Finding stressed and unstressed syllables
Bjorn
depending on whether you are American or British. As a non-native
speaker I am neither, but according to my English teacher I speak more
with an American accent than a British accent.
Anyway, here are the words I am wondering about and my suggestions:
stressed syllable
o unstressed syllable
temperature oo
milk bottle oo
demand o
present o
(to) present o
advertise oo
photographic ooo
colleague o
photograph o
I am grateful for any comment og corrections.
Lars Enderin
me only a square with four letters and digits for the UTF code given as
=EF=81=AC in quoted-printable. You have a few of those. What character
did you intend to be shown? Maybe you should send in 8bit instead of QP?
--
Lars Enderin
Bjorn
me it works both in Firefox and IE. Anyway, I will denote stressed
syllable with a S and unstessed with an U. So here we go again:
S stressed syllable
U unstressed syllable
temperature SUU
milk bottle SUU
demand SU
present SU
(to) present US
advertise SUU
photographic UUSU
colleague SU
photograph SU
Donna Richoux
> I you read in Google groups in a webbrowser it will come out right. For
> me it works both in Firefox and IE. Anyway, I will denote stressed
> syllable with a S and unstessed with an U. So here we go again:
>
> S stressed syllable
> U unstressed syllable
>
I'll put my versions below yours. Some syllables get a "secondary
stress" (not as hard as "stressed") and I'll mark those with a
lower-case s.
> temperature SUU
SUU (counting "pera" as "pra")
> milk bottle SUU
S SU
> demand SU
US (both n and v)
> present SU
SU
> (to) present US
US
> advertise SUU
SUs
> photographic UUSU
UUSU
> colleague SU
SU
> photograph SU
SUs
--
Best wishes -- Donna Richoux
An American living in the Netherlands
Mike Lyle
> As far as I know there are slight differences where to put the stress
> depending on whether you are American or British. As a non-native
> speaker I am neither, but according to my English teacher I speak more
> with an American accent than a British accent.
>
>
> Anyway, here are the words I am wondering about and my suggestions:
>
>
> o unstressed syllable
>
> temperature ?oo
> milk bottle ?oo
> demand ?o
> present ?o
> (to) present o?
> advertise ?oo
> photographic oo?o
> colleague ?o
> photograph ?o
>
> I am grateful for any comment og corrections.
All are normal British patterns, except for "demand", which is stressed
on the second syllable. AFAIK, the stress patterns are the same in
American speech, so perhaps it's your vowels which the teacher is
noticing?
There are only a few cases I can think of in which Americans use
different stresses from Brits, and even then I don't think all Americans
agree.
--
Mike.
Bjorn
To elaborate a little:
I believe the word photographic is quite clear, even for me as a
non-native speaker
it's pho-to-graph-hic UUSU Right? And no secondary
stress here
Now photograph on the other hand: Are there 2 or 3 syllables?
photo-graph SU or pho-to-graph SUU
Cambridge Pronouncing Dictionary indicate that this word has 3
syllables (although I am not sure because it written in phonetics
language which I don't understand very well) You indicate the syllables
like this: SUs
Do you mean that -graph is the 3. secondary stressed syllables or are
the syllables different than I have indicated above? To introduce
"secondary stressed syllables" makes me a little confused although I
can hear that -graph is almost as stressed
as pho when spoken out load.
Bjorn
Donna Richoux
> Thanks Donna
> To elaborate a little:
>
> I believe the word photographic is quite clear, even for me as a
> non-native speaker
>
> it's pho-to-graph-hic UUSU Right? And no secondary
> stress here
>
> Now photograph on the other hand: Are there 2 or 3 syllables?
>
> photo-graph SU or pho-to-graph SUU
Three. Basically, you count vowel sounds. phO tO grAph
>
> Cambridge Pronouncing Dictionary indicate that this word has 3
> syllables (although I am not sure because it written in phonetics
> language which I don't understand very well) You indicate the syllables
> like this: SUs
>
> Do you mean that -graph is the 3. secondary stressed syllables
Yes, that's what I was trying to say.
Pho to graph
S U s
>or are
> the syllables different than I have indicated above? To introduce
> "secondary stressed syllables" makes me a little confused
I know, but there really is a value in between completely stressed and
completely unstressed.
>although I
> can hear that -graph is almost as stressed
> as pho when spoken out load.
Right.
This is the sort of thing that must be easier to get by ear than off of
written symbols. Dictionaries like www.m-w.com have sound files that you
can listen to.
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> Bjorn <bjorn...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> >or are
> > the syllables different than I have indicated above? To introduce
> > "secondary stressed syllables" makes me a little confused
>
> I know, but there really is a value in between completely stressed and
> completely unstressed.
I completely agree, and I might add "milk bottle", S sU.
--
Jerry Friedman
Martin Ambuhl
> As far as I know there are slight differences where to put the stress
> depending on whether you are American or British. As a non-native
> speaker I am neither, but according to my English teacher I speak more
> with an American accent than a British accent.
>
>
> Anyway, here are the words I am wondering about and my suggestions:
>
>
> stressed syllable
> o unstressed syllable
My US use follows each of your lines. A '<-' marks a se
> temperature oo
'tem per a ture <- 4 syllables
> milk bottle oo
'milk ,bot tle <- secondary stress
> demand o
de'mand <- 'demand is hillbilly
> present o
'pre sent (n)
> (to) present o
pre 'sent (v)
> advertise oo
'ad ver tise
> photographic ooo
,pho to 'graph ic <- secondary stress
> colleague o
'col league
> photograph o
'pho to graph <- 3 syllables
Don Phillipson
news:47e2ssF...@individual.net...
> There are only a few cases I can think of in which Americans use
> different stresses from Brits, and even then I don't think all Americans
> agree.
A prominent couple is OFFENCE and DEFENCE
(ignoring US spelling), which Brits invariably stress
on the second syllable but Americans often (and
perhaps usually) stress on the first. I believe this
is traceable to American radio in the 1930s, when
continuous commentary of American football games
began. The rules of American football make the
distinction between offence and defence so important
that running commentary is bound to include these
words: and they were more clearly heard when
strongly stressed on the first syllable. This usage
permeated American speech by the 1960s.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Mark Brader
> Now photograph on the other hand: Are there 2 or 3 syllables?
Three. I've never heard it with two syllables (and I've never heard
"demand" with stress on the first syllable).
> Do you mean that -graph is the 3. secondary stressed syllables or ...
By "3." you mean "third", right? That's used in German and some other
languages but not in English. In English we write "3rd". It goes
"1st", "2nd", "3rd", "4th", "5th", and so on using whichever 2-letter
ending is appropriate for the specific number. (A few people use "d"
instead of "nd" and "rd".)
Yes, the third syllable is "graph" and it has secondary stress.
--
Mark Brader | "I do not want to give the impression I spend all
Toronto | my time on the Internet, but in the right hands
m...@vex.net | it is a wondrous tool, and in the wrong hands
| it is an even better one." -- Cecil Adams
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Chris Kern
posted the following:
>Bjorn <bjorn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Do you mean that -graph is the 3. secondary stressed syllables
>
>Yes, that's what I was trying to say.
>
>Pho to graph
>S U s
I say PHOtograph (SUU, photoGRAPHic (UUSU) and phoTOgraphy (USUU).
That seems rather unusual when I type it; I don't know why the accent
moves around so much.
-Chris
Salvatore Volatile
> By "3." you mean "third", right? That's used in German and some other
> languages but not in English. In English we write "3rd". It goes
> "1st", "2nd", "3rd", "4th", "5th", and so on using whichever 2-letter
> ending is appropriate for the specific number. (A few people use "d"
> instead of "nd" and "rd".)
Yes, I think Liebs does that.
--
Salvatore Volatile
Robert Lieblich
Merely following the Blue Book.
--
Liebs
After forty years or so it becomes natural
Jonathan Morton
news:4412FDAA...@yahoo.com...
> Salvatore Volatile wrote:
>>
>> Mark Brader wrote:
>> > By "3." you mean "third", right? That's used in German and some other
>> > languages but not in English. In English we write "3rd". It goes
>> > "1st", "2nd", "3rd", "4th", "5th", and so on using whichever 2-letter
>> > ending is appropriate for the specific number. (A few people use "d"
>> > instead of "nd" and "rd".)
>>
>> Yes, I think Liebs does that.
>
> Merely following the Blue Book.
I was just going to say that, as an English lawyer, I'd noticed that
standard US legal practice (in case citations etc) is 2d, 3d etc.
Another difference I've also noticed is that US legal series of reports etc
frequently use (for example) in words "One hundred twenty-third year of
publication", whereas we always use the "and" in formal numbering if it's
written in words.
My Excel formula for translating figures into text would have been much
easier in US usage.
Regards
Jonathan
Jonathan Morton
news:ZUpQf.4164$Xl.1...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
In Britain we get round the problem in a sporting context by using "attack"
and its variants.
Regards
Jonathan
Mike Lyle
> "Robert Lieblich" <r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4412FDAA...@yahoo.com...
>> Salvatore Volatile wrote:
>>>
>>> Mark Brader wrote:
>>>> By "3." you mean "third", right? That's used in German and some
>>>> other languages but not in English. In English we write "3rd".
>>>> It goes "1st", "2nd", "3rd", "4th", "5th", and so on using
>>>> whichever 2-letter ending is appropriate for the specific number.
>>>> (A few people use "d" instead of "nd" and "rd".)
>>>
>>> Yes, I think Liebs does that.
>>
>> Merely following the Blue Book.
>
> I was just going to say that, as an English lawyer, I'd noticed that
> standard US legal practice (in case citations etc) is 2d, 3d etc.
Which bit of common sense became available to them when they gave up Lsd
money. I think it's now probably safe for the rest of us to follow the
cousins' example.
--
Mike.
Salvatore Volatile
> Another difference I've also noticed is that US legal series of reports etc
> frequently use (for example) in words "One hundred twenty-third year of
> publication", whereas we always use the "and" in formal numbering if it's
> written in words.
This is not restricted to legal publications. In formal AmE the 'and' in
such numbers is customarily omitted. Check the Archives for many past
discussions of this general subject.
While we're on comparative legal editing practices and the like, the most
annoying differing BrE custom is that of following the name of a statute
with the year of its enactment without an intervening "of" or comma. For
a made-up example: "The Trades Unions Act 1967". I've verified that this
practice originated prior to the time when all comma usage was banned by
certain radically-economizing postwar UK governments, and that it
originally would have been, to continue the example, "The Trades Unions
Act, 1967". This is still bad, but not as bad. Doesn't it bother you to
have no visible break between the end of the statute name and the year?
The year is not part of the statute name; it therefore ought to be split
off visually, in English usage.
Here is one case where the AmE practice (where an "of" stands between
statute name and year) is demonstrably superior.
--
Salvatore Volatile
Paul Wolff
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>Jonathan Morton wrote:
>> Another difference I've also noticed is that US legal series of reports etc
>> frequently use (for example) in words "One hundred twenty-third year of
>> publication", whereas we always use the "and" in formal numbering if it's
>> written in words.
>
>This is not restricted to legal publications. In formal AmE the 'and' in
>such numbers is customarily omitted. Check the Archives for many past
>discussions of this general subject.
>
>While we're on comparative legal editing practices and the like, the most
>annoying differing BrE custom is that of following the name of a statute
>with the year of its enactment without an intervening "of" or comma. For
>a made-up example: "The Trades Unions Act 1967". I've verified that this
>practice originated prior to the time when all comma usage was banned by
>certain radically-economizing postwar UK governments, and that it
>originally would have been, to continue the example, "The Trades Unions
>Act, 1967". This is still bad, but not as bad. Doesn't it bother you to
>have no visible break between the end of the statute name and the year?
>The year is not part of the statute name; it therefore ought to be split
>off visually, in English usage.
But in modern times at least, and I don't speak for before my time, I
think (as I always do) that the year of enactment is a necessary part of
the name; we speak, do we not? of the Copyright Act 1842, the Copyright
Act 1911, and the Copyright Act 1956, and we are well into White Knight
country if we quibble about the year being part of what the name is
called.
>
>Here is one case where the AmE practice (where an "of" stands between
>statute name and year) is demonstrably superior.
Longwinded is a useful word.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!
Salvatore Volatile
> In message <duvnp8$ni7$1...@news.wss.yale.edu>, Salvatore Volatile
><m...@privacy.net> writes
>>annoying differing BrE custom is that of following the name of a statute
>>with the year of its enactment without an intervening "of" or comma. For
>>a made-up example: "The Trades Unions Act 1967". I've verified that this
>>practice originated prior to the time when all comma usage was banned by
>>certain radically-economizing postwar UK governments, and that it
>>originally would have been, to continue the example, "The Trades Unions
>>Act, 1967". This is still bad, but not as bad. Doesn't it bother you to
>>have no visible break between the end of the statute name and the year?
>>The year is not part of the statute name; it therefore ought to be split
>>off visually, in English usage.
>
> But in modern times at least, and I don't speak for before my time, I
> think (as I always do) that the year of enactment is a necessary part of
> the name; we speak, do we not? of the Copyright Act 1842, the Copyright
> Act 1911, and the Copyright Act 1956, and we are well into White Knight
> country if we quibble about the year being part of what the name is
> called.
Of course it isn't necessary if you adopt the post-Reagan American
Congressional practice of using whimsical or bizarre names for statutes;
for example, we have "The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of
1998" (named after [= BrE "for"] the late Salvatore "Sonny" Bono).
But anyway, even if the year is an official part of the statute name, you
can deal with that by using an intervening "of" -- that's what's done in
the US.
--
Salvatore Volatile
Stephen Calder
These match my stress patterns exactly.
--
Stephen
Lennox Head, Australia
Jonathan Morton
news:hfF$7hnsj3...@fpwolff.demon.co.uk...
[Short names of UK Acts of Parliament]
> But in modern times at least, and I don't speak for before my time, I
> think (as I always do) that the year of enactment is a necessary part of
> the name; we speak, do we not? of the Copyright Act 1842, the Copyright
> Act 1911, and the Copyright Act 1956, and we are well into White Knight
> country if we quibble about the year being part of what the name is
> called.
The UK practice used to be (to use a real example) "Companies Act, 1948" but
this practice changed to "Whatever Act 1965" in about 1962 IIRC. I don't
think there was much of a song and dance about it at the time - the comma
just disappeared.
Salvatore Volatile writes:
> The year is not part of the statute name; it therefore ought to be split
> off visually, in English usage.
That's not actually true in UK practice, since the name (without the year)
is not unique. The year, therefore, is part of the name - there are several
Companies Acts, for example and there's a Finance Act every year chiz
chiz* - so one could make a case for arguing that whether the comma should
be there depends on whether the year is defining (if there is more than one
Companies Act) or descriptive (where there's only one). That would be a
nightmare well beyond the comprehension of most people.
The short titles are just that. An Act says, usually in its last section:
"This Act may be cited as the 'Law of Property Act, 1925'" or some such. All
of which means (and this has troubled me over the years) that one should in
theory check whether the Act in question had a comma in its short title and
proceed accordingly. Of course, nobody (including parliament) does - with
the result that the Law of Property Act, 1925 is referred to in subsequent
Acts without its comma.
<FX: searches for "Get out of jail free" card...>
Short titles are a 19th century invention. They were introduced by an Act
which allowed future Acts to have short titles and retrospectively assigned
short titles for citing some of the more commonly used Acts then in force.
The full title is still the regnal year of the relevant monarch, followed by
the chapter number (i.e. in sequence for that parliamentary year) - you can
imagine how helpful that is.
Some earlier great Acts had always been cited by their common nicknames,
some in latin (e.g. "Magna Carta", "de donis conditionalibus", "Statute of
Uses" etc). Presumably US practice is to cite these by the same names.
* search Google under "Molesworth chiz" for this particular piece of UK
foolery.
Regards
Jonathan
Jonathan Morton
news:duvvge$uht$1...@news.wss.yale.edu...
>
> Of course it isn't necessary if you adopt the post-Reagan American
> Congressional practice of using whimsical or bizarre names for statutes;
> for example, we have "The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of
> 1998" (named after [= BrE "for"] the late Salvatore "Sonny" Bono).
Interestingly, BrE usage is "named after", and I've always considered "named
for" to be US use.
Gerrard Hoffnung (c 1961): "I was named Gerrard after a cousin, and
Hoffnung... after Gerrard".
Regards
Jonathan
Father Ignatius
> Gerrard Hoffnung (c 1961): "I was named Gerrard after a cousin, and
> Hoffnung... after Gerrard".
Zebra parking places provided everywhere.
Risenape
says...
Still looks like tuppence and threepence to me.
R.
Jonathan Morton
news:dv11so$m7j$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
Sorry, that one's lost on me.
Regards
Jonathan
Father Ignatius
More Hoffnungiana.
"Always shake hands with all the passengers when entering a railway
compartment."
"Oblige your chambermaid by hanging the mattress out of the window in the
mornings"
"All London brothels display a blue lamp."
"Have you tried the famous echo in the reading room of the British Museum?!"
Jonathan Morton
Now those I do remember - along with "french widows in every room -
affording excellent prospects".
Regards
Jonathan
Don Aitken
<jona...@jonathanmortonbutignorethisbit.co.uk> wrote:
>"Paul Wolff" <boun...@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:hfF$7hnsj3...@fpwolff.demon.co.uk...
>
>[Short names of UK Acts of Parliament]
>
>> But in modern times at least, and I don't speak for before my time, I
>> think (as I always do) that the year of enactment is a necessary part of
>> the name; we speak, do we not? of the Copyright Act 1842, the Copyright
>> Act 1911, and the Copyright Act 1956, and we are well into White Knight
>> country if we quibble about the year being part of what the name is
>> called.
>
>The UK practice used to be (to use a real example) "Companies Act, 1948" but
>this practice changed to "Whatever Act 1965" in about 1962 IIRC. I don't
>think there was much of a song and dance about it at the time - the comma
>just disappeared.
>
If this is right (and I have no reason to doubt you) then subsequent
reprintings simply leave out these commas. For example, section 4 of
"7 & 8 George 5 c.47 An Act to deprive Enemy Peers and Princes of
British Dignities and Titles", as it appears in Halsbury's Statutes,
says "This Act may be cited as the Titles Deprivation Act 1917".
Short title sections may also provide for several Acts to be cited
together:
"This Act may be cited as the Widgets Act 2006, and the Widgets Act
1847, the Other Widgets Act 1904, the Widgets Acts Amendment Act 1990
and this Act may be cited together as the Widgets Acts 1847 to 2006".
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Peter Duncanson
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>Jonathan Morton wrote:
>> Another difference I've also noticed is that US legal series of reports etc
>> frequently use (for example) in words "One hundred twenty-third year of
>> publication", whereas we always use the "and" in formal numbering if it's
>> written in words.
>
>This is not restricted to legal publications. In formal AmE the 'and' in
>such numbers is customarily omitted. Check the Archives for many past
>discussions of this general subject.
>
>While we're on comparative legal editing practices and the like, the most
>annoying differing BrE custom is that of following the name of a statute
>with the year of its enactment without an intervening "of" or comma. For
>a made-up example: "The Trades Unions Act 1967". I've verified that this
>practice originated prior to the time when all comma usage was banned by
>certain radically-economizing postwar UK governments, and that it
>originally would have been, to continue the example, "The Trades Unions
>Act, 1967". This is still bad, but not as bad. Doesn't it bother you to
>have no visible break between the end of the statute name and the year?
>The year is not part of the statute name; it therefore ought to be split
>off visually, in English usage.
The year is an essential part of the name. The same name may be used in
more than one year. A routine example is the annual Finance Act which
gives effect to proposed changes in government taxation and expenditure.
The most recent is:
Finance Act 2005
2005 Chapter 7
aka
Finance Act 2005 c.7
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/20050007.htm
"Chapter 7" or "c.7" identifies it as the seventh Act passed in the
stated year.
Acts of the UK Parliament from 1988 until now can be seen via:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts.htm
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.u.e)
Paul Wolff
enough. But the spirit of the times over here is to drop unnecessary
formal padding, and as you noted this has been done in statute titles
for many years.
Mike Lyle
> In article <47gt8aF...@individual.net>,
> mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk says...
>>
>> Jonathan Morton wrote:
>>> I was just going to say that, as an English lawyer, I'd noticed that
>>> standard US legal practice (in case citations etc) is 2d, 3d etc.
>> [...]
>>
>> Which bit of common sense became available to them when they gave up
>> Lsd money. I think it's now probably safe for the rest of us to
>> follow the cousins' example.
>
> Still looks like tuppence and threepence to me.
Oh, me too; but it'd only take a week or so to get used to it.
--
Mike.
Jonathan Morton
news:np6812tb8vn8uespl...@4ax.com...
[disappearing comma from UK Acts of Parliament]
> If this is right (and I have no reason to doubt you) then subsequent
> reprintings simply leave out these commas. For example, section 4 of
> "7 & 8 George 5 c.47 An Act to deprive Enemy Peers and Princes of
> British Dignities and Titles", as it appears in Halsbury's Statutes,
> says "This Act may be cited as the Titles Deprivation Act 1917".
Yes, the subseqent re-printings do pull off this trick.
Incidentally Googling confirms it was 1962 and the Tanganyika Independence
Act 1962 was the first "no comma" Act. I wonder if Tanzania feels better for
it.
> Short title sections may also provide for several Acts to be cited
> together:
>
> "This Act may be cited as the Widgets Act 2006, and the Widgets Act
> 1847, the Other Widgets Act 1904, the Widgets Acts Amendment Act 1990
> and this Act may be cited together as the Widgets Acts 1847 to 2006".
Indeed. But I thought everyone would feel I'd waffled on quite enough
already. You forgot the Widgets Act Amendment Act (Prescribed Forms) (Welsh
Language Versions) (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations 2007.
Regards
Jonathan
John Lawler
>I you read in Google groups in a webbrowser it will come out right. For
>me it works both in Firefox and IE. Anyway, I will denote stressed
>syllable with a S and unstessed with an U. So here we go again:
>S stressed syllable
>U unstressed syllable
>temperature SUU
>milk bottle SUU
>demand SU
Not in the USA. It's deMAND, not DEmand.
>present SU
The noun, with a lax first vowel and a syllabic n: /prÉznt/
>(to) present US
The verb, with an optional tense first vowel and lax second: /prizÉnt
>advertise SUU
>photographic UUSU
>colleague SU
>photograph SU
Rather SUU; there are three syllables: /fót@grćf/
In general, stress is not predictable in English words. There must be one
primary stress in any English word with more than one syllable. Vowels in
unstressed syllables are optionally and usually reduced to shwa /@/ or to
syllabic resonants if possible.
There is one common stress pattern that crops up with disyllabic words like
'present' that have two zero-derived forms as nouns and verbs. Normally the
noun stresses the first syllable and the verb the second, like ADdress vs
adDRESS. This is not universal, but it's enough so to have spawned some
dialects which favor first-syllable stress with nouns. These are known in
the trade as the "POlice-UMbrella" dialects, or "PU" for short. Other words
that crop up in PU dialects are SIGar, SIGarette, and INsurance.
-John Lawler Linguistics @ umich.edu & wwu.edu
----------------------------------------------
Every act of conscious learning requires the
willingness to suffer an injury to one's self-
esteem. That is why young children, before they
are aware of their own self-importance, learn
so easily; and why older persons, especially
if vain or important, cannot learn at all.
-- Thomas Szász
Peter Duncanson
<jona...@jonathanmortonbutignorethisbit.co.uk> wrote:
>"Don Aitken" <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
>news:np6812tb8vn8uespl...@4ax.com...
>
>[disappearing comma from UK Acts of Parliament]
>
>> If this is right (and I have no reason to doubt you) then subsequent
>> reprintings simply leave out these commas. For example, section 4 of
>> "7 & 8 George 5 c.47 An Act to deprive Enemy Peers and Princes of
>> British Dignities and Titles", as it appears in Halsbury's Statutes,
>> says "This Act may be cited as the Titles Deprivation Act 1917".
>
>Yes, the subseqent re-printings do pull off this trick.
>
>Incidentally Googling confirms it was 1962 and the Tanganyika Independence
>Act 1962 was the first "no comma" Act. I wonder if Tanzania feels better for
>it.
Perhaps an absentminded clerk heard "decolonised" in discussion of the
act, thought "There are no colons in the title; he must mean
de-comma-ised."; and out they went.
Jonathan Morton
news:s4ZQf.542$hi2...@news.itd.umich.edu...
>>demand SU
>
>
> Not in the USA. It's deMAND, not DEmand.
Same in BrEng. I must say I assumed that this was a mistake in the OP's
posting rather than pronunciation.
Regards
Jonathan
Mark Brader
> While we're on comparative legal editing practices and the like, the most
> annoying differing BrE custom is that of following the name of a statute
> with the year of its enactment without an intervening "of" or comma. For
> a made-up example: "The Trades Unions Act 1967". I've verified that this
> practice originated prior to the time when all comma usage was banned by
> certain radically-economizing postwar UK governments, and that it
> originally would have been, to continue the example, "The Trades Unions
Oh, I *like* that! I'd never noticed it, and I wish we did it here in
Canada. We still have the comma, as in "the Constitution Act, 1982".
This change is like the dropping of the comma between city and state/
provincial abbreviation that has become common since our post offices
standardized on 2-letter codes, so that you can now write "Montreal QC,
Toronto ON, Boston MA, New York NY, Detroit MI, and Chicago IL" with
a clean minimum of punctuation instead of "Montreal, QC; Toronto, ON;
Boston, MA; New York, NY; Detroit, MI; and Chicago, IL" or the still
older and still more punctuated style "Montreal, Que. (or P.Q.); Toronto,
Ont.; Boston, Mass.; New York, N.Y.; Detroit, Mich.; and Chicago, Ill."
Another such case is the needless comma sometimes used before suffixes
like "Inc." in corporate names.
The dropping of these commas is also beneficial in other contexts,
because grammar requires a second comma afterwards if the sentence
continues after the expression with no other punctuation. This makes
it harder to read because you can't tell if a comma was required for
some other reason; further, many people don't use the additional
comma with the result that their sentences are painful to read.
Consider:
The owners of Ottawa legal publisher White & Paper were delighted
by the Constitution Act because they could publish many new books.
If this becomes
The owners of Ottawa, ON, legal publisher White & Paper, Inc., were
delighted by the Constitution Act, 1982, because they could publish
many new books.
you have a surfeit of commas that don't help with the main structure
of the sentence. And this commonly seen style:
The owners of Ottawa, ON legal publisher White & Paper, Inc. were
delighted by the Constitution Act, 1982 because they could publish
many new books.
looks ungrammatical and illiterate. Whereas *this*:
The owners of Ottawa ON legal publisher White & Paper Inc. were
delighted by the Constitution Act 1982 because they could publish
many new books.
is almost as clear as the original.
I rest my case.
--
Mark Brader / This country is planted thick with laws from coast to
Toronto / coast. Man's laws, not God's. And if you cut them down
m...@vex.net/ ... do you really think you could stand upright in the
/ winds that would blow then? --Bolt, A Man for All Seasons
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Jonathan Morton
news:12193ir...@corp.supernews.com...
> Another such case is the needless comma sometimes used before suffixes
> like "Inc." in corporate names.
Come to think of it, this used to be common in UK usage, but it dropped out
of general use some years ago. Some companies, however, are still very
particular about the comma. "Esso Petroleum Company, Limited" springs to
mind for some reason.
Regards
Jonathan
Mark Brader
> > Another such case is the needless comma sometimes used before suffixes
> > like "Inc." in corporate names.
> Come to think of it, this used to be common in UK usage, but it dropped out
> of general use some years ago. Some companies, however, are still very
> particular about the comma. "Esso Petroleum Company, Limited" springs to
> mind for some reason.
Oh, if it's part of their name, it's part of their name and must be used.
When I say it's needless, I mean they have no reason to choose to make
it part of their name.
--
Mark Brader "Hey, I don't want to control people's lives!
Toronto (If they did things right, I wouldn't have to.)"
m...@vex.net -- "Coach"
Iskandar Baharuddin
Back in the 60s I spent a few glorious years at Time Inc.
The style manual made it clear that THERE IS NO COMMA, and anyone
writing "Time, Inc." was to be shot on sight.
I mourn the demise of Time Incorporated. One of the greatest
businesses in history, now swallowed up in one of many failed
mega-mergers.
Can anyone point to a mega-merger that has actually worked?
Down here Coles-Myer is finally being unbundled. I think it would have
been quicker and easier to unscramble an egg.
--
Shalom & Salam
Izzy
"...there is always a well-known solution to every human problem - neat, plausible, and wrong."
- H L Mencken
Mark Brader
> Can anyone point to a mega-merger that has actually worked?
ObAUE: define "mega-" and define "worked", and maybe then someone
can answer that.
--
Mark Brader | "Have you got anything without Spam in it?"
Toronto | "Well, there's Spam, egg, sausage, and Spam.
m...@vex.net | That's not got *much* Spam in it." --Monty Python
Tony Cooper
<bren...@mcpc.net.au> wrote:
>
>I mourn the demise of Time Incorporated. One of the greatest
>businesses in history, now swallowed up in one of many failed
>mega-mergers.
>
>Can anyone point to a mega-merger that has actually worked?
One can only hope that this will be the case if aue and aeu are
merged.
>Down here Coles-Myer is finally being unbundled. I think it would have
>been quicker and easier to unscramble an egg.
I see the bell business is coming full cycle. AT&T will merge with
Bell South.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
Mike Lyle
A Radio 4 business programme yesterday said, interestingly, that mergers
are usually unrewarding -- and that, in fact, 60% of them resulted in
_losses_ to the shareholders. It was suggested that they are generally
done just because managers think they're one of the things managers
ought to do.
--
Mike.
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> Can anyone point to a mega-merger that has actually worked?
Exxon-Mobil?
Chevron-Texaco?
Paul Newman-Joanne Woodward?
--
Bob Lieblich
Whose merger with Mrs. Bob is successful, if not meta-
Iskandar Baharuddin
>Izzy Baharuddin writes:
>> Can anyone point to a mega-merger that has actually worked?
>
>ObAUE: define "mega-" and define "worked", and maybe then someone
>can answer that.
mega-merger: the joining together of two corporations that are already
too bloody big.
worked: things got better instead of worse.
Iskandar Baharuddin
<r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
>
>[ ... ]
>
>> Can anyone point to a mega-merger that has actually worked?
>
>Exxon-Mobil?
>Chevron-Texaco?
Good point. Perhaps the reason is that in the case of both mergers the
corporations were in the same industry. I would suspect that their
individual corporate cultures were rather similar.
Time and Warner were utterly different, and AOL was something else
again.
HP and Compaq were nominally in the same business, but of two
different species.
>Paul Newman-Joanne Woodward?
"mega-merger: the joining together of two corporations that are
already too bloody big."
Both were big, but not too bloody big.
Daniel al-Autistiqui
<r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
>
>[ ... ]
>
>> Can anyone point to a mega-merger that has actually worked?
>
>Exxon-Mobil?
You mean, Xombilex?
[...]
daniel mcgrath
--
Daniel Gerard McGrath, a/k/a "Govende":
for e-mail replace "invalid" with "com"
Developmentally disabled;
has Autism (Pervasive Developmental Disorder),
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder,
& periodic bouts of depression.
[This signature is under construction.]
Al in Dallas
Just check out the history of AT&T after all the Baby Bells had been
spun off. They made a bunch of huge acquisitions, then split
themselves into four pieces, and sold off two of the big pieces. Now,
SBC (Southwestern Bell Communications, the largest Baby Bell) has
bought what's left of AT&T and changed their own name to AT&T. They'll
buy Bell South next, and we'll be back down to two phone
mega-companies, AT&T and GTE (renamed to Verizon).
--
Al in St. Lou
Robert Bannister
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 22:33:44 -0000, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>
>
>>Izzy Baharuddin writes:
>>
>>>Can anyone point to a mega-merger that has actually worked?
>>
>>ObAUE: define "mega-" and define "worked", and maybe then someone
>>can answer that.
>
>
> mega-merger: the joining together of two corporations that are already
> too bloody big.
>
> worked: things got better instead of worse.
This is clearly different from "improvement" or "reform", both of which
normally make things considerably worse.
--
Rob Bannister
Mark Brader
>>> Can anyone point to a mega-merger that has actually worked?
Mark Brader:
>> ObAUE: define "mega-" and define "worked", and maybe then someone
>> can answer that.
Izzy Baharuddin writes:
> mega-merger: the joining together of two corporations that are already
> too bloody big.
Oh, you just want to rant. Plonk.
--
Mark Brader "Oh, I'm a programmer and I'm O.K....
Toronto I work all night and I sleep all day"
m...@vex.net -- Trygve Lode (after Monty Python)
Peter Moylan
> Mark Brader "Oh, I'm a programmer and I'm O.K....
> Toronto I work all night and I sleep all day"
> m...@vex.net -- Trygve Lode (after Monty Python)
I've just come back from my weekly visit to a pub trivia night. One of
the questions was "What does a lumberjack do?". Our team's answer "He
puts on women's clothing, and hangs around in bars" was disallowed. We
won anyway.
That reminds me that one of last week's questions asked what GI stood
for. Everyone in the room got it wrong. That might surprise the
Americans here assembled, but I suspect that most non-Americans would
have had trouble with that question.
(Our team did at least know that Barbie comes with GI Joe, and that
she fakes it with Ken.)
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists.
My e-mail addresses at newcastle.edu.au will probably remain "live"
for a while, but then they will disappear without warning.
The optusnet address still has about 5 months of life left.
the Omrud
> Mark Brader wrote:
>
> > Mark Brader "Oh, I'm a programmer and I'm O.K....
> > Toronto I work all night and I sleep all day"
> > m...@vex.net -- Trygve Lode (after Monty Python)
>
> I've just come back from my weekly visit to a pub trivia night. One of
> the questions was "What does a lumberjack do?". Our team's answer "He
> puts on women's clothing, and hangs around in bars" was disallowed. We
> won anyway.
>
> That reminds me that one of last week's questions asked what GI stood
> for. Everyone in the room got it wrong. That might surprise the
> Americans here assembled, but I suspect that most non-Americans would
> have had trouble with that question.
I've always "known" it to be "Government Issue" (that is, I have no
idea if this is wrong).
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the
Salvatore Volatile
> That reminds me that one of last week's questions asked what GI stood
> for. Everyone in the room got it wrong. That might surprise the
> Americans here assembled, but I suspect that most non-Americans would
> have had trouble with that question.
Actually, no surprise -- I suspect that most Americans wouldn't know
either -- not even Sparky. I myself was under the impression that it
stood for "General Infantry", but apparently this is a folk etymology.
An online etymology dictionary states:
apparently an abbreviation of Government Issue, applied to anything
associated with servicemen. Transferred sense to "soldiers" during World
War II (first recorded 1943) is from the jocular notion that the men
themselves were manufactured by the government. An earlier G.I. was an
abbreviation of Galvanized Iron in G.I. can, a type of metal trash can,
the term being picked up by U.S. soldiers in World War I as slang for a
similar-looking type of German artillery shells. This use is attested
from 1928, but it is highly unlikely that this came to mean "soldier." I
probably get more e-mail about this entry than any other. No two sources
I have agree on the etymology, but none backs the widespread notion that
it stands for *General Infantry.
What was the "correct" answer for your pub quiz?
--
Salvatore Volatile
Tony Cooper
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>Peter Moylan wrote:
>> That reminds me that one of last week's questions asked what GI stood
>> for. Everyone in the room got it wrong. That might surprise the
>> Americans here assembled, but I suspect that most non-Americans would
>> have had trouble with that question.
>
>Actually, no surprise -- I suspect that most Americans wouldn't know
>either -- not even Sparky. I myself was under the impression that it
>stood for "General Infantry", but apparently this is a folk etymology.
You've got to be joking. My dog knows it is "Government Issue".
R J Valentine
Any soldier who has gone down the line of Cans, G.I., dunking his mess kit
into hot soapy and boiling rinse after eating in the field knows dog-face
etymology when he sees it. I was RA; Coop was probably ER; draftees were
US.
It did come to mean "government issue", though, as well as "soldier",
especially in "Nebba hatchee, G.I." and "Love you G.I. long time".
--
rjv
R H Draney
>
>That reminds me that one of last week's questions asked what GI stood
>for. Everyone in the room got it wrong. That might surprise the
>Americans here assembled, but I suspect that most non-Americans would
>have had trouble with that question.
No trouble at all for this American...it's "gastro-intestinal"....r
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:04:48 GMT Tony Cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>} On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:45:32 +0000 (UTC), Salvatore Volatile
>} <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>}
>}>Peter Moylan wrote:
>}>> That reminds me that one of last week's questions asked what GI stood
>}>> for. Everyone in the room got it wrong. That might surprise the
>}>> Americans here assembled, but I suspect that most non-Americans would
>}>> have had trouble with that question.
>}>
>}>Actually, no surprise -- I suspect that most Americans wouldn't know
>}>either -- not even Sparky. I myself was under the impression that it
>}>stood for "General Infantry", but apparently this is a folk etymology.
>}
>} You've got to be joking. My dog knows it is "Government Issue".
>
>Any soldier who has gone down the line of Cans, G.I., dunking his mess kit
>into hot soapy and boiling rinse after eating in the field knows dog-face
>etymology when he sees it. I was RA; Coop was probably ER; draftees were
>US.
Coop was BR.
Bob Cunningham
> Peter Moylan wrote:
> > That reminds me that one of last week's questions asked what GI stood
> > for. Everyone in the room got it wrong. That might surprise the
> > Americans here assembled, but I suspect that most non-Americans would
> > have had trouble with that question.
>
> Actually, no surprise -- I suspect that most Americans
> wouldn't know either -- not even Sparky.
I learned in about 1942 that "GI" came from "Government
Issue", and I seem to remember it being used slangily as a
sort of synonym of (adjective) "official". I knew soldiers
were called GIs, but I don't remember whether anyone ever
told me exactly why "government issue" applied to them.
I just now found myself wondering if "dogface" for "soldier"
appeared first in World War II. _Merriam-Webster's 11th
Collegiate Dictionary_ (_MW11CD_) dates it 1932, which seems
sorta strange, since we weren't in any wars around that
time.
"Dogface" sounds like it could have been someone's takeoff
on "doughboy".
I had thought before now that "grunt" was a World War II
epithet soldiers used for themselves, but I see now that
_MW11CD_ relates it to the Vietnam War.
R J Valentine
That or "judo outfit", one.
--
rjv
Donna Richoux
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:45:32 +0000 (UTC), Salvatore Volatile
> <m...@privacy.net> said:
>
> > Peter Moylan wrote:
> > > That reminds me that one of last week's questions asked what GI stood
> > > for. Everyone in the room got it wrong. That might surprise the
> > > Americans here assembled, but I suspect that most non-Americans would
> > > have had trouble with that question.
> >
> > Actually, no surprise -- I suspect that most Americans
> > wouldn't know either -- not even Sparky.
When Peter asked, the closest I could remember was "General Issue."
>
> I learned in about 1942 that "GI" came from "Government
> Issue", and I seem to remember it being used slangily as a
> sort of synonym of (adjective) "official". I knew soldiers
> were called GIs, but I don't remember whether anyone ever
> told me exactly why "government issue" applied to them.
>
> I just now found myself wondering if "dogface" for "soldier"
> appeared first in World War II. _Merriam-Webster's 11th
> Collegiate Dictionary_ (_MW11CD_) dates it 1932, which seems
> sorta strange, since we weren't in any wars around that
> time.
But we did have soldiers. Was there an unusually large peacetime army
after WWI?
RHHDAS can only push "dogface" back to 1930, although it says that it
was used to mean "an ugly individual" since 1849, particularly as a
derisive nickname ("Dog Face Billy Towns is here..."). It says there are
assertions that the military "dogface" went back to the Plains Indians
wars, but says that cannot be confirmed. "Dog soldier" also cannot be
found before 1946.
There is another piece of Army slang, "dog-robber," that does go back o
the early 19th century -- it first meant someone who scrounged supplies,
then an officer's orderly, then a flunky or lackey.
>
> "Dogface" sounds like it could have been someone's takeoff
> on "doughboy".
Altering "dough" to "dog" because of the spelling? And "boy" to "face"
because of....
>
> I had thought before now that "grunt" was a World War II
> epithet soldiers used for themselves, but I see now that
> _MW11CD_ relates it to the Vietnam War.
For "grunt" applied to a person, RHHDAS has:
1927 assistant to a phone or power lineman; helper to mechanic or
electrician (includes WWII use)
1961 infantryman
1968 US marine
1970 any person doing menial labor
1977 a stupid, unpleasant, or contemptible person
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Mark Brader
>>> That reminds me that one of last week's questions asked what GI stood
>>> for. Everyone in the room got it wrong. That might surprise the
>>> Americans here assembled, but I suspect that most non-Americans would
>>> have had trouble with that question.
Richard Fontana:
>> Actually, no surprise -- I suspect that most Americans wouldn't know
>> either -- not even Sparky. I myself was under the impression that it
>> stood for "General Infantry", but apparently this is a folk etymology.
Tony Cooper:
> You've got to be joking. My dog knows it is "Government Issue".
Interesting. The expansion I remember is "General Inductee". But I wasn't
sure it was right. SBF has it as "General Issue".
Of course, SGML users know it's really :-) Generic Identifier.
--
Mark Brader | "... [A]toms and universes are the same. All the
Toronto | world is recursive, and that's why we never
m...@vex.net | know where to begin." -- Charles Goldfarb
R H Draney
My martial-arts-wear smells of clarified butter....r
Donna Richoux
> Peter Moylan:
> >>> That reminds me that one of last week's questions asked what GI stood
> >>> for. Everyone in the room got it wrong. That might surprise the
> >>> Americans here assembled, but I suspect that most non-Americans would
> >>> have had trouble with that question.
>
> Richard Fontana:
> >> Actually, no surprise -- I suspect that most Americans wouldn't know
> >> either -- not even Sparky. I myself was under the impression that it
> >> stood for "General Infantry", but apparently this is a folk etymology.
>
> Tony Cooper:
> > You've got to be joking. My dog knows it is "Government Issue".
>
> Interesting. The expansion I remember is "General Inductee". But I wasn't
> sure it was right. SBF has it as "General Issue".
You lead me to check MW11, which shows indeed there is a story behind
this:
Main Entry: 1 GI
Function: adjective
Etymology: galvanized iron; from abbreviation used
in listing such articles as garbage cans, but taken
as abbreviation for government issue
Date: circa 1935
1 : provided by an official United States military
supply department <GI shoes>
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of United
States military personnel
3 : conforming to military regulations or customs <a
GI haircut>
American Heritage agrees:
ETYMOLOGY: From abbreviation of galvanized iron
(applied to trash cans, etc.), later reinterpreted
as government issue.
I wonder what the evidence is that first it meant one thing and was
"taken as" something else. Is there no evidence of there being a phrase
"government issue" or "general issue" that needed abbreviating? Into an
abbreviation that just happened to resemble another already in use? We
know that happens a lot.
Charles Riggs
Your dog knows military lingo better than some humans.
--
Charles Riggs
John Dean
> Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> But we did have soldiers. Was there an unusually large peacetime army
> after WWI?
>
> RHHDAS can only push "dogface" back to 1930, although it says that it
> was used to mean "an ugly individual" since 1849, particularly as a
> derisive nickname ("Dog Face Billy Towns is here..."). It says there
> are assertions that the military "dogface" went back to the Plains
> Indians wars, but says that cannot be confirmed. "Dog soldier" also
> cannot be found before 1946.
>
If that's "dog soldier" as applied to modern GIs, I can't comment. But
if it's to do with origins among Native Americans I can certainly bust a
cap in *that* etymologist's ass. I have "The Indian Sign Language" by
Captain William Philo Clark of the 2nd Cavalry, published 1885. There
are numerous references eg:
(Under the entry for "dog") "Nearly every tribe has a band of
Dog-Soldiers, and a dance named after the band."
(Entry for "Cheyenne") "The usual explanation [for the etymology of
Cheyenne] ... that it came from the French word "chien" and on account
of the Cheyenne soldier being called dog-soldier, is not, I think,
correct.
(Under "soldier") "The Southern Cheyennes gave me the following six
bands as their organization: 1st, Fox ; 2d, Dog ; 3d, Bow-String ... For
instance, The Dog-Soldier band led all others in 1869, but when "Tall
Bull" ...was killed ... this band declined in prominence and numbers
..."
--
John Dean
Oxford
Ross Howard
>Richard Fontana:
Who he?
--
Ross Howard
Mark Brader
> Who he?
Who's on first.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Men! Give them enough rope and they'll dig
m...@vex.net | their own grave." -- EARTH GIRLS ARE EASY
Phonedude
I am fairly certain, but working from memory, that the GI abbreviation
was commonly used in the supply chain for the military. Everything
that came through the pipeline had an exact nomenclature that went
something like, "Canteen, Metal, 1Quart, General Issue," or "Jacket,
Field, Forest Green, General Issue." The obvious abbreviation
resulted. I don't think for a minute that it's "Government Issue," as
I always saw it on items intended for wide distribution -- "general
issue," as opposed to things such as "Sidearm, 45 caliber, Model
1917A1, Officer's."
Of course this is also where we got the jeep. "Vehicle, 4-wheel drive,
1/4 Ton, General Purpose, or G.P. You cannot say the abbreviation G.P.
more than a few times without it resulting in "jeep."
PD
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
Those involved in trendy dieting (or who see "GI" in a magazine and
rapidly turn the page) GI stands for Glyc(a)emic Index.
http://www.glycemicindex.com/
http://www.glycaemicindex.com/
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.u.e)
Hedberg
>Ross Howard writes:
>> Who he?
>
>Who's on first.
If you're watching the Koreans, the answer is "Lee."
Iskandar Baharuddin
wrote:
Mutations certainly occur in language, for weird reasons.
I was working in Jakarta in 1997. My supermarket featured Granny Smith
apples from Australia (at a staggering price), of course.
One day I noticed that the usual sign had been replace with a smaller
one, and the sign writer abbreviated the name to "G. Smith".
A few week later the sign was changed again, back to the normal size.
The supermarket now offers "Great Smith" apples.
--
Shalom & Salam
Izzy
Help is coming!:
"Who Says English Ain't Phonetic?: 267,982 Simple Rules for Perfect Spelling and Pronunciation."
In leading bookstores QI 2562.
Robert Bannister
> I was working in Jakarta in 1997. My supermarket featured Granny Smith
> apples from Australia (at a staggering price), of course.
I'm surprised at that. The usual experience of travellers is to find
produce from their own country being sold at a lower price than at home,
and frequently the quality is better.
My sister, visiting from South Australia last month, made a point of
telling me how just about every West Australian product was available in
her supermarkets at about 20% less than here.
--
Rob Bannister
Peter Moylan
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>> That reminds me that one of last week's questions asked what GI
>> stood for. Everyone in the room got it wrong. That might surprise
>> the Americans here assembled, but I suspect that most non-Americans
>> would have had trouble with that question.
>
> Actually, no surprise -- I suspect that most Americans wouldn't know
> either -- not even Sparky. I myself was under the impression that
> it stood for "General Infantry", but apparently this is a folk
> etymology. An online etymology dictionary states:
> What was the "correct" answer for your pub quiz?
The answer we were supposed to give was "Government Issue". The answer
that almost everyone came up with was "General Infantry".
Iskandar Baharuddin
In that particular supermarket _everything_ was sold at a staggering
price.
--
Shalom & Salam
Izzy
In any society morality is inversely proportional to per capita GDP.
- PS Kelly