Is this usage of OVERSEAS acceptable?

[Dingbat]

Is this usage of OVERSEAS acceptable today?

The initial delta infection arrived via an overseas flight from Moscow
into the eastern Chinese city of Nanjing in mid-July
https://businessmirror.com.ph/2021/08/02/virus-flares-again-in-wuhan-as-delta-challenges-chinas-pandemic-defense/

No sea is crossed on the shortest air route.

How about OFFSHORING?

Can a project be offshored to another country on the same continent?

[micky]

In alt.usage.english, on Tue, 3 Aug 2021 06:49:28 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat

<ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Is this usage of OVERSEAS acceptable today?
>
>The initial delta infection arrived via an overseas flight from Moscow
> into the eastern Chinese city of Nanjing in mid-July
>https://businessmirror.com.ph/2021/08/02/virus-flares-again-in-wuhan-as-delta-challenges-chinas-pandemic-defense/
>
>No sea is crossed on the shortest air route.

Exactly. They didn't need any word there. "Flight" is sufficient.

>
>How about OFFSHORING?
>
>Can a project be offshored to another country on the same continent?

I offshored my cousins from California to Catalina Island... Does that
count?

--
Please say where you live, or what
area's English you are asking about.
So your question or answer makes sense.
. .
I have lived all my life in the USA,
Western Pa. Indianapolis, Chicago,
Brooklyn, Baltimore.

[Quinn C]

* micky:

> In alt.usage.english, on Tue, 3 Aug 2021 06:49:28 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Is this usage of OVERSEAS acceptable today?
>>
>>The initial delta infection arrived via an overseas flight from Moscow
>> into the eastern Chinese city of Nanjing in mid-July
>>https://businessmirror.com.ph/2021/08/02/virus-flares-again-in-wuhan-as-delta-challenges-chinas-pandemic-defense/
>>
>>No sea is crossed on the shortest air route.
>
> Exactly. They didn't need any word there. "Flight" is sufficient.

I think they wanted to stress that it was an international, or
cross-border flight.

--
The trouble some people have being German, I thought,
I have being human.
-- Margaret Atwood, Surfacing (novel), p.130

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 12:42:00 -0400, Quinn C
<lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* micky:
>
>> In alt.usage.english, on Tue, 3 Aug 2021 06:49:28 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
>> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Is this usage of OVERSEAS acceptable today?
>>>
>>>The initial delta infection arrived via an overseas flight from Moscow
>>> into the eastern Chinese city of Nanjing in mid-July
>>>https://businessmirror.com.ph/2021/08/02/virus-flares-again-in-wuhan-as-delta-challenges-chinas-pandemic-defense/
>>>
>>>No sea is crossed on the shortest air route.
>>
>> Exactly. They didn't need any word there. "Flight" is sufficient.
>
>I think they wanted to stress that it was an international, or
>cross-border flight.

Yes. "overseas" is used to refer to foreign countries but not
exclusively to those across the sea.


https://www.lexico.com/definition/overseas

overseas

adverb

In or to a foreign country, especially one across the sea.
‘he spent quite a lot of time working overseas’

adjective
attributive

From, to, or relating to a foreign country, especially one
across the sea.
‘overseas trips’


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

[Richard Heathfield]

On 03/08/2021 19:23, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:

<snip>

> Yes. "overseas" is used to refer to foreign countries but not
> exclusively to those across the sea.

The English generally use "overdyke" to refer to Wales and "overwall"
for Scotland.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Peter Moylan]

On 04/08/21 07:56, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 03/08/2021 19:23, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Yes. "overseas" is used to refer to foreign countries but not
>> exclusively to those across the sea.
>
> The English generally use "overdyke" to refer to Wales and "overwall"
> for Scotland.

Australians often uses "overseas" to mean another country.

For example, I'm planning an overseas trip to Tasmania later this year.
I still need to check whether they accept Australian currency.

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

[Lewis]

In message <54rigghpmjp8r0kdj...@4ax.com> micky <NONONO...@fmguy.com> wrote:
> In alt.usage.english, on Tue, 3 Aug 2021 06:49:28 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>Is this usage of OVERSEAS acceptable today?
>>
>>The initial delta infection arrived via an overseas flight from Moscow
>> into the eastern Chinese city of Nanjing in mid-July
>>https://businessmirror.com.ph/2021/08/02/virus-flares-again-in-wuhan-as-delta-challenges-chinas-pandemic-defense/
>>
>>No sea is crossed on the shortest air route.

> Exactly. They didn't need any word there. "Flight" is sufficient.

Overseas is correct.

from, to, or relating to a foreign country, especially one across the sea: overseas trips

Note that "especially" does not mean "exclusively". When talking about US
Overseas imports, that includes Mexico, Canada, and Brazil, regardless of
if a sea is flown over or not.

>>How about OFFSHORING?
>>
>>Can a project be offshored to another country on the same continent?

Yes. It simply means to move a project to a different country.

Offshore: adj 2 made, situated, or registered abroad, especially in order to
take advantage of lower taxes or costs or less stringent regulation

adv 2 in a foreign country, especially in order to take advantage of
lower taxes or costs or less stringent regulation

--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so, Brain, but if they called them 'Sad Meals', kids
wouldn't buy them!"

[Lewis]

If you see a Crazy Tassie¹ redhead middle-aged woman riding horses
outside Hobart, tell her I said hello.

¹ Yes, I know it's redundant

--
Battlemage? That's not a profession. It barely qualifies as a hobby.
'Battlemage' is about impressive a title as 'Lord of the Dance'.
<PAUSE> I'm adding Lord of the Dance to my titles.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

Have you planned to take/purchase on arrival enough wooly jumpers?

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[Peter Moylan]

On 04/08/21 21:12, Lewis wrote:
> In message <secooi$3eh$3...@dont-email.me> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>> On 04/08/21 07:56, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 03/08/2021 19:23, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Yes. "overseas" is used to refer to foreign countries but not
>>>> exclusively to those across the sea.
>>>
>>> The English generally use "overdyke" to refer to Wales and "overwall"
>>> for Scotland.
>
>> Australians often uses "overseas" to mean another country.
>
>> For example, I'm planning an overseas trip to Tasmania later this year.
>> I still need to check whether they accept Australian currency.
>
> If you see a Crazy Tassie¹ redhead middle-aged woman riding horses
> outside Hobart, tell her I said hello.
>
> ¹ Yes, I know it's redundant

I didn't see her the last time I was there, but I probably met some of
her relatives.

[Peter Moylan]

There are no kangaroos in Tasmania, but it's possible that some of the
wallabies have cross-bred with the sheep.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2021-08-04 10:12:23 +0000, Lewis said:

> In message <secooi$3eh$3...@dont-email.me> Peter Moylan
> <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>> On 04/08/21 07:56, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 03/08/2021 19:23, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Yes. "overseas" is used to refer to foreign countries but not
>>>> exclusively to those across the sea.
>>>
>>> The English generally use "overdyke" to refer to Wales and "overwall"
>>> for Scotland.
>
>> Australians often uses "overseas" to mean another country.
>
>> For example, I'm planning an overseas trip to Tasmania later this year.
>> I still need to check whether they accept Australian currency.
>
> If you see a Crazy Tassie¹ redhead middle-aged woman riding horses
> outside Hobart, tell her I said hello.
>
> ¹ Yes, I know it's redundant

Just before we went to Cassis (near here, and rhymes with Tassie) for
lunch with my youngest daughter and her family three weeks ago my
oldest daughter (in California) told me to look out for a large
American woman with blue hair, as she was a neighbour of hers in Tracy
but was on holiday in Cassis. However, we couldn't say hello because we
saw no one answering to that description.

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

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I was married for the first time on Treasure Island (between Oakland
and San Francisco) in June 1968. My aunt came from Toronto for the
wedding, and I told her she must bring warm clothes, because it can be
very cold in San Francisco in the "summer". However, everyone in
Toronto knows that every day in California is warm and sunny, so she
didn't pay any attention. The day of the wedding was warm enough, but
she then spent a few days in Carmel and had to buy herself some warm
clothes.

[Ken Blake]

On 8/4/2021 3:10 AM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <54rigghpmjp8r0kdj...@4ax.com> micky <NONONO...@fmguy.com> wrote:
>> In alt.usage.english, on Tue, 3 Aug 2021 06:49:28 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
>> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>Is this usage of OVERSEAS acceptable today?
>>>
>>>The initial delta infection arrived via an overseas flight from Moscow
>>> into the eastern Chinese city of Nanjing in mid-July
>>>https://businessmirror.com.ph/2021/08/02/virus-flares-again-in-wuhan-as-delta-challenges-chinas-pandemic-defense/
>>>
>>>No sea is crossed on the shortest air route.
>
>> Exactly. They didn't need any word there. "Flight" is sufficient.
>
> Overseas is correct.
>
> from, to, or relating to a foreign country, especially one across the sea: overseas trips
>
> Note that "especially" does not mean "exclusively". When talking about US
> Overseas imports, that includes Mexico, Canada, and Brazil, regardless of
> if a sea is flown over or not.

It's perhaps technically correct, but as far as I'm concerned, it's
likely to be misunderstood by many people, and is therefore best avoided.


--
Ken

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 21:30:32 +1100

Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 04/08/21 21:24, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 10:58:58 +1100 Peter Moylan
> > <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On 04/08/21 07:56, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >>> On 03/08/2021 19:23, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>> Yes. "overseas" is used to refer to foreign countries but not
> >>>> exclusively to those across the sea.
> >>>
> >>> The English generally use "overdyke" to refer to Wales and
> >>> "overwall" for Scotland.
> >>
> >> Australians often uses "overseas" to mean another country.
> >>
> >> For example, I'm planning an overseas trip to Tasmania later this
> >> year. I still need to check whether they accept Australian
> >> currency.
> >>
> > Have you planned to take/purchase on arrival enough wooly jumpers?

woolly

>
> There are no kangaroos in Tasmania, but it's possible that some of the
> wallabies have cross-bred with the sheep.
>

I'm sayin' it's a cool place.

But there's less Devils and Wolves than previously.
Land of apples, acordin' to a British cider maker I talked to^w^w heard; he disparaged other products as being made from "Tasmanian concentrate".

This was Then; it's remarkable how much here is now labelled Irish cider.

[Quinn C]

* Ken Blake:

Lumping all foreign lands under "overseas" reminds us that English is an
island language. Japanese does that, too (海外 kaigai).

--
The least questioned assumptions are often the most questionable
-- Paul Broca
... who never questioned that men are more intelligent than women

[Ken Blake]

On 8/4/2021 9:43 AM, Quinn C wrote:
> * Ken Blake:
>
>> On 8/4/2021 3:10 AM, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <54rigghpmjp8r0kdj...@4ax.com> micky <NONONO...@fmguy.com> wrote:
>>>> In alt.usage.english, on Tue, 3 Aug 2021 06:49:28 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
>>>> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Is this usage of OVERSEAS acceptable today?
>>>>>
>>>>>The initial delta infection arrived via an overseas flight from Moscow
>>>>> into the eastern Chinese city of Nanjing in mid-July
>>>>>https://businessmirror.com.ph/2021/08/02/virus-flares-again-in-wuhan-as-delta-challenges-chinas-pandemic-defense/
>>>>>
>>>>>No sea is crossed on the shortest air route.
>>>
>>>> Exactly. They didn't need any word there. "Flight" is sufficient.
>>>
>>> Overseas is correct.
>>>
>>> from, to, or relating to a foreign country, especially one across the sea: overseas trips
>>>
>>> Note that "especially" does not mean "exclusively". When talking about US
>>> Overseas imports, that includes Mexico, Canada, and Brazil, regardless of
>>> if a sea is flown over or not.
>>
>> It's perhaps technically correct, but as far as I'm concerned, it's
>> likely to be misunderstood by many people, and is therefore best avoided.
>
> Lumping all foreign lands under "overseas" reminds us that English is

was originally

> an
> island language. Japanese does that, too (海外 kaigai).
>


--

Ken

[spains...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 9:56:49 PM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 03/08/2021 19:23, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Yes. "overseas" is used to refer to foreign countries but not
> > exclusively to those across the sea.
> The English generally use "overdyke" to refer to Wales and "overwall"
> for Scotland.

Nobody has noticed that this is a joke. You must be "overman"
if you were in Eire.

[Quinn C]

* spains...@gmail.com:

Who knows how those weirdos overchannel speak.

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

[Sam Plusnet]

On 03-Aug-21 21:56, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 03/08/2021 19:23, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Yes. "overseas" is used to refer to foreign countries but not
>> exclusively to those across the sea.
>
> The English generally use "overdyke" to refer to Wales and "overwall"
> for Scotland.
>

FSVO "generally".
OTOH, quite a few of "The English" would respond with "What the f*** are
you on about?"

--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK

[Lewis]

It is much more than technically correct, it is how imports are referred
to, and imports in the US includes Canada and Mexico. I would agree that
most undereducated non-thinking Americans will misunderstand the word,
but that is no reason to try to invent a new one simply to account for
their ignorance of the world outside the USA's borders, and certainly no
reason to say that a perfectly correct statement as was quoted is
incorrect.

I have a friend who works for a logistics company, and while their work
is contained within the US, they do have to deal a lot with overseas
shipping. "Overseas shipping" means, in their case, mostly trucks coming
in from Mexico to Texas. Sure, some of it is ocean freight, but that's a
small minority of the total shipments

In fact, he will often refer to "overseas trucks" which are not
amphibian vehicles, though that specific phrase probably qualifies as
jargon.

An overseas flight is one that lands in a different country than it
started in, regardless of it it passed over a sea or not. ESPECAILLY
since unless you know the flight plan, you almost certainly have no idea
if it did, in fact, fly over the sea. Certainly the great circle route
from Moscow to Nanjing does not involve an ocean, but there is no
guarantee the flight follows that path exactly, and it is certainly
possible that the flight would touch on the Yellow Sea or Bohai Sea for
come reason.

According to Air China, the flight comes very very close to the Bohai
Sea.

--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"

"Well, I think so hiccup, but Kevin Costner with an English accent?"

[Dingbat]

On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 2:26:49 AM UTC+5:30, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 03/08/2021 19:23, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Yes. "overseas" is used to refer to foreign countries but not
> > exclusively to those across the sea.
> The English generally use "overdyke" to refer to Wales and "overwall"
> for Scotland.

Between Hadrian's wall and the Antonine wall would be Interwall, what?

[Richard Heathfield]

On 04/08/2021 18:19, spains...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 9:56:49 PM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 03/08/2021 19:23, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> Yes. "overseas" is used to refer to foreign countries but not
>>> exclusively to those across the sea.
>> The English generally use "overdyke" to refer to Wales and "overwall"
>> for Scotland.
>
> Nobody has noticed that this is a joke.

Story of my life.

[Richard Heathfield]

Such people would hardly qualify as "The English", what?

[Peter Moylan]

On 05/08/21 16:35, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 04/08/2021 18:19, spains...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 9:56:49 PM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield
>> wrote:
>>> On 03/08/2021 19:23, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> Yes. "overseas" is used to refer to foreign countries but not
>>>> exclusively to those across the sea.
>>> The English generally use "overdyke" to refer to Wales and
>>> "overwall" for Scotland.
>> Nobody has noticed that this is a joke.
>
> Story of my life.

It's a big problem these days for political satirists. Too many cases of
life imitating art.

[Richard Heathfield]

You'd think so, wouldn't you? But it turns out they call it Peebles and
Ayrshire instead. I think we can safely blame this on the Romans.

[Lewis]

In message <ee41a598-e906-447b...@googlegroups.com> spains...@gmail.com <spains...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 9:56:49 PM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 03/08/2021 19:23, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> > Yes. "overseas" is used to refer to foreign countries but not
>> > exclusively to those across the sea.
>> The English generally use "overdyke" to refer to Wales and "overwall"
>> for Scotland.
>
> Nobody has noticed that this is a joke.

Well, we noticed it was not serious, but I am not sure we'd go so far as
"joke".

> You must be "overman" if you were in Eire.

Now that might qualify.


--
'I'm a raven, aren't I?' it said. 'One of the few birds who speak.
The first thing people say is, oh, you're a raven, go on, say the
N word... If I had a penny for every time that's happened, I'd-'

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 11:24:38 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <ad...@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

"wooly jumper": a hybrid of a sheep and a wallaby?

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

There's all sorts of whacky critters in Oz.

[Tak To]

On 8/4/2021 12:43 PM, Quinn C wrote:
> [...]

>
> Lumping all foreign lands under "overseas" reminds us that English is an
> island language. Japanese does that, too (海外 kaigai).

The same term is used in contemporary Chinese as well, most
typically for expats -- 海外華僑 <hai3wai4 hua2qiao2>
"overseas Chinese". It could have started out as a borrow
from the Japanese, as were numerous other terms.

China is not an island country but overland travels to
other countries have ceased to be important for over a
millennium. A conflation of "overseas" and "abroad" seems
inevitable.

One term using the "sea" meme and of recent coinage is 海歸
<hai3gui1> "sea return". It refers to the people who have
studied in universities abroad and returned to China
afterwards (instead of continuing to stay in their host
countries, as was the more common practice at an earlier
time). It got jocularized quickly into 海龜, a homophone
meaning "sea turtle".

Then came a period in which many newly graduates from
abroad could not find jobs befitting their qualifications,
and they became 海待 <hai3dai4> "sea waiting", in which 待
was short for 待業 <dai4ye4> "waiting (for) career", a
euphemism for being unemployed. And 海待 was jocularized as
海帶 a homophone meaning "see ribbon" (a seaweed known as
Kombu in Japanese).

So that was how turtles turned into seaweed.

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

[Lewis]

"He was peed on by an incontinent teddy bear." (I may have that Sir
Terry quote slightly off).

Also, the list of animals that are NOT trying to kill you is "some of
the sheep."

--
I want a refund, I want a light, I want a reason for all this night
after night after night after night

[Quinn C]

* Tak To:

> On 8/4/2021 12:43 PM, Quinn C wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> Lumping all foreign lands under "overseas" reminds us that English is an
>> island language. Japanese does that, too (海外 kaigai).
>
> The same term is used in contemporary Chinese as well, most
> typically for expats -- 海外華僑 <hai3wai4 hua2qiao2>
> "overseas Chinese". It could have started out as a borrow
> from the Japanese, as were numerous other terms.
>
> China is not an island country but overland travels to
> other countries have ceased to be important for over a
> millennium. A conflation of "overseas" and "abroad" seems
> inevitable.

Yes, I arrived at that conclusion, too, so the borrowing might as well
have gone the other way around.

Wiktionary says it appeared in Middle Chinese.

> One term using the "sea" meme and of recent coinage is 海歸
> <hai3gui1> "sea return". It refers to the people who have
> studied in universities abroad and returned to China
> afterwards (instead of continuing to stay in their host
> countries, as was the more common practice at an earlier
> time). It got jocularized quickly into 海龜, a homophone
> meaning "sea turtle".
>
> Then came a period in which many newly graduates from
> abroad could not find jobs befitting their qualifications,
> and they became 海待 <hai3dai4> "sea waiting", in which 待
> was short for 待業 <dai4ye4> "waiting (for) career", a
> euphemism for being unemployed. And 海待 was jocularized as
> 海帶 a homophone meaning "see ribbon" (a seaweed known as
> Kombu in Japanese).
>
> So that was how turtles turned into seaweed.

The prolific creativity of this kind of word/character play in Chinese
is quite impressive. I see it occasionally in Language Log.

A similar activity in Japanese is playing with readings of characters,
these days often intermixing English.

--
Some of the most horrific things ever done to humans
were done by the politest, best-dressed, most well-spoken
people from the very best homes and neighborhoods.
-- Jerry Springer

[David Kleinecke]

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 9:56:03 AM UTC-7, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

> There's all sorts of whacky critters in Oz.

Beware/ There are Patchwork Girls and Highly Magnified
Wooglebugs and GOK what else.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2021-08-06 05:40:16 +0000, David Kleinecke said:

> On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 9:56:03 AM UTC-7, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>
>> There's all sorts of whacky critters in Oz.
>
> Beware/ There are Patchwork Girls

The Spice Girls have a new album -- Wannabe. How do I know? Because it
was the big news on television a few minutes ago. Why do I care? I
don't.

We were also told that Mick Jagger (almost exactly my age, but he looks
more raddled) and the Rolling Stones have an exhibition in Marseilles
(at the Stade Vélodrome, about 1 km from where I live) at the moment.
We won't be going. All the people on television were impressed with his
French, especially his r. To be fair, it's not bad, but Kirk Douglas's
was better.

> and Highly Magnified
> Wooglebugs and GOK what else.

[Peter Moylan]

ObAUE: I would write "wacky". A quick wander around the web, though,
suggests that both spellings are in common use.

By the way, Tasmania doesn't have many of the fauna that can be found on
the mainland. One of its special animals, though, is the Tasmanian
Devil. The warning signs on the roads show a devil with its mouth wide
open, with vicious-looking teeth visible. That's their standard
threatening pose.

My own experience with devils has been limited to seeing them run away
to a hiding place.

On the other topic, Tasmania's weather is quite pleasant in mid-summer,
which is the only time I'd consider going there.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 17:10:55 +1100

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 17:10:55 +1100

Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 06/08/21 03:22, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 Aug 2021 15:53:20 +0100 "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
> > <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 11:24:38 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
> >> <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 10:58:58 +1100 Peter Moylan
> >>> <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>>> For example, I'm planning an overseas trip to Tasmania later
> >>>> this year. I still need to check whether they accept Australian
> >>>> currency.
> >>>>
> >>> Have you planned to take/purchase on arrival enough wooly
> >>> jumpers?
> >>
> >> "wooly jumper": a hybrid of a sheep and a wallaby?
> >>
> > There's all sorts of whacky critters in Oz.
>
> ObAUE: I would write "wacky". A quick wander around the web, though,
> suggests that both spellings are in common use.

It was deliberate; I'd whack 'em if they came near me.

> By the way, Tasmania doesn't have many of the fauna that can be found on
> the mainland. One of its special animals, though, is the Tasmanian
> Devil. The warning signs on the roads show a devil with its mouth wide
> open, with vicious-looking teeth visible. That's their standard
> threatening pose.
>
> My own experience with devils has been limited to seeing them run away
> to a hiding place.
>
> On the other topic, Tasmania's weather is quite pleasant in mid-summer,
> which is the only time I'd consider going there.
>

AIUI the west coast cops the lashing storms that circle Antarctica. Worst on the west coast of South Island of course.

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

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Very obvious here, for example:

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=24.89,-92.79,342


It also makes it obvious why sailing around Cape Horn is hazardous.

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


--

[Ken Blake]

On 8/6/2021 12:05 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2021-08-06 05:40:16 +0000, David Kleinecke said:
>
>> On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 9:56:03 AM UTC-7, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>
>>> There's all sorts of whacky critters in Oz.
>>
>> Beware/ There are Patchwork Girls
>
> The Spice Girls have a new album -- Wannabe. How do I know? Because it
> was the big news on television a few minutes ago. Why do I care? I
> don't.
>
> We were also told that Mick Jagger (almost exactly my age, but he looks
> more raddled) and the Rolling Stones have an exhibition in Marseilles
> (at the Stade Vélodrome, about 1 km from where I live) at the moment.
> We won't be going. All the people on television were impressed with his
> French, especially his r. To be fair, it's not bad, but Kirk Douglas's
> was better.

Speaking of rolled French Rs, I never to be able to do it at all. Now I
can, but I do it by rolling a G, not an R, back in my throat. It may
not be perfect, but it sounds pretty good to me.


--
Ken

[Ken Blake]

On 8/5/2021 11:10 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:

> On 06/08/21 03:22, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

>> There's all sorts of whacky critters in Oz.
>
> ObAUE: I would write "wacky".

Same here.

> A quick wander around the web, though,
> suggests that both spellings are in common use.

If I've ever seen "whacky" before, it was seldom enough that I don't
remember it.

--
Ken

[Ken Blake]

Thanks very much. A very interesting picture and something I knew
nothing about.

> It also makes it obvious why sailing around Cape Horn is hazardous.

I sailed around Cape Horn once, but it was on a large cruise ship, not a
sailboat. The weather was very mild that day and it was a calm transit.
I was somewhat disappointed, since I was hoping to experience some of
the weather that makes Cape Horn famous.


--
Ken

[Quinn C]

* Ken Blake:

> Speaking of rolled French Rs, I never to be able to do it at all. Now I
> can, but I do it by rolling a G, not an R, back in my throat. It may
> not be perfect, but it sounds pretty good to me.

Are you maybe describing a uvular trill? This is interchangeable with an
alveolar (tongue tip) trill in French - and German. After all, uvular is
the standard position for the r sound in these language when it's not
rolled.

--
The universe hates you - deal with it.
-- Seamus Harper

[Ken Blake]

On 8/6/2021 10:13 AM, Quinn C wrote:
> * Ken Blake:
>
>> Speaking of rolled French Rs, I never to be able to do it at all. Now I
>> can, but I do it by rolling a G, not an R, back in my throat. It may
>> not be perfect, but it sounds pretty good to me.
>
> Are you maybe describing a uvular trill?

Yes.

> This is interchangeable with an
> alveolar (tongue tip) trill in French - and German. After all, uvular is
> the standard position for the r sound in these language when it's not
> rolled.
>


--

Ken

[Lewis]

In message <in4599...@mid.individual.net> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> On 2021-08-06 05:40:16 +0000, David Kleinecke said:

>> On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 9:56:03 AM UTC-7, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>
>>> There's all sorts of whacky critters in Oz.
>>
>> Beware/ There are Patchwork Girls

> The Spice Girls have a new album -- Wannabe. How do I know? Because it
> was the big news on television a few minutes ago. Why do I care? I
> don't.

> We were also told that Mick Jagger (almost exactly my age, but he looks
> more raddled) and the Rolling Stones have an exhibition in Marseilles
> (at the Stade Vélodrome, about 1 km from where I live) at the moment.
> We won't be going. All the people on television were impressed with his
> French, especially his r. To be fair, it's not bad, but Kirk Douglas's
> was better.

Didn't Mick live in France for some period of time?

ObAUE: I don't think I've ever seen "reddled" use for a person before.

--
'I like the sound of that,' said Mrs Palm. 'I like the echoes,' said
Dr Downey.

[Lewis]

Both are in the ODE (BrE) an NOAD (AmE)

wacky | ˈwaki | (also whacky)

I spell it without the h, and am a little surprised to see that the h
variant is "officially" sanctioned as I think of it as a somewhat rare
variant. If I have used it it has been a tyop.

--
You know a thorn can main / But a lover does the same / A gem will
reflect light / And a Fool will marvel at the sight / A fool such
as me, /Who sees not the gold, but the beauty of the shine

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 5:54:50 PM UTC-4, Lewis wrote:
> In message <in4s94...@mid.individual.net> Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote:
> > On 8/5/2021 11:10 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >> On 06/08/21 03:22, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

> >>> There's all sorts of whacky critters in Oz.
> >> ObAUE: I would write "wacky".
> > Same here.
> >> A quick wander around the web, though,
> >> suggests that both spellings are in common use.
> > If I've ever seen "whacky" before, it was seldom enough that I don't
> > remember it.
>
> Both are in the ODE (BrE) an NOAD (AmE)
>
> wacky | ˈwaki | (also whacky)
>
> I spell it without the h, and am a little surprised to see that the h
> variant is "officially" sanctioned as I think of it as a somewhat rare
> variant. If I have used it it has been a tyop.

Being listed in a dictionary is not "sanction," it is _reporting_.

The only people who can say whether to add an h to "wacky" are
those of us who still have the wh-sound in our dialect -- viz.,
Scotspersons and a few Americans. I don't know what Scotspersons
do, but we Americans do not say "whacky." I have no reason to suppose
that Mudd, who introduced the spelling, is a Scotsperson or an American.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 05:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

[whacky v wacky]

>
> The only people who can say whether to add an h to "wacky" are
> those of us who still have the wh-sound in our dialect -- viz.,
> Scotspersons and a few Americans. I don't know what Scotspersons
> do, but we Americans do not say "whacky." I have no reason to suppose
> that Mudd, who introduced the spelling, is a Scotsperson or an American.

I explained it already; go re-read the thread.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2021-08-07 18:38:07 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:

> On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 05:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> [whacky v wacky]
>>
>> The only people who can say whether to add an h to "wacky" are
>> those of us who still have the wh-sound in our dialect -- viz.,
>> Scotspersons and a few Americans. I don't know what Scotspersons
>> do, but we Americans do not say "whacky." I have no reason to suppose
>> that Mudd, who introduced the spelling, is a Scotsperson or an American.

The pronunciation is irrelevant. I pronounce "whacks" and "wax"
identically. One has an h; the other doesn't. So what? Spelling
"whacky" with an h seems perfectly natural to me (by influence from
"whack"), but I don't lose any sleep if I see it spelt "wacky".

>
> I explained it already; go re-read the thread.

--

[Peter T. Daniels]

Trying to exploit a specious connection between "wacky" and "whack"
is not an explanation.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2021-08-07 18:38:07 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:
>
> > On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 05:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > [whacky v wacky]
> >>
> >> The only people who can say whether to add an h to "wacky" are
> >> those of us who still have the wh-sound in our dialect -- viz.,
> >> Scotspersons and a few Americans. I don't know what Scotspersons
> >> do, but we Americans do not say "whacky." I have no reason to suppose
> >> that Mudd, who introduced the spelling, is a Scotsperson or an American.
>
> The pronunciation is irrelevant. I pronounce "whacks" and "wax"
> identically. One has an h; the other doesn't. So what? Spelling
> "whacky" with an h seems perfectly natural to me (by influence from
> "whack"), but I don't lose any sleep if I see it spelt "wacky".

You should be seeing squiggles from your spellchecker.

Do you spell "whith" or "wich"?

[Peter Moylan]

On 08/08/21 04:11, Stefan Ram wrote:

> German has a voiced pharyngealized uvular approximant,
> but French has an voiced uvular approximant, which is not
> pharyngealized. So now Germans learning French need to be
> able to control their pharyngealization of uvular approximants.
> But I think most learners are not aware of this subtle
> difference and just substitute one sound for the other,
> I do not even expect French teachers to know about it.

I pronounce the French R, the Dutch R, and the German R all the same
way. I can live with the fact that any differences are way beyond my
competence.

For a Scottish R or a Spanish R, I'll need another twenty years of practice.

[Tak To]

On 8/7/2021 1:11 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:

> Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> writes:
>> Speaking of rolled French Rs, I never to be able to do it at all. Now I
>> can, but I do it by rolling a G, not an R, back in my throat. It may
>> not be perfect, but it sounds pretty good to me.
>

> The r sounds often are difficult in many languages. I grew
> up in a country where an uvular trill is common, so I have
> no problems with that. But for me it was impossible to perform
> an alveolar trill. After trying it for years (3 - 5 years),
> I finally succeeded with a first coarse version that still
> needs to be improved.
>
> And the american r also is not easy: First, one needs to
> identify which source (book) describes it correctly, i.e.,
> which source to trust. Then, one has to be able to perform
> it. Even American children learn this sound only late in
> their development IIRC. A German speaker also has to unlearn
> the British non-rhotic pronunciation of many words taught in
> German schools ("Germans intentionally learn the wrong kind
> of English" - John Madison). Even if one can pronounce an
> American r in isolation, it might still be difficult to
> pronounce when combined with other sounds, like flaps,
> and when speech is fast.

>
> German has a voiced pharyngealized uvular approximant,
> but French has an voiced uvular approximant, which is not
> pharyngealized. So now Germans learning French need to be
> able to control their pharyngealization of uvular approximants.
> But I think most learners are not aware of this subtle
> difference and just substitute one sound for the other,
> I do not even expect French teachers to know about it.

I am very surprised by your account. To my ear, the most
common non-tap, non-trill French r is primarily an uvular
fricative (voiced or voiceless), though sometimes so
truncated as to be indistinguishable from an approximant.

Ditto for German, although in general the fricative is rarer
than the thrill(s) except in Austrian German.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I wouldn't have thought that a German r was more difficult than a
French r if it weren't for an experience I had on a swimming tour to
Germany in 1962. A group of us, all anglophone with, I think, one
American, were talking in Wuppertal with a young woman called, I think,
Reinhilde. We all found it impossible to pronounce the R in a way she
considered satisfactory.

Much more recently I had a German colleague called Reinhart. I don't
remember if he ever said we were pronouncing his name wrongly, but
maybe he had learned that it was hopeless.

>
> I am very surprised by your account. To my ear, the most
> common non-tap, non-trill French r is primarily an uvular
> fricative (voiced or voiceless), though sometimes so
> truncated as to be indistinguishable from an approximant.
>
> Ditto for German, although in general the fricative is rarer
> than the thrill(s) except in Austrian German.


--

[Ken Blake]

I had a good friend of Hungarian ancestry. He spoke Hungarian, and if he
said anything in Hungarian and I tried to repeat it, he always told me I
said it wrong. It didn't matter how many times I tried nor how identical
I thought it was to what I heard him say, it was always wrong.



--
Ken

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I had the opposite experience once. I went to a Hungarian restaurant in
London and ordered csirkepaprikás from the menu. The waiter was so
impressed with the way I said it -- [tʃ] at the beginning,
first-syllable stress, long last syllable, [ʃ] at the end -- that he
called the owner to engage me in conversation. I had to admit that
speaking Hungarian needed more than an ability to say csirkepaprikás
more or less correctly. I had often been to Hungarian restaurants in
Toronto with a colleague of Hungarian origin, and I knew the basic
rules of Hungarian spelling, especially for words one might encounter
on a menu. (The waiter in London, incidentally, was not Hungarian and
probably couldn't speak it.)

(Nothing to do with the above, but interesting anyway, I think): The
same colleague once stopped off in Birmingham on his way back to Canada
after a short stay in Hungary. He showed me a series of banknotes from
the runaway inflation of 1946 which he had obtained for his brother,
also in Canada, who collected banknotes. Arranged in order, each had a
face value ten times that of the previous one. I forget how many there
were in total, about 22, I think, as I remember thinking that if the
inflation had gone on a few more weeks the number would have reached
the Avogadro constant. At the beginning of the series they were
printed in the usual style of banknotes, with watermarks, embossing,
pictures of famous Hungarians, etc., but at the end, when prices were
increasing by a factor of 100 (yes!!) each week they had no time for
that and they were just little rectangles of cheaply printed paper. My
friend -- older than me -- remembered living through the 1946
inflation, and I asked him how it had been. He said that at that age he
was mainly interested in his stamp collection, and a trillion-forint
banknote was sufficient to buy a trillion-forint stamp at the post
office, so he wasn't too bothered. A different matter for his parents,
of course. He died a couple of months ago (not from Covid-19).

[Tak To]

I am curious as to what kind of French r do you normally use
Fricative, trill, tap, English r? Ditto for German. For
simplicity, let's consider just the word initial situation.

> Much more recently I had a German colleague called Reinhart. I don't
> remember if he ever said we were pronouncing his name wrongly, but
> maybe he had learned that it was hopeless.

I can't produce the uvular trill very well.

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <in4s5o...@mid.individual.net>,

Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote:

>Speaking of rolled French Rs, I never to be able to do it at all. Now I
>can, but I do it by rolling a G, not an R, back in my throat. It may
>not be perfect, but it sounds pretty good to me.

By contrast, the French "r" was easy for me, but alveolar trills
completely defeat me. Even after eight months in Finland, I was never
able to pronounce the Finnish "r" "properly" -- although I was told it
takes a year or more in primary school so maybe I wasn't doing too
bad. (Thus I can reasonably claim to be able to sight-read any
Finnish word that doesn't have an "r" in it.[1]) My whole time there I
could only do a French "r", which I'm told sounds really funny to a
Finn.

I eventually learned to consciously do a flap, so I can at least
pronounce Spanish "r" (but not Spanish "rr" or Finnish "r")
acceptably.

-GAWollman

[1] Not that I have much vocabulary left, so the understanding lags
far behind reading ability and morphological analysis.

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wol...@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

For German I have no idea: probably an English r; certainly not a
French or Spanish one. In French I try to do a French r; well enough
for French people to know what it's supposed to be. Difficulties arise
when r occurs twice in close proximity, like the main shopping street
in Marseilles, la rue de Rome, or worse, the address of the Pasteur
Institute in Paris, la rue du docteur Roux -- worse because it combines
the r difficulty with the u/ou difficulty.

>
>> Much more recently I had a German colleague called Reinhart. I don't
>> remember if he ever said we were pronouncing his name wrongly, but
>> maybe he had learned that it was hopeless.
>
> I can't produce the uvular trill very well.


--

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2021-08-09 18:01:43 +0000, Garrett Wollman said:

> In article <in4s5o...@mid.individual.net>,
> Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Speaking of rolled French Rs, I never to be able to do it at all. Now I
>> can, but I do it by rolling a G, not an R, back in my throat. It may
>> not be perfect, but it sounds pretty good to me.
>
> By contrast, the French "r" was easy for me, but alveolar trills
> completely defeat me. Even after eight months in Finland, I was never
> able to pronounce the Finnish "r" "properly" -- although I was told it
> takes a year or more in primary school so maybe I wasn't doing too
> bad. (Thus I can reasonably claim to be able to sight-read any
> Finnish word that doesn't have an "r" in it.[1]) My whole time there I
> could only do a French "r", which I'm told sounds really funny to a
> Finn.
>
> I eventually learned to consciously do a flap, so I can at least
> pronounce Spanish "r" (but not Spanish "rr" or Finnish "r")
> acceptably.

I don't have much trouble with r and rr, at least I don't think I do.
If I say per(r)o or per(r)a peple can usually tell whether I'm saying
dog, but, bitch or pear (mind you, context helps).

>
> -GAWollman
>
> [1] Not that I have much vocabulary left, so the understanding lags
> far behind reading ability and morphological analysis.


--

[Dingbat]

How would you pronounce Hro in Hrothgar?

[Dingbat]

On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 11:31:47 PM UTC+5:30, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <in4s5o...@mid.individual.net>,
> Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote:
>
> >Speaking of rolled French Rs, I never to be able to do it at all. Now I
> >can, but I do it by rolling a G, not an R, back in my throat. It may
> >not be perfect, but it sounds pretty good to me.
> By contrast, the French "r" was easy for me, but alveolar trills
> completely defeat me. Even after eight months in Finland, I was never
> able to pronounce the Finnish "r" "properly" -- although I was told it
> takes a year or more in primary school so maybe I wasn't doing too
> bad. (Thus I can reasonably claim to be able to sight-read any
> Finnish word that doesn't have an "r" in it.[1]) My whole time there I
> could only do a French "r", which I'm told sounds really funny to a
> Finn.
>
> I eventually learned to consciously do a flap, so I can at least
> pronounce Spanish "r" (but not Spanish "rr" or Finnish "r")
> acceptably.

Practice Italian opera singing.
Scots can trill r but the Spanish rr is longer; perro is like "per row".

[Dingbat]

A gent named Lester Morris from the UK didn't have a Scottish accent.
He had served as a Roadmaster driver and Rolls chauffer.
His whacks would be halfway between wax and quacks.
That is, his wha was the approximant counterpart to his qua.

[Peter Moylan]

On 09/08/21 18:18, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> I wouldn't have thought that a German r was more difficult than a
> French r if it weren't for an experience I had on a swimming tour to
> Germany in 1962. A group of us, all anglophone with, I think, one
> American, were talking in Wuppertal with a young woman called, I
> think, Reinhilde. We all found it impossible to pronounce the R in a
> way she considered satisfactory.

I've been sitting here saying to myself "Reinhilde" (German) and
"Robert" (French), and have the strong impression that my Reinhilde is a
little further back in the throat. This is driven not by knowledge of
how a German R should sound, but by mental images of how German sounds
and how French sounds. When I read a passage in German my face feels
more tense than when I read a passage in French. This is not deliberate
- I've only just noticed it - but again driven by sound bites in my head
that tell me how German sounds and how French sounds.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I can usually tell when a French film is imitating the way a German
speaks French, but I can't describe the difference.

[CDB]

On 8/9/2021 9:50 PM, Dingbat wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> Lewis wrote:
>>> Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote:

>>>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>> Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

>>>>>> There's all sorts of whacky critters in Oz.
>>>>> ObAUE: I would write "wacky".
>>>> Same here.
>>>>> A quick wander around the web, though,
>>>>> suggests that both spellings are in common use.
>>>> If I've ever seen "whacky" before, it was seldom enough that I don't
>>>> remember it.

>>> Both are in the ODE (BrE) an NOAD (AmE)

>>> wacky | ˈwaki | (also whacky)

>>> I spell it without the h, and am a little surprised to see that the h
>>> variant is "officially" sanctioned as I think of it as a somewhat rare
>>> variant. If I have used it it has been a tyop.
>> Being listed in a dictionary is not "sanction," it is _reporting_.

>> The only people who can say whether to add an h to "wacky" are
>> those of us who still have the wh-sound in our dialect -- viz.,
>> Scotspersons and a few Americans. I don't know what Scotspersons
>> do, but we Americans do not say "whacky." I have no reason to suppose
>> that Mudd, who introduced the spelling, is a Scotsperson or an American.

> A gent named Lester Morris from the UK didn't have a Scottish accent.
> He had served as a Roadmaster driver and Rolls chauffer.
> His whacks would be halfway between wax and quacks.
> That is, his wha was the approximant counterpart to his qua.

Maybe that's why they used to spell it that way.

"For thy as now I purpose for to wryte
Ane cais I fand, quhilk fell this ather yeir
Betwix ane foxe and ane gentill Chantecleir."

https://www.scottishpoetrylibrary.org.uk/poem/cock-and-fox/

[Quinn C]

* Stefan Ram:

> German has a voiced pharyngealized uvular approximant,
> but French has an voiced uvular approximant, which is not
> pharyngealized. So now Germans learning French need to be
> able to control their pharyngealization of uvular approximants.
> But I think most learners are not aware of this subtle
> difference and just substitute one sound for the other,
> I do not even expect French teachers to know about it.

I didn't know words for it, but I just knew that the French uvular r is
different from the German one. I've in the past argued about voicing and
other qualities to explain this and not found consensus.

Likewise, I just know that German t and English t (and almost any other
sound) are subtly different, but I can't put into words how, and many
people have reacted with disbelief when I make such claims.

Those differences aren't big enough to be an obstacle to understanding,
but they constitute part of what we call a foreign accent.

--
Nobody's God says hate your neighbor
Even if the neighbor doesn't believe in God
Put aside your religion do your God a favor
-- The Roches, Everyone is Good

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 1:38:07 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Stefan Ram:

> > German has a voiced pharyngealized uvular approximant,
> > but French has an voiced uvular approximant, which is not
> > pharyngealized. So now Germans learning French need to be
> > able to control their pharyngealization of uvular approximants.
> > But I think most learners are not aware of this subtle
> > difference and just substitute one sound for the other,
> > I do not even expect French teachers to know about it.
>
> I didn't know words for it, but I just knew that the French uvular r is
> different from the German one. I've in the past argued about voicing and
> other qualities to explain this and not found consensus.
>
> Likewise, I just know that German t and English t (and almost any other
> sound) are subtly different, but I can't put into words how, and many
> people have reacted with disbelief when I make such claims.

That one's easy. t in most languages is dental, but in English it's
alveolar. And aspirated when not after s.

Dialects that make a stop from the interdental fricative th, such as
Irish, still distinguish it from /t/ because one is dental, one is alveolar.

That's also where the "Da Bearss" routine from SNL comes from:
South Side Chicago English is influenced by the Irish of the ancestors,
and the "Da" is dental, not alveolar.

> Those differences aren't big enough to be an obstacle to understanding,
> but they constitute part of what we call a foreign accent.

And a regional accent!

[pensive hamster]

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 2:44:11 PM UTC+1, Ken Blake wrote:
> On 8/6/2021 1:53 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > On 2021-08-06 08:21:18 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:
[...]
> >> AIUI the west coast cops the lashing storms that circle Antarctica.
> >> Worst on the west coast of South Island of course.
> >
> > Very obvious here, for example:
> >
> > https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=24.89,-92.79,342
> Thanks very much. A very interesting picture and something I knew
> nothing about.
> > It also makes it obvious why sailing around Cape Horn is hazardous.
>
> I sailed around Cape Horn once, but it was on a large cruise ship, not a
> sailboat. The weather was very mild that day and it was a calm transit.
> I was somewhat disappointed, since I was hoping to experience some of
> the weather that makes Cape Horn famous.

There is a fairly well-known 1929 film made by a Canadian, Capt. Irving
Johnson, of his experience crewing on the square rigger Peking. He
says at one point:

"Off the Horn now, we're here in a fog, and practically no wind. Now this
happens much more often than you'd think ..."

https://youtu.be/9tuTKhqWZso?t=1412

A few minutes later, there is some footage of a fierce storm, so you can
at least vicariously experience some of Cape Horn's famous weather.

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 11:37:19 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 1:38:07 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Stefan Ram:
>
>> > German has a voiced pharyngealized uvular approximant,
>> > but French has an voiced uvular approximant, which is not
>> > pharyngealized. So now Germans learning French need to be
>> > able to control their pharyngealization of uvular approximants.
>> > But I think most learners are not aware of this subtle
>> > difference and just substitute one sound for the other,
>> > I do not even expect French teachers to know about it.
>>
>> I didn't know words for it, but I just knew that the French uvular r is
>> different from the German one. I've in the past argued about voicing and
>> other qualities to explain this and not found consensus.
>>
>> Likewise, I just know that German t and English t (and almost any other
>> sound) are subtly different, but I can't put into words how, and many
>> people have reacted with disbelief when I make such claims.
>
>That one's easy. t in most languages is dental, but in English it's
>alveolar. And aspirated when not after s.
>
>Dialects that make a stop from the interdental fricative th, such as
>Irish, still distinguish it from /t/ because one is dental, one is alveolar.
>
>That's also where the "Da Bearss" routine from SNL comes from:
>South Side Chicago English is influenced by the Irish of the ancestors,
>and the "Da" is dental, not alveolar.
>

I would not identify "Da Bearss" as derived from Chicago Southsiders
of Irish extraction. Yes, there are Irish areas in Chicago like
Bridgeport, but continental European countries contributed more to the
Southsider accents than Ireland.

The "ss" is pronounced with a slight hiss, and I wouldn't think that's
an Irish thing. More a German or Polish thing in speaking English.

The SNL routine you refer to was originally done on the "Happy Happy
Good Show". It was the "Chicago Superfans" sketch, and written by
Robert Smigel and Bob Odenkirk with the character "Bob Swerski"
somewhat based on Mike Ditka*, the former Bears player who was then
coach of the Bears.

Smigel and Odenkirk later worked as writers at SNL and they brought to
sketch to SNL in 1991 where it became popular.

But, then you're the linguist and can surely support your contention.
Preferably with an outside source.

*Ditka, who many people now associate with Chicago, is actually from
Carnegie, Pennsylvania and went to college at Pitt. He is of Polish
and Ukranian extraction. He was born as Michael Dyczko, but the
family name was changed to Ditka.








--

Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

[Peter T. Daniels]

And which "continental European countries" distinguish dental from
alveolar stops, the way Irish and South Side Chicago do?

> The "ss" is pronounced with a slight hiss, and I wouldn't think that's
> an Irish thing. More a German or Polish thing in speaking English.
>
> The SNL routine you refer to was originally done on the "Happy Happy
> Good Show". It was the "Chicago Superfans" sketch, and written by
> Robert Smigel and Bob Odenkirk with the character "Bob Swerski"
> somewhat based on Mike Ditka*, the former Bears player who was then
> coach of the Bears.

What you're missing is that it was originally a one-off for George
Wendt when he hosted, and he had to come back several times
for added sketches, then they went on to do still more without him.

Really, no one is impressed by your random, obvious copy-pastes
from unidentified sources.

> But, then you're the linguist and can surely support your contention.
> Preferably with an outside source.

I could, but I'm not going to bother, since you clearly would not be
capable of comprehending the technical sources.

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 14:58:35 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

I am missing that because it's incorrect. The original appearance was
when Joe Mantaga hosted SNL in January, 1991. Wendt appeared in the
sketch in several camero appearances later. He hosted SNL in May,
1991.

>Really, no one is impressed by your random, obvious copy-pastes
>from unidentified sources.

Actually, I did not copy/paste anything in this post. As I usually
do, I consulted several sources to make sure I have my facts right,
and then write each sentence myself combining information from those
sources.

Fact-verification is a "Good Thing", as Martha might say. You should
try it sometime so you would avoid errors like you have made here.

>> But, then you're the linguist and can surely support your contention.
>> Preferably with an outside source.
>
>I could, but I'm not going to bother, since you clearly would not be
>capable of comprehending the technical sources.

That's a Usenet Classic right up along with "People support me in
email".

I do think I can manage to comprehend a source that says "South Side
Chicago English is influenced by the Irish of the ancestors". Try me.

[Quinn C]

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 1:38:07 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Stefan Ram:
>
>>> German has a voiced pharyngealized uvular approximant,
>>> but French has an voiced uvular approximant, which is not
>>> pharyngealized. So now Germans learning French need to be
>>> able to control their pharyngealization of uvular approximants.
>>> But I think most learners are not aware of this subtle
>>> difference and just substitute one sound for the other,
>>> I do not even expect French teachers to know about it.
>>
>> I didn't know words for it, but I just knew that the French uvular r is
>> different from the German one. I've in the past argued about voicing and
>> other qualities to explain this and not found consensus.
>>
>> Likewise, I just know that German t and English t (and almost any other
>> sound) are subtly different, but I can't put into words how, and many
>> people have reacted with disbelief when I make such claims.
>
> That one's easy. t in most languages is dental, but in English it's
> alveolar. And aspirated when not after s.

I don't think those are different from German, though.

I used to say aspiration is stronger in English, but that's probably
only true for the kind of British English I learned first. Maybe at the
end of syllables, where it almost goes away in my German. A Japanese
friend once told me he was confused for a while why Kate Bush in the
song Breathing sings "ouch - in, ouch - in".

Non-aspirated t's can be a hint to a Dutch speaker, although I usually
recognize them best from their f/v sounds.

Subjectively, English t has more tension than German t, but I'm not sure
that's a useful description.

--
The lack of any sense of play between them worried Miles. You
had to have a keen sense of humor to do sex and stay sane.
-- L. McMaster Bujold, Memory

[Snidely]

pensive hamster explained on 8/10/2021 :

I can't remember which documentary I saw, but a surviving crewman from
a steel clipper ship was showing how when the waves hit, you didn't
just grab the handhold, you put your head firmly against the deckhouse,
because if you didn't, the wave would bang it against the deckhouse and
you'd be toast.

It's long enough ago that I can't remember if the ship he was speaking
from was a ship he had sailed on. There are not many steel clippers
left, though.

The show was probably on a PBS station, a program giving a historical
perspective of cargo sailing.

/dps

--
"I'm glad unicorns don't ever need upgrades."
"We are as up as it is possible to get graded!"
_Phoebe and Her Unicorn_, 2016.05.15

[Dingbat]

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 12:07:22 AM UTC+5:30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 1:38:07 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> > * Stefan Ram:
>
> > > German has a voiced pharyngealized uvular approximant,
> > > but French has an voiced uvular approximant, which is not
> > > pharyngealized. So now Germans learning French need to be
> > > able to control their pharyngealization of uvular approximants.
> > > But I think most learners are not aware of this subtle
> > > difference and just substitute one sound for the other,
> > > I do not even expect French teachers to know about it.
> >
> > I didn't know words for it, but I just knew that the French uvular r is
> > different from the German one. I've in the past argued about voicing and
> > other qualities to explain this and not found consensus.

Do phoneticians not describe the difference? Re. R in a cluster, I find
that a French pronunciation of FRANCE and a German pronunciation of
FRISCH have very different Rs. I don't know how to describe the difference
but I imagine that phoneticians should be able to.

> > Likewise, I just know that German t and English t (and almost any other
> > sound) are subtly different, but I can't put into words how, and many
> > people have reacted with disbelief when I make such claims.
> That one's easy. t in most languages is dental, but in English it's
> alveolar.

Alveolar meaning near the Alveolar ridge, not right on it.
I have T right on the alveolar ridge only in a loanword like SHTUM,
not in English words.
In my TOOTING, the Ts are prealveolar.
In my TOOT the last T is postalveolar; it's often prealveolar for Anglophones.
In my PUTT, the TT is postalveolar and glottaly reinforced.

Incidentally, I heard Americans interviewed on TV differ in pronunciation
of DNA; some had a prealveolar 1st plosive and some a postalveolar.
That seemed an odd phenomenon since the same plosive is always
prealveolar in Fiddle Dee Dee.

> And aspirated when not after s.

In my TEST, both Ts are prealveolar but the 2nd is unaspirated.
But how about in a word where the S ends a reduced syllable
and T starts a stressed syllable? Is T unaspirated in every such
word? For example, consider INSTANTLY.

> Dialects that make a stop from the interdental fricative th, such as
> Irish, still distinguish it from /t/ because one is dental, one is alveolar.
>
> That's also where the "Da Bearss" routine from SNL comes from:
> South Side Chicago English is influenced by the Irish of the ancestors,
> and the "Da" is dental, not alveolar.

IMHO, /D/ is consistently fricative only in a few contexts like in BREATHE,
the only kind of context where the Irish articulation seems odd.
In THEM, some speakers start with a fricative but others' articulation
many be more accurately described as a lax plosive, somewhere between
plosive and fricative, and thereby fairly close to the Irish articulation.

[Dingbat]

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 8:07:40 AM UTC+5:30, Dingbat wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 12:07:22 AM UTC+5:30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > That one's easy. t in most languages is dental, but in English it's
> > alveolar.

> > And aspirated when not after s.
> In my TEST, both Ts are prealveolar but the 2nd is unaspirated.
> But how about in a word where the S ends a reduced syllable
> and T starts a stressed syllable? Is T unaspirated in every such
> word? For example, consider INSTANTLY.

On reflection, INSTANTLY is not a good example; perhaps
someone can think of another one.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 10:37:40 PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 12:07:22 AM UTC+5:30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 1:38:07 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> > > * Stefan Ram:

> > > > German has a voiced pharyngealized uvular approximant,
> > > > but French has an voiced uvular approximant, which is not
> > > > pharyngealized. So now Germans learning French need to be
> > > > able to control their pharyngealization of uvular approximants.
> > > > But I think most learners are not aware of this subtle
> > > > difference and just substitute one sound for the other,
> > > > I do not even expect French teachers to know about it.
> > > I didn't know words for it, but I just knew that the French uvular r is
> > > different from the German one. I've in the past argued about voicing and
> > > other qualities to explain this and not found consensus.
>
> Do phoneticians not describe the difference? Re. R in a cluster, I find
> that a French pronunciation of FRANCE and a German pronunciation of
> FRISCH have very different Rs. I don't know how to describe the difference
> but I imagine that phoneticians should be able to.

It's not something Anglo phoneticians talk about, but doubtless you
can find it in Ladefoged & Maddieson.

> > > Likewise, I just know that German t and English t (and almost any other
> > > sound) are subtly different, but I can't put into words how, and many
> > > people have reacted with disbelief when I make such claims.
> > That one's easy. t in most languages is dental, but in English it's
> > alveolar.
>
> Alveolar meaning near the Alveolar ridge, not right on it.

Don't bring your Malayalam accent into it!

> I have T right on the alveolar ridge only in a loanword like SHTUM,

? Yiddish for 'silent'?

> not in English words.
> In my TOOTING, the Ts are prealveolar.
> In my TOOT the last T is postalveolar; it's often prealveolar for Anglophones.
> In my PUTT, the TT is postalveolar and glottaly reinforced.
>
> Incidentally, I heard Americans interviewed on TV differ in pronunciation
> of DNA; some had a prealveolar 1st plosive and some a postalveolar.
> That seemed an odd phenomenon since the same plosive is always
> prealveolar in Fiddle Dee Dee.

Just about the only people in the world who would notice such things
are native speakers of Malayalam. (A few African languages are said
to have that contrast as well, but they don't also have a retroflex.)

> > And aspirated when not after s.
>
> In my TEST, both Ts are prealveolar but the 2nd is unaspirated.
> But how about in a word where the S ends a reduced syllable
> and T starts a stressed syllable? Is T unaspirated in every such
> word? For example, consider INSTANTLY.

I don't know what a "reduced" syllable is, but it's in.stant.ly so
the first t should be unaspirated.

> > Dialects that make a stop from the interdental fricative th, such as
> > Irish, still distinguish it from /t/ because one is dental, one is alveolar.
> >
> > That's also where the "Da Bearss" routine from SNL comes from:
> > South Side Chicago English is influenced by the Irish of the ancestors,
> > and the "Da" is dental, not alveolar.
>
> IMHO, /D/ is consistently fricative only in a few contexts like in BREATHE,
> the only kind of context where the Irish articulation seems odd.
> In THEM, some speakers start with a fricative but others' articulation
> many be more accurately described as a lax plosive, somewhere between
> plosive and fricative, and thereby fairly close to the Irish articulation.

Are you talking about Indians? Doubtles they have as much difficulty
with the interdental fricative as Europeans do. In both French and
German they become s / z.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 10:43:14 PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 8:07:40 AM UTC+5:30, Dingbat wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 12:07:22 AM UTC+5:30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > > That one's easy. t in most languages is dental, but in English it's
> > > alveolar.
> > > And aspirated when not after s.
> > In my TEST, both Ts are prealveolar but the 2nd is unaspirated.

A word-final stop is often unreleased.

[ruudhar...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 7:38:07 PM UTC+2, Quinn C wrote:
> Likewise, I just know that German t and English t (and almost any other
> sound) are subtly different, but I can't put into words how, and many
> people have reacted with disbelief when I make such claims.

It’s different in syllable-final position (including when another consonant
follows), not initially.

[Quinn C]

* Dingbat:

Pastime?

--
George: You don't know these people. They find emotions disgusting.
They just want to have a good time and make jokes.
Mae: Oh, so they're British?
-- Feel Good

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 9:19:21 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Dingbat:
> > On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 8:07:40 AM UTC+5:30, Dingbat wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 12:07:22 AM UTC+5:30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> >>> That one's easy. t in most languages is dental, but in English it's
> >>> alveolar.
> >>> And aspirated when not after s.
> >> In my TEST, both Ts are prealveolar but the 2nd is unaspirated.
> >> But how about in a word where the S ends a reduced syllable
> >> and T starts a stressed syllable? Is T unaspirated in every such
> >> word? For example, consider INSTANTLY.
> > On reflection, INSTANTLY is not a good example; perhaps
> > someone can think of another one.
>
> Pastime?

pas.time, so the t is aspirated, but the first syllable is probably
not "reduced," whatever was intended by that.

[Dingbat]

I'm talking about Americans.
Their /t/ in Tomb never sounds like their /t/ in Boot.
The 1st is prealveolar; the 2nd is postalveolar.
In principle, it should be possible to articulate both right on the alveolar
ridge, but they don't do that.

> > > Dialects that make a stop from the interdental fricative th, such as
> > > Irish, still distinguish it from /t/ because one is dental, one is alveolar.
> > >
> > > That's also where the "Da Bearss" routine from SNL comes from:
> > > South Side Chicago English is influenced by the Irish of the ancestors,
> > > and the "Da" is dental, not alveolar.
> >
> > IMHO, /D/ is consistently fricative only in a few contexts like in BREATHE,
> > the only kind of context where the Irish articulation seems odd.
> > In THEM, some speakers start with a fricative but others' articulation
> > many be more accurately described as a lax plosive, somewhere between
> > plosive and fricative, and thereby fairly close to the Irish articulation.
> Are you talking about Indians?

Americans. Their /D/ in Mother never sounds like their /D/ in Breathe.

> Doubtless they have as much difficulty

> with the interdental fricative as Europeans do. In both French and
> German they become s / z.

Indians don't use them at all. I'm an exception but I don't use them in as
many contexts as Anglophones. I have a fricative in mythical but not myth
and in breathe but not in breathing.

[Jerry Friedman]

"Astute"? Or would you say the /s/ is in the second syllable?

"Distasteful"? "Distinct"? "Mistake"?

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

Why should it? In different environments, phonemes have different
allophones.

But no one but a Malayali or a phonetician would notice the specific
characteristics you8 mentioned.

> The 1st is prealveolar; the 2nd is postalveolar.
>
> In principle, it should be possible to articulate both right on the alveolar
> ridge, but they don't do that.

Principle has nothing to do with it, but environment does.

> > > > Dialects that make a stop from the interdental fricative th, such as
> > > > Irish, still distinguish it from /t/ because one is dental, one is alveolar.
> > > > That's also where the "Da Bearss" routine from SNL comes from:
> > > > South Side Chicago English is influenced by the Irish of the ancestors,
> > > > and the "Da" is dental, not alveolar.
> > > IMHO, /D/ is consistently fricative only in a few contexts like in BREATHE,
> > > the only kind of context where the Irish articulation seems odd.
> > > In THEM, some speakers start with a fricative but others' articulation
> > > many be more accurately described as a lax plosive, somewhere between
> > > plosive and fricative, and thereby fairly close to the Irish articulation.
> > Are you talking about Indians?
>
> Americans. Their /D/ in Mother never sounds like their /D/ in Breathe.

See above.

> > Doubtless they have as much difficulty
> > with the interdental fricative as Europeans do. In both French and
> > German they become s / z.
>
> Indians don't use them at all.

? When you speak English, you avoid all words containing them, like
the this that these those?

[Dingbat]

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 5:52:23 AM UTC+5:30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 1:47:27 PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 10:37:55 AM UTC+5:30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Alveolar meaning near the Alveolar ridge, not right on it.
> > > Don't bring your Malayalam accent into it!
> >
> > I'm talking about Americans.
> > Their /t/ in Tomb never sounds like their /t/ in Boot.
>
> Why should it? In different environments, phonemes have different
> allophones.
>
> But no one but a Malayali or a phonetician would notice the specific

> characteristics you mentioned.

If a phoneme has 2 allophones in complementary distribution and an ESL
speaker or a wise guy reverses the distribution, Americans notice that the
speaker sounds different (or wrong as accent neutralization teachers would
say) even if they are the same 2 allophones. Anglophones don't notice a
difference between allophones only when the allophones are distributed the
same way that they distribute them.

I have been corrected when using an Indian pronunciation of an Indian origin
word even in proper names. One example is Patni Software, an Indian
company. It has a dental t, for using which articulation I was corrected. Another
example is Tyan Corporation; I was corrected for pronouncing <y> as [j] rather
than [aI] as Anglophones do.

> > The 1st is prealveolar; the 2nd is postalveolar.
> >
> > In principle, it should be possible to articulate both right on the alveolar
> > ridge, but they don't do that.
>
> Principle has nothing to do with it, but environment does.

Humans, having physical oral cavities, are affected by environment. By
"in principle", I mean that a synthetic voice, not having an oral cavity, could
use the pronunciation of an articulation right on the alveolar ridge in both
environments and still be understood.

> > > > > Dialects that make a stop from the interdental fricative th, such as
> > > > > Irish, still distinguish it from /t/ because one is dental, one is alveolar.
> > > > > That's also where the "Da Bearss" routine from SNL comes from:
> > > > > South Side Chicago English is influenced by the Irish of the ancestors,
> > > > > and the "Da" is dental, not alveolar.
> > > > IMHO, /D/ is consistently fricative only in a few contexts like in BREATHE,
> > > > the only kind of context where the Irish articulation seems odd.
> > > > In THEM, some speakers start with a fricative but others' articulation
> > > > many be more accurately described as a lax plosive, somewhere between
> > > > plosive and fricative, and thereby fairly close to the Irish articulation.
> > > Are you talking about Indians?
> >
> > Americans. Their /D/ in Mother never sounds like their /D/ in Breathe.
> >
> See above.
> >
> > > Doubtless they have as much difficulty
> > > with the interdental fricative as Europeans do. In both French and
> > > German they become s / z.
> >
> > Indians don't use them at all.
> ? When you speak English, you avoid all words containing them, like
> the this that these those?

Only Spanish has a question mark before a question:-)

Indians have the Irish realizations of /T/ and /D/ in all contexts. I do too in many
contexts but not all. I have the Irish realization of /D/ in initial contexts but a fricative
realization of initial /T/ (Think), in the register I use for conversing with Anglophones.
In a word of Indian origin like Thug, I have an aspirated dental like in Hindi, not the
fricative that Anglophones use.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 10:50:17 PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 5:52:23 AM UTC+5:30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 1:47:27 PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 10:37:55 AM UTC+5:30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Alveolar meaning near the Alveolar ridge, not right on it.
> > > > Don't bring your Malayalam accent into it!
> > >
> > > I'm talking about Americans.
> > > Their /t/ in Tomb never sounds like their /t/ in Boot.
> >
> > Why should it? In different environments, phonemes have different
> > allophones.
> >
> > But no one but a Malayali or a phonetician would notice the specific
> > characteristics you mentioned.
>
> If a phoneme has 2 allophones in complementary distribution and an ESL
> speaker or a wise guy reverses the distribution,

virtually impossible to do that; environments influence phones because
of their very nature

> Americans notice that the
> speaker sounds different (or wrong as accent neutralization teachers would
> say) even if they are the same 2 allophones. Anglophones don't notice a
> difference between allophones only when the allophones are distributed the
> same way that they distribute them.

As you say, they notice that something is odd, but not what it is.

> I have been corrected when using an Indian pronunciation of an Indian origin
> word even in proper names. One example is Patni Software, an Indian
> company. It has a dental t, for using which articulation I was corrected. Another

If you were "corrected," it was because it _doesn't_ have a dental allophone!
If it's an originally Hindi name. then what it has is a non-retroflex. Only you
(and your language-mates) would have heard something more specific thasn that.

> example is Tyan Corporation; I was corrected for pronouncing <y> as [j] rather
> than [aI] as Anglophones do.

Myanmar

(spelling pronunciation)

> > > The 1st is prealveolar; the 2nd is postalveolar.
> > >
> > > In principle, it should be possible to articulate both right on the alveolar
> > > ridge, but they don't do that.
> >
> > Principle has nothing to do with it, but environment does.
>
> Humans, having physical oral cavities, are affected by environment. By
> "in principle", I mean that a synthetic voice, not having an oral cavity, could
> use the pronunciation of an articulation right on the alveolar ridge in both
> environments and still be understood.

It would have a foreign accent. Virtually all speech synthesis devices do.

[Peter Moylan]

On 12/08/21 22:53, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 10:50:17 PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:

>> example is Tyan Corporation; I was corrected for pronouncing <y>
>> as [j] rather than [aI] as Anglophones do.

I don't know the Tyan Corporation, but I know a town called Tyabb. I
believe that all anglophones would pronounce that with [aI] (which is
correct) even if they have never heard of the place.

> Myanmar
>
> (spelling pronunciation)

There, however, I can think of two spelling pronunciations, so it's not
clear what you mean. Australians use the spelling pronunciation ['mj&n
mA(r)] because that's what we have heard it called. The vowels are
probably not correct, but they are what comes naturally to us.

[Dingbat]

IMHO, you're reducing one vowel. It sounds like mjEn-mA to me.
I prefer the Viet spellings of their terms.
Viet Nam, not Vietnam. Spelling syllables as separate words makes
it more difficult for Anglophones to engage in their habit of reducing
some vowels and stressing others.

[Peter T. Daniels]

One hears from newspeople either /ma'yanmar/ or /mi'yanmar/
but rarely the correctish /'myanmar/. (There's no hope of getting
rid of the final r, the artifact of lousy GB respelling practice.)

[Tak To]

On 8/13/2021 8:48 AM, Dingbat wrote:
> [...]

> I prefer the Viet spellings of their terms.
> Viet Nam, not Vietnam. Spelling syllables as separate words makes
> it more difficult for Anglophones to engage in their habit of reducing
> some vowels and stressing others.

Spelling with syllablic breaks would not help with the tone
values anyway. Reduced vowels are minor problems in
comparison.

"Vietnam" is consistent with derived (English) terms like
"Vietnamese".

Having breaks at the equivalent semantic level as English
helps reading comprehension for people who reads English[1].

[1] ObAUE: what is the right term for this? "Anglo-literate"?

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

[Snidely]

On Friday or thereabouts, Stefan Ram asked ...

> Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Viet Nam, not Vietnam. Spelling syllables as separate words makes
>> it more difficult for Anglophones to engage in their habit of reducing
>> some vowels and stressing others.
>

> Then the Anglophones will counteract by starting to drop whole words.

My brother came back from Nam.

/dps "about 50 years ago. sheesh"

--
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

[Quinn C]

* Snidely:

> On Friday or thereabouts, Stefan Ram asked ...
>> Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> Viet Nam, not Vietnam. Spelling syllables as separate words makes
>>> it more difficult for Anglophones to engage in their habit of reducing
>>> some vowels and stressing others.
>>
>> Then the Anglophones will counteract by starting to drop whole words.
>
> My brother came back from Nam.
>
> /dps "about 50 years ago. sheesh"

He probably didn't speak much Namese, or did he?
--
CW: Historical misogyny
... gurve nirentr fvmr erznvaf fb zhpu fznyyre; fb gung gur fhz
gbgny bs sbbq pbairegrq vagb gubhtug ol jbzra pna arire rdhny
[gung bs] zra. Vg sbyybjf gurersber, gung zra jvyy nyjnlf guvax
zber guna jbzra. -- M.A. Hardaker in Popular Science (1881)

[Snidely]

Watch this space, where Quinn C advised that...

> * Snidely:
>
>> On Friday or thereabouts, Stefan Ram asked ...
>>> Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> Viet Nam, not Vietnam. Spelling syllables as separate words makes
>>>> it more difficult for Anglophones to engage in their habit of reducing
>>>> some vowels and stressing others.
>>>
>>> Then the Anglophones will counteract by starting to drop whole words.
>>
>> My brother came back from Nam.
>>
>> /dps "about 50 years ago. sheesh"
>
> He probably didn't speak much Namese, or did he?

Probably as much as the bookoo French he picked up.

/dps

--
"First thing in the morning, before I have coffee, I read the obits, If
I'm not in it, I'll have breakfast." -- Carl Reiner, to CBS News in
2015.

[Quinn C]

* Snidely:

> Watch this space, where Quinn C advised that...
>> * Snidely:
>>
>>> On Friday or thereabouts, Stefan Ram asked ...
>>>> Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>> Viet Nam, not Vietnam. Spelling syllables as separate words makes
>>>>> it more difficult for Anglophones to engage in their habit of reducing
>>>>> some vowels and stressing others.
>>>>
>>>> Then the Anglophones will counteract by starting to drop whole words.
>>>
>>> My brother came back from Nam.
>>>
>>> /dps "about 50 years ago. sheesh"
>>
>> He probably didn't speak much Namese, or did he?
>
> Probably as much as the bookoo French he picked up.

Nothing nhiều, then.

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

[phil]

On 13/08/2021 21:39, Snidely wrote:
> On Friday or thereabouts, Stefan Ram asked ...
>> Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> Viet Nam, not Vietnam. Spelling syllables as separate words makes
>>> it more difficult for Anglophones to engage in their habit of reducing
>>> some vowels and stressing others.
>>
>>   Then the Anglophones will counteract by starting to drop whole words.
>
> My brother came back from Nam.
>
> /dps "about 50 years ago.  sheesh"
>

Overheard on a train in Sussex, UK:

"Hi, haven't seen you for a while"
"Yeah, I just got back from Nam"
"Nam?"
"Yeah, Cheltenham"

(with the pronunciation "Naam", natch)

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

The only place I know of in England where a suffix -ham is pronounced
American-style as [hæm] is Stokenham in Devon. Are there others?

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

[Dingbat]

Clapham in irons! But PG Wodehouse's Matchingham Hall is fictitious
and thereby has whatever pronunciation the reader prefers.

I find it difficult to imagine Chicago's Buckingham Fountain being
pronounced with [h&m] rather than [@m] or [h@m] but I haven't
heard Americans pronounce it, so I don't know for sure that they
reduce it as I imagine.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

Famously Baalharm was the "Gateway to the South".

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Peter Sellers, wasn't it?

The reason (I think) why Stokenham is the exception is that the -ham
doesn't have the usual meaning but refers to its location in the South
Hams.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

Insert comma^ here and quotes. OK:

Famously, "Baalharm" was the "Gateway to the South".

>
> Peter Sellers, wasn't it?

And a youthful Robbie Coltraine

"Pilchards are off, dear"

>
> The reason (I think) why Stokenham is the exception is that the -ham
> doesn't have the usual meaning but refers to its location in the South
> Hams.
>
> --
> Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.
>