Pronunciation of "Hiroshima"
Bertel Lund Hansen
Does anyone know how the Japanese pronounce the name "Hiroshima"?
In Danish we say "hiro'sheema", but I (we) are wondering if this
pronunciation has come from English.
One of the participants (in the Danish language group) suggested
that there's a difference between right- and leftpondian:
rightpondian: "hi'rosheema" (like "posh")
leftpondian: "hi'rowsheema"
Is this correct?
--
Bertel, Denmark
Dr Peter Young
wrote:
> Hi all
> Does anyone know how the Japanese pronounce the name "Hiroshima"?
> In Danish we say "hiro'sheema", but I (we) are wondering if this
> pronunciation has come from English.
> One of the participants (in the Danish language group) suggested
> that there's a difference between right- and leftpondian:
> rightpondian: "hi'rosheema" (like "posh")
That's what this Rightpondian says, at any rate.
> leftpondian: "hi'rowsheema"
> Is this correct?
Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
Eric Walker
> Does anyone know how the Japanese pronounce the name "Hiroshima"?
I do not "know" in the sense of being one with a familiarity with the
Japanese tongue, but my understanding is that most Japanese words tend to
have pretty equal stress on all syllables, of which that name has four.
Obliged to try to write out how I believe it is pronounced, I'd do this--
he-row-she-ma
--where each of those is pronounced, with equal stress (or lack of
stress), like the corresponding English word. (But the "r" is, I think,
slightly sharper than in English--I regret that I am not familiar with
the terms of art in diction.)
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
Don Phillipson
news:g16ic6h64u47alo1d...@news.dotsrc.org...
> Does anyone know how the Japanese pronounce the name "Hiroshima"?
The Japanese actor in the Renais film Hiroshima Mon
Amour says it with very brief vowels, stressed on the
second syllable, something like H'rosh'ma.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
MC
"Don Phillipson" <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
> "Bertel Lund Hansen" <splittemi...@lundhansen.dk> wrote in message
> news:g16ic6h64u47alo1d...@news.dotsrc.org...
>
> > Does anyone know how the Japanese pronounce the name "Hiroshima"?
>
> The Japanese actor in the Renais film Hiroshima Mon
> Amour says it with very brief vowels, stressed on the
> second syllable, something like H'rosh'ma.
I just asked the Japanese person in the room next door...
hiROSHima
With both 'i's a bit clipped.
--
"If you can, tell me something happy."
- Marybones
John Dunlop
> I do not "know" in the sense of being one with a familiarity with the
> Japanese tongue, but my understanding is that most Japanese words tend to
> have pretty equal stress on all syllables, of which that name has four.
>
> Obliged to try to write out how I believe it is pronounced, I'd do this--
>
> he-row-she-ma
>
> --where each of those is pronounced, with equal stress (or lack of
> stress), like the corresponding English word. (But the "r" is, I think,
> slightly sharper than in English--I regret that I am not familiar with
> the terms of art in diction.)
That's my understanding as well, but the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary
gives the Japanese pronunciation as
[çi ˌɾo ɕi ma] (if I've copied those symbols correctly)
which doesn't mean an awful lot to me, but it does indicate a secondary
stress on the second syllable. (Don't ask me where the primary stress is.)
The main BrE pronunciation in the LPD is stressed on the second syllable,
and there's an alternative with stress on the third. It's round the other
way in AmE.
--
John
Mark Brader
> Does anyone know how the Japanese pronounce the name "Hiroshima"?
>
> In Danish we say "hiro'sheema", but I (we) are wondering if this
> pronunciation has come from English.
It might be nice to know whether by "hiro'sheema" you mean "hiROsheem-a"
or "hiroSHEEMa", which are the two pronunciations I usually encounter
in English.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "...everything else in [the] list is wrong;
m...@vex.net | why should [this] be correct?" -- Rob Novak
Bertel Lund Hansen
> It might be nice to know whether by "hiro'sheema" you mean "hiROsheem-a"
> or "hiroSHEEMa", which are the two pronunciations I usually encounter
> in English.
I use ' as a stress marker before the stressed syllable (so it's
"hiROsheem-a").
--
Bertel, Denmark
Bertel Lund Hansen
> It might be nice to know whether by "hiro'sheema" you mean "hiROsheem-a"
> or "hiroSHEEMa", which are the two pronunciations I usually encounter
> in English.
Those were the two pronumciations I wanted to askl about.
Unfortunately I got one stress marker wrong (copy-paste-error). I
meant to write:
rightpondian: "hi'rosheema" (like "posh")
leftpondian: "hirow'sheema"
where ' is a stress marker before the stressed syllable.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Andrew B.
The sound file linked from the Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Hiroshima) is close to "hee-RO-shee-ma".
Incidentally, I note that Iwo Jima (again using the Wiki sound file)
is more-or-less "ee-OE jee-ma" ("j" here being the sound used in
"genre"), whereas I've always heard it said as "i-woe JEE-ma".
Skitt
> In message<g16ic6h64u47alo1d...@news.dotsrc.org>
> Bertel Lund Hansen<splittemi...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>> Hi all
>
>> Does anyone know how the Japanese pronounce the name "Hiroshima"?
>
>
> Japanese is unaccented and unstressed, so if you say any of those to
> someone they will hear the same word.
Good to know.
(My answer is actually just a test of my posting client.)
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
Glenn Knickerbocker
> second syllable, something like H'rosh'ma.
There's no meaningful syllable stress in Japanese, but vowels often
become unvoiced after unvoiced fricatives--most strictly, before
unvoiced consonants, but as you heard here they can lose some voicing
before a voiced consonant as well. I still find it pretty funny that
Matsushita's US PR people were so insistent on changing the prevailing
pronunciation from "matza-SHEET-uh" to "mott-SOOSH-tuh" when the native
pronunciation is more like "ma-ts(low whistle)-sh(high whistle)-taa."
ŹR
R H Draney
And then there's Nissan (long S, short I), an acronym of sorts for "Japan
Automobile Company", but which Westerners invariably pronounce Niisan (long I,
short S) meaning "big brother"....
Let's try not to even think about what the gaijin do to the word "karaoke"....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
musika
R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> typed:
For "westerners" read "Americans", perhaps. I have only ever heard a short
"I" from non-Americans
(short "S", though).
--
Ray
UK
R H Draney
>> "Japan Automobile Company", but which Westerners invariably pronounce
>> Niisan (long I, short S) meaning "big brother"....
>>
>> Let's try not to even think about what the gaijin do to the word
>> "karaoke"....r
>
>For "westerners" read "Americans", perhaps. I have only ever heard a short
>"I" from non-Americans
>(short "S", though).
That's "long" in the European sense, by the way, not the American...same vowel
as "neat", not "nit"....r
annily
--
Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which probably influences my opinions.
John Lawler
That's right, John. Let me give you some exegesis
on that set of symbols [çi ˌɾo ɕi ma]
Point 1: Japanese has only a very small number of
possible syllables, since each has to have
either zero or one consonant at the beginning,
and either /n/ or no consonant at the end.
Point 2: There are only 5 vowels: a e i o u, which
don't always sound like English vowels.
In particular, there's no difference between
English /i/ as in "bean" and /I/ as in "bin".
a) [çi] is what happens to Japanese /h/ before /i/.
The /h/ becomes much more fricated than English
/h/ ever is (English initial /h/ is more often
deleted than fricated. It's a palatal fricative.
This sounds like "she" to many English speakers
(and some Japanese speakers; see below).
b) [ˌɾo] has a little tittle below before the /r/, which is
tapped, like the "dd" of American "caddy", or the
"rr" of Oxbridge "carry". The tittle indicates that the
Japanese tone accent goes here; this accent is
not the same as English stress accent; but it will
do for placing the English accent. The /o/ is not like
either US or UK /ow/, but rather more like German
short /o/.
c) [ɕi] is what happens to Japanese /s/ before /i/.
It is just like (a) except that the initial sibilant is
alveolo-palatal [ɕ] instead of palatal [ç], with the
tongue slightly forward in the mouth. These two
consonants are indistinguishable in English, and
also for speakers of the Tokyo dialect of Japanese.
(Since the English pronouns "he" and "she" would
be pronounced [çi] and [ɕi], respectively, by Japanese
speakers, Tokyo Japanese speakers literally cannot
distinguish English "he" from "she" without special
training. Japanese does not have separate male and
female pronouns.)
The vowel in both (a) and (c) is the same.
d) [ma] is exactly as in English.
That's if you want to pronounce it in Japanese.
In English, /hi/ works for [çi] and /Si/ for [ɕi].
Accent on second syllable, no [ow] in /ro/,
and centralized final /a/:
/hi'roSim@/, or /hi'roʃimə/
-John Lawler
http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/modestproposal.pdf
Every act of conscious learning requires the
willingness to suffer an injury to one's self-
esteem. That is why young children, before they
are aware of their own self-importance, learn
so easily; and why older persons, especially
if vain or important, cannot learn at all.
-- Thomas Szász
John Dunlop
> That's right, John. Let me give you some exegesis
> on that set of symbols [çi ˌɾo ɕi ma]
...
Thank you, John. I'm not familiar with those symbols that aren't used
for English - they're not explained in the Longman dictionary - nor am
I familiar with Japanese phonology, so your exegesis is appreciated.
--
John
Bertel Lund Hansen
> >For "westerners" read "Americans", perhaps. I have only ever heard a short
> >"I" from non-Americans
> >(short "S", though).
I agree.
> That's "long" in the European sense, by the way, not the American...same vowel
> as "neat", not "nit"....r
I have only heard it with the short i as in "nit".
--
Bertel, Denmark
Athel Cornish-Bowden
<splittemi...@lundhansen.dk> said:
> Hi all
>
> Does anyone know how the Japanese pronounce the name "Hiroshima"?
>
> In Danish we say "hiro'sheema", but I (we) are wondering if this
> pronunciation has come from English.
WIWAL, especially during the period in the late 1940s when I lived in
Singapore, the War was very fresh in people's minds, nobody thought the
way it was pronounced in Japanese had any importance, and it was
pronounced with a strong stress on the o, the syllable rhyming with
bosh, cosh, dosh, gosh, nosh, posh or tosh[1]. Over the years there has
been a shift in BrE proniunciation towards treating Hiro and shima as
two words, both stressed on the first syllable, the first with the i of
mirror, the second with the ea of beamer. However, you can still hear
the form with antepenultimate stress.
[1] Any suggestions as to why all these words are slang or colloquial?
Are there no literary words that rhyme with them?
--
athel
Pat Durkin
never see'um).
Robin Bignall
<dunlo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>John Lawler:
>
>> That's right, John. Let me give you some exegesis
>> on that set of symbols [çi ??o ?i ma]
>...
>
>Thank you, John. I'm not familiar with those symbols that aren't used
>for English - they're not explained in the Longman dictionary - nor am
>I familiar with Japanese phonology, so your exegesis is appreciated.
On a slightly related note is this picture, published in The Times
today.
http://www.bricoleurbanism.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/passchendaele_aerial_view.jpg
The upper picture is an aerial view of the village of Passchendaele
taken in 1916. The lower was taken in 1917 after five months of war.
The Times commented that it looks more like Hiroshima than Flanders.
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England
Peter Moylan
Oh, wait. "Wash". (It uses the short 'o' in BrE, although admittedly not
in AmE.)
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Robert Bannister
Don't we use the French word "cloche" for a type of hat?
--
Rob Bannister
J. J. Lodder
MC
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> > Let's try not to even think about what the gaijin do to the word
> > "karaoke"....r
>
> care-ee-o-key is what I hear most.
The Japanese pronunciation is closer to kar-a-Okeh.
musika
annily
> In message<iaf9t...@drn.newsguy.com>
> R H Draney<dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> Glenn Knickerbocker filted:
>>>
>>> On 10/28/2010 09:58 AM, Don Phillipson wrote:
>>>> second syllable, something like H'rosh'ma.
>>>
>>> There's no meaningful syllable stress in Japanese, but vowels often
>>> become unvoiced after unvoiced fricatives--most strictly, before
>>> unvoiced consonants, but as you heard here they can lose some voicing
>>> before a voiced consonant as well. I still find it pretty funny that
>>> Matsushita's US PR people were so insistent on changing the prevailing
>>> pronunciation from "matza-SHEET-uh" to "mott-SOOSH-tuh" when the native
>>> pronunciation is more like "ma-ts(low whistle)-sh(high whistle)-taa."
>
>> And then there's Nissan (long S, short I), an acronym of sorts for "Japan
>> Automobile Company", but which Westerners invariably pronounce Niisan (long I,
>> short S) meaning "big brother"....
>
> nis-s@n. The former is much more common
I think the NEE pronunciation is what the poster meant by a long I. This
pronunciation is more common in the USA, I believe, but not here in
Australia, where we generally say it as your second option.
What do you call a long I? As in "eye" I suppose.
Garrett Wollman
annily <ann...@annily.invalid> wrote:
>I think the NEE pronunciation is what the poster meant by a long I. This
>pronunciation is more common in the USA, I believe, but not here in
>Australia, where we generally say it as your second option.
Do you say it /nIs&n/, like the Canadians, or something different,
like maybe /nIs@n/ or /nIsAn/?
The American pronunciation /'ni: sAn/, is I think a result of our
vague awareness that in "foreign", 'i' usually sounds [i] and not [I],
and likewise 'a' sounds [A] (as close as our inventory comes to [a])
and not [&] or [O] or [@]. (Hence our puzzlement at Brits pronouncing
"pasta" /'p&stR/ (/-stW/?). It's Foreign, so obviously it must be
/pa-/, not /p&-/, regardless of whether /a/ vs. /&/ is phonemic in the
actual culture of origin.) Of course, we don't do long consonants (as
in "Nissan") other than nasals, and there are plenty of imports we
butcher quite effectively; "au" seems to be a particular difficulty,
since it usually represents /au/ as in "sauna" or "Hauptbahnhof" but
Americans usually pronounce it /O/ as in "caught".
With Japanese, there is additionally the problem that the standard
romanization doesn't always accurately represent the Japanese sounds,
particularly with "-i" syllables (like "shi") that tend to get
clipped. To correctly pronounce romanized Japanese (and I certainly
don't claim to), it's necessary to know quite a bit about the
language.
-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
Roland Hutchinson
> As I was taught back in Nineteen-*mumble*ty-three a long vowel is one
> that 'says its name' So, apricot is a long a, beet is a long e, bite is
> a long i, and uniform is a long u. There is no long y.
"Apricot" is a dangerous example as the pronunciation varies. I'd go
with the first "a" of "aviary". "Ape" is _very_ safe.
Would you believe "long y" as in "Ypres" (when pron. "wipers")?
How about "long w" as in -- er, um -- "WCTU"?
--
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 )
annily
> In article<4cce1dfe$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
> annily<ann...@annily.invalid> wrote:
>> I think the NEE pronunciation is what the poster meant by a long I. This
>> pronunciation is more common in the USA, I believe, but not here in
>> Australia, where we generally say it as your second option.
>
> Do you say it /nIs&n/, like the Canadians, or something different,
> like maybe /nIs@n/ or /nIsAn/?
>
/nIs@n/
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> On 31/10/10 7:08 AM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> On 2010-10-28 08:36:54 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen
>>> <splittemi...@lundhansen.dk> said:
>>>
>>>> Hi all
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone know how the Japanese pronounce the name "Hiroshima"?
>>>>
>>>> In Danish we say "hiro'sheema", but I (we) are wondering if this
>>>> pronunciation has come from English.
>>>
>>> WIWAL, especially during the period in the late 1940s when I lived in
>>> Singapore, the War was very fresh in people's minds, nobody thought the
>>> way it was pronounced in Japanese had any importance, and it was
>>> pronounced with a strong stress on the o, the syllable rhyming with
>>> bosh, cosh, dosh, gosh, nosh, posh or tosh[1]. Over the years there has
>>> been a shift in BrE proniunciation towards treating Hiro and shima as
>>> two words, both stressed on the first syllable, the first with the i of
>>> mirror, the second with the ea of beamer. However, you can still hear
>>> the form with antepenultimate stress.
>>>
>>> [1] Any suggestions as to why all these words are slang or colloquial?
>>> Are there no literary words that rhyme with them?
>>>
>> There's the plural of "fresher", but it's probably not literary either.
Unknown in BrE, and probably not understandable.
>>
>> Oh, wait. "Wash". (It uses the short 'o' in BrE, although admittedly not
>> in AmE.)
I thought of that one, but too late.
>>
>
> Don't we use the French word "cloche" for a type of hat?
Yes, and, more often in my experience, for something used by gardeners
to cover plants.
--
athel
John Holmes
> On 01-11-10 13:47, Garrett Wollman wrote:
>> In article<4cce1dfe$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
>> annily<ann...@annily.invalid> wrote:
>>> I think the NEE pronunciation is what the poster meant by a long I.
>>> This pronunciation is more common in the USA, I believe, but not
>>> here in Australia, where we generally say it as your second option.
>>
>> Do you say it /nIs&n/, like the Canadians, or something different,
>> like maybe /nIs@n/ or /nIsAn/?
>>
>
> /nIs@n/
Yes, now, but we used to pronounce it /d&ts@n/ for many years.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 04:51:06 +0000, Lewis wrote:
>
>> As I was taught back in Nineteen-*mumble*ty-three a long vowel is one
>> that 'says its name' So, apricot is a long a, beet is a long e, bite is
>> a long i, and uniform is a long u. There is no long y.
>
>"Apricot" is a dangerous example as the pronunciation varies. I'd go
>with the first "a" of "aviary". "Ape" is _very_ safe.
>
>Would you believe "long y" as in "Ypres" (when pron. "wipers")?
>
I think I've mentioned previously the son of an acqaintance of a former
coworker whose parents chose a name for him from a book of baby-names.
They chose a name that did not recognise as having heard in the wild.
The boy was named "Yvon" pronounced "Why-von".
>How about "long w" as in -- er, um -- "WCTU"?
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
annily
> annily wrote:
>> On 01-11-10 13:47, Garrett Wollman wrote:
>>> In article<4cce1dfe$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
>>> annily<ann...@annily.invalid> wrote:
>>>> I think the NEE pronunciation is what the poster meant by a long I.
>>>> This pronunciation is more common in the USA, I believe, but not
>>>> here in Australia, where we generally say it as your second option.
>>>
>>> Do you say it /nIs&n/, like the Canadians, or something different,
>>> like maybe /nIs@n/ or /nIsAn/?
>>>
>>
>> /nIs@n/
>
> Yes, now, but we used to pronounce it /d&ts@n/ for many years.
>
Yes indeed. My first car was a Datsun 120Y.
Donna Richoux
> In message <4cce1dfe$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>
[snip]
> > What do you call a long I? As in "eye" I suppose.
>
> Yes. As I was taught back in Nineteen-*mumble*ty-three a long vowel is
> one that 'says its name' So, apricot is a long a, beet is a long e,
> bite is a long i, and uniform is a long u.
So is this what prompted Rob to say elsewhere that Americans don't do
the letter O?
Peter Moylan
No, that's a separate issue. It's true that we occasionally get
confusion over what is meant by a "long A", because of different
conventions in different countries, but that's merely a labelling problem.
What Rob (and others, including me) have commented on is related to the
number of different "o" sounds in the language.
We can leave the thing that Americans call the "long O" (the "vote"
vowel) out of this discussion, because all dialects of English have it
in some form. There are slight differences in the way we realise it, but
the different realisations are near enough that we can all agree that
it's essentially the same vowel.
The issue arises when we talk about the cot/caught distinction in AmE.
In those dialects of AmE that have the distinction, we can talk about
the "caht" vowel and the "cawt" vowel. So far, so good. But what the
English and Australians and a few others think of as the most basic "o"
vowel, the "cot" sound, is neither of these. While some people talk of a
two-way ah/aw distinction, we have a three-way o/ah/aw, where the first
of those is our "cot" vowel. It's a sound that, apparently, does not
exist in AmE. In Kirshenbaum IPA it's represented by /A./; but that
representation does not do it justice, in my opinion, because it's
neither an "A" sound nor rounded.
It's that missing vowel that prompted the comment that Americans don't
do "o".
John Holmes
>
> It's that missing vowel that prompted the comment that Americans don't
> do "o".
Yes, they are largely non-omicronic.
Garrett Wollman
Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>The issue arises when we talk about the cot/caught distinction in AmE.
>In those dialects of AmE that have the distinction, we can talk about
>the "caht" vowel and the "cawt" vowel. So far, so good. But what the
>English and Australians and a few others think of as the most basic "o"
>vowel, the "cot" sound, is neither of these.
Right. The father/bother merger is near-universal in North America.
Robert Bannister
No. I was talking about the "o" in "hot", not the "o" in "oh".
--
Rob Bannister
Nick
> In article <iac21q$m1d$3...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> "Don Phillipson" <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>
>> "Bertel Lund Hansen" <splittemi...@lundhansen.dk> wrote in message
>> news:g16ic6h64u47alo1d...@news.dotsrc.org...
>>
>> > Does anyone know how the Japanese pronounce the name "Hiroshima"?
>>
>> The Japanese actor in the Renais film Hiroshima Mon
>> Amour says it with very brief vowels, stressed on the
>> second syllable, something like H'rosh'ma.
>
> I just asked the Japanese person in the room next door...
>
> hiROSHima
>
> With both 'i's a bit clipped.
That's interesting. I've detected a definite shift in British use from
"-ima" to "-eema" in recent years. Most shifts these days are towards
the native language pronunciation, but several messages here, including
this one, suggest that this one is not.
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
franzi
>MC <cope...@mapca.inter.net> writes:
>
>> In article <iac21q$m1d$3...@speranza.aioe.org>,
>> "Don Phillipson" <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> "Bertel Lund Hansen" <splittemi...@lundhansen.dk> wrote in message
>>> news:g16ic6h64u47alo1d...@news.dotsrc.org...
>>>
>>> > Does anyone know how the Japanese pronounce the name "Hiroshima"?
>>>
>>> The Japanese actor in the Renais film Hiroshima Mon
>>> Amour says it with very brief vowels, stressed on the
>>> second syllable, something like H'rosh'ma.
>>
>> I just asked the Japanese person in the room next door...
>>
>> hiROSHima
>>
>> With both 'i's a bit clipped.
>
>That's interesting. I've detected a definite shift in British use from
>"-ima" to "-eema" in recent years. Most shifts these days are towards
>the native language pronunciation, but several messages here, including
>this one, suggest that this one is not.
It might have started with /Hiroshima, mon amour/, but there again, it
might not (a terrible mischievous impulse of a provocateur tells me to
add "of" and see what happens. Guy Fawkes Night syndrome, I think).
--
franzi
R H Draney
>
>MC <cope...@mapca.inter.net> writes:
>
>> In article <iac21q$m1d$3...@speranza.aioe.org>,
>> "Don Phillipson" <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> "Bertel Lund Hansen" <splittemi...@lundhansen.dk> wrote in message
>>> news:g16ic6h64u47alo1d...@news.dotsrc.org...
>>>
>>> > Does anyone know how the Japanese pronounce the name "Hiroshima"?
>>>
>>> The Japanese actor in the Renais film Hiroshima Mon
>>> Amour says it with very brief vowels, stressed on the
>>> second syllable, something like H'rosh'ma.
>>
>> I just asked the Japanese person in the room next door...
>>
>> hiROSHima
>>
>> With both 'i's a bit clipped.
>
>That's interesting. I've detected a definite shift in British use from
>"-ima" to "-eema" in recent years. Most shifts these days are towards
>the native language pronunciation, but several messages here, including
>this one, suggest that this one is not.
I blame the Sons of the Pioneers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUBwEmcmm-8
....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
gary...@gmail.com
Here's what I mean. In English speaking countries, we call the country that is just east of France "Germany"...but the Germans call it "Deutschland." In Spanish speaking countries, what English speaking countries call "United States" - they call "estados Unidos." Every country and every city has its own name (and/or pronunciation) in the native language of its people.
So, it doesn't matter how the Japanese pronounce it, the correct pronunciation in English speaking countries is hi-ro-SHEE-ma.
If we are to call everything by the way native speakers say it, then we should say "Deutschland" instead of "Germany", and "Munchen" instead of "Munich", etc.
But we don't!
On Thursday, October 28, 2010 at 1:36:54 AM UTC-5, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Hi all
> Does anyone know how the Japanese pronounce the name "Hiroshima"?
>
> pronunciation has come from English.
>
> that there's a difference between right- and leftpondian:
>
> rightpondian: "hi'rosheema" (like "posh")
> leftpondian: "hi'rowsheema"
>
> Is this correct?
>
> --
> Bertel, Denmark
musika
> wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> Does anyone know how the Japanese pronounce the name "Hiroshima"?
>>
>
> So, it doesn't matter how the Japanese pronounce it, the correct
> pronunciation in English speaking countries is hi-ro-SHEE-ma.
>
Anyway, you're nearly 5 years late with your answer.
(Top posting corrected)
--
Ray
UK
Athel Cornish-Bowden
"how do the Japanese pronounce it?"
As Tony (I think, but it may have been someone else) was commenting a
few days ago, we seem to be getting more and more of these responses to
very old posts from Google gropers. It does seem as if Google have done
a new compulsory downgrade that encourages it.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
> What everyone seems to forget
"Google Groups" has nothing to do with it. (Athel, of course, jumped to the
wrong conclusion.)
musika
From <View Source> in my newsreader - "User-Agent: G2/1.0",
I can tell that the post originated in (new)GG. (G1 was the old GG.)
Will you apologise for getting it wrong?
--
Ray
UK
musika
> On 10/05/2015 18:39, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 11:48:11 AM UTC-4, gary...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> What everyone seems to forget
>>
>> See? gmail.
>>
>> "Google Groups" has nothing to do with it. (Athel, of course, jumped
>> to the
>> wrong conclusion.)
>>
> From <View Source> in my newsreader - "User-Agent: G2/1.0",
> I can tell that the post originated in (new)GG. (G1 was the old GG.)
> Will you apologise for getting it wrong?
--
Ray
UK
CDB
> gary...@gmail.com wrote:
>> What everyone seems to forget
> See? gmail.
> "Google Groups" has nothing to do with it. (Athel, of course, jumped
> to the wrong conclusion.)
Maybe they come to gmail users who use the goog as a newsclient.
Derek Turner
> So, it doesn't matter how the Japanese pronounce it, the correct
> pronunciation in English speaking countries is hi-ro-SHEE-ma.
invented it, remember us?) it is always pronounced hir-O-shim-a with the
stress on the second syllable: a short O as in dot, cot, what.
Bertel Lund Hansen
> What everyone seems to forget in conversations about the
> "correct" way to pronounce "Hiroshima" is that it doesn't
> matter how the Japanese pronounce it.
say "hiroshima" the way the Japanese do, then their pronunciation
is important. And in these international times several
geographical names have changed pronunciation in Danish. The new
ones are close to the region's own pronunciation.
I think that also English has moved from "Peking" to "Beijing".
> For people around the world, the correct way to pronounce a
> word is how it is pronounced in their own language.
pronunciation. You can't call that wrong.
The Danish geographical names are and have always been a messy
mix of pure Danish names, approximated foreign names and nearly
correct foreign names. I suspect that you will find a similar mix
in many other languages.
> If we are to call everything by the way native speakers say it,
sort.
--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark
Peter T. Daniels
> On 10/05/2015 18:39, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 11:48:11 AM UTC-4, gary...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> What everyone seems to forget
> >
> > See? gmail.
> >
> > "Google Groups" has nothing to do with it. (Athel, of course, jumped to the
> > wrong conclusion.)
> >
> By that token, your posts are from Verizon not GG = it's and email address!
old threads suddenly reappearing. GG itself doesn't make that easy to do,
since its display of thread headers puts the one with the most recently added
message at the top.
It is gmail that somehow leads users to ancient threads.
> From <View Source> in my newsreader - "User-Agent: G2/1.0",
> I can tell that the post originated in (new)GG. (G1 was the old GG.)
> Will you apologise for getting it wrong?
Peter T. Daniels
> I think that also English has moved from "Peking" to "Beijing".
adopted, centuries ago, the second consonant was indeed a stop. It has become
affricated in Mandarin meanwhile, and the 1950s romanization known as pinyin
reflects that fact.
With the recognition of "Red China" in 1972, the US wasn't far behind in using
the PRC's preferred romanizations.
NB The name "Peiping" used between the Wars was a different name for the
same city.
Robert Bannister
> What everyone seems to forget in conversations about the "correct"
> way to pronounce "Hiroshima" is that it doesn't matter how the
> Japanese pronounce it. For people around the world, the correct way
> to pronounce a word is how it is pronounced in their own language.
>
> Here's what I mean. In English speaking countries, we call the
> country that is just east of France "Germany"...but the Germans call
> it "Deutschland." In Spanish speaking countries, what English
> speaking countries call "United States" - they call "estados Unidos."
> Every country and every city has its own name (and/or pronunciation)
> in the native language of its people.
>
> So, it doesn't matter how the Japanese pronounce it, the correct
> pronunciation in English speaking countries is hi-ro-SHEE-ma.
"hi-ROSH-ima"? Who claims they are wrong apart from you.
--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia
Sneaky O. Possum
news:ca004224-acef-48c3...@googlegroups.com:
> On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 1:52:39 PM UTC-4, musika wrote:
>> On 10/05/2015 18:39, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 11:48:11 AM UTC-4, gary...@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> What everyone seems to forget
>> >
>> > See? gmail.
>> >
>> > "Google Groups" has nothing to do with it. (Athel, of course,
>> > jumped to the wrong conclusion.)
>> >
>> By that token, your posts are from Verizon not GG = it's and email
>> address!
>
> Sure. But that's not the point. The problem is 25- (or in this case
> 5-)year- old threads suddenly reappearing. GG itself doesn't make that
> easy to do, since its display of thread headers puts the one with the
> most recently added message at the top.
users. The search feature in Google Groups makes it *very* easy to find
an old thread and post a response to it. Yes, if you look at a
particular newsgroup in GG, the default display shows the most recently-
updated threads first: but if you use the 'Search for topics' box to
look for a topic of interest, you will *not* get the most recently-
updated thread first. For example, a search on the words 'tomato' and
'pronunciation' returns a list of threads sorted by 'relevance': the
first result out of 1,189 takes you to a thread from 1997.
What's more likely - that an inexperienced Google Groups user who wants
to discuss the pronunciation of 'tomato' is going to look for a
newsgroup that has neither the word 'tomato' nor 'pronunciation' in its
name, join that newsgroup, and use the 'NEW TOPIC' button to start a new
thread; or that he's going to search for 'tomato pronunciation', click
on the first result, and use the 'POST REPLY' button at the top of the
page, not realizing how the regular posters to that group will react?
> It is gmail that somehow leads users to ancient threads.
thread because I use a gmail address? No, and you never will, because I
have experience using newsgroups.
Other regulars here who are also gmail users and don't post responses to
ancient threads include Snidely (who also posts from Google Groups),
Tony Cooper, Iain Archer, and David Kleinecke. Gmail isn't leading us to
ancient threads for the same reason Google Groups isn't leading you or
Snidely to them.
>> From <View Source> in my newsreader - "User-Agent: G2/1.0",
>> I can tell that the post originated in (new)GG. (G1 was the old GG.)
>> Will you apologise for getting it wrong?
>
> No. The post "originated" in gary...'s computer, who uses gmail.
somehow leading all of its users to ancient threads, you'd expect me
(and Snidely, and Tony, and Iain, etc.) to respond to decades-old posts.
Yet we don't. The people who do are simply inexperienced.
--
S.O.P.
David Kleinecke
>
> Other regulars here who are also gmail users and don't post responses to
> ancient threads include Snidely (who also posts from Google Groups),
> Tony Cooper, Iain Archer, and David Kleinecke. Gmail isn't leading us to
> ancient threads for the same reason Google Groups isn't leading you or
> Snidely to them.
from gmail. I believe that GG uses gmail to access the Usenet.
But I also believe that search is the culprit as explained.
Peter T. Daniels
I have occasionally Searched something in GG. The default is "Relevance,"
and (as I noted) that never turns up anything relevant, so I click "Date"
and the most recent comes first.
Unlike those of the posters who revive ancient threads, your identifier at the
top doesn't reveal your gmail domain.
Guy Barry
news:XnsA496C0BF47CF6sn...@213.239.209.88...
>It's not gmail, and it's not Google Groups, either. It's inexperienced
>users. The search feature in Google Groups makes it *very* easy to find
>an old thread and post a response to it. Yes, if you look at a
>particular newsgroup in GG, the default display shows the most recently-
>updated threads first: but if you use the 'Search for topics' box to
>look for a topic of interest, you will *not* get the most recently-
>updated thread first. For example, a search on the words 'tomato' and
>'pronunciation' returns a list of threads sorted by 'relevance': the
>first result out of 1,189 takes you to a thread from 1997.
>
>What's more likely - that an inexperienced Google Groups user who wants
>to discuss the pronunciation of 'tomato' is going to look for a
>newsgroup that has neither the word 'tomato' nor 'pronunciation' in its
>name, join that newsgroup, and use the 'NEW TOPIC' button to start a new
>thread; or that he's going to search for 'tomato pronunciation', click
>on the first result, and use the 'POST REPLY' button at the top of the
>page, not realizing how the regular posters to that group will react?
it.
>> It is gmail that somehow leads users to ancient threads.
>
>Nonsense. Have you ever noticed me posting a response to an ancient
>thread because I use a gmail address? No, and you never will, because I
>have experience using newsgroups.
newsgroups. However, I would suggest that new users joining Google Groups
are perhaps more likely to create a gmail address for the purpose than any
other address, given that both services are run by Google. As I mentioned
previously, GG won't even allow me to post using my blueyonder.co.uk address
any more.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
news:d860a088-4ec4-4e74...@googlegroups.com...
>On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 6:56:54 PM UTC-7, Sneaky Possum wrote:
>>
>> Other regulars here who are also gmail users and don't post responses to
>> ancient threads include Snidely (who also posts from Google Groups),
>> Tony Cooper, Iain Archer, and David Kleinecke. Gmail isn't leading us to
>> ancient threads for the same reason Google Groups isn't leading you or
>> Snidely to them.
>
>Curious. I always use Google Groups. I confess to not knowing how to post
>from gmail.
any webmail service.
--
Guy Barry
Peter T. Daniels
> Indeed - one's email address has no bearing on the way one posts to
> newsgroups. However, I would suggest that new users joining Google Groups
> are perhaps more likely to create a gmail address for the purpose than any
> other address, given that both services are run by Google. As I mentioned
> previously, GG won't even allow me to post using my blueyonder.co.uk address
> any more.
for the International Linguistic Association, where videos of a couple of the
monthly talks were posted (every talk over two or three seasons was video'd).
It turns out that you need to have a gmail account and a password to do anything
with the "Channel" (such as post either archival or current videos). Someone
current may know who was responsible for that, all those years ago, who might
somewhere have a record of the password, but that person may be deceased (BrE:
dead).
Sneaky O. Possum
[snip]
> > >> I can tell that the post originated in (new)GG. (G1 was the old GG.)
> > >> Will you apologise for getting it wrong?
> > > No. The post "originated" in gary...'s computer, who uses gmail.
> >
> > And my posts 'originate' in my computer, and I use gmail. If gmail were
> > somehow leading all of its users to ancient threads, you'd expect me
> > (and Snidely, and Tony, and Iain, etc.) to respond to decades-old posts.
> > Yet we don't. The people who do are simply inexperienced.
>
> Et tu, Sneaky? When did I _ever_ say "all"?
> I have occasionally Searched something in GG. The default is "Relevance,"
> and (as I noted) that never turns up anything relevant, so I click "Date"
> and the most recent comes first.
> Unlike those of the posters who revive ancient threads, your identifier at
> the top doesn't reveal your gmail domain.
--
S.O.P.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 8:52:55 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> [snip]
> > > >> From <View Source> in my newsreader - "User-Agent: G2/1.0",
> > > >> I can tell that the post originated in (new)GG. (G1 was the old GG.)
> > > >> Will you apologise for getting it wrong?
> > > > No. The post "originated" in gary...'s computer, who uses gmail.
> > >
> > > And my posts 'originate' in my computer, and I use gmail. If gmail were
> > > somehow leading all of its users to ancient threads, you'd expect me
> > > (and Snidely, and Tony, and Iain, etc.) to respond to decades-old posts.
> > > Yet we don't. The people who do are simply inexperienced.
> >
> > Et tu, Sneaky? When did I _ever_ say "all"?
>
> You didn't have to. Your words were 'It is gmail that somehow leads users to ancient threads.' The absence of qualification before 'users' implies that all gmail users are affected by your notional gmail bug.
> > I have occasionally Searched something in GG. The default is "Relevance,"
> > and (as I noted) that never turns up anything relevant, so I click "Date"
> > and the most recent comes first.
>
> When did you last do a search? The GG results screen no longer displays the option of sorting by date.
complain that I'm "leaving the message.")
Peter T. Daniels
> On Monday, May 11, 2015 at 10:35:44 AM UTC-4, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 8:52:55 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
First I Searched (in my usual style) < grammatim red bulls >, since I knew I'd
just posted using that term: No Results. So I tried < red bulls >, and there
were my recent messages, with the option to sort by "Relevance" or "Date." So
apparently you can no longer include the sender in the Search request.
Traddict
"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de groupe
de discussion : KUY3x.417562$ob3.1...@fx47.am4...
>
> --
> Guy Barry
j...@mdfs.net
> In any case, the question wasn't "how should we pronounce it?", but
> "how do the Japanese pronounce it?"
British pronounce X?" The answer is: "which Japanese?"
I have known quite a few Japanese people and pronounciation I have
heard ranges from Hi/ro/shi/ma to Hi/roh/shee/ma to H/ro/sh/ma.
jgh
charles
> What everyone seems to forget in conversations about the "correct" way to
> pronounce "Hiroshima" is that it doesn't matter how the Japanese
> pronounce it. For people around the world, the correct way to pronounce
> a word is how it is pronounced in their own language.
> Here's what I mean. In English speaking countries, we call the country
> that is just east of France "Germany"...but the Germans call it
> "Deutschland." In Spanish speaking countries, what English speaking
> countries call "United States" - they call "estados Unidos." Every
> country and every city has its own name (and/or pronunciation) in the
> native language of its people.
> So, it doesn't matter how the Japanese pronounce it, the correct
> pronunciation in English speaking countries is hi-ro-SHEE-ma.
> If we are to call everything by the way native speakers say it, then we
> should say "Deutschland" instead of "Germany", and "Munchen" instead of
> "Munich", etc.
> But we don't!
Myanamar, etc.
--
From KT24 in Surrey
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> In any case, the question wasn't "how should we pronounce it?", but
>> "how do the Japanese pronounce it?"
>
> The answer to that is exactly the same as to the question "how do the
> British pronounce X?" The answer is: "which Japanese?"
was to a different question from the one asked.
> I have known quite a few Japanese people and pronounciation I have
> heard ranges from Hi/ro/shi/ma to Hi/roh/shee/ma to H/ro/sh/ma.
athel
Robert Bannister
dialect/language thing like Bombay/Mumbai.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma#Etymology
In 1989, the military government officially changed the English
translations of many names dating back to Burma's colonial period or
earlier, including that of the country itself: "Burma" became
"Myanmar". The renaming remains a contested issue.[23] Many
political and ethnic opposition groups and countries continue to use
"Burma" because they do not recognise the legitimacy of the ruling
military government or its authority to rename the country.[24]
The country's official full name is the "Republic of the Union of
Myanmar" (??????????? ????? ?????????????????, Pyidaunzu Thanmada
Myama Nainngandaw, pronounced: [pjìdà??z? ?à?m?da? mj?mà
nà???à?d?`]). Some countries, however, have not recognised this name
and use the short form "Union of Burma" instead.
Much more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Burma
Including:
In English, the official name chosen for the country at the time of
independence was "Burma". This was already the name that the British
called their colony before 1948. This name most likely comes from
Portuguese Birmania and was adopted by English in the 18th century.
The Portuguese name itself came from the Indian name Barma which was
borrowed by the Portuguese from any of the Indian languages in the
16th or 17th century. This Indian name Barma may derive from
colloquial Burmese Bama, but it may also derive from the Indian name
Brahma-desh.
....
In 1989, the military regime of Burma set up a commission in charge
of reviewing the place names of Burma in the English language. The
aim of the commission was to correct the spelling of the place names
of Burma in English, in order to discard spellings chosen by British
colonial authorities in the 19th century, and adopt spellings closer
to the actual Burmese pronunciation (compare with what happened in
India with Calcutta/Kolkata and Calicut/Kozhikode). These renamings
took the form of the "Adaptation of Expressions Law", passed on 18
June 1989. Thus, for instance, Rangoon was changed to Yangon to
reflect the fact that the "r" sound is no longer used in Standard
Burmese and merged with a "y" glide.[9]
As for the country's name, the commission decided to replace the
English name "Burma" with "Myanmar", for three reasons. First,
Myanma is the official name of the country in the Burmese language,
and the aim of the commission was to have English place names
aligned with Burmese place names and pronunciation. Second, the
commission thought that the name Myanma was more inclusive of
minorities than the name Bama, and wanted the English name of the
country to reflect this. Finally, the military regime has long been
suspicious of the colloquial Burmese language, which it perceives as
subversive; the English name "Burma" mirrors the colloquial Burmese
name Bama.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Snidely
> [snip]
>> and (as I noted) that never turns up anything relevant, so I click "Date"
>> and the most recent comes first.
>
> When did you last do a search? The GG results screen no longer displays the
> option of sorting by date.
because I've done multiple searches quite recently.
But I took the precaution of testing it before replying. It appears
that "sort by date" no longer appears because they no longer default to
"sort by relevance", nor is there an obvious button for "sort by
relevance".
(I tried both a seach by authorname and a search by "contains the
words" (as in grep the content).)
/dps
--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain
Guy Barry
>Sneaky O. Possum was thinking very hard :
>> On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 8:52:55 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> [snip]
>
>>> I have occasionally Searched something in GG. The default is
>>> "Relevance," and (as I noted) that never turns up anything relevant, so
>>> I click "Date" and the most recent comes first.
>>
>> When did you last do a search? The GG results screen no longer displays
>> the option of sorting by date.
by date" option then?
>That's a very recent change. Like since the start of May, I think, because
>I've done multiple searches quite recently.
>
>But I took the precaution of testing it before replying. It appears that
>"sort by date" no longer appears because they no longer default to "sort by
>relevance", nor is there an obvious button for "sort by relevance".
are clearly marked "sorted by relevance", but with no option for changing
the order that I can see.
--
Guy Barry
Snidely
format, as in "compact list view" (which is how I view the group in
GG).
/dps
--
The presence of this syntax results from the fact that SQLite is really
a Tcl extension that has escaped into the wild.
<http://www.sqlite.org/lang_expr.html>
Snidely
>> "Snidely" wrote in message news:mn.88137df5fc251243.127094@snitoo...
>>>
>>>Sneaky O. Possum was thinking very hard :
>>>> On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 8:52:55 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>> I have occasionally Searched something in GG. The default is
>>>>> "Relevance," and (as I noted) that never turns up anything relevant, so
>>>>> I click "Date" and the most recent comes first.
>>>>
>>>> When did you last do a search? The GG results screen no longer displays
>>>> the option of sorting by date.
>>
>> You're right, it doesn't. I hadn't noticed that. How do you get the "sort
>> by date" option then?
>>
>>>That's a very recent change. Like since the start of May, I think, because
>>> I've done multiple searches quite recently.
>>>
>>>But I took the precaution of testing it before replying. It appears that
>>> "sort by date" no longer appears because they no longer default to "sort
>>> by relevance", nor is there an obvious button for "sort by relevance".
>>
>> They do default to "sort by relevance". The results I've just searched for
>> are clearly marked "sorted by relevance", but with no option for changing
>> the order that I can see.
>
> The results I just saw were clearly sorted by date. And in one-line format,
> as in "compact list view" (which is how I view the group in GG).
/dps
--
Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence
went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his
precious heavy water.
_The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean
Guy Barry
>On Sunday, Guy Barry yelped out that:
>> "Snidely" wrote in message news:mn.88137df5fc251243.127094@snitoo...
>>>
>>>Sneaky O. Possum was thinking very hard :
>>>> On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 8:52:55 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>> I have occasionally Searched something in GG. The default is
>>>>> "Relevance," and (as I noted) that never turns up anything relevant,
>>>>> so I click "Date" and the most recent comes first.
>>>>
>>>> When did you last do a search? The GG results screen no longer displays
>>>> the option of sorting by date.
>>
>> You're right, it doesn't. I hadn't noticed that. How do you get the
>> "sort by date" option then?
>>
>>>That's a very recent change. Like since the start of May, I think,
>>>because I've done multiple searches quite recently.
>>>
>>>But I took the precaution of testing it before replying. It appears that
>>>"sort by date" no longer appears because they no longer default to "sort
>>>by relevance", nor is there an obvious button for "sort by relevance".
>>
>> They do default to "sort by relevance". The results I've just searched
>> for are clearly marked "sorted by relevance", but with no option for
>> changing the order that I can see.
>
>The results I just saw were clearly sorted by date. And in one-line
>format, as in "compact list view" (which is how I view the group in GG).
imitation of a naive user, I typed "tomato pronunciation" straight into the
search box on the home page and got the following results:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/tomato$20pronunciation
They're definitely marked "sorted by relevance". How did you search?
--
Guy Barry
musika
> "Snidely" wrote in message news:mn.884b7df5aa8bcd3d.127094@snitoo...
>> format, as in "compact list view" (which is how I view the group in GG).
>
> Hmm, well maybe you're searching differently from the way I did it. In
> imitation of a naive user, I typed "tomato pronunciation" straight into
> the search box on the home page and got the following results:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/tomato$20pronunciation
>
> They're definitely marked "sorted by relevance". How did you search?
>
searching within a particular group (Snidely).
--
Ray
UK
Guy Barry
got the following list:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.usage.english/tomato$20pronunciation|sort:relevance
As you can see, it defaults to "sort by relevance", although in this case I
do get the option of sorting by date:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.usage.english/tomato$20pronunciation|sort:date
So maybe Snidely's got GG configured differently - and I suspect PTD has as
well, since he claims that his results come up sorted by date as default.
In any case, it's more likely that a naive user would search from the "root"
than come to an individual group - they're unlikely to know the names of
individual groups.
--
Guy Barry
musika
"search for tomato pronunciation in alt.usage.english" (you), and
"search for topics containing tomato pronunciation in alt.usage.english"
(me).
<https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topicsearchin/alt.usage.english/tomato$20pronunciation>
--
Ray
UK
Guy Barry
--
Guy Barry
musika
> "musika" wrote in message news:mj9qcg$mn3$1...@dont-email.me...
>> "search for tomato pronunciation in alt.usage.english" (you), and
>> "search for topics containing tomato pronunciation in alt.usage.english"
>> (me).
>>
>> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!topicsearchin/alt.usage.english/tomato$20pronunciation>
>
> What did you do to get that list? I can't reproduce it at all.
>
--
Ray
UK
Guy Barry
That's the second option on the menu, so it's unlikely that a naive user
would choose it. The default is "search for tomato pronunciation in
alt.usage.english", which returns results by default ordered by relevance.
Quite why GG should order the two options differently is a complete mystery
to me.
--
Guy Barry
Peter Moylan
are not accessible unless you agree to join their club.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
> "musika" wrote in message news:mj9odg$giu$1...@dont-email.me...
> >
> >On 17/05/2015 09:18, Guy Barry wrote:
> >> "Snidely" wrote in message news:mn.884b7df5aa8bcd3d.127094@snitoo...
> >>> The results I just saw were clearly sorted by date. And in one-line
> >>> format, as in "compact list view" (which is how I view the group in GG).
> >>
> >> Hmm, well maybe you're searching differently from the way I did it. In
> >> imitation of a naive user, I typed "tomato pronunciation" straight into
> >> the search box on the home page and got the following results:
> >>
> >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/tomato$20pronunciation
> >>
> >> They're definitely marked "sorted by relevance". How did you search?
> >>
> >It's the difference between searching from the "root" of GG (you) and
> >searching within a particular group (Snidely).
>
> Well, I've just searched for "tomato pronunciation" within this group and
> got the following list:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.usage.english/tomato$20pronunciation|sort:relevance
>
> As you can see, it defaults to "sort by relevance", although in this case I
> do get the option of sorting by date:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.usage.english/tomato$20pronunciation|sort:date
>
> So maybe Snidely's got GG configured differently - and I suspect PTD has as
> well, since he claims that his results come up sorted by date as default.
think something very strange is going on with "tomato pronunciation," and it
comes up "by relevance" in the order
97
06
this thread
02
03
14
96
04
...
and the "by date" link in blue is next to the "by relevance" label in black.
When you choose "by date," they change to a blue link and a black label.
Guy Barry
>On 17/05/15 20:41, Guy Barry wrote:
>> What did you do to get that list? I can't reproduce it at all.
>
>Do you have a Google account?
>I've been told that there are options that
>are not accessible unless you agree to join their club.
--
Guy Barry
David Kleinecke
I could get search hits in Google Groups up until quite recently - but
I can't get any now. I tested "Amarakaeri" and several other extremely
obscure terms I know have been used in GG. So what I just said is an
experimental hypothesis rather than a known fact. But it fits.
The changeover came at approximately the same time the old threads
started appearing.
My guess is that Google now expects one to search in GG for Usenet
material and not in the general search. This explains why the poster
behavior changed when it did.