American British Pronunciation Differences
Jeremy Smith
American and British Pronunciation Differences
Tourist: Is it Hawaii or Havaii?
Benny Hill: Havaii.
Tourist: Thank you.
Benny Hill: You're velcome!
Dialects and accents
The differences discussed below really only apply to 'General American'
(most of the west and heartland) and RP ('Received Pronunciation'),
which is close to 'BBC English' - the kind spoken by British
newscasters. They are not at all universal. For instance, although
American is rhotic and English is non-rhotic, there are non-rhotic
areas in America and much of Britain is rhotic. There are many dialects
both American and British, briefly...
Trudgill (references at end) identifies 16 modern dialect regions in
England, based on grammar, vocabulary, and accent (there are more in
Wales, Scotland and Ireland), and Carver shows about 26 dialect regions
in the United States, based mainly on vocabulary. In both cases there
are areas that differ markedly (e.g. North/South in England, Upper
North, Lower North, and South in the Eastern United States) and within
these areas are discernible subregions.
A dialect is grammar plus vocabulary. An accent is pronunciation.
Trudgill breaks the US into 8 accent areas, and these coincide well
with Carver's delineations.
The pronunciation differences discussed below are all about accent, but
generally, accents go along with dialects. An exception would be an
immigrant who would speak a good local dialect but in his own accent.
A person's accent is usually the first sign indicating they're from
someplace else. However, although accent is such a strong indicator,
differences in accent are difficult to describe, and what accent should
we use to describe it? The Benny Hill quote highlights this problem.
There is a brief description of the cardinal vowel system appended to
this article, to provide an additional perspective on the vowel sounds
and symbols during the following discussions.
The general pronunciation differences between American English and
British English are:
* pronunciation of 'o'
* the 'or' vowel /O/
* pronunciation of 'a' (US has /&/, /A/, not /A./; UK has /&/, /A:/, and /A./)
* vowels becoming more neutral in American (marry merry Mary)
* 't' moving towards 'd' in American; glottal stops and reinforcement in British
* rhotic 'r' in American, non-rhotic 'r' in British
* 'yoo' words losing the 'y' in American (tune: tyoon --> toon)
* particular words
* stress
Pronunciation of o
In Britain, the 'o' vowel, /O/, in words like dog, hod, pot, is
pronounced with rounded lips and the tongue back in the mouth.
Americans do not have this vowel, instead pronouncing the same words
using the 'ah' vowel, /A/, with the lips unrounded and the tongue back
but more relaxed. This is the same vowel in card or bard. In some
cases in the US the 'o' is pronounced using the 'or' vowel in words
like long (Central East Coast) and horrid (especially in the western
US).
The 'plummy' quality of some RP speakers is probably due to an
exaggeration of this 'o' vowel, and other vowels, by pushing the tongue
as far back as possible, accomplished by speaking whilst imagining a
mouth full of plums.
The 'or' vowel /O/
This is the vowel in Borg, Bork, pork and so on. The reason the 'or'
vowel is interesting is that many words having it in Britain such as
paw, saw, talk, all, bought, launch, taught, port are pronounced in
America using the 'ah' vowel, /A/. I've even heard 'awesome possum'
rhyme perfectly /As@m pAs@m/. There are many words in American which
retain the 'or' vowel, such as poor, such that the British homophones
poor paw are pronounced differently in American. In the Central US
East Coast, the 'or' vowel occurs in most of the same words as British,
but it is slightly shorter, /O/ rather than /O:/. In American, 'dawg',
as written in cartoons and such, probably uses the 'or' vowel, and this
spelling emphasizes this pronunciation as unusual. Oddly enough,
quark, correctly pronounced to rhyme with stork by most Americans is
often pronounced to rhyme with dark by most British people.
Pronunciation of a
The British have the 'a' vowel, /&/ (cat, hat) and the 'ah' vowel /A/,
as do Americans, but often in different places. Trudgill notes that
words with 'a' followed by /f/ /T/ /s/ /nt/ /ns/ /nsS/ /nd/ /mp/
(laugh, path, grass, plant, dance, branch, demand, sample) have /&/ in
American and /A:/ in southern British. Northern British is the same as
American for those kinds of words, but doesn't use it in words like
banana, can't, half, where American has /&/.
In Britain, words like what are pronounced using the same vowel /A./ as
in dog, above, and so is phonetically spelled wot rather than wat.
Perhaps this is why baloney (nonsense) is so spelled in American
dictionaries, but primarily as boloney in some British ones.
It should be noted that in America the 'ah' vowel (father, bard, calm)
is usually shorter and sometimes sounds a little closer to the 'u'
vowel in cup. So the long, firm /A:/ in Britain really stands out in
bath and dance where Americans have the short /&/ mentioned above.
Even this southern English accent, with the long 'a' /A:/ in words like
father and bath, is not consistent. Only a small group would put a
long 'a' in a surveyor's transit, as did Hugh Grant in the movie The
Englishman Who Went Up A Hill But Came Down A Mountain.
American vowels becoming more neutral
Pronunciation can be used to distinguish social class, and social
status. In Britain, where class structure is strong, people are more
acute to vowel enunciation and, often unconsciously, preserve many
pronunciations that would otherwise be unnecessary. Pronunciation of
vowels also distinguishes meaning in words, but sometimes the
pronunciation is unnecessary. Thus, in American, which seems to have a
greater tendency to drop nonessentials, vowels are not always as sharp
as in Britain. You get the impression that vowels are closer to
neutral (schwa). It might be that in Britain vowels have become
sharper (more distinct or enunciated) over the last few hundred years
The main example of vowels becoming more neutral in American is in
words with some vowel in front of an /r/ that is also followed by
another syllable, such as marry or hurry.
/&/ in marry --> /E/ in merry --> /@/
/ei/ in Mary --> /E/ in merry --> /@/
/I/ in mirror and /i:/ in nearer
/V/ in hurry --> /@/ in furry
/V":/ in furry --> /@/ in furry
Trudgill's examples give /ei/ and /E/ merging so that Mary and merry
are pronounced identically, and /&/ and /E/ merging so that marry and
merry sound identical. In cases where these both occur, marry merry
Mary sounds like merry merry merry. Since these words are unambiguous
in context, it's easy for the /E/ to approach schwa /@/. And where
speakers have /&/ or /ei/ approaching /E/ they all might approach schwa
/@/.
The /V":/ in furry is shorter in the US /V"/, which is closer to /@/,
and in some places the /V/ in hurry goes towards /V"/ (or even /(@)
such that hurry and furry are perfect rhymes.
I overheard a lady saying 'hooking up the equipment' pronouncing
hooking as /h@k@n/; the vowels were completely tokens.
T moving towards d in American; glottal stops in British
In many areas the American 't', when not the initial consonant in a
word, is pronounced closer to a 'd', and in some cases can disappear
altogether. Thus latter and butter sounds more like ladder and budder,
and words like twenty and dentist can sound like twenny and Dennis.
In Britain, 't' is generally pronounced like a 't', but there are areas
the glottal stop is very well known. This is the sound in between the
two vowels in uh-oh, or the initial consonant in honest. In these two
examples, and others like them, the glottal stop occurs as much in
America as in Britain. But the glottal stop that replaces the 't' in
the Cockney and Glasgow dialects is much stronger; imagine getting a
punch in the belly when you make the sound. Words like butter becomes
/bV?@/. This replacement also occurs in informal speech in many areas,
and although associated with lower classes, is found in all classes, to
varying degrees.
As an interesting side note, Americans sometimes replace the 'd' in a
British word with a 't', as if hypercorrecting 'd' back into the more
'correct' 't'. I've heard 'Wimbleton' on American TV, found that
spelling in a major American encyclopedia, and even found one case of
'Wimpleton'. This confusion is bourne out by Americans trying to
imitate a Cockney accent by putting a glottal stop in place of 'd'
instead of 't' (bloody /blV?i/).
Rhotic r in American, non-rhotic r in British
Rhotic speakers will pronounce the r in barn, park, cart, fart, whereas
non-rhotic speakers won't, making no distinction between barn and
(auto)bahn. Most of America is rhotic, with the notable exception of
the Boston area and New York City. SE Britain is apparently the source
of non-rhotic. England is non-rhotic, apart from the SW and some
ever-diminishing northern areas. Scotland and Ireland are rhotic. In
the movie The Princess Bride, the bishop (Peter Cook) over-emphasized
the non-rhotic accent by loudly announcing 'mawidge' (marriage), and
Americans often joke about eastern New Englander's who 'pahk the cah in
Hahvahd yahd'.
In Britain, the non-rhotic accent gives rise to linking 'r's, where an
otherwise unpronounced 'r', in 'clear', is pronounced if followed by a
vowel, 'clear away'. An intrusive 'r' is an 'r' added in such a
situation where none actually exists, so 'law and order' becomes 'law
ran order'. In some cases, there is even hypercorrection, such as
adding an 'r' (Louisa --> Louiser), especially when a non-rhotic person
moves to a rhotic area. But if Clair can hear the 'r' she'll correct
you.
'Yoo' words losing the y in American (tune: tyoon --> toon)
There are many less words in American that pronounce a 'y' in front of
a 'u' than in British (as in mule, mute). Most American words don't:
assume, new, nude, tune, student, duke, due. In England most of these
words are pronounced with a 'y' in front of the 'u'. Amongst older
speakers, this is true for words like suit and lute, and sometimes even
in words like Susan and super.
I have noticed that my natural (SE English) way of saying tune, tuna,
Tuesday, sand dune is 'choon, choona, choosday, san june', and that
'tyoon, tyoona, tyoosday, sand dyoon' sounds a little formal. I
imagine this to be regional. Americans generally say 'toon, toona,
toosday, san doon'.
Particular words
Although there are relatively few words pronounced completely
differently, many are well known. This list shows some of these, but
the examples are not restrictive - leisure is pronounced both leezhure
and lezhure in the US, but leezhure is prevalent.
word US UK
aluminium aluminum aluminium
apricot a-pricot ay-pricot
beta bayda beeta
charade char-ay-d char-ah-d
cordial corjul cordee-al
fillet filay filit
herb 'erb herb
leisure leezhure lezhure
lever l-e-ver leever
privacy pry-vacy pri-vacy
route rout root
schedule skedule shedule
semi sem-eye sem-ee
strychnine strich-9 strich-neen
theta thayta theeta
tomato tom-ay-do tom-ah-to
vase vayz vahz
Stress
Stress differences, although minor, stand out. Britons stress the
first vowel in ballet, Americans the second, but they often stress the
first vowel in cigarette. There are many place names in Britain that
also occur in the US, especially on the eastern seaboard. British
towns ending in -ham, -wich, -cester, -mouth are fully pronounced in
America but reduced in Britain to -/@m/ -/IdZ/, -/st@/, -/m@T/ (e.g.
Birmingham, Ipswich, Gloucester, Portsmouth). Similar reductions are
found in British personal names, for instance Raleigh is raylee in the
US but ralee in Britain.
Other random anomalies
"New Yawkas don't have an axent, da rest of da country does."
Three old ladies sitting in a bus shelter:
1st lady: "Windy, en'it?"
2nd lady: "No it's not, it's Thursday."
3rd lady: "So am I. Let's go and 'ave a drink!"
Occasionally Americans add a 't' to cross and across, and this
occasionally shows up in spelling (accrossed, acrost).
Some places in the Midwest are famous for pronouncing wash 'warsh', as
well as fish, dish, as 'feesh', 'deesh'.
In Bristol some speakers add 'l' to words ending in vowels. Trudgill
heard of the three sisters "Evil, Idle, and Normal". When my sister
lived there, they asked her about her brother living in a miracle
(Americal).
In the northern Britain, 'd' can informally be pronounced with a
rolling 'r'. I've been called a bluhree-iree? (bloody idiot) a few
times.
There are other differences, such as American, like southern Irish,
being more nasally - many speakers push the sounds through the nose, to
some extent. But in all, differences between American and British
pronunciation of English can be put into three classes:
Firstly there are many miscellaneous words where one or more syllables
are simply different. For instance: herb - Americans don't pronounce
the h, Britons do; Americans render tomato as tomayto (or tomaydo)
rather than the British tomahto; both even spell aluminum/aluminium
differently, reflecting pronunciation. The list, above under
'particular words', is in this class.
Then there are classes of words where the vowel used is different. For
instance Americans rhyme pa paw caw, whereas Britons rhyme poor paw
caw, and even caws cause Coors. In some cases, patterns can be
discerned, such as particular vowels following certain kinds of
consonants. Most of the differences discussed above fall into this
class.
And finally there are vowels and perhaps consonants that are peculiar
to each. The British 'o' vowel /A./ in dog, is not found in America.
Perhaps the distinction between schwa /@/ and the 'er' vowel /V"/,
found in British bird and furry, is lost in America. The British
glottal stop is hardly realised in America.
References
Peter Trudgill and Jean Hannah, International English: A Guide to the Varieties of Standard English, 3rd Ed., Routledge, Chapman, and Hall, 1994.
Peter Trudgill, The Dialects of England, Blackwell, 1990
Craig M. Carver, American Regional Dialects: A Word Geography.
The cardinal system for mapping vowels.
Vowels are made, during voicing, by changing the shape of the vocal
tract with the tongue, lip position, and openness of the mouth. The
tongue can be close to the roof of the mouth (tongue is high) or flat
against the bottom of the mouth (tongue is low) (say "ahh"), or
somewhere in between. Also, the tongue can be forward, or pressed back
into the mouth, or somewhere in between. So in the following chart
"ahh" would be somewhere in the bottom right corner, as the tongue is
low and towards the back.
To get a feel for the tongue moving from front to back say 'cat, cut,
cot,' 'bed, bird, boat,' 'bee, -, boo.' (Tongue was low, medium, then
high). To get a feel for the tongue moving from high to low, say:
'heed, hid, head, had,' 'boot, boat, bot.' (Tongue was front, then
back.) Since we are dealing with only vowels, another way to play with
the sounds is to just hum them - instead if 'bee, boo', hum 'ee-oo'.
To determine the difference between /e/ and /E/ say bay, eight (/ei/)
and bed, ten (/E/) but don't finish the word - extend the first vowel
indefinitely. (I don't think I distinguish these vowels! but the
method works great for the others.)
tongue position
front center back
____________________ high
heed \bee \ | boo| boot
hid \ \ | |
\_____\____|_____| medium high
\ \ | | boat tongue
\ bird | height
head \bed__\_|_____| medium low
\ \| |
had \cat cut |
\__________| bot low
cot
____________________
heed \i \ | (u)| shoe
hid \ I \ | U | put American (Western)
\_____\____|_____| ------------------
/ei/ bay \e bird| (o)| boat /ou/
\ \ @| |
bed \E____\_|___V_| putt
\ \| |
had \& |
/ai/ buy \a_______A_|
pot
____________________
heed \i \ | (u)| shoe
hid \ I \ | U | put English (RP)
\_____\____|_____| ------------
/ei/ bay \e about (o)| boat /ou/
\ \ @| |
bed \E____\V"__V(O) putt saw
\ bird |
had \& |
/ai/ buy \a_____A(A.) hod
hard
American (Western) and British (RP) vowel systems
US UK | US UK | US UK
/i/ /i:/ | | /u/ /u:/
bee bee | | boot boot
heed heed | | shoe shoe
very | | tour
/I/ | | /U/
bid bid | | put put
mirror mirror | | /ou/
wanted | | boat
/ei/ | | /V/
bay bay | | putt putt
eight eight | | hurry hurry
Mary | | /O/ /O:/
pair | | port port
/e/ | | boring boring
bed, ten bed, ten| | horrid paw
merry merry | /@/ | hurry talk
/E:/ | about about | saw
pair | sofa sofa | /Oi/
Mary | butter butter | boy boy
/&/ | bird | /A/ /A:/
bad bad | furry | balm balm
cat cat | /V":/ | calm calm
khaki marry | bird | bard bard
banana Datsun | furry | father father
path Milan | | pot dance
dance | | top half
half | | bomb khaki
/aI/ | | long hard
ride buy | | cough banana
night | | Datsun
| | Milan
| | paw
| | talk
| | /Au/
| | bout
| | loud
| | tower
| | /A./
| | cough
| | hod
| | horrid
| | long
| | pot
| | what
--
Dr. Spooner, the fair buxom wench is waiting for you at the Boar's Head
Yvonne Lee
In article <5ao6n9$s...@kira.peak.org>, jer...@kira.peak.org (Jeremy Smith)
wrote:
> word US UK
> aluminium aluminum aluminium
> apricot a-pricot ay-pricot
pronounced differently in different parts of the US. In California, where
they're grown, it's ay-pricots.
> lever l-e-ver leever
pronounced lev-er or le-ver, depending on the speaker.
> route rout root
Depends on context. A highway number is prounounced "root," but the to a
generic path is "rout," and the computer equipment is a rout-er.
> semi sem-eye sem-ee
another that depends on context. The character next to the l on the
typewriter is a "semee"colon, and chocolate is "semee"sweet, but a large
truck, er lorry, is a "semeye."
also:
vitamin vie-tamin vit-tamin
premier pre-meer prem-yehr
dynasty die-nasty din-nasty
Matthew Huntbach
Jeremy Smith (jer...@kira.peak.org) wrote:
: Rhotic r in American, non-rhotic r in British
: Rhotic speakers will pronounce the r in barn, park, cart, fart, whereas
: non-rhotic speakers won't, making no distinction between barn and
: (auto)bahn. Most of America is rhotic, with the notable exception of
: the Boston area and New York City. SE Britain is apparently the source
: of non-rhotic. England is non-rhotic, apart from the SW and some
: ever-diminishing northern areas.
London is the source of the non-rhoticity. Go further south-east to Kent and
Sussex, you may still hear it among the very old, particularly in rural areas.
: 'Yoo' words losing the y in American (tune: tyoon --> toon)
Also a feature of some English accents. Notably those of East Anglia
(it even figured in Bernard Matthews' turkey adverts "bootiful"), but
it spreads from there into Cockney. This, along with other East Anglian type
features, is the best way to tell East End Cockney from "Sarf London" - you
won't find anything East Anglian in South London accents, even if superficially
they sound very much like Cockney.
Matthew Huntbach
Richard Defered
here are a few pronunciation differences I have noticed:
on a trip to the supermarket to buy your groceries the fresh *prod*uce(UK)
section
is instead pronounced *pro*duce (US)
if someone is not interested in a topic they are likely to say:
I *could* care less. while in UK they would more likely say
I *couldn't* care less.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
other expressioned seem to have become abbreviated to the point of
extinction over the centuries.
A saying both cultures use is 'the grass is always greener'
in the US however I have noticed that when I add the last part
'on the other side of the hill' americans, invariably have never heard
that part before, and don't even see the association!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
also it is a mystery as to why the US has retained some parts of the old
imperial weights and measures, and forsaken others.
ones weight in the US is measured in pounds, but tell an american your weight
is 9 stone 3 pounds and they won't get it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen C. Gallagher
Richard Defered wrote:
>
> here are a few pronunciation differences I have noticed:
>
> on a trip to the supermarket to buy your groceries the fresh *prod*uce(UK)
> section
> is instead pronounced *pro*duce (US)
>
> if someone is not interested in a topic they are likely to say:
>
> I *could* care less. while in UK they would more likely say
>
> I *couldn't* care less.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> other expressioned seem to have become abbreviated to the point of
> extinction over the centuries.
> A saying both cultures use is 'the grass is always greener'
> in the US however I have noticed that when I add the last part
> 'on the other side of the hill' americans, invariably have never heard
> that part before, and don't even see the association!
Actually, there is an American "last part" to that statement:
"The grass is always greener in someone else's backyard.",
of course, since most Brits don't have "backyards", they have
"gardens", it would not be well used in Britain.
S. Gallagher
Lee Rudolph
Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com> writes:
>Richard Defered wrote:
>> A saying both cultures use is 'the grass is always greener'
>> in the US however I have noticed that when I add the last part
>> 'on the other side of the hill' americans, invariably have never heard
>> that part before, and don't even see the association!
>
>That's because the complete expression in the USA
>is "the grass is always greener
>on the other side of the fence."
>Our metaphor involves a more difficult barrier
>than the mere scaling of a hill.
What always seemed to me (until you just now sowed the seeds of
doubt) the role of "fence" in our USAn metaphor was, not that a
fence is difficult to scale, but that it's much easier to *see*
across than to *get* across. ... And (secondarily) that the
grass on twe other side of a fence is likely (fences making what
they do) to be dedicated to your livestock's owner's good
neighbor's livestock, not to yours.
Lee Rudolph
Sue Spence
Simon Patience wrote:
>
> In article <rd-070197...@avm.vip.best.com>, r...@burgerhall.com (Richard Defered) writes:
> |> here are a few pronunciation differences I have noticed:
> |>
> |> on a trip to the supermarket to buy your groceries the fresh *prod*uce(UK)
> |> section
> |> is instead pronounced *pro*duce (US)
>
>
And yog urt/ yo gurt
Isn't this FASCINATING!!
Dick Jackson
On 8 Jan 1997 03:28:19 GMT, r...@burgerhall.com (Richard Defered) wrote:
>here are a few pronunciation differences I have noticed:
>
>on a trip to the supermarket to buy your groceries the fresh *prod*uce(UK)
>section
>is instead pronounced *pro*duce (US)
Pro-doose
>A saying both cultures use is 'the grass is always greener'
>in the US however I have noticed that when I add the last part
>'on the other side of the hill' americans, invariably have never heard
>that part before, and don't even see the association!
Hm? I'll have to experiment. But *I* would say "fence" instead of
"hill".
What say the rest of the lads?
Dick J.
Mike Dana
> >> in the US however I have noticed that when I add the last part
> >> 'on the other side of the hill' americans, invariably have never heard
> >> that part before, and don't even see the association!
> >
> >Our metaphor involves a more difficult barrier
> >than the mere scaling of a hill.
>
> What always seemed to me (until you just now sowed the seeds of
> doubt) the role of "fence" in our USAn metaphor was, not that a
> fence is difficult to scale, but that it's much easier to *see*
> across than to *get* across. ... And (secondarily) that the
> grass on twe other side of a fence is likely (fences making what
> they do) to be dedicated to your livestock's owner's good
> neighbor's livestock, not to yours.
>
> Lee Rudolph
Ever watch livestock -- cows, horses, sheep; it doesn't matter -- lean their
heads waaay out through a fence to eat, when there's perfectly good grass to
be had on their own side?
--
Mike Dana
Everett, Washington, U.S.A.
[This message contains the opinion only of the author, not of The Boeing Co.]
"Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt" -- Julius Ceasar
Truly Donovan
Richard Defered wrote:
> [deletions in what will probably be a vain effort to forestall another
installment of caring less, not]
> other expressioned seem to have become abbreviated to the point of
> extinction over the centuries.
> A saying both cultures use is 'the grass is always greener'
> in the US however I have noticed that when I add the last part
> 'on the other side of the hill' americans, invariably have never heard
> that part before, and don't even see the association!
That's because the complete expression in the USA is "the grass is always greener
on the other side of the fence." Our metaphor involves a more difficult barrier
than the mere scaling of a hill.
>
> also it is a mystery as to why the US has retained some parts of the old
> imperial weights and measures, and forsaken others.
>
> ones weight in the US is measured in pounds, but tell an american your weight
>
> is 9 stone 3 pounds and they won't get it.
I can think of several reasons why this might be the case:
1. Our stones are variable in weight.
2. We only learn the multiplication tables through 13 and can't be bothered with
a conversion involving a multiplier of 14 in order to figure out what you
*really* weigh.
3. Our scales don't read in stoneage, so we would have to divide by 14 to get it
in the first place, only to have everybody have to multiply it by 14 again to get
the *real* weight.
4. There are several thousand miles of ocean between us and for most of our
mutual history *that* was a significant barrier.
--
Truly Donovan
"Industrial-strength SGML," Prentice Hall 1996
ISBN 0-13-216243-1
http://www.prenhall.com
Truly Donovan
Stephen C. Gallagher wrote:
>
> Actually, there is an American "last part" to that statement:
>
There is an American last part to the statement, but that ain't it. The
mainstream version is "on the other side of the fence." Yours is a
variant (well, at least we didn't say "deviant").
Truly Donovan
> >> in the US however I have noticed that when I add the last part
> >> 'on the other side of the hill' americans, invariably have never heard
> >> that part before, and don't even see the association!
> >
> >That's because the complete expression in the USA
> >is "the grass is always greener
> >than the mere scaling of a hill.
>
> doubt) the role of "fence" in our USAn metaphor was, not that a
> fence is difficult to scale, but that it's much easier to *see*
> across than to *get* across. ... And (secondarily) that the
> grass on twe other side of a fence is likely (fences making what
> they do) to be dedicated to your livestock's owner's good
> neighbor's livestock, not to yours.
Ah, but you're supposed to be taking the whole thing from the cow's
perspective, in which case the fence is an insurmountable barrier (and
no attention is paid to property rights).
Simon Patience
|>
|> on a trip to the supermarket to buy your groceries the fresh *prod*uce(UK)
|> section
|> is instead pronounced *pro*duce (US)
Strangely enough this is inversely true for process.
Simon.
--
Simon Patience Phone: (415) 933-4644
Silicon Graphics, Inc FAX: (415) 962-8404
2011 N. Shoreline Boulevard Email: s...@sgi.com
Mountain View, CA 94043
Ralph M Jones
Richard Defered wrote:
>
> In article <32D361...@lunemere.com>, Truly Donovan
> <tr...@lunemere.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > also it is a mystery as to why the US has retained some parts of the old
> > > imperial weights and measures, and forsaken others.
> > >
> > > ones weight in the US is measured in pounds, but tell an american your
> weight
> > >
> > > is 9 stone 3 pounds and they won't get it.
> >
> > I can think of several reasons why this might be the case:
> >
> > 1. Our stones are variable in weight.
>
> well, your feet are variable in length too, but you still measure in feet,
> so why not weigh in stones.
Point well made, let's go metric.
Richard Defered
Mark Odegard
[Posted, e-mailed] On Wed, 08 Jan 1997 10:52:02 -0800, Sue
Spence <s...@pennine.com> in <32D3EC...@pennine.com> wrote
>Simon Patience wrote:
>>
>> In article <rd-070197...@avm.vip.best.com>, r...@burgerhall.com (Richard Defered) writes:
>> |> here are a few pronunciation differences I have noticed:
>> |>
>> |> on a trip to the supermarket to buy your groceries the fresh *prod*uce(UK)
>> |> section
>> |> is instead pronounced *pro*duce (US)
>>
>> Strangely enough this is inversely true for process.
>>
>
>
>And yog urt/ yo gurt
>
>
>Isn't this FASCINATING!!
Perhaps.
But yoghurt (as I spell it) has a genuine [X] in it (as I
pronounce it), i.e., the same sound (unvoiced) as in "Bach" or
"loch". This is probably an affectation, but then, it's the only
way I've ever been able to deal with this strange word.
--
Mark Odegard ode...@ptel.net
[e-mailed copies of responses to my postings are welcomed]
The great orthographical contest has long subsisted between
etymology and pronunciation. It has been demanded, on one hand,
that men should write as they speak; but, as it has been shown
that this conformity never was attained in any language, and
that it is not more easy to persuade men to agree exactly in
speaking than in writing, it may be asked, with equal propriety,
why men do not rather speak as they write.
-- Samuel Johnson, "The Plan of an English Dictionary" (1747).
Adrian Tan
greener" or am I thinking of the song?
Lee Lester
The UK version usuallly is: "The grass in the next field is always
greener."
Peter Hullah
Truly Donovan wrote:
>
>
> That's because the complete expression in the USA is "the grass is always greener
> on the other side of the fence." Our metaphor involves a more difficult barrier
> than the mere scaling of a hill.
"The other side of the hill" must be limited to certain parts of the UK
only
because I've always said "fence" and was born and bred near Birmingham,
England.
>
> 1. Our stones are variable in weight.
>
> 2. We only learn the multiplication tables through 13 and can't be bothered with
> a conversion involving a multiplier of 14 in order to figure out what you
> *really* weigh.
>
> 3. Our scales don't read in stoneage, so we would have to divide by 14 to get it
> in the first place, only to have everybody have to multiply it by 14 again to get
> the *real* weight.
>
> 4. There are several thousand miles of ocean between us and for most of our
> mutual history *that* was a significant barrier.
I can't understand why Brits and Yanks still insist on using units which
require
the rest of the world to divide by 2.2 (apporx) in order to find out
what
you REALLY weigh :-)
And all of that despite water-masses much less that the Atlantic ocean.
Pete
--
Peter H.C. Hullah Technical Services
mailto:Peter....@eurocontrol.fr EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre
Phone: +33 1 69 88 75 49 BP 15, Rue des Bordes,
Fax: +33 1 60 85 15 04 91222 BRETIGNY SUR ORGE CEDEX
France
Anthony Potts
On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Peter Hullah wrote:
> I can't understand why Brits and Yanks still insist on using units which
> require
> the rest of the world to divide by 2.2 (apporx) in order to find out
> what
> you REALLY weigh :-)
>
> And all of that despite water-masses much less that the Atlantic ocean.
>
If you mean dividing by 2.2 to get to lkilogrammes, then this will not
tell you what you weigh. It will tell you what your mass is (which is very
different).
To find out what you weigh, in Newtons (the SI units of force), you need
to multiply your mass by the local gravitational field strength.
Here in Kensington, that is about 9.86 (if I remember correctly) Newtons
per kilogram.
If you are on a transatlantic flight, you will weigh less, but your mass
will be greater (the wonders of general relativity).
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva
Ed Fowler
Anthony Potts wrote:
> To find out what you weigh, in Newtons (the SI units of force), you need
> to multiply your mass by the local gravitational field strength.
>
> Here in Kensington, that is about 9.86 (if I remember correctly) Newtons
> per kilogram.
>
9.81 ms2 Potts me old son, unless Kensignton is sitting on a multi
billion ton block of Iridium or similar very dense material.
I dunno, the state of natural philosophy today........
Ed
--
Std Disclaimers Apply:
Lehman Brothers Ltd | _ _ | Tel: +44 171 601 0011
One Broadgate | |_ _| |_ _ | _ _ | Fax: +44 171 260 2717
London EC2M 7HA | |_ |_| | |_||/\|||-| | efo...@lehman.com
Mornington Crescent, tube station, game and way of life.
Walter Gray
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95a.97010...@cms2.cern.ch>, Anthony Potts <po...@cms2.cern.ch> writes:
>On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Peter Hullah wrote:
>
>> I can't understand why Brits and Yanks still insist on using units which
>> require
>> the rest of the world to divide by 2.2 (apporx) in order to find out
>> what
>> you REALLY weigh :-)
>>
>> And all of that despite water-masses much less that the Atlantic ocean.
>>
>If you mean dividing by 2.2 to get to lkilogrammes, then this will not
>tell you what you weigh. It will tell you what your mass is (which is very
>different).
>
>to multiply your mass by the local gravitational field strength.
>
>Here in Kensington, that is about 9.86 (if I remember correctly) Newtons
>
You must be down in the sub-basement.
David John
In article <32e6403e....@snews.zippo.com>, Dick
Jackson <di...@thegrid.net> writes
>On 8 Jan 1997 03:28:19 GMT, r...@burgerhall.com (Richard Defered) wrote:
>
>>A saying both cultures use is 'the grass is always greener'
>>in the US however I have noticed that when I add the last part
>>'on the other side of the hill' americans, invariably have never heard
>>that part before, and don't even see the association!
>
>"hill".
>
>What say the rest of the lads?
Personally, I've always bottled out on this one, using "The grass is
always greener on the other side".
This either allows the recipient of this gem of wisdom to insert
his/her own preferred artifact or to reply: "Other side of what?".
In turn the comment, "Whatever you want it to be." produces a glassy
stare or confirmation that I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Nothing beats sitting on the fence/hill/backyard.
Ho, hum. Back to the important things in life.
--
David John
Richard Defered
Still, iridium has a very fast decay rate doesn't it,(radioactive) about 30 days
is that right?
Gary Turner
>here are a few pronunciation differences I have noticed:
>on a trip to the supermarket to buy your groceries the fresh *prod*uce(UK)
>section
>is instead pronounced *pro*duce (US)
>if someone is not interested in a topic they are likely to say:
>I *could* care less. while in UK they would more likely say
>I *couldn't* care less.
Now this one I just don't understand. "I couldn't care less" implies
there is nothing more worthless. "I could care less" implies that
you do care, even if only slightly.
Another pronunciation difference that was explained to me was
*vit*amin as in hit
*vit*amin as in slight
as written, it looks like the first case, but is short for "vital
mineral" so that explains the US pronunciation.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>other expressioned seem to have become abbreviated to the point of
>extinction over the centuries.
>A saying both cultures use is 'the grass is always greener'
>in the US however I have noticed that when I add the last part
>'on the other side of the hill' americans, invariably have never heard
>that part before, and don't even see the association!
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I always thought it was on the other side of the fence. As in animals
will always try to get to the other side of the fence, but it is really
no better when they get there & then try to get back.
>also it is a mystery as to why the US has retained some parts of the old
>imperial weights and measures, and forsaken others.
>ones weight in the US is measured in pounds, but tell an american your weight
>is 9 stone 3 pounds and they won't get it.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
gwtu...@iastate.edu Gary Turner | 210 Physics Court
(515) 296 0018 Apt. #5, 530 Welch Ave. | Physics Building.
(515) 294 5266 Ames IA 50014 |
http://www.public.iastate.edu:80/~astro/grads/turner.html
On a paper submitted by a physicist colleague:
"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."
-- Wolfgang Pauli
Ed Fowler
Richard Defered wrote:
>
> Still, iridium has a very fast decay rate doesn't it,(radioactive) about 30 days
> is that right?
>
>> 9.81 ms2 Potts me old son, unless Kensignton is sitting on a multi
>> billion ton block of Iridium or similar very dense material.
>>
>> I dunno, the state of natural philosophy today........
>>
>> Ed
>
I was rather under the impression that Iridium wasn't radioactive (I
could be wrong) so the density should stay for a while.....
(Potts was still slightly out in his figures though)
Cissy . Thorpe
On 8 Jan 1997, Stephen C. Gallagher wrote:
> Richard Defered wrote:
> >
> > here are a few pronunciation differences I have noticed:
> >
> > on a trip to the supermarket to buy your groceries the fresh *prod*uce(UK)
> > section
> > is instead pronounced *pro*duce (US)
> >
> > if someone is not interested in a topic they are likely to say:
> >
> > I *could* care less. while in UK they would more likely say
> >
> > I *couldn't* care less.
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > other expressioned seem to have become abbreviated to the point of
> > extinction over the centuries.
> > A saying both cultures use is 'the grass is always greener'
> > in the US however I have noticed that when I add the last part
> > 'on the other side of the hill' americans, invariably have never heard
> > that part before, and don't even see the association!
>
> Actually, there is an American "last part" to that statement:
>
> "The grass is always greener in someone else's backyard.",
>
> of course, since most Brits don't have "backyards", they have
> "gardens", it would not be well used in Britain.
>
> S. Gallagher
>
>
I believe that the saying is:
"The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence."
Cissy
JC Dill
On Wed, 08 Jan 1997 14:29:21 -0700, Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com>
expound upon: "Re: American British Pronunciation Differences"
>Stephen C. Gallagher wrote:
>>
>> Actually, there is an American "last part" to that statement:
>>
>> "The grass is always greener in someone else's backyard."
>
>There is an American last part to the statement, but that ain't it. The
>mainstream version is "on the other side of the fence." Yours is a
>variant (well, at least we didn't say "deviant").
>
Personally I prefer Ms. Bombeck's observation that "the grass is
always greener (greenest?) over the septic tank" <g>
jc
Geoff Butler
In article <32D361...@lunemere.com>, Truly Donovan
>> extinction over the centuries.
>> A saying both cultures use is 'the grass is always greener'
>> in the US however I have noticed that when I add the last part
>> 'on the other side of the hill' americans, invariably have never heard
>> that part before, and don't even see the association!
>
>always greener on the other side of the fence." Our metaphor involves
>a more difficult barrier than the mere scaling of a hill.
Well, there's a coincidence, so does ours.
-ler
David John
In article <32D3EC...@pennine.com>, Sue Spence
<s...@pennine.com> writes
>Simon Patience wrote:
>>
>> In article <rd-070197...@avm.vip.best.com>,
>r...@burgerhall.com (Richard Defered) writes:
>> |>
>> |> on a trip to the supermarket to buy your groceries the fresh
>*prod*uce(UK)
>> |> section
>> |> is instead pronounced *pro*duce (US)
>>
>>
>
>
>And yog urt/ yo gurt
>
--
David John
Robert M. Wilson
In article <32D411...@lunemere.com>,
Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com> wrote:
>Stephen C. Gallagher wrote:
>>
>> Actually, there is an American "last part" to that statement:
>>
>> "The grass is always greener in someone else's backyard."
>
>There is an American last part to the statement, but that ain't it. The
>mainstream version is "on the other side of the fence." Yours is a
>variant (well, at least we didn't say "deviant").
>
I've always (I think) said "The grass is always greener in
the next valley."
The *Penguin Dictionary of Proverbs* (therefore England?)
gives "- - on the other side of the fence."
Truly Donovan
Richard Defered wrote:
>
> In article <32D361...@lunemere.com>, Truly Donovan
> <tr...@lunemere.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > also it is a mystery as to why the US has retained some parts of the old
> > > imperial weights and measures, and forsaken others.
> > >
> > > ones weight in the US is measured in pounds, but tell an american your
> weight
> > >
> > > is 9 stone 3 pounds and they won't get it.
> >
> >
>
> well, your feet are variable in length too, but you still measure in feet,
> so why not weigh in stones.
Well, gee, I never thought of it that way. Come on everybody, let's
start dividing all the useful numbers by 14 because our feet are
variable in length!
Now wouldn't that be silly!
Cissy . Thorpe
On 9 Jan 1997, Gary Turner wrote:
> Now this one I just don't understand. "I couldn't care less" implies
> there is nothing more worthless. "I could care less" implies that
> you do care, even if only slightly.
>
I have always taken the "I could care less" to mean that if I really
tried or thought about it, I could make myself care less, but it isn't
worth the effort to think about it. Which, to me, would mean that it
there is nothing more worthless than that which I do not even care to
think about.
> >also it is a mystery as to why the US has retained some parts of the old
> >imperial weights and measures, and forsaken others.
>
> >ones weight in the US is measured in pounds, but tell an american your weight
>
> >is 9 stone 3 pounds and they won't get it.
>
And even my Brit DH can't explain to me why there are 14 pounds in a
stone - such an odd number and then you have the pounds left over after
the stones are measured. Plain old 129 pounds is a whole lot easier - but
then math was never my stongest subject.
Cissy
Mark Baker
In article <32D411...@lunemere.com>,
Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com> writes:
>> "The grass is always greener in someone else's backyard."
>
>There is an American last part to the statement, but that ain't it. The
>mainstream version is "on the other side of the fence." Yours is a
>variant (well, at least we didn't say "deviant").
That doesn't mean Stephen's form isn't _an_ American variant. I'd never
heard the British variant Richard gave either; the only version I've
ever used or heard used is the same as you use.
Gareth Williams
Thus spake "Stephen C. Gallagher" <stephen....@istar.ca> :
+
+"The grass is always greener in someone else's backyard.",
+
+of course, since most Brits don't have "backyards", they have
+"gardens", it would not be well used in Britain.
Several of us do, and one thing that back yards _don't_ have is grass
- except in small tussocks poking out between the paving slabs - so
it's not a wonderful metaphor for us!
regards
Gareth Williams <g...@fmode.demon.co.uk>
Peter Hullah
Peter Hullah wrote:
>
> Truly Donovan wrote:
> >
> >
> > That's because the complete expression in the USA is "the grass is always greener
> > on the other side of the fence." Our metaphor involves a more difficult barrier
> > than the mere scaling of a hill.
>
> only
> because I've always said "fence" and was born and bred near Birmingham,
> England.
I've now been informed by she-who-must-be-believed (my wife) that the
standard
English phrase doesn't talk about fences or hills. It's "The other man's
grass
is always greener." Personally, I think she's been listening to too many
Petula Clarke records. (For those who can remember Petula Clarke.)
Gareth Evans
>>>>> " " == Sue Spence <s...@pennine.com> writes:
> And yog urt/ yo gurt
> Isn't this FASCINATING!!
You missed the 'h' out of yoghurt, old bean.
G - Who's been told he says schedule like a stroke victim
Bob Cunningham
gev...@benelli.uk.ntc.nokia.com (Gareth Evans) said:
>>>>>> " " == Sue Spence <s...@pennine.com> writes:
>
> > And yog urt/ yo gurt
>
> > Isn't this FASCINATING!!
>
>You missed the 'h' out of yoghurt, old bean.
Maybe I'm missing some subtle humor here, but just for the record
"yogurt" and "yoghurt" are both acceptable. _Merriam-Webster's
Collegiate Dictionary_ has "yogurt, also yoghurt", while _The New
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary_ has "yoghurt, also yogurt".
Daan Sandee
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95a.97010...@cms2.cern.ch> Anthony Potts <po...@cms2.cern.ch> writes:
>On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Peter Hullah wrote:
>
>> I can't understand why Brits and Yanks still insist on using units which
>> require
>> the rest of the world to divide by 2.2 (apporx) in order to find out
>> what
>> you REALLY weigh :-)
>>
>tell you what you weigh. It will tell you what your mass is (which is very
>different).
>
>To find out what you weigh, in Newtons (the SI units of force), you need
>to multiply your mass by the local gravitational field strength.
Oh, dear. Here we go again.
It is true that in non-metric countries people get taught that kilograms
are mass, and newtons (note lower case) are weight.
But in the saner part of the world kilograms are used for weight. Really.
I'm still waiting for a testimonial from any Canadian, Australian, or
New Zealander, who remembers talking with his doctor about his mass in
kilograms, or his weight in newtons.
Once a year I have an argument on the net with some clever guy who wants
to show the world that he was awake in physics class, and I get accused
of wanting to change the laws of physics.
In the meantime, go to the supermarket. Any supermarket. Pick up a
package of cereal. Any cereal. It will show the weight in grams.
Even in the U.S.
Daan Sandee
Burlington, MA Use this email address: sandee (at) east . sun . com
Alex D. Gelfenbain
I _love_ alt.usage.english!
Where else can you find discussions on whether iridium is radioactive
or not in the "American British Pronunciation Differences" thread.
If you don't plan to participate in some discussion it's more fun to
wait until the thread grows to some 20 messages or so and read it at
once rather than reading it message a day or whatever the frequency
of the new messages appearing on it.
--alex
Avi Jacobson
Cissy . Thorpe wrote:
> And even my Brit DH can't explain to me why there are 14 pounds in a
> stone - such an odd number and then you have the pounds left over after
> the stones are measured. Plain old 129 pounds is a whole lot easier - but
> then math was never my stongest subject.
And maths were never his.
--
Avi Jacobson, email: avi_...@netvision.net.il | When an idea is
Home Page (Israel): | wanting, a word
http://www.netvision.net.il/php/avi_jaco | can always be found
Mirror Home Page (U.S.): | to take its place.
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/4034 | -- Goethe
Richard Defered
In article <32D575...@gbccmail.lehman.com>, Ed Fowler
<ed_f...@gbccmail.lehman.com> wrote:
Richard Defered wrote:
>
> Still, iridium has a very fast decay rate doesn't it,(radioactive)
about 30 days
> is that right?
>
I was rather under the impression that Iridium wasn't radioactive (I
could be wrong) so the density should stay for a while.....
(Potts was still slightly out in his figures though)
I think it is a radio active material, as I beleive one of it's commercial
applications, is for X-raying solid steel Welds, for industrial
construction companies. so that their products are insurable.
Sue Spence
Gareth Evans wrote:
>
> >>>>> " " == Sue Spence <s...@pennine.com> writes:
>
> > And yog urt/ yo gurt
>
> > Isn't this FASCINATING!!
>
> You missed the 'h' out of yoghurt, old bean.
No I didn't, poppet.
>
> G - Who's been told he says schedule like a stroke victim
This becomes easier to believe every time I read another of your
posts...
Truly Donovan
Simon Patience wrote:
>
> Ooo, oo, just found another one. Americans pronounce that famous painter
> as "van go" whereas the British pronounce it properly.
Once you've heard a Brit pronounce "Beaulieu," it's hard to take
anything else they pronounce seriously.
Raymot
In article <32d494d6...@news.polaristel.net>, ode...@ptel.net says...
>
>[Posted, e-mailed] On Wed, 08 Jan 1997 10:52:02 -0800, Sue
>Spence <s...@pennine.com> in <32D3EC...@pennine.com> wrote
>>And yog urt/ yo gurt
>>
>>
>>Isn't this FASCINATING!!
>
>Perhaps.
>
>But yoghurt (as I spell it) has a genuine [X] in it (as I
>pronounce it), i.e., the same sound (unvoiced) as in "Bach" or
>"loch". This is probably an affectation, but then, it's the only
>way I've ever been able to deal with this strange word.
>--
>Mark Odegard ode...@ptel.net
Bizarre. I've been familiarizing myself with the IPA symbols, and
was deciding how "yogh" (Z in ascii) should be pronounced. My
dictionary says /jA.g/ (to rhyme with dog). I had been assuming
that it would be pronounced like Van Gogh, ie more like a dog's
breakfast than a dog.
(BTW, I say /joUg@t/ and /v&n'gA.x/ or /v&N'gA.f/ depending on
my mood).
Raymot
[[[[[[[[[[[[[
Simon Patience
In article <5b5emv$min$2...@grissom.powerup.com.au>, rmot...@powerup.com.au (Raymot) writes:
|> Bizarre. I've been familiarizing myself with the IPA symbols, and
|> was deciding how "yogh" (Z in ascii) should be pronounced. My
|> dictionary says /jA.g/ (to rhyme with dog). I had been assuming
|> that it would be pronounced like Van Gogh, ie more like a dog's
|> breakfast than a dog.
Ooo, oo, just found another one. Americans pronounce that famous painter
as "van go" whereas the British pronounce it properly.
Simon.
--
Simon Patience Phone: (415) 933-4644
Silicon Graphics, Inc FAX: (415) 962-8404
2011 N. Shoreline Boulevard Email: s...@sgi.com
Mountain View, CA 94043
Geoff Butler
In article <97010902...@guildnet.org>, Lee Lester
<lee.l...@guildnet.org> writes
>The UK version usuallly is: "The grass in the next field is always
>greener."
Oh no it's not.
-ler
Gayle Harrison
The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.
Or, as Erma Bombeck said, "The grass is always greener over the septic
tank."
Gayle
Kenneth S.
You know what I think are the most confusing things? The words
that mean completely the opposite in the U.S. E.g. the motion was
tabled -- in the U.S. it means it was shelved, but in Britain it means
it was brought up for consideration. Then there's "moot." In Britain
"that's a moot point" means "that's a debatable point." In the U.S.
"that issue is moot" means the issue is dead.
Kenneth S.
Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com> wrote:
>Simon Patience wrote:
>>
>> Ooo, oo, just found another one. Americans pronounce that famous painter
>> as "van go" whereas the British pronounce it properly.
>Once you've heard a Brit pronounce "Beaulieu," it's hard to take
>anything else they pronounce seriously.
>--
>Truly Donovan
>"Industrial-strength SGML," Prentice Hall 1996
>ISBN 0-13-216243-1
>http://www.prenhall.com
Well. . . hey . . . What about that place in South Carolina?
Beaufort, ain't it? Pronounced "Bewford" I think. Are South
Carolinians not to be taken seriously, then, Truly?
Please supply your full address, so that some of them can visit
you and instruct you on pronunciation and certain other matters..
Pam Hadfield
In article <5b6njk$e...@boursy.news.erols.com>,
nim...@erols.com (Kenneth S.) wrote:
: Then there's "moot." In Britain
:"that's a moot point" means "that's a debatable point." In the U.S.
:"that issue is moot" means the issue is dead.
:
Obviously the British use the phrase correctly and some USAians do not.
If in doubt, check a dictionary on the meaning of "moot".
Cheers,
Pam
P. K. W. Tan
Cissy . Thorpe (cth...@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu) wrote:
: And even my Brit DH can't explain to me why there are 14 pounds in a
: stone - such an odd number and then you have the pounds left over after
: the stones are measured. Plain old 129 pounds is a whole lot easier - but
: then math was never my stongest subject.
: Cissy
But then even Americans say six-foot-three, rather than 75 inches. Could
stone have anything to do with bags of grain. If I remember my Hardy,
etc., there was mention of a stone or two stone of corn.
Peter Tan
Singapore
Richard Defered
well, I may be in the minority by saying 'hill' rather that 'fence', but
round my neck of the woods, (north london) 'hill' was the way I remember
hearing it.
I'm certain the next cross post will disagree....
In article <5b3h5i$ek$1...@eddie.sonnet.co.uk>, mn...@cam.ac.uk (Mark Baker) wrote:
In article <32D411...@lunemere.com>,
Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com> writes:
>> "The grass is always greener in someone else's backyard."
>
Truly Donovan
Richard Defered wrote:
>
> In article <32D55B...@lunemere.com>, Truly Donovan
> <tr...@lunemere.com> wrote:
>
> > well, your feet are variable in length too, but you still measure in feet,
> > so why not weigh in stones.
>
>
> Well, gee, I never thought of it that way. Come on everybody, let's
> start dividing all the useful numbers by 14 because our feet are
> variable in length!
>
> Now wouldn't that be silly!
>
> 14 you would be very silly indeed!
It would be if that is what I had suggested, but no where will you find
that I suggested that.
>
> Also, the US still uses pounds and ounces,and you have to divide by 16 there,
> so why is that any less silly.
>
> my original point was that the US still uses parts of the *ENGLISH*
> imperial weights and measures, but for some reason has decided not to use
> others.
I know what your original point was, and I thought it was extremely
strange on your part to suggest that because we haven't yet dropped the
other silliness that we should reassume the silliness of the "stone."
>
> example: inches, feet, yards, miles are familiar in the US but
>
> ounces, pounds, STONES, tons .The US uses all but STONES as a unit of weight.
>
> do you get it now?
I got it the first time. What ever made you think I didn't?
Bill Shatzer
Well, consulting an admittedly USAian dictionary, I come up with the
following for 'moot': "Deprived of practical significance: made
abstract or purely academic." (MWCD10) Which, while not quite meaning
the issue is dead, is certainly as close as makes no difference.
An issue which is purely academic might as well be dead, no?
Cheers,
--
- Bill Shatzer bsha...@orednet.org -
............................................................................
- This space for rent -
Richard Defered
In article <32D73E...@lunemere.com>, Truly Donovan
<tr...@lunemere.com> wrote:
I know what your original point was, and I thought it was extremely
strange on your part to suggest that because we haven't yet dropped the
other silliness that we should reassume the silliness of the "stone."
and my point is, why did you single out that particular piece of silliness
to drop, while retaining the rest.
I still haven't heard the answer.
S Martin
In article <gwturner....@pv7411.vincent.iastate.edu>, gwtu...@iastate.edu (Gary Turner) says:
>
>In <rd-070197...@avm.vip.best.com> r...@burgerhall.com (Richard Defered) writes:
>
>>here are a few pronunciation differences I have noticed:
>
>>on a trip to the supermarket to buy your groceries the fresh *prod*uce(UK)
>>section
>>is instead pronounced *pro*duce (US)
>
>>also it is a mystery as to why the US has retained some parts of the old
>>imperial weights and measures, and forsaken others.
>
>>ones weight in the US is measured in pounds, but tell an american your weight
>
>>is 9 stone 3 pounds and they won't get it.
>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
As a Canadian I'd say prod-yuse (prod ryming with cod). This may be in line
with the British usage you refer to - you're not all that clear.
And we don't use stones either - I suspect the unit never crossed the
Atlantic in the first place.
-Steve Martin.
Aaron J. Dinkin
In article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.970109...@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu>, "Cissy .
Thorpe" <cth...@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu> wrote:
>On 8 Jan 1997, Stephen C. Gallagher wrote:
>
>> Richard Defered wrote:
>> >
>> > other expressioned seem to have become abbreviated to the point of
>> > extinction over the centuries.
>> > A saying both cultures use is 'the grass is always greener'
>> > in the US however I have noticed that when I add the last part
>> > 'on the other side of the hill' americans, invariably have never heard
>> > that part before, and don't even see the association!
>>
>> Actually, there is an American "last part" to that statement:
>>
>> "The grass is always greener in someone else's backyard.",
>>
>> of course, since most Brits don't have "backyards", they have
>> "gardens", it would not be well used in Britain.
>>
>I believe that the saying is:
>
>"The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence."
I've never heard that - always "someone else's backyard" for me.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Keith C. Ivey
r...@burgerhall.com (Richard Defered) wrote:
>Ed Fowler <ed_f...@gbccmail.lehman.com> wrote:
> I was rather under the impression that Iridium wasn't radioactive (I
> could be wrong) so the density should stay for a while.....
>I think it is a radio active material, as I beleive one of it's commercial
>applications, is for X-raying solid steel Welds, for industrial
>construction companies. so that their products are insurable.
Iridium is added to platinum to harden it, so it would be a
problem for jewelry (or jewellery) wearers if it were
radioactive.
According to the _CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics_,
naturally occurring iridium is 37.3% iridium-191 and 62.7%
iridium-193, and neither isotope is radioactive.
Like most elements, iridium does have radioactive isotopes with
various half-lives, but they would not be found significant
amounts in naturally occurring iridium. I don't know whether
any of them have commercial applications.
ObAUE: "Iridium" comes from the Latin and Greek word for
"rainbow" because many iridium compounds are highly colored.
Chromium got its name from the Greek word for "color" for
similar reasons.
Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org> Washington, DC
Contributing Editor/Webmaster
The Editorial Eye <http://www.eeicom.com/eye/>
Richard Defered
In article <32D55B...@lunemere.com>, Truly Donovan
<tr...@lunemere.com> wrote:
> well, your feet are variable in length too, but you still measure in feet,
> so why not weigh in stones.
Well, gee, I never thought of it that way. Come on everybody, let's
start dividing all the useful numbers by 14 because our feet are
variable in length!
Now wouldn't that be silly!
well actually there are twelve inches in a foot, so if you divided it by
14 you would be very silly indeed!
Also, the US still uses pounds and ounces,and you have to divide by 16 there,
so why is that any less silly.
my original point was that the US still uses parts of the *ENGLISH*
imperial weights and measures, but for some reason has decided not to use
others.
example: inches, feet, yards, miles are familiar in the US but
S Martin
As I said before, I suspect stones were never in use here (in N America).
They're just unheard of, and don't come up in old writings.
And the Americans have those silly little 16 ounce pints (and 32 oz quarts,
and 128 oz gallons) instead of proper 20 ounce ones...
-Steve in Canada
Markus Laker
gwtu...@iastate.edu (Gary Turner):
> *vit*amin as in hit
> *vit*amin as in slight
>
> as written, it looks like the first case, but is short for "vital
> mineral" so that explains the US pronunciation.
I don't think so. According to COD9 it comes from the Latin word 'vita'
(life) and 'amine', because vitamins were originally thought to contain
amino acid.
Vitamins are organic compounds, not minerals. We need both.
Markus Laker.
--
If you quote me, I would appreciate an email copy of your article.
S Martin
In article <5b5m2e$k...@walters.East.Sun.COM>, san...@sun.nospam (Daan Sandee) says:
>
>In article <Pine.GSO.3.95a.97010...@cms2.cern.ch> Anthony Potts <po...@cms2.cern.ch> writes:
>>On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Peter Hullah wrote:
>>
>>> I can't understand why Brits and Yanks still insist on using units which
>>> require
>>> the rest of the world to divide by 2.2 (apporx) in order to find out
>>> what
>>> you REALLY weigh :-)
>>>
>>If you mean dividing by 2.2 to get to lkilogrammes, then this will not
>>tell you what you weigh. It will tell you what your mass is (which is very
>>different).
>>
>>To find out what you weigh, in Newtons (the SI units of force), you need
>>to multiply your mass by the local gravitational field strength.
>
>Oh, dear. Here we go again.
>
>It is true that in non-metric countries people get taught that kilograms
>are mass, and newtons (note lower case) are weight.
>But in the saner part of the world kilograms are used for weight. Really.
>I'm still waiting for a testimonial from any Canadian, Australian, or
>New Zealander, who remembers talking with his doctor about his mass in
>kilograms, or his weight in newtons.
>
>Once a year I have an argument on the net with some clever guy who wants
>to show the world that he was awake in physics class, and I get accused
>of wanting to change the laws of physics.
kilos <eek!>
-Steve Martin
Keith C. Ivey
nim...@erols.com (Kenneth S.) wrote:
>E.g. the motion was tabled -- in the U.S. it means it was
>shelved, but in Britain it means it was brought up for
>consideration. Then there's "moot." In Britain "that's a
>moot point" means "that's a debatable point." In the U.S.
>"that issue is moot" means the issue is dead.
You're right about "table", but I've never seen the confusion
related to "moot" described as a transatlantic difference.
"Moot" can certainly mean "debatable" in the US; I'm not sure
whether it's used to mean "purely academic" in the UK. I think
usage commentators tend to describe things they disapprove of as
Americanisms.
_Webster's Dictionary of English Usage_ says the second meaning
originated in legal usage:
In the late 1950s, when Webster's Third was being edited,
legal citations for this sense in our files outnumbered
nonlegal ones by about four to one. Since then, this sense
has become as firmly fixed in general English as it is in
legal English.
As far as I'm concerned, the word "moot" is effectively dead,
since it's impossible to know what readers will think it means.
I avoid it.
Richard Defered
Like most elements, iridium does have radioactive isotopes with
various half-lives, but they would not be found significant
amounts in naturally occurring iridium. I don't know whether
any of them have commercial applications.
well, they do use a refined version of it for X-rays, so make of that what
you will. Like uranium/plutonium you have to refine alot of the former to
get a significant amount of the latter. This is probably true for iridium,
and it's short half life, approximately thirty days I believe, would make
it an ideal, and relatively safe isotope for industrial use.
Bill Shatzer
>Simon Patience wrote:
>>
>> Ooo, oo, just found another one. Americans pronounce that famous painter
>> as "van go" whereas the British pronounce it properly.
Properly? Like "van gef"? Even Van Gogh didn't pronounce it that way.
Stuart Leichter
In article <32e6403e....@snews.zippo.com>, di...@thegrid.net (Dick
Jackson) wrote:
> On 8 Jan 1997 03:28:19 GMT, r...@burgerhall.com (Richard Defered) wrote:
>
> >here are a few pronunciation differences I have noticed:
> >
> >on a trip to the supermarket to buy your groceries the fresh *prod*uce(UK)
> >section
> >is instead pronounced *pro*duce (US)
>
> Pro-doose
I only hear (in Western Pa.) pro-dhuce (like the -dd in "rudder" or "ladder").
> >A saying both cultures use is 'the grass is always greener'
> >in the US however I have noticed that when I add the last part
> >'on the other side of the hill' americans, invariably have never heard
> >that part before, and don't even see the association!
>
> Hm? I'll have to experiment. But *I* would say "fence" instead of
> "hill".
>
> What say the rest of the lads?
>
Seems no one can cite a "last part" to "the grass is always greener on the
other side", and I don't think there is any last part. It's one of those
expressions that speaks for itself because we should all know what it
intends to mean, even though we don't in this usage. Maybe it has to do
with envy and the "green-eyed monster", jealousy, and needs no completion
to the comparison.
Speaking of supermarkets, and other queues, I'm reminded of (author
forgotten) "Natural Laws" and a Murphy's-law version of "the grass is
always greener...": "The other line moves faster. This is true even if you
change lines."
--
Stuart Leichter
Jonathan Mason
R...@USA1.com (Aaron J. Dinkin) wrote:
>In article
><Pine.SOL.3.91.970109...@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu>, "Cissy .
>Thorpe" <cth...@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu> wrote:
>
>>On 8 Jan 1997, Stephen C. Gallagher wrote:
>>
>>> Richard Defered wrote:
>>> >
>>> > other expressioned seem to have become abbreviated to the point of
>>> > extinction over the centuries.
>>> > in the US however I have noticed that when I add the last part
>>> > 'on the other side of the hill' americans, invariably have never heard
>>> > that part before, and don't even see the association!
>>>
>>>
>>> "The grass is always greener in someone else's backyard.",
>>>
>>> of course, since most Brits don't have "backyards", they have
>>> "gardens", it would not be well used in Britain.
>>>
>>I believe that the saying is:
>>
>>"The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence."
>
>I've never heard that - always "someone else's backyard" for me.
>
one cannot usually see the other side of the hill without a periscope.
'LOOKS greener on the other side of the fence, or in someone else's
backyard' is more faithful to the psychological phenomenon of
underestimating one's own efforts and overrating other people's.
Martin Hardgrave
In article <32D60D...@eurocontrol.fr>, Peter Hullah
<Peter....@eurocontrol.fr> writes
>
>I've now been informed by she-who-must-be-believed (my wife) that the
>standard
>English phrase doesn't talk about fences or hills. It's "The other man's
>grass
>is always greener." Personally, I think she's been listening to too many
>Petula Clarke records. (For those who can remember Petula Clarke.)
Or as Douglas Adams would put it:
"The other Shaltenac's tupleberry shrub is always a more mauvy shade of
pinky-russet."
--
Martin
York, UK
"From hell, Hull, and Halifax, good Lord deliver us!"
Truly Donovan
Stuart Leichter wrote:
>
> >
> Seems no one can cite a "last part" to "the grass is always greener on the
> other side", and I don't think there is any last part. It's one of those
> expressions that speaks for itself because we should all know what it
> intends to mean, even though we don't in this usage. Maybe it has to do
> with envy and the "green-eyed monster", jealousy, and needs no completion
> to the comparison.
It seems to me that a number of people have indeed offered several "last
parts" to the grass being greener, and *all* of the offerings to date are
minor variations on the greener grass being where someone both isn't and
can't readily be, so I find it difficult to undertand how you can conclude
from the evidence that there is no last part.
I think "jealousy" is an overstatement of the intent of the saying, as well;
several of the citations would only suggest yearnings, not jealousy. For
there to be jealousy, there has to be something to be jealous of, so only the
people who covet their neighbor's grass are experiencing jealousy. Those of
us who only covet the grass we can't reach are merely discontent.
Mike Long
On Sun, 05 Jan 1997 10:57:58 -0800, yvo...@alumni.stanford.org (Yvonne
Lee) wrote:
A strange difference in stress exists in some phrases. The term
"sausage roll", in America, is pronounced with the only stress on the
first syllable. In New Zealand there are two stresses - on the first
and last syllables - the greater stress being on "roll".
BTW I believe the NZ pronunciation is far closer to UK pronunciation
than to Australian.
Mike Long
mike...@netaccess.co.nz
====================================
"...but I digress." - Ronnie Corbett
Mike Long
On Sun, 12 Jan 1997 04:59:31 GMT, mike...@netaccess.co.nz (Mike Long)
wrote:
Oops. I forgot to delete the top line in my post.
yvo...@alumni.stanford.org (Yvonne Lee) wrote none of the above.
Sorry!
Margot Ferguson
Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org> wrote in article
<5b92j6$6...@news3.digex.net>...
> As far as I'm concerned, the word "moot" is effectively dead,
> since it's impossible to know what readers will think it means.
> I avoid it.
Say it ain't so!
Everyone in first year law school knows what "moot" means -- a one-hour
opportunity to get a failing grade in front of two hundred of your most
annoying peers.
;)
--Margot F.
Raymot
In article <5b49f4$o...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>, gelf%nos...@Eng.Sun.COM
says...
>
>I _love_ alt.usage.english!
>
>Where else can you find discussions on whether iridium is radioactive
>or not in the "American British Pronunciation Differences" thread.
>
>If you don't plan to participate in some discussion it's more fun to
>wait until the thread grows to some 20 messages or so and read it at
>once rather than reading it message a day or whatever the frequency
>of the new messages appearing on it.
>
> --alex
I was amazed yesterday to discover what 60 cans of WD40 can do
to loosen the fingers. I'm sure I've missed some stimulating
conversation due to a reticence by some to change the subject
line to reflect the current topic.
Raymot
=======
Brisbane, Australia
rmot...@powerup.com.au
http://www.powerup.com.au/~rmottare/
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
Raymot
In article <mJv1yUpd...@dircon.co.uk>, hadf...@dircon.co.uk says...>: Then there's "moot." In Britain
>:"that's a moot point" means "that's a debatable point." In the U.S.
>:"that issue is moot" means the issue is dead.
>
>Obviously the British use the phrase correctly and some USAians do not.
>If in doubt, check a dictionary on the meaning of "moot".
>
>
>
>Pam
"The dictionary" certainly suggests "debatable" rather than "dead".
However, a moot (in law) is a hypothetical argument. A moot
argument is often one which can be put forward purely for the
sake of discussion or debate.
Therefore, in a "real" argument, a point is often called moot if
it is irrelevant to the argument (ie. "dead" for the debate at hand),
but which could nevertheless be debated, since it has not been
settled.
Thus, if a couple is arguing about whether the husband came home
drunk last night, and he insists that he was home by 8 o'clock as
he had promised, his wife can logically suggest that he was not
home til 8.50, but that nevertheless that is a moot point (both
dead [for the moment] and also debatable), since they are
discussing whether he was drunk or not.
Is this not the way most people use this term? If so, are they
wrong?
Pam Hadfield
In article <32dc6233...@202.37.101.7>,
mike...@netaccess.co.nz (Mike Long) wrote:
:On Sun, 05 Jan 1997 10:57:58 -0800, yvo...@alumni.stanford.org (Yvonne
:Lee) wrote:
:
:A strange difference in stress exists in some phrases. The term
:"sausage roll", in America, is pronounced with the only stress on the
:first syllable. In New Zealand there are two stresses - on the first
:and last syllables - the greater stress being on "roll".
:
:BTW I believe the NZ pronunciation is far closer to UK pronunciation
:than to Australian.
How do Australians say "sausage roll"?
Do Australians *have* sausage rolls?
I love sausage rolls...
Cheers,
Pam
John Lynch
In article <5b6tbq$q...@nuscc.nus.sg>, "P. K. W. Tan"
<ellt...@leonis.nus.sg> writes
>Could
>stone have anything to do with bags of grain.
More likely to be nuts, don't you think?
--
John Lynch
Keith C. Ivey
mike...@netaccess.co.nz (Mike Long) wrote:
>A strange difference in stress exists in some phrases. The term
>"sausage roll", in America, is pronounced with the only stress on the
>first syllable. In New Zealand there are two stresses - on the first
>and last syllables - the greater stress being on "roll".
I'm not sure how often Americans talk about sausage rolls (the
main place I've heard the term is the British TV show "East
Enders"), but there's probably local variation in the names and
availability of such items. (Sausage biscuits, of course, are
available everywhere because they're on the menu of some fast-
food chains.) Nevertheless, if I were to say "sausage roll",
I'd stress it on the first syllable, as you say.
Another place I've noticed a difference in stress is in
expressions of distance. Some UK speakers say "four miles away"
with the main stress on "miles". A US speaker would put the
main stress on "four" and slightly less stress on "way" but
little stress on "miles"; the only time "miles" would be
stressed would be if it were being contrasted with "kilometers"
or something similar.
Daan Sandee
Simon Patience wrote:
>>>
>>> Ooo, oo, just found another one. Americans pronounce that famous painter
>>> as "van go" whereas the British pronounce it properly.
Uh, we had this here some months ago, when another Brit sneered at
Americans mispronouncing "Van Gogh." Actually, the only difference in
transatlantic pronunciation is the terminal consonant. The Americans
ignore it, the British screw it up. The other phonemes produced on
both sides of the ocean are approximately equal. Equally wrong, that is.
I could expound on the original pronunciation, both in standard Dutch
and in Van G's probable dialect - he was a southerner - but you wouldn't
believe me. Then there's Brueghel ...
Daan Sandee
Burlington, MA Use this email address: sandee (at) east . sun . com
Sara Ellis
hadf...@dircon.co.uk (Pam Hadfield) wrote:
>In article <5b6njk$e...@boursy.news.erols.com>,
>nim...@erols.com (Kenneth S.) wrote:
>: Then there's "moot." In Britain
>:"that's a moot point" means "that's a debatable point." In the U.S.
>:"that issue is moot" means the issue is dead.
>:
>Obviously the British use the phrase correctly and some USAians do not.
>If in doubt, check a dictionary on the meaning of "moot".
>Cheers,
>Pam
But in the US, according to my dictionary it can mean of little or no
practical value. The US is not the UK. Words mean different things
here. It's not a matter of right or wrong. Even Spence can't argue
with that.
Markus Laker
bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer):
> >Simon Patience wrote:
> >> Ooo, oo, just found another one. Americans pronounce that famous painter
> >> as "van go" whereas the British pronounce it properly.
> Properly? Like "van gef"? Even Van Gogh didn't pronounce it that way.
No, like [v&n gA.x] or -- at a pinch, because [x] isn't used in an
Englishman's accent -- [v&n gA.f].
RobertBolton
> >: Then there's "moot." In Britain
> >:"that's a moot point" means "that's a debatable point." In the U.S.
> >:"that issue is moot" means the issue is dead.
> >Obviously the British use the phrase correctly and some USAians do not.
> >If in doubt, check a dictionary on the meaning of "moot".
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Pam
> "The dictionary" certainly suggests "debatable" rather than "dead".
> However, a moot (in law) is a hypothetical argument. A moot
> argument is often one which can be put forward purely for the
> sake of discussion or debate.
> Therefore, in a "real" argument, a point is often called moot if
> it is irrelevant to the argument (ie. "dead" for the debate at hand),
> but which could nevertheless be debated, since it has not been
> settled.
> Thus, if a couple is arguing about whether the husband came home
> drunk last night, and he insists that he was home by 8 o'clock as
> he had promised, his wife can logically suggest that he was not
> home til 8.50, but that nevertheless that is a moot point (both
> dead [for the moment] and also debatable), since they are
> discussing whether he was drunk or not.
> Is this not the way most people use this term? If so, are they
> wrong?
> Raymot
I was taught (in america) that a moot point was something that was no
longer important, but Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College
Edition gives two definitions. Def #1 is "debatable". Def #2 is
"resolved, and thus not worthy of discussion". So is the meaning of
"moot" moot, or moot? :>
Robert
Jeff Drabble
On 12 Jan 1997 12:54:33 -0000, hadf...@dircon.co.uk (Pam Hadfield)
wrote:
>In article <32dc6233...@202.37.101.7>,
>mike...@netaccess.co.nz (Mike Long) wrote:
>:On Sun, 05 Jan 1997 10:57:58 -0800, yvo...@alumni.stanford.org (Yvonne
>:Lee) wrote:
>:
>:A strange difference in stress exists in some phrases. The term
>:"sausage roll", in America, is pronounced with the only stress on the
>:first syllable. In New Zealand there are two stresses - on the first
>:and last syllables - the greater stress being on "roll".
>:
>:BTW I believe the NZ pronunciation is far closer to UK pronunciation
>:than to Australian.
>:
>
>How do Australians say "sausage roll"?
They pronounce it "sausage roll".
>Do Australians *have* sausage rolls?
No, they've eaten them all.
>
>I love sausage rolls...
So do they.
Jeff Drabble
Jeff Drabble
Bob Cunningham
s...@albion.engr.sgi.com (Simon Patience) said:
>In article <5b5emv$min$2...@grissom.powerup.com.au>,
>rmot...@powerup.com.au (Raymot) writes:
[...]
>Ooo, oo, just found another one. Americans pronounce that famous painter
>as "van go" whereas the British pronounce it properly.
I've just made the startling discovery that none of the three
British dictionaries I own has biographical listings. Here I sit with
no way to look up the British pronunciation of "van Gogh".
I suspect, though, that the "proper" pronunciation SP is referring
to is a half-baked attempt to mimic the Dutch pronunciation. I further
suspect that many British people would not be able to pronounce the
consonants in the Dutch pronunciation of "van Gogh" in a way that would
not be amusing to a Dutch person.
According to _The Random House Dictionary of the English Language
Second Edition Unabridged_ (RHDEL) the Dutch pronunciation of "van Gogh"
is /v&n xOx/ ("van khokh", where "x" represents a sound something like
"ch" in Scottish "loch" or German "ach", and the "o" is pronounced like
the "aw" in "saw"). However, RHDEL gives the English pronounciation of
the "gogh" in Van Gogh as either /goU/ ("go") or /gOx/ ("gokh").
In its pronunciation guide RHDEL lists "kh" under "foreign sounds".
When names are used in English, they should be pronounced like an
English word. If the British pronounce "van Gogh" using foreign
consonants, it seems to me they would be well advised to switch to an
English pronunciation. I would recommend /v&n 'goU/, since it is
apparently already established as the most acceptable pronunciation
among a large majority of the world's English speakers (the Americans).
Anyway, proper pronunciation is determined by what is customary.
If nearly all Americans say /v&n 'goU/ ("van go") - and I think they do
- then anyone in America who pronounces it that way is pronouncing it
properly. If the British pronounce it some other way, then anyone in
America who pronounces it the British way should be said to be
pronouncing it improperly.
SP's statement that the British pronounce it "properly" takes a
quite narrow view of world English.
Keith C. Ivey
la...@tcp.co.uk (Markus Laker) wrote:
>bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer):
>> Properly? Like "van gef"? Even Van Gogh didn't pronounce it that way.
>No, like [v&n gA.x] or -- at a pinch, because [x] isn't used in an
>Englishman's accent -- [v&n gA.f].
You substitute [f] for [x]? Does that mean that, at a pinch,
the German composer is [bAf]?
Over here, those who can't say [x] generally substitute [k].
[posted and mailed]
des
Richard Defered <r...@burgerhall.com> wrote in article
<rd-110197...@avm.vip.best.com>...
http://www.shef.ac.uk/chemistry/web-elements/econ/Ir.html
des
Dick Jackson
> SP's statement that the British pronounce it "properly" takes a
>quite narrow view of world English.
While I generally disagree with Simon on principle, in this case he is
right. We pronounce everything correctly by definition (unless we try
to speak some other language, in which case it is only by some amazing
accident if we *do* pronounce anything even remotely the same way as
the foreigners do).
Dick J.
Gareth Evans
>>>>> " " == Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com> writes:
> Simon Patience wrote:
>>
>> Ooo, oo, just found another one. Americans pronounce that famous painter
>> as "van go" whereas the British pronounce it properly.
> Once you've heard a Brit pronounce "Beaulieu," it's hard to take
> anything else they pronounce seriously.
As in "Bewley"?
It's historic. YOu wouldn't be expected to understand.
G - tongue out of cheek.
Nicholas Bradshaw
Peter Hullah wrote:
>
> Gareth Evans wrote:
>
> And "Beauchamp" is "Beecham"
>
> And didn't I once hear that "Featherstonehaugh" is pronounced "Fanshaw"?
>
...
>
> And why are "Worcester", "Gloucester" and "Leicester" pronounced
> "Woosta", "Glosta" and "Lesta"?
>
> To say nothing of "Leominster" = "Lemsta" (Herefordshire).
You're missing the point. The question is why they are spelt the way
they are. In most cases the spelling was re-invented for mock historical
reasons in the last century. Probably by Americans or French or some
such.
Nick
--
Nick Bradshaw - IRIDIA,ULB
Sue Spence
Bob Cunningham wrote:
>
> gev...@benelli.uk.ntc.nokia.com (Gareth Evans) said:
>
> >>>>>> " " == Sue Spence <s...@pennine.com> writes:
> >
> > > And yog urt/ yo gurt
> >
> > > Isn't this FASCINATING!!
> >
> >You missed the 'h' out of yoghurt, old bean.
>
> Maybe I'm missing some subtle humor here, but just for the record
> "yogurt" and "yoghurt" are both acceptable. _Merriam-Webster's
> Collegiate Dictionary_ has "yogurt, also yoghurt", while _The New
> Shorter Oxford English Dictionary_ has "yoghurt, also yogurt".
There was nothing subtle there. It's just that despite the
fact that Gareth can only just spell his name correctly, he
has managed over a period of time to pick up a few words which
tend to be spelled slightly differently in Britain and the
USA. He gets excited whenever he spots one.
Mark Odegard
[Posted, e-mailed] On Mon, 13 Jan 1997 01:22:30 GMT,
exw...@ix.netcom.com (Bob Cunningham) in
<32e28df6...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> wrote
> Anyway, proper pronunciation is determined by what is customary.
>If nearly all Americans say /v&n 'goU/ ("van go") - and I think they do
>- then anyone in America who pronounces it that way is pronouncing it
>properly. If the British pronounce it some other way, then anyone in
>America who pronounces it the British way should be said to be
>pronouncing it improperly.
There is a rule that how the person himself pronounced it, or
how native-speakers of his language pronounce it is by
definition correct. Right now, we're learing how the Peruvians
pronounce President Fujimori's name (it's done in Spanish, with
the J treated as a y-sound). Since Fujimori is Peruvian, and
presumably since that's how *he* pronounces it in Peru, this
pronunciation is correct, notwithstanding the fact that someone
from Japan with the same name is going to have a *different*
pronunciation.
Bob is right when he says the "Van Go" pronunciation is
established. But we English-speakers just cannot leave well
enough alone and end up trying to pronounce the name as the
person himself/herself did.
There is no consistency here. It depends on how *hard* the name
is. For example if you pronounce "Richard Wagner" as a purely
American English name, i.e., the name of a co-worker or
neighbor, but are actually referring to the composer, you'll get
very strange looks. And if you do "Jean Renoir" or "Camille
Saint-Saens" purely in English, you'll probably get laughed at.
--
Mark Odegard ode...@ptel.net
[e-mailed copies of responses to my postings are welcomed]
The great orthographical contest has long subsisted between
etymology and pronunciation. It has been demanded, on one hand,
that men should write as they speak; but, as it has been shown
that this conformity never was attained in any language, and
that it is not more easy to persuade men to agree exactly in
speaking than in writing, it may be asked, with equal propriety,
why men do not rather speak as they write.
-- Samuel Johnson, "The Plan of an English Dictionary" (1747).
Richard Defered
next time your mate smashes you over the head with a bat and your having x rays
done, ask the doctor what type of cheese they use
In article <85316007...@balti.bankersnet.co.uk>,
c...@bankersnet.co.uk (Chris Hedley) wrote:
Iridium is actually a form of very dense cheese. That's what my mate
tells me, anyway.
Chris.
Stephen C. Gallagher
Bob Cunningham wrote:
>
> ode...@ptel.net (Mark Odegard) said:
>
> [...]
>
> >There is a rule that how the person himself pronounced it, or
> >how native-speakers of his language pronounce it is by
> >definition correct.
>
>
> >Right now, we're learing how the Peruvians
> >pronounce President Fujimori's name (it's done in Spanish, with
> >the J treated as a y-sound).
>
> (something like the "ch" in Scottish "loch" or German "ach").
In Spanish, the letter "J" is mostly pronounced like the English
letter "H". So, Fujimori would be pronounced as foo-hee-MOH-ree,
in Spanish. In some countries, the difference is that when
you pronounce the Spanish J sound, the tongue is further back in the
mouth with the rear of the tongue back and down, to enlarge the
mouth cavity. This results in a slight "ch" sound. It's not
as pronounced as the German or Scottish "ch" sounds, though.
Stephen Gallagher
Nick Carter
Truly Donovan (tr...@lunemere.com) wrote:
: Once you've heard a Brit pronounce "Beaulieu," it's hard to take
If this is an important criterion for being taken seriously, then the
folks who talk about "Noter Daime" deserve a mention.
NC
Daan Sandee
In article <32da66da...@news.polaristel.net> ode...@ptel.net (Mark Odegard) writes:
>definition correct. Right now, we're learing how the Peruvians
>pronounce President Fujimori's name (it's done in Spanish, with
Unlikely. In "standard" Spanish, the j is [X] (voiceless velar fricative.)
I don't know how much it gets softened by the Peruvians, but the farthest
they are likely to go is a harsh h, giving rise to the American inter-
pretation as [h].
The j is pronounced [y] in most European languages except English, French,
Spanish, and I presume Portuguese. (I have no idea about Romanian.)
I have still not heard Fujimori or any other Peruvian pronounce it.
Neville Young
RobertBolton <Robert...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>So is the meaning of
>"moot" moot, or moot? :>
>
Definitely moot.
Neville Young
nevi...@globalnet.co.uk
Bob Cunningham
ode...@ptel.net (Mark Odegard) said:
[...]
>There is a rule that how the person himself pronounced it, or
>how native-speakers of his language pronounce it is by
>definition correct.
Whose rule is that? Where is it written?
>Right now, we're learing how the Peruvians
>pronounce President Fujimori's name (it's done in Spanish, with
>the J treated as a y-sound).
If it's done in Spanish I think the "j" will be pronounced [x]
Nicholas Bradshaw
Matthew Huntbach wrote:
>
> Mike Long (mike...@netaccess.co.nz) wrote:
> : On Sun, 05 Jan 1997 10:57:58 -0800, yvo...@alumni.stanford.org (Yvonne
> : Lee) wrote:
>
> : A strange difference in stress exists in some phrases. The term
> : "sausage roll", in America, is pronounced with the only stress on the
> : first syllable. In New Zealand there are two stresses - on the first
> : and last syllables - the greater stress being on "roll".
>
> weirdness of the USA stress on the first word only when I heard it on the TV,
> though many UK kids seem to have picked up the USA stress pattern these days.
>
> Matthew Huntbach
Does anyone mind if I point out that "olive oil" shows a similar
pattern.
Fuck me that's interesting, isn't it.
Nick
Sue Spence
> >nim...@erols.com (Kenneth S.) wrote:
>
> >: Then there's "moot." In Britain
> >:"that's a moot point" means "that's a debatable point." In the U.S.
> >:"that issue is moot" means the issue is dead.
> >:
>
> >Obviously the British use the phrase correctly and some USAians do not.
> >If in doubt, check a dictionary on the meaning of "moot".
>
> >Cheers,
>
> >Pam
> practical value. The US is not the UK. Words mean different things
> here. It's not a matter of right or wrong. Even Spence can't argue
> with that.
I can argue with whatever I like, but in this case everybody's wrong.
This is such a "usenet moment".
1. nimrod's incorrect, because the word "moot" doesn't differ
substantially
in meaning between the US and the UK AFAIK. Then again, he might
have been trolling.
2. Pam tried to be clever and almost succeeded, but she fluffed it.
3. You were so close, but then you tripped up by posting fatuous
nonsense about the US not being the UK - well thanks for that
information. There are not very many words which "mean different
things here" although much is often made of a few minor cases
where word meanings have diverged.