Pronunciation
Arcadian Rises
"shal" ?
Arcadian Rises
> Arcadian Rises wrote:
> >How do you pronounce the last syllable in �"deferential"? "tchal" or
> >"shal" ?
>
>
> or
>
> http://snipurl.com/sl0d9
Thank you, I was listening to many pronounciations before I asked the
question here, but I'm really not sure of my hearing anymore. Am I
getting old if I cannot distinguish "tch" from "sh" in the MW online
dictionary? Probably, although I can still distinguish C sharp from D
flat if it's played on the violin or other string instrument.
Roland Hutchinson
> How do you pronounce the last syllable in "deferential"? "tchal" or
> "shal" ?
Me, /tS@l/ ("chal" or "tchal" ) -- unless it pops up in Anglican chant.
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
Mike Lyle
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:38:59 -0700, Arcadian Rises wrote:
>
>> How do you pronounce the last syllable in "deferential"? "tchal" or
>> "shal" ?
>
> Me, /tS@l/ ("chal" or "tchal" ) -- unless it pops up in Anglican
> chant.
Me, "shal". My Anglican chanting days are long past, rather sad to say.
--
Mike.
the Omrud
Does Church-in-Wales-ian psalm rendition count? I will singing in St
Asaph Cathedral next weekend, in something billed as a "Civic Choral
Eucharist". Civic, apparently, because a mayor (of where, I know not)
will be there. We've been trying to look convincing while singing the
Welsh National Anthem.
--
David
Roland Hutchinson
annily
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:44:41 +0100, Mike Lyle wrote:
>
>> Roland Hutchinson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:38:59 -0700, Arcadian Rises wrote:
>>>
>>>> How do you pronounce the last syllable in "deferential"? "tchal" or
>>>> "shal" ?
>>> Me, /tS@l/ ("chal" or "tchal" ) -- unless it pops up in Anglican chant.
>> Me, "shal". My Anglican chanting days are long past, rather sad to say.
>
> Pondian?? m-w.com give only my pronunciation; OED give only Mike's.
>
Macquarie gives /difuh'renshuhl/ which is how I pronounce it down under.
--
Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.
Garrett Wollman
Roland Hutchinson <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:44:41 +0100, Mike Lyle wrote:
>
>> Roland Hutchinson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:38:59 -0700, Arcadian Rises wrote:
>>>
>>>> How do you pronounce the last syllable in "deferential"? "tchal" or
>>>> "shal" ?
>>>
>>> Me, /tS@l/ ("chal" or "tchal" ) -- unless it pops up in Anglican chant.
>>
>> Me, "shal". My Anglican chanting days are long past, rather sad to say.
>
>Pondian?? m-w.com give only my pronunciation; OED give only Mike's.
It doesn't seem possible (for me) to pronounce /nS/ without that
epenthetic [t] inserting itself.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Steve Hayes
<my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:38:59 -0700, Arcadian Rises wrote:
>
>> How do you pronounce the last syllable in "deferential"? "tchal" or
>> "shal" ?
>
>Me, /tS@l/ ("chal" or "tchal" ) -- unless it pops up in Anglican chant.
So what ti is when it popus up in Anglican chant?
For me it's "shal", whether said or chanted.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Macquarie gives /difuh'renshuhl/ which is how I pronounce it down under.
As in going to schul?
To rhyme with "school"?
And how do you distinguish it from "differential"?
R H Draney
>
>On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:32:44 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
><my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:38:59 -0700, Arcadian Rises wrote:
>>
>>> How do you pronounce the last syllable in "deferential"? "tchal" or
>>> "shal" ?
>>
>>Me, /tS@l/ ("chal" or "tchal" ) -- unless it pops up in Anglican chant.
>
>So what ti is when it popus up in Anglican chant?
Have you heard "Weather Forecast" by The Master Singers?...it's a weather report
done in chant form, and "torrential rain" is pronounced tor-rent-see-al....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes filted:
>>
>>On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:32:44 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
>><my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:38:59 -0700, Arcadian Rises wrote:
>>>
>>>> How do you pronounce the last syllable in "deferential"? "tchal" or
>>>> "shal" ?
>>>
>>>Me, /tS@l/ ("chal" or "tchal" ) -- unless it pops up in Anglican chant.
>>
>>So what ti is when it popus up in Anglican chant?
>
>Have you heard "Weather Forecast" by The Master Singers?...it's a weather report
>done in chant form, and "torrential rain" is pronounced tor-rent-see-al....r
Ah, the Rhodesian pronunciation.
Rhodeeseeyans, like my mother's cousin, used to pronounce "tissue" as
"tiss-you", whereas I say "tishoo".
annily
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:18:40 +1030, annily <ann...@ihopethisdoesntexist.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Macquarie gives /difuh'renshuhl/ which is how I pronounce it down under.
>
> As in going to schul?
>
> To rhyme with "school"?
>
No Macquarie uses "uh" to represent the indeterminate vowel. Quite
different from the sound in "school" which is longer and rounder.
> And how do you distinguish it from "differential"?
>
Distinguish what from "differential"? School?
Peter Moylan
> Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:18:40 +1030, annily
>> <ann...@ihopethisdoesntexist.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Macquarie gives /difuh'renshuhl/ which is how I pronounce it down under.
>>
>> As in going to schul?
>>
>> To rhyme with "school"?
>>
>
> No Macquarie uses "uh" to represent the indeterminate vowel. Quite
> different from the sound in "school" which is longer and rounder.
I lost my Macquarie dictionary a couple of years ago, so I can't
check this, but I was certain that the first-edition Macquarie
dictionary used IPA, or some near-equivalent, to indicate
pronunciation. Have they now moved to eye dialect? That sounds like
a step backward to me.
>> And how do you distinguish it from "differential"?
>
> Distinguish what from "differential"? School?
For me, also a native AusE speaker, "deferential" and "differential"
differ in the first vowel, so I suspect that annily looked up the
wrong one. But then I have /tS/ in both words, so maybe there's a
pronunciation difference between states.
Hold on, though. Now that I've said both words to myself a few times,
I'm starting to think that I have /tS/ in "deferential" but only /S/
in "differential".
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Peter Moylan
> In article <hbgdne$phf$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Roland Hutchinson <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:44:41 +0100, Mike Lyle wrote:
>>
>>> Roland Hutchinson wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:38:59 -0700, Arcadian Rises wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How do you pronounce the last syllable in "deferential"? "tchal" or
>>>>> "shal" ?
>>>> Me, /tS@l/ ("chal" or "tchal" ) -- unless it pops up in Anglican chant.
>>> Me, "shal". My Anglican chanting days are long past, rather sad to say.
>> Pondian?? m-w.com give only my pronunciation; OED give only Mike's.
>
> It doesn't seem possible (for me) to pronounce /nS/ without that
> epenthetic [t] inserting itself.
Even in a word like "mansion"?
annily
> annily wrote:
>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:18:40 +1030, annily
>>> <ann...@ihopethisdoesntexist.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Macquarie gives /difuh'renshuhl/ which is how I pronounce it down
>>>> under.
>>>
>>> As in going to schul?
>>>
>>> To rhyme with "school"?
>>>
>>
>> No Macquarie uses "uh" to represent the indeterminate vowel. Quite
>> different from the sound in "school" which is longer and rounder.
>
> I lost my Macquarie dictionary a couple of years ago, so I can't
> check this, but I was certain that the first-edition Macquarie
> dictionary used IPA, or some near-equivalent, to indicate
> pronunciation. Have they now moved to eye dialect? That sounds like
> a step backward to me.
>
Sorry, I should have been more specific. The printed versions of the
first and fourth editions do indeed use IPA. My example was from the
CD-ROM version of the third edition, because it's easy to copy and
paste. I suspect they changed for this because of the difficulty of
representing IPA characters in the computer version.
>>> And how do you distinguish it from "differential"?
>>
>> Distinguish what from "differential"? School?
>
> For me, also a native AusE speaker, "deferential" and "differential"
> differ in the first vowel, so I suspect that annily looked up the
> wrong one. But then I have /tS/ in both words, so maybe there's a
> pronunciation difference between states.
>
> Hold on, though. Now that I've said both words to myself a few times,
> I'm starting to think that I have /tS/ in "deferential" but only /S/
> in "differential".
>
I did quote the pronunciation for "differential", but the pronunciation
of the final syllable is the same for both "differential" and
"deferential", in my CD-ROM Macquarie and in my own usage.
Chuck Riggs
Every tune, chants included, can be brought back to life in a shower
stall.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
who speaks AmE, lives near Dublin, Ireland,usually spells in BrE
and hasn't corrected his email address yet
Christian Weisgerber
> > It doesn't seem possible (for me) to pronounce /nS/ without that
> > epenthetic [t] inserting itself.
>
> Even in a word like "mansion"?
Merriam-Webster.com has systematically replaced all instances of
/ns/ and /nS/ with /n(t)s/ and /n(t)S/, respectively.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Roland Hutchinson
> On 18 Oct 2009 21:58:40 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>Steve Hayes filted:
>>>
>>>On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:32:44 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
>>><my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:38:59 -0700, Arcadian Rises wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How do you pronounce the last syllable in "deferential"? "tchal" or
>>>>> "shal" ?
>>>>
>>>>Me, /tS@l/ ("chal" or "tchal" ) -- unless it pops up in Anglican
>>>>chant.
>>>
>>>So what ti is when it popus up in Anglican chant?
>>
>>Have you heard "Weather Forecast" by The Master Singers?...it's a
>>weather report done in chant form, and "torrential rain" is pronounced
>>tor-rent-see-al....r
>
> Ah, the Rhodesian pronunciation.
>
> Rhodeeseeyans, like my mother's cousin, used to pronounce "tissue" as
> "tiss-you", whereas I say "tishoo".
Not quite the same difference. "Tor-rent-see-al" has four distinct
syllables. It preserves an archaic, early-modern English pronunciation
of -tion, -tial sorts of endings.
Mike Lyle
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:44:41 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
> <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Roland Hutchinson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:38:59 -0700, Arcadian Rises wrote:
>>>
>>>> How do you pronounce the last syllable in "deferential"? "tchal"
>>>> or "shal" ?
>>>
>>> Me, /tS@l/ ("chal" or "tchal" ) -- unless it pops up in Anglican
>>> chant.
>>
>> Me, "shal". My Anglican chanting days are long past, rather sad to
>> say.
>
> Every tune, chants included, can be brought back to life in a shower
> stall.
Quite true. But I must correct what I wrote: I don't say "-shal",
but -sh@l, /S@l/.
--
Mike.
the Omrud
Right, that's my pronuncation n'all.
--
David
a Hilton, somewhere in London
the Omrud
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:27:18 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>> On 18 Oct 2009 21:58:40 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Hayes filted:
>>>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:32:44 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
>>>> <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:38:59 -0700, Arcadian Rises wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you pronounce the last syllable in "deferential"? "tchal" or
>>>>>> "shal" ?
>>>>> Me, /tS@l/ ("chal" or "tchal" ) -- unless it pops up in Anglican
>>>>> chant.
>>>> So what ti is when it popus up in Anglican chant?
>>> Have you heard "Weather Forecast" by The Master Singers?...it's a
>>> weather report done in chant form, and "torrential rain" is pronounced
>>> tor-rent-see-al....r
>> Ah, the Rhodesian pronunciation.
>>
>> Rhodeeseeyans, like my mother's cousin, used to pronounce "tissue" as
>> "tiss-you", whereas I say "tishoo".
>
> Not quite the same difference. "Tor-rent-see-al" has four distinct
> syllables. It preserves an archaic, early-modern English pronunciation
> of -tion, -tial sorts of endings.
Were I chanting, or singing Latin, I would render it as Tor-rent-tsee-al.
Roland Hutchinson
I _think_ the /t/ comes from the "torrent" part, though, not from the "-
tial" ending.
How would you render chanted "salvation"? (I'd propose something like
"sal-va-see-un" -- no "t")
the Omrud
Yes. Strange. Although after some repitition, I conclude that there is
a tiny hint of a "ts", but hardly enough to notice.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:18:40 +1030, annily <ann...@ihopethisdoesntexist.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Macquarie gives /difuh'renshuhl/ which is how I pronounce it down under.
>>
>> As in going to schul?
>>
>> To rhyme with "school"?
>>
>
>No Macquarie uses "uh" to represent the indeterminate vowel. Quite
>different from the sound in "school" which is longer and rounder.
but when it is surrounded by other letters, it looks as if it ought to have a
different sound. Uh might be @, but kuhl is a homophone of cool.
>> And how do you distinguish it from "differential"?
>Distinguish what from "differential"? School?
Deferential, of course.
If deferential and differential both begin with a "dif" sound, as Macquarie
says, how do you distinguish between them?
I say "deferential" with a "def" sound, not a "dif" sound.
But perhaps Macquarie can't tell the deference.
Steve Hayes
<my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>How would you render chanted "salvation"? (I'd propose something like
>"sal-va-see-un" -- no "t")
In Early Modern English it could easily be confused with the falvacioun of our
fouls.
Roland Hutchinson
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:34:38 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
> <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>How would you render chanted "salvation"? (I'd propose something like
>>"sal-va-see-un" -- no "t")
>
> In Early Modern English it could easily be confused with the falvacioun
> of our fouls.
Nowadays, ſurely we can do better than that (typographically ſpeaking),
thanks in no ſmall part to Unicode -- even in Uſenet.
annily
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:06:16 +1030, annily <ann...@ihopethisdoesntexist.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:18:40 +1030, annily <ann...@ihopethisdoesntexist.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Macquarie gives /difuh'renshuhl/ which is how I pronounce it down under.
>>> As in going to schul?
>>>
>>> To rhyme with "school"?
>>>
>> No Macquarie uses "uh" to represent the indeterminate vowel. Quite
>> different from the sound in "school" which is longer and rounder.
>
> but when it is surrounded by other letters, it looks as if it ought to have a
> different sound. Uh might be @, but kuhl is a homophone of cool.
>
But the pronunciation of "cool" is shown as /koohl/ (not /kuhl/) in the
Macquarie Dictionary third edition CD-ROM. That's not the same sound as
/kuhl/, which is how New Zealanders pronounce "kill" (at least to my ears).
>>> And how do you distinguish it from "differential"?
>
>> Distinguish what from "differential"? School?
>
> Deferential, of course.
>
> If deferential and differential both begin with a "dif" sound, as Macquarie
> says, how do you distinguish between them?
>
> I say "deferential" with a "def" sound, not a "dif" sound.
>
> But perhaps Macquarie can't tell the deference.
>
As I explained in another reply, I mistakenly quoted the pronunciation
of "differential" instead of "deferential". The first vowel sounds are
certainly different. The last syllable (which is what we were
discussing) is the same:
differential
/difuh'renshuhl/
deferential
/defuh'renshuhl/
Steve Hayes
<my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:43:03 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
>> In Early Modern English it could easily be confused with the falvacioun
>> of our fouls.
>
>Nowadays, ?urely we can do better than that (typographically ?peaking),
>thanks in no ?mall part to Unicode -- even in U?enet.
If you ?ay ?o!
Roland Hutchinson
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 05:29:46 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
> <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:43:03 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> In Early Modern English it could easily be confused with the
>>> falvacioun of our fouls.
>>
>>Nowadays, ?urely we can do better than that (typographically ?peaking),
>>thanks in no ?mall part to Unicode -- even in U?enet.
>
> If you ?ay ?o!
Well, ſome of us can.
Peter Moylan
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:43:03 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:34:38 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
>> <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> How would you render chanted "salvation"? (I'd propose something like
>>> "sal-va-see-un" -- no "t")
>> In Early Modern English it could easily be confused with the falvacioun
>> of our fouls.
>
> Nowadays, ſurely we can do better than that (typographically ſpeaking),
> thanks in no ſmall part to Unicode -- even in Uſenet.
Does anyone know how to make this display correctly in Thunderbird? I
can see the long s as I'm typing this reply, and I can also see it in
the View/Message Source window. In the main window, however, it displays
as a '?', apparently because it's not a valid Latin-1 character. This,
despite the fact that Roland's headers clearly specify UTF-8, not Latin-1.
The thing that makes it confusing is that Thunderbird lets you specify
fonts for _languages_, not for MIME character sets. That makes sense
until you realise that there's nothing in a message header to say what
the language is. I've managed to work out, by trial and error, that the
Thunderbird designers consider Latin-1 to be a "Western" "language", and
UTF-8 to be in the "other languages" class. Further, I've configured the
program to use Unicode fonts for "other languages" postings, which is
why I can see the 'ſ' in the Compose window. But I still can't figure
out how to tell Thunderbird to respect the "charset" header
specification when displaying someone else's message.
Nick
> Roland Hutchinson wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:43:03 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:34:38 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
>>> <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> How would you render chanted "salvation"? (I'd propose something like
>>>> "sal-va-see-un" -- no "t")
>>> In Early Modern English it could easily be confused with the falvacioun
>>> of our fouls.
>>
>> Nowadays, ſurely we can do better than that (typographically
>> ſpeaking), thanks in no ſmall part to Unicode -- even in Uſenet.
>
> Does anyone know how to make this display correctly in Thunderbird? I
> can see the long s as I'm typing this reply, and I can also see it in
> the View/Message Source window. In the main window, however, it
> displays as a '?', apparently because it's not a valid Latin-1
> character. This, despite the fact that Roland's headers clearly
> specify UTF-8, not Latin-1.
It displays as a box here (in Gnus). Gnus normally handles UTF-8
beautifully, so I'm at a bit of a loss as to what is happening here.
It looks like it's something odd about those characters, as composing
them as compose-fs and compose-fS don't work here (I get 'ſ' and 'ſ'
boxes) although they work fine in a console window. Other, fairly
obscure, UTF-8 characters, like Ņ (capital-N-with-cedila) work fine.
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
Mike Lyle
> Roland Hutchinson wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:28:27 +0100, the Omrud wrote:
>>
>>> Roland Hutchinson wrote:
>>>> Not quite the same difference. "Tor-rent-see-al" has four distinct
>>>> syllables. It preserves an archaic, early-modern English
>>>> pronunciation of -tion, -tial sorts of endings.
>>> Were I chanting, or singing Latin, I would render it as
>>> Tor-rent-tsee-al.
>>
>> I _think_ the /t/ comes from the "torrent" part, though, not from
>> the "- tial" ending.
>>
>> How would you render chanted "salvation"? (I'd propose something
>> like "sal-va-see-un" -- no "t")
>
> Yes. Strange. Although after some repitition, I conclude that there
> is a tiny hint of a "ts", but hardly enough to notice.
Mine is "...and grant us thy sal-vay-see-on." No whisker of a "t".
BTW, while we're on this Cantoris and Decani kick, what do American
Anglicans have instead of "O Lord, save the Queen"?
--
Mike.
Mike Lyle
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:12:05 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 05:29:46 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
>> <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:43:03 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>> In Early Modern English it could easily be confused with the
>>>> falvacioun of our fouls.
>>>
>>> Nowadays, ?urely we can do better than that (typographically
>>> ?peaking), thanks in no ?mall part to Unicode -- even in U?enet.
>>
>> If you ?ay ?o!
>
You lose all fouls college, mind you.
--
Mike.
Steve Hayes
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>BTW, while we're on this Cantoris and Decani kick, what do American
>Anglicans have instead of "O Lord, save the Queen"?
Dunno about the Americans, but the South Africans have
O Lord, be gracious (grace-ee-ous?) unto our land
Roland Hutchinson
"God save the state" is, I believe, the traditional thing.
Arcadian Rises
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:57:17 +0100, Mike Lyle wrote:
> > the Omrud wrote:
> >> Roland Hutchinson wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:28:27 +0100, the Omrud wrote:
>
> >>>> Roland Hutchinson wrote:
> > [...]
> >>>>> Not quite the same difference. �"Tor-rent-see-al" has four distinct
> >>>>> syllables. �It preserves an archaic, early-modern English
> >>>>> pronunciation of -tion, -tial sorts of endings.
> >>>> Were I chanting, or singing Latin, I would render it as
> >>>> Tor-rent-tsee-al.
>
> >>> I _think_ the /t/ comes from �the "torrent" part, though, not from the
> >>> "- tial" ending.
>
> >>> How would you render chanted "salvation"? �(I'd propose something like
> >>> "sal-va-see-un" -- no "t")
>
> >> Yes. �Strange. �Although after some repitition, I conclude that there
> >> is a tiny hint of a "ts", but hardly enough to notice.
>
> > Mine is "...and grant us thy sal-vay-see-on." No whisker of a "t".
>
> > BTW, while we're on this Cantoris and Decani kick, what do American
> > Anglicans have instead of "O Lord, save the Queen"?
>
> "God save the state" is, I believe, the traditional thing.
It should be "God save the republic", or more precisely: "God save our
democracy
with its system of check and balances"
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<Arcadi...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Oct 21, 2:57?am, Roland Hutchinson <my.spamt...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:57:17 +0100, Mike Lyle wrote:
>> > the Omrud wrote:
>> >> Roland Hutchinson wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:28:27 +0100, the Omrud wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Roland Hutchinson wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >>>>> Not quite the same difference. ?"Tor-rent-see-al" has four distinct
>> >>>>> syllables. ?It preserves an archaic, early-modern English
>> >>>>> pronunciation of -tion, -tial sorts of endings.
>> >>>> Were I chanting, or singing Latin, I would render it as
>> >>>> Tor-rent-tsee-al.
>>
>> >>> I _think_ the /t/ comes from ?the "torrent" part, though, not from the
>> >>> "- tial" ending.
>>
>> >>> How would you render chanted "salvation"? ?(I'd propose something like
>> >>> "sal-va-see-un" -- no "t")
>>
>> >> Yes. ?Strange. ?Although after some repitition, I conclude that there
>> >> is a tiny hint of a "ts", but hardly enough to notice.
>>
>> > Mine is "...and grant us thy sal-vay-see-on." No whisker of a "t".
>>
>> > BTW, while we're on this Cantoris and Decani kick, what do American
>> > Anglicans have instead of "O Lord, save the Queen"?
>>
>> "God save the state" is, I believe, the traditional thing.
>
>It should be "God save the republic", or more precisely: "God save our
>democracy
>with its system of check and balances"
I suppose "God help us (all)" would be too informal.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Chuck Riggs
"God bless America." From football games to meetings on Capitol Hill,
that is the traditional national prayer. When used, it is usually
intoned at the start of a meeting, court proceeding, speech or game,
but you will sometimes hear it at their termination.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
The question was more specific than that. It was about the form of words
used in the liturgy of the Episcopal Church of the USA (ECUSA).
Grinding my way through the Book of Common Prayer of ECUSA I found this
form of words in the liturgies for Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer:
V. Lord, keep this nation under thy care;
R. And guide us in the way of justice and truth.
Page 55 in:
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/mp1.pdf
and Page 122 in:
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/ep2.pdf
The above are available also in RTF and MS Word formats from:
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/formatted_1979.htm
Alan Jones
"Chuck Riggs" <chr...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:i77ud593cfl72sjoq...@4ax.com...[...]
..... while we're on this Cantoris and Decani kick, what do American
>>Anglicans have instead of "O Lord, save the Queen"?
>
> "God bless America." From football games to meetings on Capitol Hill,
> that is the traditional national prayer. When used, it is usually
> intoned at the start of a meeting, court proceeding, speech or game,
> but you will sometimes hear it at their termination.
> --
The original US Episcopal "Book of Common Prayer" and its many minor
revisions in the 19th and early 20th centuries don't have, at Morning and
Evening Prayer, the sequence of versicles and responses in which "O Lord,
save the Queen" appears. (The missing sequence also includes the "salvation"
often sung as "sal-va-cion".) The latest US Prayer Book does have a sequence
beginning with the traditional "O Lord, show thy mercy upon us", but most of
it is new. The nearest equivalent to "O Lord, save the Queen" is "Lord, keep
this nation under your care".
Alan Jones
Mike Lyle
responded. And those who preced, too, of course.
--
Mike.
Roland Hutchinson
It appears upon investigation that my "God save the State" is a
substitution used, in some places, when singing, as it has the same
number of syllables as "God save the Queen/King".
Steve Hayes
<Arcadi...@aol.com> wrote:
>It should be "God save the republic", or more precisely: "God save our
>democracy
>with its system of check and balances"
But at least some Americans say that the two are mutually exclusive.
John Holmes
It displays correctly in my Thunderbird using, I think, Courier New
which was the out-of-the-box default for display in the preview pane and
after I actually open the post. That is in Thunderbird v2.0.0.23 in
Windows Vista. It switches to Times New Roman for composing a reply.
(But this reply is sent from Windows Mail.)
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
Chuck Riggs
I see now that I misunderstood the question.