The Schwa is the vowel sound in "put", not the sound in "but".
Bohgosity BumaskiL
the orijinal Hawaiian source, where "weekee, weekee" means "fast fast" on an
island where an "about an hour" sounds like it could mean six. The most
common ending of an English word is not the schwa: It is the soft or short
yuu, even if it ends in an ay. Could (C@d), Would (w@d), wood (w@d), should
(sh@d), but, put (p@t). "But" is one of very few English words that is spelt
egzaktly az it soundz. "Put" is not.
Steve Hayes
I'm not sure what you mean by "this".
What does your "this" refer to?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Nick
Well that's pretty bogus (with or without the 'h'). I have identical
sounds in "but" and "put", neither of which are close to schwa. It's
not the sound in any of the "-ould" words, or "wood"; but that's not a
schwa either.
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
HVS
> "Bohgosity BumaskiL" <brew...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> writes:
>
>> This is an extremely prolific error I find in weekeepeedeeuh,
>> to spell out the orijinal Hawaiian source, where "weekee,
>> weekee" means "fast fast" on an island where an "about an hour"
>> sounds like it could mean six. The most common ending of an
>> English word is not the schwa: It is the soft or short yuu,
>> even if it ends in an ay. Could (C@d), Would (w@d), wood (w@d),
>> should (sh@d), but, put (p@t). "But" is one of very few English
>> words that is spelt egzaktly az it soundz. "Put" is not.
>
> Well that's pretty bogus (with or without the 'h'). I have
> identical sounds in "but" and "put",
To what extent does the "but/put" rhyme map with using using the
"shoot" vowel in "shoot" in "book" and "look"?
I certainly encountered them in the same region, but can't recall
where they overlap.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
HVS
> On 19 Oct 2009, Nick wrote
>
>> "Bohgosity BumaskiL" <brew...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> writes:
>>
>>> This is an extremely prolific error I find in weekeepeedeeuh,
>>> to spell out the orijinal Hawaiian source, where "weekee,
>>> weekee" means "fast fast" on an island where an "about an hour"
>>> sounds like it could mean six. The most common ending of an
>>> English word is not the schwa: It is the soft or short yuu,
>>> even if it ends in an ay. Could (C@d), Would (w@d), wood (w@d),
>>> should (sh@d), but, put (p@t). "But" is one of very few English
>>> words that is spelt egzaktly az it soundz. "Put" is not.
>>
>> Well that's pretty bogus (with or without the 'h'). I have
>> identical sounds in "but" and "put",
> To what extent does the "but/put" rhyme map with using using the
> "shoot" vowel in "shoot" in "book" and "look"?
Gosh, what a terrible edit.
Start over:
To what extent does the "but/put" rhyme map with using the "shoot"
vowel in "book" and "look"?
There, that's better.
annily
> "Bohgosity BumaskiL" <brew...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> writes:
>
>> This is an extremely prolific error I find in weekeepeedeeuh, to spell out
>> the orijinal Hawaiian source, where "weekee, weekee" means "fast fast" on an
>> island where an "about an hour" sounds like it could mean six. The most
>> common ending of an English word is not the schwa: It is the soft or short
>> yuu, even if it ends in an ay. Could (C@d), Would (w@d), wood (w@d), should
>> (sh@d), but, put (p@t). "But" is one of very few English words that is spelt
>> egzaktly az it soundz. "Put" is not.
>
> Well that's pretty bogus (with or without the 'h'). I have identical
> sounds in "but" and "put", neither of which are close to schwa. It's
> not the sound in any of the "-ould" words, or "wood"; but that's not a
> schwa either.
The vowel sounds I use in "put" (rhymes with "foot") and "but" (rhymes
with "cut") are very different, and both are different from the schwa.
--
Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.
Donna Richoux
> This is an extremely prolific error I find in weekeepeedeeuh,
Since I'm having a very hard time following what you mean, I'd like to
ask for some examples. If it's as common as all that, could you point us
to two or three pages where the mistake you are concerned about appears?
I imagine you can't cut and paste because it involves IPA symbols.
>to spell out
> the orijinal Hawaiian source, where "weekee, weekee" means "fast fast" on an
> island where an "about an hour" sounds like it could mean six.
I assume all that is just an aside.
>The most
> common ending of an English word is not the schwa: It is the soft or short
> yuu, even if it ends in an ay.
>Could (C@d), Would (w@d), wood (w@d), should
> (sh@d), but, put (p@t).
>"But" is one of very few English words that is spelt
> egzaktly az it soundz. "Put" is not.
I'll hold off any comment until I understand your point better. I'll
just throw in that I'm not sure that I use the @ sound anywhere in
English at all -- I think of it as a sound in French and Dutch (feu,
peux).
Clearly you enjoy having an assumed name, but when it comes to
discussions of dialect, it really helps the rest of us if you will tell
us where you were raised. (Or are you one of our old-timers who keeps
changing identity?)
--
Best wishes -- Donna Richoux
A Californian living in the Netherlands
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> The vowel sounds I use in "put" (rhymes with "foot") and "but" (rhymes
> with "cut") are very different, and both are different from the schwa.
My full pronunciations agree with yours, but unstressed "but" is pretty
well schwa-ish: not sure that everybody would know what I meant if I
called it "b't" instead. (I've never been perfectly happy with the
application of the word "schwa" to any English sound, but I don't think
anything more precise is a practical possibility.)
What Bohgosity's post means, I have no idea. (But then, I have no idea
why on earth I'm Usenetting at this time of day. Must stop.)
--
Mike.
Nick
> On 19 Oct 2009, Nick wrote
>
>> "Bohgosity BumaskiL" <brew...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> writes:
>>
>>> This is an extremely prolific error I find in weekeepeedeeuh,
>>> to spell out the orijinal Hawaiian source, where "weekee,
>>> weekee" means "fast fast" on an island where an "about an hour"
>>> sounds like it could mean six. The most common ending of an
>>> English word is not the schwa: It is the soft or short yuu,
>>> even if it ends in an ay. Could (C@d), Would (w@d), wood (w@d),
>>> should (sh@d), but, put (p@t). "But" is one of very few English
>>> words that is spelt egzaktly az it soundz. "Put" is not.
>>
>> Well that's pretty bogus (with or without the 'h'). I have
>> identical sounds in "but" and "put",
>
> To what extent does the "but/put" rhyme map with using using the
> "shoot" vowel in "shoot" in "book" and "look"?
That seems to describe me, although I had to think a bit about whether
it really is the "shoot" vowel in "book", that "k" does make a difference!
> I certainly encountered them in the same region, but can't recall
> where they overlap.
NW - midway between Liverpool and Manchester is where I developed my vowels.
Jerry Friedman
> Bohgosity BumaskiL <brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
[Things about the schwa]
> I'll
> just throw in that I'm not sure that I use the @ sound anywhere in
> English at all -- I think of it as a sound in French and Dutch (feu,
> peux).
I'm not sure what you mean here. In ASCII IPA, /@/ is the schwa, the
first sound of "abut", also heard in French "de" and Dutch "de". (I'm
trusting Wikipedia for Dutch.) What BB may be talking about
(pronounced /@'baUt/) is that Merriam-Webster and many other
authorities say that it's the same, in some sense, as the _second_
vowel of "abut" in American English.
The sound in French "feu" is represented as /Y/, according to
http://alt-usage-english.org/ipa/ascii_ipa_combined.shtml
In IPA that's the slashed o. It's also the vowel phoneme in Dutch
"neus", according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_phonology
> Clearly you enjoy having an assumed name,
One that may provide a clue about how seriously to take him or her.
> but when it comes to
> discussions of dialect, it really helps the rest of us if you will tell
> us where you were raised. (Or are you one of our old-timers who keeps
> changing identity?)
--
Jerry Friedman
HVS
> HVS <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On 19 Oct 2009, Nick wrote
>>
>>> "Bohgosity BumaskiL" <brew...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> writes:
>>>
>>>> This is an extremely prolific error I find in weekeepeedeeuh,
>>>> to spell out the orijinal Hawaiian source, where "weekee,
>>>> weekee" means "fast fast" on an island where an "about an
>>>> hour" sounds like it could mean six. The most common ending
>>>> of an English word is not the schwa: It is the soft or short
>>>> yuu, even if it ends in an ay. Could (C@d), Would (w@d), wood
>>>> (w@d), should (sh@d), but, put (p@t). "But" is one of very
>>>> few English words that is spelt egzaktly az it soundz. "Put"
>>>> is not.
>>>
>>> Well that's pretty bogus (with or without the 'h'). I have
>>> identical sounds in "but" and "put",
>>
>> To what extent does the "but/put" rhyme map with using using
>> the "shoot" vowel in "shoot" in "book" and "look"?
>
> That seems to describe me, although I had to think a bit about
> whether it really is the "shoot" vowel in "book", that "k" does
> make a difference!
>
>> I certainly encountered them in the same region, but can't
>> recall where they overlap.
>
> NW - midway between Liverpool and Manchester is where I
> developed my vowels.
That would explain it -- the most marked "book-sounds-like-boot"
fellow I've met was when I lectured in town planning at Manchester
in 1982-83. IIRC he lived just over the Derbyshire border at that
time, but I don't think he came from that side of the county.
Robin Bignall
It's probably a dog day afternoon, Mike.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
the Omrud
It occurs all the way from Stoke to the Lancashire Mill towns, IME. I
have a friend who grew up in Stoke, who had a cat named "Sooty",
pronounced Soo-tea.
--
David
a Hilton, somewhere in London
erilar
Nick <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
> HVS <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> writes:
>
> > On 19 Oct 2009, Nick wrote
> >
> >> "Bohgosity BumaskiL" <brew...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> writes:
> >>
> >>> This is an extremely prolific error I find in weekeepeedeeuh,
> >>> to spell out the orijinal Hawaiian source, where "weekee,
> >>> weekee" means "fast fast" on an island where an "about an hour"
> >>> sounds like it could mean six. The most common ending of an
> >>> English word is not the schwa: It is the soft or short yuu,
> >>> even if it ends in an ay. Could (C@d), Would (w@d), wood (w@d),
> >>> should (sh@d), but, put (p@t). "But" is one of very few English
> >>> words that is spelt egzaktly az it soundz. "Put" is not.
> >>
> >> Well that's pretty bogus (with or without the 'h'). I have
> >> identical sounds in "but" and "put",
That varies with region. I do NOT have the same sound in them.
> >
> > To what extent does the "but/put" rhyme map with using using the
> > "shoot" vowel in "shoot" in "book" and "look"?
In my region, "shoot" is NOTHING like "book" and "look", which latter
use the same vowel as "put"
>
> That seems to describe me, although I had to think a bit about whether
> it really is the "shoot" vowel in "book", that "k" does make a difference!
>
> > I certainly encountered them in the same region, but can't recall
> > where they overlap.
>
> NW - midway between Liverpool and Manchester is where I developed my vowels.
Perhaps you are all discussing vowel use patterns in the UK? Because
the schwa IS the sound in "but", but never in "put" in Wisconsin.
--
Erilar, biblioholic
bib-li-o-hol-ism [<Gr biblion] n. [BIBLIO + HOLISM] books, of books:
habitual longing to purchase, read, store, admire, and consume books in excess.
Ian Noble
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I *think* he's taking exception to the contention in Wikipedia and
elsewhere that the schwa is the most common vowel sound in English.
Cheers - Ian
(BrE: Yorks., Hants.)
R H Draney
>
>It occurs all the way from Stoke to the Lancashire Mill towns, IME. I
>have a friend who grew up in Stoke, who had a cat named "Sooty",
>pronounced Soo-tea.
Mary had a little lamb,
His feet were black as soot,
And everywhere that Mary went,
His sooty foot he put.
- Merwyn Bogue
....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
HVS
> In article <8763abf...@temporary-address.org.uk>,
> Nick <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>> HVS <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> writes:
>>> On 19 Oct 2009, Nick wrote
>>>> "Bohgosity BumaskiL" <brew...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>
>>>> writes:
>>>>> "But" is one of very few English words that is spelt
>>>>> egzaktly az it soundz. "Put" is not.
>>>>
>>>> Well that's pretty bogus (with or without the 'h'). I have
>>>> identical sounds in "but" and "put",
> That varies with region. I do NOT have the same sound in
> them.
Ummm...that was Nick's point: that the bald, unqualified statement
that "'But' is one of very few English words that is spelt egzaktly
az it soundz" -- is inaccurate.
You betcha' it variers with region, which is why the statement
should not be made without a qualifier, and why it was challenged.
-snip boot/book, put/but vowel coincidence-
> Perhaps you are all discussing vowel use patterns in the UK?
We're discussing the UK patterns because someone made a "without
exception" statement that didn't allow for them.
> Because the schwa IS the sound in "but", but never in "put" in
> Wisconsin.
Ah; you've got it in one: we don't all come from Wisconsin.
Peter Moylan
a standard Canadian pronunciation? And is the sound an /V/, as the OP
appears to be claiming, or a schwa (/@/)? Or something different? I
think I've heard Canadians saying /V"/ in words like "but", but I could
be thinking of someone further south.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
annily
I think it certainly would be in Australian English. We love our
indeterminate vowels :)
Glenn Knickerbocker
>I think it certainly would be in Australian English. We love our
>indeterminate vowels :)
I thought it was the Australians that described New Zealanders as having
no vowels but the schwa. Ironically, as a kid I had a friend from New
Zealand who complained about how we Americans said "but" with a schwa
when it was unstressed.
�R http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/arkville.html /// I look down my
nose at people who think they are better than other people. --Kibo
Jerry Friedman
> erilar wrote:
...
> > Perhaps you are all discussing vowel use patterns in the UK? Because
> > the schwa IS the sound in "but", but never in "put" in Wisconsin.
>
> The OP appears to have put "but" and "put" into the same group.
The opposite, I think.
> Is that
> a standard Canadian pronunciation?
I don't recall hearing it on visits to Canada except in Newfoundland,
which is a separate dialect region. Maybe Cheryl can enlighten us
further.
> And is the sound an /V/, as the OP
> appears to be claiming, or a schwa (/@/)?
Many American linguists say that there's no distinction in America; at
best, [V] is the allophone of /@/ in stressed syllables. For
instance, Merriam-Webster transcribes "abrupt" as \ə-ˈbrəpt\. (Both
the vowels are schwas, if the cut-and-paste didn't work.) That's what
erilar is saying. Lots of Americans don't believe this, though, and
some consider the schwa to be more like /U/. This surprises people
from the rest of the English-speaking world, but a lot of us have a
pretty central and unrounded /U/, and it explains how "recruit" /
r@'krut/ could have turned into "rookie".
> Or something different? I
> think I've heard Canadians saying /V"/ in words like "but", but I could
> be thinking of someone further south.
(I think you want [V"], and I don't have a good ear for that sound.)
--
Jerry Friedman
annily
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:43:55 +1030, annily wrote:
>> I think it certainly would be in Australian English. We love our
>> indeterminate vowels :)
>
> I thought it was the Australians that described New Zealanders as having
> no vowels but the schwa.
If Aussies do say that (I haven't heard it) they are exaggerating. New
Zealanders just pronounce many vowels differently from Aussies.
For example their "i" in kill sounds like the schwa to me. The "a" in
"cat" sounds like the short "e" in "pet".
Nick
> On 19 Oct 2009, erilar wrote
>> In article <8763abf...@temporary-address.org.uk>,
>> Nick <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>>> HVS <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> writes:
>>>> On 19 Oct 2009, Nick wrote
>>>>> "Bohgosity BumaskiL" <brew...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>
>>>>> writes:
>
>
>>>>>> "But" is one of very few English words that is spelt
>>>>>> egzaktly az it soundz. "Put" is not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well that's pretty bogus (with or without the 'h'). I have
>>>>> identical sounds in "but" and "put",
>
>> That varies with region. I do NOT have the same sound in
>> them.
>
> Ummm...that was Nick's point: that the bald, unqualified statement
> that "'But' is one of very few English words that is spelt egzaktly
> az it soundz" -- is inaccurate.
Thanks Harvey.
Peter Moylan
> Glenn Knickerbocker wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:43:55 +1030, annily wrote:
>>> I think it certainly would be in Australian English. We love our
>>> indeterminate vowels :)
>>
>> I thought it was the Australians that described New Zealanders as having
>> no vowels but the schwa.
>
> If Aussies do say that (I haven't heard it) they are exaggerating. New
> Zealanders just pronounce many vowels differently from Aussies.
>
> For example their "i" in kill sounds like the schwa to me. The "a" in
> "cat" sounds like the short "e" in "pet".
>
of it is that several NZ vowels are the same as the Australian vowels,
but shifted sideways by one vowel, if you follow my meaning.
It's probably true that the schwa for /I/ is the most audible feature of
NZ pronunciation.
The main reason for so many schwas in Australian pronunciation is that
we don't like to open our mouth [1] too widely. As far as I know, NZ has
less of a fly problem.
[1] If we're going to have a debate over whether that word should have
been plural, I'll probably sit it out.
annily
> annily wrote:
>> Glenn Knickerbocker wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:43:55 +1030, annily wrote:
>>>> I think it certainly would be in Australian English. We love our
>>>> indeterminate vowels :)
>>>
>>> I thought it was the Australians that described New Zealanders as having
>>> no vowels but the schwa.
>>
>> If Aussies do say that (I haven't heard it) they are exaggerating. New
>> Zealanders just pronounce many vowels differently from Aussies.
>>
>> For example their "i" in kill sounds like the schwa to me. The "a" in
>> "cat" sounds like the short "e" in "pet".
>>
> And the "e" in "pet" sounds like the short "i" in "pit".
Ah yes, I knew there was another example, but I couldn't think of it.
> The way I think
> of it is that several NZ vowels are the same as the Australian vowels,
> but shifted sideways by one vowel, if you follow my meaning.
>
I never thought of it that way, but it sort of makes sense (for whatever
reason). How about the short "o" and "u" though?
> It's probably true that the schwa for /I/ is the most audible feature of
> NZ pronunciation.
>
> The main reason for so many schwas in Australian pronunciation is that
> we don't like to open our mouth [1] too widely.
Yeah, I'm not sure whether it's because of flies or just plain laziness,
though :)
>
> [1] If we're going to have a debate over whether that word should have
> been plural, I'll probably sit it out.
>
I'll let it pass :)
Mike Barnes
>"But" is one of very few English words that is spelt
>egzaktly az it soundz.
What exactly do you mean by "spelt exactly as it sounds"?
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
Peter Moylan
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>> annily wrote:
>>> Glenn Knickerbocker wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:43:55 +1030, annily wrote:
>>>>> I think it certainly would be in Australian English. We love our
>>>>> indeterminate vowels :)
>>>>
>>>> I thought it was the Australians that described New Zealanders as
>>>> having
>>>> no vowels but the schwa.
>>>
>>> If Aussies do say that (I haven't heard it) they are exaggerating.
>>> New Zealanders just pronounce many vowels differently from Aussies.
>>>
>>> For example their "i" in kill sounds like the schwa to me. The "a" in
>>> "cat" sounds like the short "e" in "pet".
>>>
>> And the "e" in "pet" sounds like the short "i" in "pit".
>
> Ah yes, I knew there was another example, but I couldn't think of it.
>
>> The way I think of it is that several NZ vowels are the same as the
>> Australian vowels, but shifted sideways by one vowel, if you follow my
>> meaning.
>>
>
> I never thought of it that way, but it sort of makes sense (for whatever
> reason). How about the short "o" and "u" though?
They don't get shifted. Somebody who understands the difference between
front and back vowels can probably explain this, but I can never
remember which vowels live in which part of the mouth.
Peter Moylan
> In alt.usage.english, Bohgosity BumaskiL wrote:
>> "But" is one of very few English words that is spelt
>> egzaktly az it soundz.
>
> What exactly do you mean by "spelt exactly as it sounds"?
>
have been a spelling reform proposal. The most incurable spelling
reformers are those who believe that their own pronunciation is
universal. They never understand objections like "but why should I spell
it 'egzaktly' when I pronounce it 'ekzaktly'?".
R H Draney
>
>Mike Barnes wrote:
>> In alt.usage.english, Bohgosity BumaskiL wrote:
>>> "But" is one of very few English words that is spelt
>>> egzaktly az it soundz.
>>
>> What exactly do you mean by "spelt exactly as it sounds"?
>>
>If he hadn't received such an unwelcoming welcome, the next step would
>have been a spelling reform proposal. The most incurable spelling
>reformers are those who believe that their own pronunciation is
>universal. They never understand objections like "but why should I spell
>it 'egzaktly' when I pronounce it 'ekzaktly'?".
You talk funny...really, who akshully says the T?...r
Mike Lyle
My sister once though she'd been told by a NZ friend that her husband
had cut his wrist, when in fact the news was, quite adequately
disturbingly, that he'd had a cardiac arrest.
--
Mike.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>Peter Moylan filted:
>>
>>Mike Barnes wrote:
>>> In alt.usage.english, Bohgosity BumaskiL wrote:
>>>> "But" is one of very few English words that is spelt
>>>> egzaktly az it soundz.
>>>
>>> What exactly do you mean by "spelt exactly as it sounds"?
>>>
>>If he hadn't received such an unwelcoming welcome, the next step would
>>have been a spelling reform proposal. The most incurable spelling
>>reformers are those who believe that their own pronunciation is
>>universal. They never understand objections like "but why should I spell
>>it 'egzaktly' when I pronounce it 'ekzaktly'?".
>
>You talk funny...really, who akshully says the T?...r
When trying overly hard to make a point or when putting on a posh act,
I might say 'ekzaktly'
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
who speaks AmE, lives near Dublin, Ireland,usually spells in BrE
and hasn't corrected his email address yet
R H Draney
>>>it 'egzaktly' when I pronounce it 'ekzaktly'?".
>>
>>You talk funny...really, who akshully says the T?...r
>
>When trying overly hard to make a point or when putting on a posh act,
>I might say 'ekzaktly'
I'm afraid I'd take it too far and come out sounding like Richard Haydn....r
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>Chuck Riggs filted:
>>
>>On 20 Oct 2009 08:02:08 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Peter Moylan filted:
>>>>
>>>>"but why should I spell
>>>>it 'egzaktly' when I pronounce it 'ekzaktly'?".
>>>
>>>You talk funny...really, who akshully says the T?...r
>>
>>When trying overly hard to make a point or when putting on a posh act,
>>I might say 'ekzaktly'
>
>I'm afraid I'd take it too far and come out sounding like Richard Haydn....r
I don't know his work, but from the pictures I see of him on the
Internet, I surmise he is perpetually in the posh mode.
R H Draney
>>>I might say 'ekzaktly'
>>
>>I'm afraid I'd take it too far and come out sounding like Richard Haydn....r
>
>I don't know his work, but from the pictures I see of him on the
>Internet, I surmise he is perpetually in the posh mode.
You may have seen him in "Young Frankenstein" as the retainer who brings the box
containing the will to the title character...or perhaps you remember him as the
voice of the Caterpillar in Disney's "Alice in Wonderland"...he also starred in
a two-part episode of "The Dick Van Dyke Show" playing his "Edwin Carp"
character (revealed to have a drinking problem, specifically an addiction to
elderberry wine)....r
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>Chuck Riggs filted:
>>
>>On 21 Oct 2009 09:58:49 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Chuck Riggs filted:
>>>>
>>>>When trying overly hard to make a point or when putting on a posh act,
>>>>I might say 'ekzaktly'
>>>
>>>I'm afraid I'd take it too far and come out sounding like Richard Haydn....r
>>
>>I don't know his work, but from the pictures I see of him on the
>>Internet, I surmise he is perpetually in the posh mode.
>
>You may have seen him in "Young Frankenstein" as the retainer who brings the box
>containing the will to the title character...or perhaps you remember him as the
>voice of the Caterpillar in Disney's "Alice in Wonderland"...he also starred in
>a two-part episode of "The Dick Van Dyke Show" playing his "Edwin Carp"
>character (revealed to have a drinking problem, specifically an addiction to
>elderberry wine)....r
Not to mention "And Then There Were None", which the following shot
comes from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RichardHaydn2.gif
That said, I don't remember him in that or in any of the films and TV
shows you mentioned.
R H Draney
>
>On 22 Oct 2009 10:04:53 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Chuck Riggs filted:
>>>
>>>On 21 Oct 2009 09:58:49 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Chuck Riggs filted:
>>>>>
>>>>>When trying overly hard to make a point or when putting on a posh act,
>>>>>I might say 'ekzaktly'
>>>>
>>>>I'm afraid I'd take it too far and come out sounding like Richard Haydn....r
>>>
>>>I don't know his work, but from the pictures I see of him on the
>>>Internet, I surmise he is perpetually in the posh mode.
>>
>>You may have seen him in "Young Frankenstein" as the retainer who brings the box
>>containing the will to the title character...or perhaps you remember him as the
>>voice of the Caterpillar in Disney's "Alice in Wonderland"...he also starred in
>>a two-part episode of "The Dick Van Dyke Show" playing his "Edwin Carp"
>>character (revealed to have a drinking problem, specifically an addiction to
>>elderberry wine)....r
>
>Not to mention "And Then There Were None", which the following shot
>comes from:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RichardHaydn2.gif
>
>That said, I don't remember him in that or in any of the films and TV
>shows you mentioned.
One more possible reference: he's the voice of the scientist in this classic
cartoon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkdGna4EQMk
His first line of dialogue occurs at about 1:40....r