tarot
meirman
The dictionary lists two pronunciations, but I wonder if the one with
the silent second t isn't a lot better than with the non-silent t.
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 20 years
Harvey Van Sickle
> How does one pronounce tarot cards? The word tarot.
>
> The dictionary lists two pronunciations, but I wonder if the one with
> the silent second t isn't a lot better than with the non-silent t.
Now, c'mon meirman: you *know* you're not supposed to do that in here.
"The" dictionary? Which one's that, then? <insert winkie-smiley>
For what it's worth, Collins only gives the silent-final-t version,
which is the only way I've ever heard it.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 21 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs)
raymond o'hara
"meirman" <mei...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:nebhd0hgfmgebs9fa...@4ax.com...
> How does one pronounce tarot cards? The word tarot.
>
> The dictionary lists two pronunciations, but I wonder if the one with
> the silent second t isn't a lot better than with the non-silent t.
I've only ever heard it with the silent t , i.e. tarrow.
Raymond S. Wise
news:Xns9510ECC3...@194.168.222.121...
> On 22 Jun 2004, meirman wrote
>
> > How does one pronounce tarot cards? The word tarot.
> >
> > The dictionary lists two pronunciations, but I wonder if the one with
> > the silent second t isn't a lot better than with the non-silent t.
>
>
> Now, c'mon meirman: you *know* you're not supposed to do that in here.
>
> "The" dictionary? Which one's that, then? <insert winkie-smiley>
Have you hear of the Unidentified Authorizing Dictionary?
or
>
> For what it's worth, Collins only gives the silent-final-t version,
> which is the only way I've ever heard it.
I checked every dictionary with an entry for "tarot" that I found at
www.onelook.com which I knew to have a paper version. None of them had a
pronunciation of "tarot" with a final /t/. The three pronunciations I found
were "TA-roh" (where "a" is the vowel of "hat," "tuh-ROH," and "ta-ROH"
(that last found only in the dictionary at www.infoplease.com ).
Then I checked in *The Century Dictionary,* an American dictionary of 1895
at www.century-dictionary.com . It gave only the pronunciation "TA-rut." It
had a variant spelled "taroc," pronounced "TA-ruck."
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Robert Lieblich
The 1890 Webster's International and 1909 New International both
have only the pronunciation with the "t" sounded. "Tarok" shows up
in the online AHD, with the "k" sounded, of course, and the
preceding vowel given as a schwa. As for the loss of the final "t"
sound, compare "turbot" and "valet."
--
Bob Lieblich
And that's tha
fred
>
> The dictionary lists two pronunciations, but I wonder if the one with
> the silent second t isn't a lot better than with the non-silent t.
>
fred
meirman
Sickle <harve...@ntlworld.com> posted:
>On 22 Jun 2004, meirman wrote
>
>> How does one pronounce tarot cards? The word tarot.
>>
>> The dictionary lists two pronunciations, but I wonder if the one with
>> the silent second t isn't a lot better than with the non-silent t.
>
>
>Now, c'mon meirman: you *know* you're not supposed to do that in here.
>
>"The" dictionary? Which one's that, then? <insert winkie-smiley>
This afternoon I visited a friend at work, and though her dictionary
was I think a common one, I didn't notice the publisher. I can ask
her.
The previous time I looked it up was about 22 years ago, and I don't
remember which dictionary it was. It had both pronunciations too.
And just now I see that
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc. has both pronunciations, with the t it is a particular card game,
but without the t, it is "the deck of 78 playing cards including 22
cards depicting vices, virtues, and elemental forces, used in
fortunetelling.", which is how she was using it. So I guess she
pronounced it wrong and I needn't have apologized.
>For what it's worth, Collins only gives the silent-final-t version,
>which is the only way I've ever heard it.
Me too, except the girlfriend I had 24 years ago pronounce it with the
final t, and I corrected her. A couple years later I looked it up,
and the dictionary gave both pronunciations, so I apologized to her.
Today when we were looking up a couple other words in the dictionary,
I looked this one up again and it said the same thing, but by now I
realize that some times a listed pronunciation is not, what, valid?
Used by educated people? And especially since the word comes from
French, it seemed unlikely that the t was originally sounded in
English.
The other word I looked up today and 22 years ago was reprise. I had
always said it to rhyme with eyes. But that girlfriend said it to
rhyme with peas. She's a singer and voice teacher, and it turns out
that my pronunciation relates to English law, "Deductions and duties
paid yearly out of a manor and lands, as rent charge, rent seck,
pensions, annuities, and the like. [Written also reprizes.]
--Burrill." I barely know what that means.
But when it refers to music, it is pronounced to rhyme with peas,
although one dictionary at www.dictionary.com , Source: WordNet ® 1.6,
© 1997 Princeton University, has reprise rhyming with eyes, I think,
even for music. But nonetheless, in this case my old girlfriend was
right.
Ray, I had never heard of the dicttionary you note in your post.
Thanks a lot to both of you, and Bob and Ray.
meirman
<ying...@song.com> posted:
>
>"meirman" <mei...@invalid.com> wrote in message
>news:nebhd0hgfmgebs9fa...@4ax.com...
>> How does one pronounce tarot cards? The word tarot.
>>
>> The dictionary lists two pronunciations, but I wonder if the one with
>> the silent second t isn't a lot better than with the non-silent t.
>>
>Who gives a damn.
I do, or I wouldn't have asked.
>The concept of tarot is too stupid for words;-)
It's very stupid, but I'm not sure it's too stupid for words. :)
>fred
meirman
Wise" <mplsra...@gbronline.com> posted:
>"Harvey Van Sickle" <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns9510ECC3...@194.168.222.121...
>> On 22 Jun 2004, meirman wrote
>>
>> > How does one pronounce tarot cards? The word tarot.
>> >
>> > The dictionary lists two pronunciations, but I wonder if the one with
>> > the silent second t isn't a lot better than with the non-silent t.
>>
>>
>> Now, c'mon meirman: you *know* you're not supposed to do that in here.
>>
>> "The" dictionary? Which one's that, then? <insert winkie-smiley>
>
>
>Have you hear of the Unidentified Authorizing Dictionary?
>
>See
>http://www.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_umsgid=47dd044c.02051...@posting.google.com&lr=&hl=en
>
>or
>
>http://tinyurl.com/2wrxq
>
I'm a bit confused. If "the word used to convey the slander was
unknown to the English language and was not understood by those to
whom it was spoken" I accept that one could still prove slander
(depending on the definition in that legal system), but how could
there be any damages?
>>
>> For what it's worth, Collins only gives the silent-final-t version,
>> which is the only way I've ever heard it.
>
>
>I checked every dictionary with an entry for "tarot" that I found at
>www.onelook.com which I knew to have a paper version. None of them had a
>pronunciation of "tarot" with a final /t/. The three pronunciations I found
>were "TA-roh" (where "a" is the vowel of "hat," "tuh-ROH," and "ta-ROH"
>(that last found only in the dictionary at www.infoplease.com ).
>
>Then I checked in *The Century Dictionary,* an American dictionary of 1895
>at www.century-dictionary.com . It gave only the pronunciation "TA-rut." It
>had a variant spelled "taroc," pronounced "TA-ruck."
Thanks again.
Raymond S. Wise
> In alt.english.usage on Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:31:13 -0500 "Raymond S.
> Wise" <mplsra...@gbronline.com> posted:
>
> >"Harvey Van Sickle" <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9510ECC3...@194.168.222.121...
> >> On 22 Jun 2004, meirman wrote
> >>
> >> > How does one pronounce tarot cards? The word tarot.
> >> >
> >> > The dictionary lists two pronunciations, but I wonder if the one with
> >> > the silent second t isn't a lot better than with the non-silent t.
> >>
> >>
> >> Now, c'mon meirman: you *know* you're not supposed to do that in here.
> >>
> >> "The" dictionary? Which one's that, then? <insert winkie-smiley>
> >
> >
> >Have you hear of the Unidentified Authorizing Dictionary?
> >
> >See
>
0823.1...@posting.google.com&lr=&hl=en
> >
> >or
> >
> >http://tinyurl.com/2wrxq
> >
> I'm a bit confused. If "the word used to convey the slander was
> unknown to the English language and was not understood by those to
> whom it was spoken" I accept that one could still prove slander
> (depending on the definition in that legal system), but how could
> there be any damages?
I'm not sure exactly what you are asking, but I'd like to point out that
what you quote above was an argument which the Missouri Supreme Court
rejected when they decided the case in question:
From
http://www.law.com/jsp/statearchive.jsp?type=Article&oldid=ZZZTZZTAHVC
"In affirming the judgment, the Missouri court said: 'Because the modesty of
our lexicographers restrains them from publishing obscene words or from
giving the obscene signfication [sic] to words that may be used without
conveying any obscenity, it does not follow that they are not English words
and not understood by those who hear them; or that chaste words may not be
applied so as to be understood in an obscene sense by everyone who hears
them.'"
Raymond S. Wise
[...]
> Today when we were looking up a couple other words in the dictionary,
> I looked this one up again and it said the same thing, but by now I
> realize that some times a listed pronunciation is not, what, valid?
> Used by educated people? And especially since the word comes from
> French, it seemed unlikely that the t was originally sounded in
> English.
If a pronunciation appears in a modern general dictionary without any
qualifying label (or an obelus, see below), it is a standard pronunciation,
that is, one which is known to be used by educated speakers. An example of a
qualifying label would be a regional or national label. For example, MWCD11
gives the following pronunciations for "schedule" (I'm putting in the
pronunciation in ASCII IPA, but it really isn't important to my point.):
"*1sched·ule [...] /'skE(,)dZul/, -/dZ@l/, _Canad also_ /'SE/-, _Britain
usually_ /'SE(,)djul/"
The first pronunciations are standard for American and Canadian speakers,
the one following "Canad also" is used by some speakers of Standard Canadian
English, and the one following "Britain usually" is that usually spoken by
speakers of Standard British English.
*Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language,* 2nd ed.,
unabridged, originally published in 1934 and popularly known as "Webster's
Second" had an interesting feature: To some pronunciations it added a
cross-reference, following which one would find an article entitled
"Synopsis of words differently pronounced by different orthoepists." In this
article, Webster's Second compared their pronunciations with about six other
dictionaries (one of which was *The Century Dictionary,* another of which
was the OED--referred to there as *The New English Dictionary*). It did this
for pronunciations about there was some disagreement (including "niche" and
"buoy," as it happens).
Some dictionaries give the foreign pronunciation for a word, the purpose for
which, I presume, is that some educated English speakers use that
pronunciation: A dictionary might have "Fr." for the typical French
pronunciation of a word, for example.
There is one thing which should be kept in mind about the *Merriam-Webster
Online Dictionary* at www.m-w.com and MWCD11: They use the symbol "÷" (the
division sign, but which for this purpose called an "obelus") to designate
pronunciations which are often used by educated speakers but which are
controversial. The "NUKE-yuh-ler" pronunciation of "nuclear," for example,
is preceded by an obelus. So is the three-syllable pronunciation of
"poinsettia"--the pronunciation I prefer: It always annoyed me when Johnny
Carson tried to get other people to use the four-syllable pronunciation.
Raymond S. Wise
news:3L5Cc.863075$Ig.682920@pd7tw2no...
How can you tell people that such -and-such an idea is stupid unless you
know how to pronounce the name of the concept? Pronounce it in a
nonstandard way and *you* may very well end up as the subject of amusement
instead of the goofy practice.
Mike Bandy
wrote:
>How does one pronounce tarot cards? The word tarot.
>
>The dictionary lists two pronunciations, but I wonder if the one with
>the silent second t isn't a lot better than with the non-silent t.
The word should be pronounced without the final t.
--
Mike Bandy
meirman
Wise" <mplsra...@gbronline.com> posted:
>"meirman" <mei...@invalid.com> wrote in message
>news:jc3id01cu8bfa9mnf...@4ax.com...
>> In alt.english.usage on Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:31:13 -0500 "Raymond S.
>> Wise" <mplsra...@gbronline.com> posted:
>>
>>http://www.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_umsgid=47dd044c.020519
>0823.1...@posting.google.com&lr=&hl=en
>> >
>> >or
>> >
>> >http://tinyurl.com/2wrxq
>> >
>> I'm a bit confused. If "the word used to convey the slander was
>> unknown to the English language and was not understood by those to
>> whom it was spoken" I accept that one could still prove slander
>> (depending on the definition in that legal system), but how could
>> there be any damages?
>
>
>I'm not sure exactly what you are asking, but I'd like to point out that
I meant, If I call someone a shplink, and that's a slanderous
statement, if no one who hears it knows what a shplink is, how could I
be injuring him?
>what you quote above was an argument which the Missouri Supreme Court
>rejected when they decided the case in question:
That makes all the difference. Sorry. And I see the majority
disagreed that the words woudn't be understood. anyhow.
>From
>http://www.law.com/jsp/statearchive.jsp?type=Article&oldid=ZZZTZZTAHVC
>
>
>"In affirming the judgment, the Missouri court said: 'Because the modesty of
>our lexicographers restrains them from publishing obscene words or from
>giving the obscene signfication [sic] to words that may be used without
>conveying any obscenity, it does not follow that they are not English words
>and not understood by those who hear them; or that chaste words may not be
>applied so as to be understood in an obscene sense by everyone who hears
>them.'"
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> I meant, If I call someone a shplink, and that's a slanderous
> statement, if no one who hears it knows what a shplink is, how could I
> be injuring him?
This sentence is self-contradictory. If something is slanderous,
it's because it is understood by those who hear it to reflect
adversely on the character, ethics, honesty, competence, etc., of
the person described. If no one knows what the word means, it
cannot be slanderous, because it cannot be understood in any
pertinent sense.
Okay, let's suppose that in Albanian "shplink" means "thief of
women's virtue." Is calling someone a "shplink" slanderous?
Depends on whether it is understood by those who hear it. But
simply uttering the word is not defamatory if it's not understood.
Of course, people who say that sort of thing cannot resist
translating. Then others do understand the word. And the situation
adjusts accordingly.
--
Bob Lieblich
Shplink wannabe
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> Thanks a lot to both of you, and Bob and Ray.
And don't forget Wally Ballou.
--
Bob
Not Ray
Daniel James
wrote:
> Okay, let's suppose that in Albanian "shplink" means "thief of
> women's virtue." Is calling someone a "shplink" slanderous?
> Depends on whether it is understood by those who hear it. But
> simply uttering the word is not defamatory if it's not understood.
.. but what if one of those who hears it - possibly knowing of the
speaker's Albanian ancestry - later looks the word up and discovers
the meaning?
Surely the defamation took place if the word was understood by the
speaker, whether the audience understood it at the time or not? The
speaker deliberately used a word with defamatory connotations and
could not know whether the audience would understand. It has to be
assumed that he was aware that one or more of them might understand,
and so that the defamation was deliberate.
Morally, at least, if not in the law.
Cheers,
Daniel.
meirman
Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> posted:
>meirman wrote:
>
>[ ... ]
>
>> I meant, If I call someone a shplink, and that's a slanderous
>> statement
[if understood]
>>if no one who hears it knows what a shplink is, how could I
>> be injuring him?
>
>This sentence is self-contradictory. If something is slanderous,
It was at least either an incomplete statement, or one based on the
URL that I was quoting, which said "the word used to convey the
slander was unknown to the English language and was not understood by
those to whom it was spoken". So the minority opinion quoted in the
url considered it to be possible, afaict, to speak slander and ever to
convey slander with a word not understood by those to whom it was
spoken.
I was saying I didn't understand the url and trying to show that the
part I quoted didn't make sense. So I'm not going to insert any other
view about what is slanderous which would just cover up the problem
with the sentence I had quoted in my previous post and requoted in
that one.
My statement quoted at the top just stated in with a specific example
what the URL had stated, and began with "if".
>it's because it is understood by those who hear it to reflect
>adversely on the character, ethics, honesty, competence, etc., of
>the person described. If no one knows what the word means, it
>cannot be slanderous, because it cannot be understood in any
>pertinent sense.
>
>Okay, let's suppose that in Albanian "shplink" means "thief of
>women's virtue." Is calling someone a "shplink" slanderous?
>Depends on whether it is understood by those who hear it. But
>simply uttering the word is not defamatory if it's not understood.
Yes. Raymond pointed out that that what I had quoted was the minority
opinion. But even it should make more sense than it did.
>Of course, people who say that sort of thing cannot resist
>translating. Then others do understand the word. And the situation
>adjusts accordingly.