"Allege" pronunciation: An anecdote
Daniel al-Autistiqui
the correct pronunciation of a word. Until about five years ago, I
always thought that the English word "allege" had a long "e" sound in
the second syllable and rhymed with "besiege". But I was fairly
certain that I had heard people use a short "e" in the derivative
"allegedly". I attributed this change in vowel sound to Chomsky and
Halle's well-known rule of trisyllabic laxing, the same rule that
figures in pairs like "sane"/"sanity" and "serene"/"serenity".
However, it did seem quite bizarre for the rule to apply here:
although "-ity" is a Latinate suffix, "-edly" is a native English one
and would not normally affect the pronunciation of a root word.
Eventually I stumbled on the entry for "allege" in a dictionary and
found that I had been mentally mispronouncing the base word all along.
It sounds like "a ledge", not "a liege", despite the lack of a "d" in
the spelling. No wonder "allegedly" has a short "e".
daniel mcgrath
--
Daniel Gerard McGrath, a/k/a "Govende":
for e-mail replace "invalid" with "com"
Developmentally disabled;
has Autism (Pervasive Developmental Disorder),
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder,
& periodic bouts of depression.
[This signature is under construction.]
Alec McKenzie
> No wonder "allegedly" has a short "e".
Allegedly, anyway.
--
Alec McKenzie
alecusenet@<surname>.me.uk
Maria C.
> I was reminded last night of the interesting story of how I learned
> the correct pronunciation of a word. Until about five years ago, I
> always thought that the English word "allege" had a long "e" sound in
> the second syllable and rhymed with "besiege". But I was fairly
> certain that I had heard people use a short "e" in the derivative
> "allegedly". I attributed this change in vowel sound to Chomsky and
> Halle's well-known rule of trisyllabic laxing, the same rule that
> figures in pairs like "sane"/"sanity" and "serene"/"serenity".
> However, it did seem quite bizarre for the rule to apply here:
> although "-ity" is a Latinate suffix, "-edly" is a native English one
> and would not normally affect the pronunciation of a root word.
>
> Eventually I stumbled on the entry for "allege" in a dictionary and
> found that I had been mentally mispronouncing the base word all along.
> It sounds like "a ledge", not "a liege", despite the lack of a "d" in
> the spelling. No wonder "allegedly" has a short "e".
That's interesting, Daniel, and it reminds me that having a dictionary
handy while reading is a good idea. One can figure out, correctly, the
meaning of a word from context, but the pronunciation is not so easy --
we base it on comparison to words similarly constructed. And sometimes,
we just come to a wrong conclusion.
Adding confusion to this matter is the fact that more than one
pronunciation is often "correct."
I've learned a lot in AUE about how certain words are pronounced.
("Allege" wasn't one of them however. I think I learned that word's
pronunciation via the tv or radio.) I'll give you an example of the
words that /were/ "re-formed" for me, so to speak, just as soon as I can
remember which words they were.
--
Maria C.
R H Draney
>
>I've learned a lot in AUE about how certain words are pronounced.
>("Allege" wasn't one of them however. I think I learned that word's
>pronunciation via the tv or radio.) I'll give you an example of the
>words that /were/ "re-formed" for me, so to speak, just as soon as I can
>remember which words they were.
For me: "detritus", "vagary" and "frustum"...in the case of the last I also
learned that I'd been spelling it wrong....
It took me a long time to shake a defective pronunciation of "Sirius" that I
picked up from a teacher who seemed to think it was spelled "Sirrus"....r
--
What good is being an executive if you never get to execute anyone?
Daniel al-Autistiqui
>Maria C. filted:
>>
>>I've learned a lot in AUE about how certain words are pronounced.
>>("Allege" wasn't one of them however. I think I learned that word's
>>pronunciation via the tv or radio.) I'll give you an example of the
>>words that /were/ "re-formed" for me, so to speak, just as soon as I can
>>remember which words they were.
>
>For me: "detritus", "vagary" and "frustum"...in the case of the last I also
>learned that I'd been spelling it wrong....
>
I should add that I was also thrown off by "discretion" until 2004.
It is probably the only exception to the rule that, while "i" is
pronounced short before "-tion" endings, all other vowels are long.
And speaking of which, I was more familiar at that time with the word
"discrete" than its homophone "discreet". Does that prove anything
about me?
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> I was reminded last night of the interesting story of how I learned
> the correct pronunciation of a word. Until about five years ago, I
> always thought that the English word "allege" had a long "e" sound in
> the second syllable and rhymed with "besiege". But I was fairly
> certain that I had heard people use a short "e" in the derivative
> "allegedly". I attributed this change in vowel sound to Chomsky and
> Halle's well-known rule of trisyllabic laxing, the same rule that
> figures in pairs like "sane"/"sanity" and "serene"/"serenity".
> However, it did seem quite bizarre for the rule to apply here:
> although "-ity" is a Latinate suffix, "-edly" is a native English one
> and would not normally affect the pronunciation of a root word.
>
> Eventually I stumbled on the entry for "allege" in a dictionary and
> found that I had been mentally mispronouncing the base word all along.
> It sounds like "a ledge", not "a liege", despite the lack of a "d" in
> the spelling. No wonder "allegedly" has a short "e".
And no wonder it's often misspelled. Can you guess how?
Nell
One of my daughters pronounced "pint" to rhyme with "lint" when she was
a child.
Nell
--
Thou shouldst eat to live; not live to eat.
~~Socrates
Mike Lyle
[...]
> I should add that I was also thrown off by "discretion" until 2004.
> It is probably the only exception to the rule that, while "i" is
> pronounced short before "-tion" endings, all other vowels are long.
Note, though, that "ration" has a short "a" in British-style English.
OED suggests this may be because the military adopted the word from
French.
--
Mike.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> Daniel al-Autistiqui wrote:
>
> [...]> I should add that I was also thrown off by "discretion" until 2004.
> > It is probably the only exception to the rule that, while "i" is
> > pronounced short before "-tion" endings, all other vowels are long.
>
> [...]
>
> Note, though, that "ration" has a short "a" in British-style English.
> OED suggests this may be because the military adopted the word from
> French.
In what "style" English does it not have a "short a"?
Daniel al-Autistiqui
I had been under the impression that "long a" was the only possible
pronunciation. I'm pretty sure I've heard "ration" pronounced that
way.
But I just looked in the two mini-dictionaries right here on my desk
and found that the "short a" version is listed first in both of them,
followed by "long a". Oh well, I guess there's at least one instance
in which word-final "-ation" can be pronounced to rhyme with
"fashion". I must no longer be sure how I'd pronounce "ration".
I would have thought, however, that the "short a" pronunciation came
about by analogy with "rational(e)". "Ration", unlike "nation", is
not exactly a word you would run into very often, and it's
understandable that some people might model their attempted
pronunciation on similar-looking words.
R H Draney
>
>On May 1, 3:14=A0pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> Daniel al-Autistiqui wrote:
>>
>> [...]> I should add that I was also thrown off by "discretion" until 2004.=
>
>> > It is probably the only exception to the rule that, while "i" is
>> > pronounced short before "-tion" endings, all other vowels are long.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Note, though, that "ration" has a short "a" in British-style English.
>> OED suggests this may be because the military adopted the word from
>> French.
>
>In what "style" English does it not have a "short a"?
This is one of those where identically-spelled noun and verb have different
pronunciations...for "record" the stress shifts to a different syllable, but for
"ration" the vowel changes....r
Herman Rubin
>wrote:
>> Daniel al-Autistiqui wrote:
>> [...]> I should add that I was also thrown off by "discretion" until 2004.=
>> > It is probably the only exception to the rule that, while "i" is
>> > pronounced short before "-tion" endings, all other vowels are long.
>> [...]
>> Note, though, that "ration" has a short "a" in British-style English.
>> OED suggests this may be because the military adopted the word from
>> French.
>In what "style" English does it not have a "short a"?
When used as a verb, I have frequently heard a "long a".
This is also the case when used as a noun, such as for
military allocations.
--
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
the Omrud
> In article <d54b2797-3ed5-4ea3...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On May 1, 3:14=A0pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> Daniel al-Autistiqui wrote:
>
>>> [...]> I should add that I was also thrown off by "discretion" until 2004.=
>
>>>> It is probably the only exception to the rule that, while "i" is
>>>> pronounced short before "-tion" endings, all other vowels are long.
>
>>> [...]
>
>>> Note, though, that "ration" has a short "a" in British-style English.
>>> OED suggests this may be because the military adopted the word from
>>> French.
>
>> In what "style" English does it not have a "short a"?
>
> When used as a verb, I have frequently heard a "long a".
>
> This is also the case when used as a noun, such as for
> military allocations.
I'm finding this difficult to follow as I have no concept of two
different pronuncations of "ration". Rash'un (like ash, cash, bash) is
all I've got. What's the other one?
--
David
tony cooper
Rash-on and Ray-shun.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
the Omrud
In that case, I'm with GB Shaw. I've never heard "ray-shun" and I'd
have to think about what it meant if I did hear it.
--
David
Maria C.
>
> I'm finding this difficult to follow as I have no concept of two
> different pronuncations of "ration". Rash'un (like ash, cash, bash)
> is all I've got. What's the other one?
Ray'shen (rhymes with station).
It seems both pronunciations are found in the USA.
Now, about this "long a/short a" business: I learned a long time ago
that a long 'a' would be the 'a' in "day" and a short 'a' would be the
'a' in "sat."
Is that the way others here are using the terms long/short? (Daniel uses
it that way, I think.)
--
Maria C.
the Omrud
No, I think that's different from the way I use it. To me, it's the
difference between Northen and Southern (approx) English prounciations
of words such as bath, grass, daft and chance. This is the same as the
difference between cat and cart, for the non-rhotics. Day seems to be a
different type of "a".
--
David
Peter T. Daniels
That's what it normally means (and why linguists don't use those
terms); Omrud seems to be trying to apply the linguistics meaning of
"long," referring to actual vowel length as more interesting than
vowel quality.
the Omrud
Is there a term for the difference between the regional British ways of
saying "bath"?
--
David
Adam Funk
>>> Now, about this "long a/short a" business: I learned a long time ago
>>> that a long 'a' would be the 'a' in "day" and a short 'a' would be the
>>> 'a' in "sat."
>>>
>>> Is that the way others here are using the terms long/short? (Daniel uses
>>> it that way, I think.)
>>
>> That's what it normally means (and why linguists don't use those
>> terms); Omrud seems to be trying to apply the linguistics meaning of
>> "long," referring to actual vowel length as more interesting than
>> vowel quality.
>
> Is there a term for the difference between the regional British ways of
> saying "bath"?
I've heard those called "open a" and "closed a" (or "close a"
perhaps), but I'm not sure if those are the correct technical terms.
--
It is probable that television drama of high caliber and produced by
first-rate artists will materially raise the level of dramatic taste
of the nation. (David Sarnoff, CEO of RCA, 1939; in Stoll 1995)
R H Draney
>
>On 2008-05-02, the Omrud wrote:
>
>>>> Now, about this "long a/short a" business: I learned a long time ago
>>>> that a long 'a' would be the 'a' in "day" and a short 'a' would be the
>>>> 'a' in "sat."
>>>>
>>>> Is that the way others here are using the terms long/short? (Daniel uses
>>>> it that way, I think.)
>>>
>>> That's what it normally means (and why linguists don't use those
>>> terms); Omrud seems to be trying to apply the linguistics meaning of
>>> "long," referring to actual vowel length as more interesting than
>>> vowel quality.
>>
>> Is there a term for the difference between the regional British ways of
>> saying "bath"?
>
>I've heard those called "open a" and "closed a" (or "close a"
>perhaps), but I'm not sure if those are the correct technical terms.
While we're at it, am I right in assuming that "broad a" is the sound in
"father", and if so, what's the opposite called?...r
Peter T. Daniels
Wells just names that bunch of words by one of them. I forget which.
mb
...
> It seems both pronunciations are found in the USA.
>
> Now, about this "long a/short a" business: I learned a long time ago
> that a long 'a' would be the 'a' in "day" and a short 'a' would be the
> 'a' in "sat."
> Is that the way others here are using the terms
> long/short? (Daniel uses it that way, I think.)
In the particular case of English (as seen from sci.lang), if one were
to follow the new fad of avoiding misnomers I suppose it should be
"long-a-before-the-last-big-sound-shift-or-new-glided-e"
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:d54b2797-3ed5-4ea3...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
in alt.usage.english,sci.lang:
[...]
That of the people who rhyme it with 'nation'. I've heard
this pronunciation, and for the noun M-W Online gives this
as well as /'ræS@n/.
Brian
Maria C.
> While we're at it, am I right in assuming that "broad a" is the sound
> in "father", and if so, what's the opposite called?...r
Let's see. "Broad" is the opposite of "narrow," so how about the "narrow
a"? The problem with that, of course, is that there are other opposites
of "broad" -- such as, perhaps, "male" or "man" or "hunk." So it all
depends.
--
Maria C.
Tasha Miller
> Maria C. wrote:
>> the Omrud wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm finding this difficult to follow as I have no concept of two
>>> different pronuncations of "ration". Rash'un (like ash, cash, bash)
>>> is all I've got. What's the other one?
>>
>> Ray'shen (rhymes with station).
>>
>> It seems both pronunciations are found in the USA.
>>
>> Now, about this "long a/short a" business: I learned a long time ago
>> that a long 'a' would be the 'a' in "day" and a short 'a' would be
>> the 'a' in "sat."
>>
>> Is that the way others here are using the terms long/short? (Daniel
>> uses it that way, I think.)
>
> No, I think that's different from the way I use it. To me, it's the
> difference between Northen and Southern (approx) English prounciations
> of words such as bath, grass, daft and chance.
I pronounce the 'a' in the same way for all of those but my children use a
different sound in "chance/dance/lance" - it is like my/our 'a' in land, pan
and Dan.
Another 'a' word that has strong support for two pronunciations around me is
"basic". I pronounce is as "baysic" but I often hear it said as "bassic".
This is the same as
> the difference between cat and cart, for the non-rhotics. Day seems
> to be a different type of "a".
I have no idea of the right terminology for this but doesn't the 'y' act as
another, modifying, vowel so the sound is a more specific 'ay' rather than
the simpler 'a' which can sound like ay, ar, ah, uh etc. depending on usage?
Oleg Lego
On Fri, 02 May 2008 11:58:36 -0400, Daniel al-Autistiqui posted:
>On Fri, 2 May 2008 05:59:59 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
><gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>On May 1, 3:14 pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>> Daniel al-Autistiqui wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]> I should add that I was also thrown off by "discretion" until 2004.
>>> > It is probably the only exception to the rule that, while "i" is
>>> > pronounced short before "-tion" endings, all other vowels are long.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Note, though, that "ration" has a short "a" in British-style English.
>>> OED suggests this may be because the military adopted the word from
>>> French.
>>
>>In what "style" English does it not have a "short a"?
>
>I had been under the impression that "long a" was the only possible
>pronunciation. I'm pretty sure I've heard "ration" pronounced that
>way.
I've only ever used with a short 'a', and have only occasionally heard
it with a long 'a'.
>But I just looked in the two mini-dictionaries right here on my desk
>and found that the "short a" version is listed first in both of them,
>followed by "long a". Oh well, I guess there's at least one instance
>in which word-final "-ation" can be pronounced to rhyme with
>"fashion". I must no longer be sure how I'd pronounce "ration".
>
>I would have thought, however, that the "short a" pronunciation came
>about by analogy with "rational(e)". "Ration", unlike "nation", is
>not exactly a word you would run into very often, and it's
>understandable that some people might model their attempted
>pronunciation on similar-looking words.
I run into "ration" every bit as much as "nation", I think.
Oleg Lego
On 2 May 2008 09:11:57 -0700, R H Draney posted:
Must be pondial.
John Atkinson
The BATH words. He also mentions the terms "broad" and "flat", which,
he says, are used particularly in the United States. Also, "[t]he term
'the _ask_ words' has some currency in the United States."
Elsewhere, he does say that the TRAP vowel does have the "traditional
name" 'short A'; and that the FACE vowel has the "traditional name"
'long A'.
So, yez pays yer money and yez makes yer choice.
J.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Fri, 2 May 2008 05:59:59 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <news:d54b2797-3ed5-4ea3...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
> in alt.usage.english,sci.lang:
>
> > On May 1, 3:14 pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Note, though, that "ration" has a short "a" in British-style English.
> >> OED suggests this may be because the military adopted the word from
> >> French.
> > In what "style" English does it not have a "short a"?
>
> That of the people who rhyme it with 'nation'. I've heard
> this pronunciation, and for the noun M-W Online gives this
> as well as /'ræS@n/.
That;s a "style"?
Peter T. Daniels
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote...
Why the plural "yez"? Especially with the singular "pays/makes"?
Adam Funk
>> Now, about this "long a/short a" business: I learned a long time ago
>> that a long 'a' would be the 'a' in "day" and a short 'a' would be the
>> 'a' in "sat."
>>
>> Is that the way others here are using the terms long/short? (Daniel uses
>> it that way, I think.)
>
> That's what it normally means (and why linguists don't use those
> terms); Omrud seems to be trying to apply the linguistics meaning of
> "long," referring to actual vowel length as more interesting than
> vowel quality.
Dies the popular use of "long" and "short" that way come from the use
of macrons and microns in the non-IPA pronunciation keys in
dictionaries?
--
The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so
many of them to choose from. [Grace Murray Hopper]
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>On 2008-05-02, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>>> Now, about this "long a/short a" business: I learned a long time ago
>>> that a long 'a' would be the 'a' in "day" and a short 'a' would be the
>>> 'a' in "sat."
>>>
>>> Is that the way others here are using the terms long/short? (Daniel uses
>>> it that way, I think.)
>>
>> That's what it normally means (and why linguists don't use those
>> terms); Omrud seems to be trying to apply the linguistics meaning of
>> "long," referring to actual vowel length as more interesting than
>> vowel quality.
>
>Dies the popular use of "long" and "short" that way come from the use
>of macrons and microns in the non-IPA pronunciation keys in
>dictionaries?
And from the history of the English language, I suppose? There were
times when "bake" and "back" had the same or a similar vowel, but
differing in length.
--
Ruud Harmsen
http://rudhar.com
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:e3f2a455-a5f1-4553...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
in alt.usage.english,sci.lang:
> On May 3, 2:39 am, "John Atkinson" <johna...@bigpond.com>
> wrote:
[...]
>> So, yez pays yer money and yez makes yer choice.
> Why the plural "yez"? Especially with the singular
> "pays/makes"?
It may be a traditional expression. We've never used 'yez',
but 'Y' pays your money and y' makes your choice' is
traditional in my family.
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
> On 2008-05-02, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >> Now, about this "long a/short a" business: I learned a long time ago
> >> that a long 'a' would be the 'a' in "day" and a short 'a' would be the
> >> 'a' in "sat."
>
> >> Is that the way others here are using the terms long/short? (Daniel uses
> >> it that way, I think.)
>
> > That's what it normally means (and why linguists don't use those
> > terms); Omrud seems to be trying to apply the linguistics meaning of
> > "long," referring to actual vowel length as more interesting than
> > vowel quality.
>
> Dies the popular use of "long" and "short" that way come from the use
> of macrons and microns in the non-IPA pronunciation keys in
> dictionaries?
I would _guess_ that the terminology precedes the use of the
diacritics.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Sat, 3 May 2008 05:37:53 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <news:e3f2a455-a5f1-4553...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
> in alt.usage.english,sci.lang:
>
> > On May 3, 2:39 am, "John Atkinson" <johna...@bigpond.com>
> > wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> So, yez pays yer money and yez makes yer choice.
> > Why the plural "yez"? Especially with the singular
> > "pays/makes"?
>
> It may be a traditional expression. We've never used 'yez',
> but 'Y' pays your money and y' makes your choice' is
> traditional in my family.
Eggzackly.
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:f63e16a0-d44b-4c65...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
in alt.usage.english,sci.lang:
> On May 3, 9:33 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 May 2008 05:37:53 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in
>> <news:e3f2a455-a5f1-4553...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
>> in alt.usage.english,sci.lang:
>>> On May 3, 2:39 am, "John Atkinson" <johna...@bigpond.com>
>>> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> So, yez pays yer money and yez makes yer choice.
>>> Why the plural "yez"? Especially with the singular
>>> "pays/makes"?
>> It may be a traditional expression. We've never used 'yez',
>> but 'Y' pays your money and y' makes your choice' is
>> traditional in my family.
> Eggzackly.
But I have to correct myself: our version has 'takes', not
'makes'.
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
> On Sat, 3 May 2008 07:47:05 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
I agree.
John Atkinson
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
news:nohtjtrmrqfq$.1sw5lgusr1c0s.dlg@40tude.net...
With me, the version with "takes yer pick" seems about as likely as
"makes yer choice". But definitely not "takes yer choice".
John.
>
> Brian
catherinea...@googlemail.com
> On Fri, 02 May 2008 11:58:36 -0400, Daniel al-Autistiqui posted:
>
> >I would have thought, however, that the "short a" pronunciation came
> >about by analogy with "rational(e)". �"Ration", unlike "nation", is
> >not exactly a word you would run into very often, and it's
> >understandable that some people might model their attempted
> >pronunciation on similar-looking words.
>
> I run into "ration" every bit as much as "nation", I think.
I'd say it was quite a bit more common, but of course that depends on
the kind of people one talks to. Daniel probably has little converse
with livestock farmers or soldiers, and certainly wasn't about in
wartime or immediately postwar Europe.
--
Mike.
Richard Herring
>not exactly a word you would run into very often,
60 or so years ago, on this side of the Atlantic it was part of the
fabric of daily existence.
--
Richard Herring
Daniel al-Autistiqui
>On Fri, 2 May 2008 05:59:59 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
><gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>On May 1, 3:14 pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>> Daniel al-Autistiqui wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]> I should add that I was also thrown off by "discretion" until 2004.
>>> > It is probably the only exception to the rule that, while "i" is
>>> > pronounced short before "-tion" endings, all other vowels are long.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Note, though, that "ration" has a short "a" in British-style English.
>>> OED suggests this may be because the military adopted the word from
>>> French.
>>
>>In what "style" English does it not have a "short a"?
>
>I had been under the impression that "long a" was the only possible
>pronunciation. I'm pretty sure I've heard "ration" pronounced that
>way.
>
OK, after doing a bit of Web searching I found out what I must have
been thinking of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken-L_Ration
Ken-L Ration, the article states, is a (defunct) brand of dog food. I
knew about it because when I was a child my mother used to tease me
about eating dog food (Alpo was another brand she would mention). I
must admit that it was only a few years ago that I saw the
food-related sense of "ration" in the dictionary and finally made the
connection.[1] Anyway, my mother would pronounce the name with a long
"a", as if it were "Kennel Rayshun", and I assumed that this was the
way she'd pronounce "ration" in general. But I obviously had never
seen this name spelled out before. With a brand name, and especially
one that uses creative spelling ("Ken-L") elsewhere in the name, you
might need to be cautious about making such conclusions.
[1] Unless, as I thought of the other day, the name was in fact
intended to be a blend of "kennel" and some longer word with "-ration"
as the last two syllables. That would explain the long "a". But,
judging by the fact that I can't think of a longer "-ration" word that
could readily inspire a brand name for dog food -- and even by the
fact that I would have then expected them to spell it "Ken-L-Ration"
with a second hyphen -- I'm sticking with the idea that the "Ration"
means "A fixed portion, esp. of food" (_The American Heritage
Dictionary_, 2001 paperback edition).
daniel mcgrath
# I'd never want to eat dog food
--
Daniel Gerard McGrath, a/k/a "Govende":
for e-mail replace "invalid" with "com"
Developmentally disabled;
has Autism (Pervasive Developmental Disorder),
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder,
& periodic bouts of depression.
[This signature is under construction.]
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
Yes, Ken-L-Ration was pronounced -ray-shun. I don't think it occurred
to me to connect it with "rations."
R H Draney
>
>Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> Yes, Ken-L-Ration was pronounced -ray-shun. I don't think it occurred
>> to me to connect it with "rations."
>
Okay, I need a ruling: how do you pronounce "ratiocination"?...r
Mike M
>
> It took me a long time to shake a defective pronunciation of "Sirius" that I
> picked up from a teacher who seemed to think it was spelled "Sirrus"....r
>
Shirley. You can't be.
Mike M
Mike M
wrote:
>
> Another 'a' word that has strong support for two pronunciations around me is
> "basic". I pronounce is as "baysic" but I often hear it said as "bassic".
>
Really? Another new one on me.
Mike M
Mike Lyle
This sounds, given American schwa-ification, rather like the difficulty
many Scottish speakers have in pronouncing a vowel immediately after
another vowel. BBC radio, being dominated by Scots, is a martyr to it.
And of course there's the "Villiers" pronounced / vIl@z / etc thing.
--
Mike.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Ruud Harmsen
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>: in sci.lang:
>This sounds, given American schwa-ification, rather like the difficulty
>many Scottish speakers have in pronouncing a vowel immediately after
>another vowel.
???
>BBC radio, being dominated by Scots, is a martyr to it.
???, ???
R H Draney
I don't think Mr Ortega was Scottish....r
Peter T. Daniels
> Ramblin Bob filted:
>
>
>
> >Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >> Yes, Ken-L-Ration was pronounced -ray-shun. I don't think it occurred
> >> to me to connect it with "rations."
>
> >incine-ration?
>
> Okay, I need a ruling: how do you pronounce "ratiocination"?...r
Who would ever say it out loud?
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> Mike M wrote:
> > On 1 May, 18:02, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> >> It took me a long time to shake a defective pronunciation of
> >> "Sirius" that I picked up from a teacher who seemed to think it was
> >> spelled "Sirrus"....r
>
> > Shirley. You can't be.
>
> This sounds, given American schwa-ification, rather like the difficulty
> many Scottish speakers have in pronouncing a vowel immediately after
> another vowel.
Those who perceive a sequence of vowels as a tongue twiser can try
pronouncing "sirius" as [sI*Ij@s]. Would this have a vowel after
another vowel?
Mike Lyle
Think about it, and if you haven't figured it out and are still
interested, ask me again tomorrow. And this time don't edit out the
context, please.
Daniel al-Autistiqui
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>Yes, Ken-L-Ration was pronounced -ray-shun. I don't think it occurred
>to me to connect it with "rations."
So then how would you have explained the last part of the name? A
play on "generation" or some such thing? For several years there
seemed to be no doubt in my mind that the name was indeed derived from
"ration(s)". (I'll probably still think of pet food for a while when
I see "ration".)
I had never seen the name written down until the other day. If the
spelling were "Ken-L-Ration" (as you have it) or "Kennelration", the
"generation" type of theory would be understandable. But according to
the Wikipedia article, it was called "Ken-L Ration"; the "L" had a
hyphen on the left side only and "Ration" was written as a separate
word.
daniel mcgrath
Barbara Bailey
news:b59624hvj2uutud8f...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 6 May 2008 14:54:25 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Yes, Ken-L-Ration was pronounced -ray-shun. I don't think it occurred
>>to me to connect it with "rations."
>
> So then how would you have explained the last part of the name? A
> play on "generation" or some such thing? For several years there
> seemed to be no doubt in my mind that the name was indeed derived from
> "ration(s)". (I'll probably still think of pet food for a while when
> I see "ration".)
>
> I had never seen the name written down until the other day. If the
> spelling were "Ken-L-Ration" (as you have it) or "Kennelration", the
> "generation" type of theory would be understandable. But according to
> the Wikipedia article, it was called "Ken-L Ration"; the "L" had a
> hyphen on the left side only and "Ration" was written as a separate
> word.
It was indeed "Ken-L Ration" not "Ken-L-Ration".
http://www.adclassix.com/a3/66klrdogfood.htm
Daniel al-Autistiqui
And doesn't that suggest the "Ration" part was meant to be "ration"
'food portion'?
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> On Tue, 6 May 2008 14:54:25 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>
>
> >Yes, Ken-L-Ration was pronounced -ray-shun. I don't think it occurred
> >to me to connect it with "rations."
>
> So then how would you have explained the last part of the name? A
> play on "generation" or some such thing? For several years there
> seemed to be no doubt in my mind that the name was indeed derived from
> "ration(s)". (I'll probably still think of pet food for a while when
> I see "ration".)
Why would it have occurred to me to "explain" it?
> I had never seen the name written down until the other day. If the
> spelling were "Ken-L-Ration" (as you have it) or "Kennelration", the
> "generation" type of theory would be understandable. But according to
> the Wikipedia article, it was called "Ken-L Ration"; the "L" had a
> hyphen on the left side only and "Ration" was written as a separate
> word.
I am a cat person, not a dog person.
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 19:19:31 +0200 (CEST), Barbara Bailey
>
>
>
> >Daniel al-Autistiqui <govend...@hotmail.invalid> wrote in
> >news:b59624hvj2uutud8f...@4ax.com:
>
> >> On Tue, 6 May 2008 14:54:25 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >>>Yes, Ken-L-Ration was pronounced -ray-shun. I don't think it occurred
> >>>to me to connect it with "rations."
>
> >> So then how would you have explained the last part of the name? A
> >> play on "generation" or some such thing? For several years there
> >> seemed to be no doubt in my mind that the name was indeed derived from
> >> "ration(s)". (I'll probably still think of pet food for a while when
> >> I see "ration".)
>
> >> I had never seen the name written down until the other day. If the
> >> spelling were "Ken-L-Ration" (as you have it) or "Kennelration", the
> >> "generation" type of theory would be understandable. But according to
> >> the Wikipedia article, it was called "Ken-L Ration"; the "L" had a
> >> hyphen on the left side only and "Ration" was written as a separate
> >> word.
>
> >It was indeed "Ken-L Ration" not "Ken-L-Ration".
> >http://www.adclassix.com/a3/66klrdogfood.htm
>
> And doesn't that suggest the "Ration" part was meant to be "ration"
> 'food portion'?
Of course the name was supposed to suggest "kennel" and "rations".
Peter just didn't notice that, presumably because he pronounced and
pronounces "ration" as /'r&S@n/.
The jingle was an incessant part of children's TV in at least the late
'60s and early '70s. It's odd that I hear it in my head
with /'r&S@n/, the way I now pronounce that word.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
I can probably remember lots of cat food commercials but few if any
dog food commercials.
Donna Richoux
[snip discussion of variations of:]
> >>>>> So, yez pays yer money and yez makes yer choice.
In Jan. 2001, a similar discussion led to this post by Mike Page:
>My Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (1953 edition, 1972 revision) gives
the following:
> 'You pays your money and you takes your choice.' Punch vol. x, p17, 1846.
> See Corrigenda'
> When one turns to the corrigenda it says:
> 'This quotation is derived from what appears to have been a peep-show rhyme:
>
> Whichever you please my little dears:
> You pays your money and you takes your choice.
> You pays your money and what you sees is
> A cow or a donkey just as you pleases.
> V.S. Lean, Collectanea (1902-4)'
>
> I assume ODQ was convinced that the origin of the rhyme wa prior to the
> Punch cartoon.
>
> Mike Page
I don't find much more on the Web about it now - in particular, no copy
of the cartoon itself. William Safire said in 1988 that 'The first time
the saying saw print was in an 1846 Punch. A cartoon entitled ''The
Ministerial Crisis'' has a showman telling a customer, ''Which ever you
please, my little dear. You pays your money, and you takes your
choice.'''
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
benl...@ihug.co.nz
I don't think I ever heard the jingle, so I probably learned about the
dog food strictly from print, and always assumed it was /r&S@n/, the
way I've always pronounced the word.
Surely there was also some link between the dogfood name and "K-
rations" of US Army fame. Do people say "ray-shun" in that one too?
Weird.
Ross Clark
Herman Rubin
>> >Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> >incine-ration?
Why not? If it can occur in print, it can occur in speech.
--
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
Peter T. Daniels
> In article <d5215d63-4b08-4d6c-b9d1-f5b8c8621...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On May 7, 11:01=A0am, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> >> Ramblin Bob filted:
> >> >Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> >> Yes, Ken-L-Ration was pronounced -ray-shun. I don't think it occurred
> >> >> to me to connect it with "rations."
> >> >incine-ration?
> >> Okay, I need a ruling: how do you pronounce "ratiocination"?...r
> >Who would ever say it out loud?
>
> Why not? If it can occur in print, it can occur in speech.
That wasn't the question, was it.
And, given all the nonsense you've typed about "mathematics" being a
"language" even though it can't be spoken aloud, it's astonishing that
you would even make such an assertion.
Fred Springer
I think I must have missed that discussion, and I apologise if this
response is going over familiar ground, but to dismiss the idea that
maths isn't a language on the basis that it can't be spoken aloud is
absurd for at least two reasons: first, much of it *can* be spoken
aloud; and second, American sign language, widely recognised by
linguists as a language, can't be spoken aloud either.
Maths clearly has its origins in language: the concept of number, and of
particular numbers, quantities and lengths, must surely have been
expressed in speech before there was a separate study called
mathematics. Simple mathematical relationships would also have been
expressed in natural language before any kind of mathematical notation
came into being. And I seem to recall reading somewhere that the very
earliest human written records were accounting records.
Nor can one easily dismiss the idea that modern mathematics is a
specialised form of language: it is a means of communication, it is an
aid to thought, and it may be used to describe both real or imagined
situations. Compared with the major characteristics it shares with
language, the differences are relatively minor.
If anyone has the time, and the courage, to summarise the earlier
discussion I would be most interested to read it.
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On May 8, 10:27 pm, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
> >> In article <d5215d63-4b08-4d6c-b9d1-f5b8c8621...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >>> On May 7, 11:01=A0am, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> >>>> Ramblin Bob filted:
> >>>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>>>>> Yes, Ken-L-Ration was pronounced -ray-shun. I don't think it occurred
> >>>>>> to me to connect it with "rations."
> >>>>> incine-ration?
> >>>> Okay, I need a ruling: how do you pronounce "ratiocination"?...r
> >>> Who would ever say it out loud?
> >> Why not? If it can occur in print, it can occur in speech.
>
> > That wasn't the question, was it.
>
> > And, given all the nonsense you've typed about "mathematics" being a
> > "language" even though it can't be spoken aloud, it's astonishing that
> > you would even make such an assertion.
>
> I think I must have missed that discussion, and I apologise if this
> response is going over familiar ground, but to dismiss the idea that
> maths isn't a language on the basis that it can't be spoken aloud is
You seem to have far too many negatives in that sentence. Could you
disentangle it and say what you actually intended?
> absurd for at least two reasons: first, much of it *can* be spoken
> aloud; and second, American sign language, widely recognised by
> linguists as a language, can't be spoken aloud either.
Obviously whether the formulation of the utterance is in the form of
speech or any other modality is not relevant to the question.
> Maths clearly has its origins in language: the concept of number, and of
> particular numbers, quantities and lengths, must surely have been
> expressed in speech before there was a separate study called
> mathematics. Simple mathematical relationships would also have been
> expressed in natural language before any kind of mathematical notation
> came into being. And I seem to recall reading somewhere that the very
> earliest human written records were accounting records.
Not mathematics records!
Nor is Herman talking about "simple mathematical relationships," but
about the most advanced ideas, the ones that take up pages and pages
of journal articles.
> Nor can one easily dismiss the idea that modern mathematics is a
> specialised form of language: it is a means of communication, it is an
> aid to thought, and it may be used to describe both real or imagined
> situations. Compared with the major characteristics it shares with
> language, the differences are relatively minor.
I think you don't realize what modern mathematicians do.
> If anyone has the time, and the courage, to summarise the earlier
> discussion I would be most interested to read it.-
Just search the sci.lang archive for exchanges between Herman Rubin
and Brian Scott.
Brian M. Scott
<fred.s...@ntlworld.com> wrote in
<news:1e2Vj.304$Nk5...@newsfe15.ams2> in
alt.usage.english,sci.lang:
[...]
> Nor can one easily dismiss the idea that modern
> mathematics is a specialised form of language: it is a
> means of communication, it is an aid to thought, and it
> may be used to describe both real or imagined
> situations.
Only the last of these is more or less true. Mathematics is
a network of concepts that are *discussed* in a specialized
language and symbology, but it is not itself even a
specialized form of language, let alone a language. It can
be communicated, but it is not a means of communication.
Its terminology and symbology are intended to be (and in
general are) aids to thinking about mathematical concepts,
but it is not itself any more of an aid to thought than any
other field of study.
> Compared with the major characteristics it shares with
> language, the differences are relatively minor.
This isn't true even if you're talking about the language
and symbology of mathematics rather than the field itself:
they are inadequate to express most of the concepts
routinely handled by natural languages.
If you want to say that mathematics *uses* special forms of
language, I'll not object. Indeed, beginning mathematics
students often benefit from being told explicitly that
mathematicians use some words and constructions of ordinary
English (German, French, ...) in ways that a native speaker
without mathematical training would probably not expect.
The claim that mathematics *is* a language is nonsense,
however. (I am a mathematician, by the way.)
[...]
Brian
John Atkinson
Are you claiming that the system utilised in those records comprises a
"language"? It seems to me (though I'm no expert on it) that it was
even more deficient in the properties that any complete human language
has than even mathematical notation. Eventually, over the centuries, it
was extended so as to be able to express more or less anything one could
say -- and then it did represent a language -- but this wasn't the case
when all it could do was make lists of items.
In other words, this particular example hardly supports your case.
[...]
John.
Fred Springer
about the subject.
Groping my way a bit further into this thicket, it seems to me that
thinking is based on three sub-processes: language, logic/mathematics,
and images. (I hope that lumping logic and maths together isn't
controversial). Whilst logic and mathematics would appear to have grown
out of language, the creation of images (or physical models)seems to
have an independent origin.
But the important point is that what these 3 sub-processes have in
common is that signs/words are matched to our observations of and
generalisations about the real world, but can then be manipulated to
represent both real and imaginary situations, and to draw conclusions
about them. It was probably that idea that led me into categorising
maths as a language, whereas in fact maths and language are both
examples of a more general kind of process.
This is probably not the right forum to float such discussions, but I'd
welcome any other thoughts anyone might have on this. I have no idea
whether I'm blundering into a philosophical field that has long been
tilled and harvested -- if I have, suggestions for further reading would
be welcome.
Brian M. Scott
<fred.s...@ntlworld.com> wrote in
<news:WyhVj.2073$Nk5...@newsfe15.ams2> in
alt.usage.english,sci.lang:
[...]
> Groping my way a bit further into this thicket, it seems
> to me that thinking is based on three sub-processes:
> language, logic/mathematics, and images. (I hope that
> lumping logic and maths together isn't controversial).
Not to me, at any rate!
> Whilst logic and mathematics would appear to have grown
> out of language, the creation of images (or physical
> models)seems to have an independent origin.
You do have to interpret 'images' broadly enough to include
those based on any of the senses, including the
kinaesthetic. And you've left out emotion, unless you
include it under sensory images.
But this is not a subject about which I claim to know
anything (beyond the fact that cognitive scientists are now
actually starting to make real progress).
[...]
Brian
Adam Funk
>> >> Now, about this "long a/short a" business: I learned a long time ago
>> >> that a long 'a' would be the 'a' in "day" and a short 'a' would be the
>> >> 'a' in "sat."
>>
>> >> Is that the way others here are using the terms long/short? (Daniel uses
>> >> it that way, I think.)
>>
>> > That's what it normally means (and why linguists don't use those
>> > terms); Omrud seems to be trying to apply the linguistics meaning of
>> > "long," referring to actual vowel length as more interesting than
>> > vowel quality.
>>
>> Dies the popular use of "long" and "short" that way come from the use
>> of macrons and microns in the non-IPA pronunciation keys in
>> dictionaries?
>
> I would _guess_ that the terminology precedes the use of the
> diacritics.
I'm a little surprised you approve of using diacritics that way --- it
looks rather like "let's pretend English is like Latin"!
--
Unix is a user-friendly operating system. It's just very choosy about
its friends.
Peter T. Daniels
Um, it _has_ been nine days wince this was last discussed; _what_
"way"? What's there to "approve" of? It's very traditional
terminology, used in a way that suits English (post-GEV) pronunciation
and orthoepy very well (accommodating dialectal differences -- it's
supra-phonemic, as it were: hence my reference to the morphophone).
Adam Funk
> Um, it _has_ been nine days wince this was last discussed; _what_
> "way"? What's there to "approve" of? It's very traditional
> terminology, used in a way that suits English (post-GEV) pronunciation
> and orthoepy very well (accommodating dialectal differences -- it's
> supra-phonemic, as it were: hence my reference to the morphophone).
Those are good points.
_As I see it_, the main advantage of IPA for dictionaries is that once
you'ved learned the notation for your own language, you just need to
learn a few more symbols to use a dictionary in another.
If every language uses its own supra-phonemic annotation system, you'd
have to learn a new system (rather than just some extra symbols) to
use a French dictionary, another new one to use a German dictionary,
etc.
--
I put bomb in squirrel's briefcase and who gets blown up? Me!