John Wayne's accent
Pat Durkin
in his birthplace, Iowa, and the rest of the time lived in and around
California.
One of his most peculiar pronunciations was the extension of the schwa
in "the" from "thuh" to an extended "thah".
Now, I wish I had seen the credits for the narration of a couple of
hours of "Wild Justice" on National Geographic Channel (NatGeo),
because the main narrator definitely reminded me of Wayne's accent. I
mean, the suppressed tonal quality was there, too, but "the" is the
only thing that I really fixed on.
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/series/wild-justice/4954/Overview#tab-Overview
Here is the video of "Thrill Killer", that first caught my attention.
(This is a new series, I guess.)
http://tinyurl.com/2cdcgnp
Is there any area where that sound prevails?
R H Draney
Just a guess, but John Wayne first got into acting around 1930, when sound
recording for the movies was still in its infancy, and there was particular
difficulty getting clear recordings of voices in scenes shot outdoors, as would
be the case in most westerns...he was probably taught to enunciate all sounds
carefully, by voice coaches who knew only a little more than he did about the
matter, and this was his solution to the problem of a sound that would
ordinarily be largely unstressed, a solution that became a habit that he held
onto for the rest of his life....
The narrator for the "Thrill Killer" episode of "Wild Justice" was Thom Beers,
whom Wikipedia describes as a "television producer and narrator / voice over
artist", mostly of documentary series like "Deadliest Catch" and "Ice Road
Truckers"...I don't immediately find anything that gives any information on
where his accent might have originated....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Marius Hancu
> I always found his accent strange. He spent only 4 years of his life
> in his birthplace, Iowa, and the rest of the time lived in and around
> California.
>
> One of his most peculiar pronunciations was the extension of the schwa
> in "the" from "thuh" to an extended "thah".
>
> Now, I wish I had seen the credits for the narration of a couple of
> hours of "Wild Justice" on National Geographic Channel (NatGeo),
> because the main narrator definitely reminded me of Wayne's accent. I
> mean, the suppressed tonal quality was there, too, but "the" is the
> only thing that I really fixed on.
>
> http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/series/wild-justice/495...
>
> Here is the video of "Thrill Killer", that first caught my attention.
> (This is a new series, I guess.)http://tinyurl.com/2cdcgnp
>
> Is there any area where that sound prevails?
The only reference I've found says:
----
John Wayne: prophet of the American way of life
Emanuel Levy - 1988 - 379 pages - Snippet view
And audiences could expect that in the next picture Wayne would again
play his indefatigable and immortal heroes. His non-American
protagonists were definitely a departure from his established persona.
Wayne's voice, Midwestern accent ...
----
Marius Hancu
chrisja...@gmail.com
bill van
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x321rn0
Take away the Long John Silver growl, and what's left sounds quite a
bit like John Wayne, to my ear.
bill
Bozo_D...@37.com
Scott Dreaver
Violet VanDusen
heh heh...don't judge me please. The kid's talented and I love the woods.
Richard Heathfield
> I'm not sure how link laws work here
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Tony Cooper
message:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsUE2Tt2Z2g
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida
I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.
occam
> On 28/05/2022 9:21 pm, Violet VanDusen wrote:
>> I'm not sure how link laws work here
>
> I'll bite. What laws would those be?
>
others (esp. unknown posters) posting live links, for fear of ending up
on nasty web pages. I had no issues clicking on Tony's link.
Peter Moylan
going to lead.
The nasty links that we dislike are the naked ones: just the link, with
no explanation. I never follow those.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Richard Heathfield
Peter Moylan
> On 29/05/2022 9:10 am, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 29/05/22 09:06, occam wrote:
>>> On 28/05/2022 22:36, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 28/05/2022 9:21 pm, Violet VanDusen wrote:
>>
>>>>> I'm not sure how link laws work here
>>>>
>>>> I'll bite. What laws would those be?
>>>
>>> No law, but the ground rules for posting links. Some people
>>> don't like others (esp. unknown posters) posting live links, for
>>> fear of ending up on nasty web pages. I had no issues clicking on
>>> Tony's link.
>>
>> Yes, because it was completely clear from context where Tony's link
>> was going to lead.
>>
>> The nasty links that we dislike are the naked ones: just the link,
>> with no explanation. I never follow those.
>
> I bet you do just this once:
>
> https://tinyurl.com/4x8zt6k2
Why did I follow it? I suppose I also take into account the past history
of the person giving the link. There are certain people whose links
should never be followed, and of course the regulars here know who they are.
Richard Heathfield
> There are certain people whose links
> should never be followed, and of course the regulars here know
> who they are.
Because no link is ever really naked on Usenet. It is posted *by*
someone, and that information at the very least lends the link
some underwear, be it clean or otherwise.
Lewis
Obfuscated links (like TinyURL) are much less likely to be clicked,
however. And THAT specific tinyurl is LONGER than the actual URL, so is
quite pointless to be posting at all.
https://tinyurl.com/4x8zt6k2
https://xkcd.com/386
Where the URL is going is some consideration as well. If it is to a site
I know and trust (a relatively tiny fraction of domains) that increases
the likelihood and if it is a domain I've never heard of the chances are
near zero.
If I recognize the poster either there is no chance I will click the
link regardless of where it might go, or there is SOME chance that I
will. Mostly, I do not because when I am in a newsreader I do not really
want to go to a browser, but sometimes I will make the exception. For
this reason I nearly never click on YouTube links.
If a link generates follow-up comments that I find interesting, I will
probably click the link to at least see what it is, but often that wage
is only open long enough for me to see what the page is and I don't take
the time to read what is there.
The web is increasingly useless at it's main tasks, finding information
and providing factual information. The search engines are polluted with
bot-generated sites that are designed to poison the search results and
the resulting pages are either nothing more than poorly constructed
pseudo English shilling some ad impressions or a specific product, or
are out-right misinformation.
--
"There will always be women in rubber flirting with me."
Sam Plusnet
in my killfile, so I am untroubled by their attempts.
Links from 'strangers' are obviously treated with caution (or simply
ignored).
--
Sam Plusnet
bruce bowser
> I found a Canadian kid on YouTube that sounds so very close to Mr. Wayne.
Peter Moylan
> The web is increasingly useless at it's main tasks, finding
> information and providing factual information. The search engines
> are polluted with bot-generated sites that are designed to poison
> the search results and the resulting pages are either nothing more
> than poorly constructed pseudo English shilling some ad impressions
> or a specific product, or are out-right misinformation.
possibly it's because the search engines, in particular Google, are
giving a high priority to the useless results, forcing the answers that
you were really looking for onto a second or later page.
On the positive side, e-mail spam is becoming easier to detect. In the
last few years many new top-level domains have been created. The point
of these new domains seems to be making it cheaper to get throw-away
addresses. As a result, those domains are apparently used ONLY for spam
or scams, and never for legitimate purposes. That makes mail filtering
easier. Perhaps that was the original purpose of throwing the gates open
to the flood of new TLDs.
Almost all of the spam I get these days is from places like *.buzz,
*.biz, *.dick, and so on. And I wouldn't even be getting those if I
hadn't been too lazy to update the blacklist in my mail server.
Kerr-Mudd, John
Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> On 29/05/2022 9:10 am, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 29/05/22 09:06, occam wrote:
> >> On 28/05/2022 22:36, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >>> On 28/05/2022 9:21 pm, Violet VanDusen wrote:
> >
> >>>> I'm not sure how link laws work here
> >>>
> >>> I'll bite. What laws would those be?
> >>
> >> No law, but the ground rules for posting links. Some people don't
> >> like others (esp. unknown posters) posting live links, for fear of
> >> ending up on nasty web pages. I had no issues clicking on Tony's
> >> link.
> >
> > Yes, because it was completely clear from context where Tony's
> > link was
> > going to lead.
> >
> > The nasty links that we dislike are the naked ones: just the
> > link, with
> > no explanation. I never follow those.
>
> I bet you do just this once:
>
> https://tinyurl.com/4x8zt6k2
>
(I'll Now Read On to see what it was)
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
Richard Heathfield
Peter T. Daniels
days has weird fonts and even emojis in their headers. I never see urls
for them, but I can look at the email address of the "sender" in case
something unrecognized looks legitimate.