Stressing Portuguese

[Ruud Harmsen]

How is the word "Portuguese" stressed? As a noun, as an adjective?
https://rudhar.com/fonetics/strsprtg.htm

Is English a simple language? No, it's quite complicated, and hard for
many learners.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 05.04.2023 kl. 13.24 skrev Ruud Harmsen:

> Is English a simple language? No, it's quite complicated, and hard for
> many learners.

I have seen more than one discussion about languages and difficulties.
Sometimes people proudly declares that their native languge is very
difficult.

Such a statement makes no sense. English is difficult because you have
to learn many different pronunciations of the same sequence of letters,
and because you need to know many idioms.

German is difficult bacsue you have to learn many grammar rules by heart
and you have to have a wide grammatical span to be able to make sense of
long sentences.

Danish is difficult because we have a bit of the same anarchistic
spelling that English has and because we pronounce it very lazily.

And even those statements are incomplete. English is relatively easy to
learn for Danes because of the close connection between the peoples and
the languages. Other European people also have the advantage of knowing
a lot of the common European words and many common grammatical traits.

Chinese is difficult ...

And so on.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 05.04.2023 kl. 14.18 skrev Bertel Lund Hansen:

> I have seen more than one discussion about languages and difficulties.
> Sometimes people proudly declares that their native languge is very
> difficult.

The spelling certainly is ...

--
Bertel

[Jerry Friedman]

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 5:24:55 AM UTC-6, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> How is the word "Portuguese" stressed? As a noun, as an adjective?
> https://rudhar.com/fonetics/strsprtg.htm

For me, primary stress on the first syllable, secondary on the last,
regardless of function.

> Is English a simple language? No, it's quite complicated, and hard for
> many learners.

Of course.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Paul Carmichael]

El Wed, 05 Apr 2023 13:24:50 +0200, Ruud Harmsen escribió:

> How is the word "Portuguese" stressed? As a noun, as an adjective?

Always stressed on last syllable as noun.

Adjective normally last syllable, but sometimes without stress.
"Portuguese man of war". "War" is the only stressed syllable in that
sentence for me.

Sometimes depends on emphasis.

"Portuguese horses are pink". No stress or maybe a tiny bit on the first.
If it were a comparison (ie; preceded by "whereas"), stress on the last.

Somebody will now call me a banana.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-04-05 13:16:59 +0000, Jerry Friedman said:

> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 5:24:55 AM UTC-6, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> How is the word "Portuguese" stressed? As a noun, as an adjective?>
>> https://rudhar.com/fonetics/strsprtg.htm
> For me, primary stress on the first syllable, secondary on the last,
> regardless of function.

For me it's the other way round. A Portuguese acquaintance of mine
always pronounced it your way, which struck me as odd, because the
Portuguese equivalent, português, is strssed on the final syllable.

>
>> Is English a simple language? No, it's quite complicated, and hard for>
>> many learners.
> Of course.


--

Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

[Ken Blake]

Two points, as far as I'm concerned:

1.No language is more difficult for a child as his first language. You
don't see children in some countries leaning their native language
more quickly or more easily than children in other countries.

2. Some languages are more difficult for an adult to learn as a second
language. Which languages? Those that are most different from your
first language.

[Ken Blake]

On 5 Apr 2023 14:12:05 GMT, Paul Carmichael <wibble...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>El Wed, 05 Apr 2023 13:24:50 +0200, Ruud Harmsen escribió:
>
>> How is the word "Portuguese" stressed? As a noun, as an adjective?
>
>Always stressed on last syllable as noun.

Always? Not to me, nor to anyone else I know.

I agree with Jerry. My experience is the same as his.

[lar3ryca]

On 2023-04-05 05:24, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> How is the word "Portuguese" stressed? As a noun, as an adjective?
> https://rudhar.com/fonetics/strsprtg.htm
>
> Is English a simple language? No, it's quite complicated, and hard for
> many learners.

If you want to stress a Portuguese, just tell him you think he sounds
like a Russian speaking Spanish.

--
A man's best friend is his dogma.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-04-05 15:52:01 +0000, lar3ryca said:

> On 2023-04-05 05:24, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> How is the word "Portuguese" stressed? As a noun, as an adjective?
>> https://rudhar.com/fonetics/strsprtg.htm
>>
>> Is English a simple language? No, it's quite complicated, and hard for
>> many learners.
>
> If you want to stress a Portuguese, just tell him you think he sounds
> like a Russian speaking Spanish.

Good one, that.

[Bebercito]

The more since since it does have some rules, which native speakers
don't quite seem to abide by. In the case discussed, I learnt long ago
that English has "stress-attracting suffixes" like -ee, -eer, -ese, and -ette.
According to that simple rule, "Portuguese" should have its main stress
on <guese> both as a noun and an adjective, but I suppose there may
also be Pondian differences to compound the issue, as often.

>
> --
> Jerry Friedman

[Snidely]

Paul Carmichael submitted this gripping article, maybe on Wednesday:

Or perhaps we'll call you a cab. Got your hat and coat?

(I agree with Jerry, btw)

/dps


--
Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence
went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his
precious heavy water.
_The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 12:42:51 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> Le mercredi 5 avril 2023 à 15:17:02 UTC+2, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> > On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 5:24:55 AM UTC-6, Ruud Harmsen wrote:

> > > How is the word "Portuguese" stressed? As a noun, as an adjective?
> > > https://rudhar.com/fonetics/strsprtg.htm
> > For me, primary stress on the first syllable, secondary on the last,
> > regardless of function.
> > > Is English a simple language? No, it's quite complicated, and hard for
> > > many learners.
> > Of course.
>
> The more since since it does have some rules, which native speakers
> don't quite seem to abide by. In the case discussed, I learnt long ago
> that English has "stress-attracting suffixes" like -ee, -eer, -ese, and -ette.

-ee, -eer, and -ette are stressed, but they do not take the stress away
from the stressed syllable of the base word, which is what "attract"
means.

> According to that simple rule, "Portuguese" should have its main stress
> on <guese> both as a noun and an adjective,

But it doesn't.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Wed, 5 Apr 2023 06:16:59 -0700 (PDT): Jerry Friedman
<jerry.fr...@gmail.com> scribeva:

>On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 5:24:55?AM UTC-6, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> How is the word "Portuguese" stressed? As a noun, as an adjective?
>> https://rudhar.com/fonetics/strsprtg.htm
>
>For me, primary stress on the first syllable, secondary on the last,
>regardless of function.

Also in "In Portuguese, please!"?

[Ruud Harmsen]

Wed, 05 Apr 2023 20:26:28 +0200: Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com>
scribeva:

Examples: https://www.youtube.com/@PortugueseWithLeo

[Ruud Harmsen]

Wed, 5 Apr 2023 09:52:01 -0600: lar3ryca <la...@invalid.ca> scribeva:

>On 2023-04-05 05:24, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> How is the word "Portuguese" stressed? As a noun, as an adjective?
>> https://rudhar.com/fonetics/strsprtg.htm
>>
>> Is English a simple language? No, it's quite complicated, and hard for
>> many learners.
>
>If you want to stress a Portuguese, just tell him you think he sounds
>like a Russian speaking Spanish.

Yes, the title is ambiguous, I know. Not my intention, but first I had
"Stressing p-words", because I already knew I also wanted to mention
"processor" in three languages.
Then I'd have had to add a disclaimer it has nothing to do with the
n-word, which then of course would become a pink elephant in the room.

So then I took what I have now instead.

[Bebercito]

Le mercredi 5 avril 2023 à 19:38:34 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 12:42:51 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le mercredi 5 avril 2023 à 15:17:02 UTC+2, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> > > On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 5:24:55 AM UTC-6, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
> > > > How is the word "Portuguese" stressed? As a noun, as an adjective?
> > > > https://rudhar.com/fonetics/strsprtg.htm
> > > For me, primary stress on the first syllable, secondary on the last,
> > > regardless of function.
> > > > Is English a simple language? No, it's quite complicated, and hard for
> > > > many learners.
> > > Of course.
> >
> > The more since since it does have some rules, which native speakers
> > don't quite seem to abide by. In the case discussed, I learnt long ago
> > that English has "stress-attracting suffixes" like -ee, -eer, -ese, and -ette.
> -ee, -eer, and -ette are stressed, but they do not take the stress away
> from the stressed syllable of the base word, which is what "attract"
> means.

Not only. As I said earlier, this may be Pondian, since, in BrE (at least), it
does change stress placement, as in e.g. "emPLOYer" / "emploYEE".

[Bebercito]

Why not just put the word in quotes?

[lar3ryca]

On 2023-04-05 12:33, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Wed, 5 Apr 2023 09:52:01 -0600: lar3ryca <la...@invalid.ca> scribeva:
>
>> On 2023-04-05 05:24, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>> How is the word "Portuguese" stressed? As a noun, as an adjective?
>>> https://rudhar.com/fonetics/strsprtg.htm
>>>
>>> Is English a simple language? No, it's quite complicated, and hard for
>>> many learners.
>>
>> If you want to stress a Portuguese, just tell him you think he sounds
>> like a Russian speaking Spanish.
>
> Yes, the title is ambiguous, I know. Not my intention, but first I had
> "Stressing p-words", because I already knew I also wanted to mention
> "processor" in three languages.

No worries. I'm glad you used an ambiguous title.

> Then I'd have had to add a disclaimer it has nothing to do with the
> n-word, which then of course would become a pink elephant in the room.
>
> So then I took what I have now instead.

--

I took a course in speed waiting.
Now I can wait an hour in only ten minutes.

[Jerry Friedman]

Sure. I don't see why that would be any different.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 10:42:51 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
> Le mercredi 5 avril 2023 à 15:17:02 UTC+2, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> > On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 5:24:55 AM UTC-6, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > How is the word "Portuguese" stressed? As a noun, as an adjective?
> > > https://rudhar.com/fonetics/strsprtg.htm
> > For me, primary stress on the first syllable, secondary on the last,
> > regardless of function.
> > > Is English a simple language? No, it's quite complicated, and hard for
> > > many learners.

> > Of course.

> The more since since it does have some rules, which native speakers
> don't quite seem to abide by. In the case discussed, I learnt long ago
> that English has "stress-attracting suffixes" like -ee, -eer, -ese, and -ette.

In my AmE, which I think is pretty typical in this way, -eer and -ette are
always stressed. Exceptions for -ee are "retiree" and "employee". For
-ese, I can think of variations--in "Japanese" and (maybe more surprisingly)
Chinese it might get either more or less stress than the first syllable.

If 1 represents primary stress and 3 no stress (with apologies to Chomsky
and Halle), I might pronounce "retiree" as either 321 or 312. I think.

At one point I noticed that I was annoyed by people who stressed "employee"
on the third syllable instead of the second, and people who stressed "parolee"
the opposite way, so I decided to save my annoyance for "elecTORal".

> According to that simple rule, "Portuguese" should have its main stress
> on <guese> both as a noun and an adjective, but I suppose there may
> also be Pondian differences to compound the issue, as often.

Yep.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Ken Blake]

On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 13:32:28 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
<jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 10:42:51?AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
>> Le mercredi 5 avril 2023 à 15:17:02 UTC+2, Jerry Friedman a écrit :

>> > On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 5:24:55?AM UTC-6, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> > > How is the word "Portuguese" stressed? As a noun, as an adjective?
>> > > https://rudhar.com/fonetics/strsprtg.htm
>> > For me, primary stress on the first syllable, secondary on the last,
>> > regardless of function.
>> > > Is English a simple language? No, it's quite complicated, and hard for
>> > > many learners.
>
>> > Of course.
>
>> The more since since it does have some rules, which native speakers
>> don't quite seem to abide by. In the case discussed, I learnt long ago
>> that English has "stress-attracting suffixes" like -ee, -eer, -ese, and -ette.
>
>In my AmE, which I think is pretty typical in this way, -eer and -ette are
>always stressed.

Same for me, I think, but I might be missing some counterexamples I
didn't think of.

> Exceptions for -ee are "retiree" and "employee"

Neither is an exception for me. I say ree-tire-EE and em-ploy-EE

>For
>-ese, I can think of variations--in "Japanese" and

I hesitated to reply to this. I think I sometimes say JAP-a -neez and
sometimes jap-a-NEEZ. Maybe I say JAP-a -neez as an adjective, and
jap-a-NEEZ as noun.

>(maybe more surprisingly)
>Chinese it might get either more or less stress than the first syllable.

I think I say chi-NESE as an adjective and CHI-nese as a noun.

But with Japanese and Chinese, I'm not so sure that I'm consistent,

>If 1 represents primary stress and 3 no stress (with apologies to Chomsky
>and Halle), I might pronounce "retiree" as either 321 or 312. I think.

321 for me.

>At one point I noticed that I was annoyed by people who stressed "employee"
>on the third syllable instead of the second, and people who stressed "parolee"
>the opposite way, so I decided to save my annoyance for "elecTORal".

That annoys me too, but probably not as much as it does you, because I
know a woman here who I greatly respect for many reasons, and she says
elec-TOR-al and doc-TOR-al.

[Peter Moylan]

On 06/04/23 01:06, Ken Blake wrote:

> 1.No language is more difficult for a child as his first language. You
> don't see children in some countries leaning their native language
> more quickly or more easily than children in other countries.

That's for the spoken language. But I've heard Chinese people say that
they were still learning to write when at a fairly advanced high school
level.

In contrast, I'd say that I had good handwriting and spelling (in
English) by about grade 3.

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

[Peter Moylan]

On 06/04/23 00:24, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-04-05 13:16:59 +0000, Jerry Friedman said:
>
>> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 5:24:55 AM UTC-6, Ruud Harmsen
>> wrote:
>>> How is the word "Portuguese" stressed? As a noun, as an
>>> adjective?> https://rudhar.com/fonetics/strsprtg.htm
>> For me, primary stress on the first syllable, secondary on the
>> last, regardless of function.
>
> For me it's the other way round. A Portuguese acquaintance of mine
> always pronounced it your way, which struck me as odd, because the
> Portuguese equivalent, português, is strssed on the final syllable.

Similar for me. Last-syllable stress.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Wed, 5 Apr 2023 12:26:11 -0700 (PDT): Bebercito <bebe...@aol.com>
scribeva:

1) Don't like quotes in titles.
2) In the part, curly quotes broke <title>s, but not <h1>s. Probably
no longer so.
3) To keep the ambiguity and have some fun about it.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 05.04.2023 kl. 17.06 skrev Ken Blake:

> 1.No language is more difficult for a child as his first language. You
> don't see children in some countries leaning their native language
> more quickly or more easily than children in other countries.

This article - unfortunately in Danish - disagrees.

https://videnskab.dk/kultur-samfund/babyer-har-svaert-ved-at-laere-dansk/

Udlændinge beklager sig ofte over, at dansk er et frygteligt
svært sprog at lære. Nu viser ny forskning, at danske småbørn
også kæmper en brav kamp for at mestre modersmålet.

Vi skal ikke længere væk end til Sverige, før at børnene har det
meget lettere, når de skal lære at tale. Når de er 15 måneder
gamle, har et dansk barn et ordforråd på 80 ord, et svensk barn
har et ordforråd på 130 ord, og helt i toppen finder vi de
kroatiske børn, som har næsten 200 ord at gøre godt med, når de
skal gøre sig forståelige.

My translation:

Foreigners often complain that Danish is a terribly difficult
language to learn. Now new research shows that Danish
small-children also are having a hard struggle to master the
language.

We need only to go to Sweden to see that the children have a
much easier task when learning to speak. At 15 months a Danish
child has a vocabulary of 80 words, a Swedish child has a
vocabulary of 130 words, and at the very top we find Croatic
children who have almost 200 words to use when they want to
be understood.

The article then explains some reasons: Danish is the language in the
world with most vowels, and some of our consonants are realized as
half-vowels. And we speak in a way that makes it very difficult to know
where one word stops and another begins.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 06.04.2023 kl. 00.29 skrev Ken Blake:

> I hesitated to reply to this. I think I sometimes say JAP-a -neez and
> sometimes jap-a-NEEZ. Maybe I say JAP-a -neez as an adjective, and
> jap-a-NEEZ as noun.

In one situation the stress will move. If I talk about something
Japanese and it becomes apparent that the listener has heard
"Taiwanese", then I will stress the first syllable. "No, JApanese".

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Christian Weisgerber]

On 2023-04-05, Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com> wrote:

> 1.No language is more difficult for a child as his first language.
>

> 2. Some languages are more difficult for an adult to learn as a second
> language. Which languages? Those that are most different from your
> first language.

For practical purposes, there is a third point that is rarely
articulated: What level of proficiency do you want to reach?

Much foreign language learning takes the form of serving time in
mandatory language classes where the goal is to achieve a good or
at least a passing grade, but there is little expectation to acquire
usable skills in the language. Producing a simple sentence like
"Colin has a blue pencil" is easier in English than in, say, Russian,
and if you expect your language learning to stop there, then English
_is_ easier.

While rarely made explicit, such tacit assumptions are widespread.
I have been very outspoken for decades that it makes no sense to
teach Shakespeare to students who are barely able to order a beer
in English. From time to time, people disagree, pointing out that
such an icon of literature is more important than being able to use
the language, which is not achievable anyway. Or, years ago, the
guy over on a German newsgroup who judged himself to possess good
English skills but considered it self-evident that he couldn't watch
a movie in English, because that's a level reserved for native
speakers. Etc.

So it comes as no surprise that most talk about the difficulty of
this or that language is entirely focused on beginner's problems,
because that is all most people will ever encounter. And so a
beginner's problem like dealing with basic inflection--something
that I dare say is trivial in hindsight when acquiring functional
language skills--well, that problem is elevated to _the_ difficulty
of learning the language.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 9:45:52 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 06/04/23 01:06, Ken Blake wrote:

> > 1.No language is more difficult for a child as his first language. You
> > don't see children in some countries leaning their native language
> > more quickly or more easily than children in other countries.
>
> That's for the spoken language. But I've heard Chinese people say that
> they were still learning to write when at a fairly advanced high school
> level.
>
> In contrast, I'd say that I had good handwriting and spelling (in
> English) by about grade 3.

There's no "critical age" for learning to read -- adult illiterates can do it
with no more difficulty than first-graders. Adding new characters is like
adding new vocabulary words -- as you need them, you add them to your
repertoire.

[copying this from sci.lang to multipost to aue]

[Peter T. Daniels]

Croatian.

> The article then explains some reasons: Danish is the language in the
> world with most vowels, and some of our consonants are realized as
> half-vowels. And we speak in a way that makes it very difficult to know
> where one word stops and another begins.

Those are factual nonsense and apply just as well to English.

I'd like to see the methodology of this study that contradicts a century
of study of language acquisition and bilingualism.

[multiposted from sci.lang]

[Peter T. Daniels]

On my few trips to Germany and Belgium (Antwerp, Cologne,
and Munich), and among the many European scholars I dealt
with every day in Chicago and at international meetings, I never
encountered anyone whose English was below a fine-communication
level. (Frustrating, since I still don't know how well, if at all, I can speak
German.)

The sole exception was the little old lady at the gift shop of the
Gutenberg Museum in Mainz. She had to call the manager to
explain why the price coming up on the cash register was about twice
the price on the tag. (The charge was based on the new wholesale
replacement cost rather than on what they'd paid for the item a while
back.)

[multiposted from sci.langf]

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-04-06 12:49:05 +0000, Christian Weisgerber said:

> On 2023-04-05, Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>
>> 1.No language is more difficult for a child as his first language.
>>
>> 2. Some languages are more difficult for an adult to learn as a second
>> language. Which languages? Those that are most different from your
>> first language.
>
> For practical purposes, there is a third point that is rarely
> articulated: What level of proficiency do you want to reach?
>
> Much foreign language learning takes the form of serving time in
> mandatory language classes where the goal is to achieve a good or
> at least a passing grade, but there is little expectation to acquire
> usable skills in the language. Producing a simple sentence like
> "Colin has a blue pencil" is easier in English than in, say, Russian,
> and if you expect your language learning to stop there, then English
> _is_ easier.
>
> While rarely made explicit, such tacit assumptions are widespread.
> I have been very outspoken for decades that it makes no sense to
> teach Shakespeare to students who are barely able to order a beer
> in English.

Good example. There was a time when I could order a retsina and various
sorts of food in Greek, or buy a bus ticket, but my Greek wouldn't have
coped with Cavafy.

I would describe my youngest daughter as fully competent in English,
French and Spanish, as she can say anything in each of these that she
can say in the others, without needing to think about it. I can manage
in French and Spanish but at nowhere near her degree of fluency.

> From time to time, people disagree, pointing out that
> such an icon of literature is more important than being able to use
> the language, which is not achievable anyway. Or, years ago, the
> guy over on a German newsgroup who judged himself to possess good
> English skills but considered it self-evident that he couldn't watch
> a movie in English, because that's a level reserved for native
> speakers. Etc.
>
> So it comes as no surprise that most talk about the difficulty of
> this or that language is entirely focused on beginner's problems,
> because that is all most people will ever encounter. And so a
> beginner's problem like dealing with basic inflection--something
> that I dare say is trivial in hindsight when acquiring functional
> language skills--well, that problem is elevated to _the_ difficulty
> of learning the language.


--

[Ruud Harmsen]

Thu, 6 Apr 2023 07:43:24 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On my few trips to Germany and Belgium (Antwerp, Cologne,
>and Munich), and among the many European scholars I dealt
>with every day in Chicago and at international meetings, I never
>encountered anyone whose English was below a fine-communication
>level. (Frustrating, since I still don't know how well, if at all, I can speak
>German.)

Probier es hier mal aus! D.h. schreibend, niet sprechend/

>The sole exception was the little old lady at the gift shop of the
>Gutenberg Museum in Mainz. She had to call the manager to
>explain why the price coming up on the cash register was about twice
>the price on the tag. (The charge was based on the new wholesale
>replacement cost rather than on what they'd paid for the item a while
>back.)
>
>[multiposted from sci.langf]

[Jerry Friedman]

On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 7:30:09 AM UTC-6, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2023-04-05, Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>
> > 1.No language is more difficult for a child as his first language.
> >
> > 2. Some languages are more difficult for an adult to learn as a second
> > language. Which languages? Those that are most different from your
> > first language.

> For practical purposes, there is a third point that is rarely
> articulated: What level of proficiency do you want to reach?
>
> Much foreign language learning takes the form of serving time in
> mandatory language classes where the goal is to achieve a good or
> at least a passing grade, but there is little expectation to acquire
> usable skills in the language. Producing a simple sentence like
> "Colin has a blue pencil" is easier in English than in, say, Russian,
> and if you expect your language learning to stop there, then English
> _is_ easier.

On the other hand, reading or writing "The sheriff sings bass in the
choir" is quite hard.

> While rarely made explicit, such tacit assumptions are widespread.
> I have been very outspoken for decades that it makes no sense to
> teach Shakespeare to students who are barely able to order a beer
> in English. From time to time, people disagree, pointing out that
> such an icon of literature is more important than being able to use
> the language, which is not achievable anyway.

I'd be in favor of introducing a short passage from Shakespeare fairly
early, just because of that iconicity (especially to German speakers?).
On the other hand, was I better off, and were my classmates better off,
because we read Rook and Root in high school and college French
instead of working on conversation and modern writing? Depends
partly on what we wanted. I may have enjoyed the classic literature
more than a lot of my classmates.

When I was in college, the first- or second-year German students
read "Erlkönig". Apparently some of them mocked their having learned
the German word for "moo".

> Or, years ago, the
> guy over on a German newsgroup who judged himself to possess good
> English skills but considered it self-evident that he couldn't watch
> a movie in English, because that's a level reserved for native
> speakers. Etc.

Well, not many non-native speakers get to the point of being able to
watch a movie without living in the country for a long time, so he was
exaggerating. And part of the problem is the definition of "good". I'd
say I have good skills at reading and writing in French and Spanish,
which are what you need for a newsgroup, but I'm far from being
able to follow all the dialogue of a movie.

> So it comes as no surprise that most talk about the difficulty of
> this or that language is entirely focused on beginner's problems,
> because that is all most people will ever encounter. And so a
> beginner's problem like dealing with basic inflection--something
> that I dare say is trivial in hindsight when acquiring functional
> language skills--well, that problem is elevated to _the_ difficulty
> of learning the language.

I believe I've heard people complain about inflections in Russian,
for instance. On the other hand, I remember a student in my high
school French classes saying that he was OK with a sentence
till "que" showed up.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Paul Carmichael]

El Thu, 06 Apr 2023 10:36:13 -0700, Jerry Friedman escribió:

> Well, not many non-native speakers get to the point of being able to
> watch a movie without living in the country for a long time, so he was
> exaggerating. And part of the problem is the definition of "good". I'd
> say I have good skills at reading and writing in French and Spanish,
> which are what you need for a newsgroup, but I'm far from being able to
> follow all the dialogue of a movie.

Heh. One problem I have is I simply cannot sit through an American film
and understand enough to really know what's going on. I do quite a bit
better with Spanish films.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es

[Ken Blake]

Yes.

But change "Taiwanese" to "Javanese" and it would be a better example.

[Ken Blake]

On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 11:45:46 +1000, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 06/04/23 01:06, Ken Blake wrote:
>
>> 1.No language is more difficult for a child as his first language. You
>> don't see children in some countries leaning their native language
>> more quickly or more easily than children in other countries.
>
>That's for the spoken language. But I've heard Chinese people say that
>they were still learning to write when at a fairly advanced high school
>level.
>
>In contrast, I'd say that I had good handwriting and spelling (in
>English) by about grade 3.

I had good spelling in grade 1, but I've never had good handwriting.

[Silvano]

Jerry Friedman hat am 06.04.2023 um 19:36 geschrieben:

> I'd be in favor of introducing a short passage from Shakespeare fairly
> early, just because of that iconicity (especially to German speakers?).
> On the other hand, was I better off, and were my classmates better off,
> because we read Rook and Root in high school and college French
> instead of working on conversation and modern writing? Depends
> partly on what we wanted.

Indeed! Students from a school for interpreters and translators, like
me, mocked the university students who couldn't order a beer in a German
Kneipe (pub for English speakers) and could get a degree without knowing
anything about German history after 1945.

[Peter Moylan]

On 07/04/23 03:36, Jerry Friedman wrote:

> When I was in college, the first- or second-year German students read
> "Erlkönig". Apparently some of them mocked their having learned the
> German word for "moo".

At a similar stage in French, I came across a book on vulgar French.
That was probably a major step in improving my fluency.

Simple example: the verb "foutre" literally means "fuck", and certainly
"va te faire foutre" is used in just the same way as "get fucked" in
English. But its use in "je m'en fous"="I don't care" is only very
mildly vulgar, and is commonly used.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 06.04.2023 kl. 21.01 skrev Ken Blake:

>> In contrast, I'd say that I had good handwriting and spelling (in
>> English) by about grade 3.
>
>
> I had good spelling in grade 1, but I've never had good handwriting.

I don't remember how I spelled, but I wasn't bad at it. Good handwriting
is many things. My handwriting doesn't make people fall in awe over the
beauty, but it's easily readable. I have seen beautiful handwriting that
was difficult to read.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Hibou]

Le 05/04/2023 à 21:06, lar3ryca a écrit :
> On 2023-04-05 12:33, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>
>> Yes, the title is ambiguous, I know. Not my intention, but first I had
>> "Stressing p-words", because I already knew I also wanted to mention
>> "processor" in three languages.
>
> No worries. I'm glad you used an ambiguous title.

Yes, it's the best way to start title-tattle.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 06.04.2023 kl. 19.36 skrev Jerry Friedman:

> Well, not many non-native speakers get to the point of being able to
> watch a movie without living in the country for a long time, so he was
> exaggerating. And part of the problem is the definition of "good". I'd
> say I have good skills at reading and writing in French and Spanish,
> which are what you need for a newsgroup, but I'm far from being
> able to follow all the dialogue of a movie.

I used to be able to watch an English or German movie without subtitles,
but I can't any more because my hearing has deteriorated.

With Danish tv I often turn off the sound and turn on subtitles, but I
do that because they are polluted with noise spam (probably called
"music" by the polluting sound engineer). They don't even turn off the
noise completely when people are speaking.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 07.04.2023 kl. 03.17 skrev Peter Moylan:

> Simple example: the verb "foutre" literally means "fuck", and certainly
> "va te faire foutre" is used in just the same way as "get fucked" in
> English.

I didn't know that.

> But its use in "je m'en fous"="I don't care" is only very
> mildly vulgar, and is commonly used.

I knew that expression. We learned that in high school from a teacher
who in no way would tell us about vulgar language. He claimed that there
were two kinds of French: academic (read beautiful) French and street
French which he advised us not to use.

I presume that he was oversimplifying matters. In any language there are
several styles, and none of them should be avoided. One must just learn
when to use them.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 07.04.2023 kl. 07.57 skrev Hibou:

>> No worries. I'm glad you used an ambiguous title.
>
> Yes, it's the best way to start title-tattle.

Cute!

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 08:03:14 +0200

Bertel Lund Hansen <gade...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

> Den 07.04.2023 kl. 07.57 skrev Hibou:
>
> >> No worries. I'm glad you used an ambiguous title.
> >
> > Yes, it's the best way to start title-tattle.
>
> Cute!
>

Bertel, don't let such praise go to your head.


--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:17:58 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 07/04/23 03:36, Jerry Friedman wrote:

> > When I was in college, the first- or second-year German students read
> > "Erlkönig". Apparently some of them mocked their having learned the
> > German word for "moo".
>
> At a similar stage in French, I came across a book on vulgar French.
> That was probably a major step in improving my fluency.
>
> Simple example: the verb "foutre" literally means "fuck", and certainly
> "va te faire foutre" is used in just the same way as "get fucked" in
> English.

AmE "fuck you"

> But its use in "je m'en fous"="I don't care" is only very
> mildly vulgar, and is commonly used.

Is that from that word, or is it simply "fou" 'crazy'?

[Ken Blake]

On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 07:51:19 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen
<gade...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

>Den 06.04.2023 kl. 21.01 skrev Ken Blake:
>
>>> In contrast, I'd say that I had good handwriting and spelling (in
>>> English) by about grade 3.
>>
>>
>> I had good spelling in grade 1, but I've never had good handwriting.
>I don't remember how I spelled, but I wasn't bad at it.

I've always been very good at spelling. I rarely make a mistake. I
think that people who are bad at spelling remember the sound of words,
but not how they look. I've always remembered both.

Yes, if you look at my messaged in newgroups, you'll frequently see
words misspelled, but they are usually typos, not spelling errors..

>Good handwriting
>is many things. My handwriting doesn't make people fall in awe over the
>beauty, but it's easily readable. I have seen beautiful handwriting that
>was difficult to read.

I wasn't talking about beauty. I was talking about how easy it is to
read. I tend to write too fast, so what I write is hard to read.
Sometimes I can't even read it myself.

If I slow down and write very carefully, I can make it easy to read,
but I almost never do that.

[Ken Blake]

On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 11:17:51 +1000, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 07/04/23 03:36, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>
>> When I was in college, the first- or second-year German students read
>> "Erlkönig". Apparently some of them mocked their having learned the
>> German word for "moo".
>
>At a similar stage in French, I came across a book on vulgar French.
>That was probably a major step in improving my fluency.

Back when I studying Latin in High School, and was reading Caesar's
"Gallic Wars" (which I found very boring), I remember thinking that if
students were given pornographic novels to read in the language they
were trying to learn. learning it would be much easier.

I still think that would be a good idea.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Around 1925 my mother was taught Latin by nuns in a convent school.
They had to read the poems of Horace, but they were told they should
ignore certain passages that were unsuitable for young girls. When it
came to the exam (organized by some body independent of the school)
they were given one of the forbidden passages to translate. To the
great surprise of the nuns they all scored very high marks on this.

>
> I still think that would be a good idea.

[John Dunlop]

Stefan Ram:
> (I will speak in very plain and direct words. So if you don't like
> such candor, I recommend to not read on.)
>
> An English web page seems to confirm that "f**s" where "**"="ou"
> indeed is a form of the verb "fo**re" where "**"="ut", one meaning
> of which is doing the activity of a man during the corporal marriage
> with a wife. Probably indicative present first person singular.

Are you familiar with the use--mention distinction? There might be
situations where the mere mention of a word is morally questionable,*
but I doubt anyone here would think any the less of you for writing the
words above in full.

* https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/2/1/178/htm

--
John

[Paul Carmichael]

El Fri, 07 Apr 2023 18:20:51 +0100, John Dunlop escribió:

> Stefan Ram:
>> (I will speak in very plain and direct words. So if you don't like
>> such candor, I recommend to not read on.)
>>
>> An English web page seems to confirm that "f**s" where "**"="ou"
>> indeed is a form of the verb "fo**re" where "**"="ut", one meaning
>> of which is doing the activity of a man during the corporal marriage
>> with a wife. Probably indicative present first person singular.
>
> Are you familiar with the use--mention distinction? There might be
> situations where the mere mention of a word is morally questionable,*
> but I doubt anyone here would think any the less of you for writing the
> words above in full.

I think that these days people are so used to social media sites
automatically cancelling/banning based on AI analysis of content, that
the asterisk is getting a new lease of life.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es

[lar3ryca]

On 2023-04-07 09:21, Stefan Ram wrote:
> =?UTF-8?Q?Mich=C3=A8le?= <bondmy...@yahoo.fr> writes:

>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> Is that from that word, or is it simply "fou" 'crazy'?

>> It’s a synonym of « je m’en moque »

>
> (I will speak in very plain and direct words. So if you don't like
> such candor, I recommend to not read on.)
>
> An English web page seems to confirm that "f**s" where "**"="ou"
> indeed is a form of the verb "fo**re" where "**"="ut", one meaning
> of which is doing the activity of a man during the corporal marriage
> with a wife. Probably indicative present first person singular.

Before re-reading, I had no fucking idea what those asterisks stood for.
Just use the words.

--
Sixty billion gigabits can do much. It even does windows.
- Fred Pohl, Beyond the Blue Event Horizon, 1980

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-04-07 17:20:51 +0000, John Dunlop said:

> Stefan Ram:
>> (I will speak in very plain and direct words. So if you don't like
>> such candor, I recommend to not read on.)

Good grief, Stefan. Have you not yet realized that *no one* here will
clutch their pearls and reach for their smelling salts if you write
"foutre"?

>>
>> An English web page seems to confirm that "f**s" where "**"="ou"
>> indeed is a form of the verb "fo**re" where "**"="ut", one meaning
>> of which is doing the activity of a man during the corporal marriage
>> with a wife. Probably indicative present first person singular.
>
> Are you familiar with the use--mention distinction? There might be
> situations where the mere mention of a word is morally questionable,*
> but I doubt anyone here would think any the less of you for writing the
> words above in full.
>
> * https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/2/1/178/htm


--

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-04-07 18:37:44 +0000, lar3ryca said:

> On 2023-04-07 09:21, Stefan Ram wrote:
>> =?UTF-8?Q?Mich=C3=A8le?= <bondmy...@yahoo.fr> writes:
>>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> Is that from that word, or is it simply "fou" 'crazy'?
>>> It’s a synonym of « je m’en moque »
>>
>> (I will speak in very plain and direct words. So if you don't like
>> such candor, I recommend to not read on.)
>>
>> An English web page seems to confirm that "f**s" where "**"="ou"
>> indeed is a form of the verb "fo**re" where "**"="ut", one meaning
>> of which is doing the activity of a man during the corporal marriage
>> with a wife. Probably indicative present first person singular.
>
> Before re-reading, I had no fucking idea what those asterisks stood for.
> Just use the words.

What I have no fucking idea of is why Stefan thinks he needs to issue a
fucking warning before using what he thinks others might think a
naughty word.

[Mark Brader]

Ken Blake:

> Back when I studying Latin in High School, and was reading Caesar's
> "Gallic Wars" (which I found very boring), I remember thinking that if
> students were given pornographic novels to read in the language they
> were trying to learn. learning it would be much easier.

ObMovie: "A League of Their Own". Shirley never learned to read, so
her teammate Mae decides to help her learn...

Mae: Sound it out...
Shirley: Kimm...
Mae: Kimono.
Shirley: Kimono, kimono. Off. And. Gr -- Gra -- Grabb ed.
Mae: Grabbed.
Shirley: Her. M -- mi -- mil -- mil -- milky, milky. White, white.
Milky white.
Evelyn: Mae! What are you giving her to read?
Mae: Oh, what the difference does it make? She's reading, okay?
That's the important thing. Now go away, go, shoo, shoo.
Go ahead, Shirley, you're doing good.
Shirley: Thanks, Mae. Milky white bre -- breasts. [Gives Mae
a surprised look]
Mae: It gets really good after that. Look. The delivery boy walks in...

Appropriately, Mae is played by Madonna.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Infinity is not a big number."
m...@vex.net --Matt Parker

[Peter Moylan]

On 08/04/23 00:53, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:17:58 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 07/04/23 03:36, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>
>>> When I was in college, the first- or second-year German students
>>> read "Erlkönig". Apparently some of them mocked their having
>>> learned the German word for "moo".
>>
>> At a similar stage in French, I came across a book on vulgar
>> French. That was probably a major step in improving my fluency.
>>
>> Simple example: the verb "foutre" literally means "fuck", and
>> certainly "va te faire foutre" is used in just the same way as
>> "get fucked" in English.
>
> AmE "fuck you"

There's a subtle difference. The French phrase means "get yourself
fucked". English "get fucked" maintains this meaning, but "fuck you"
doesn't.

>> But its use in "je m'en fous"="I don't care" is only very mildly
>> vulgar, and is commonly used.
>
> Is that from that word, or is it simply "fou" 'crazy'?

It's definitely from the verb foutre.

Je fous, tu fous, il fout, vous foutez, etc.

A word-for-word translation of "je m'en fous" would be something like "I
bugger myself of it", but of course this is one of the many situations
where a word-for-word translation sounds silly.

[lar3ryca]

I love word-for-word translations.
Mark Twain did one. One of his stories, /The Celebrated Jumping Frog of
Calaveras County/ easy translated into French. Upon reading it, he was
appalled, and (in Twain's own words) "clawed back into a civilized
language once more by patient, unremunerated toil".

Another I really enjoyed was an Afrikaans story, translated piece by
piece, word for word, into English.

You can listen to it here:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qPao2zpua0>

--
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people
what they do not want to hear.
- George Orwell

[John Dunlop]

Stefan Ram:

> John Dunlop <dunlo...@ymail.com> writes:
>> Are you familiar with the use--mention distinction?
>

> Yes, I am. But the Web says:
>
> |Even mentioning the word "prison" proves too much for some to handle.
>
> |Even mentioning the word "Erie" can invoke feelings of dread.
>
> |Women shy away from even mentioning the word "breast".
>
> . Just to show that taboo transcends this distinction.

There's nothing taboo about those words/names. They can all be used
without a qualm in the most polite company. The last one might cause
some tittering among teenage boys -- a net gain for global happiness.

>> There might be situations where the mere mention of a word is
>> morally questionable,* but I doubt anyone here would think any the
>> less of you for writing the words above in full.
>

> I think it might be better to err on the safe side.

Concern for others is commendable, of course, but you can take it too
far. If you avoid words like "prison" because you think they're too much
for some people to handle, where do you draw the line? Can you no longer
describe a sponge cake as "moist"? Or, since this is AUE, consider the
man who as a young child was savagely attacked by a male sheep. You
would need to excuse yourself from the group lest a glimpse of your
surname bring back unpleasant memories.

> "Here" is a vary large room given that today postings are
> sometimes ripped out of the Usenet and mirrored in the World-Wide
> Web, where they then are accessible for Web search engines.

That's true.

--
John

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 7:25:00 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 08/04/23 00:53, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:17:58 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >> On 07/04/23 03:36, Jerry Friedman wrote:

> >>> When I was in college, the first- or second-year German students
> >>> read "Erlkönig". Apparently some of them mocked their having
> >>> learned the German word for "moo".
> >> At a similar stage in French, I came across a book on vulgar
> >> French. That was probably a major step in improving my fluency.
> >> Simple example: the verb "foutre" literally means "fuck", and
> >> certainly "va te faire foutre" is used in just the same way as
> >> "get fucked" in English.
> > AmE "fuck you"
>
> There's a subtle difference. The French phrase means "get yourself
> fucked". English "get fucked" maintains this meaning, but "fuck you"
> doesn't.

The _meaning_ is the same. One is active, one is passive. Not
surprisingly, the active voice is preferred in AmE, the passive
voice in BrE-derivatives.

> >> But its use in "je m'en fous"="I don't care" is only very mildly
> >> vulgar, and is commonly used.
> > Is that from that word, or is it simply "fou" 'crazy'?
>
> It's definitely from the verb foutre.
>
> Je fous, tu fous, il fout, vous foutez, etc.

Sure. if you spell it with an s. How do you know to spell it with an s?

[Peter Moylan]

On 08/04/23 20:20, John Dunlop wrote:

> Concern for others is commendable, of course, but you can take it too
> far. If you avoid words like "prison" because you think they're too much
> for some people to handle, where do you draw the line? Can you no longer
> describe a sponge cake as "moist"?

Von Lipwig?

[Peter Moylan]

On 08/04/23 22:14, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 7:25:00 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 08/04/23 00:53, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:17:58 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan
>>> wrote:

>>>> But its use in "je m'en fous"="I don't care" is only very
>>>> mildly vulgar, and is commonly used.
>>> Is that from that word, or is it simply "fou" 'crazy'?
>>
>> It's definitely from the verb foutre.
>>
>> Je fous, tu fous, il fout, vous foutez, etc.
>
> Sure. if you spell it with an s. How do you know to spell it with an
> s?

If you know how to conjugate French verbs, it's obvious. Otherwise, I
guess it's not obvious.

[Peter T. Daniels]

That is totally circular. If you think it's from foutre, you use s.
If you think it's fou, you don't.

Why do you think it's foutre? Does the historical dictionary include
that word?

[Sam Plusnet]

On 08-Apr-23 11:20, John Dunlop wrote:
> St*f*n R*m:

> Concern for others is commendable, of course, but you can take it too
> far. If you avoid words like "prison" because you think they're too much
> for some people to handle, where do you draw the line? Can you no longer
> describe a sponge cake as "moist"? Or, since this is AUE, consider the
> man who as a young child was savagely attacked by a male sheep. You
> would need to excuse yourself from the group lest a glimpse of your
> surname bring back unpleasant memories.

I sometimes suspect that St*f*n is playing a very long, drawn-out
practical joke on us.

That said, I must confess that I am so triggered by the very sight of
the words "St*f*n" and "R*m", that I dare not read those posts.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

There are three versions of different levels of offensiveness:

Je m'en fous is best avoided if you don't know the company.

Je m'en fiche is usually OK, but best not said in conversation with
your maiden aunt.

Je m'en moque is the least offensive.

[Peter Moylan]

Except that "je m'en fou" would be totally meaningless French. To get
any sense out of it, the last word has to be a verb.

> Why do you think it's foutre? Does the historical dictionary include
> that word?

http://atilf.atilf.fr/dendien/scripts/tlfiv5/affart.exe?19;s=1286859540;?b=0;

(Quite a long entry)

[bil...@shaw.ca]

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 11:33:27 AM UTC-7, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Wed, 5 Apr 2023 09:52:01 -0600: lar3ryca <la...@invalid.ca> scribeva:
> >On 2023-04-05 05:24, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> How is the word "Portuguese" stressed? As a noun, as an adjective?
> >> https://rudhar.com/fonetics/strsprtg.htm
> >>
> >> Is English a simple language? No, it's quite complicated, and hard for
> >> many learners.
> >
> >If you want to stress a Portuguese, just tell him you think he sounds
> >like a Russian speaking Spanish.

> Yes, the title is ambiguous, I know. Not my intention, but first I had
> "Stressing p-words", because I already knew I also wanted to mention
> "processor" in three languages.

> Then I'd have had to add a disclaimer it has nothing to do with the
> n-word, which then of course would become a pink elephant in the room.
>
> So then I took what I have now instead.

I think you are conflating two different elephants.

"The elephant in the room" is a subject nobody wants to talk about, even though it is
completely obvious to everyone.

Pink elephants are what people reputedly see when they drink so much alcohol they
begin to hallucinate. I think it has gradually been falling out of favour as an expression
since about the 1940s or '50s.

bill

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 09.04.2023 kl. 08.53 skrev bil...@shaw.ca:

> Pink elephants are what people reputedly see when they drink so much alcohol they
> begin to hallucinate. I think it has gradually been falling out of favour as an expression
> since about the 1940s or '50s.

That is not what an Ngram shows. "Pink elephant(s)" (case-insensitive)
peaked in 2012 and has only suffered a minor fall.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[J. J. Lodder]

bil...@shaw.ca <bil...@shaw.ca> wrote:

In these parts there is a computer service
calling itself 'Pink Elephant'. <www.pinkelephant.com>
Their idea was to suggest that they are what can't exist:
a service for Windows that actually works,

Jan

[Jerry Friedman]

...

I thought the hallucinations happened when people stopped drinking
alcohol (delirium tremens).

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

When I clicked, I got "Session expirée". I saw the entry by going to
http://atilf.atilf.fr, clicking on "Entrer", and searching for "foutre".

> (Quite a long entry)

With only a little on "s'en foutre", but it's enough.

--
Jerry Friedman

[John Dunlop]

Jerry Friedman:

> On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 5:37:31 PM UTC-6, Peter Moylan wrote:

...

>> http://atilf.atilf.fr/dendien/scripts/tlfiv5/affart.exe?19;s=1286859540;?b=0;
>
> When I clicked, I got "Session expirée". I saw the entry by going to
> http://atilf.atilf.fr, clicking on "Entrer", and searching for "foutre".

I prefer this interface:

https://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/foutre

--
John

[Peter Moylan]

Which, I see, includes all the content of ATILF, so it takes us equally
well to a conclusion.

For anyone who is still wondering, the primary meaning of "foutre" is
given as "to possess carnally". I think that's clear enough. Whether it
means "bugger" or "fuck" is a secondary issue.

Athel has pointed out that "Je m'en fiche" is a more polite form of "je
m'en fous". If you look up "ficher" in ATILF, you find "Faire pénétrer
quelque chose (dans quelque chose) par la pointe." Like penetrating a
nail with a hammer. The connection is not hard to see.

[Peter T. Daniels]

"Session expirée." Odd.

[Bebercito]

And "Peu m'importe" is even more urbane, while "Peu me chaut" sounds
downright pedantic.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sat, 8 Apr 2023 23:53:47 -0700 (PDT): "bil...@shaw.ca"
<bil...@shaw.ca> scribeva:

I meant something like "DO TRY NOT to think of a pink elephant!!!" And
then you can't.

Talking about a p-word, and then stressing it has nothing to do with
the n-word, would cause everybody to think or feel there is somehow a
connexion and I'm trying to reason it away, to no avail.

When I just don’t mention either at all, nobody thinks of a connexion.
And that is right, because there is none.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 06:53:44 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
<jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 12:53:50?AM UTC-6, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:

Right. I wonder if a bit of suitable anti-depressant
serves to suppress that?

--
Rich Ulrich

[Silvano]

Peter Moylan hat am 09.04.2023 um 17:30 geschrieben:

> Athel has pointed out that "Je m'en fiche" is a more polite form of "je
> m'en fous". If you look up "ficher" in ATILF, you find "Faire pénétrer
> quelque chose (dans quelque chose) par la pointe." Like penetrating a
> nail with a hammer. The connection is not hard to see.

I'd expect "like penetrating a wall with a nail". Any comments?

[Peter Moylan]

Yes, on reflection I see that your version is better.

But note that in French "pénétrer" and "faire pénétrer" are different.
The first means "penetrate" and the second means "cause to penetrate".
That's what made me think of the hammer.

For a similar example, "j'ai coupé mes cheveux" means "I cut my hair",
but "je me suis fait couper les cheveux" means "I got my hair cut" (by a
barber, for example). I think Italian makes a similar distinction.

[Jerry Friedman]

Thanks, much better.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Phil Carmody]

You are correct. I suspect that the origin of the confusion is
/Dumbo/ (1941), where champagne drops into Dumbo's water bucket,
and hallucinations ensue. I also suspect the Disney writers were
still tripping balls from /Fantasia/ (1940), and thus not too
careful about the factual content of their nature documentaries.
(C.f. /White Wilderness/ (1958))

Phil
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/