Pronunciation of "algae"?
Christian Weisgerber
pronounces "algae" with /g/. Merriam-Webster Online only gives the
/dZ/ pronunciation. By contrast, Cambridge Advanced Learner's
Online only has /g/. Is this a pondian difference?
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Robert Bannister
> Watching the BBC's "Pacific Abyss", I just noticed that the narrator
> pronounces "algae" with /g/. Merriam-Webster Online only gives the
> /dZ/ pronunciation. By contrast, Cambridge Advanced Learner's
> Online only has /g/. Is this a pondian difference?
>
That I can't answer. I know I grew up (in England) with the soft g
pronunciation, but the hard g seems to be taking over, so now I use
either while making a vain attempt to guess what my audience is familiar
with. The first time I met the hard g pronunciation was in Germany,
where the English teacher had taken me into his class - can't remember
which strange book they were studying that contained the word. "Lichen"
is another one: used to be "litchen", but today seems to be "liken".
--
Rob Bannister
John Dean
It's a funny one. OED suggests 'alga' with a hard 'g' and 'algae' with a
soft. 'lichen' as 'liken' is the only pronunciation given but they
acknowledge the litch-en version in the past, usually as a 'second place'
but now 'rare in educated use.'
I always assumed as a kid that it was litch-en until I heard someone talk
about John Wyndham's novel "The Trouble with Lichen"
--
John Dean
Oxford
Paul {Hamilton Rooney}
>
> - Show quoted text -
When I was at school it was 'al guy' in the Latin class but 'alj eye'
or 'al jay' or ' al jee' in other classes.
LFS
Me too, until I met a botanist who fell about laughing at my
pronunciation. She also used a hard g in "algae".
And how do you say "lych gate"?
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>> Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>>> Watching the BBC's "Pacific Abyss", I just noticed that the narrator
>>> pronounces "algae" with /g/. Merriam-Webster Online only gives the
>>> /dZ/ pronunciation. By contrast, Cambridge Advanced Learner's
>>> Online only has /g/. Is this a pondian difference?
>>>
>>
>> That I can't answer. I know I grew up (in England) with the soft g
>> pronunciation, but the hard g seems to be taking over, so now I use
>> either while making a vain attempt to guess what my audience is
>> familiar with. The first time I met the hard g pronunciation was in
>> Germany, where the English teacher had taken me into his class -
>> can't remember which strange book they were studying that contained
>> the word. "Lichen" is another one: used to be "litchen", but today
>> seems to be "liken".
>
> It's a funny one. OED suggests 'alga' with a hard 'g' and 'algae' with a
> soft.
I don't find anything particularly strange about that. It is
essentially suggesting that we should pronounce according to the
spelling: alga with a soft g would go against all the rules, algae with
a hard g would go against the (weaker) convention that ae in a word of
Latin origin is treated as if it were an e (the digraph itself being
pronounced like an e): think of Caesar, caesarean, caesium, caesura,
caecum etc., but ae in a word not of Latin origin is not: Gaelic,
Caerphilly etc.
Whether this is a good rule or not is another matter, but it's what our
forefathers did in the days when all educated people were taught some
Latin. In those days a knowledge of Latin was assumed, and people
didn't feel the need to wear their knowledge on their sleeve.
The change in pronunciation of algae has taken place during my career:
I'm pretty sure it was soft when I first heard, but it has become hard
since. Nowadays I think most, but not all, people with a professional
interest in algae use a hard g. In French they make it quite clear that
that is what is expected by inserting a u: algues.
It's a word we'd do well to drop entirely, and not worry about how to
pronounce it, because it comprises a group of organisms that by no
stretch of the imagination constitute a clade. (It's much worse than
"fish", because at least the animals we call fish have quite a lot in
common with one another.) It is like having a word that distingishes
citizens of the USA, Bangladesh, San Marino and Nigeria from those of
other countries.
> 'lichen' as 'liken' is the only pronunciation given but they
> acknowledge the litch-en version in the past, usually as a 'second place'
> but now 'rare in educated use.'
> I always assumed as a kid that it was litch-en until I heard someone talk
> about John Wyndham's novel "The Trouble with Lichen"
It always _was_ litch-en in our youths, before people felt the need to
parade their knowledge of Greek. In the days when people really knew
some Greek they didn't bother. I think I probably still say litch-en on
the rare[1] occasions when I say it at all.
[1]
Q. Why did I say "rare"?
A. Because it's the word that best fits the context.
athel (BrE)
Paul {Hamilton Rooney}
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
How do you pronounce the -ae?
John Dean
'lych' as in the Queen's photographer cousin. 'gate' as in baby food.
I see OED has "lich-gate" as the first spelling.
--
John Dean
Oxford
HVS
> LFS wrote:
>> And how do you say "lych gate"?
>
> 'lych' as in the Queen's photographer cousin. 'gate' as in baby
> food. I see OED has "lich-gate" as the first spelling.
The pronunciation of the first element, though, has clearly varied
over time: the OED spellings include "like", "lijk", and "lyke".
Our local area of Lychpit is pronounced "litch-pit", but in the VCH
volume on the parish -- published 1911 -- was spelled "Lickpit".
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
tony cooper
Can we bring in "niche" as in "niche market"? I cannot bring myself
to say "neech" and remain, resolutely, with "nitch".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Alan Jones
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:u4n7c4l33gseotalu...@4ax.com...
[...]
> Can we bring in "niche" as in "niche market"? I cannot bring myself
> to say "neech" and remain, resolutely, with "nitch".
I say "neesh" for both niche market and a recess for e.g. a statue (which I
fear I sometimes say as "statchew").
Alan Jones
Chuck Riggs
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
How rude is that?
Tropical fish fanciers almost invariably use the soft g, at least in
America, and they see a lot of the stuff.
>And how do you say "lych gate"?
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Athel Cornish-Bowden
>
> "tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:u4n7c4l33gseotalu...@4ax.com...
> [...]
>> Can we bring in "niche" as in "niche market"? I cannot bring myself
>> to say "neech" and remain, resolutely, with "nitch".
>
> I say "neesh" for both niche market and a recess
I think I probably said nitch when I was young, but I'm more likely to
say neesh now.
> for e.g. a statue (which I
> fear I sometimes say as "statchew").
Doesn't everyone? I'm pretty sure I do if I'm not paying a lot of attention.
athel (BrE)
LFS
Ah, the opposite for me, I say "neesh". Nitch sounds too much like "an
itch". And, if I started pronouncing it that way, I believe that very
few people of my acquaintance would have a clue what I was talking about.
Garrett Wollman
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote:
>It's a word we'd do well to drop entirely, and not worry about how to
>pronounce it, because it comprises a group of organisms that by no
>stretch of the imagination constitute a clade.
Many English-language names for groups of living things are
paraphyletic.[1] Thankfully, English is defined by all the people who
use it, and not just by systematists. It is one thing to say that a
category in the vernacular taxonomy is not *useful* (although I think
the burden of proof is fairly high for such a claim); it is another to
say it should be abandoned because a word which happens to be spelled
the same way has been deprecated by (some flavor of) scientific
taxonomy.
-GAWollman
[1] E.g., worms, trees, nuts, vegetables, bears, most ethnonyms,
squash, ...
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wol...@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
R H Draney
>
>tony cooper wrote:
>>
>> Can we bring in "niche" as in "niche market"? I cannot bring myself
>> to say "neech" and remain, resolutely, with "nitch".
>
>Ah, the opposite for me, I say "neesh". Nitch sounds too much like "an
>itch". And, if I started pronouncing it that way, I believe that very
>few people of my acquaintance would have a clue what I was talking about.
Do you still have occasion to refer to "microfiche"?...r
--
Evelyn Wood just looks at the pictures.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> In article <6ihmdoF...@mid.individual.net>,
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote:
>
>> It's a word we'd do well to drop entirely, and not worry about how to
>> pronounce it, because it comprises a group of organisms that by no
>> stretch of the imagination constitute a clade.
>
> Many English-language names for groups of living things are
> paraphyletic.[1]
True, but all of the words you mention in your footnote (apart from
"ethnonyms") are everyday words used in everyday conversation by
ordinary people. I don't believe "algae" is. All of your groups
(including ethnonyms) are made up of groups that have at least
something in common -- even "bears". They don't put into one basket a
motley bunch of seaweeds, bacteria and fungi that are not even in the
same kingdom. (That's why I included the words "by no stretch of the
imagination" in my comment.)
> Thankfully, English is defined by all the people who
> use it, and not just by systematists.
Of course, but how often do people who use English but are not
interested in systematics need to talk about algae at all? What's wrong
with "seaweed" as a word?
> It is one thing to say that a
> category in the vernacular taxonomy is not *useful* (although I think
> the burden of proof is fairly high for such a claim);
Do you find it "useful" to group things together that have nothing in
common apart from all being living things.
> it is another to
> say it should be abandoned
Well, I was offering it as an opinion, not trying to force my opinion
on anyone else. However, if you maintain a different opinion you need
to say why you find "algae" such a valuable word that the language
would be empoverished without it.
> because a word which happens to be spelled
> the same way
I'm not sure what you're on about here. Are you saying that "algae"
were invented independently by different groups who didn't realize that
their chosen word is already in use, i.e. that it's a similar case to
the two entirely different genera of Drosophila that are still
recognized for insects but no longer for fungi? I suppose that some
fungus enthusiasts were unhappy about having the word "Drosophila"
taken away from them, but do think the language as a whole suffered?
> has been deprecated by (some flavor of) scientific
> taxonomy.
Modern taxonomy is usually a matter of agreement. "Flavours" shouldn't
(and usually don't) enter into it.
>
> -GAWollman
>
> [1] E.g., worms, trees, nuts, vegetables, bears, most ethnonyms,
> squash, ...
--
athel (BrE)
Purl Gurl
> LFS wrote:
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>> Can we bring in "niche" as in "niche market"? I cannot bring myself
>>> to say "neech" and remain, resolutely, with "nitch".
>> Ah, the opposite for me, I say "neesh". Nitch sounds too much like "an
>> itch". And, if I started pronouncing it that way, I believe that very
>> few people of my acquaintance would have a clue what I was talking about.
> Do you still have occasion to refer to "microfiche"?
Our country recorder's office is still equipped with microfiche
and microfiche machines. Quite antiquated and quite the long
strange trip to use. There is a newer computerized system
in place but only goes back a short period of time, I think
about ten years or so.
To look up recorded documents, such as a deed, trust deed,
lien, whatever, you need a date span or instrument number
before you begin. This requires looking through huge books
with ink hand entries; names, legal description, dates...
Once a narrow date range or narrow instrument number range
is had, you show an ID, sign off, are handed a microfiche
then off to a room with about a dozen microfiche machines.
Quite the challenge because you slide those microfiche,
actually the tray, around by hand, like a huge 35mm slide.
All the information flies by at warp 9 speed. You end up
tapping the tray with a fingernail to move slowly. There
are knobs for movement but are so worn out those knobs
either do not work or are very jerky. Some knobs act like
a rubber band being twisted up; sudden flying release.
I use those, at times, to look up ownership records to
establish good title on a home without having to pay
a title company to do this.
Quite useful, I used those records to kick ass on an
attorney in civil court. A need came about to prove
we own a road, about a half mile long, which runs
from the base of our hills, along our property and
on up into the neighborhood. Found two deeds, one
in the early forties, another in 1948, both conveying
this road with our land. Quite the surprise to learn
we legally own this road which all our neighbors use.
Our deed cites two legal descriptions, one for our
land, one for this road; parcel one and parcel two.
Attorney said we could not build a workshop because
of an easement for a road, an old dirt road running
around our hill like a horseshoe. I advised him, he
is wrong. He laughed and told me I know nothing about
real estate law. Once in court, I ripped him to pieces;
no easement for anyone, just simple fee ownership by
our family. Judge ruled in our favor, I said to this
idiot attorney who tried to intimidate us, "You know
nothing about real estate law."
Last laugh is ours and our road remains ours. We allow
our neighbors to use the paved portion, however.
--
Purl Gurl
--
So many are stumped by what slips right off the top of my mind
like a man's bad fitting hairpiece.
LFS
Very occasionally our librarians apologise for only having documents
available "on the fiche". I haven't heard the whole word used for a long
time.
Skitt
> Attorney said we could not build a workshop because
> of an easement for a road, an old dirt road running
> around our hill like a horseshoe. I advised him, he
> is wrong. He laughed and told me I know nothing about
> real estate law. Once in court, I ripped him to pieces;
> no easement for anyone, just simple fee ownership by
> our family. Judge ruled in our favor, I said to this
> idiot attorney who tried to intimidate us, "You know
> nothing about real estate law."
>
> Last laugh is ours and our road remains ours. We allow
> our neighbors to use the paved portion, however.
Hmm. Unless things have changed since I studied real estate law (in
California), you better be careful. Unless you periodically deny your
neighbors passage on that portion of the road or give them written
permission to use it, you may encounter some difficulties in claiming a
clear title to it at some time in the future.
Something like "Adverse Possession: Continuous Trespassers' Rights" comes to
mind.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
http://home.comcast.net/~skitt99/
Paul Wolff
>On 2008-09-07 18:27:32 +0200, wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) said:
>> In article <6ihmdoF...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> It's a word we'd do well to drop entirely, and not worry about how
>>>
>>> stretch of the imagination constitute a clade.
>> Many English-language names for groups of living things are
>> paraphyletic.[1]
>
>True, but all of the words you mention in your footnote (apart from
>"ethnonyms") are everyday words used in everyday conversation by
>ordinary people. I don't believe "algae" is.
Not every day, perhaps, but it will be well known among the readers of
Garden Ponds Monthly and others with an interest in water features.
>All of your groups (including ethnonyms) are made up of groups that
>have at least something in common -- even "bears". They don't put into
>one basket a motley bunch of seaweeds, bacteria and fungi that are not
>even in the same kingdom. (That's why I included the words "by no
>stretch of the imagination" in my comment.)
This is where I lose the drift of the argument. If it's not an everyday
word, and doesn't have a consistent meaning, then who coined it, and to
what purpose? I suggest it was coined by naturalists to denote a group
of aquatic plants from seaweed to spirogyra, that generally float around
in clumps and strands, and photosynthesize. Seems reasonable to me. If
for taxonomic purposes the word doesn't suit, then scientists can come
up with specialist names for their own purposes.
As for these bacteria and fungi -- why were they deemed to be algae in
the first place? If it's because they look like algae, walk like
algae, and quack like algae, then why not says they are algal organisms,
and let them join the club?
>
>> Thankfully, English is defined by all the people who
>> use it, and not just by systematists.
>
>Of course, but how often do people who use English but are not
>interested in systematics need to talk about algae at all? What's wrong
>with "seaweed" as a word?
Because it's plain stupid to say that a bloom on a garden pond or
swimming pool is due to seaweed?
<Runs out of typing energy>
--
Paul
Purl Gurl
> Purl Gurl wrote, in small part:
I never write in a small way, you know this.
Not a problem. Our home was the first built up in these hills,
back in 1949 - 1950 years. Original road was graded dirt shaped
much like a sidewinder moving along. Over the decades, other homes
were built for a total of 12 homes on hundreds of acres of land.
No more homes can be built up here, no land left to buy.
Eventually, the horseshoe shaped part of our road, which runs along
the backside of our hill, was abandoned and the main road straightened
out a little bit by moving the road to the front part of our hill.
Our dirt road section, about an 1/8 mile long, is too narrow and
too rugged for general usage; one car wide, sheer cliffs right and left.
In the Sixties, the city came in and paved the main road. However, there
are no easements nor dedications to the city for road usage; we own the
road. Same applies for utility services; electric, gas, telephone, cable.
Nonetheless, so many people use this road, including city services,
emergency services, much too late for us to close the road. This would
lead to a legal battle I know we would not win. Not interested, anyhow.
Our dirt road is gated at both ends. None use our dirt road except us.
On this, we are in good legal shape. Rather annoying, we have a total
of three driveways. This leads to "yellow books", ads in plastic bags
containing rocks, freebie newspapers and such, being tossed on all
three driveways; three times the normal amount of live spam.
Whatever, I do enjoy periodically teasing our snobbish elitist neighbors,
"We own that road out there, we can forbid you from using our road."
"Adverse Possession" is the right term. After several decades of usage
of our main paved road, this now belongs to the public, or more precise,
there is a "public easement" through adverse possession.
Reminds me of a story. You will delight in this one.
There is acreage adjacent to ours, was acreage. This shady accountant
owned the land. He and wife had plans to build on this land. We did not
want a house next to ours, although hundreds of yards away.
We effected a plan.
Years back, before we could buy our current primary residence,
this land was listed for sale. We were interested. Being halfway
intelligent, we ordered up "perk tests" on the land to be sure a
septic tank could be used. Drilling team came out, drilled down
about six feet and hit virgin hard rock granite. Perk test failed,
no septic tank, no building.
This is when the accountant came in and bought this land without
running any tests to be sure he could build a home. Six years he
fought with the city trying to attain a building permit. No dice,
no septic tank, no nearby sewer line, slope of the land too much,
all kinds of problems.
We bought the home and land, adjacent to his land.
I searched records and found a trust deed on his acreage with a
beneficiary we know personally, trust deed is for $80,000 even.
During a con job dinner with our friend, her lips are loosened
with Mai Tai drinks, she tells us the accountant was in the
middle of a divorce, caught cheating with another woman at their
church, and he filed for bankruptcy. Odd thing about this trust
deed, which caught my attention, no legal description of land,
just a note about "secured by personal property." Ah ha!
Sure enough, with aid of flirting by my husband, she tell us
the trust deed is paper only, completely worthless. She adds
the accountant had her file this trust deed, no money down
from him, no payments, no note, nothing. This trust deed is
filed to keep his land out of the bankruptcy; encumbered full
value, court cannot auction off the land. This, of course, is
a criminal offense.
I call the accountant, asks if he wants to sell his land,
"Yes, and my price is $80,000 for the land. I have a trust
deed on my land for that amount." Lying sack of shit.
Year later, for sale sign up on the land.
Our plan goes into action. I stay home all the time, each
and every day. When a realtor shows up with clients, off
I go hiking over to this land, "Hi! I live over there. Did
you folks know the city will not issue a building permit
for this land?" and I explain about perk tests, slope and
all that. All client showings failed; none would buy. Ha!
More time passes and we effect part two of our plan; we
start improving his land, run water lines over, do some
grading, knock down weeds, plant trees. Very nice!
Reminds me, each year we were sure to file a complaint
with our fire department about weeds and fire hazard.
Each year the accountant had to pay to have his land
cleared off, with a tractor.
I catch the accountant out front of his land on a fateful
day. He is sitting in his big black Mercedes, I ask,
"You ready to sell your land to us?" He goes on about
this $80,000 trust deed. "Well, Mr. Shady Accountant,
I looked into your trust deed. Yours is paper only,
no note, unsecured and you filed that trust deed to
keep your land out of bankruptcy proceedings."
He is stunned, turns bright red and drives off in
a big hurry, not a word said.
Month later, we receive a letter from an attorney
giving us permission to make improvements on his
land. This is too cover for "Adverse Possession"
which you mention. This is our clue the accountant
is in a real fix; he cannot stop us because he
knows we have "dirt" on him, the trust deed ruse.
Six months later, he calls, "Would you like to buy
my land?" I tell him we would, he says $80,000 and
I say $20,000 he says no, I say "fine" and hang up.
I know we have him, he is in a real pickle.
Check around with friends, "Oh yeah, Mr. Accountant
is in a shit load of trouble, the IRS is after him."
Few days later, he calls, "Would you like to buy my
land?" Sure, $20,000 even. No, he wants $50,000 even.
I counter with $25,000, he counters with $40,O00.
"Well, Mr. Accountant, there is this problem of that
trust deed, you know. How about $30,000 and you make
sure your trust deed is reconveyed?" Out the blue,
"Ok, you have a deal."
Back then the value of the land was about $100,000
and today, about a half million.
Moral: Don't mess with an Indian out to take your land.
Prai Jei
>> Once in court, I ripped him to pieces;
>> no easement for anyone, just simple fee ownership by
>> our family.
Legalistic BrE would employ the poetic inversion "fee simple" here. Is
thisthe usual AmE form?
> Hmm. Unless things have changed since I studied real estate law (in
> California), you better be careful. Unless you periodically deny your
> neighbors passage on that portion of the road or give them written
> permission to use it, you may encounter some difficulties in claiming a
> clear title to it at some time in the future.
>
> Something like "Adverse Possession: Continuous Trespassers' Rights" comes
> to mind.
There is something in English law (don't quote me on this) about a common
right of way coming into existence if a road is continuously open for a
year and a day or something like that, if the owners do not assert their
rights in this way.
In such cases in the UK, where the owner wishes to retain his rights to the
road, it is usual to deny common access to the road on one day a year,
usually a day which would cause least inconvenience to regular users New
Years's Day, Good Friday and Christmas Day are usual choices.
There's an example in my native city of Cardiff, a footpath links Working
Street (one of the main shopping streets) with Trinity Street (where there
is an entrance to the central market). Usually this footpath is open to the
public providing convenient access to the market, but it passes through the
grounds of St. John's Church and is strictly Church property. So on Good
Friday every year (when the market is not open anyway) the Church
authorities close this footpath off.
Reciprocally, if said common right of way over a road never gets used within
the said year and a day, the owner can assert his rights over the road once
more.
An example of this converse case was formerly found in the neighbouring city
of Newport. In the mid 19th century some railway lines were laid along a
few of the streets to provide access to the early dock and riverside wharf
systems. By the early 20th century these lines had fallen out of regular
use, but the Great Western Railway asserted their right of way over these
lines by running a "light engine" (i.e. a locomotive on its own, not
hauling a train) along them on Good Friday each year. This continued until
1929 after which the railway company abandoned their rights. The tracks no
longer exist....
Your APCTR or whatever it is may well have been inherited from this precept
of English law.
--
ξ:) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Skitt
> Skitt wrote:
>> Purl Gurl had written:
>>> Once in court, I ripped him to pieces;
>>> no easement for anyone, just simple fee ownership by
>>> our family.
>
> Legalistic BrE would employ the poetic inversion "fee simple" here. Is
> this the usual AmE form?
No, "fee simple" is the AmE term also.
--
Skitt (AmE)
John Dean
I used to be in a click that said it that way.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Purl Gurl
I should write "simple fee simple".
Heh, heh, sounds like a clown's name.
Jeffrey Turner
Strangely, I pronounce that as "microfeesh" but "niche" is "nitch."
Who said pronunciation had to be consistent?
--Jeff
--
Oh, I'm not a pheasant plucker,
I'm a pheasant plucker's son.
And I'm sitting plucking pheasants
till the pheasant plucker comes.
R H Draney
> R H Draney wrote:
>
> > Do you still have occasion to refer to "microfiche"?...r
>
> Strangely, I pronounce that as "microfeesh" but "niche" is "nitch."
>
> Who said pronunciation had to be consistent?
Emerson?...
Was just checking some old Gallagher videos for a language point or
two...in one, he mentions remembering when his father first promised
to teach him how to read...says dear ol' dad pointed at a sign and
told him it said "Good Food", whereupon baby Gallagher realized
something was wrong; "those words don't rhyme"....r
Hatunen
<pvsto...@zyx-abc.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Skitt set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum:
>
>>> Once in court, I ripped him to pieces;
>>> no easement for anyone, just simple fee ownership by
>>> our family.
>
>Legalistic BrE would employ the poetic inversion "fee simple" here. Is
>thisthe usual AmE form?
>
>> Hmm. Unless things have changed since I studied real estate law (in
>> California), you better be careful. Unless you periodically deny your
>> neighbors passage on that portion of the road or give them written
>> permission to use it, you may encounter some difficulties in claiming a
>> clear title to it at some time in the future.
>>
>> Something like "Adverse Possession: Continuous Trespassers' Rights" comes
>> to mind.
>
>There is something in English law (don't quote me on this) about a common
>right of way coming into existence if a road is continuously open for a
>year and a day or something like that, if the owners do not assert their
>rights in this way.
>
>In such cases in the UK, where the owner wishes to retain his rights to the
>road, it is usual to deny common access to the road on one day a year,
>usually a day which would cause least inconvenience to regular users New
>Years's Day, Good Friday and Christmas Day are usual choices.
There is a street through the Rockefeller Center complex in New
York that is the property of the Center and is not a public
thoroghfare although it is used heavily by the public. Once a
year the Center would shut donw the street, on a Sunday morning
so as not to disrupt traffic, in order to keep the steet in
private ownership.
I don't recall which street; it may be the one now used by the
Today Show for musical performances, which would obviously
obviate the need for the annual closures.
>
>There's an example in my native city of Cardiff, a footpath links Working
>Street (one of the main shopping streets) with Trinity Street (where there
>is an entrance to the central market). Usually this footpath is open to the
>public providing convenient access to the market, but it passes through the
>grounds of St. John's Church and is strictly Church property. So on Good
>Friday every year (when the market is not open anyway) the Church
>authorities close this footpath off.
>
>Reciprocally, if said common right of way over a road never gets used within
>the said year and a day, the owner can assert his rights over the road once
>more.
>
>An example of this converse case was formerly found in the neighbouring city
>of Newport. In the mid 19th century some railway lines were laid along a
>few of the streets to provide access to the early dock and riverside wharf
>systems. By the early 20th century these lines had fallen out of regular
>use, but the Great Western Railway asserted their right of way over these
>lines by running a "light engine" (i.e. a locomotive on its own, not
>hauling a train) along them on Good Friday each year. This continued until
>1929 after which the railway company abandoned their rights. The tracks no
>longer exist....
>
>Your APCTR or whatever it is may well have been inherited from this precept
>of English law.
Each state has its own legal system (and the federal government
has one as well) and almost all have adopted the English commmon
law, although they have statutized much of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>R H Draney wrote:
>
>> LFS filted:
>>
>>>tony cooper wrote:
>>>
>>>>Can we bring in "niche" as in "niche market"? I cannot bring myself
>>>>to say "neech" and remain, resolutely, with "nitch".
>>>
>>>Ah, the opposite for me, I say "neesh". Nitch sounds too much like "an
>>>itch". And, if I started pronouncing it that way, I believe that very
>>>few people of my acquaintance would have a clue what I was talking about.
>>
>>
>> Do you still have occasion to refer to "microfiche"?...r
>
>Strangely, I pronounce that as "microfeesh" but "niche" is "nitch."
>
>Who said pronunciation had to be consistent?
>
There was, at one time, for a short time, a "witticism" in BrE
about a meal of small morsels of finny seafood and small morsels
of fried potato being "microfiche and microchips".
This was comprehensible only to those who were aware of
"microfeesh" and the chips in microcomputers.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Chuck Riggs
Most of us, I suspect, live a lifetime without needing, using,
wanting, or missing the word.
Mike M
I was going to bring this up. I've always said "cleek", but my Dear
Old Ma used to talk about "clicks". It was years before I realised
that we were talking about the same thing.
Mike M
Mike M
> Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> > Watching the BBC's "Pacific Abyss", I just noticed that the narrator
> > pronounces "algae" with /g/. Merriam-Webster Online only gives the
> > /dZ/ pronunciation. By contrast, Cambridge Advanced Learner's
> > Online only has /g/. Is this a pondian difference?
>
> That I can't answer. I know I grew up (in England) with the soft g
> pronunciation, but the hard g seems to be taking over, so now I use
> either while making a vain attempt to guess what my audience is familiar
> with. The first time I met the hard g pronunciation was in Germany,
> where the English teacher had taken me into his class - can't remember
> which strange book they were studying that contained the word. "Lichen"
> is another one: used to be "litchen", but today seems to be "liken".
>
I think that the hard "g" may have gained ground to avoid sounding
like the name "Algy" (short for Algernon - a character in the
"Biggles" books, and intrinsically funny).
Mike M
R H Draney
"Tonight, Abe Vigoda teams up with Erik Estrada on the season premiere of 'Fish
'n' Chips'"....
(It was funnier about 25 years ago)....r
R H Draney
>
>I think that the hard "g" may have gained ground to avoid sounding
>like the name "Algy" (short for Algernon - a character in the
>"Biggles" books, and intrinsically funny).
Algy met a bear.
The bear was bulgey.
The bulge was Algy.
LFS
> Mike M filted:
>> I think that the hard "g" may have gained ground to avoid sounding
>> like the name "Algy" (short for Algernon - a character in the
>> "Biggles" books, and intrinsically funny).
>
> Algy met a bear.
> The bear was bulgey.
> The bulge was Algy.
>
> ....r
>
>
I knew it with a second line inserted: The bear met Algy. It sounds more
balanced, I think.
R H Draney
>
>R H Draney wrote:
>>
>> Algy met a bear.
>> The bear was bulgey.
>> The bulge was Algy.
>
>balanced, I think.
I think I remember that one too...the shorter version was recited, I think, in
an episode of "Sabrina the Teenage Witch" (the animated show from the early 70s,
not the live-action sitcom starring Melissa Joan Hart)....r
Robert Bannister
> Of course, but how often do people who use English but are not
> interested in systematics need to talk about algae at all? What's wrong
> with "seaweed" as a word?
Nothing, but in ordinary speech "algae" is mainly used to describe pond
scum or the slime on fish tank walls, for which "seaweed" is not very
appropriate.
--
Rob Bannister
CDB
That version was one item on a shortlist that my mother would resort
to in the 1940s, if I whined for a second bedtime story.
Unknown
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:06:24 +0100, Peter Duncanson (BrE) posted:
And especially so to those of use who pronounce it "microfish".
--
This post was full when it was composed.
Contents may have settled in shipping.
Unknown
On 8 Sep 2008 14:58:41 -0700, R H Draney posted:
Good one!
Tonight on NBC.
... and the Man.
The story of a cantankerous garage owner whose young
assistant has just committed suicide.
Mark Brader
> Very occasionally our librarians apologise for only having documents
The!
--
Mark Brader | "...there are lots of things that I don't remember,
Toronto | but if you ask for an example, I can't remember any."
m...@vex.net | --Michael Wares
John Dean
The Hon Algernon Lacy.
NTM Algy Pug - Rupert's pal.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Mike M
Gave me quite a nostalgic glow, that. Bingo the Brainy Pup, Edward
Trunk, Pong Ping, Bill Badger....
Just had a look at http://www.rupertbear.com/ - it's HORRIBLE. Nasty
Disney-style animated trash. Bring back Alfred Bestall!
Mike M
Skitt
> Peter Duncanson (BrE) posted:
>>> R H Draney wrote:
>>>> LFS filted:
>>>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>>>> Can we bring in "niche" as in "niche market"? I cannot bring
>>>>>> myself to say "neech" and remain, resolutely, with "nitch".
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, the opposite for me, I say "neesh". Nitch sounds too much
>>>>> like "an itch". And, if I started pronouncing it that way, I
>>>>> believe that very few people of my acquaintance would have a clue
>>>>> what I was talking about.
>>>>
>>>> Do you still have occasion to refer to "microfiche"?...r
>>>
>>> Strangely, I pronounce that as "microfeesh" but "niche" is "nitch."
>>>
>>> Who said pronunciation had to be consistent?
>>>
>> There was, at one time, for a short time, a "witticism" in BrE
>> about a meal of small morsels of finny seafood and small morsels
>> of fried potato being "microfiche and microchips".
>>
>> This was comprehensible only to those who were aware of
>> "microfeesh" and the chips in microcomputers.
>
> And especially so to those of use who pronounce it "microfish".
That would be me.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
http://home.comcast.net/~skitt99/
Amethyst Deceiver
8e3b9d...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, mikm...@googlemail.com
says...
I've seen the new Rupert animations and the Bestall-based animated
cartoons and the new animations are far, far better. For a start,
they've got English accents, rather than North American attempts at
English accents.
--
Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary
Christian Weisgerber
> Subject: Pronunciation of "algae"?
> Watching the BBC's "Pacific Abyss", I just noticed that the narrator
> pronounces "algae" with /g/. Merriam-Webster Online only gives the
> /dZ/ pronunciation. By contrast, Cambridge Advanced Learner's
> Online only has /g/.
Another BBC documentary ("Oceans", episode 3), more algae. Apart
from the competing pronunciations, there is a new twist: the use
of "algae" as a singular.
"It's this algae that gives the coral its colour."
"... the algae is stressed to such a degree..."
"... a specific heat-tolerant algae."
A quick Google search suggests that this usage is quite common
already. (The best hit has to be this one: "blue-green algae is a
bacteria". Ouch.)
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Chuck Riggs
As an aquarist for much of my life, I can assure you that alga, even
where it might make better sense than algae, is rarely used in texts
about aquariums or tropical fish. Biologists, on the other hand, might
well use the word.