Grammar question: "two PC's", "two PC", or "two PCs" ?
John Cheung
Marc Roger <Marc....@belnet.be> wrote
> I have noticed that some people use "'s" to mark the plural of some
> abbreviations, like: (several) PC's, typo's, comma's
> I'd like to know if this construction is correct in English.
I would write the plural of PC as PCs. PC's would mean something
relating to PC.
John
Robert Lipton
In article <slrn6i9f0u.h...@qames.belnet.be>, Marc Roger wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I have noticed that some people use "'s" to mark the plural of some
>abbreviations, like: (several) PC's, typo's, comma's
>
>I'd like to know if this construction is correct in English.
No.
Bob
Albert Marshall
Marc Roger <Marc....@belnet.be> wrote
>Hello,
>
>I have noticed that some people use "'s" to mark the plural of some
>abbreviations, like: (several) PC's, typo's, comma's
>
>I'd like to know if this construction is correct in English.
>
opinion.
--
Albert Marshall
Executive French
Language Training for Businesses in Kent
01634 400902
James Cookson et Karin Montin, s.e.n.c.
The s is perfectly correct; it's the apostrophe that's debatable.
Paul Cook
Marc Roger wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have noticed that some people use "'s" to mark the plural of some
> abbreviations, like: (several) PC's, typo's, comma's
>
> I'd like to know if this construction is correct in English.
>
> Marc Roger
There is a legitimate case to be made for referring, for example, to
"a a a" as "three a's", as opposed to "three as". But to write
"typo's" or "comma's" is idiotic. It is manifestly incorrect.
- Paul Cook
Truly Donovan
On 3 Apr 1998 10:38:20 GMT, Marc....@belnet.be (Marc Roger) wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I have noticed that some people use "'s" to mark the plural of some
>abbreviations, like: (several) PC's, typo's, comma's
>
>I'd like to know if this construction is correct in English.
No, it is not. The one time that an apostrophe must be used in a
plural is when the word would otherwise be ambiguous. If you wanted
to make a plural of the letter "a" or the letter "i," for instance,
"as" and "is" simply wouldn't do -- they must be rendered as "a's" and
"i's" (although I'd be tempted to find some way to get around having
to use that particular plural, myself).
Some people still use the apostrophe form when the item being
pluralized is all capital letters or a number, such as a decade, but
this is becoming less and less popular as time goes on, and while not
actually an error, it is generally looked upon as old-fashioned. Most
publishers do not use the apostrophe. Thus, "PCs," "1960s," etc.
Under no circumstances should words like "typo," even if they are
abbreviated for some reason (and "comma" isn't one of them), ever be
pluralized with an apostrophe.
--
Truly Donovan
reply to truly at lunemere dot com
Stan Brown
[posted and emailed -- please reply in the newsgroup if your reply might
be of general interest]
In article <slrn6i9f0u.h...@qames.belnet.be>, the entity known
as Marc....@belnet.be (Marc Roger) wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I have noticed that some people use "'s" to mark the plural of some
>abbreviations, like: (several) PC's, typo's, comma's
>
>I'd like to know if this construction is correct in English.
The apostrophe is almost always wrong in plurals of words. (The one
exception that I can think of is quite rare, and I defer it to the end of
this article.) It must be "commas" and "apostrophes": "comma's" and
"apostrophe's" are singular possessives.
Opinions vary about using the apostrophe with non-words like PC, with
numerals ("I had a full house: three 3's and a pair of 2's."), and with
symbols such as names of letters ("Mind your p's and q's").
My preference is to omit the apostrophe with non-words unless confusion
would result. Note the word "preference": good writers come down on both
sides of this question. "This sentence contains three is" is confusing,
so I would write it as "This sentence contains three i's." I omit the
apostrophe in sentences like "The 1930s were a dark time for the Western
world" and "The builders added two extensions in the shape of Ls." But I
would not claim that apostrophes would be wrong there.
The one (debatable) case for putting an apostrophe in the plural of a
word is when the word is being considered *as* a word. Consider this
example: "There are too many however's in that speech." Many people would
consider "however" a symbol in that sentence, since it is being used as
the name of a word and not in its normal meaning. But the apostrophe is
not required there, and I would not use it. Same thing with the catch-
phrase "no ifs, ands, or buts", meaning "without qualification": many
people would use three apostrophes, but many would not (and I would not).
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
http://www.concentric.net/%7eBrownsta/
Please do not send me mail with a false return address.
Aaron J. Dinkin
In article <3526f5c3...@news3.ibm.net>, tr...@lunemere.com wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 01:36:14 GMT, exw...@ix.netcom.com (Bob
> Cunningham) wrote:
>
> >The failure to show somehow that a string is being used as a literal is
> >one of the most common errors seen in alt.usage.english.
>
> Now I would have sworn that it was this very same Mr. Cunningham who
> not too long ago argued that "literal" was an inferior term and
> "string" ought to be used instead. Now we find that strings are used
> as literals; I guess I can assume from that that I must have simply
> overlooked the post in which he conceded my point.
No, I think that was it.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Maria Conlon
Marc Roger wrote (in part):
>
>>I have noticed that some people use "'s" to mark the plural of some
>>abbreviations, like: (several) PC's, typo's, comma's
Truly Donovan responded:
>No, it is not. The one time that an apostrophe must be used in a
>plural is when the word would otherwise be ambiguous. If you wanted
>to make a plural of the letter "a" or the letter "i," for instance,
>"as" and "is" simply wouldn't do -- they must be rendered as "a's"
and
>"i's" (although I'd be tempted to find some way to get around having
>to use that particular plural, myself).
>
The word I'd like to see pluralized with "'s," or better yet, with
"es" is "menu."
"Menus," the dictionary-correct plural, looks like some Latin word
that I don't know the meaning of. (Of course, I don't know the meaning
of a great many Latin words, so that doesn't make "menus" unique.)
"Menus" also looks like a typo for "minus." Most of all, though,
"menus" looks like it should be pronounced MEEN-us.
I hereby move that the plural of "menu" should be changed to "menues."
--
Maria Conlon
mcon...@sprynet.com
Email copies of replies will be appreciated.
Bob Cunningham
On Sat, 4 Apr 1998 19:45:24 -0500, brow...@concentric.net (Stan Brown)
said:
>The one (debatable) case for putting an apostrophe in the plural of a
>word is when the word is being considered *as* a word. Consider this
>example: "There are too many however's in that speech." Many people would
>consider "however" a symbol in that sentence, since it is being used as
>the name of a word and not in its normal meaning. But the apostrophe is
>not required there, and I would not use it.
'However' is a literal. In printed text it would be in italics. Here
there should be some way to make do for the absence of italics. Any of
the following should be acceptable:
There are too many _however_s in that speech.
There are too many *however*s in that speech.
There are too many 'however's in that speech.
The following are not acceptable:
There is only one however in that speech.
There are too many however's in that speech.
There are too many howevers in that speech.
Truly Donovan
>'However' is a literal. In printed text it would be in italics.
In printed text it would be as likely to appear in quotation marks as
in italics.
>
>The failure to show somehow that a string is being used as a literal is
>one of the most common errors seen in alt.usage.english.
Now I would have sworn that it was this very same Mr. Cunningham who
not too long ago argued that "literal" was an inferior term and
"string" ought to be used instead. Now we find that strings are used
as literals; I guess I can assume from that that I must have simply
overlooked the post in which he conceded my point.
Rhialto
>
>My preference is to omit the apostrophe with non-words unless confusion
>would result. Note the word "preference": good writers come down on
both
>sides of this question. "This sentence contains three is" is confusing,
>so I would write it as "This sentence contains three i's." I omit the
>apostrophe in sentences like "The 1930s were a dark time for the
Western
>world" and "The builders added two extensions in the shape of Ls." But
I
>would not claim that apostrophes would be wrong there.
>
It should always be '1930s'. How so? Because '1930s' is an abbreviation
for "Nineteen-thirties", not "Nineteen-thirtie's"
capiche? (You'd have to be in 1930s Chicago to get that one).
+------------------------------------------------+
|Rhialto |
| |
|"I'm not just a pretty face!" |
|"Hah! You're not *even* a pretty face!" |
+------------------------------------------------+
SPAM filter in operation
Contrary to popular belief, England is not the utopia my email address
claims it is.
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
In article <6g7lht$29j$5...@apple.news.easynet.net>, "Rhialto"
<rhi...@easynet.co.utopia> writes (quoting someone else):
>>
>>My preference is to omit the apostrophe with non-words unless confusion
>>would result. Note the word "preference": good writers come down on
>>both sides of this question. "This sentence contains three is" is confusing,
>>so I would write it as "This sentence contains three i's."
What I was taught was that one used an apostrophe with the plural of a letter
_used to name a letter_. Thus, in "The design was in the shape of three L's",
an apostrophe is required, but in "We are ordering twenty additional PCs" one is
not.
I don't doubt the rule regarding the apostrophe with letters used to name
letters is to avoid confusion; but I don't see how confusion could arise with
letters used as abbreviations. I expect that the lesson about pluralizing
letters was imperfectly learned, and some came away thinking that any letter
not part of a word required an apostrophe with its plural.
Gary Williams
WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
Stan Brown
In article <352fde41....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, the entity known as
>On Sat, 4 Apr 1998 19:45:24 -0500, brow...@concentric.net (Stan Brown)
>said:
>
>>The one (debatable) case for putting an apostrophe in the plural of a
>>word is when the word is being considered *as* a word. Consider this
>>example: "There are too many however's in that speech." Many people would
>>consider "however" a symbol in that sentence, since it is being used as
>>the name of a word and not in its normal meaning. But the apostrophe is
>>not required there, and I would not use it.
>
>The following are not acceptable:
I think it is always important to show the distinction between what is
non-standard and what is merely not the poster's personal preference. I
tried to do that in my article, and I think I succeeded.
Bob's "not acceptable" for the quoted sentence, I think, crosses the
line. Neither he nor I would write it that way, but standard books
sanction or even recommend that usage.
My Warriner's /English Grammar and Composition/ says "Use the apostrophe
and s to form the plural of ... words referred to as words. ... /Count
the number of and's in that paragraph./" There is no typographical
distinction of "and" in the book.
The /Chicago Manual of Style/ at section 6.10 requires using the
apostrophe in plurals of "abbreviations with periods, lowercase letters
used as nouns, and capital letters that would be confusing if /s/ alone
were added". I read the whole section on plurals and there is no guidance
on the plural of words used as words; at section 6.66 the Chicago manual
says "References to words used as words are commonly italicized, as are
terms singled out as terms" but there also no help on plurals is given.
Stan Brown
exw...@ix.netcom.com (Bob Cunningham) skrev i meddelelsen
<353a2297....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>:
>[Bob Cunningham:]
>>>The following are not acceptable:
>>> There are too many however's in that speech.
>>
>>line. Neither he nor I would write it that way, but standard books
>>sanction or even recommend that usage.
>
>to show somehow that 'however' is a literal.
I did, in a portion of the article that you didn't quote.
But I suppose you'll say it's not authoritative, and since there's no
American English Academy there's no way to agree on what is and is not an
"authoritative" guide. Mine at least is a standard textbook used in
teaching English to native speakers.
--
My reply address is correct as is. The courtesy of providing a correct
reply address is more important to me than time spent deleting spam.
Maria Conlon
I am reposting this because it hasn't shown up yet on my server. If
you see it twice, I apologize for the inconvenience.
Maria Conlon wrote in message ...
Maria Conlon
Stan Brown wrote:
>>My preference is to omit the apostrophe with non-words unless
confusion
>>would result. Note the word "preference": good writers come down on
>both
>>sides of this question. "This sentence contains three is" is
confusing,
>>so I would write it as "This sentence contains three i's." I omit
the
>>apostrophe in sentences like "The 1930s were a dark time for the
>Western
>>world" and "The builders added two extensions in the shape of Ls."
But
>I
>>would not claim that apostrophes would be wrong there.
Rhialto responded:
>It should always be '1930s'. How so? Because '1930s' is an
abbreviation
>for "Nineteen-thirties", not "Nineteen-thirtie's"
>capiche? (You'd have to be in 1930s Chicago to get that one).
It is much more common today, at least in the US, to omit the
apostrophe in the case under discussion (1930s) but it is not really
incorrect to use it (as far as I know).
Question for all: Is "1930s" considered an "abbreviation?" I would
think it's just the numerical version.
Question for Rhialto: Where you use the term "Nineteen-thirtie's" do
you mean "Nineteen-thirty's"? "Nineteen-thirties'" (note the
apostrophe)? That is, are you referring to the possessive?
As for "capiche? (You'd have to be in 1930s Chicago to get that one)":
I think I would rewrite your parenthetical remark to, "You'd have to
be in Chicago in the 1930s..."
But actually, I wouldn't rewrite it at all. I would delete the whole
sentence on the grounds that "capiche? (You'd have to be in 1930s
Chicago to get that one)" is an untrue statement. I understand you to
mean that "capiche," in the way it was used in the 1930s in Chicago,
is not understood here and now. I disagree; do I misunderstand?
Bob Cunningham
On Sun, 5 Apr 1998 16:37:12 -0400, brow...@concentric.net (Stan Brown)
said:
[ . . . ]
[Bob Cunningham:]
>>'However' is a literal. In printed text it would be in italics.
In material that is prepared with a restricted choice of fonts, some
other means must be found to show that it's a literal.
>[snip]
>>The following are not acceptable:
>> There are too many however's in that speech.
>
>I think it is always important to show the distinction between what is
>non-standard and what is merely not the poster's personal preference. I
>tried to do that in my article, and I think I succeeded.
>
>Bob's "not acceptable" for the quoted sentence, I think, crosses the
>line. Neither he nor I would write it that way, but standard books
>sanction or even recommend that usage.
Please name an authoritative style guide that would sanction the failure
to show somehow that 'however' is a literal.
My comment had nothing to do with the use of "'s" per se.
Iskandar Baharuddin
A better, and totally unambiguous representation is:
- three "a"s
Paul Cook wrote:
> Marc Roger wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have noticed that some people use "'s" to mark the plural of some
> > abbreviations, like: (several) PC's, typo's, comma's
> >
> > I'd like to know if this construction is correct in English.
> >
> > --
> > Marc Roger
>
> There is a legitimate case to be made for referring, for example, to
> "a a a" as "three a's", as opposed to "three as". But to write
> "typo's" or "comma's" is idiotic. It is manifestly incorrect.
>
> - Paul Cook
--
Salaam & Shalom
Izzy
"I'll worry about that tomorrow!"
- Scarlett O'Hara
Bob Cunningham
On Sun, 5 Apr 1998 21:57:28 -0400, brow...@concentric.net (Stan Brown)
said:
>exw...@ix.netcom.com (Bob Cunningham) skrev i meddelelsen
><353a2297....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>:
>>
>>>[Bob Cunningham:]
>>>>The following are not acceptable:
>>>> There are too many however's in that speech.
>>>
>>>Bob's "not acceptable" for the quoted sentence, I think, crosses the
>>>line. Neither he nor I would write it that way, but standard books
>>>sanction or even recommend that usage.
>>
>>Please name an authoritative style guide that would sanction the failure
>>to show somehow that 'however' is a literal.
>
>I did, in a portion of the article that you didn't quote.
This must be the portion you're referring to:
| My Warriner's /English Grammar and Composition/ says "Use the
| apostrophe and s to form the plural of ... words referred to as
| words. ... /Count the number of and's in that paragraph./" There
| is no typographical distinction of "and" in the book.
I confess that I didn't make sufficient effort to understand what you
were saying. I found the '/.../' notation puzzling, gave up, and went
on to the next paragraph. Now I understand that the '/.../' notation
indicates italicization^.
Normal practice would call for
/Count the number of/ and /'s in that paragraph/.
That is, in an italicized statement a word that would be italicized in
non-italicized text should be non-italicized. Are you certain that is
not the way it is in your book? It's easy to overlook.
>But I suppose you'll say it's not authoritative,
Yes, if the 'and' is indeed italicized along with the rest of the
italicized statement, I would hold that book to be so far out of line
with normal practice that I would question the advisability of giving it
any further attention.
>and since there's no
>American English Academy there's no way to agree on what is and is not an
>"authoritative" guide.
But some points of English usage and style are so widely accepted that
anyone who violates them is considered to be wrong. There's no American
English Academy to say that a declarative sentence should end with a
period, but who would want to publish a book that says it should end
with a pound sign?
>Mine at least is a standard textbook used in teaching English to native
>speakers.
I hope, then, that when you take another look you will see that the
'and' in your example is printed in an upright font. If not, then two
serious mistakes have been made: one by the author(s) of the book and
the other by those who chose it to teach English to native speakers.
Another point that should be made is that it's not only normal practice
to tag literals; it's also common sense. An untagged literal can be an
impediment to ready comprehension, and in a recent a.u.e exchange it
seems to have led to outright misunderstanding.
^ I also remember when Markus suggested that notation, remarking
that the slant character suggests the slant of italicization. I
pointed out that material enclosed between virgules might be
momentarily mistaken for phonemic notation, and I suggested
'/...\' as a better notation, both because it's unambiguous and
because just as the slash suggests start of italicization, the
reverse slash suggests the end.
Bob Cunningham
>In article <3526f5c3...@news3.ibm.net>, tr...@lunemere.com wrote:
>
>No, I think that was it.
Not at all.
I remember the exchange Ms D is referring to, and I don't remember
expressing such strong disapproval of 'literal' that the question could
be considered so controversial that a concession was called for.
What I do remember is saying that I had used 'literal' because I had
seen it in a much earlier posting of Ms D's, had liked it, and had begun
using it myself, but later consideration had made me doubt somewhat that
it was the *best* term.
I still think that 'string' might be a better word for the purpose than
'literal', except that 'literal' has been used in this way more than
'string' has, so it's likely to be more readily understood.
I may be misremembering the exchange. It could be checked at Deja News,
except that Ms D is one of the few who have elected to suppress
archiving of their postings. My part of the discussion could be found
there, though, if anyone is interested in seeing what I really said.
One day soon I expect to have all of my a.u.e archives for the past two
years on hard disk. Maybe I'll then retrieve the full discussion of
'literal' and see who really said what.
Maria Conlon
(this is a repost -- the original never showed up on my server)
Marc Roger wrote (in part):
>
>>I have noticed that some people use "'s" to mark the plural of some
>>abbreviations, like: (several) PC's, typo's, comma's
.
Truly Donovan responded:
>No, it is not. The one time that an apostrophe must be used in a
>plural is when the word would otherwise be ambiguous. If you wanted
>to make a plural of the letter "a" or the letter "i," for instance,
>"as" and "is" simply wouldn't do -- they must be rendered as "a's"
and
>"i's" (although I'd be tempted to find some way to get around having
>to use that particular plural, myself).
>
[snip].
The word I'd like to see pluralized with "'s," or better yet, with
"es" is "menu."
"Menus," the dictionary-correct plural, looks like some Latin word
that I don't know the meaning of. (Of course, I don't know the
meaning of a great many Latin words, so that doesn't make "menus"
unique.)
"Menus" also looks like a typo for "minus." Most of all, though,
"menus" looks like it should be pronounced MEEN-us.
I hereby move that the plural of "menu" should be changed to "menues."
--
Maria Conlon
(this is a repost -- the original never showed up on my server)
Stan Brown wrote:
--
Truly Donovan
>I may be misremembering the exchange. It could be checked at Deja News,
>except that Ms D is one of the few who have elected to suppress
>archiving of their postings. My part of the discussion could be found
>there, though, if anyone is interested in seeing what I really said.
That's strange. I suppose the embarrassingly large number of posts
from a "Truly Donovan" that Deja News reports in the last twelvemonth
are from the other "Truly Donovan," which is stranger still, because
she died in 1993. Spooky is what it is.
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
>I hereby move that the plural of "menu" should be changed to "menues."
>
Joining in the sport, may I ask whether there is some phonetic "rule"
which allows speakers of USA English to pronounce "menu" as if it were
English English, yet causes "avenue" to rhyme with 'flu?
Truly Donovan
On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 02:58:36 GMT, a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote:
>Joining in the sport, may I ask whether there is some phonetic "rule"
>which allows speakers of USA English to pronounce "menu" as if it were
>English English, yet causes "avenue" to rhyme with 'flu?
What speakers of USA English would those be? None that I know of.
Bob Cunningham
On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 02:58:36 GMT, a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca said:
>On Sat, 4 Apr 1998 17:39:13 -0500, "Maria Conlon"
><mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I hereby move that the plural of "menu" should be changed to "menues."
>>
>Joining in the sport, may I ask whether there is some phonetic "rule"
>which allows speakers of USA English to pronounce "menu" as if it were
>English English, yet causes "avenue" to rhyme with 'flu?
Apparently a1a51640 is thinking of one American pronunciation of
'avenue' being ['&v@nu:], while the British pronunciation is ['&v@nju:]
(NSOED/93).
Many American speakers will be puzzled by the question, though, because
a common American pronunciation is the same as the British (RHDEL2), and
it rhymes quite well with 'menu'.
A New Yorker might be further puzzled because according to DARE, a New
York pronunciation of 'avenue' is ['&v@nj@] ('AVenyuh'). DARE doesn't
say anything about 'flu' being pronounced [fl@].
Poets might be curious to know why they can't rhyme either ['&v@nju:] or
['&v@nu:] with 'flu' ([flu:]). ( . . . What's a weak rhyme?)
Skitt
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote in message
<3529953c...@news.bctel.ca>...
>On Sat, 4 Apr 1998 17:39:13 -0500, "Maria Conlon"
><mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I hereby move that the plural of "menu" should be changed to
"menues."
>>
>Joining in the sport, may I ask whether there is some phonetic "rule"
>which allows speakers of USA English to pronounce "menu" as if it
were
>English English, yet causes "avenue" to rhyme with 'flu?
Huh? It rhymes with "new" in these parts!
--
Skitt http://webpages.metrolink.net/~skitt
mirror: http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/5537/
Robert Lipton
In article <35315056...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Polar wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 09:07:09 GMT, tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 02:58:36 GMT, a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote:
>>
>>>Joining in the sport, may I ask whether there is some phonetic "rule"
>>>which allows speakers of USA English to pronounce "menu" as if it were
>>>English English, yet causes "avenue" to rhyme with 'flu?
>>
>
>
>It's a form of phony would-be imitation French "chic".
>
>There's a (formerly) popular song that has a line rhyming with [Park]
>"avenuooo". Anybody remember which?
Irving Berlin uses 'Avenue' in two songs. In 'Puttin' On The Ritz' he
rrhymes "avenue" with "view". In "Easter Parade" he rhymes "Avenue"
with, uh, "Avenue."
Bob
Which rhymes with, uh, Bob
Gwen Lenker
Polar wrote in message <35315056...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 09:07:09 GMT, tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 02:58:36 GMT, a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote:
>>
>>>Joining in the sport, may I ask whether there is some phonetic
"rule"
>>>which allows speakers of USA English to pronounce "menu" as if it
were
>>>English English, yet causes "avenue" to rhyme with 'flu?
>>
>>What speakers of USA English would those be? None that I know of.
>
>I'm afraid they do exist.
I'm afraid that once again I have to raise my hand. ['&v@,nu] is the
way I've always said it.
>It's a form of phony would-be imitation French "chic".
That might be how it got started, but it's the only pronunciation I
ever heard while growing up "out in The Avenues" of San Francisco's
Sunset District.
So, um, how would it be pronounced in French? Something like
[ave'ny], I imagine?
(I know, I'm a phony snob, but I hope to be a real one some day.)
Aaron J. Dinkin
In article <352c4531...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, exw...@ix.netcom.com
(Bob Cunningham) wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 02:58:36 GMT, a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca said:
>
> >Joining in the sport, may I ask whether there is some phonetic "rule"
> >which allows speakers of USA English to pronounce "menu" as if it were
> >English English, yet causes "avenue" to rhyme with 'flu?
>
> Apparently a1a51640 is thinking of one American pronunciation of
> 'avenue' being ['&v@nu:], while the British pronunciation is ['&v@nju:]
> (NSOED/93).
>
> Many American speakers will be puzzled by the question, though, because
> a common American pronunciation is the same as the British (RHDEL2), and
> it rhymes quite well with 'menu'.
I disagree, but only because of a differing opinion of the meaning of
"rhyme". As I understand it, two words rhyme if and only if they are
identical from the last stressed vowel onward. From the subject of this
article, I guessed that someone was pronouncing "avenue" /@'vEnju/ to rhyme
with /'mEnju/, because /'&v@nju/ is not such a rhyme.
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998 12:11:18 -0400, "Skitt" <al...@myself.com> wrote:
>
>a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote in message
><3529953c...@news.bctel.ca>...
>>On Sat, 4 Apr 1998 17:39:13 -0500, "Maria Conlon"
>><mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I hereby move that the plural of "menu" should be changed to
>"menues."
>>>
>>Joining in the sport, may I ask whether there is some phonetic "rule"
>>which allows speakers of USA English to pronounce "menu" as if it
>were
>>English English, yet causes "avenue" to rhyme with 'flu?
>
>Huh? It rhymes with "new" in these parts!
>--
As in Noo Awleens?
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
>Polar wrote in message <35315056...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>>On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 09:07:09 GMT, tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 02:58:36 GMT, a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote:
>>>
>>>>Joining in the sport, may I ask whether there is some phonetic
>"rule"
>>>>which allows speakers of USA English to pronounce "menu" as if it
>were
>>>>English English, yet causes "avenue" to rhyme with 'flu?
>>>
>>>What speakers of USA English would those be? None that I know of.
>>
>>I'm afraid they do exist.
>
>I'm afraid that once again I have to raise my hand. ['&v@,nu] is the
>way I've always said it.
>
>>It's a form of phony would-be imitation French "chic".
>
>That might be how it got started, but it's the only pronunciation I
>ever heard while growing up "out in The Avenues" of San Francisco's
>Sunset District.
>
>So, um, how would it be pronounced in French? Something like
>[ave'ny], I imagine?
>
>(I know, I'm a phony snob, but I hope to be a real one some day.)
>
The Donovan will not be pleased. However it's not only "avenue" I
hear rhyming with Scotch "now" in 'where are ye the noo', but "stew",
and "new" and many other words.
Skitt
Polar wrote in message <352d4dc4...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>On Tue, 7 Apr 1998 12:11:18 -0400, "Skitt" <al...@myself.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote in message
>><3529953c...@news.bctel.ca>...
>>>On Sat, 4 Apr 1998 17:39:13 -0500, "Maria Conlon"
>>><mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I hereby move that the plural of "menu" should be changed to
>>"menues."
>>>>
>>>Joining in the sport, may I ask whether there is some phonetic
"rule"
>>>which allows speakers of USA English to pronounce "menu" as if it
>>were
>>>English English, yet causes "avenue" to rhyme with 'flu?
>>
>>Huh? It rhymes with "new" in these parts!
>
>But *which* "new"? The British "neeeee-oooo" or the American
>"noooooo"?
>
>(Note to self: Must learn phonetic notation. Feeling left out.)
American "noooooo"? Must be my Latvian roots, but I say "neeee-oooo".
Strangely enough, so do the people around me - I must have influenced
their speech greatly. I see that MWCD10 agrees with your assertion,
but I have yet to hear the allegedly American "noooooo". I must be
associating with the wrong kind of people - Britt lovers and such . .
.
al...@myself.com
In article <352afab0...@news.bctel.ca>,
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote:
>
> On Tue, 7 Apr 1998 12:11:18 -0400, "Skitt" <al...@myself.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote in message
> ><3529953c...@news.bctel.ca>...
> >>On Sat, 4 Apr 1998 17:39:13 -0500, "Maria Conlon"
> >><mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I hereby move that the plural of "menu" should be changed to
> >"menues."
> >>>
> >>Joining in the sport, may I ask whether there is some phonetic "rule"
> >>which allows speakers of USA English to pronounce "menu" as if it
> >were
> >>English English, yet causes "avenue" to rhyme with 'flu?
> >
> >Huh? It rhymes with "new" in these parts!
> As in Noo Awleens?
>
>
Skitt
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Gwen Lenker
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote in message
<352afb1a...@news.bctel.ca>...
[...]
>The Donovan will not be pleased. However it's not only "avenue" I
>hear rhyming with Scotch "now" in 'where are ye the noo', but "stew",
>and "new" and many other words.
That's right. My "new" and "stew" contain no "you".
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
OK. I think your pronunciation is by no means unique but I was
puzzled by its existence at all, when -- as you point out -- "you" is
pronounced in precisely the same way on both sides of the Atlantic,
while other selected "you" sounds have skewed to "oo". There can be
no "French influence" in "stoo", surely? Nor in "avenue" if it comes
to that. Maybe it's Ulster or somewhere in Sco'land proper.
Truly Donovan
On Wed, 08 Apr 1998 04:23:13 GMT, a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote:
>The Donovan will not be pleased.
Oh, for crying out loud -- all I said was that I don't know any. Now
it appears that I almost sort of do. But since we haven't spoken to
each other (no, don't send any .WAV files -- I don't know what to do
with them), I can at least still say that I haven't heard any.
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 07:13:27 GMT, tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan) wrote
protesting my:
>>The Donovan will not be pleased.
>
>Oh, for crying out loud -- all I said was that I don't know any. Now
>it appears that I almost sort of do. But since we haven't spoken to
>each other (no, don't send any .WAV files -- I don't know what to do
>with them), I can at least still say that I haven't heard any.
>
Do please forgive my over-sensitivity to what I erroneously regarded
as a denial of my observation, or at least a hint that a hearing aid
might be helpful. The old tend to be crotchety you know.
A recent Latvian episode bids me enquire as to how the knitting is
going. :)--<?
William R. Ward
tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan) writes:
> On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 02:58:36 GMT, a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote:
> >which allows speakers of USA English to pronounce "menu" as if it were
> >English English, yet causes "avenue" to rhyme with 'flu?
>
Me, for one.
I pronounce "avenue" as "avenoo" but "menu as "menyoo". Native
(northern) Californian.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward Bay View Consulting http://www.bayview.com/~hermit/
her...@bayview.com 1803 Mission St. #339 voicemail +1 408/479-4072
her...@cats.ucsc.edu Santa Cruz CA 95060 USA pager +1 408/458-8862
PGP Key 0x2BD331E5; Public key at http://www.bayview.com/~hermit/pubkey.txt
Skitt
William R. Ward wrote in message ...
>tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan) writes:
>> On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 02:58:36 GMT, a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote:
>> >Joining in the sport, may I ask whether there is some phonetic
"rule"
>> >which allows speakers of USA English to pronounce "menu" as if it
were
>> >English English, yet causes "avenue" to rhyme with 'flu?
>>
>> What speakers of USA English would those be? None that I know of.
>
>Me, for one.
>
>I pronounce "avenue" as "avenoo" but "menu as "menyoo". Native
>(northern) Californian.
Aha! See how you are?
--
Skitt http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/5537/
Jim Douglass
Iam a New Yorker who first said
"Avenue" as a-veh-noo and then
learned that it was a-veh-nyoo.
The same "yoo" as in "tune" (not toon).
I believe the rule was, when a
"eu"or "ew" or "u" is preceded by m.n.t or s, the "yoo" sound is used..
An example is the word we hear every day on-the-air..."news" (nyooz not
nooz). Others may be able to refresh my memory on the pronounciation
rules.
Larry Phillips
Jim Douglass wrote:
>
> Iam a New Yorker who first said "Avenue" as a-veh-noo and then
> learned that it was a-veh-nyoo.
So far, so good.
> The same "yoo" as in "tune" (not toon).
Oops. I don't say or hear a 'yoo' in 'tune', and while I have heard
it occasionally, I think it's rare, even among New Yorkers. I hear
and say three distinct sounds in the words with 'u'.
Avenue - 'n yoo', same as menu, venue, as a separate syllable.
tune - 'ew', same as new, few, jew, pew, or the valley-girl 'eew!'
true - as in clue, blue, etc.
> I believe the rule was, when a "eu"or "ew" or "u" is preceded
> by m.n.t or s, the "yoo" sound is used..
s: sue, super, Sudan, Susan - all sound like 'oo'.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Sixty billion gigabits can do much. It even does windows.
-- Fred Pohl, Beyond the Blue Event Horizon, 1980
http://home.bc.rogers.wave.ca/larryp
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hardy
Jim Douglass (dougdo...@webtv.net) wrote:
> Iam a New Yorker who first said
> "Avenue" as a-veh-noo and then
> learned that it was a-veh-nyoo.
> The same "yoo" as in "tune" (not toon).
> I believe the rule was, when a
> "eu"or "ew" or "u" is preceded by m.n.t or s, the "yoo" sound is used..
> An example is the word we hear every day on-the-air..."news" (nyooz not
> nooz). Others may be able to refresh my memory on the pronounciation
> rules.
Well, I've always said "menyoo", "nyooz", "avenoo", and "tune".
I don't know if there are any rules about when to use (yooz) which;
I just say them the way I've always heard them. I've seen 18th-century
books that refer to "an union" and "an university". Does anyone pro-
nounce these that way now?
Mike Hardy
--
Michael Hardy
ha...@math.unc.edu
http://www.math.unc.edu/~hardy
David O'Bedlam
AV-en-oo and MEN-yoo.
Throw me a harder one, why don't you?
The