Jeopardy! gaffe

[Peter T. Daniels]

I can understand Ken Jennings thinking "knot" and "naught" are
homophones, because he's from Utah, but the entire staff??

The category was "Homophones," and they gave a pair of
definitions.

And where are Amy Schneider and the creep Amodio? The
18 contestants in the Tournament of Champions will not
have included them by Monday (Monday's matchup was
announced at the end of Friday), and the 6 winners will
face off in the semifinals on Tuesday and Wednesday,
and somehow they will have three finalists on Thursday
and Friday. (Maybe the highest scorer among the four
losers on Tuesday and Wednesday?)

And many of the "second chancers" said they were
looking forward to a rematch with one or the other.

[Quinn C]

* Peter T. Daniels:

> I can understand Ken Jennings thinking "knot" and "naught" are
> homophones, because he's from Utah, but the entire staff??
>
> The category was "Homophones," and they gave a pair of
> definitions.

I get the impression that "close enough" counts. Is cot/caught the only
exception?

> And where are Amy Schneider and the creep Amodio? The
> 18 contestants in the Tournament of Champions will not
> have included them by Monday (Monday's matchup was
> announced at the end of Friday),

I think they get to skip the first round. Mattea, too.

> And many of the "second chancers" said they were
> looking forward to a rematch with one or the other.

Yes. I was happy that those who didn't look for a rematch mentioned
looking forward to meeting Amy or Mattea, but never Matt.

--
The seeds of new thought, sown in a ground that isn't prepared
to receive them, don't bear fruit.
-- Hedwig Dohm (1874), my translation

[S K]

never have more linguists been more wrong about a more trivial matter than "cot caught".

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 10:29:38 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:

> > I can understand Ken Jennings thinking "knot" and "naught" are
> > homophones, because he's from Utah, but the entire staff??
> > The category was "Homophones," and they gave a pair of
> > definitions.
>
> I get the impression that "close enough" counts. Is cot/caught the only
> exception?

Mary/marry/merry, of course. Unlike Will Shortz, they haven't
misused any of those.

NB all 5 of those vowels (plus LOT!) are distinct in BrE.

> > And where are Amy Schneider and the creep Amodio? The
> > 18 contestants in the Tournament of Champions will not
> > have included them by Monday (Monday's matchup was
> > announced at the end of Friday),
>
> I think they get to skip the first round. Mattea, too.
>
> > And many of the "second chancers" said they were
> > looking forward to a rematch with one or the other.
>
> Yes. I was happy that those who didn't look for a rematch mentioned
> looking forward to meeting Amy or Mattea, but never Matt.

So you think those three will get an episode to themselves? But
that doesn't fit into the 10-day scheme.

[Peter Moylan]

On 07/11/22 01:45, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 10:29:38 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>
>>> I can understand Ken Jennings thinking "knot" and "naught" are
>>> homophones, because he's from Utah, but the entire staff?? The
>>> category was "Homophones," and they gave a pair of definitions.
>>
>> I get the impression that "close enough" counts. Is cot/caught the
>> only exception?
>
> Mary/marry/merry, of course. Unlike Will Shortz, they haven't misused
> any of those.
>
> NB all 5 of those vowels (plus LOT!) are distinct in BrE.

And elsewhere. They are five distinct vowels in my speech, for example.
But I do have the same vowel in "lot" and "cot".

In addition, the distinction in my dialect between "Mary" and "merry" is
a length distinction, not a vowel quality distinction. This tends to be
overlooked by AmE speakers, who seem to be unable to hear length
distinctions.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[Dingbat]

On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 1:48:24 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> I can understand Ken Jennings thinking "knot" and "naught" are
> homophones, because he's from Utah, but the entire staff??
>
> The category was "Homophones," and they gave a pair of
> definitions.
>

In UK English. north, naught and nought have a closed long vowel [ɔː]
whereas ought, not and knot have an open short one [ɒ].

That these staff find such homophony suggests that naught, nought, not
and knot are pronounced the same in the US.

That reminds me:
A lady on an Amtrak train introduced her daughter to me as
"Lauren pronounced the same as the boy's name Loren."
Well, Sophia Loren doesn't pronounce her last name like Lauren.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 11:27:14 AM UTC-5, Dingbat wrote:

> That these staff find such homophony suggests that naught, nought, not
> and knot are pronounced the same in the US.

How many decades have you been visiting here and you don't know
about the cot/caught merger west of the Mississippi -- and throughout
Canada?

[Dingbat]

... suggests to the uninitiated viewer, not me in particular.

[S K]

He wouldn't know even if he visits for a million years since it is undefined and mostly a fiction of linguists' imagination.

[Janet]

In article <a1b16251-695a-47fe-bf26-
c4d7a2...@googlegroups.com>, ranjit_...@yahoo.com
says...

>
> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 1:48:24 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > I can understand Ken Jennings thinking "knot" and "naught" are
> > homophones, because he's from Utah, but the entire staff??
> >
> > The category was "Homophones," and they gave a pair of
> > definitions.
> >

> In UK English. north, naught and nought have a closed long vowel [??]
> whereas ought, not and knot have an open short one [?].

In my Br E, ought does not have the same vowel as
not/knot.

Janet

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Nor in mine

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

+1;
naught and nought are identical as in 'nautilus', 'nortbynortwest';
knot and not, also identical

In some circumstances 'nowt' is acceptable for 'nought'.
But I wudnae know owt abowt that.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[Quinn C]

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 10:29:38 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>

>>> And where are Amy Schneider and the creep Amodio? The
>>> 18 contestants in the Tournament of Champions will not
>>> have included them by Monday (Monday's matchup was
>>> announced at the end of Friday),
>>
>> I think they get to skip the first round. Mattea, too.
>>
>>> And many of the "second chancers" said they were
>>> looking forward to a rematch with one or the other.
>>
>> Yes. I was happy that those who didn't look for a rematch mentioned
>> looking forward to meeting Amy or Mattea, but never Matt.
>
> So you think those three will get an episode to themselves? But
> that doesn't fit into the 10-day scheme.

No, they will be plopped into the semi-finals.

Here's all the details:
<https://www.jeopardy.com/contestant-zone/2022/tournament-champions>

Each of the three "super-champs" will appear in one of the three
semi-finals.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

[Paul Wolff]

On Sun, 6 Nov 2022, at 18:44:27, Janet posted:
>c4d7a2...@googlegroups.com>, ranjit_...@yahoo.com

>> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 1:48:24 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>> > I can understand Ken Jennings thinking "knot" and "naught" are
>> > homophones, because he's from Utah, but the entire staff??
>> >
>> > The category was "Homophones," and they gave a pair of
>> > definitions.
>> >
>> In UK English. north, naught and nought have a closed long vowel [??]
>> whereas ought, not and knot have an open short one [?].
>
> In my Br E, ought does not have the same vowel as
>not/knot.
>

Nor in mine - ought belongs in the nought box.

Out of curiosity - is your Br E a sort of E E or a sort of Sc E?
--
Paul

[Dingbat]

Interesting. Do you ever shorten <ought to>? It can sound like your <otter>
or <odder> when shortened in EnUS.

I hadn't noticed that what the Cambridge Dictionary gave was
only a EnUS pronunciation. For <aught>, however, it gives both UK and US
pronunciations. How odd! Searching their Essential British English
dictionary, I get their EnUK pronunciation:

/ɔːt/. That is also their EnUK pronunciation of <aught>

[CDB]

On 11/6/2022 12:14 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Dingbat wrote:

>> That these staff find such homophony suggests that naught, nought,
>> not and knot are pronounced the same in the US.

> How many decades have you been visiting here and you don't know about
> the cot/caught merger west of the Mississippi -- and throughout
> Canada?

Some people in the Atlantic Provinces make the distinctiom.

[CDB]

On 11/6/2022 1:44 PM, Janet wrote:
> ranjit_...@yahoo.com says...

>> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 1:48:24 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels
>> wrote:
>>> I can understand Ken Jennings thinking "knot" and "naught" are
>>> homophones, because he's from Utah, but the entire staff??

>>> The category was "Homophones," and they gave a pair of
>>> definitions.

>> In UK English. north, naught and nought have a closed long vowel
>> [??] whereas ought, not and knot have an open short one [?].

> In my Br E, ought does not have the same vowel as not/knot.

Nor even in my CanE, in the case of "nought", which I sometimes
pronounce "nowt" [naUt].

[Janet]

In article <fae104e7-7f99-437b-b91b-
2e5354...@googlegroups.com>, ranjit_...@yahoo.com
says...

>
> On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 10:44:33 AM UTC-8, Janet wrote:
> > In article <a1b16251-695a-47fe-bf26-
> > c4d7a2...@googlegroups.com>, ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> > says...
> > >
> > > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 1:48:24 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > I can understand Ken Jennings thinking "knot" and "naught" are
> > > > homophones, because he's from Utah, but the entire staff??
> > > >
> > > > The category was "Homophones," and they gave a pair of
> > > > definitions.
> > > >
> > > In UK English. north, naught and nought have a closed long vowel [??]
> > > whereas ought, not and knot have an open short one [?].
> >
> > In my Br E, ought does not have the same vowel as
> > not/knot.
> >
> Interesting. Do you ever shorten <ought to>? It can sound like your <otter>
> or <odder> when shortened in EnUS.

I sorta know waddya mean but I do not speak like that
becuz I aint merkin.

Janet

>
> I hadn't noticed that what the Cambridge Dictionary gave was
> only a EnUS pronunciation. For <aught>, however, it gives both UK and US
> pronunciations. How odd! Searching their Essential British English
> dictionary, I get their EnUK pronunciation:
>

> /??t/. That is also their EnUK pronunciation of <aught>

[Peter Moylan]

Is there any version of English, apart from those with the cot/caught
merger, where "ought" has the same vowel as "not"?

I guess I'm really asking whether there is any English-speaking
community that has a partial, but not complete, merger.

[Janet]

In article <JidEJeRX...@wolff.co.uk>,
boun...@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk says...

I'm bilingual.

Janet

[Janet]

In article <tkav33$6sj$3...@gioia.aioe.org>,
belle...@gmail.com says...

In North England, nowt is a common dialect/slang term
(nothing) similar to nought. But it's always spelled nowt
and rhymes with out.

I've done nowt, it's got nowt to do with me.
It cost me nowt.

Nowt is not used when naming digit 0


Janet



Janet.

Janet

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 6:54:13 PM UTC-5, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:
> > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 10:29:38 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> >> * Peter T. Daniels:

> >>> And where are Amy Schneider and the creep Amodio? The
> >>> 18 contestants in the Tournament of Champions will not
> >>> have included them by Monday (Monday's matchup was
> >>> announced at the end of Friday),
> >> I think they get to skip the first round. Mattea, too.

Is Mattea the one with Kristen Wiig-like tiny hands who gestured
like a femme gay man? I'd forgotten about her.

> >>> And many of the "second chancers" said they were
> >>> looking forward to a rematch with one or the other.
> >> Yes. I was happy that those who didn't look for a rematch mentioned
> >> looking forward to meeting Amy or Mattea, but never Matt.
> > So you think those three will get an episode to themselves? But
> > that doesn't fit into the 10-day scheme.
>
> No, they will be plopped into the semi-finals.

So much for democracy.

> Here's all the details:
> <https://www.jeopardy.com/contestant-zone/2022/tournament-champions>

So they've abandoned the two-day aggregate final.

> Each of the three "super-champs" will appear in one of the three
> semi-finals.

Assuaging Ken's lust for "tournaments"? Do they have Nielsen
evidence that the audience prefers "tournaments" to real games?
Maybe their biggest mistake was changing from five-and-out
(like all the other game shows that had returning contestants)
to indefinite runs.

And then there are between three and seven "finals" games, first one
to three wins wins.

That seems to need between one and two additional weeks. Must be
driving the local affiliates crazy. (Of course it's already completely
done, so they've told them how to schedule around them.)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 7:24:15 PM UTC-5, Dingbat wrote:

> Interesting. Do you ever shorten <ought to>? It can sound like your <otter>
> or <odder> when shortened in EnUS.

Only among cot;/caught mergerers.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Something different was asserted here just a few weeks ago, and
happened to be confirmed when one of the hurricanes reached the
area and locals talked about the "wahter."

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 8:22:50 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
> In article <fae104e7-7f99-437b-b91b-
> 2e5354...@googlegroups.com>, ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> says...

> > Interesting. Do you ever shorten <ought to>? It can sound like your <otter>
> > or <odder> when shortened in EnUS.
>
> I sorta know waddya mean but I do not speak like that
> becuz I aint merkin.

That should be "watcha," because "what do you" is not the same
as "what you."

I don't recognize "becuz."

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 8:27:13 AM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:

> Is there any version of English, apart from those with the cot/caught
> merger, where "ought" has the same vowel as "not"?
>
> I guess I'm really asking whether there is any English-speaking
> community that has a partial, but not complete, merger.

In Chicago, which doesn't have the merger,* the proper names
Toyota (the car) and Loyola (the university) have [a] rather than
[O] in the first syllable. It struck me as quite odd until I recognized
that it might be the leading edge of a trend, but it seems not to
have been.

The local pronunciation of the city name has [O], whereas
elsewhere it has [a]. It's a distinction locals like to emphasize.

[Quinn C]

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 6:54:13 PM UTC-5, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 10:29:38 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>
>>>>> And where are Amy Schneider and the creep Amodio? The
>>>>> 18 contestants in the Tournament of Champions will not
>>>>> have included them by Monday (Monday's matchup was
>>>>> announced at the end of Friday),
>>>> I think they get to skip the first round. Mattea, too.
>
> Is Mattea the one with Kristen Wiig-like tiny hands who gestured
> like a femme gay man? I'd forgotten about her.

Can't help you there; I remember you saying something like that about
someone, but I never noticed small hands on any contestant or on Kristen
Wiig.

Of course I remember Mattea as the most successful Canadian so far, by a
large margin. Also, she reminds me of a former member of our queer book
club, so I was not surprised to learn she's queer, too.

>>>>> And many of the "second chancers" said they were
>>>>> looking forward to a rematch with one or the other.
>>>> Yes. I was happy that those who didn't look for a rematch mentioned
>>>> looking forward to meeting Amy or Mattea, but never Matt.
>>> So you think those three will get an episode to themselves? But
>>> that doesn't fit into the 10-day scheme.
>>
>> No, they will be plopped into the semi-finals.
>
> So much for democracy.

When did democracy ever come into this?

--
I don't see people ... as having a right to be idiots. It's
just impractical to try to stop them, unless they're hurting
somebody. -- Vicereine Cordelia
in L. McMaster Bujold, Gentleman Jole and the Red Queen

[Ken Blake]

Nor does it in my AmE.

[Ken Blake]

>In article <fae104e7-7f99-437b-b91b-
>2e5354...@googlegroups.com>, ranjit_...@yahoo.com
>says...
>>
>> On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 10:44:33 AM UTC-8, Janet wrote:
>> > In article <a1b16251-695a-47fe-bf26-
>> > c4d7a2...@googlegroups.com>, ranjit_...@yahoo.com
>> > says...
>> > >
>> > > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 1:48:24 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > > > I can understand Ken Jennings thinking "knot" and "naught" are
>> > > > homophones, because he's from Utah, but the entire staff??
>> > > >
>> > > > The category was "Homophones," and they gave a pair of
>> > > > definitions.
>> > > >
>> > > In UK English. north, naught and nought have a closed long vowel [??]
>> > > whereas ought, not and knot have an open short one [?].
>> >
>> > In my Br E, ought does not have the same vowel as
>> > not/knot.
>> >
>> Interesting. Do you ever shorten <ought to>? It can sound like your <otter>
>> or <odder> when shortened in EnUS.

No, it doesn't sound like that in AmE (at least not in the AmE
versions I've heard). it sounds like AWE-da. By AWE, I mean the way
the word "awe" is pronounced, rhyming with a non-rhotic "oar."

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 10:18:10 AM UTC-5, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:
> > On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 6:54:13 PM UTC-5, Quinn C wrote:
> >> * Peter T. Daniels:
> >>> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 10:29:38 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> >>>> * Peter T. Daniels:

> >>>>> And where are Amy Schneider and the creep Amodio? The
> >>>>> 18 contestants in the Tournament of Champions will not
> >>>>> have included them by Monday (Monday's matchup was
> >>>>> announced at the end of Friday),
> >>>> I think they get to skip the first round. Mattea, too.
> > Is Mattea the one with Kristen Wiig-like tiny hands who gestured
> > like a femme gay man? I'd forgotten about her.
>
> Can't help you there; I remember you saying something like that about
> someone, but I never noticed small hands on any contestant or on Kristen
> Wiig.

You only just mentioned you don't watch SNL. It was one of her
incomprehensible recurring characters.

> Of course I remember Mattea as the most successful Canadian so far, by a
> large margin. Also, she reminds me of a former member of our queer book
> club, so I was not surprised to learn she's queer, too.
>
> >>>>> And many of the "second chancers" said they were
> >>>>> looking forward to a rematch with one or the other.
> >>>> Yes. I was happy that those who didn't look for a rematch mentioned
> >>>> looking forward to meeting Amy or Mattea, but never Matt.
> >>> So you think those three will get an episode to themselves? But
> >>> that doesn't fit into the 10-day scheme.
> >> No, they will be plopped into the semi-finals.
> > So much for democracy.
>
> When did democracy ever come into this?

It's how tournaments are usually done ... cf. the NCAA's March
Madness.

It seems more complicated than any of Lewis Carroll's schemes
for a "fair" tennis tournament.

[Paul Wolff]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2022, at 13:34:55, Janet posted:
>In article <JidEJeRX...@wolff.co.uk>,

>> On Sun, 6 Nov 2022, at 18:44:27, Janet posted:
>> >c4d7a2...@googlegroups.com>, ranjit_...@yahoo.com
>> >>

>> >> In UK English. north, naught and nought have a closed long vowel [??]
>> >> whereas ought, not and knot have an open short one [?].
>> >
>> > In my Br E, ought does not have the same vowel as
>> >not/knot.
>> >
>> Nor in mine - ought belongs in the nought box.
>>
>> Out of curiosity - is your Br E a sort of E E or a sort of Sc E?
>
> I'm bilingual.
>
> Janet
>

I can understand that: speak with forked tongue, according to your
environment. Some people just won't do it. I have a friend - we worked
for the same firm, and shared a flat, in London in the late 1960s - who
has now lived and worked in New York for over fifty years and his clear
British speech hasn't changed one iota, as it seems to me. I sometimes
wonder whether he finds it a selling point in business matters.
--
Paul

[Dingbat]

On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 5:27:13 AM UTC-8, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 07/11/22 23:52, CDB wrote:
> > On 11/6/2022 1:44 PM, Janet wrote:
> >> ranjit_...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> >>> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 1:48:24 PM UTC-7, Peter T.
> >>> Daniels wrote:
> >>>> I can understand Ken Jennings thinking "knot" and "naught" are
> >>>> homophones, because he's from Utah, but the entire staff??
> >
> >>>> The category was "Homophones," and they gave a pair of
> >>>> definitions.
> >
> >>> In UK English. north, naught and nought have a closed long vowel
> >>> [??] whereas ought, not and knot have an open short one [?].
> >
> >> In my Br E, ought does not have the same vowel as not/knot.
> >
> > Nor even in my CanE, in the case of "nought", which I sometimes
> > pronounce "nowt" [naUt].
>
> Is there any version of English, apart from those with the cot/caught
> merger, where "ought" has the same vowel as "not"?
>

If you take an American's shortening of "ought to".
sounding like "odder" and drop the "to" from it,
or listen to their :ought" by itself, its vowel is halfway
in quality between your "not" and "nought" vowels
and has the length of your "not" vowel, so you could
hear it as "not" even if an American doesn't hear it
that way.

>
> I guess I'm really asking whether there is any English-speaking
> community that has a partial, but not complete, merger.
> --

FWIW, I remember people in India wearing what they called
"Not Not Seven" belt buckles when a new movie character
named James Bond was a sensation in the 60s. I didn't
know anyone who pronounced it Nought which was a
word I didn't yet know.

[Tony Cooper]

Some time ago a columnist for the _Orlando Sentinel_ newspaper did a
salary comparison of people who were employed in certain positions,
and one of the positions was "Receptionist".

Her study revealed that a British accent added at least a 25% higher
wage for a female in that job, and that lawyers, in particular, valued
the accent. The columnist - perhaps tongue-in-cheek - suggested that
a firm could be very successful if it offered speech training to
acquire such an accent.

A "receptionist", to those who don't live where that term is used, is
the person at the desk that the customer/client sees first to announce
his/her arrival. It is also the person in many offices who answers
the phone and directs the call to the appropriate party.

The phone answering function, since that column, has been largely
replaced by a recording, though.







--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 3:56:35 PM UTC-5, Dingbat wrote:
> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 5:27:13 AM UTC-8, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 07/11/22 23:52, CDB wrote:
> > > On 11/6/2022 1:44 PM, Janet wrote:
> > >> ranjit_...@yahoo.com says...
> > >>> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 1:48:24 PM UTC-7, Peter T.
> > >>> Daniels wrote:

> > >>>> I can understand Ken Jennings thinking "knot" and "naught" are
> > >>>> homophones, because he's from Utah, but the entire staff??
> > >>>> The category was "Homophones," and they gave a pair of
> > >>>> definitions.
> > >>> In UK English. north, naught and nought have a closed long vowel
> > >>> [??] whereas ought, not and knot have an open short one [?].
> > >> In my Br E, ought does not have the same vowel as not/knot.
> > > Nor even in my CanE, in the case of "nought", which I sometimes
> > > pronounce "nowt" [naUt].
> > Is there any version of English, apart from those with the cot/caught
> > merger, where "ought" has the same vowel as "not"?
> >
> If you take an American's shortening of "ought to".
> sounding like "odder" and drop the "to" from it,

No, because "ought" is CAUGHT and "otter" is COT.

> or listen to their :ought" by itself, its vowel is halfway
> in quality between your "not" and "nought" vowels

No.

> and has the length of your "not" vowel, so you could
> hear it as "not" even if an American doesn't hear it
> that way.

PM asked about non-mergerers.

> > I guess I'm really asking whether there is any English-speaking
> > community that has a partial, but not complete, merger.
> > --
> FWIW, I remember people in India wearing what they called
> "Not Not Seven" belt buckles when a new movie character
> named James Bond was a sensation in the 60s. I didn't
> know anyone who pronounced it Nought which was a
> word I didn't yet know.

Bond's number is pronounced "double-oh seven."

[Dingbat]

On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 8:14:12 AM UTC-8, Peter Moylan wrote:

> On 07/11/22 01:45, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 10:29:38 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> >> * Peter T. Daniels:
> >

> >>> I can understand Ken Jennings thinking "knot" and "naught" are
> >>> homophones, because he's from Utah, but the entire staff?? The
> >>> category was "Homophones," and they gave a pair of definitions.
> >>

> >> I get the impression that "close enough" counts. Is cot/caught the
> >> only exception?
> >
> > Mary/marry/merry, of course. Unlike Will Shortz, they haven't misused
> > any of those.
> >
> > NB all 5 of those vowels (plus LOT!) are distinct in BrE.
> And elsewhere. They are five distinct vowels in my speech, for example.
> But I do have the same vowel in "lot" and "cot".
>
> In addition, the distinction in my dialect between "Mary" and "merry" is
> a length distinction, not a vowel quality distinction. This tends to be
> overlooked by AmE speakers, who seem to be unable to hear length
> distinctions.
>
When they make phonemic length distinctions, they might not realize
that length is the distinction they make. Length is their only difference
between <writer> and <rider>. Describing the diphthong as [ɐj] because
I don't know where to add a length mark to [ɐɪ], their distinction between
the two is [rɐjɾɚ] vs [rɐːjɾɚ].

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 4:43:54 PM UTC-5, Dingbat wrote:
> On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 8:14:12 AM UTC-8, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 07/11/22 01:45, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 10:29:38 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> > >> * Peter T. Daniels:
> > >
> > >>> I can understand Ken Jennings thinking "knot" and "naught" are
> > >>> homophones, because he's from Utah, but the entire staff?? The
> > >>> category was "Homophones," and they gave a pair of definitions.
> > >>
> > >> I get the impression that "close enough" counts. Is cot/caught the
> > >> only exception?
> > >
> > > Mary/marry/merry, of course. Unlike Will Shortz, they haven't misused
> > > any of those.
> > >
> > > NB all 5 of those vowels (plus LOT!) are distinct in BrE.
> > And elsewhere. They are five distinct vowels in my speech, for example.
> > But I do have the same vowel in "lot" and "cot".
> >
> > In addition, the distinction in my dialect between "Mary" and "merry" is
> > a length distinction, not a vowel quality distinction. This tends to be
> > overlooked by AmE speakers, who seem to be unable to hear length
> > distinctions.
> >
> When they make phonemic length distinctions, they might not realize
> that length is the distinction they make. Length is their only difference

If "they" is "Americans," this is false. It may be the distinction _your_
Malayalam ear is prepared to hear, but the difference is in the vowel
quality (more centralized before [d]) and the consonant quality (tenser
for [t], laxer for [d]).

> between <writer> and <rider>. Describing the diphthong as [ɐj] because
> I don't know where to add a length mark to [ɐɪ], their distinction between
> the two is [rɐjɾɚ] vs [rɐːjɾɚ].

Wrong.

[Dingbat]

‎John Hillerman who acted as Higgins in Magnum PI, acquired
his British accent. He presumably continued to be able to
speak in his native Texan accent and being good at learning
accents, could probably also speak in a Midwestern accent.

There is a difference of opinion on why so many black American
roles are played by black Brits. One speculation is that such an
actor's imitation of an American accent is more pleasing to white
viewers than AAVE. But this claims that British actors are popular
in America because they are more talented:

It might come down to the fact that British actors are a lot more
talented. In Britain, actors grow up learning Shakespeare,
performing on theaters, and mastering different American dialects.
In addition, many of Hollywood's bigggest actors attended some
of the most elite and expensive acting schools in the world.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Why+are+there+so+many+British+actors+in+American+roles>

[Dingbat]

This description came from a Brit visiting the US. He/she (I forget the
visitor's gender) heard only a length difference.

> > between <writer> and <rider>. Describing the diphthong as [ɐj] because
> > I don't know where to add a length mark to [ɐɪ], their distinction between
> > the two is [rɐjɾɚ] vs [rɐːjɾɚ].

> Wrong.

What is your transcription of the difference?

[Quinn C]

* Dingbat:

And why ever would they pronounce it this way, even if they didn't know
about "double o"? Why not "zero zero", then, like my original attempt?

German is much easier, 0 is just "null" in any context; no special rules
for telephone numbers, sports results (even tennis) or anything else.

--
Grab your lip gloss and your pepper spray, sweetheart. Your
date's here.
-- Keith Mars

[Quinn C]

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 10:18:10 AM UTC-5, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>> On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 6:54:13 PM UTC-5, Quinn C wrote:
>>>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 10:29:38 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>
>>>>>>> And where are Amy Schneider and the creep Amodio? The
>>>>>>> 18 contestants in the Tournament of Champions will not
>>>>>>> have included them by Monday (Monday's matchup was
>>>>>>> announced at the end of Friday),
>>>>>> I think they get to skip the first round. Mattea, too.
>>> Is Mattea the one with Kristen Wiig-like tiny hands who gestured
>>> like a femme gay man? I'd forgotten about her.
>>
>> Can't help you there; I remember you saying something like that about
>> someone, but I never noticed small hands on any contestant or on Kristen
>> Wiig.
>
> You only just mentioned you don't watch SNL. It was one of her
> incomprehensible recurring characters.
>
>> Of course I remember Mattea as the most successful Canadian so far, by a
>> large margin. Also, she reminds me of a former member of our queer book
>> club, so I was not surprised to learn she's queer, too.

Which means that potentially, what you identify as the gestures of a
femme gay man could be normal for queer women from Toronto (or some
wider group that includes these.) But that's speculation; I don't even
remember if the body language is part of what reminds me of my friend.
The way of speaking certainly is, and that's no wonder.

Talking of body language, I suspect the certain stiffness that you
perceive in Amy Schneider could potentially be a side effect of training
herself too hard to appear feminine. I didn't consciously do anything
like that, but still suspect that body language probably contributes to
me now being 100% pegged as woman, because conscious changes (like
hairstyle or clothes, or the effects of HRT) don't explain the timeline
of when this flipped.

>>>>>>> And many of the "second chancers" said they were
>>>>>>> looking forward to a rematch with one or the other.
>>>>>> Yes. I was happy that those who didn't look for a rematch mentioned
>>>>>> looking forward to meeting Amy or Mattea, but never Matt.
>>>>> So you think those three will get an episode to themselves? But
>>>>> that doesn't fit into the 10-day scheme.
>>>> No, they will be plopped into the semi-finals.
>>> So much for democracy.
>>
>> When did democracy ever come into this?
>
> It's how tournaments are usually done ... cf. the NCAA's March
> Madness.
>
> It seems more complicated than any of Lewis Carroll's schemes
> for a "fair" tennis tournament.

I don't know those, but I'm pretty sure some tennis tournaments have
qualification rounds before the actual tournament, which high-ranking
players are able to skip. Here:
<https://www.thefocus.news/sports/tennis/what-is-a-qualifier-in-tennis/>

In competitions like the Olympics or the World Cup, the hosting nation
gets a bonus treatment.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

[Dingbat]

On a formant chart, how does US CAUGHT compare
with UK CAUGHT and UK COT? As far as I remember.
US CAUGHT was halfway between the two.

>
> > and has the length of your "not" vowel, so you could
> > hear it as "not" even if an American doesn't hear it
> > that way.
>
> PM asked about non-mergerers.
>

An American non-mergerer's CAUGHT is likely to
sound like a mergerer's CAUGHT and not like a Brit's CAUGHT.
How would a Brit hear it without comparing it with the
American's COT?
>
FWIW, I've heard CAUGHT sounding like British CART in
Texas. I mean a more mainstream American pronunciation
of CAUGHT.

>
> > > I guess I'm really asking whether there is any English-speaking
> > > community that has a partial, but not complete, merger.
> > > --
> > FWIW, I remember people in India wearing what they called
> > "Not Not Seven" belt buckles when a new movie character
> > named James Bond was a sensation in the 60s. I didn't
> > know anyone who pronounced it Nought which was a
> > word I didn't yet know.
>
> Bond's number is pronounced "double-oh seven."
>

Zero was not called Oh in India. It was called Zero, Nought and
Cipher. Those who called it the last are now deceased. There
was a story with a character named Nix Nought Nothing; I
understood the 3 to be intended to be near synonyms but
haven't found anyone calling Zero Nix.

[Dingbat]

On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 1:48:24 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> I can understand Ken Jennings thinking "knot" and "naught" are
> homophones, because he's from Utah, but the entire staff??
>
> The category was "Homophones," and they gave a pair of
> definitions.
>

Another Jeopardy gaffe:

This place from a 1933 novel lies in the Valley of Blue Moon, below a peak called Karakal
https://thejeopardyfan.com/2022/11/final-jeopardy-11-3-2022.html

The expected response was "What is Shangri La?"

The clue is inaccurate and misleading in placing Shangri La below a Himalayan peak.
James Hilton viewed a Himalayan landscape in the northern reaches of the Kingdom
of Kashir (now Kashmir) in order to obtain a description of mountains of the kind he
imagined in the setting of Shangri La, not in order to place Shangri La below what
sounds like a Himalayan peak. I don't remember a peak named Karackal from the
book but if it's in there, it's a poor choice of name for a Tibetan peak. Shangri-La is
based on Tibetan accounts of a sanctuary for Buddhist monks, now placed in the
Kunlun Mountains far from the landscape Hilton surveyed.

That appears in the story where the character Conway who could speak Chinese
believes that the hijacked plane in which they were traveling has "progressed far
beyond the western range of the Himalayas" towards the less known heights of
the Kuen-Lun mountain range.

That people aged very slowly in Shangri La might be Hilton's innovation. The High
Lama, formerly a European named Perrault, was 250 years old. The seemingly young
Manchu woman who transported Conway from Shangri-La to a city for medical
treatment aged beyond belief by leaving Shangri-La. That Conway got to Shangri-La
twice by accident, the 2nd time by his plane getting hijacked without a stated
reason for the hijacker to divert the plane in its direction, and that the now dying
Perrault who wants Conway to succeed him manages to get Conway by accident
are coincidences that can happen only in fiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Horizon

[Janet]

In article <foSy9aXb...@wolff.co.uk>,
boun...@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk says...

I was referring to use of words, vocabulary. My accent
is English.

Janet

[CDB]

I don't see any mention of the Himalayas in the clue as you posted it.

It has been about sixty years since I read the novel, but I presume that
the place names were the ones the author used, however realistic or
unrealistic they might be outside the context of the story.

[CDB]

On 11/7/2022 9:54 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> CDB wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> Dingbat wrote:

>>>> That these staff find such homophony suggests that naught,
>>>> nought, not and knot are pronounced the same in the US.
>>> How many decades have you been visiting here and you don't know
>>> about the cot/caught merger west of the Mississippi -- and
>>> throughout Canada?

>> Some people in the Atlantic Provinces make the distinctiom.

> Something different was asserted here just a few weeks ago, and
> happened to be confirmed when one of the hurricanes reached the area
> and locals talked about the "wahter."

There are many dialect in that region. Some Maritimers talk like New
Englanders.

[CDB]

On 11/7/2022 9:00 AM, Janet wrote:
> belle...@gmail.com says...
>> Janet wrote:
>>> ranjit_...@yahoo.com says...

>>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>>>>> I can understand Ken Jennings thinking "knot" and "naught"
>>>>> are homophones, because he's from Utah, but the entire
>>>>> staff??

>>>>> The category was "Homophones," and they gave a pair of
>>>>> definitions.

>>>> In UK English. north, naught and nought have a closed long
>>>> vowel [??] whereas ought, not and knot have an open short one
>>>> [?].

>>> In my Br E, ought does not have the same vowel as not/knot.

>> Nor even in my CanE, in the case of "nought", which I sometimes
>> pronounce "nowt" [naUt].

> In North England, nowt is a common dialect/slang term (nothing)
> similar to nought. But it's always spelled nowt and rhymes with out.

> I've done nowt, it's got nowt to do with me. It cost me nowt.

> Nowt is not used when naming digit 0

Certainly not by me. I don't have the vowel [O] that you probably have
in "nought": I pronounce the word exactly like "not" or "naught". If I
want to make sure my listener understands that I mean "nought", I
sometimes pronounce it "nowt".

> Janet Janet. Janet

Shouldn't that be "Judy"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6qPnjcZKC8

[Paul Wolff]

On Tue, 8 Nov 2022, at 10:14:24, Janet posted:

Thanks for clearing that up.
--
Paul

[Peter T. Daniels]

Purely Pondian. British phoneticians decided to take "length" as the
most salient characteristic, American ones chose "quality,"

And it didn't help that "long" was adopted as the US term for the
vowel uses that "say their name," which are diphthongs rather than
long vowels, but macrons are used to mark them in dictionary
respellings,.

> > > between <writer> and <rider>. Describing the diphthong as [ɐj] because
> > > I don't know where to add a length mark to [ɐɪ], their distinction between
> > > the two is [rɐjɾɚ] vs [rɐːjɾɚ].
> > Wrong.
>
> What is your transcription of the difference?

IPA is not suited for such fine phonetic distinctions. See prose
description above.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Chicago's 70s-80s lesbians eschewed anything like that. The only
ones I know around here now are in the Band and Orchestra, and
I've stopped going to their concerts..

> wider group that includes these.) But that's speculation; I don't even
> remember if the body language is part of what reminds me of my friend.
> The way of speaking certainly is, and that's no wonder.
>
> Talking of body language, I suspect the certain stiffness that you
> perceive in Amy Schneider could potentially be a side effect of training
> herself too hard to appear feminine. I didn't consciously do anything
> like that, but still suspect that body language probably contributes to
> me now being 100% pegged as woman, because conscious changes (like
> hairstyle or clothes, or the effects of HRT) don't explain the timeline
> of when this flipped.
>
> >>>>>>> And many of the "second chancers" said they were
> >>>>>>> looking forward to a rematch with one or the other.
> >>>>>> Yes. I was happy that those who didn't look for a rematch mentioned
> >>>>>> looking forward to meeting Amy or Mattea, but never Matt.
> >>>>> So you think those three will get an episode to themselves? But
> >>>>> that doesn't fit into the 10-day scheme.
> >>>> No, they will be plopped into the semi-finals.
> >>> So much for democracy.
> >> When did democracy ever come into this?
> > It's how tournaments are usually done ... cf. the NCAA's March
> > Madness.
> > It seems more complicated than any of Lewis Carroll's schemes
> > for a "fair" tennis tournament.
>
> I don't know those,

Unlike most of his ephemera, not worth looking up.

> but I'm pretty sure some tennis tournaments have
> qualification rounds before the actual tournament, which high-ranking
> players are able to skip. Here:
> <https://www.thefocus.news/sports/tennis/what-is-a-qualifier-in-tennis/>
>
> In competitions like the Olympics or the World Cup, the hosting nation
> gets a bonus treatment.

Turns out the three biggies are having a "warmup round" (tonight?)
"with no wagering," and if that was mentioned in the tiny type at that
site, I missed it (even with maximal magnification).

[Peter T. Daniels]

Right, 330,000,000 people all say it the same way.

> > > and has the length of your "not" vowel, so you could
> > > hear it as "not" even if an American doesn't hear it
> > > that way.
> > PM asked about non-mergerers.
>
> An American non-mergerer's CAUGHT is likely to
> sound like a mergerer's CAUGHT and not like a Brit's CAUGHT.

Wrong. They merge as COT.

The Hawk Winery near Seattle comes across as the Hock Winery,
an odd name indeed for a place producing fine wines.

> How would a Brit hear it without comparing it with the
> American's COT?
>
> FWIW, I've heard CAUGHT sounding like British CART in
> Texas. I mean a more mainstream American pronunciation
> of CAUGHT.

You heard a mergerer.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 14:00:04 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
<ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:


>
>There is a difference of opinion on why so many black American
>roles are played by black Brits. One speculation is that such an
>actor's imitation of an American accent is more pleasing to white
>viewers than AAVE. But this claims that British actors are popular
>in America because they are more talented:
>
>It might come down to the fact that British actors are a lot more
> talented. In Britain, actors grow up learning Shakespeare,
> performing on theaters, and mastering different American dialects.

I guess that I draw a distinction that you do not.

I figure that 'talent' is innate, whereas what you /point to/
to explain excellence is training and experience.

From what I've heard, Britain and Australia both abound in
community theatres, etc. Their actors get experience and
training, and ten times the number of actors (compared to the
US) get exposure that allows their 'talent' to be recognized.

The Brits show us more skill, both from more training and
from more intensive selection.

--
Rich Ulrich

[soup]

On 05/11/2022 20:48, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> I can understand Ken Jennings thinking "knot" and "naught" are
> homophones, because he's from Utah, but the entire staff??

To me they ARE homophones .
Scottish/E

[Jerry Friedman]

On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 11:14:02 AM UTC-7, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 14:00:04 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >There is a difference of opinion on why so many black American
> >roles are played by black Brits. One speculation is that such an
> >actor's imitation of an American accent is more pleasing to white
> >viewers than AAVE. But this claims that British actors are popular
> >in America because they are more talented:
> >
> >It might come down to the fact that British actors are a lot more
> > talented. In Britain, actors grow up learning Shakespeare,
> > performing on theaters, and mastering different American dialects.
> I guess that I draw a distinction that you do not.
>
> I figure that 'talent' is innate, whereas what you /point to/
> to explain excellence is training and experience.

I was going to say that. (Dictionaries recognize Ranjit's sense, though.)
It's not reasonably imaginable that British actors are born with more
talent than American ones, but it is plausible that they average more
skilled.

> From what I've heard, Britain and Australia both abound in
> community theatres, etc. Their actors get experience and
> training, and ten times the number of actors (compared to the
> US) get exposure that allows their 'talent' to be recognized.
>
> The Brits show us more skill, both from more training and
> from more intensive selection.

(Not that I'm in a position to judge.)

--
Jerry Friedman

[Tak To]

On 11/7/2022 5:00 PM, Dingbat wrote:
> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 1:03:21 PM UTC-8, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>

>> [...]

>> Some time ago a columnist for the _Orlando Sentinel_ newspaper did a
>> salary comparison of people who were employed in certain positions,
>> and one of the positions was "Receptionist".
>>
>> Her study revealed that a British accent added at least a 25% higher
>> wage for a female in that job, and that lawyers, in particular, valued
>> the accent.

I was surprised (1) that the differential was as high 25% --
mainly because such jobs typically have a rather rigid pay
scale; and (2) that the utility of a British accent needed to
be demonstrated at all.

I have a close relative who graduated from Cambridge and
worked for a Wall St investment firm. The management loved
to bring him to the presentations for potential clients.

>> The columnist - perhaps tongue-in-cheek - suggested that
>> a firm could be very successful if it offered speech training to
>> acquire such an accent.

Lots of such speech specialists already exist.

> [...]

>
> There is a difference of opinion on why so many black American
> roles are played by black Brits.

I don't see "many". Who besides Idris Elba these days?

> One speculation is that such an
> actor's imitation of an American accent is more pleasing to white
> viewers than AAVE.

It is a given black American actors who can speak with a "genteel"
accent get a broader variety of roles -- Denzel Washington, Terence
Howard and Giancarlo Esposito come to mind, not to mention Sidney
Poitier (Brahamian really).

OTOH, Nazi's in movies are often played by British actors speaking
with a British accent.

> But this claims that British actors are popular
> in America because they are more talented:
>
> It might come down to the fact that British actors are a lot more
> talented.

Never heard that theory.

> In Britain, actors grow up learning Shakespeare,
> performing on theaters,

and rarely learn "The Method", the utility of which is, well,
still controversial.

IMHO, stage acting is different from acting for close-ups.

> and mastering different American dialects.
> In addition, many of Hollywood's bigggest actors attended some
> of the most elite and expensive acting schools in the world.
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=Why+are+there+so+many+British+actors+in+American+roles>

Don't know anything about that.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

[Snidely]

Just this Tuesday, Janet explained that ...

And here I thought you were distinguishing between an engineering
background and a science background.

/dps

--
"That's a good sort of hectic, innit?"

" Very much so, and I'd recommend the haggis wontons."
-njm

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 15:48:30 -0500, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx>
wrote:

>On 11/7/2022 5:00 PM, Dingbat wrote:
>> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 1:03:21 PM UTC-8, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>> Some time ago a columnist for the _Orlando Sentinel_ newspaper did a
>>> salary comparison of people who were employed in certain positions,
>>> and one of the positions was "Receptionist".
>>>
>>> Her study revealed that a British accent added at least a 25% higher
>>> wage for a female in that job, and that lawyers, in particular, valued
>>> the accent.
>
>I was surprised (1) that the differential was as high 25% --
>mainly because such jobs typically have a rather rigid pay
>scale;

I don't know why you would think that. The type of company that the
article was about is a relatively small local business in Orlando, not
a multi-national company with rigid HR policies. I did say the
article was by an Orlando newspaper columnist.

> and (2) that the utility of a British accent needed to
>be demonstrated at all.
>
>I have a close relative who graduated from Cambridge and
>worked for a Wall St investment firm. The management loved
>to bring him to the presentations for potential clients.
>
>>> The columnist - perhaps tongue-in-cheek - suggested that
>>> a firm could be very successful if it offered speech training to
>>> acquire such an accent.
>
>Lots of such speech specialists already exist.

The ones that specialize in accents usually specialize in eliminating
them, not acquiring them. With the exceptions, of course, for the
ones who work with actors in acquiring an accent for a role.

Things change over time regarding accents. It wasn't that long ago
that a "mush-mouth" Southern accent was something that the speaker
needed to get rid of to succeed in the business world. Now, in some
instances, it's an asset.

[Tak To]

On 11/8/2022 4:56 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 15:48:30 -0500, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/7/2022 5:00 PM, Dingbat wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 1:03:21 PM UTC-8, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>> Some time ago a columnist for the _Orlando Sentinel_ newspaper did a
>>>> salary comparison of people who were employed in certain positions,
>>>> and one of the positions was "Receptionist".
>>>>
>>>> Her study revealed that a British accent added at least a 25% higher
>>>> wage for a female in that job, and that lawyers, in particular, valued
>>>> the accent.
>>
>> I was surprised (1) that the differential was as high 25% --
>> mainly because such jobs typically have a rather rigid pay
>> scale;
>
> I don't know why you would think that. The type of company that the
> article was about is a relatively small local business in Orlando, not
> a multi-national company with rigid HR policies. I did say the
> article was by an Orlando newspaper columnist.

The size of the company (companies?) was not apparent from your
post.

In any case, the rigidity of pay scale often has less to do
with company size than the rigidity of the perception of job worth.
I used to work for a company that sells (subscription based)
software that models chemical engineering processes/plants. The
management (all with ChemE background) had an implicit rule that
programmers are not to be paid more than chemical engineers based
on the opinion/assumption that chemical engineers can program but
programmers do know Chemical engineering. Their software ended
up being badly designed and implemented.

>> and (2) that the utility of a British accent needed to
>> be demonstrated at all.
>>
>> I have a close relative who graduated from Cambridge and
>> worked for a Wall St investment firm. The management loved
>> to bring him to the presentations for potential clients.
>>
>>>> The columnist - perhaps tongue-in-cheek - suggested that
>>>> a firm could be very successful if it offered speech training to
>>>> acquire such an accent.
>>
>> Lots of such speech specialists already exist.
>
> The ones that specialize in accents usually specialize in eliminating
> them, not acquiring them. With the exceptions, of course, for the
> ones who work with actors in acquiring an accent for a role.

Linguistically, is there any difference between "eliminating"
an accent and "acquiring" a new one? Both involve learning to
speak "unnaturally".

> Things change over time regarding accents. It wasn't that long ago
> that a "mush-mouth" Southern accent was something that the speaker
> needed to get rid of to succeed in the business world. Now, in some
> instances, it's an asset.

True dat.

[Peter Moylan]

Yes, but I'll bet that your "knot" is very different from a Utah "knot".

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 17:57:26 -0500, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx>

wrote:

>On 11/8/2022 4:56 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 15:48:30 -0500, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/7/2022 5:00 PM, Dingbat wrote:
>>>> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 1:03:21 PM UTC-8, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> Some time ago a columnist for the _Orlando Sentinel_ newspaper did a
>>>>> salary comparison of people who were employed in certain positions,
>>>>> and one of the positions was "Receptionist".
>>>>>
>>>>> Her study revealed that a British accent added at least a 25% higher
>>>>> wage for a female in that job, and that lawyers, in particular, valued
>>>>> the accent.
>>>
>>> I was surprised (1) that the differential was as high 25% --
>>> mainly because such jobs typically have a rather rigid pay
>>> scale;
>>
>> I don't know why you would think that. The type of company that the
>> article was about is a relatively small local business in Orlando, not
>> a multi-national company with rigid HR policies. I did say the
>> article was by an Orlando newspaper columnist.
>
>The size of the company (companies?) was not apparent from your
>post.
>

True, but the job description was "Receptionist". That's not a job
where there are is like to be more than one with that title. And,
because the Receptionist is the first person seen by a person visting
the business, and sometimes the first impression of the company, the
perception of "job worth" can be high.

The column came out "some time ago", as I said.

However, if you want to remain surprised, that's up to you.

>In any case, the rigidity of pay scale often has less to do
>with company size than the rigidity of the perception of job worth.
>I used to work for a company that sells (subscription based)
>software that models chemical engineering processes/plants. The
>management (all with ChemE background) had an implicit rule that
>programmers are not to be paid more than chemical engineers based
>on the opinion/assumption that chemical engineers can program but
>programmers do know Chemical engineering. Their software ended
>up being badly designed and implemented.
>
>>> and (2) that the utility of a British accent needed to
>>> be demonstrated at all.

I don't understand what you mean by that. "Utility" is not something
I associate with perception, and a British accent provides only a
perception of class.

>>>
>>> I have a close relative who graduated from Cambridge and
>>> worked for a Wall St investment firm. The management loved
>>> to bring him to the presentations for potential clients.

And you don't think that accent contributed to whatever success he had
at the firm? You haven't said he had any more job skills than other
employees, but management chose him for presentations to potential

clients.
>>>
>>>>> The columnist - perhaps tongue-in-cheek - suggested that
>>>>> a firm could be very successful if it offered speech training to
>>>>> acquire such an accent.
>>>
>>> Lots of such speech specialists already exist.
>>
>> The ones that specialize in accents usually specialize in eliminating
>> them, not acquiring them. With the exceptions, of course, for the
>> ones who work with actors in acquiring an accent for a role.
>
>Linguistically, is there any difference between "eliminating"
>an accent and "acquiring" a new one? Both involve learning to
>speak "unnaturally".

Damned if I know. I would be "surprised" to see an advertisement for
a US speech therapist offering lessons in Brit-speak (with the
exceptions noted above).

I guess different things surprise the two of us.

>
>> Things change over time regarding accents. It wasn't that long ago
>> that a "mush-mouth" Southern accent was something that the speaker
>> needed to get rid of to succeed in the business world. Now, in some
>> instances, it's an asset.
>
>True dat.
--

[Dingbat]

On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 12:48:35 PM UTC-8, Tak To wrote:
> On 11/7/2022 5:00 PM, Dingbat wrote:
> > On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 1:03:21 PM UTC-8, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >> Some time ago a columnist for the _Orlando Sentinel_ newspaper did a
> >> salary comparison of people who were employed in certain positions,
> >> and one of the positions was "Receptionist".
> >>
> >> Her study revealed that a British accent added at least a 25% higher
> >> wage for a female in that job, and that lawyers, in particular, valued
> >> the accent.
> I was surprised (1) that the differential was as high 25% --
> mainly because such jobs typically have a rather rigid pay
> scale; and (2) that the utility of a British accent needed to
> be demonstrated at all.
>
> I have a close relative who graduated from Cambridge and
> worked for a Wall St investment firm. The management loved
> to bring him to the presentations for potential clients.
> >> The columnist - perhaps tongue-in-cheek - suggested that
> >> a firm could be very successful if it offered speech training to
> >> acquire such an accent.
> Lots of such speech specialists already exist.
>
> > [...]
> >
> > There is a difference of opinion on why so many black American
> > roles are played by black Brits.

> I don't see "many". Who besides Idris Elba these days?4

He was on a list I've seen but I don't find that list.
Some are mentioned here:
https://deadline.com/2021/01/regina-king-british-actors-playing-us-characters-one-night-miami-1234672664/

> > One speculation is that such an
> > actor's imitation of an American accent is more pleasing to white
> > viewers than AAVE.

> It is a given black American actors who can speak with a "genteel"
> accent get a broader variety of roles -- Denzel Washington, Terence
> Howard and Giancarlo Esposito come to mind, not to mention Sidney

> Poitier (Bahamian really).

[Sam Plusnet]

On 07-Nov-22 21:03, Tony Cooper wrote:

>
> Some time ago a columnist for the _Orlando Sentinel_ newspaper did a
> salary comparison of people who were employed in certain positions,
> and one of the positions was "Receptionist".
>
> Her study revealed that a British accent added at least a 25% higher
> wage for a female in that job, and that lawyers, in particular, valued

> the accent. The columnist - perhaps tongue-in-cheek - suggested that

> a firm could be very successful if it offered speech training to
> acquire such an accent.

It would be interesting to know which British accents would be an asset,
and which would be a major drawback.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Tony Cooper]

In the US, a "British accent" is an accent that the average American
thinks is a British accent.

I know that's a non-answer, but our range of acceptance as to what a
British accent is is very wide. In the case of a Receptionist (almost
always a female's job), if she's close to, say, Joanna Lumley or
Jennifer Saunders as Patsy and Edina, she's got the job. (I picked
figures who were known to American TV audiences about the time that
article was written)

[Tak To]

On 11/8/2022 9:50 PM, Dingbat wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> There is a difference of opinion on why so many black American
>>> roles are played by black Brits.
>>
>> I don't see "many". Who besides Idris Elba these days?4
>
> He was on a list I've seen but I don't find that list.
> Some are mentioned here:
> https://deadline.com/2021/01/regina-king-british-actors-playing-us-characters-one-night-miami-1234672664/

Thanks. I am not aware of the works mentioned except /Selma/
and /Get Out/.

I must say I am a bit surprised by the fact that the actor
who played MLKJ is British. Could it be that he was selected
because of his look?

I watched /Get Out/ by chance and it was a scifi-horror film
with an indefinite and implausible feel about the time and
locale. I don't think of the leading role as specifically
American.

[charles]

In article <udtlmhto5304rcrvh...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 17:57:26 -0500, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx> wrote:

> >On 11/8/2022 4:56 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 15:48:30 -0500, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 11/7/2022 5:00 PM, Dingbat wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 1:03:21 PM UTC-8, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [...] Some time ago a columnist for the _Orlando Sentinel_
> >>>>> newspaper did a salary comparison of people who were employed in
> >>>>> certain positions, and one of the positions was "Receptionist".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Her study revealed that a British accent added at least a 25%
> >>>>> higher wage for a female in that job, and that lawyers, in
> >>>>> particular, valued the accent.
> >>>
> >>> I was surprised (1) that the differential was as high 25% -- mainly
> >>> because such jobs typically have a rather rigid pay scale;
> >>
> >> I don't know why you would think that. The type of company that the
> >> article was about is a relatively small local business in Orlando, not
> >> a multi-national company with rigid HR policies. I did say the
> >> article was by an Orlando newspaper columnist.
> >
> >The size of the company (companies?) was not apparent from your post.
> >

> True, but the job description was "Receptionist". That's not a job where
> there are is like to be more than one with that title.

When I worked with a rather large organisation in London, the reception
desk had 3 members of staff - who were all receptionists - and the desk was
staffed for 16 hours a day, 7 days a week. I suspect there were at least a
dozen people called "receptionist".

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

[Rich Ulrich]

On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 17:57:26 -0500, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx>
wrote:

>On 11/8/2022 4:56 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

>>
>> The ones that specialize in accents usually specialize in eliminating
>> them, not acquiring them. With the exceptions, of course, for the
>> ones who work with actors in acquiring an accent for a role.
>
>Linguistically, is there any difference between "eliminating"
>an accent and "acquiring" a new one? Both involve learning to
>speak "unnaturally".
>

It seems to me that acquiring a particular accent is a more
demanding task than eliminating an accent -- the outcome
of 'elimination' allows for a lot of variation in what is achieved,
by and large.

Hitting a target calls for more knowledge and a better 'ear'
(both linguist and learner) than erasing a few prominent markers.
Does that amount to "Linguistically"?

(""Her English is too good, they said, that clearly indicates
she's foreign ...

"She was born ... HUNGARIAN! Not only Hungarian, but of
ROYAL BLOOD!" )

--
Rich Ulrich

[Dingbat]

What if she's closer to Eliza Dolittle or her father than to
Henry Higgins or Colonel Pickering?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-11-09 00:41:33 +0000, Peter Moylan said:

> On 09/11/22 05:23, soup wrote:
>> On 05/11/2022 20:48, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> I can understand Ken Jennings thinking "knot" and "naught" are
>>> homophones, because he's from Utah, but the entire staff??
>>
>> To me they ARE homophones .
>> Scottish/E
>
> Yes, but I'll bet that your "knot" is very different from a Utah "knot".

Probably. Can you still tie the knot with lots of women in Utah?


--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[Dingbat]

On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 11:15:58 PM UTC-8, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 17:57:26 -0500, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx>
> wrote:
> >On 11/8/2022 4:56 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
> >>
> >> The ones that specialize in accents usually specialize in eliminating
> >> them, not acquiring them. With the exceptions, of course, for the
> >> ones who work with actors in acquiring an accent for a role.
> >
> >Linguistically, is there any difference between "eliminating"
> >an accent and "acquiring" a new one? Both involve learning to
> >speak "unnaturally".
> >
> It seems to me that acquiring a particular accent is a more
> demanding task than eliminating an accent -- the outcome
> of 'elimination' allows for a lot of variation in what is achieved,
> by and large.
>

The goal in such training in India is accent neutralization as
it's called - to train India's ESL speakers to be more comprehensible
to Anglophones while continuing to sound foreign but less
distinctively Indian. Teaching India's ESL speakers to acquire a
perfect UK or US accent is not considered achievable.

to converse with Anglophones.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-11-08 20:22:01 +0000, Jerry Friedman said:

> On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 11:14:02 AM UTC-7, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 14:00:04 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
>> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> There is a difference of opinion on why so many black American
>>> roles are played by black Brits. One speculation is that such an
>>> actor's imitation of an American accent is more pleasing to white
>>> viewers than AAVE. But this claims that British actors are popular
>>> in America because they are more talented:
>>>
>>> It might come down to the fact that British actors are a lot more
>>> talented. In Britain, actors grow up learning Shakespeare,
>>> performing on theaters, and mastering different American dialects.
>> I guess that I draw a distinction that you do not.
>>
>> I figure that 'talent' is innate, whereas what you /point to/
>> to explain excellence is training and experience.
>
> I was going to say that. (Dictionaries recognize Ranjit's sense, though.)
> It's not reasonably imaginable that British actors are born with more
> talent than American ones, but it is plausible that they average more
> skilled.
>
>> From what I've heard, Britain and Australia both abound in
>> community theatres, etc. Their actors get experience and
>> training, and ten times the number of actors (compared to the
>> US) get exposure that allows their 'talent' to be recognized.

We saw The Adventures of Robin Hood the other night. I hadn't realized
before that Errol Flynn was Australian (or that he was the son of a
Professor ot Biology).

>>
>> The Brits show us more skill, both from more training and
>> from more intensive selection.
>
> (Not that I'm in a position to judge.)


--

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Birmingham would clearly be a major drawback. Liverpool too, before the
Beatles arrived.

[Dingbat]

On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 10:14:02 AM UTC-8, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 14:00:04 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >There is a difference of opinion on why so many black American
> >roles are played by black Brits. One speculation is that such an
> >actor's imitation of an American accent is more pleasing to white
> >viewers than AAVE. But this claims that British actors are popular
> >in America because they are more talented:
> >
> >It might come down to the fact that British actors are a lot more
> > talented. In Britain, actors grow up learning Shakespeare,
> > performing on theaters, and mastering different American dialects.
> I guess that I draw a distinction that you do not.
>
> I figure that 'talent' is innate, whereas what you /point to/
> to explain excellence is training and experience.
>

Sure; the author of that piece could have worded it better.

>
> From what I've heard, Britain and Australia both abound in
> community theatres, etc. Their actors get experience and
> training, and ten times the number of actors (compared to the
> US) get exposure that allows their 'talent' to be recognized.
>

This implies that equally capable US actors are disadvantaged
by getting less publicity.

[Janet]

In article <tkefav$8s9$4...@dont-email.me>,
ta...@alum.mit.eduxx says...

>
> On 11/7/2022 5:00 PM, Dingbat wrote:
> > On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 1:03:21 PM UTC-8, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >> Some time ago a columnist for the _Orlando Sentinel_ newspaper did a
> >> salary comparison of people who were employed in certain positions,
> >> and one of the positions was "Receptionist".
> >>
> >> Her study revealed that a British accent added at least a 25% higher
> >> wage for a female in that job, and that lawyers, in particular, valued
> >> the accent.
>
> I was surprised (1) that the differential was as high 25% --
> mainly because such jobs typically have a rather rigid pay
> scale; and (2) that the utility of a British accent needed to
> be demonstrated at all.
>
> I have a close relative who graduated from Cambridge and
> worked for a Wall St investment firm. The management loved
> to bring him to the presentations for potential clients.
>
> >> The columnist - perhaps tongue-in-cheek - suggested that
> >> a firm could be very successful if it offered speech training to
> >> acquire such an accent.
>
> Lots of such speech specialists already exist.
>
> > [...]
> >
> > There is a difference of opinion on why so many black American
> > roles are played by black Brits.
>
> I don't see "many". Who besides Idris Elba these days?

David Oyelowo

think that's where the thread started..

>
> > One speculation is that such an
> > actor's imitation of an American accent is more pleasing to white
> > viewers than AAVE.

British actors can imitate various American accents
including AAVE; various African accents, and numerous
British accents. We call it "acting".

Janet

[Dingbat]

Ah! Now, I get what is meant by "merge to COT".
I find it confusing to hear CAUGHT merged with COT.

Whence the New Yorker's KAWFY pronunciation of COFFEE
and the southern black FAW pronunciation of FOR?
Are those explained in terms of merging or splitting?
FAW is an eye dialect spelling, presumably by southern whites.

[Tony Cooper]

One of the TV programs that I watch regularly is John Oliver's "Last
Week Tonight". Oliver was born in Birmingham, and his mother is from
Liverpool.

Oliver has a "British accent", but his speech is not the desired
British accent for a Receptionist. While he's clearly understandable,
he speaks very fast and without that upper-class precise enunciation
that is desired.

I don't think Oliver's rapid-fire speech is necessarily a Birmingham
trait, though. Oliver's overall demeanor is hyperactive. While he's
brilliantly funny, it's almost exhaustive to just watch him.

[soup]

On 09/11/2022 00:41, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 09/11/22 05:23, soup wrote:
>> On 05/11/2022 20:48, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> I can understand Ken Jennings thinking "knot" and "naught" are
>>> homophones, because he's from Utah, but the entire staff??
>>
>> To me they ARE homophones .
>> Scottish/E
>
> Yes, but I'll bet that your "knot" is very different from a Utah "knot".

No idea I have never heard a Utah(in?) say knot.
>

[lar3ryca]

On 2022-11-09 01:15, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 17:57:26 -0500, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/8/2022 4:56 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The ones that specialize in accents usually specialize in eliminating
>>> them, not acquiring them. With the exceptions, of course, for the
>>> ones who work with actors in acquiring an accent for a role.
>>
>> Linguistically, is there any difference between "eliminating"
>> an accent and "acquiring" a new one? Both involve learning to
>> speak "unnaturally".
>>
>
> It seems to me that acquiring a particular accent is a more
> demanding task than eliminating an accent -- the outcome
> of 'elimination' allows for a lot of variation in what is achieved,
> by and large.

I would say that "eliminating an accent" is actually "acquiring a
particular accent".

> Hitting a target calls for more knowledge and a better 'ear'
> (both linguist and learner) than erasing a few prominent markers.
> Does that amount to "Linguistically"?
>
> (""Her English is too good, they said, that clearly indicates
> she's foreign ...
>
> "She was born ... HUNGARIAN! Not only Hungarian, but of
> ROYAL BLOOD!" )
>

--

Zenophobia: the irrational fear of convergent sequences.

[Jerry Friedman]

Here's Patricia T. Holland, a Utahn, saying "not".

https://youtu.be/N_6_Uz0isE4?t=232

(She's talking about the interpretation of a dream she had, not the Bible
or the Book of Mormon.)

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 7:36:12 AM UTC-7, lar3ryca wrote:
> On 2022-11-09 01:15, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 17:57:26 -0500, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/8/2022 4:56 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> The ones that specialize in accents usually specialize in eliminating
> >>> them, not acquiring them. With the exceptions, of course, for the
> >>> ones who work with actors in acquiring an accent for a role.
> >>
> >> Linguistically, is there any difference between "eliminating"
> >> an accent and "acquiring" a new one? Both involve learning to
> >> speak "unnaturally".
> >>
> >
> > It seems to me that acquiring a particular accent is a more
> > demanding task than eliminating an accent -- the outcome
> > of 'elimination' allows for a lot of variation in what is achieved,
> > by and large.

> I would say that "eliminating an accent" is actually "acquiring a
> particular accent".

AOL.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

But the point is that black British actors are very good at dialects
("accents") in roles as Americans, Wakandans, whatever. In the
current Broadway revival of *Death of a Salesman*, which makes
the Loman family black, the wife/mother is played by Sharon D.
Clarke. Hearing excerpts from her performance (typically included
in broadcast reviews), you'd never know she was British, and her
RP interviews might arouse cognitive dissonance.

https://www.newyorktheatreguide.com/theatre-news/news/meet-the-broadway-cast-of-death-of-a-salesman

(on how the play works beautifully when transferred to an
African American family -- apparently with minimal or no
changes to the script)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 4:45:07 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-11-09 00:41:33 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
> > On 09/11/22 05:23, soup wrote:
> >> On 05/11/2022 20:48, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> >>> I can understand Ken Jennings thinking "knot" and "naught" are
> >>> homophones, because he's from Utah, but the entire staff??
> >> To me they ARE homophones .
> >> Scottish/E
> > Yes, but I'll bet that your "knot" is very different from a Utah "knot".
>
> Probably. Can you still tie the knot with lots of women in Utah?

No. Eliminating that provision from the state's legal system was
a condition on its admission to the US, which did not happen until
1896 (45th state). Its neighbors made it in earlier, some of them
considerably earlier.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 6:27:06 AM UTC-5, Dingbat wrote:

> Whence the New Yorker's KAWFY pronunciation of COFFEE
> and the southern black FAW pronunciation of FOR?

What's one got to do with the other? Apparently your notion of
a New York accent comes from parodies by Mike Myers. That
"cawfee" is simply a tensing of CAUGHT.

And what makes you think that the non-rhotic pronunciation
of "for" is "black"? If you get someone on the phone Down
There, you will have no idea of their race. The region is simply
non-rhotic, because of settlement patterns from England.

> Are those explained in terms of merging or splitting?

No.

> FAW is an eye dialect spelling, presumably by southern whites.

I wonder what you're reading.

[Tak To]

No doubt the management of some company would think the way you
outlined, but others tend to have a view that such a job is simple
enough ("it's not rocket science") that a worker is either
"adequate" or "incompetent", in which case he/she should be
replaced. There is no room for "brilliant" and the associated
salary increase. Cf a waiter/waitress in a restaurant.

----- -----

> The column came out "some time ago", as I said.
>
> However, if you want to remain surprised, that's up to you.

I don't understand your statement.

----- -----

>> In any case, the rigidity of pay scale often has less to do
>> with company size than the rigidity of the perception of job worth.
>> I used to work for a company that sells (subscription based)
>> software that models chemical engineering processes/plants. The
>> management (all with ChemE background) had an implicit rule that
>> programmers are not to be paid more than chemical engineers based
>> on the opinion/assumption that chemical engineers can program but
>> programmers do know Chemical engineering. Their software ended
>> up being badly designed and implemented.
>>
>>>> and (2) that the utility of a British accent needed to
>>>> be demonstrated at all.
>
> I don't understand what you mean by that. "Utility" is not something
> I associate with perception, and a British accent provides only a
> perception of class.
>>>>
>>>> I have a close relative who graduated from Cambridge and
>>>> worked for a Wall St investment firm. The management loved
>>>> to bring him to the presentations for potential clients.
>
> And you don't think that accent contributed to whatever success he had
> at the firm? You haven't said he had any more job skills than other
> employees, but management chose him for presentations to potential
> clients.

I *do* think his accent is a factor of why he was selected to talk
with potential clients. That was an example for point (2) in my
original post. I am sure why you think otherwise.

No matter, here is some background info. He was hired, freshly out
of college, as a "quant" of a private investment firm. Quants
devise trading models that nominally direct trading strategies.
When your firm wants to sign up a new client, you send in your
most impressive sounding quants to do a presentation to razzle
and dazzle them. Whether the traders actually follows the models
varies widely from firm to firm.

----- -----

>>>>>> The columnist - perhaps tongue-in-cheek - suggested that
>>>>>> a firm could be very successful if it offered speech training to
>>>>>> acquire such an accent.
>>>>
>>>> Lots of such speech specialists already exist.
>>>
>>> The ones that specialize in accents usually specialize in eliminating
>>> them, not acquiring them. With the exceptions, of course, for the
>>> ones who work with actors in acquiring an accent for a role.
>>
>> Linguistically, is there any difference between "eliminating"
>> an accent and "acquiring" a new one? Both involve learning to
>> speak "unnaturally".
>
> Damned if I know.

That was a rhetorical question and the intended answer was no.
"Having no accent" is just having a particular accent.

> I would be "surprised" to see an advertisement for
> a US speech therapist offering lessons in Brit-speak (with the
> exceptions noted above).

Just as we don't often see plastic surgery ads directed for men
(or for women some decades ago). Physical beauty affects how
others see us -- everyone knows that, but only a few wants to
do anything about it (no judgment here).

Btw, it is now possible to increase one's height through
surgery (by cutting the shin bone continually pulling the
gap apart so very slightly in the healing process.) We all
know how a man's height affect people's perception of him.

By the way, I have no idea how effective accent coaching is.
It is one thing for delivering scripted speeches, and quite
another for daily interactions. And perhaps the ability for an
adult to switch accents varies widely from one individual to
another. That would explain why an actress like Penelope
Cruz was unable to speak a more neutral English (compared to,
say, Salma Hayek) after all these years.

> I guess different things surprise the two of us.

And that is a good thing. There is always something new to
learn in this newsgroup for everyone.

>>> Things change over time regarding accents. It wasn't that long ago
>>> that a "mush-mouth" Southern accent was something that the speaker
>>> needed to get rid of to succeed in the business world. Now, in some
>>> instances, it's an asset.
>>
>> True dat.

--

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

Some can; ever seen "Death in Paradise"? The black actors are British but
trying hard to sound Jamaican^wWest Indian.

We (UK) are OK with the word, we don't euphemise it to 'African-American'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriss_Akabusi
was memorably (well to me) interviewed after winning a race by a (white)
US correspondent who kept asking something like "As an African-American How
does it feel" (standard rubbish journalism) "to be the first blah..."
And he kept telling her that he was not American.

I'm not alone, but the evidence is not forthcoming - maybe I have group
selective memory syndrome:


https://www.reddit.com/r/tipofmytongue/comments/2j39zr/tomtlooking_for_that_youtube_video_that_a/

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[lar3ryca]

I was impressed by Hugh Laurie's American accent when he played thelead
in "House, M.D..

>> I guess different things surprise the two of us.
>
> And that is a good thing. There is always something new to
> learn in this newsgroup for everyone.
>
>>>> Things change over time regarding accents. It wasn't that long ago
>>>> that a "mush-mouth" Southern accent was something that the speaker
>>>> needed to get rid of to succeed in the business world. Now, in some
>>>> instances, it's an asset.
>>>
>>> True dat.
>

--

Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

I assume that's what is "wanted"

He sounds a bit 'Ben Elton' to me i.e. a posh Brit accent trying to not
be. Oh and hyper. No obvious traits remain from Brum or Liverpool, IMO.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 12:31:50 PM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 11:21:48 -0000
> Janet <nob...@home.com> wrote:

> > British actors can imitate various American accents
> > including AAVE; various African accents, and numerous
> > British accents. We call it "acting".
>
> Some can; ever seen "Death in Paradise"? The black actors are British but
> trying hard to sound Jamaican^wWest Indian.

In one episode this/last season, someone visiting from Jamaica
had a clearly Jamaican accent, quite different from that of the
Saint Marie locals.

> We (UK) are OK with the word, we don't euphemise it to 'African-American'

You don't seem to know what that designation means.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriss_Akabusi
> was memorably (well to me) interviewed after winning a race by a (white)
> US correspondent who kept asking something like "As an African-American How
> does it feel" (standard rubbish journalism) "to be the first blah..."
> And he kept telling her that he was not American.

Barack Obama is African American only by choice. He has no
ancestry among the enslaved peoples brought to North America
between 1619 and 1860.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 10:31:50 AM UTC-7, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 11:21:48 -0000
> Janet <nob...@home.com> wrote:

...

> > British actors can imitate various American accents
> > including AAVE; various African accents, and numerous
> > British accents. We call it "acting".
> >
> Some can; ever seen "Death in Paradise"? The black actors are British but
> trying hard to sound Jamaican^wWest Indian.
>
> We (UK) are OK with the word, we don't euphemise it to 'African-American'

Many of us (U.S.) are too and don't either, though I'll use "African American"
when I want to specify that I'm talking about an African American or African
Americans.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriss_Akabusi
> was memorably (well to me) interviewed after winning a race by a (white)
> US correspondent who kept asking something like "As an African-American How
> does it feel" (standard rubbish journalism) "to be the first blah..."
> And he kept telling her that he was not American.
>
> I'm not alone, but the evidence is not forthcoming - maybe I have group
> selective memory syndrome:
>
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/tipofmytongue/comments/2j39zr/tomtlooking_for_that_youtube_video_that_a/

Darn it, just a day or two ago I saw or heard an American refer to a black
European (possibly British) as African American.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Sam Plusnet]

My thoughts were Brummie and Geordie.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 1:29:23 PM UTC-5, Jerry Friedman wrote:

> Darn it, just a day or two ago I saw or heard an American refer to a black
> European (possibly British) as African American.

Many many years ago, Chicago Alderman Dorothy Tillman (yes,
women ones were and probably still are called "aldermen"), who
was known more for her extravagant hats than for intellectual
acumen, went to a Third-World conference in South Korea (on the
city's dime, no doubt) and reported back that she had met African
Americans from all over the world.

[lar3ryca]

I often hear "African American" applied to Canadians.
I also hear a lot of folks referring to a "Canada Goose" as a "Canadian
Goose".

--
What was the greatest thing before sliced bread?

[Ken Blake]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 08:36:07 -0600, lar3ryca <la...@invalid.ca> wrote:

>On 2022-11-09 01:15, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 17:57:26 -0500, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/8/2022 4:56 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> The ones that specialize in accents usually specialize in eliminating
>>>> them, not acquiring them. With the exceptions, of course, for the
>>>> ones who work with actors in acquiring an accent for a role.
>>>
>>> Linguistically, is there any difference between "eliminating"
>>> an accent and "acquiring" a new one? Both involve learning to
>>> speak "unnaturally".
>>>
>>
>> It seems to me that acquiring a particular accent is a more
>> demanding task than eliminating an accent -- the outcome
>> of 'elimination' allows for a lot of variation in what is achieved,
>> by and large.
>
>I would say that "eliminating an accent" is actually "acquiring a
>particular accent".

Yes. Too many people think there is "pure speech" and an accent is
something added on top of it. But in reality, we all speak with an
accent, even though our accents are not all the same. So if you
eliminate the accent you speak with, you are then speaking with a
different accent,

[Ken Blake]

You folks in Canada should avoid goosing any Americans from Africa.

[Ken Blake]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 11:41:33 +1100, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 09/11/22 05:23, soup wrote:
>> On 05/11/2022 20:48, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> I can understand Ken Jennings thinking "knot" and "naught" are
>>> homophones, because he's from Utah, but the entire staff??
>>
>> To me they ARE homophones .
>> Scottish/E
>
>Yes, but I'll bet that your "knot" is very different from a Utah "knot".

And from my favorite knot, the bowline.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 12:14:34 -0500, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx>

You are offering theory, but the columnist reported fact. Well,
"fact" as far as I know because there's no indication that she fudged
her research. She's a well-respected journalist and her writings have
never been challenged. She found that Brit speakers were more in
demand and offered higher starting wages than other applicants might
be offered in many offices.

The cachet of a British accent on the phone and how the receptionist
is seen by visitors to the office is about perceived "class". The
first impression by visitors or callers is "This must be a classy
company."

It doesn't make any difference if this not the case, or if you don't
think it should be the case. What makes the difference is if the
person who hires the receptionist and sets her salary thinks it's
true.

Jumping back to your paragraph above...this has nothing to do with job
performance ("adequate" "incompetent") or a "salary increase". It's
about who is hired for the job and what starting salary will be
offered.

There was nothing to suggest that the article indicated that the job
performance after hiring would not be evaluated the same as it would
be for any other job.

The article appeared some time ago and I didn't retain a copy of it.
As I remember it, it simply said that higher salaries were offered or
higher demands were met for applicants for that particular job who
were Brit speakers.

>> The column came out "some time ago", as I said.
>>
>> However, if you want to remain surprised, that's up to you.
>
>I don't understand your statement.

I'm surprised that you have so little understanding of how perception
can affect some types of companies, and how the employees who are the
first seen/first heard by customers and potential customers are the
ones who create an image in the customer's and potential customer's
minds.

[Quinn C]

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 1:29:23 PM UTC-5, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>
>> Darn it, just a day or two ago I saw or heard an American refer to a black
>> European (possibly British) as African American.
>
> Many many years ago, Chicago Alderman Dorothy Tillman (yes,
> women ones were and probably still are called "aldermen"),

Probably depending on the place. In Chicago, it seems they're
"alderwoman".
<https://aidafloresforalderwoman.com/>
<https://www.lenifor48th.com/>

> who
> was known more for her extravagant hats than for intellectual
> acumen, went to a Third-World conference in South Korea (on the
> city's dime, no doubt) and reported back that she had met African
> Americans from all over the world.

Could've been expats.

--
...an explanatory principle - like "gravity" or "instinct" -
really explains nothing. It's a sort of conventional agreement
between scientists to stop trying to explain things at a
certain point. -- Gregory Bateson

[Quinn C]

* Jerry Friedman:

> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 10:31:50 AM UTC-7, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 11:21:48 -0000
>> Janet <nob...@home.com> wrote:
> ...
>
>>> British actors can imitate various American accents
>>> including AAVE; various African accents, and numerous
>>> British accents. We call it "acting".
>>>
>> Some can; ever seen "Death in Paradise"? The black actors are British but
>> trying hard to sound Jamaican^wWest Indian.
>>
>> We (UK) are OK with the word, we don't euphemise it to 'African-American'
>
> Many of us (U.S.) are too and don't either, though I'll use "African American"
> when I want to specify that I'm talking about an African American or African
> Americans.

In general, using "African-American" as a white person signals you're
awkward around black people and have no black friends.

But if the distinction is actually important for the subject matter,
that should be a valid exception.

--
If men got pregnant, you could get an abortion at an ATM.
-- Selina Mayer, VEEP

[Dingbat]

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 8:30:52 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 6:27:06 AM UTC-5, Dingbat wrote:
>
> > Whence the New Yorker's KAWFY pronunciation of COFFEE
> > and the southern black FAW pronunciation of FOR?
>
> What's one got to do with the other? Apparently your notion of
> a New York accent comes from parodies by Mike Myers. That
> "cawfee" is simply a tensing of CAUGHT.
>

I don't see why COFFEE with a double <f> has CAUGHT if
New York did not merge COT to CAUGHT. It's like Enid
Blyton's policeman Mr Goon pronouncing OFF as ORF
for no stated reason. If their COFFEE has CAUGHT for
unknown reasons. in which contexts is CAUGHT tensed and
how is CAUGHT pronounced in other contexts?

>
> And what makes you think that the non-rhotic pronunciation
> of "for" is "black"? If you get someone on the phone Down
> There, you will have no idea of their race. The region is simply
> non-rhotic, because of settlement patterns from England.
> > Are those explained in terms of merging or splitting?
> No.
>
> > FAW is an eye dialect spelling, presumably by southern whites.
> I wonder what you're reading.
>

I don't remember where I read that. It said FAW was an eye
dialect spelling of southern blacks' pronunciation of FOR
without saying who devised this spelling to describe
blacks' pronunciation. It seemed possible that it was
southern whites' caricature of their black neighbors'
pronunciation. If it was the pronunciation of southern whites
too, perhaps it was devised by a northerner describing accents
of migrants from the south as continuing to be non-rhotic only
if the migrants were black.

[S K]

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 6:15:43 PM UTC-5, Dingbat wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 8:30:52 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 6:27:06 AM UTC-5, Dingbat wrote:
> >
> > > Whence the New Yorker's KAWFY pronunciation of COFFEE
> > > and the southern black FAW pronunciation of FOR?
> >
> > What's one got to do with the other? Apparently your notion of
> > a New York accent comes from parodies by Mike Myers. That
> > "cawfee" is simply a tensing of CAUGHT.
> >
> I don't see why COFFEE with a double <f> has CAUGHT if
> New York did not merge COT to CAUGHT. It's like Enid
> Blyton's policeman Mr Goon pronouncing OFF as ORF
> for no stated reason. If their COFFEE has CAUGHT for
> unknown reasons. in which contexts is CAUGHT tensed and
> how is CAUGHT pronounced in other contexts?

you are letting the curse bully you.
The curse has written that the tense/lax distinction is not supported phonetically or some such thing and here he is bullying you with it.

Northeastern ethnics have this "cuofee" pronunciation which differs from "coffee" because it has a "w" sound that proper speakers don't use.

The cultured educated speaker Bob Woodward speaks the "cuofee" dialect extensively, making him sound like a special-needs person.

[Tak To]

I report from my observations, which do not negative the columnist's
"facts". There is no need to choose between what she said and what
I said.

> Well,
> "fact" as far as I know because there's no indication that she fudged
> her research. She's a well-respected journalist and her writings have
> never been challenged. She found that Brit speakers were more in
> demand and offered higher starting wages than other applicants might
> be offered in many offices.
>
> The cachet of a British accent on the phone and how the receptionist
> is seen by visitors to the office is about perceived "class". The
> first impression by visitors or callers is "This must be a classy
> company."

I am not disputing this.

> It doesn't make any difference if this not the case, or if you don't
> think it should be the case.

I have not opined on this.

> What makes the difference is if the
> person who hires the receptionist and sets her salary thinks it's
> true.

She found that some employers were willing to pay a 25% premium
for the accent; I observed that there were employers who were not
willing. These are not contradictions.

> Jumping back to your paragraph above...this has nothing to do with job
> performance ("adequate" "incompetent") or a "salary increase". It's
> about who is hired for the job and what starting salary will be
> offered.

I tried to explain the mentality of the employers that I have
observed. I do not see how you can reject the possibility of
such mentality out of hand.

> There was nothing to suggest that the article indicated that the job
> performance after hiring would not be evaluated the same as it would
> be for any other job.

The only comment that I have made about the article was that I
was surprised. Somehow you seem to think that I was trying to
dispute the finding.

> The article appeared some time ago and I didn't retain a copy of it.
> As I remember it, it simply said that higher salaries were offered or
> higher demands were met for applicants for that particular job who
> were Brit speakers.

You said 25% higher.

----- ------

>>> The column came out "some time ago", as I said.
>>>
>>> However, if you want to remain surprised, that's up to you.
>>
>> I don't understand your statement.
>
> I'm surprised that you have so little understanding of how perception
> can affect some types of companies, and how the employees who are the
> first seen/first heard by customers and potential customers are the
> ones who create an image in the customer's and potential customer's
> minds.

I said I was surprised, and you said I shouldn't have been.
So I related the observations that led to my being surprised.
Feel free to want-to-remain skeptical of the veracity of my
observations or the logic thereof.

[lar3ryca]

Hey, if a male sheep is a ram, and a donkey is an ass, how can a ram in
the ass be a goose?

--
Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?