write a "Western" (set in the wild west) and
explained all the American slang. With a couple of things in
parentheses in every sentence to explain American terms and slang, he
couldn't complain that anything was unexplained, so the only thing he
could say was that the Western setting was outlandish and that
Americans' English seemed even worse than Indians'. He didn't know
enought to know that cowboys about Dodge City probably didn't call
their cloaks ponchos, make chili out of their beef, organize
rattlesnake roundups or drive cattle across the Rockies, so I got away
with much literary license. If he noticed that the pukka sahib who had
arrived in their midst and was made fun of was a caricature of
himself, he didn't let on that he noticed. After he had to sweat
through reading that, he didn't carp any more.
Padraic Brown
Every single one. It probably never crossed your mind, because you
were undoubtedly too busy coming up with the smarty-pants comment
about our general ignorance of all things Jewish, but it doesn't
really matter at all what the Beeb reporter actually said -- what
really is of interest is what he *meant*. That is, he intended to get
across to us listeners.
>> I did. "Lore" isn't what Jewish men devote
>> their lives to studying. Jewish "Law" is something that studious Jews
>> study. "Lore" might include various legends and similar, like any
>> other people's folk lore; what is contained in the scriptures is the
>> "Law", and that, along with the various commentaries and explanations,
>> is what is studied.
>
>Yes. You don't know what you're talking about.
>
>They can study Targum. They can study the Haggadic portions of Talmud
>in addition to the Halakhic. They can study Kabbalah. They can study
>Zohar. All examples of lore that is not law.
They can indeed study all sorts of things. They can also study
mathematics and medicine and economics. None of that is "lore" either.
The point is "lore" isn't the word used to describe the religious
matter that Jews study, while "Law" *is* used to describe a key
portion of what they study. The Zohar is not studied or even accepted
by all Jews. The Law is. Otherwise, what's the point of even being a
Jew?
mb
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 22:07:49 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels, the Chief
...
> Every single one. It probably never crossed your mind, because you
> were undoubtedly too busy coming up with the smarty-pants comment
> about our general ignorance of all things Jewish,
Thank you for a plausible explanation for the use of all these
esoteric terms in this thread, even for something as pedestrian as
"old testament".
Peter T. Daniels
No, the only thing that matters is what the BBC reporter actually
said. Evidently you did not read the FIRST message in the thread.
> >> I did. "Lore" isn't what Jewish men devote
> >> their lives to studying. Jewish "Law" is something that studious Jews
> >> study. "Lore" might include various legends and similar, like any
> >> other people's folk lore; what is contained in the scriptures is the
> >> "Law", and that, along with the various commentaries and explanations,
> >> is what is studied.
>
> >Yes. You don't know what you're talking about.
>
> >They can study Targum. They can study the Haggadic portions of Talmud
> >in addition to the Halakhic. They can study Kabbalah. They can study
> >Zohar. All examples of lore that is not law.
>
> They can indeed study all sorts of things. They can also study
> mathematics and medicine and economics. None of that is "lore" either.
> The point is "lore" isn't the word used to describe the religious
> matter that Jews study, while "Law" *is* used to describe a key
> portion of what they study. The Zohar is not studied or even accepted
> by all Jews. The Law is. Otherwise, what's the point of even being a
> Jew?
You confirm: you don't know what you're talking about.
Peter T. Daniels
mb, who has been claiming to be a Jew all these years, now reveals
himself to be a Christian????
Jews do not have an "old testament" (or an Old Testament).
mb
> On May 11, 10:28 pm, mb <azyth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thank you for a plausible explanation for the use of all these
> > esoteric terms in this thread, even for something as pedestrian as
> > "old testament".
>
> mb, who has been claiming to be a Jew all these years, now reveals
> himself to be a Christian????
What a load of manure. Claimed what and when?
Having Ladino as one of the L1 is a fact of language only, not of
religion. You should read a minimum about polyglossia, even though it
is definitely not within your direct sphere of interest.
When have I ever claimed to have any religion, anyway? That's
completely bananas; in fact it is libel! For the record, I never had
one.
So I cannot be a Christian either, even though I believe there have
been a couple of religiously inclined people in the remote family.
> Jews do not have an "old testament" (or an Old Testament).
And how the hell is anyone outside the religious circle to know that?
"Old testament" is the name commonly given in English to one of the
three "books" of the usual Semitic religions. Anyway, that refers to
the load of outrageous, murderous nonsense translated into Greek as
Hebdomikonta, or the Septuagint. If English has replaced that common
term by that obscure (probably Hebrew) term that you used, that is
news to me (and I guess to a lot of people).
Paul J Kriha
news:9f90c7dd-9f96-4786...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Hmm, that's true.
I suppose it's something akin to there never having been any
English queen named Elisabeth I. :-)
pjk
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
I have heard a Jew call the Tanakh the Old Testament, in conversation
with a Christian.
Paul J Kriha
news:5d559662-39bc-42fd...@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
How relevant is that?
I have heard a Christian call the Old Testament the Tanakh, in conversation
with a group of Jews.
Does that mean that Christians _have_ Tanakh?
pjk
Joachim Pense
At least the order of the books is different, and the Catholics have also
non-Tanakh-books in their Old Testament.
Joachim
Franz Gnaedinger
> In a story about the Haredi community in Israel, the BBC reporter
> noted that many of the men devote their lives to the study of "the
> Bible and Jewish [lO:]."
>
> What was he saying?
What if it was Law in a wider sense, as in Franz Kafka's
parable Vor dem Gesetz / Before the Law, where Law
means much as Truth and is described toward the end
as a light that can't be extinguished, so the Law would
not just be a collection of crazy rules (you are not allowed
to switch on or off the light on Sabbath, etc.), but something
much wider, the eternal truth shining through the law ?
Consider that we use the word law also for the laws of
physics, or in the sense of sound laws, where they are
a part of or an approximation to truth.
Adam Funk
>> In what "accent" of RP are "lore" and "law" distinguished?
>
> Early 20th century, it would seem. The former was still a diphthong.
The OED gives
lore lO@(r)
law lO:
and
hoarse hO@s
horse hO:s
but I suspect it's pronunciation guidance if rather conservative.
(Note: I'm new to using ASCII IPA.)
--
Pengo is having second thoughts about his years working for the KGB.
(Stoll 1989)
Peter T. Daniels
> On 2008-05-11, Richard Wordingham wrote:
>
> >> In what "accent" of RP are "lore" and "law" distinguished?
>
> > Early 20th century, it would seem. The former was still a diphthong.
>
> The OED gives
>
> lore lO@(r)
> law lO:
>
> and
>
> hoarse hO@s
> horse hO:s
>
> but I suspect it's pronunciation guidance if rather conservative.
>
> (Note: I'm new to using ASCII IPA.)
There are supposedly some Americans somewhere who distinguish hoarse
from horse, but no phonologist I've ever asked can demonstrate the
distinction.
Peter T. Daniels
What the hell are "the three 'books' of the usual Semitic religions"?
What the hell is a "usual Semitic religion"?
You've got many, many more problems than serving pancakes one at a
time in a race from the kitchen.
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:9f90c7dd-9f96-4786...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Although each English monarch with an innovative name realizes that
they might be starting a tradition and so are _potentially_ #1.
I'm pretty sure Pope John Paul didn't expect to be a "I" when he chose
that name, though!
Peter T. Daniels
Feh. Assimilationist!
Does he call Muslims "Mohammedans" too?
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
It means some of them know the correct name. "Hebrew Scriptures"
works, too.
Craoi...@gmail.com
> <Craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote ...> [...]
>
>
>
> > > Possible. I am 99 and 44/100% certain it is "law". It is not at all
> > > uncommon for religious Jews to study Jewish Law. I've never heard of
> > > a
> > > Jew studying "Jewish Lore".
>
> > > Unless the Jew in question has that particular set (law / lore) as a
> > > homophone!
>
> > I don't think anyone has any doubts it's 'law'. Peter's question looks
> > more like a jab at non-rhotic people.
>
> Yes.
>
> > As I said, I know
>
> > nothing about English, but being taught my first English words at
> > school when I was eight years old, I was left with the impression that
> > in pausa (of course I didn't know it was called pausa) you were
> > supposed to pronounce the final r sound.
>
> You were taught wrong.
>
It may be explained so, that when our teachers taught us to pronounce
a certain word in isolation, they of course pronounced it in a very
distinct way - even rhotically, although they all aspired to something
resembling the RP.
Franz Gnaedinger
I mean the IPA can't convey the emotions modulating
a spoken word, whether the words "Jewish Law" were
pronounced with awe, with irony, while the speaker felt
a sudden pain in his stomach, or whatever. We should
hear his voice, or be given more information about the
context.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
It turned out that he thought he wouldn't be understood if he said
Tanakh. (I don't why there's an h at the end; I remember a spelling of
ketubim rather than khetubim).
Peter T. Daniels
Because in Hebrew, the stops are lenited postvocalically. (In Modern
Hebrew, only b, p, k.)
Padraic Brown
Rabbi of Sci.Lang" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
Yeah, I did. I took it to be "Law", as it really is not likely to be
anything else.
>
>> >> I did. "Lore" isn't what Jewish men devote
>> >> their lives to studying. Jewish "Law" is something that studious Jews
>> >> study. "Lore" might include various legends and similar, like any
>> >> other people's folk lore; what is contained in the scriptures is the
>> >> "Law", and that, along with the various commentaries and explanations,
>> >> is what is studied.
>>
>> >Yes. You don't know what you're talking about.
>>
>> >They can study Targum. They can study the Haggadic portions of Talmud
>> >in addition to the Halakhic. They can study Kabbalah. They can study
>> >Zohar. All examples of lore that is not law.
>>
>> They can indeed study all sorts of things. They can also study
>> mathematics and medicine and economics. None of that is "lore" either.
>> The point is "lore" isn't the word used to describe the religious
>> matter that Jews study, while "Law" *is* used to describe a key
>> portion of what they study. The Zohar is not studied or even accepted
>> by all Jews. The Law is. Otherwise, what's the point of even being a
>> Jew?
>
>You confirm: you don't know what you're talking about.
Well, great rabbi, I leave knowing everything about everything to
yourself!
mb
Those commonly referred to as Old Testament, New Testament (or Gospel)
and Coran.
> What the hell is a "usual Semitic religion"?
See above. Usually understood by anyone but PTD.
> You've got many, many more problems than serving pancakes one at a
> time in a race from the kitchen.
As already said, that is not a problem, for those with no professional
knowledge of it, but the proper procedure.
You certainly should start by getting rid of your tribal or extreme
provincial concepts, at least as far as language is concerned. When
you get to the point of confusion between tribal status, nominal
religion, L1 status and language contact it becomes a big muddle in
your head. I'll give you that the volume and quality of second-hand
knowledge in matters of polyglossia is non-existant to very low, but
surely you must have heard about avoiding any confusion between tribal
loyalties and language. As for your seemingly total confusion between
tribal status and religious belief, leading to conclusions about
people's superstitions based on their L1, that is tantamount to
racism.
I hate discussing your morbid mind, which is not my problem, but I
will not accept libel. A retraction would be welcome.
mb
The *correct* name, as terminology goes, is the usual name in a given
language, not that in another, unrelated, language.
In English, it sure as hell isn't Tanakh or Khanat or anything like
it. That is only valid in Hebrew, and possibly in Yiddish although I
wouldn't know that. In other languages it is different. In English it
is generally referred to as "Ancient Testament". This is the first
time I encounter a stilted, convoluted expression like "Hebrew
Scriptures", which could belong to specialized clergymen jargon. In
lay Ladino it is generaly "Tevrát" (from Turkish) or
"Paleá" (abbreviation from Gk Palaiá Diathêkê, Old Testament).
mb
> On May 12, 1:13 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > I have heard a Jew call the Tanakh the Old Testament, in conversation
> > with a Christian.
Well, DUH.
> Feh. Assimilationist!
What the bloody hell does that mean? Since when is Hebrew the official
language of English speakers?
> Does he call Muslims "Mohammedans" too?
That is one of the perfectly legitimate choices in current English,
although calling the Jews Mosaics would be open to misunderstanding.
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:09f777a0-56c1-4e9d...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
>> The OED gives
>> lore lO@(r)
>> law lO:
>> and
For rhotic speakers it's usually [hOrs] 'horse' vs. [hors]
'hoarse'. Kurath & McDavid had no trouble finding it in the
1930s in Vermont, Virginia, North Carolina, and parts of New
York, among others, but Labov et al. report that the merger
is now almost complete.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Horse-hoarse.svg>,
constructed from data in The Atlas of North American
English, shows where it still exists for many speakers.
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
> On May 12, 4:30 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 12, 1:13 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > > I have heard a Jew call the Tanakh the Old Testament, in conversation
> > > with a Christian.
>
> Well, DUH.
>
> > Feh. Assimilationist!
>
> What the bloody hell does that mean? Since when is Hebrew the official
> language of English speakers?
What's "Hebrew" about such a term as "Hebrew Scriptures"? "Jewish
Bible" is equally inconcinnitous.
> > Does he call Muslims "Mohammedans" too?
>
> That is one of the perfectly legitimate choices in current English,
> although calling the Jews Mosaics would be open to misunderstanding.
Muslims don't worship Muhammad (and <Mohammed> is not a legitimate
spelling).
Peter T. Daniels
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 04:26:28 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <news:09f777a0-56c1-4e9d...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
> in sci.lang:
>
> > On May 12, 6:52 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> >> On 2008-05-11, Richard Wordingham wrote:
> >>>> In what "accent" of RP are "lore" and "law" distinguished?
> >>> Early 20th century, it would seem. The former was still a diphthong.
> >> The OED gives
> >> lore lO@(r)
> >> law lO:
> >> and
> >> hoarse hO@s
> >> horse hO:s
> >> but I suspect it's pronunciation guidance if rather conservative.
> >> (Note: I'm new to using ASCII IPA.)
> > There are supposedly some Americans somewhere who distinguish hoarse
> > from horse, but no phonologist I've ever asked can demonstrate the
> > distinction.
>
> For rhotic speakers it's usually [hOrs] 'horse' vs. [hors]
> 'hoarse'. Kurath & McDavid had no trouble finding it in the
> 1930s in Vermont, Virginia, North Carolina, and parts of New
> York, among others, but Labov et al. report that the merger
> is now almost complete.
No phonologist has ever been able to demonstrate a distinction between
[hOrs] and [hors] for me; the latter is nonexistent.
mb
> On May 12, 12:18 pm, mb <azyth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 12, 4:30 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On May 12, 1:13 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > > > I have heard a Jew call the Tanakh the Old Testament, in conversation
> > > > with a Christian.
>
> > Well, DUH.
>
> > > Feh. Assimilationist!
>
> > What the bloody hell does that mean?
Let me repeat the question above.
> Since when is Hebrew the official
> > language of English speakers?
>
> What's "Hebrew" about such a term as "Hebrew Scriptures"? "Jewish
> Bible" is equally inconcinnitous.
Can't read? The quoted sentence in the post by Matthews, above:
"I have heard a Jew call the Tanakh the Old Testament"
There is no trace of "Hebrew scriptures", which anyway are not usual
street terms for the thing. Perhaps used by religious specialists and
other insects, but not in current lay speech or writing. He doesn't
mention "Jewish Bible" either, which would be even more stilted than
"Hebrew Scriptures" if possible. What is bothering you so much about
using plain English?
> > > Does he call Muslims "Mohammedans" too?
>
> > That is one of the perfectly legitimate choices in current English,
> > although calling the Jews Mosaics would be open to misunderstanding.
>
> Muslims don't worship Muhammad (and <Mohammed> is not a legitimate
> spelling).
So language has to follow strict logic, now? [besides, XYZan does not
necessarily mean "worshipping XYZ", just as with "Mosaic"].
"Mohammedan" for Moslems is old-attested, nay traditional.
Legitimation of spellings depends on repetition and habit. Not on
being to the liking of some tribal speech-engineer. Looks like you
have to be told the very basics every step of the way today.
There are newer, politically-correct versions, which we can use as
toilet paper as long as they don't become the only current ones or get
mandated by military force.
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:53600361-89c1-43b9...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
[...]
> No phonologist has ever been able to demonstrate a
> distinction between [hOrs] and [hors] for me; the latter
> is nonexistent.
<shrug> I can hear the difference.
Brian
Joachim Pense
Well, the term "Mohammedan" means "follower of Mohammed", doesn't it?
Lutherans don't worship Luther either.
Joachim
Adam Funk
> There are supposedly some Americans somewhere who distinguish hoarse
> from horse, but no phonologist I've ever asked can demonstrate the
> distinction.
I checked hoarse and horse as well because there was a related
discussion here (I think, but possibly in AUE) recently. I can't
personally recall ever hearing anyone distinguish those two in either
country (but I haven't tried to do proper experiments).
The OED seems to be moving away from RP as such. The "Key for Second
Edition entries" says
The pronunciations given are those in use in the educated speech of
southern England (The so-called 'Received Standard'), and the
keywords given are to be understood as pronounced in such speech.
whereas the "Key for New Edition entries" says
The pronunciations given are those in use among educated urban
speakers of standard English in Britain and the United
States. While avoiding strongly regionally or socially marked
forms, they are intended to include the most common variants for
each word. The keywords given are to be understood as pronounced in
such speech.
The entries for "lore", "law", "hoarse", and "horse" are all marked as
Second Edition 1989 and have the pronunciation in "(...)" whereas
newer entries use "/.../", for example:
porn Brit. /pO:n/, U.S. /pO(@)n/ (Draft Revision Sept. 2004)
pawn Brit. /pO:n/, U.S. /pOn/, /pAn/ (Draft Revision Dec. 2005)
I'm familiar with "/.../" and "[...]" notation, but what does "(...)"
mean?
--
| _
| ( ) ASCII Ribbon Campaign
| X Against HTML email & news
| / \ www.asciiribbon.org
Peter T. Daniels
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 11:04:53 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <news:53600361-89c1-43b9...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
> in sci.lang:
>
> [...]
>
> > No phonologist has ever been able to demonstrate a
> > distinction between [hOrs] and [hors] for me; the latter
> > is nonexistent.
>
> <shrug> I can hear the difference.
Can you point me to someone I can listen to who _makes_ the
difference? (If there's a sound file in that wiki reference of yours,
it's in some format Windows Media Player doesn't recognize.)
Peter T. Daniels
But Mohammedan < "Christian," not < "Lutheran."
Peter T. Daniels
No idea. You're the one who has it in front of you!
Where did they get the idea that "U.S." is non-rhotic?? At that talk
the other month, Labov happened to mention that no one in the US
remains non-rhotic outside Boston, New York, and African American.
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:4c731e85-666e-4f99...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
> On May 12, 2:49 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 11:04:53 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in
>> <news:53600361-89c1-43b9...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
>> in sci.lang:
>> [...]
>>> No phonologist has ever been able to demonstrate a
>>> distinction between [hOrs] and [hors] for me; the latter
>>> is nonexistent.
>> <shrug> I can hear the difference.
> Can you point me to someone I can listen to who _makes_ the
> difference?
I can't, I'm afraid. If I run across an on-line example,
I'll try to remember to let you know.
> (If there's a sound file in that wiki reference of yours,
> it's in some format Windows Media Player doesn't recognize.)
There aren't, in this case. (Wikipedia uses .ogg files; WMP
can handle them if you install the necessary codecs, which
are available at <http://www.illiminable.com/ogg/>.)
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:551de2ae-d75b-488e...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
> On May 12, 3:33 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
[...]
>> The entries for "lore", "law", "hoarse", and "horse" are all marked as
>> Second Edition 1989 and have the pronunciation in "(...)" whereas
>> newer entries use "/.../", for example:
>> porn Brit. /pO:n/, U.S. /pO(@)n/ (Draft Revision Sept. 2004)
>> pawn Brit. /pO:n/, U.S. /pOn/, /pAn/ (Draft Revision Dec. 2005)
>> I'm familiar with "/.../" and "[...]" notation, but what does "(...)"
>> mean?
> No idea. You're the one who has it in front of you!
I've never bothered to see what the front matter says; it
functions as a broad phonetic transcription.
> Where did they get the idea that "U.S." is non-rhotic??
They didn't: they actually have U.S. /pO(@)rn/.
[...]
Brian
Joachim Pense
Says who? And is it relevant?
Joachim
anal...@hotmail.com
Merriam Webster gives the same pronunciation for "horse" and
"hoarse". I would have thought that the first and second vowel sounds
of "hoarfrost" can be applied to "hoarse" and "horse" respectively,
but apparently the sound of "frost" in "hoarfrost" wouldn't fit at all
for "horse".
However "frost" by itself has a vowel that I can distinguish from
that of "hoarse" and may be a candidate vowel sound for "horse".
Trond Engen
> Peter T. Daniels:
>> Joachim Pense:
>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>>> mb <azyth...@gmail.com>:
>>>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Does he call Muslims "Mohammedans" too?
>>>>>
>>>>> That is one of the perfectly legitimate choices in current
>>>>> English, although calling the Jews Mosaics would be open to
>>>>> misunderstanding.
>>>>
>>>> Muslims don't worship Muhammad (and <Mohammed> is not a legitimate
>>>> spelling).
>>>
>>> Well, the term "Mohammedan" means "follower of Mohammed", doesn't
>>> it? Lutherans don't worship Luther either.
>>
>> But Mohammedan < "Christian," not < "Lutheran."
>
> Says who? And is it relevant?
I'd say no. On a trivial level a "Mohammedan" is a "follower of
Mohammed" and a "Christian" is a "follower of Christ". They work
together as quick and ituitive descriptions of two internally
heterogenous groups. There's no need to invoke such theological
subtleties as the divinity of Christ and the non-divinity of Mohammed.
--
Trond Engen
- divining
Paul J Kriha
news:6e7e3c3d-8c61-43c3...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>On May 12, 1:14 am, "Paul J Kriha" <paul.nospam.kr...@paradise.net.nz>
>wrote:messagenews:9f90c7dd-9f96-4786-b04d->473cf0...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> >On May 11, 10:28 pm, mb <azyth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On May 11, 7:06 pm, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Sat, 10 May 2008 22:07:49 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels, the Chief
>> >> > Rabbi of Sci.Lang" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> ...
>> >> > Every single one. It probably never crossed your mind, because you
>> >> > were undoubtedly too busy coming up with the smarty-pants comment
>> >> > about our general ignorance of all things Jewish,
>>
>> >> Thank you for a plausible explanation for the use of all these
>> >> esoteric terms in this thread, even for something as pedestrian as
>> >> "old testament".
>>
>> >mb, who has been claiming to be a Jew all these years, now reveals
>> >himself to be a Christian????
>>
>> >Jews do not have an "old testament" (or an Old Testament).
>>
>> I suppose it's something akin to there never having been any
>> English queen named Elisabeth I. :-)
>
>Although each English monarch with an innovative name realizes that
>they might be starting a tradition and so are _potentially_ #1.
Yes, potentially, of course. But, as far as I can tell, no monarch's
official name includes number one (or the first).
E.g., on our current Queen's official carriage is a royal crest
with her crowned initials ER II. On the first Elisabeth's royal
carriage the official initals were just ER.
>I'm pretty sure Pope John Paul didn't expect to be a "I" when he chose
>that name, though!
A few years ago I went to a new drycleaners I hadn't been to
before. The clerk asked me what was my name to enter it into
his computer system. I said, Paul. Then he asked what was
my christian name. I realized, he entered "Paul" as my surname.
Since I didn't think it was necessary to have my surname entered
into his system, I didn't object. The purpose of the names was
just to label the multiple bags, identify repeat business and to
know my name in case they needed to phone my home.
My second christian name is Jan, so I said "it's John".
He typed it in, then he looked up and said "so your name is John Paul?".
Well, that was a result I certainly didn't expect either.
pjk
Adam Funk
>> The entries for "lore", "law", "hoarse", and "horse" are all marked as
>> Second Edition 1989 and have the pronunciation in "(...)" whereas
>> newer entries use "/.../", for example:
>>
>> porn Brit. /pO:n/, U.S. /pO(@)n/ (Draft Revision Sept. 2004)
OOPS! Typing error: of course that should be "U.S. /pO(@)rn/".
>> pawn Brit. /pO:n/, U.S. /pOn/, /pAn/ (Draft Revision Dec. 2005)
>>
>> I'm familiar with "/.../" and "[...]" notation, but what does "(...)"
>> mean?
>
> No idea. You're the one who has it in front of you!
And as far as I can tell, it doesn't say!
http://dictionary.oed.com/help/pronunciation-2e.html
http://dictionary.oed.com/help/pronunciation-3e.html
I think you said you have a paper version --- does it use (...) too,
and does it say anywhere what that means?
> Where did they get the idea that "U.S." is non-rhotic?? At that talk
> the other month, Labov happened to mention that no one in the US
> remains non-rhotic outside Boston, New York, and African American.
See above: my typing mistake (I'm still getting the hang of
transcribing IPA into ASCII IPA).
By the way, you can use the OED on-line from the NYPL. (I'm under the
impression you live in New York; sorry if that's wrong.)
http://www.nypl.org/databases/index.cfm?act=3&id=261
--
The President: "Call the FBI, the CIA and the Pentagon. Find out who
won that game!" (Edwards 1976)
Brian M. Scott
<a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in
<news:av6pf5-...@news.ducksburg.com> in sci.lang:
> On 2008-05-12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
[...]
>>> I'm familiar with "/.../" and "[...]" notation, but what does "(...)"
>>> mean?
>> No idea. You're the one who has it in front of you!
> And as far as I can tell, it doesn't say!
> http://dictionary.oed.com/help/pronunciation-2e.html
> http://dictionary.oed.com/help/pronunciation-3e.html
> I think you said you have a paper version --- does it use (...) too,
Yes.
> and does it say anywhere what that means?
More or less. It's intended to be a guide to the actual
pronunciations of the words, but it's deliberately ambiguous
at certain points to accommodate some dialect variation; for
instance, the vowel of <pass> and <chant> is notated (A),
which for some speakers will be its (æ) and for others its
(a). On the other hand, it does indicate some distinctions
made by some speakers but not others. If I had to classify
it as one or the other, I'd say that it's basically a
phonemic representation.
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
> On 2008-05-12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >> The entries for "lore", "law", "hoarse", and "horse" are all marked as
> >> Second Edition 1989 and have the pronunciation in "(...)" whereas
> >> newer entries use "/.../", for example:
>
> >> porn Brit. /pO:n/, U.S. /pO(@)n/ (Draft Revision Sept. 2004)
>
> OOPS! Typing error: of course that should be "U.S. /pO(@)rn/".
>
> >> pawn Brit. /pO:n/, U.S. /pOn/, /pAn/ (Draft Revision Dec. 2005)
>
> >> I'm familiar with "/.../" and "[...]" notation, but what does "(...)"
> >> mean?
>
> > No idea. You're the one who has it in front of you!
>
> And as far as I can tell, it doesn't say!
>
>
> I think you said you have a paper version --- does it use (...) too,
> and does it say anywhere what that means?
Not of the "Second Edition," I don't!
> > Where did they get the idea that "U.S." is non-rhotic?? At that talk
> > the other month, Labov happened to mention that no one in the US
> > remains non-rhotic outside Boston, New York, and African American.
>
> See above: my typing mistake (I'm still getting the hang of
> transcribing IPA into ASCII IPA).
>
> By the way, you can use the OED on-line from the NYPL. (I'm under the
> impression you live in New York; sorry if that's wrong.)
>
> http://www.nypl.org/databases/index.cfm?act=3&id=261
Not, probably, from home. (All I got just now was a "Cannot display
this page," which means nothing at all.)
Jens S. Larsen
> On a trivial level a "Mohammedan" is a "follower of
> Mohammed" and a "Christian" is a "follower of Christ". They work
> together as quick and ituitive descriptions of two internally
> heterogenous groups. There's no need to invoke such theological
> subtleties as the divinity of Christ and the non-divinity of
> Mohammed.
I'm a non-beleiver myself, but I'd expect a beleiver to have rather
strong opinions about what's divine and what's not. As for Lutherans,
do they call themselves that, if they are beleivers? At least in
Germany they call themselves Evangelical Christians, and then only to
distinguish themselves from the Roman Catholics; otherwise they are
simply Christians.
Jens S. Larsen
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> I'd say no. On a trivial level a "Mohammedan" is a "follower of
> Mohammed" and a "Christian" is a "follower of Christ". They work
> together as quick and ituitive descriptions of two internally
> heterogenous groups. There's no need to invoke such theological
> subtleties as the divinity of Christ and the non-divinity of Mohammed.
Then, what would prevent Gandhi from being called a Christian? He
followed the chap he called Christ without believing in his divinity.
Peter T. Daniels
I wonder why I didn't see this the evening it was posted.
Muslims take the name "Mohammedan" as blasphemous, since it implies
that they worship Muhammad as Christians worship Christ. The
misunderstanding of Islam probably dates to long before Luther.
Adam Funk
[Adam]
>>>> I'm familiar with "/.../" and "[...]" notation, but what does "(...)"
>>>> mean?
...
> More or less. It's intended to be a guide to the actual
> pronunciations of the words, but it's deliberately ambiguous
> at certain points to accommodate some dialect variation; for
> instance, the vowel of <pass> and <chant> is notated (A),
> which for some speakers will be its (æ) and for others its
> (a). On the other hand, it does indicate some distinctions
> made by some speakers but not others. If I had to classify
> it as one or the other, I'd say that it's basically a
> phonemic representation.
Thanks for that information.
--
I worry that 10 or 15 years from now, [my daughter] will come to me
and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press
away from the Internet?' [Mike Godwin, EFF http://www.eff.org/ ]
mb
Precisely. We are not discussing what some closed groups call
themselves (or their books), which is almost always different from the
name given by the speakers-at-large of a given language, but the
common, generally understandable names.
The whole discussion was prompted by the use by Daniels of esoteric
Hebrew namings and his strident protest against the use of common
English terms (along with tribal anathemata against "assimilation" and
groundless speculation on cultural background). He then proposed to
replace the usual English names by politically-correct rewordings in
English.
That's why it is a good idea to insist in leaving self-naming of
groups out of this discussion.
Peter T. Daniels
Go back where you came from, hater.
Linguists ALWAYS use self-designations as soon as they become known.
Trond Engen
> On May 14, 9:34 am, mb <azyth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> [...] it is a good idea to insist in leaving self-naming of groups
>> out of this discussion.
>
> Linguists ALWAYS use self-designations as soon as they become known.
1. Such as Welsh, German, Dutch, Greek, Albanian, Finnish, Hungarian,
Japanese, ...?
2. What if mutually exclusive groups insist on being the one and only
true carrier of a name? There are Christian groups who won't accept any
other term than "Christian" and won't accept any other group as
qualified for the name.
--
Trond Engen
- self-designated
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> Muslims take the name "Mohammedan" as blasphemous, since it implies
> that they worship Muhammad as Christians worship Christ. The
> misunderstanding of Islam probably dates to long before Luther.
In the 19th century, a Muslim founded India's first higher educational
institution for Muslims, that used English as the medium of
instruction. He named it "Anglo-Mohammedan College". It is now called
"Aligarh Muslim University".
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels skreiv:
>
> > On May 14, 9:34 am, mb <azyth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> [...] it is a good idea to insist in leaving self-naming of groups
> >> out of this discussion.
>
> > Linguists ALWAYS use self-designations as soon as they become known.
>
> 1. Such as Welsh, German, Dutch, Greek, Albanian, Finnish, Hungarian,
> Japanese, ...?
Well, there might be as many as a dozen cases where too many centuries
have intervened.
> 2. What if mutually exclusive groups insist on being the one and only
> true carrier of a name? There are Christian groups who won't accept any
> other term than "Christian" and won't accept any other group as
> qualified for the name.
We'll worry about that when it becomes the name of a language.
Peter T. Daniels
The Eleventh Britannica calls it "Mahommedan Religion." AFAICT, there
is no coverage whatsoever of Islamic Civilization -- not even
calligraphy or architecture.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
There is no geographic term for the term for the region stretching
from the Maghreb and including parts of Spain to the Middle East. It
would be useful to have distinct secular and religious terms
equivalent to the distinction between European and Christian. In
Indian English, there was once a secular term - Saracenic; eg.,
Saracenic architecture vs. Islamic calligraphy. What would be wrong
with Saracenic civilization rather than Islamic Civilization?
mb
> On May 14, 9:34 am, mb <azyth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Precisely. We are not discussing what some closed groups call
> > themselves (or their books), which is almost always different from the
> > name given by the speakers-at-large of a given language, but the
> > common, generally understandable names.
>
> > The whole discussion was prompted by the use by Daniels of esoteric
> > Hebrew namings and his strident protest against the use of common
> > English terms (along with tribal anathemata against "assimilation" and
> > groundless speculation on cultural background). He then proposed to
> > replace the usual English names by politically-correct rewordings in
> > English.
>
> > That's why it is a good idea to insist in leaving self-naming of
> > groups out of this discussion.
>
> Go back where you came from, hater.
>
> Linguists ALWAYS use self-designations as soon as they become known.
Languages don't, though.
Bullshit anyway. Not all linguists, and not talking to everyone.
Also, this is about group names, not language names.
Hater of what? Precision and clarity, please. You are quite free with
libelous statements these times, even for a Daniels.
Joachim Pense
>
> I wonder why I didn't see this the evening it was posted.
>
> Muslims take the name "Mohammedan" as blasphemous, since it implies
> that they worship Muhammad as Christians worship Christ. The
> misunderstanding of Islam probably dates to long before Luther.
That looks to me rather like a misunderstanding on the side of the Muslims.
Everyone nows (and probably knew) that Mohammed is a prophet, who is not
worshipped.
Joachim
Joachim Pense
>
> Linguists ALWAYS use self-designations as soon as they become known.
So why do you call the Germans Germans then?
Joachim
mb
> Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang):
> > Muslims take the name "Mohammedan" as blasphemous, since it implies
> > that they worship Muhammad as Christians worship Christ. The
> > misunderstanding of Islam probably dates to long before Luther.
>
> That looks to me rather like a misunderstanding on the side of the Muslims.
> Everyone nows (and probably knew) that Mohammed is a prophet, who is not
> worshipped.
It looks as if Daniels (again) is putting his own facts here about
"blasphemy". He is totally ignoring the well-known fact that
"Mohammedan" is also a self-description (and started as a self-
description) in different languages including English. Check the
Aligarh college, or the different Mohammedan Soccer Clubs.
It is true that some of the last generation of fanatic Moslems object
to it (as they object, say, to the "Moslem" spelling, but with the
same absence of valid rationale as the rejection of old-fashioned
terms by each newer generation of minorities, see Black-Negro-etc.
But I was writing this note mainly to call attention to the fact that
the discussion was explicitly not about self-naming or avoiding
offense. On the contrary, it is explicitly about naming in the general
language as opposed to in-group word magic.
Peter T. Daniels
You obviously haven't been following US politics over the past 6 1/2
years.
Ekkehard Dengler
Or "Germs".
Regards,
Ekkehard
mb
No! He didn't do that!
Ekkehard Dengler
I don't think I'm misattributing this:
"In American English, an 'edition' is qualitatively different, what the
Germs call a 'voellig revidirte Auflage,' as opposed to a mere 'printing,'
which is simply more copies of the same thing."
Regards,
Ekkehard
mb
The statement is correct about what an "edition" is supposed to be...
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang):
> > Linguists ALWAYS use self-designations as soon as they become known.
>
> So why do you call the Germans Germans then?
... because the Romans called the residents of the area Germanii, a
non-linguistic designation.
mb
...
> > So why do you call the Germans Germans then?
>
> ... because the Romans called the residents of the area Germanii, a
> non-linguistic designation.
Thanks, no one knew that. And since when are the Romans *self-
designating the Germans? Since when is Daniels allowed to change the
question at every post?
Let's repeat: If the Old Testament is "Old Testament" in English has
explicitly nothing to do with self-designation, but with general
language words and non-specialist words. It also has zilch to do with
linguists' usage about languages. It has nothing to do with words
perceived as offensive about in-groups, and his examples of such words
were all wrong anyway. Now we see that he does not always use self-
designations, and that he doe not abstain from using ethnically
offensive characterizations either. Trying to deviate the discussion
is not a very good idea.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> On May 15, 8:53 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> ...
>
> > > So why do you call the Germans Germans then?
>
> > ... because the Romans called the residents of the area Germanii, a
> > non-linguistic designation.
>
> Thanks, no one knew that. And since when are the Romans *self-
> designating the Germans?
I didn't make any claims about self-designation; Daniels did. I was
merely pointing out that German is not necessarily a linguistic
designation.
> Since when is Daniels allowed to change the
> question at every post?
>
> Let's repeat: If the Old Testament is "Old Testament" in English has
> explicitly nothing to do with self-designation, but with general
> language words and non-specialist words.
The Old Testament is an old testament only to those who have a new
testament. Golda Meir once said "The Talmud is greater than the
Torah". Would that have made the Tanakh an old testament to her? Only
if she considered the Talmud a new testament.
mb
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 9:33 am, mb <azyth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > > > So why do you call the Germans Germans then?
> > > ... because the Romans called the residents of the area Germanii, a
> > > non-linguistic designation.
> > Thanks, no one knew that. And since when are the Romans *self-
> > designating the Germans?
>
> I didn't make any claims about self-designation; Daniels did. I was
> merely pointing out that German is not necessarily a linguistic
> designation.
And you were told that it is irrelevant to the discussion and part of
an attempt to deviate it.
> > Since when is Daniels allowed to change the
> > question at every post?
>
> > Let's repeat: If the Old Testament is "Old Testament" in English has
> > explicitly nothing to do with self-designation, but with general
> > language words and non-specialist words.
>
> The Old Testament is an old testament only to those who have a new
> testament.
Wrongity wrong. To restate the sentence above that you don't seem to
answer, it is its *common-or-garden-name in English and a number of
other Western languages*, no matter the speaker's religious and other
hangups.
As a result, speakers with such psychologic problems will use either
theologists' jargon or unassimilated foreign words, as in your example
below:
> Golda Meir once said "The Talmud is greater than the
> Torah". Would that have made the Tanakh an old testament to her? Only
> if she considered the Talmud a new testament.
Not being a Semitist or a priest, I will insist in not understanding
any of the above words that are not part of everyday, non-trade-
jargon, non-inside-group-jargon English. Keep them for some other
time.
Jens S. Larsen
> And since when are the Romans *self-designating the Germans?
Ever since the days of the Heilige Römische Reich Deutscher Nation.
JSL.