How speakest ordinary Elizabethan folks?
Charles Packer
Did ordinary Elizabethans talk the way Shakespeare wrote?
Surely not...but I was listening to a tape of "The Merchant of
Venice" recently, and I began to wonder. It was recorded by
British actors, who, _by_definition_, of course, know how to
recite his lines. They were giving the florid dialogue
conversational speed and inflection. The result was that they
seemed out of breath sometimes. Shouldn't the words be
savored theatrically, even if it slows things down?
--
========== http://www.cais.net/whatnews/whatnews.html =========
========== Nine days of news at a glance =========
Robert Teeter
[humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare added to newsgroups]
Charles Packer (pac...@cais.cais.com) wrote:
: Did ordinary Elizabethans talk the way Shakespeare wrote?
: Surely not...
Depends what you mean by that. Shakespeare wrote in blank
verse mostly -- iambic pentameter being his usual meter. Did
Elizabethans speak in verse? No. But did they use similar vocabulary
and grammatical forms (e.g., "thou," "thee," "thy," "-est" at the
ends of verbs in the third person)? Probably.
: but I was listening to a tape of "The Merchant of
: Venice" recently, and I began to wonder. It was recorded by
: British actors, who, _by_definition_, of course, know how to
: recite his lines.
British actors know how to speak Shakespeare the way
20th century British actors speak Shakespeare. Doesn't mean
it was always spoken that way in Britain.
: They were giving the florid dialogue
: conversational speed and inflection. The result was that they
: seemed out of breath sometimes. Shouldn't the words be
: savored theatrically, even if it slows things down?
There's quite a debate among actors about whether they
should speak Shakespeare so the audience can hear the meter and the
line breaks, or whether they should speak it more "naturally."
(I put that in quotes, because speaking in verse is nobody's
natural way.)
ObBook: The French novel with the character who was surprised to
find out that he'd been speaking prose all his life. Is it by
Hugo?
--
Bob Teeter (rte...@netcom.com) | "Write me a few of your lines"
http://www.wco.com/~rteeter/ | -- Mississippi Fred McDowell
"You might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment." -- Francis Urquhart
"Only connect" -- E. M. Forster
Meg Worley
CallMeBob Teeter writes:
>But did they use similar vocabulary
>and grammatical forms (e.g., "thou," "thee," "thy," "-est" at the
>ends of verbs in the third person)? Probably.
Second. Thou dost, she doth.
Rage away,
meg
(protesting too much)
--
m...@steam.stanford.edu Comparatively Literate
moggin
rte...@netcom.com (Robert Teeter):
[...]
> There's quite a debate among actors about whether they
>should speak Shakespeare so the audience can hear the meter and the
>line breaks, or whether they should speak it more "naturally."
>(I put that in quotes, because speaking in verse is nobody's
>natural way.)
>ObBook: The French novel with the character who was surprised to
>find out that he'd been speaking prose all his life. Is it by
>Hugo?
Moliere.
-- moggin
Caius Marcius
In <moggin-0312...@user-37kb955.dialup.mindspring.com>
mog...@mindspring.com (moggin) writes:
>
>rte...@netcom.com (Robert Teeter):
>[...
>>ObBook: The French novel with the character who was surprised to
>>find out that he'd been speaking prose all his life. Is it by
>>Hugo?
>
> Moliere.
>
More precisely - Moliere's Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme - Act II, in the
dialogue between Monsieur Jourdain (the title character), and the
Philosophy Master who has been hired to tutor him.
- CMC
Richard M. Alderson III
In article <rteeterE...@netcom.com> rte...@netcom.com (Robert Teeter)
writes:
>Did Elizabethans speak in verse? No. But did they use similar vocabulary and
>grammatical forms (e.g., "thou," "thee," "thy," "-est" at the ends of verbs in
>the third person)? Probably.
Well, they'd not likely have used the "-est" form in the third person, because
it's a second-person singular ending. Third-person singular was "-th" or "-s"
(early dialect variation, with "-s" winning out over older "-th"), with similar
(though not identical) rules for anaptyxis.
So the subject line should read
How speak ordinary folk?
or better (given the time frame)
How spake ordinary folk?
The 2nd sg. is reserved to questions like
Speakest thou to me, churl?
The 3rd sg. is used as in
He speaketh though none heareth.
--
Rich Alderson You know the sort of thing that you can find in any dictionary
of a strange language, and which so excites the amateur philo-
logists, itching to derive one tongue from another that they
know better: a word that is nearly the same in form and meaning
as the corresponding word in English, or Latin, or Hebrew, or
what not.
--J. R. R. Tolkien,
alde...@netcom.com _The Notion Club Papers_
Keith C. Ivey
rte...@netcom.com (Robert Teeter) wrote:
>Did Elizabethans speak in verse? No. But did they use
>similar vocabulary and grammatical forms (e.g., "thou,"
>"thee," "thy," "-est" at the ends of verbs in the third
>person)? Probably.
It's probably just a typo (or a thinko), but "-est" is the
ending for the *second* person singular. A third person
singular ending is "-eth".
Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org> Washington, DC
Untangling the Web <http://www.eeicom.com/eye/utw/>
Benjamin P. Carter
How speakest thou? Elizebethan folk speak no more. Methinks a fool
speaketh still.
--
Ben Carter internet address: b...@netcom.com
Gwen A Orel
moggin (mog...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: rte...@netcom.com (Robert Teeter):
: [...]
: > There's quite a debate among actors about whether they
: >should speak Shakespeare so the audience can hear the meter and the
: >line breaks, or whether they should speak it more "naturally."
: >(I put that in quotes, because speaking in verse is nobody's
: >natural way.)
Who is debating that? Nobody in theatre, surely. There is a
way to speak verse *and* be comprehensible. Shakespeare is
generally not rhymed, and his punctuation tells you how to
read it.
Gwen
--
"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
I live in fear of not being misunderstood.-- Oscar wilde
Gwen A Orel
Ordinary Elizabethans sounded much more like Americans
than contemporary British people do. Combine West
Country accents with New England and it's about right.
As for savoring the words theatrically, yes, of course,
but not to the expense of meter and scansion. Could
be that the cast on your tape had flaws!
Gwen
Charles Packer (pac...@cais.cais.com) wrote:
: Did ordinary Elizabethans talk the way Shakespeare wrote?
: Surely not...but I was listening to a tape of "The Merchant of
: Venice" recently, and I began to wonder. It was recorded by
: British actors, who, _by_definition_, of course, know how to
: recite his lines. They were giving the florid dialogue
: conversational speed and inflection. The result was that they
: seemed out of breath sometimes. Shouldn't the words be
: savored theatrically, even if it slows things down?
: --
: ========== http://www.cais.net/whatnews/whatnews.html =========
: ========== Nine days of news at a glance =========
--
beachboy
>British actors know how to speak Shakespeare the way
>20th century British actors speak Shakespeare. Doesn't mean
>it was always spoken that way in Britain.
Apparently, in Tudor England, "knight" (nowadays pronounced "nite")
was pronounced "kerniggit". Clues abound about how other words were
pronounced from the rhythms or the puns they made. Thus, "For gilt of
France, O guilt indeed" suggests that gilt and guilt were pronounced
identically then as now.
Just my two groatsworth.
John Nurick
On Wed, 04 Dec 1996 07:03:53 GMT, beac...@surfing.demon.co.uk
(beachboy) wrote:
>Just my two groatsworth.
>
You profligate beachboy, you! Two groats was a lot of money.
J
William Grosso
Andy Perry wrote:
>
>... If you believe that the original
> production took something like two hours, then clearly it was performed in
> a way utterly different from anything you see nowadays.
>
Indeed, some have speculated that the Globe, because of time
constraints (they wanted to put on 2 shows a day), tried more than
once to put on all the acts concurrently. The practice was only
stopped because of an unfortunate tendency towards "dueling Romeos"
on the part of the younger actors.
Cheers,
Andy
--
"Study of method by itself is always barren"
Christopher Alexander
Andy Perry
In article <5806jf$2...@news2.cais.com>, pac...@cais.cais.com (Charles
Packer) wrote:
>Did ordinary Elizabethans talk the way Shakespeare wrote?
>Surely not...but I was listening to a tape of "The Merchant of
>Venice" recently, and I began to wonder. It was recorded by
>British actors, who, _by_definition_, of course, know how to
>recite his lines. They were giving the florid dialogue
>conversational speed and inflection. The result was that they
>seemed out of breath sometimes. Shouldn't the words be
>savored theatrically, even if it slows things down?
This isn't my field, but I believe it has been argued that Shakespeare's
original productions were spoken and acted VERY fast indeed. This
argument is based almost solely (AFAIK) on the prologue to _Romeo and
Juliet_: "The fearful passage of their death-marked love/.../Is now the
two hours' traffic of our stage." If you believe that the original
production took something like two hours, then clearly it was performed in
a way utterly different from anything you see nowadays.
--
Andy Perry We search before and after,
Brown University We pine for what is not.
English Department Our sincerest laughter
Andrew...@brown.edu OR With some pain is fraught.
st00...@brownvm.bitnet -- Shelley, d'apres Horace Rumpole
Manu
rte...@netcom.com (Robert Teeter) wrote:
>
>ObBook: The French novel with the character who was surprised to
>find out that he'd been speaking prose all his life. Is it by
>Hugo?
Moliere "Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme" play. Note that this character
finding out of prose takes place in a will to change his speech to an
socially upper one, and in the redaction of a love bill.
While writing this, I'm asking myself if it may interest anybody -
even as a follow-up to the quoted question. Bloody culture-showing !
Anyway, the character of le Bourgeois Gentilhomme (for which I don't
have the faintest idea on how to translate) is called Monsieur
Jourdain and it is this way he is currently referred to in France.
I could continue by quoting the original text of the love bill,
"Belle Marquise, vos doux yeux me font mourir d'amour"
more or less
that Mr Jourdain wants to turn in poetry, then in prose - that's how
he finds out, etc...
As a climax to this culture quizz, I should give to my
english-speaking friends the complete references, act, scenes and
Bibliotheque Nationale registration number.
Unfortunately, I have not the slightest idea of it.
Not the good way to win the magnificent set of fake carveed-wood
chairs.
Sorry
Jane A Thompson
"kerniggit" is possible, I suppose--I'm not enough of a linguist to
actually argue; are there more informed folk out there than I am?--but
it does not seem plausible to me. In Chaucer's time, the "k" was
pronounced, but not as a separate syllable; the "gh" referred to a
consonant English no longer has, but a number of other languages,
including German, still do. That would have been equally true whatever
word contained these consonants/blends: "night," "might," "knife"
"know," etc. I don't see evidence in the meter of the later verse or in
other sound-plays that this was generally true in Elizabethan/Jacobean
english, nor is it retained in any colonial dialects as far as I know
(as, for instance, a distinction between singular and plural
second-person pronouns is preserved in some American Southern dialects).
So if the word "knight" alone recieved this kind of overcorrection ("kn"
to "kern" is overcorrection in my book), then there'd have to be a pretty
strong reason. Admittedly, "knight" is the sort of word whose
pronunciation would plausibly attract class-markers and
overcorrections.
I started this message more skeptically than I'm ending it. Does
anyone out there KNOW?
--Jane
Keith C. Ivey
>> Apparently, in Tudor England, "knight" (nowadays pronounced "nite")
>> was pronounced "kerniggit".
>"kerniggit" is possible, I suppose--I'm not enough of a linguist to
>actually argue; are there more informed folk out there than I am?--but
>it does not seem plausible to me.
I think Beachboy has watched "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"
one too many times.
Caius Marcius
In <Pine.OSF.3.91.961205...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> Jane A
Thompson <j...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> writes:
>
>On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, beachboy wrote:
>
>>
>> Apparently, in Tudor England, "knight" (nowadays pronounced "nite")
>> was pronounced "kerniggit".
>"kerniggit" is possible, I suppose--I'm not enough of a linguist to
>actually argue; are there more informed folk out there than I
am?--but
>it does not seem plausible to me. In Chaucer's time, the "k" was
>pronounced, but not as a separate syllable; the "gh" referred to a
>consonant English no longer has, but a number of other languages,
>including German, still do. That would have been equally true
whatever
>word contained these consonants/blends: "night," "might," "knife"
>"know," etc. I don't see evidence in the meter of the later verse or
in
>other sound-plays that this was generally true in Elizabethan/Jacobean
>english, nor is it retained in any colonial dialects as far as I know
>(as, for instance, a distinction between singular and plural
>second-person pronouns is preserved in some American Southern
dialects).
>So if the word "knight" alone recieved this kind of overcorrection
("kn"
>to "kern" is overcorrection in my book), then there'd have to be a
pretty
>strong reason. Admittedly, "knight" is the sort of word whose
>pronunciation would plausibly attract class-markers and
>overcorrections.
> I started this message more skeptically than I'm ending it. Does
>anyone out there KNOW?
>
> --Jane
>
I'm afraid I don't know - but I do remember John Cleese as the abusive
French soldier in *Monty Python & The Holy Grail* mocking King Arthur
and his men as "daffy English kerniggets". So, unless we are so
misguided as to question the authority of Monty Python, "kernigget" may
have meant something similar to "knight", even if the word "knight"
itself was not so enunciated.
- CMC
>
Gwen A Orel
I think the Monty Python skit was intended to satirize old english
pronunciations, not reflect them.
Gwen
Caius Marcius (cori...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <Pine.OSF.3.91.961205...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> Jane A
: - CMC
: >
Gareth Williams
Thus spake pac...@cais.cais.com (Charles Packer) :
+Did ordinary Elizabethans talk the way Shakespeare wrote?
+Surely not...but I was listening to a tape of "The Merchant of
+Venice" recently, and I began to wonder. It was recorded by
+British actors, who, _by_definition_, of course, know how to
+recite his lines.
Very few ordinary Elizabethans are left alive. And I don't think that
being British means we know to speak Shakespearian dialogue - but it
helps.
Some years ago, those of the scholarly persuasion reported that there
was a village in the middle of Yorkshire which had an accent which was
very similar to that of the time of Chaucer.
I have not heard of any similar study for Elizabethan English but
there almost surely is someone who might enlighten us.
To pick up Shakespeare's own rhythms and puns better, would you have
us speak Warwickshire?
----
Warwickshire man goes to drown unwanted cat tied in a sack.
It miaows pitifully when it feels the water on its paws. He
immediately pulls it out again...
'Sorray...If oi ad known yow wuz a wurricksheer catt oi wood not av
troid to drown yow'
[alt thread on representing dialogue]
and, yes, I know, that was modern Warwickshire.
regards
Gareth Williams <g...@fmode.demon.co.uk>
Francis Muir
Gwen A Orel writes:
I think the Monty Python skit was intended to satirize
old english pronunciations, not reflect them.
They did both. When we did *THE PROLOGUE* at Stonyhurst we
pronounced "knight" "KNICHT", with the "K" there and the rest
vaguely as a Teutonic night. MP merely pushed it a bit.
Fido
Chuck Rothman
beachboy wrote:
>
> >British actors know how to speak Shakespeare the way
> >20th century British actors speak Shakespeare. Doesn't mean
> >it was always spoken that way in Britain.
>
> was pronounced "kerniggit".
>
Slight error here. By the Tudor times, "knight" was pronounced
essentially the same way it is now. Earlier, though, (Old English) it
was pronounced [knixt], the [x] standing for the velar fricative like
the "ch" in the German "ach" or Hebrew "Chanukah." The "k" was
pronounced.
The "gh" combination at the end of words was the attempt by French
scribes (who did nearly all the writing of English after 1066) to try to
characterize this unfamilar sound.
--
Chuck Rothman
http://www.sff.net/people/Rothman/
news://news.sff.net/sff.people.rothman
Join Albacon '97! E-mail for info.
Bruce McGuffin
Garteth Williams wrote:
Very few ordinary Elizabethans are left alive. And I don't think that
being British means we know to speak Shakespearian dialogue - but it
helps.
Some years ago, those of the scholarly persuasion reported that there
was a village in the middle of Yorkshire which had an accent which was
very similar to that of the time of Chaucer.
I have not heard of any similar study for Elizabethan English but
there almost surely is someone who might enlighten us.
To pick up Shakespeare's own rhythms and puns better, would you have
us speak Warwickshire?
It has been claimed that there is an island in Chesapeake Bay where
the inhabitants still speak Elizabethan English. I don't remember the
details. Can anyone fill us in? For instance, how do they know its
really Elizabethan?
Bruce McGuffin
Ted Samsel
Bruce McGuffin (mcgu...@ll.mit.edu) wrote:
:
: It has been claimed that there is an island in Chesapeake Bay where
: the inhabitants still speak Elizabethan English. I don't remember the
: details. Can anyone fill us in? For instance, how do they know its
: really Elizabethan?
Tangier Island. Settled by Tangerines....
--
Ted Samsel....tejas@infi.net "Took all the money I had in the bank,
Bought a rebuilt carburetor,
put the rest in the tank."
USED CARLOTTA.. 1995
Robert Teeter
Ted Samsel (te...@infi.net) wrote:
: Bruce McGuffin (mcgu...@ll.mit.edu) wrote:
: :
: : It has been claimed that there is an island in Chesapeake Bay where
: : the inhabitants still speak Elizabethan English. I don't remember the
: : details. Can anyone fill us in? For instance, how do they know its
: : really Elizabethan?
: Tangier Island. Settled by Tangerines....
There are some details in _The Story of English_ by Robert
McNeil et al. You can hear them -- and Shakespeare's Yorkshire
neighbors -- in the relevant volume of the videotape series.
Bob Gore
On 6 Dec 1996, Caius Marcius wrote:
> In <Pine.OSF.3.91.961205...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> Jane A
> Thompson <j...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> writes:
> >
> >On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, beachboy wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Apparently, in Tudor England, "knight" (nowadays pronounced "nite")
> >> was pronounced "kerniggit".
>
The pronunciation in middle english would have been closer to the
German "knecht," with a softer sound in the final group of consonants
than the boys gave it.
Bob Gore
G. Cherlin
Gareth Williams wrote:
[...]
----
> Warwickshire man goes to drown unwanted cat tied in a sack.
> It miaows pitifully when it feels the water on its paws. He
> immediately pulls it out again...
> 'Sorray...If oi ad known yow wuz a wurricksheer catt oi wood not av
> troid to drown yow'
> [alt thread on representing dialogue]
> and, yes, I know, that was modern Warwickshire.
>
> regards
> Gareth Williams <g...@fmode.demon.co.uk>
At Gallipoli, having taken stock of the situation, one
of the Anzac officers told his men:
"M'boys, I'm afraid I've brought you here to die."
Voice from the crowd -
"No sir! You brought us here yester-die".
On the other hand ...
- if reasons were as plentiful as blackberries, I'd give
no man a reason, I.
Over lunch today someone raised the question as to what
Edmund Burke would actually have sounded like.
The first guess was: Winston Churchill with an Irish
accent. The question then is - which Irish accent?
- G. Cherlin
Liberty Star Stanavage
Well, here's my two cents:
> - CMC
Well, to my understanding, while the "k" was pronounced as a hard consonant,
as in "kill", the "gh" did indeed have the german sound "ich", so the word
would end up sounding more like "k(a)nicht". Kernigget seems like it might
be a somewhat parodic exaggeration of this, although it could just be an
exaggeration of an earlier form than I am familiar with. One of the python
players is actually a quite good medievalist, so this may very well be,
although I am inclined, with the tone of that movie to assume it may be a
kind of in-joke exaggeration for those who know the actual pronunciation.
Also possibly a jab at the stereotyped French accent when speaking english.
(Not that I'd suggest that the Brits would ever make fun of the French, mind
you.)
Hope this helps,
Liberty Stanavage
ra...@cats.ucsc.edu
Gwen A Orel
Yes, it's true; details were in a wonderful series on the English
Language about nine years ago. There was a companion volume to
the series. Anyone know the title?
Gwen
Bruce McGuffin (mcgu...@ll.mit.edu) wrote:
: Garteth Williams wrote:
: Very few ordinary Elizabethans are left alive. And I don't think that
: being British means we know to speak Shakespearian dialogue - but it
: helps.
: Some years ago, those of the scholarly persuasion reported that there
: was a village in the middle of Yorkshire which had an accent which was
: very similar to that of the time of Chaucer.
: I have not heard of any similar study for Elizabethan English but
: there almost surely is someone who might enlighten us.
: To pick up Shakespeare's own rhythms and puns better, would you have
: us speak Warwickshire?
: It has been claimed that there is an island in Chesapeake Bay where
: the inhabitants still speak Elizabethan English. I don't remember the
: details. Can anyone fill us in? For instance, how do they know its
: really Elizabethan?
: Bruce McGuffin
Gwen A Orel
That's what I meant-- still a far cry from kerniggit, but recognizable
enough to be funny to those who've read Chaucer etc.
Like the bit in Life of Brian where the schoolmaster corrects the Latin
graffiti!
Gwen
Francis Muir (fra...@pangea.stanford.edu) wrote:
: Gwen A Orel writes:
: Fido
--
Raymot
In article <32A679...@ix.netcom.com>, apul...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
>Andy Perry wrote:
>>
>>... If you believe that the original
>> production took something like two hours, then clearly it was performed
in
>> a way utterly different from anything you see nowadays.
>>
>
>constraints (they wanted to put on 2 shows a day), tried more than
>once to put on all the acts concurrently. The practice was only
>stopped because of an unfortunate tendency towards "dueling Romeos"
>on the part of the younger actors.
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>Andy
>--
he should be on stage or not, and he often spoilt a performance
by public pondering this.
It was a popular practice for a time, and the famous actor who
played King Lear said there must be some sense to it, but if there
was he couldn't see it.
They began to cut out the practice after patrons of Macbeth took
to responding to Macbeth's line "Lay on Macduff, and damned be him
that first cries ... " by joining in a rowdy chorus of "Hold, Enough!"
Raymot
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
Mark Israel
In article <vkybfb8...@elmer.llan>, mcgu...@ll.mit.edu (Bruce McGuffin) writes:
> It has been claimed that there is an island in Chesapeake Bay where
> the inhabitants still speak Elizabethan English. I don't remember the
> details. Can anyone fill us in? For instance, how do they know its
> really Elizabethan?
From the sci.lang FAQ:
# "There's a town in Appalachia that speaks pure Elizabethan English."
#
# There isn't. All languages, everywhere, are constantly changing. Some
# areas speak more conservative dialects, but we know of no case where
# people speak exactly as their ancestors spoke centuries ago.
#
# Of course, ancient languages are sometimes revived; biblical Hebrew has
# been revived (with some modifications) in modern Israel; and there's a
# village in India in which Sanskrit is being taught as an everyday
# language. But these are conscious revivals of languages which have
# otherwise died out in everyday use, not survivals of living languages.
There is a *grain* of truth to this story. Some Elizabethan
locutions obsolete elsewhere do survive in the U.S. southern highlands
(Appalachians and Ozarks). There's a list of them in Reader's Digest
_Success with Words_. Here are the first few:
admire = "to be astonished"
afore = "before"
bore = "to ridicule"
budget = "package"
buss = "to kiss"
care = "to object"
--
mis...@scripps.edu Mark Israel
Francis Muir
Polar writes:
WHY use "speakest", which is a 2nd person singular ending,
for the 3rd person plural word "folks"??? Is it so
painful to say "how SPEAK ....folks"?
I do not believe this thread is for the humor impaired.
Fido
Kay Freeman
mis...@scripps.edu (Mark Israel) wrote:
> There is a *grain* of truth to this story. Some Elizabethan
>locutions obsolete elsewhere do survive in the U.S. southern highlands
>(Appalachians and Ozarks). There's a list of them in Reader's Digest
>_Success with Words_. Here are the first few:
>
>admire = "to be astonished"
>afore = "before"
>bore = "to ridicule"
>budget = "package"
>buss = "to kiss"
>care = "to object"
>
>--
>mis...@scripps.edu Mark Israel
>
So then did the expression "I don't care" originally mean "I don't
object"?
Kay Freeman
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
In article <58apm5$r...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, gao...@pitt.edu
(Gwen A Orel) writes:
> Yes, it's true; details were in a wonderful series on the English
> Language about nine years ago. There was a companion volume to
> the series. Anyone know the title?
No doubt the series was _The Story of English_, and, if so, the companion
volume bears the same title. Authors are McCrum, Cran, and MacNeil. Publisher
in paper is Penguin; original publisher was Viking. ISBN 0 14 00.9435 0.
Was this the series in which there was a delightful episode in which people
from all over tried to guess what a gum band might be; all except the woman
from Pittsburgh, who thought the term "rubber band" a little odd?
Gary Williams
WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
Kullervo Nurmi
Francis Muir <fra...@pangea.stanford.edu> wrote:
>Gwen A Orel writes:
>
> I think the Monty Python skit was intended to satirize
> old english pronunciations, not reflect them.
>
>They did both. When we did *THE PROLOGUE* at Stonyhurst we
>pronounced "knight" "KNICHT", with the "K" there and the rest
>vaguely as a Teutonic night. MP merely pushed it a bit.
By 'Teutonic night', are you referring to the one described by 'an,
auf, hinter, in, neben, ueber, unter, vor, zwischen'?
(Sorry, this opening was just irresistible)
Obaue:
I think 'knight' has very old Germanic roots, in forms /knixt/ or
/knext/ it appears all over the place; even in Finnish as /nihti/,
although it's considered obsolete and foreign.
--Kultsi
---
The space below is reserved for the .sig of
kullerv...@pp.inet.fi
http://www.inet.fi/koti/nurmku-1.html
No parking allowed
---
Edward N. Todd
rte...@netcom.com (Robert Teeter) wrote:
>Charles Packer (pac...@cais.cais.com) wrote:
>: Did ordinary Elizabethans talk the way Shakespeare wrote?
>: Surely not...
GR Elton claims, in his book STAR CHAMBER STORIES, that court
records--apparently a clerk's try at putting down what a witness said
in court--show people using the familiar forms of pronouns--'thee',
'thy', all that--fairly often. Were the clerks conscientious in their
work? Probably, but there are no guarantees.
Elton found one man accused of threatening a town official in this
form: 'a turd in thy teeth, and in thy master's teeth, too!' Elton
has probably spent more time in researching English court records of
the early 16th century than any man alive; he thinks the records are
fairly reliable guides.
>ObBook: The French novel with the character who was surprised to
>find out that he'd been speaking prose all his life. Is it by
>Hugo?
Wasn't that in one of Moliere's plays?
Gwen A Orel
Yes, that's the series! Thanks.
I live in Pittsburgh now, and there is an odd kind of English among
the natives-- based, I think, on the Poles and Slovaks who settled
here, not a holdover from the Elizabethans.
Favorietes:
1) I'm goin' dahntahn
2) This car needs warshed
(no to be after needs)
Gwen
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting (will...@ahecas.ahec.edu) wrote:
: In article <58apm5$r...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, gao...@pitt.edu
: (Gwen A Orel) writes:
: Gary Williams
: WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
--
Kevin J. Maroney
Jane A Thompson <j...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
>(as, for instance, a distinction between singular and plural
>second-person pronouns is preserved in some American Southern dialects).
I was just discussing this on another newsgroup, and I wondered aloud
at how strong the distinction is. I lived in the South for 16 years,
and in that time I don't remember meeting anyone who made a clear
distinction between "you" and "y'all", and a lot of people who used
"y'all" as a singular.
A friend from Brooklyn chimed in that in her neighborhood there is
almost no distinction between "you" and "youse", which drives her up a
tree.
I know the Quakers have a unique version of "thou/thee", but is there
a strong distinction between singular and plural second person
pronouns in any other flavor of English?
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | ke...@crossover.com
Games are my entire waking life.
jb jones
I have lived in the Southeastern United States all my life and I have
yet to meet anyone who uses "ya'll" in the second person singular.
Truly Donovan
jb jones wrote:
>
> Kevin J. Maroney wrote:
> >
> > Jane A Thompson <j...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >(as, for instance, a distinction between singular and plural
> > >second-person pronouns is preserved in some American Southern dialects).
> >
> > I was just discussing this on another newsgroup, and I wondered aloud
> > at how strong the distinction is. I lived in the South for 16 years,
> > and in that time I don't remember meeting anyone who made a clear
> > distinction between "you" and "y'all", and a lot of people who used
> > "y'all" as a singular.
Based on the context, I am going to assume that "a lot of people who
used "y'all" as a singular" is not intended to be the object of "don't
remember meeting."
>
> I have lived in the Southeastern United States all my life and I have
> yet to meet anyone who uses "ya'll" in the second person singular.
The subject of the discussion is "y'all," not "ya'll" (who *no one* has
ever heard used anywhere for any reason).
In any case, according to my records it is still another 36 hours before
this subject is scheduled for rediscussion in this newsgroup. Then we
can once again entertain the debate among those southerners who
1. Have never heard it and therefore it cannot exist.
2. Have heard it but only from Yankees and in the movies.
3. Have heard it but only from southerners who are attempting to amuse
Yankee tourists.
4. Have never heard it but if they had heard it know it would have been
from southerners who are attempting to amuse Yankee tourists.
5. Have heard it (or never heard it) but say that it does not actually
refer to the single individual to whom it is addressed but rather to
that individual and everyone they hold dear.
6. Have heard it and recognize it (from linguistic field studies) as a
politeness marker such as found in French and German and so it is not
really singular because, whenever it is used, it is by definition
plural.
AND
The Yankees who have been in the south and been so addressed.
I can hardly wait.
--
Truly Donovan
"Industrial-strength SGML," Prentice Hall 1996
ISBN 0-13-216243-1
http://www.prenhall.com
chelsea corazon
jb jones <jbj...@voyageronline.net> wrote:
>Kevin J. Maroney wrote:
>>
>> Jane A Thompson <j...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >(as, for instance, a distinction between singular and plural
>> >second-person pronouns is preserved in some American Southern dialects).
>>
>> I was just discussing this on another newsgroup, and I wondered aloud
>> at how strong the distinction is. I lived in the South for 16 years,
>> and in that time I don't remember meeting anyone who made a clear
>> distinction between "you" and "y'all", and a lot of people who used
>> "y'all" as a singular.
>>
>> almost no distinction between "you" and "youse", which drives her up a
>> tree.
>>
>> I know the Quakers have a unique version of "thou/thee", but is there
>> a strong distinction between singular and plural second person
>> pronouns in any other flavor of English?
>>
>> --
>> Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | ke...@crossover.com
>> Games are my entire waking life.
>
>
>yet to meet anyone who uses "ya'll" in the second person singular.
Well I've lived in the Southeast (if Maryland and D.C. qualify), the
Midwest, and currently the Golden West (mid-California), and I've heard
it. Those are the same people who use "ya'lls" in the second person
plural.
~Chelsea~
N.R. Mitchum
Kevin J. Maroney wrote:
-----------
> I lived in the South for 16 years,
> and in that time I don't remember meeting anyone who made a clear
> distinction between "you" and "y'all", and a lot of people who used
> "y'all" as a singular.
and jb jones replied:
---------
> I have lived in the Southeastern United States all my life and I have
> yet to meet anyone who uses "ya'll" in the second person singular.
>.......
We ought to save these two quotes and simply nail them up every
time this same argument starts afresh -- which I figure happens about
once a month. Together they sum up everything that will be said in all
the thirty or forty posts that erupt on these occasions.
--- NM
Keith C. Ivey
>I was just discussing this on another newsgroup, and I wondered aloud
>at how strong the distinction is. I lived in the South for 16 years,
>and in that time I don't remember meeting anyone who made a clear
>distinction between "you" and "y'all", and a lot of people who used
>"y'all" as a singular.
Kevin, you claimed you were a frequent lurker on AUE! The
newsgroup has been blessedly free of discussion of singular
"y'all" for what seems like nearly a week now. Now you've gone
and stirred up the Southerners again. Any minute now Truly
Donovan's going to have to jump in.
[posted and mailed]
Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org> Washington, DC
Untangling the Web <http://www.eeicom.com/eye/utw/>
Ken MacIver
"N.R. Mitchum" <aj...@mail.lafn.org> wrote:
>Kevin J. Maroney wrote:
>-----------
>> I lived in the South for 16 years,
>> and in that time I don't remember meeting anyone who made a clear
>> distinction between "you" and "y'all", and a lot of people who used
>> "y'all" as a singular.
>and jb jones replied:
>---------
>> I have lived in the Southeastern United States all my life and I have
>> yet to meet anyone who uses "ya'll" in the second person singular.
>>.......
>We ought to save these two quotes and simply nail them up every
>time this same argument starts afresh -- which I figure happens about
>once a month. Together they sum up everything that will be said in all
>the thirty or forty posts that erupt on these occasions.
Y'all come back again, now, y'hear.
ken
Kevin J. Maroney
kci...@cpcug.org (Keith C. Ivey) wrote:
>Any minute now Truly
>Donovan's going to have to jump in.
Got it in one. Whatever was I thinking?
Jane A Thompson
On 6 Dec 1996, Caius Marcius wrote:
> I'm afraid I don't know - but I do remember John Cleese as the abusive
> French soldier in *Monty Python & The Holy Grail* mocking King Arthur
> and his men as "daffy English kerniggets". So, unless we are so
> misguided as to question the authority of Monty Python, "kernigget" may
> have meant something similar to "knight", even if the word "knight"
> itself was not so enunciated.
Far be it from me to question the authority of Monty Python.
--Jane
Jane A Thompson
On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, Francis Muir wrote:
> Gwen A Orel writes:
>
> I think the Monty Python skit was intended to satirize
> old english pronunciations, not reflect them.
>
> They did both. When we did *THE PROLOGUE* at Stonyhurst we
> pronounced "knight" "KNICHT", with the "K" there and the rest
> vaguely as a Teutonic night. MP merely pushed it a bit.
>
> Fido
--which makes perfect sense, considering that the speaker is a
French-speaking person (not a Middle-French speaking person? Well, I
suppose even the most erudite parody has limits) making fun of the
English persons who might have used such a ME pronunciation.
--Jane
Jane A Thompson
Except for the usage of "bubbler" (water fountain. E-mail me if you have
any interest in this), there's little in my own dialect I'd care to describe
anecdotally. Where are the southern linguists on this?
--Jane
David Bedggood
> >second-person pronouns is preserved in some American Southern dialects).
>
> and in that time I don't remember meeting anyone who made a clear
> distinction between "you" and "y'all", and a lot of people who used
> "y'all" as a singular.
>
> almost no distinction between "you" and "youse", which drives her up a
> tree.
>
> I know the Quakers have a unique version of "thou/thee", but is there
> a strong distinction between singular and plural second person
> pronouns in any other flavor of English?
>
> Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | ke...@crossover.com
> Games are my entire waking life.
I think that use of "thou/thee" still sometimes occurs in some parts of
Yorkshire.
Gerry Cechony
KI> ... discussion of singular
KI> "y'all" ...
In Noo Yawk we NEVAH used "youse" or "yiz" as a singulah.
* RM 1.31 3115 * An' dat's why de Nawt' won de Waw ta Kick Crackah Butt
Gerry Cechony
> A friend from Brooklyn chimed in that in her neighborhood there is
> almost no distinction between "you" and "youse", which drives her up a
> tree.
See my accompanying post. While I can't speak for Brooklyn (nor
any backwaters, for that matter) in Noo Yawk we NEVAH ...
E.Holmes
On Mon, 09 Dec 1996, in alt.usage.english, Truly Donovan remarks:
/The subject of the discussion is "y'all," not "ya'll" (who *no one* has
/ever heard used anywhere for any reason).
/
/In any case, according to my records it is still another 36 hours before
/this subject is scheduled for rediscussion in this newsgroup. Then we
/can once again entertain the debate among [...:-)]
I only get to read this group every couple of months or so, and
this time it has been four months since I was here. However, I
DO have to admit that I was surprised to find this topic still
under discussion. What fun. I think I'll make a place on my
website dedicated to the issue.
E.(who wonders why the topic holds such endless fascination)Holmes
--
"LO! I AM BECOME A JUMPING HORSE, } eho...@onramp.net
DESTROYER OF WORLDS!!"--Eli Balin } http://rampages.onramp.net/~eholmes/
E.Holmes
On 9 Dec 1996 23:30:25 GMT, in alt.usage.english, chelsea corazon remarks:
/Well I've lived in the Southeast (if Maryland and D.C. qualify)
Actually, they don't. Regardless of the metaphorical M-D line,
that's still Yankee-land.
E.(I'm NOT discussing any word usage, & am thus NOT on topic, alas)Holmes
--
"It's an accumulation of the most useless information on usenet
but no one should be without it." (Isaac Derynivich, referring
to [http://www.ucc.ie/cgi-bin/acronym] in _Places out of Time_)
Jaffo
In alt.politics.jaffo, on Wed, 11 Dec 1996 14:01:21 GMT, E.Holmes wrote:
: I only get to read this group every couple of months or so, and
: this time it has been four months since I was here. However, I
: DO have to admit that I was surprised to find this topic still
: under discussion. What fun. I think I'll make a place on my
: website dedicated to the issue.
yawl
yawl (yol) noun
Nautical.
1. A two-masted fore-and-aft-rigged sailing vessel similar to the
ketch but having a smaller jigger mast stepped abaft the rudder. Also
called dandy.
2. A ship's small boat, crewed by rowers.
[Dutch jol, possibly from Low German jolle.]
--
Jaffo's Home Page - http://rampages.onramp.net/~jaffo/
Net.Legends Mirror - http://rampages.onramp.net/~jaffo/nl/
Kibology Posting Archives - http://rampages.onramp.net/~jaffo/archives.html
Join Jaffo's AOL Invasion Force! Email ja...@onramp.net for details!
Ken MacIver
ja...@onramp.net (Jaffo) wrote:
[snip]
>yawl
>yawl (yol) noun
>Nautical.
>1. A two-masted fore-and-aft-rigged sailing vessel similar to the
>ketch but having a smaller jigger mast stepped abaft the rudder. Also
>called dandy.
>2. A ship's small boat, crewed by rowers.
>[Dutch jol, possibly from Low German jolle.]
The Dutch yawl-rigged fishing vessels known as "bomschuiten" would
simply sail ashore on isolated beaches in ports such as Scheveningen,
where teams of horses would pull them high and dry before unloading
the herring. Each boat also had a screw-jack on the stern, which
could jack up the ship for bottoms reparis on the beach.
ken
Robert Teeter
Kevin J. Maroney (kmar...@crossover.com) wrote:
: I know the Quakers have a unique version of "thou/thee", but is there
: a strong distinction between singular and plural second person
: pronouns in any other flavor of English?
Does this mean the Quakers have a plural form? If so, what is
it? Usually, "thou" is the objective case and "thee" is the subjective.
Either can be singular or plural.
--
Bob Teeter (rte...@netcom.com) | "Write me a few of your lines"
http://www.wco.com/~rteeter/ | -- Mississippi Fred McDowell
"You might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment." -- Francis Urquhart
"Only connect" -- E. M. Forster
John Soward Bayne
Isn't this backwards? "For thou art with me" in Ps.23 and "I love thee
truly" the sappy wedding song?
I thought thee/thou was always singular, and "intimate," like French and
Italian tu and German Du.
Cheers
JSBayne
Irina Bondarenko
Gwen A Orel wrote:
>
> That's what I meant-- still a far cry from kerniggit, but recognizable
> enough to be funny to those who've read Chaucer etc.
>
> Like the bit in Life of Brian where the schoolmaster corrects the Latin
> graffiti!
>
> Gwen
>
"Roman go home" was on my Latin final. Turns out it's NOT the locative
contrary to the guy who kept going "no, no, no, it's the locative."
--
-Irina.
Fiona Webster
Kevin writes:
>I was just discussing this on another newsgroup, and I wondered aloud
>at how strong the distinction is. I lived in the South for 16 years,
>and in that time I don't remember meeting anyone who made a clear
>distinction between "you" and "y'all", and a lot of people who used
>"y'all" as a singular.
Well, that just shows that the South is not the end all and be all
regarding the use of "y'all". In Houston, Texas -- mah home town --
"y'all" is *always* plural.
--Fiona
Robert Teeter
John Soward Bayne (John_...@nt.com) wrote:
: Robert Teeter wrote:
: >
: > Kevin J. Maroney (kmar...@crossover.com) wrote:
: >
: > : I know the Quakers have a unique version of "thou/thee", but is there
: > : a strong distinction between singular and plural second person
: > : pronouns in any other flavor of English?
: >
: > Does this mean the Quakers have a plural form? If so, what is
: > it? Usually, "thou" is the objective case and "thee" is the subjective.
: > Either can be singular or plural.
: Isn't this backwards? "For thou art with me" in Ps.23 and "I love thee
: truly" the sappy wedding song?
You're right about this. I got my objective and subjective
backwards.
: I thought thee/thou was always singular, and "intimate," like French and
: Italian tu and German Du.
If so, then what is the plural of "thee" and "thou"? It's
definitely the intimate form -- "you" is the formal -- but I think it
can be plural as well.
bar...@bookpro.com
eho...@removethis.onramp.net (E.Holmes) wrote:
>On 9 Dec 1996 23:30:25 GMT, in alt.usage.english, chelsea corazon remarks:
>
>/Well I've lived in the Southeast (if Maryland and D.C. qualify)
>
> Actually, they don't. Regardless of the metaphorical M-D line,
> that's still Yankee-land.
Not southern Maryland, where I live. It's Southern, and I believe had
Southern sympathizers throughout the War Between the States. Ditto
the Eastern Shore, where Frederick Douglass was born a slave. D.C.,
where I was born, is still somewhat a Southern city, though less so
than it was before World War II. (What's that famous description of
D.C.? Something like "It has Northern charm and Southern
efficiency.")
BWillette
B.W. Battin
>
>
>I have lived in the Southeastern United States all my life and I have
>yet to meet anyone who uses "ya'll" in the second person singular.
For whatever it is worth, I have spent time in both Louisiana and
Alabama, and have often been addressed as y'all, both when I was with
others and when I was alone. It seemed to make absolutely no
difference.
B. W. Battin
John J. Armstrong
In article <rteeterE...@netcom.com>,
rte...@netcom.com (Robert Teeter) wrote:
(snip)
> If so, then what is the plural of "thee" and "thou"? It's
>definitely the intimate form -- "you" is the formal -- but I think it
>can be plural as well.
"You" is the plural form in nom and obj cases.
In baptisms in Scottish churches, "The Lord bless thee and keep thee" is
traditionally sung. When two or more babies are baptised, you can hear the
pedants like me singing "you" every time (six, IIRC).
John J. Armstrong
Dundee
Scotland
"Indecision is the key to flexibility."
Keith C. Ivey
Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com> wrote:
>The subject of the discussion is "y'all," not "ya'll" (who *no one* has
>ever heard used anywhere for any reason).
If ya go around making sweeping statements like that, ya'll
occasionally go too far.
[followups to alt.usage.english only--how long has it been since
this had anything to do with Shakespeare?]
Walter A. Aprile
>
>>The subject of the discussion is "y'all," not "ya'll" (who *no one* has
>>ever heard used anywhere for any reason).
>
>If ya go around making sweeping statements like that, ya'll
>occasionally go too far.
>
>[followups to alt.usage.english only--how long has it been since
>this had anything to do with Shakespeare?]
Here in beautiful, sunny Pittsburgh the distinction seems to be alive.
Apparently "you" is the singular, while "you all","y'all" and the incredibly
bothersome "you guys" are the plural.
Omaggi, Walter
-- http://sodom.mt.cs.cmu.edu:1971/Home.html -><-
Visit Little Italy ! telnet://little.usr.dsi.unimi.it:4444
"... e trombe marine di risotti verso la proda salvatrice !"
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
> You're right about this. I got my objective and subjective
> backwards.
I think maybe the Quakers do, too.
> If so, then what is the plural of "thee" and "thou"?
"You" and "you". It's not unusual for the plural form to become the
deferential singular.
Gary Williams
WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
Tom Wier
Keith C. Ivey wrote:
>
> will...@ahecas.ahec.edu (Gary Williams) wrote:
> >rte...@netcom.com (Robert Teeter) writes:
>
> >> You're right about this. I got my objective and subjective
> >> backwards.
>
> >I think maybe the Quakers do, too.
>
> "thee" is "used in the nominative as well as the objective case,
> especially by members of the Society of Friends." They don't
> use "thou" at all, and I believe they use third-person singular
> verb forms with "thee".
>
> [followups to alt.usage.english only]
>
> Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org> Washington, DC
> Untangling the Web <http://www.eeicom.com/eye/utw/>
No, English "Thou" and "thee" come from Old English
"þu" (thu) and "þé" (the), the first beïng the nominative and
the second being the objective (oblique).
They always take the following forms:
I play
thou playest
he, she, it playeth
How could a dictionary make such a mistake?
Pax vobiscum et valete,
Tom
--
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Tom Wier
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."
Tomaso....@worldnet.att.net
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/index.html>
See also: <http://www.webcom.com/songbird/prophecy.html>
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Tom Wier
Walter A. Aprile wrote:
>
> kci...@cpcug.org (Keith C. Ivey) wrote:
> >Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com> wrote:
> >
> >>The subject of the discussion is "y'all," not "ya'll" (who *no one* has
> >>ever heard used anywhere for any reason).
> >
> >If ya go around making sweeping statements like that, ya'll
> >occasionally go too far.
> >
> >[followups to alt.usage.english only--how long has it been since
> >this had anything to do with Shakespeare?]
>
> Here in beautiful, sunny Pittsburgh the distinction seems to be alive.
> Apparently "you" is the singular, while "you all","y'all" and the incredibly
> bothersome "you guys" are the plural.
In Houston, we make a greater distinction:
(1) you : singular
(2) y'all: dual; often used for any plural
(3) all of y'all: strictly plural.
Keith C. Ivey
Truly Donovan
Tom Wier wrote:
>
> Keith C. Ivey wrote:
> >
> > will...@ahecas.ahec.edu (Gary Williams) wrote:
> > >rte...@netcom.com (Robert Teeter) writes:
> >
> > >> You're right about this. I got my objective and subjective
> > >> backwards.
> >
> > >I think maybe the Quakers do, too.
> >
> > According to _The American Heritage Dictionary_ (3rd ed.),
> > "thee" is "used in the nominative as well as the objective case,
> > especially by members of the Society of Friends." They don't
> > use "thou" at all, and I believe they use third-person singular
> > verb forms with "thee".
>
> the second being the objective (oblique).
>
> They always take the following forms:
>
> I play
> thou playest
> he, she, it playeth
>
> How could a dictionary make such a mistake?
Maybe the Quakers aren't speaking Old English but American Quaker
English.
--
Truly Donovan
"Industrial-strength SGML," Prentice Hall 1996
ISBN 0-13-216243-1
http://www.prenhall.com
Truly Donovan
Tom Wier wrote:
>
> In Houston, we make a greater distinction:
>
> (1) you : singular
> (2) y'all: dual; often used for any plural
> (3) all of y'all: strictly plural.
Dual? (I'm trying to figure out if I need to update my list.)
Bill Wagstaff
In article <32B4CE...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>, Tom Wier
<Tomaso....@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Keith C. Ivey wrote:
> >
> > will...@ahecas.ahec.edu (Gary Williams) wrote:
> > >rte...@netcom.com (Robert Teeter) writes:
SNIP..SNIP
> > According to _The American Heritage Dictionary_ (3rd ed.),
> > "thee" is "used in the nominative as well as the objective case,
> > especially by members of the Society of Friends." They don't
> > use "thou" at all, and I believe they use third-person singular
> > verb forms with "thee".
I don't think this is so. The Society of Friends (Quakers) used both
'thee" and 'thou" considering the "you" form a worldly corruption and
a vaingloriuos social custom.
Richard Farnsworth in "The Pure Language of the Spirit of Truth"
(1655) wrote:"That which cannot bear thee and thou to a single person,
what sort soever, is exalted proud flesh, and is accursed. " The Friends bore
cruel persecution for this form of speech as George Fox recalls. stating
that proud men would berate them saying " Thou thou'st me, thou ill-bred
clown."
See David Crystal's work in this regard.
Keith C. Ivey
>> According to _The American Heritage Dictionary_ (3rd ed.),
>> "thee" is "used in the nominative as well as the objective case,
>> especially by members of the Society of Friends." They don't
>> use "thou" at all, and I believe they use third-person singular
>> verb forms with "thee".
>No, English "Thou" and "thee" come from Old English
>"şu" (thu) and "şé" (the), the first beïng the nominative and
>the second being the objective (oblique).
>They always take the following forms:
> I play
> thou playest
> he, she, it playeth
>How could a dictionary make such a mistake?
It's not a mistake. That's how the Quakers (the Society of
Friends) use "thee", which is what we were discussing in this
particular subthread. It's not the same as the way "thou" and
"thee" are used in the Bible, Shakespeare, or other places.
Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org> Washington, DC
Contributing Editor/Webmaster
The Editorial Eye <http://www.eeicom.com/eye/>
Matthew L Weber
On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Jane A Thompson wrote:
> On 6 Dec 1996, Caius Marcius wrote:
>
> > I'm afraid I don't know - but I do remember John Cleese as the abusive
> > French soldier in *Monty Python & The Holy Grail* mocking King Arthur
> > and his men as "daffy English kerniggets". So, unless we are so
> > misguided as to question the authority of Monty Python, "kernigget" may
> > have meant something similar to "knight", even if the word "knight"
> > itself was not so enunciated.
>
> Far be it from me to question the authority of Monty Python.
Just a few points in response to this thread:
1) Monty Python's ranks included at least one historian (Terry Jones, I
believe, who specializes in the Middle Ages).
2) Abstracting the Elizabethan pronunciation of "knight" from the
pronunciation of a comic French character in a medieval burlesque stands
as an object lesson in "stretching it."
3) I recall having heard a recording of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales on
Caedmon Records, wherein "knight" was pronounced "knicht", i.e. as German
"night" but with an initial "K" sound that was not syllabic--i.e., no
aspiration (damn this ASCII set and its inability to handle the IPA!).
4) If "knight" is pronounced "kernigget," the scansion tends to suffer
greatly. If "knight" is pronounced as a one-syllable word, the verse
works properly. It therefore seems more likely to me that in the 16th
century, "knight" was
pronounced similarly to the way it is today.
Matthew L. Weber
From ignorance our comfort flows,
The only wretched are the wise.
Matthew Prior, 1664-1721, "To the Hon. Charles Montague"
Francis Muir
Ann Skea writes:
As the result of visiting Crusaders' castles when
working on *MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL*, Terry
Jones wrote a fascinating book called (I think)
*CHAUCER'S KNIGHT*, which completely undermined the
(then) accepted interpretation of the Knight in
*THE CANTERBURY TALES* as "a varry parfit gentil
knight". From the battles in which the knight was
involved, and from other details of Chaucer's
portrait, it seems that his knight was far more
likely to be a mercenary fighting for personal gain.
Certainly at Stonyhurst where we did *THE PROLOGUE* for the
School Certificate it was generally understood that Chaucer
was a master of irony and never more clearly than in his
often-quoted reference to the knight. I doubt whether we
were alone in this belief, and for Terry Jones to have
claimed - if he did - innovation passeth all understanding.
Fido
Colin Fine
In article <32A810...@sff.net>, Chuck Rothman <rot...@sff.net>
writes
>Slight error here. By the Tudor times, "knight" was pronounced
>essentially the same way it is now. Earlier, though, (Old English) it
>was pronounced [knixt], the [x] standing for the velar fricative like
>the "ch" in the German "ach" or Hebrew "Chanukah." The "k" was
>pronounced.
Wasn't the Great Vowel Shift in full swing throughout the Tudor period?
So the 'Tudor pronunciation' is surely anything from [nI:t] through
[neIt] to [nEIt].
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Colin Fine 66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK |
| Tel: 01274 592696/0976 436109 e-mail: co...@kindness.demon.co.uk |
| "We're all in a box and the instructions for getting out |
| are on the outside" -K.B.Brown |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Skea
Matthew L Weber wrote:
Jane A Thompson wrote:
Caius Marcius wrote:
I'm afraid I don't know - but I do remember John Cleese
as the abusive French soldier in *Monty Python & The
Holy Grail* mocking King Arthur and his men as "daffy
to question the authority of Monty Python,
"kernigget" may
have meant something similar to "knight", even if the
word "knight" itself was not so enunciated.
> Just a few points in response to this thread:
>(1) Monty Python's ranks included at least one historian
>Terry Jones, I believe, who specializes in the Middle Ages).
<snip>
As the result of visiting Crusaders' castles when working on -Monty
Python and The Holy Grail_, Terry Jones wrote a fascinating book called
(I think) _Chaucer's Knight_, which completely undermined the (then)
accepted interpretation of the Knight in _The Canterbury Tales_ as
"a varry parfit gentil knight". From the battles in which the knight was
involved, and from other details of Chaucer's portrait, it seems that
his knight was far more likely to be a mercenary fighting for personal
gain.
Ann
Ted Samsel
Ann Skea (ann...@zeta.org.au) wrote:
Hey! That armour is high maintenance. You must have the gelt to
pay for a cleaning flunkey.
--
Ted Samsel....tejas@infi.net "Took all the money I had in the bank,
Bought a rebuilt carburetor,
put the rest in the tank."
USED CARLOTTA.. 1995
Daan Sandee
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.96121...@joust.rs.itd.umich.edu> Matthew L Weber <mwe...@umich.edu> writes:
|> On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Jane A Thompson wrote:
|>
|> >
|> > > I'm afraid I don't know - but I do remember John Cleese as the abusive
|> > > French soldier in *Monty Python & The Holy Grail* mocking King Arthur
|> > > misguided as to question the authority of Monty Python, "kernigget" may
|> > > have meant something similar to "knight", even if the word "knight"
|> > > itself was not so enunciated.
|> >
|> Just a few points in response to this thread:
|>
|> believe, who specializes in the Middle Ages).
Right, but does that mean that M.P.a.t.H.G. is historically accurate ? Oh.
|> 2) Abstracting the Elizabethan pronunciation of "knight" from the
|> pronunciation of a comic French character in a medieval burlesque stands
|> as an object lesson in "stretching it."
This is true.
|> 3) I recall having heard a recording of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales on
|> Caedmon Records, wherein "knight" was pronounced "knicht", i.e. as German
|> "night" but with an initial "K" sound that was not syllabic--i.e., no
|> aspiration (damn this ASCII set and its inability to handle the IPA!).
German "Nacht", meaning "night", pronounced with voiceless velar fricative
German "nicht", meaning "not", pronounced with voiced velar fricative (in
most accents.) Which word, or which sound, do you mean ?
Also,
G "Knecht", meaning "vassal", pronounced with voiced velar fricative
Du "knecht", meaning "vassal", pronounced with voiceless velar fricative
Both words are monosyllabic with an unaspirated initial [k].
|> 4) If "knight" is pronounced "kernigget," the scansion tends to suffer
|> greatly. If "knight" is pronounced as a one-syllable word, the verse
|> works properly. It therefore seems more likely to me that in the 16th
|> century, "knight" was pronounced similarly to the way it is today.
If ME, and modern G and Du, can sound the k and still manage one syllable,
why not Elizabethan ?
Daan Sandee
Burlington, MA Use this email address: sandee (at) east . sun . com
Uche Ogbuji
In <32B82B...@zeta.org.au>, Ann Skea <ann...@zeta.org.au> writes:
>As the result of visiting Crusaders' castles when working on -Monty
>Python and The Holy Grail_, Terry Jones wrote a fascinating book called
>(I think) _Chaucer's Knight_, which completely undermined the (then)
>accepted interpretation of the Knight in _The Canterbury Tales_ as
>"a varry parfit gentil knight". From the battles in which the knight was
>involved, and from other details of Chaucer's portrait, it seems that
>his knight was far more likely to be a mercenary fighting for personal
>gain.
Actually, this is not a new revelation.
It has long been known that Knights were often more mercenary than
loyal to any cause, and that a good part of their warcraft involved
seeking out another knight whom they could ransom at sword's point
for a fortune. Knights were really creatures more of covetiousness
than "chevalrye".
G.B. Shaw does a great job in his wonderful "St. Joan" in
showing how much consternation a chaste and devoted country
girl could cause when thrust into such a field.
Vale
--Uche
Uche Ogbuji
In <Pine.SOL.3.95.96121...@joust.rs.itd.umich.edu>, Matthew L Weber <mwe...@umich.edu> writes:
>3) I recall having heard a recording of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales on
>Caedmon Records, wherein "knight" was pronounced "knicht", i.e. as German
>"night" but with an initial "K" sound that was not syllabic--i.e., no
>aspiration (damn this ASCII set and its inability to handle the IPA!).
For the IPA representation in ASCII, see
<http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Evan_Kirshenbaum/IPA/>
or the FAQ of the newsgroup alt.usage.english, which can be
found at
<http://www.crpht.lu/FAQ/alt-usage-english-faq/alt-usage-english-faq.html>
In case you are web-challenged, here is the relevant excerpt:
The following scheme is due to Evan Kirshenbaum
(kirsh...@hpl.hp.com). The complete scheme can be accessed on
the WWW at:
<http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Evan_Kirshenbaum/IPA/>
I show here only examples for the sounds most often referred to in
this newsgroup. Where there are two columns, the left column shows
British Received Pronunciation (RP), and the right column shows a
rhotic pronunciation used by at least some U.S. speakers. (There's
a WWW page that shows what the IPA symbols look like:
<http://www.unil.ch/ling/phonetique/api2.html>.)
The consonant symbols [b], [d], [f], [h], [k], [l], [m], [n], [p],
[r], [s], [t], [v], [w], and [z] have their usual English values.
[A] = [<script a>] as in:
"ah" /A:/ /A:/
"cart" /kA:t/ /kArt/
"father" /'fA:D@/ /'fA:D@r/
"farther" /'fA:D@/ /'fArD@r/
and French _bas_ /bA/. This sound requires opening your
mouth wide and feeling resonance at the back of your mouth.
[A.] = [<turned script a>] as in British:
"bother" /'bA.D@/
"cot" /kA.t/
"hot" /hA.t/
"sorry" /'sA.rI/
This symbol (for the sound traditionally called "short o")
is not much used to transcribe U.S. pronunciation. [A] or
[O] is used instead, according to which vowels the speaker
merges; but the sound *used* by *many* such speakers will
certainly be *heard* by Britons as [A.]. The sound is
intermediate between [A] and [O], but typically of shorter
duration than either. Imagine Patrick Stewart saying "Tea,
Earl Grey, hot."
[a] as in French _ami_ /a'mi/, German _Mann_ /man/, Italian _pasta_
/'pasta/, Chicago "pop" /pap/, Boston "park" /pa:k/. Also
in diphthongs: "dive" /daIv/ (yes, folks, the sound
traditionally called "long i" is actually a diphthong!),
"out" /aUt/. Typically, [a] is not distinguished
phonemically from [A]; but if you use in "ask" a vowel
distinct both from the one in "cat" and the one in "father",
then [a] is what it is.
[C] = [<c cedilla>] as in German (Hochdeutsch) _ich_ /IC/
[D] = [<edh>] as in "this" /DIs/
[E] = [<epsilon>] as in:
"end" /End/ /End/
"get" /gEt/ /gEt/
"Mary" /'mE@rI/ /'mE@ri/
"merry" /'mErI/ /'mEri/
Some U.S. speakers do not distinguish between "Mary",
"merry", and "marry".
[e] as in:
"eight" /eIt/ /eIt/
"chaos" /'keA.s/ /'keAs/
[g] as in "get" /gEt/
[I] = [<iota>] as in "it" /It/
[I.] = [<small capital y>] as in German _Gl"uck_ /glI.k/.
Round your lips for [U] and try to say [I].
[i] as in "eat" /i:t/
[j] as in "yes" /jEs/
[N] = [<eng>] as in "hang" /h&N/
[O] = [<open o>] as in:
"all" /O:l/ /O:l/
"caught" /kO:t/ /kO:t/
"court" /kO:t/ /kOrt/
"oil" /OIl/ /OIl/
The [O] sound requires rounded lips, but lips making a
a bigger circle than for [o]. If you do not use the
same vowel sound in "caught" as in "court", then you are
one of the North American speakers who use [O] only
before [r]: you do not round your lips for "all" and
"caught", and you should use some other symbol, such as
[A] or [a], to transcribe the vowel.
[o] as in U.S.:
"no" /noU/
"old" /oUld/
"omit" /oU'mIt/
The pure sound is heard in French _beau_ /bo/. British
Received Pronunciation does not use this sound,
substituting the diphthong /@U/ (/n@U/, /@Uld/, /@U'mIt/).
If you are one of the few speakers who distinguish such
pairs as "aural" and "oral", "for" and "four", "for" and
"fore", "horse" and "hoarse", "or" and "oar", "or" and
"ore", then you use [O] for the first and [o] for the
second word in each pair; otherwise, you use [O] for both.
[R] = [<right-hook schwa>], equivalent to /@r/, /r-/, or even /V"r/
[S] = [<esh>] as in "ship" /SIp/
[T] = [<theta>] as in "thin" /TIn/
[t!] = [<turned t>] as in "tsk-tsk" or "tut-tut" /t! t!/
[U] = [<upsilon>] as in "pull" /pUl/
[u] as in "ooze" /u:z/
[V] = [<turned v>] as in British RP:
"hurry" /'hVrI/
"shun" /SVn/
"up" /Vp/
U.S. speakers tend not to use [V] in words (such as "hurry")
where the following sound is [r]: they would say /'h@ri/.
And some U.S. speakers, especially in the eastern U.S.,
substitute [@] for [V] in all contexts. If you do not
distinguish "mention" /'mEn S@n/ from "men shun" /'mEn SVn/,
then you should use [@] and not [V] to transcribe your
speech.
[V"] = [<reversed epsilon>] as in:
"fern" /fV":n/ /fV"rn/
"hurl" /hV":l/ /hV"rl/
Many U.S. speakers substitute [@] for [V"], so they would
say /f@rn/, /h@rl/. Many other U.S. speakers pronounce "fern"
with no vowel at all: /fr:n/, /hr:l/. If you are one of the
few speakers who distinguish such pairs as "pearl" and "purl"
(using a lower, more retracted vowel in "purl"), then you can
transcribe "pearl" /p@rl/ and "purl" /pV"rl/.
[W] = [<o-e ligature>] as in French _heure_ /Wr/, German _K"opfe_
/'kWpf@/. Round your lips for [O] and try to say [E].
[x] as in Scots "loch" /lA.x/, German _Bach_ /bax/
[Y] = [<slashed o>] as in French _peu_ /pY/, German _sch"on_ /SYn/,
Scots "guidwillie" /gYd'wIli/. Round your lips for [o] and
try to say [e].
[y] as in French _lune_ /lyn/, German _m"ude_ /'myd@/. Round your
lips for [u] and try to say [i].
[Z] = [<yogh>] as in "beige" /beIZ/
[&] = [<ash>] as in:
"ash" /&S/ /&S/
"cat" /k&t/ /k&t/
"marry" /'m&rI/ /'m&ri/
[@] = [<schwa>] as in "lemon" /'lEm@n/
[?] = [<glottal>] as in "uh-oh" /V?oU/
[*] = [<fish-hook r>], a short tap of the tongue use by some U.S.
speakers in "pedal", "petal", and by Scots speakers in
"pearl": all /pE*@l/. If you are a U.S. speaker but
distinguish "pedal" from "petal", then you do not use this
sound.
- previous consonant syllabic as in "bundle" /'bVnd@l/ or /'bVndl-/,
"button" /bVt@n/ or /bVtn-/
~ previous sound nasalized
: previous sound lengthened
; previous sound palatalized
<h> previous sound aspirated
' following syllable has primary stress
, following syllable has secondary stress
Vale
--Uche
Ann Skea
Francis Muir wrote:
>
> Ann Skea writes:
>
> As the result of visiting Crusaders' castles when
> Jones wrote a fascinating book called (I think)
> (then) accepted interpretation of the Knight in
> knight". From the battles in which the knight was
> involved, and from other details of Chaucer's
> portrait, it seems that his knight was far more
> likely to be a mercenary fighting for personal gain.
>
> School Certificate it was generally understood that Chaucer
> was a master of irony and never more clearly than in his
> often-quoted reference to the knight. I doubt whether we
> were alone in this belief, and for Terry Jones to have
> claimed - if he did - innovation passeth all understanding.
>
> Fido
It always takes time for the news to get to OZ. Slow ships, lazy
lecturers, or something. I came across the book years ago when browsing
library shelves, broached the topic with an Eng.Litt. lecturer whose
reponse was something along the lines of "Oh Lord! I was hoping no-one
would come across that". But they aren't ALL like that.
Ann
Ann Skea
Ted Samsel wrote:
> : As the result of visiting Crusaders' castles when working on -Monty
> : Python and The Holy Grail_, Terry Jones wrote a fascinating book called
> : (I think) _Chaucer's Knight_, which completely undermined the (then)
> : accepted interpretation of the Knight in _The Canterbury Tales_ as
> : "a varry parfit gentil knight". From the battles in which the knight was
> : involved, and from other details of Chaucer's portrait, it seems that
> : his knight was far more likely to be a mercenary fighting for personal
> : gain.
>
> Hey! That armour is high maintenance. You must have the gelt to
> pay for a cleaning flunkey.
Well A.A.Milne's 'knight whose armour did not squeak' wouldn't
agree with that!
Ann
Keith C. Ivey
>|> 3) I recall having heard a recording of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales on
>|> Caedmon Records, wherein "knight" was pronounced "knicht", i.e. as German
>|> "night" but with an initial "K" sound that was not syllabic--i.e., no
>|> aspiration (damn this ASCII set and its inability to handle the IPA!).
>German "Nacht", meaning "night", pronounced with voiceless velar fricative
>German "nicht", meaning "not", pronounced with voiced velar fricative (in
>most accents.) Which word, or which sound, do you mean ?
I think "night" was just a typo (influenced by "knight") for
"nicht", and that the pronunciation he's suggesting is /knICt/
("German 'nicht' but with an initial 'K' sound").
I'm curious about your description of the pronunciation of
German "ch". I've always heard the "ch" in "nicht" described as
a voiceless palatal fricative (/C/), not a voiced velar
fricative (/G/, maybe?). A voiced velar fricative would be the
sound represented in IPA by gamma, which occurs in the middle of
Spanish "pagar". I've never been to Germany, though. Have I
been pronouncing it wrong all these years?
Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org> Washington, DC
Daan Sandee
In article <59aa8p$o...@news3.digex.net> kci...@cpcug.org (Keith C. Ivey) writes:
>san...@sun.nospam (Daan Sandee) wrote:
>
>>German "Nacht", meaning "night", pronounced with voiceless velar fricative
>>German "nicht", meaning "not", pronounced with voiced velar fricative (in
>>most accents.) Which word, or which sound, do you mean ?
>
>German "ch". I've always heard the "ch" in "nicht" described as
>a voiceless palatal fricative (/C/), not a voiced velar
>fricative (/G/, maybe?). A voiced velar fricative would be the
>sound represented in IPA by gamma, which occurs in the middle of
>Spanish "pagar". I've never been to Germany, though. Have I
>been pronouncing it wrong all these years?
You are correct. I wasn't thinking. The German Ichlaut is indeed a
voiced *palatal* fricative (although many German dialects don't have it.)
I was confused by the Dutch g, which is commonly a voiced velar fricative
(although voiceless when terminal and often voiceless initially.)
Scheveningen grote grutten.
Now, how do the scholars think ME "nicht" was pronounced ? With a
voiceless velar, a voiced velar, or a voiced palatal fricative ?
And what about Modern Scots ?
00nzwi...@bsuvc.bsu.edu
In article <32B50B...@lunemere.com>, Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com> writes:
> Tom Wier wrote:
>>
>> In Houston, we make a greater distinction:
>>
>> (1) you : singular
>> (2) y'all: dual; often used for any plural
>> (3) all of y'all: strictly plural.
>
> Dual? (I'm trying to figure out if I need to update my list.)
>
The Bavarian Germans have a dual pronoun in their local dialect. I
wonder of some of them got loose down in the Carolinas.
--
Nyal Z. Williams
00nzwi...@bsuvc.bsu.edu
Mirabelle Severn & Thames
In article <592b3u$n...@news3.digex.net>,
Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org> wrote:
>will...@ahecas.ahec.edu (Gary Williams) wrote:
>>rte...@netcom.com (Robert Teeter) writes:
>>>You're right about this. I got my objective and subjective backwards.
>>I think maybe the Quakers do, too.
>According to _The American Heritage Dictionary_ (3rd ed.),
>"thee" is "used in the nominative as well as the objective case,
>especially by members of the Society of Friends." They don't
>use "thou" at all, and I believe they use third-person singular
>verb forms with "thee".
This is correct, at least for Friends in the US (and to
the extent that "plain speech" is still used). I have
heard that Friends in Britain retained "thou" for the
nominative. I don't have any reference to back this up,
and I don't know about the verb forms used by British Friends.
Naomi Brokaw
from California's central coast
David Ladner
In article <587s82$i...@news4.digex.net> kci...@cpcug.org (Keith C. Ivey) writes:
In article <587s82$i...@news4.digex.net> kci...@cpcug.org (Keith C. Ivey) writes:
>csntx.swbell.net!news2.digex.net!news
>From: kci...@cpcug.org (Keith C. Ivey)
>Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,alt.usage.english,humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
>Subject: Re: How speakest ordinary Elizabethan folks?
>Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 01:19:26 GMT
>Organization: Capital PC User Group, Rockville, Maryland, USA
>Lines: 16
>Message-ID: <587s82$i...@news4.digex.net>
>References: <5806jf$2...@news2.cais.com> <rteeterE...@netcom.com> <32a72063...@news.demon.co.uk> <Pine.OSF.3.91.961205...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: cpcug.org
>X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
>Xref: newsfeed.ingress.net rec.arts.books:192870 alt.usage.english:111312 humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare:1357
>Jane A Thompson <j...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
>>On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, beachboy wrote:
>>> Apparently, in Tudor England, "knight" (nowadays pronounced "nite")
>>> was pronounced "kerniggit".
>>"kerniggit" is possible, I suppose--I'm not enough of a linguist to
>>actually argue; are there more informed folk out there than I am?--but
>>it does not seem plausible to me.
>I think Beachboy has watched "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"
>one too many times.
K. Edgcombe
In article <32B4CE...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>,
>> "thee" is "used in the nominative as well as the objective case,
>> especially by members of the Society of Friends." They don't
>> use "thou" at all, and I believe they use third-person singular
>> verb forms with "thee".
>>
>"şu" (thu) and "şé" (the), the first beïng the nominative and
>the second being the objective (oblique).
>
>They always take the following forms:
>
> I play
> thou playest
> he, she, it playeth
>
>How could a dictionary make such a mistake?
The AHD states that "thee" is used in the nominative case...by members of the
Society of Friends". This is undoubtedly true, or at least was when "Uncle
Tom's Cabin" was written. It seems a little harsh to describe as a "mistake" a
true statement concerning usage among a substantial group of English speakers.
It seems likely that these days the Friends
may actually form a *majority* among the English speakers who habitually use
the old second person singular otherwise than in the Lord's Prayer.
While their usage is not consistent with the original derivation from OE,
the same could be said of many other perfectly acceptable
modern linguistic habits.
Katy
barrym
B.W. Battin (bba...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
:
:
: >
: >
: >I have lived in the Southeastern United States all my life and I have
: >yet to meet anyone who uses "ya'll" in the second person singular.
:
:
: For whatever it is worth, I have spent time in both Louisiana and
: Alabama, and have often been addressed as y'all, both when I was with
: others and when I was alone. It seemed to make absolutely no
: difference.
I have to agree with you. I live in Texas, and I have since 1946,
and I've heard y'all used as singular many times, although it's
much more commonly used as plural.
Maybe a reason that some haven't heard it used as singular is because
that tends to be a practice of poorly educated people. And even among
them it's not common.
And, I must confess, I've used y'all to mean singular myself a few
times. I can't seem to remember the actual circumstances, but it
might have been something where I was using the individual I was
talking to as a generic example of something or other. Something
like the Brittish do with "one" instead of "you" or "I".
But, I think the greater question is why the rest of the population
doesn't use y'all.
Barry
Barry
Keith C. Ivey
>>
>>>German "nicht", meaning "not", pronounced with voiced velar
>>>fricative (in most accents.)
>>
>>a voiceless palatal fricative (/C/), not a voiced velar
>>fricative (/G/, maybe?).
>You are correct. I wasn't thinking. The German Ichlaut is
>indeed a voiced *palatal* fricative (although many German
>dialects don't have it.) I was confused by the Dutch g,
>which is commonly a voiced velar fricative
Well, we're getting closer. But you said I was correct and then
changed my "voiceless" to "voiced". The "ch" in "nicht" sure
sounds voiceless to me.
>Now, how do the scholars think ME "nicht" was pronounced ? With a
>voiceless velar, a voiced velar, or a voiced palatal fricative ?
I don't know about ME (presumably it depends on the time and
place as well as the particular scholar you ask), but my "Teach
Yourself Old English" book and the recordings I've heard would
pronounce OE "niht" approximately the same as German "nicht"
(/nICt/), with a voiceless palatal fricative.
Francis Muir
barrym writes:
I live in Texas, and I have since 1946, and I've heard
y'all used as singular many times, although it's much
more commonly used as plural.
Maybe a reason that some haven't heard it used as
singular is because that tends to be a practice of
poorly educated people. And even among them it's not
common.
I have heard it used by quite upscale Texans (I know, I know)
in Houston and Midland as a sort of badge of solidarity with
"ordinary folk." More recently it has become somewhat fashionable
to introduce some Spanish into their talk, when once this was
considered social death.
Fido
Francis Muir
Keith C. Ivey writes:
I don't know about ME (presumably it depends on the
time and place as well as the particular scholar you
ask), but my "Teach Yourself Old English" book and
the recordings I've heard would pronounce OE "niht"
approximately the same as German "nicht" (/nICt/),
with a voiceless palatal fricative.
Implicit in a lot of this discussion is the notion that
there was at any one time just one pronunciation. I'd have
thought that with communication being what it was, that
there would have been much more heterogeneity in speech
than there is today. Over the past 50 years I have noticed
a major shift towards homogeneity in English speech - we
all know the reasons - and I'm interested in what sholarly
work has been done on estimating range of pronunciation
in olden times.
Fido
Daan Sandee
In article <59d1rr$6...@news3.digex.net> kci...@cpcug.org (Keith C. Ivey) writes:
|> san...@sun.nospam (Daan Sandee) wrote:
|>
|> >You are correct. I wasn't thinking. The German Ichlaut is
|> >indeed a voiced *palatal* fricative (although many German
|> >dialects don't have it.) I was confused by the Dutch g,
|> >which is commonly a voiced velar fricative
|>
|> Well, we're getting closer. But you said I was correct and then
|> changed my "voiceless" to "voiced". The "ch" in "nicht" sure
|> sounds voiceless to me.
You're right again. I wasn't thinking again. Between this and the
fender-benders, I wasn't at my best yesterday. The only reason I can
proffer is that I snuck a.u.e. postings in between all sorts of
important meetings. Maybe I'd better stick to the meetings. The
next one starts in three minutes.
|> >Now, how do the scholars think ME "nicht" was pronounced ? With a
|> >voiceless velar, a voiced velar, or a voiced palatal fricative ?
|>
|> I don't know about ME (presumably it depends on the time and
|> place as well as the particular scholar you ask), but my "Teach
|> Yourself Old English" book and the recordings I've heard would
|> pronounce OE "niht" approximately the same as German "nicht"
|> (/nICt/), with a voiceless palatal fricative.
Thanks.
rgil...@pacifier.com
I've never understood why the rest of the world doesn't use y'all
either. There's no distinction in number between you and you. . .could
be 1, could be 200, unless you know the exact context. Y'all is the
easiest, cleanest and simplest way to express the plural you.
And BTW, I grew up in Virginia, spent lots of time in Kentucky in
college and working, and I never heard anybody use y'all to express the
singular. But, as we all know, regional differences abound. . .
RG
barrym wrote:
>
> B.W. Battin (bba...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : >I have lived in the Southeastern United States all my life and I have
> : >yet to meet anyone who uses "ya'll" in the second person singular.
> :
> :
> But, I think the greater question is why the rest of the population
Truly Donovan
rgil...@pacifier.com wrote:
>
> I've never understood why the rest of the world doesn't use y'all
> either. There's no distinction in number between you and you. . .could
> be 1, could be 200, unless you know the exact context. Y'all is the
> easiest, cleanest and simplest way to express the plural you.
The rest of the world does use "you all" when we feel it is important to
stress that we are referring to the entire group of people present --
"You all need to get flu shots because this flu season is going to be
hellacious."
Richard M. Alderson III
In article <NFQ6OHAZ...@kindness.demon.co.uk> Colin Fine
<co...@kindness.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In article <32A810...@sff.net>, Chuck Rothman <rot...@sff.net> writes
>>Slight error here. By the Tudor times, "knight" was pronounced essentially
>>the same way it is now. Earlier, though, (Old English) it was pronounced
>>[knixt], the [x] standing for the velar fricative like the "ch" in the German
>>"ach" or Hebrew "Chanukah." The "k" was pronounced.
>Wasn't the Great Vowel Shift in full swing throughout the Tudor period? So
>the 'Tudor pronunciation' is surely anything from [nI:t] through [neIt] to
>[nEIt].
Yes, the GVS was in full swing, and good thing, too! ;->
The Tudor pronunciation of <knight> would most easily be characterized as
sounding like the "Southern Ontario" dialect many U. S. residents think of as
"Canadian."
--
Rich Alderson You know the sort of thing that you can find in any dictionary
of a strange language, and which so excites the amateur philo-
logists, itching to derive one tongue from another that they
know better: a word that is nearly the same in form and meaning
as the corresponding word in English, or Latin, or Hebrew, or
what not.
--J. R. R. Tolkien,
alde...@netcom.com _The Notion Club Papers_
Gabriel Kittel
In article <59bkon$2...@walters.East.Sun.COM>,
san...@sun.nospam (Daan Sandee) wrote:
>>I'm curious about your description of the pronunciation of
>>German "ch". I've always heard the "ch" in "nicht" described as
>>a voiceless palatal fricative (/C/), not a voiced velar
>>fricative (/G/, maybe?). A voiced velar fricative would be the
>>sound represented in IPA by gamma, which occurs in the middle of
>>Spanish "pagar". I've never been to Germany, though. Have I
>>been pronouncing it wrong all these years?
>You are correct. I wasn't thinking. The German Ichlaut is indeed a
>voiced *palatal* fricative (although many German dialects don't have it.)
No, it is a *voiceless* palatal fricative. In some dialects it is a
voiceless velar fricative.
>I was confused by the Dutch g, which is commonly a voiced velar fricative
This sound does not exist in German. All 'ch' are voiceless.
--
Gabriel Kittel gki...@ibm.net
Vienna, Austria
Renae Ransdorf
Walter A. Aprile (Walter...@cmu.edu) wrote:
: Here in beautiful, sunny Pittsburgh the distinction seems to be alive.
: Apparently "you" is the singular, while "you all","y'all" and the incredibly
: bothersome "you guys" are the plural.
What about "yins guys?" When I lived in beautiful,
sunny Pittsburgh, the "y'all" equivalent was
"yins." Short for "you ones," I think.
RLR