Who's on the panel?

[Guy Barry]

A usage question prompted by the SDC. Jerry and Michael describe themselves
as "panelists", but they're the ones asking the questions rather than
answering them. The only time I've heard "panellist" (BrE spelling) used in
this country in relation to a quiz is on TV and radio panel games, where the
panellists are the celebrities paid to come up with (hopefully) witty and
entertaining answers to the questions. The idea of a "panel" asking the
questions seems to be the wrong way round. Is this regular US usage?

(And I don't know why BrE has this absurd habit of inserting double "l" in
places where it isn't needed, but I imagine that's come up before.)

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Brooks]

On Sep 9, 12:16 pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> A usage question prompted by the SDC.  Jerry and Michael describe themselves
> as "panelists", but they're the ones asking the questions rather than
> answering them.  The only time I've heard "panellist"
>

A 'panelist' would be a list of panes - something you'd expect to find
in a shop that sold glass.

A 'panellist' a person (an -ist) who sits on a panel.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 11:16:38 +0100, "Guy Barry"
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>A usage question prompted by the SDC. Jerry and Michael describe themselves
>as "panelists", but they're the ones asking the questions rather than
>answering them. The only time I've heard "panellist" (BrE spelling) used in
>this country in relation to a quiz is on TV and radio panel games, where the
>panellists are the celebrities paid to come up with (hopefully) witty and
>entertaining answers to the questions. The idea of a "panel" asking the
>questions seems to be the wrong way round. Is this regular US usage?
>

If, for instance, you go to a job interview and face a group of
interviewers they are the "interview panel" (in BrE).

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/panel?q=panel

3 a small group of people brought together to investigate or decide
on a particular matter:
"an interview panel"

* British a list of medical practitioners registered in a district
as accepting patients under the National Health Service or,
formerly, the National Insurance Act.
* chiefly North American a list of available jurors or a jury.

>(And I don't know why BrE has this absurd habit of inserting double "l" in
>places where it isn't needed, but I imagine that's come up before.)

I have a dim memory that it is something to do with maintaining the
short vowel sound before the "l". I think the idea is that if the vowel
is followed by "l" and another vowel the first vowel may be interpreted
as long. However, this "rule" seems to be based on a regularity of
pronuciation versus spelling that does not exist.


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Peter Young]

On 9 Sep 2012 "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

> (And I don't know why BrE has this absurd habit of inserting double "l" in
> places where it isn't needed, but I imagine that's come up before.)

I think in the BrE convention it is needed, to ensure that the vowel
before the double "l" is short, but I'm sure someone will refute this.

Peter.

--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

[Stan Brown]

On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 11:16:38 +0100, Guy Barry wrote:
> A usage question prompted by the SDC. Jerry and Michael describe themselves
> as "panelists", but they're the ones asking the questions rather than
> answering them. The only time I've heard "panellist" (BrE spelling) used in
> this country in relation to a quiz is on TV and radio panel games, where the
> panellists are the celebrities paid to come up with (hopefully) witty and
> entertaining answers to the questions. The idea of a "panel" asking the
> questions seems to be the wrong way round. Is this regular US usage?

I don't grok the SDC, but _outside_ of a quiz-show context a panel
can indeed ask questions. Investigating committees of the Senate or
House of Representatives, and independent commissions, are often
described as panels. I suspect the origin is headline language,
because "panel" is a short word.

Come to think of it, I've just recalled a quiz-show context where a
panel asked questions. The premise of /What's My Line/ was that the
panel of four minor celebrities had to ask questions of a guest to
determine his or her occupation. IIRC, the questions had to be
answerable by Yes or No, and each panelist continued questioning
until receiving an answer of No. The fourth No ended the game and
was a win for the guest.

I found this reference in Wikipedia, but I haven't read it to see if
it matches my recollection:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_My_Line%3F


--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com

[Whiskers]

On 2012-09-09, Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 9 Sep 2012 "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> (And I don't know why BrE has this absurd habit of inserting double "l" in
>> places where it isn't needed, but I imagine that's come up before.)
>
> I think in the BrE convention it is needed, to ensure that the vowel
> before the double "l" is short, but I'm sure someone will refute this.
>
> Peter.

Perhaps it's to confuse the Welsh?

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Arcadian Rises]

Also, sometimes a lecture takes the more palatable form of a panel
discussion whereby panelists talk among themselves and take questions
from the audience.

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Brooks" wrote in message
news:75090df2-6203-4bfb...@k20g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...

I believe that BrE and AmE spellings differ here, as they often do when it
comes to single and double "l" (e.g. "travel(l)er").

That wasn't what I was asking about, though (as I indicated later in the
post).

--
Guy Barr

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
news:v6vo4896kdgvhue6j...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 11:16:38 +0100, "Guy Barry"
> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > A usage question prompted by the SDC. Jerry and Michael describe
> > themselves
> > as "panelists", but they're the ones asking the questions rather than
> > answering them. The only time I've heard "panellist" (BrE spelling)
> > used in
> > this country in relation to a quiz is on TV and radio panel games, where
> > the
> > panellists are the celebrities paid to come up with (hopefully) witty
> > and
> > entertaining answers to the questions. The idea of a "panel" asking the
> > questions seems to be the wrong way round. Is this regular US usage?
>

> If, for instance, you go to a job interview and face a group of
> interviewers they are the "interview panel" (in BrE).

Are they usually referred to as "panellists", though? Anyway, this is a
quiz, not an interview.

> > (And I don't know why BrE has this absurd habit of inserting double "l"
> > in
> > places where it isn't needed, but I imagine that's come up before.)

> I have a dim memory that it is something to do with maintaining the
> short vowel sound before the "l". I think the idea is that if the vowel
> is followed by "l" and another vowel the first vowel may be interpreted
> as long. However, this "rule" seems to be based on a regularity of

> pronunciation versus spelling that does not exist.

I assumed this was a boring FAQ, which is why I didn't flag it. BrE has
this strange habit of doubling the letter "l" in positions where you
wouldn't normally expect a double letter. When you add a suffix to a word
ending in an unstressed vowel followed by a single consonant you don't
normally double the consonant, e.g.

offer -> offered (final vowel of "offer" unstressed), but
prefer -> preferred (final vowel of "prefer" stressed)

AmE sensibly follows this convention with the letter "l" as well:

travel -> traveled (final vowel unstressed)
impel -> impelled (final vowel stressed)

BrE, for some reason, doesn't, and insists on a double "l" in both cases.
"Travelled" is spelt as though the stress were on the second syllable
instead of the first.

Various British authors have objected to this illogicality (I believe Lewis
Carroll wrote "traveled"), but for better or worse the convention has stuck,
except in the case of "unparalleled", where everyone seems to agree that
"unparallelled" looks so stupid that an exception has to be made to the
exception.

It's not an aspect of British spelling that I particularly like. What's
wrong with "panelist"? We don't write "humannist" or "Methoddist", for
instance.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Stan Brown" wrote in message
news:MPG.2ab6593c8...@news.individual.net...

> Come to think of it, I've just recalled a quiz-show context where a
> panel asked questions. The premise of /What's My Line/ was that the
> panel of four minor celebrities had to ask questions of a guest to
> determine his or her occupation. IIRC, the questions had to be
> answerable by Yes or No, and each panelist continued questioning
> until receiving an answer of No. The fourth No ended the game and
> was a win for the guest.

We had our own version of the show, and your recollection seems to be
correct (except that I thought it was ten "no" answers) - see
http://www.ukgameshows.com/ukgs/What%27s_My_Line%3F

--
Guy Barry

[Robin Bignall]

On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 13:15:43 +0100, Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 9 Sep 2012 "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> (And I don't know why BrE has this absurd habit of inserting double "l" in
>> places where it isn't needed, but I imagine that's come up before.)
>
>I think in the BrE convention it is needed, to ensure that the vowel
>before the double "l" is short, but I'm sure someone will refute this.
>

I think so. It also occurs with 'p' in kidnap and kidnapper, and may
also with 'r' and 't' in words I can't think of at the moment.
Maybe shit and shitter. Bar and barring.
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England

[Guy Barry]

"Robin Bignall" wrote in message
news:d8lp4850utsjfpo5n...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 13:15:43 +0100, Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk>
> wrote:

> >I think in the BrE convention it is needed, to ensure that the vowel
> >before the double "l" is short, but I'm sure someone will refute this.

> I think so. It also occurs with 'p' in kidnap and kidnapper,

Yes, you're right - also "worshipping" (which I think has a single "p" in
AmE). On the other hand, "gossiping" is spelt that way.

> and may also with 'r' and 't' in words I can't think of at the moment.

Possibly in "formatting", but not otherwise in standard BrE as far as I
know. Of course you do sometimes see incorrect spellings like "limitting".
I don't think I've seen anything like "offerring" though.

> Maybe shit and shitter. Bar and barring.

Not relevant - the vowel preceding the consonant is stressed in each case,
so you'd expect a double consonant.

--
Guy Barry

[Andrew B]

On 09/09/2012 18:58, Guy Barry wrote:
>
> Possibly in "formatting", but not otherwise in standard BrE as far as I
> know.

Isn't "formatting" the AmE spelling as well?

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 08:44:32 -0400, Stan Brown wrote:
>Come to think of it, I've just recalled a quiz-show context where a
>panel asked questions. The premise of /What's My Line/ was that the
>panel of four minor celebrities had to ask questions of a guest to
>determine his or her occupation.

Other similar game shows included "I've Got a Secret" and "To Tell the
Truth." On the latter, the panel interviewed three contestants who all
claimed to be the same person, trying to figure out which one was real.

ŹR http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/bluemoon.html
"Nothing says 'Thursday' quite like Ira Fusfeld."

[Snidely]

Stan Brown speculated:

> On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 11:16:38 +0100, Guy Barry wrote:
>> A usage question prompted by the SDC. Jerry and Michael describe themselves
>> as "panelists", but they're the ones asking the questions rather than
>> answering them. The only time I've heard "panellist" (BrE spelling) used in
>> this country in relation to a quiz is on TV and radio panel games, where the
>> panellists are the celebrities paid to come up with (hopefully) witty and
>> entertaining answers to the questions. The idea of a "panel" asking the
>> questions seems to be the wrong way round. Is this regular US usage?
>
> I don't grok the SDC, but _outside_ of a quiz-show context a panel
> can indeed ask questions. Investigating committees of the Senate or
> House of Representatives, and independent commissions, are often
> described as panels. I suspect the origin is headline language,
> because "panel" is a short word.
>
> Come to think of it, I've just recalled a quiz-show context where a
> panel asked questions. The premise of /What's My Line/ was that the
> panel of four minor celebrities had to ask questions of a guest to
> determine his or her occupation. IIRC, the questions had to be
> answerable by Yes or No, and each panelist continued questioning
> until receiving an answer of No. The fourth No ended the game and
> was a win for the guest.
>
> I found this reference in Wikipedia, but I haven't read it to see if
> it matches my recollection:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_My_Line%3F

Not quite an answer for the Original Poster (does he choose to say his
name to rhyme with sky, or to a la francaise to rhyme with me?), but it
is surely worth a footnote to observe that in many US jurisdictions, a
jury is empaneled or empanelled. Court-room juries are limited in
what questions they can ask, but art show juries may not be.

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

[annily]

On 09.09.12 23:57, Guy Barry wrote:

> It's not an aspect of British spelling that I particularly like. What's
> wrong with "panelist"? We don't write "humannist" or "Methoddist", for
> instance.
>

I think I've nearly always seen it with a single "l" here in Australia,
perhaps due to US influence. It looks funny to me with a double "l".

[Robert Bannister]

Why is it absurd? It is standard British practice to double the
consonant after short vowels except when we don't.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

But that is the point: it is an American rule.

>
> BrE, for some reason, doesn't, and insists on a double "l" in both
> cases. "Travelled" is spelt as though the stress were on the second
> syllable instead of the first.
>
> Various British authors have objected to this illogicality (I believe
> Lewis Carroll wrote "traveled"), but for better or worse the convention
> has stuck, except in the case of "unparalleled", where everyone seems to
> agree that "unparallelled" looks so stupid that an exception has to be
> made to the exception.
>
> It's not an aspect of British spelling that I particularly like. What's
> wrong with "panelist"? We don't write "humannist" or "Methoddist", for
> instance.

Panelist risks being misread as "pane-list" just as the ugly "worshiped"
looks as if the last part rhymes with "wiped". I see nothing wrong with
"humannist" and "Methoddist", but that's English for you.


--
Robert Bannister

[Guy Barry]

"Snidely" wrote in message news:mn.4b147dc9f652057b.127094@snitoo...

> Not quite an answer for the Original Poster (does he choose to say his
> name to rhyme with sky, or to a la francaise to rhyme with me?),

The former, in the usual English fashion.

--
Guy Barry

[R H Draney]

Robert Bannister filted:

And then there's all those golf balls marked "Tit-list"....

Was in a video store the other day, and I swear I actually read the title of one
of Penn & Teller's shows as "Bulls Hit"....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Guy Barry]

"annily" wrote in message news:504d...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

It occurred to me that "panellist" is unusual even by British spelling
rules. Although we normally double the "l" before native suffixes like
"-er", "-ed" and "-ing", we don't generally do so before classical suffixes
like "-ist", "-ize" and "-ity". For instance, "journalist" is so spelt. Is
there some etymological reason for the double "l" in "panellist"?

Another one that can confuse even good spellers is
"tranquillize"/"tranquillity". We write "civilize" and "civility" with a
single "l", so what's the difference?

And why "crystallize"?

--
Guy Barry

[James Hogg]

Look to the Latin: "crystallum" and "tranquillus" but "civilis". And
note the post-classical Latin "panellus".

I'm sure this doesn't explain every case. "Medallist", for example, has
a double-l in BrE even though the post-classical Latin word has just one
(but the French word has two). But the basic principle is to reduce two
consonants to one in the simple form (cf. set vs. setting).

--
James

[Guy Barry]

"Robert Bannister" wrote in message
news:ab5a8b...@mid.individual.net...

> On 9/09/12 10:27 PM, Guy Barry wrote:

> > When you add a suffix to a
> > word ending in an unstressed vowel followed by a single consonant you
> > don't normally double the consonant, e.g.
>
> > offer -> offered (final vowel of "offer" unstressed), but
> > prefer -> preferred (final vowel of "prefer" stressed)
>
> > AmE sensibly follows this convention with the letter "l" as well:
>
> > travel -> traveled (final vowel unstressed)
> > impel -> impelled (final vowel stressed)

> But that is the point: it is an American rule.

It's not an "American rule". It's a standard spelling rule in all varieties
of English. You don't double the consonant in "happened" or "suffered" or
"limited" or words like that. AmE follows the rule for verbs ending in
"l", BrE makes an exception (and also for some verbs in "p"). I spell words
like that because that's what I'm used to, but I have to accept that the AmE
convention is the more logical one.

> Panelist risks being misread as "pane-list" just as the ugly "worshiped"
> looks as if the last part rhymes with "wiped".

So why doesn't that apply to "gossiped", then? As for your other comment,
that's just silly. By the same token, "panellist" could be misread as
"panel-list" (a list of panels). "List" isn't conventionally used as a
suffix like that.

> I see nothing wrong with "humannist" and "Methoddist", but that's English
> for you.

The reason for not doubling the consonant is that it implies a shift in
stress to the syllable before the doubled consonant: "huMANNist" and
"meTHODDist". That's why we write "preferred" but "preferable", to show
that the stress is on the second syllable in the first but the first
syllable in the second.

--
Guy Barry

[Stan Brown]

That was my morning chuckle -- thanks!

[Mark Brader]

Stan Brown:

> Come to think of it, I've just recalled a quiz-show context where a
> panel asked questions. The premise of /What's My Line/ was that the
> panel of four minor celebrities had to ask questions of a guest to
> determine his or her occupation. IIRC, the questions had to be
> answerable by Yes or No, and each panelist continued questioning
> until receiving an answer of No. The fourth No ended the game and
> was a win for the guest.

And hence the panelists developed the practice of asking questions
including the words "something other than". I once watched an episode
where the host introduced the next guest by saying that he grows
something and the panel's job was to find out what. The questioning
began with "Is it something other than hair?" and the answer was "No"!
The next panelist was Soupy Sales and he had great fun with his vocal
stylings as he asked, "Is it hair?"
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "[That] statement is so full of hubris
m...@vex.net | you can hear the wax melting." -- Steve Summit

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Mark Brader]

Stan Brown:

>> Come to think of it, I've just recalled a quiz-show context where a
>> panel asked questions. The premise of /What's My Line/ was that the
>> panel of four minor celebrities had to ask questions of a guest to
>> determine his or her occupation.

Glenn Knickerbocker:

> Other similar game shows included "I've Got a Secret" and "To Tell the
> Truth." On the latter, the panel interviewed three contestants who all
> claimed to be the same person, trying to figure out which one was real.

In Canada we had "Front Page Challenge", on the CBC. Four panelists,
one guest, two segments per 30-minute episode. The guest was someone
connected with an event that had been in the headlines, either recently
or some time ago, and the panel had 2 minutes to identify the event
by asking yes-or-no questions, usually while the guest was hidden
from view. The panel were mostly journalists of one or another type,
and when they got the answer or time was up, they would then interview
the guest for the rest of the segment.

It was the longest-running show in Canadian history, I think 26 years.
After some changes early in the show's run, both the host's position
and the three regular-panelist slots were pretty much permanent jobs.
--
Mark Brader | "The default choice ... is in many ways the most
Toronto | important thing. ... People can get started
m...@vex.net | without reading a big manual." -- Brian Kernighan

[rwalker]

On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 19:25:10 +0100, Andrew B <bul...@gmail.com>
wrote:

That's how I'd spell it.

Rob (in the U.S.A.)

[Robert Bannister]

I would suggest that looking for logic in English spelling is liable to
cause a headache, and that trying to improve it, as dear old Noah did,
is only going to cause more headaches.

--
Robert Bannister

[Guy Barry]

"rwalker" wrote in message
news:eq2t48962nefa8tmj...@4ax.com...

Which is odd, because (like most computer jargon) I presume it originated in
the US, where the rules about not doubling consonants after unstressed
vowels are normally strictly adhered to. I can't think of any other word
where a "t" is doubled after an unstressed vowel.

Is it something to do with the difference between a clear vowel and a schwa
before the consonant? There does seem to be more of a tendency to double
the consonant when there's a clear vowel.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Robert Bannister" wrote in message

news:ab7i9p...@mid.individual.net...

> I would suggest that looking for logic in English spelling is liable to
> cause a headache, and that trying to improve it, as dear old Noah did, is
> only going to cause more headaches.

I don't expect British spelling conventions to change any time soon. My
main point was that, when British and American conventions conflict, it's
usually the American convention that seems to be the more logical one.

--
Guy Barry

[Mike L]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 12:24:43 +0200, James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com>
wrote:

We do try to make our vowels do too much, and with only ambiguous
support from the consonants. Sometimes the number of consonants
between vowels signals the length of the first vowel, and sometimes
the stress, and sometimes neither; sometimes it helps interpretation
by respecting the word's derivation, sometimes it doesn't. And
sometimes these demands come into conflict, or just give up and pop
out for a smoke.

--
Mike.

[Robert Bannister]

I would agree with reference to "color" and all the "-our" words as well
as "traveled". The simplification of the "ae/oe" words is sensible too
even though some words end up looking strange to us, although why Noah
didn't replace all the "phs" with "fs" I don't know.

I am unhappy with "worshiped/kidnapped" perhaps because of
"shipped/(k(napped" and I am unmoved by the stressed vowel argument. I
also find "defense, offense, license" quite illogical - if you're going
for one spelling, "-ence" is better because "-ense" could sound "enz"
despite the majority of "sense, dense, immense" words. It is perhaps a
pity that "tho" and "thru" didn't stick, but did he ever tackle all the
"gh" words or even just the "ough" ones? I find the American system
inconsistent and unsatisfying taken as a whole.

One thing that AUE has always agreed on is that no spelling reform has
ever really worked for a number of reasons, and that future ones are
even less likely to succeed.

--
Robert Bannister

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:55:58 +0800, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com>
wrote:

>I would agree with reference to "color" and all the "-our" words as well
>as "traveled". The simplification of the "ae/oe" words is sensible too
>even though some words end up looking strange to us, although why Noah
>didn't replace all the "phs" with "fs" I don't know.

There's sulfur, and at least one American dictionary has "fenix".


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Guy Barry]

"Robert Bannister" wrote in message

news:ababu1...@mid.individual.net...

> On 11/09/12 3:30 PM, Guy Barry wrote:

> > I don't expect British spelling conventions to change any time soon. My
> > main point was that, when British and American conventions conflict,
> > it's usually the American convention that seems to be the more logical
> > one.

> I would agree with reference to "color" and all the "-our" words as well
> as "traveled". The simplification of the "ae/oe" words is sensible too
> even though some words end up looking strange to us, although why Noah
> didn't replace all the "phs" with "fs" I don't know.

I'd agree with all this - also "-er" for "-re" (e.g. "center").

> I am unhappy with "worshiped/kidnapped" perhaps because of
> "shipped/(k(napped" and I am unmoved by the stressed vowel argument.

"Worshipped" isn't related to "shipped", so if anything the double "p" is
misleading. I can't see why those two have two have a double "p" when we're
happy with "walloped", "hiccuped", "gossiped", "chirruped" and so on.
Perhaps "kidnapped" might be justified on the grounds that it's a compound
(cf. "handclapped"), although I'm not sure of the etymology.

When you say you're "unmoved by the stressed vowel argument", what principle
do you use then? That's the one I was taught in school and the one I've
always adhered to ("preferred"/"offered" etc.). Is there an alternative one
in use?

> I also find "defense, offense, license" quite illogical - if you're going
> for one spelling, "-ence" is better because "-ense" could sound "enz"
> despite the majority of "sense, dense, immense" words.

I don't particularly object to those spellings - BrE uses "license" as a
verb, though not as a noun. It's a pity that AmE then has to go and spoil
it by using "practice" as both a noun and a verb.

> One thing that AUE has always agreed on is that no spelling reform has
> ever really worked for a number of reasons, and that future ones are even
> less likely to succeed.

True, but is there anything other than pride stopping the British from
adopting the American spelling system? As a Brit, I used to look down my
nose at spellings like "color" (and they still look foreign to me), but I've
come to accept that for anyone learning the language they're a lot easier.

--
Guy Barry

[Robert Bannister]

On 12/09/12 1:27 PM, Guy Barry wrote:

> When you say you're "unmoved by the stressed vowel argument", what
> principle do you use then? That's the one I was taught in school and
> the one I've always adhered to ("preferred"/"offered" etc.). Is there
> an alternative one in use?

The same principle most of us use with regard to most English spelling:
there is no system or logic; learn each word as it comes and cross your
fingers except when typing.

--
Robert Bannister

[Skitt]

I think you've got it! That's how I got to be a pretty good speller,
even though I didn't speak or write a word of English before the age of
fourteen.

--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt

[Robin Bignall]

It seems to me to be no different in principle from learning that each
noun in German is masculine, feminine or neuter, so I'm told.
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England

[Skitt]

Robin Bignall wrote:

> Skitt wrote:
>> Robert Bannister wrote:
>>> Guy Barry wrote:

>>>> When you say you're "unmoved by the stressed vowel argument", what
>>>> principle do you use then? That's the one I was taught in school and
>>>> the one I've always adhered to ("preferred"/"offered" etc.). Is there
>>>> an alternative one in use?
>>>
>>> The same principle most of us use with regard to most English spelling:
>>> there is no system or logic; learn each word as it comes and cross your
>>> fingers except when typing.
>>>
>>
>> I think you've got it! That's how I got to be a pretty good speller,
>> even though I didn't speak or write a word of English before the age of
>> fourteen.
>
> It seems to me to be no different in principle from learning that each
> noun in German is masculine, feminine or neuter, so I'm told.

Well, when you've grown up with the Latvian language, it is all child's
play. Learning German along the way made picking up English even
easier, except for some confusingly similar words in those languages.

[Guy Barry]

"Robert Bannister" wrote in message

news:abcmc2...@mid.individual.net...

I disagree, certainly when it comes to suffixes like "-ed", "-ing" and "-er"
which are part of standard English morphology. The rules are more or less
fixed, and exceptions are few and far between. You just don't get spellings
like "happenned", certainly not when there's a schwa in the unstressed
syllable. The uncertain cases seem to arise when there's a clear vowel in
the unstressed syllable. For instance "formatting" seems to be the standard
spelling, perhaps because it's influenced by "matting".

Just because English spelling is highly irregular doesn't mean there aren't
principles involved.

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Young]

Hopefully you got it all sorted out eventually.

Peter.

--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

[Skitt]

Peter Young wrote:

> Skitt wrote:
>> Robin Bignall wrote:
>>> Skitt wrote:
>>>> Robert Bannister wrote:
>>>>> Guy Barry wrote:

>>>>>> When you say you're "unmoved by the stressed vowel argument", what
>>>>>> principle do you use then? That's the one I was taught in school and
>>>>>> the one I've always adhered to ("preferred"/"offered" etc.). Is there
>>>>>> an alternative one in use?
>>>>>
>>>>> The same principle most of us use with regard to most English spelling:
>>>>> there is no system or logic; learn each word as it comes and cross your
>>>>> fingers except when typing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think you've got it! That's how I got to be a pretty good speller,
>>>> even though I didn't speak or write a word of English before the age of
>>>> fourteen.
>>>
>>> It seems to me to be no different in principle from learning that each
>>> noun in German is masculine, feminine or neuter, so I'm told.
>
>> Well, when you've grown up with the Latvian language, it is all child's
>> play. Learning German along the way made picking up English even
>> easier, except for some confusingly similar words in those languages.
>
> Hopefully you got it all sorted out eventually.

Yup, but that is mostly because I no longer use my German and Latvian
skills.

[Robert Bannister]

Spot on, and you can include German noun plurals in that too. With
gender, there are a few guidelines, but there are so many exceptions
that they are useless until you know so much German you rarely make
mistakes anyway. The worst part is the way genders vary between
languages, and there are a few that vary just between standard German
and Austrian.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

I am guessing that Latvian does not use as many German words as Russian.

--
Robert Bannister

[Skitt]

Latvians use loanwords from both of those languages, but there has been
an effort to encourage the use of purely Latvian words in their place.
Results of that effort have not been all that was hoped for.

[Nick Spalding]

Skitt wrote, in <k2tvkn$2nn$1...@news.albasani.net>
on Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:01:20 -0700:

Do you get much opportunity to speak Latvian these days? My Latvian
ex-lodger who has been living here for the last nine years says she
sometimes finds difficulty getting the right way of saying things in
Latvian. She dreams in English.

My youngest son who has been living in France for more than twenty years
certainly sometimes uses French sounding expressions when talking
English.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

[Skitt]

None, actually.

> My Latvian
> ex-lodger who has been living here for the last nine years says she
> sometimes finds difficulty getting the right way of saying things in
> Latvian. She dreams in English.

I had considerable difficulty saying what I wanted to say when I last
visited Latvia in 1996. I'm sure that my Latvian has deteriorated more
since then.

> My youngest son who has been living in France for more than twenty years
> certainly sometimes uses French sounding expressions when talking
> English.

I used English when I returned to my parents' house after serving three
years in the Army. They spoke Latvian to me, and I responded in
English. It was easier that way. I moved out of my parents' house as
soon as I found my first "real" job a couple of weeks later.

I have not had any need or chance to use much Latvian since then, and
that was in 1959.

When we first arrived in the USA, a man who had come from Latvia a
decade or so earlier came to visit us. I recall that his Latvian
sounded very strange and stilted to us. It sounded like he was
translating from English, word for word.

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 12:53:19 +0800, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com>
wrote:

>On 9/09/12 6:16 PM, Guy Barry wrote:

>> (And I don't know why BrE has this absurd habit of inserting double "l"
>> in places where it isn't needed, but I imagine that's come up before.)
>>
>
>Why is it absurd? It is standard British practice to double the
>consonant after short vowels except when we don't.

kidnapped is to kidnaped
as
rapped is to raped

[Robert Bannister]

On 26/10/12 12:39 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 12:53:19 +0800, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/09/12 6:16 PM, Guy Barry wrote:
>
>>> (And I don't know why BrE has this absurd habit of inserting double "l"
>>> in places where it isn't needed, but I imagine that's come up before.)
>>>
>>
>> Why is it absurd? It is standard British practice to double the
>> consonant after short vowels except when we don't.
>
> kidnapped is to kidnaped
> as
> rapped is to raped
>
>

But we always have "rapt" and "wrapped" in reserve in case we run out,
although not many kids have been knapped on the nape lately.

--
Robert Bannister