If ever a word needed a hyphen ...
Athel Cornish-Bowden
reminded of something I was thinking of posting yesterday, after
Geoffrey Pullum posted an interesting discussion called "Familiar
six-word phrase or saying" on Language Log. This contained the word
"subsequence", apparently intended to mean "part of a sequence", but I
had difficulty in interepreting it initially, as I was thoroughly
thrown off by the similarity of spelling with "subsequently", a much
commoner word (for me, at least). Do others agree that it got have done
with a hyphen?
You won't find the word now at Language Log, because the post has been
"entirely rewritten because it was so badly misunderstood in its first
draft", and the word "subsequence" was a casualty of the rewriting.
--
athel
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Typing "subsequently" in another thread (on AEU, but who cares?) I was
>reminded of something I was thinking of posting yesterday, after
>Geoffrey Pullum posted an interesting discussion called "Familiar
>six-word phrase or saying" on Language Log. This contained the word
>"subsequence", apparently intended to mean "part of a sequence", but I
>had difficulty in interepreting it initially, as I was thoroughly
>thrown off by the similarity of spelling with "subsequently", a much
>commoner word (for me, at least). Do others agree that it got have done
>with a hyphen?
(Is that a new sense of "got"?)
"subsequence" is to "subsequent" as "consequence" is to "consequent".
The OED agrees:
subsequence
1. That which is subsequent; a subsequent event; the sequel.
2. The condition or fact of being subsequent.
sub-sequence
A sequence contained in or forming part of another sequence; spec.
in Math.
>
>You won't find the word now at Language Log, because the post has been
>"entirely rewritten because it was so badly misunderstood in its first
>draft", and the word "subsequence" was a casualty of the rewriting.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Doug
> Typing "subsequently" in another thread (on AEU, but who cares?) I was
> reminded of something I was thinking of posting yesterday, after
> Geoffrey Pullum posted an interesting discussion called "Familiar
> six-word phrase or saying" on Language Log. This contained the word
> "subsequence", apparently intended to mean "part of a sequence", but I
> had difficulty in interepreting it initially, as I was thoroughly
> thrown off by the similarity of spelling with "subsequently", a much
> commoner word (for me, at least). Do others agree that it got have done
> with a hyphen?
I like the second option the best. Do away with it. If you have to use it,
put a hyphen in it. I didn't figure out that it was sub something until I'd
read most of your post and then I had to reread it again because it wasn't
making sense. I can only image what the original passage was like.
-Doug
R H Draney
>
>Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>> Typing "subsequently" in another thread (on AEU, but who cares?) I was
>> reminded of something I was thinking of posting yesterday, after
>> Geoffrey Pullum posted an interesting discussion called "Familiar
>> six-word phrase or saying" on Language Log. This contained the word
>> "subsequence", apparently intended to mean "part of a sequence", but I
>> had difficulty in interepreting it initially, as I was thoroughly
>> thrown off by the similarity of spelling with "subsequently", a much
>> commoner word (for me, at least). Do others agree that it got have done
>> with a hyphen?
>
>I like the second option the best. Do away with it. If you have to use it,
>put a hyphen in it. I didn't figure out that it was sub something until I'd
>read most of your post and then I had to reread it again because it wasn't
>making sense. I can only image what the original passage was like.
How do you suppose I felt when I hit "reread" above?...
BrE says that "subsequence is to subsequent as consequence is to
consequent"...if you believe that, then you'll also believe that "methodism is
to methodist as organism is to organist"....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Doug
> Doug filted:
>>
>>Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>>> Typing "subsequently" in another thread (on AEU, but who cares?) I was
>>> reminded of something I was thinking of posting yesterday, after
>>> Geoffrey Pullum posted an interesting discussion called "Familiar
>>> six-word phrase or saying" on Language Log. This contained the word
>>> "subsequence", apparently intended to mean "part of a sequence", but I
>>> had difficulty in interepreting it initially, as I was thoroughly
>>> thrown off by the similarity of spelling with "subsequently", a much
>>> commoner word (for me, at least). Do others agree that it got have done
>>> with a hyphen?
>>
>>I like the second option the best. Do away with it. If you have to use it,
>>put a hyphen in it. I didn't figure out that it was sub something until
>>I'd read most of your post and then I had to reread it again because it
>>wasn't making sense. I can only image what the original passage was like.
>
> How do you suppose I felt when I hit "reread" above?...
I think I'm the worst proofreader in the world. There has to be a number of
hours between my writing and my proofreading or I miss things like that.
I'll vote for doing away with reread along with subsequence. Even if reread
was acceptable it would be redundant. Just put some whiteout over the "re".
-Doug
DavidW
Though not for the same reason, 'co-operate' needs its hyphen also, but it's
often absent.
Mark Brader
>> ...Geoffrey Pullum posted an interesting discussion called "Familiar
>> "subsequence", apparently intended to mean "part of a sequence", but I
>> had difficulty in interepreting it initially, as I was thoroughly
>> thrown off by the similarity of spelling with "subsequently", a much
>> commoner word (for me, at least).
I see what you mean, but only now that you have pointed it out.
Peter Duncanson cites the OED:
> subsequence
> 1. That which is subsequent; a subsequent event; the sequel.
> 2. The condition or fact of being subsequent.
>
> sub-sequence
> A sequence contained in or forming part of another sequence; spec.
> in Math.
I'd say the first kind of "subsequence" is so rare, and the second
so common, that there is no need to hyphenate in order to keep Athel
from misreading it.
--
Mark Brader | "The net exists to be used. It is a powerful tool
m...@vex.net | and as long as people treat it as a tool and not a toy
Toronto | it will prosper." --Jerry Schwarz on Usenet, 1982
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Joe Fineman
> Peter Duncanson cites the OED:
>> subsequence
>> 1. That which is subsequent; a subsequent event; the sequel.
>> 2. The condition or fact of being subsequent.
>>
>> sub-sequence
>> A sequence contained in or forming part of another sequence;
>> spec. in Math.
>
> I'd say the first kind of "subsequence" is so rare, and the second
> so common, that there is no need to hyphenate in order to keep Athel
> from misreading it.
Common technical usage, at least in the US, agrees with you. The
mathematical term is "subsequence". That is partly a result of the
hostility of publishers to hyphens after prefixes (which IMO has been
carried to excess), but also, and I think mainly, a result of
mathematicians' having seen it so often that it doesn't bother them.
There are stylists, these days, who would even delete the hyphen from
"un-ionized". They might, in their defense, cite the remarkably
boggly usage of chemists in some other compounds of "ion":
cation (does not rhyme with "nation")
anion (does not rhyme with "companion")
zwitterion (does not rhyme with "criterion")
-- not to mention per+iodic -> periodic.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: Had enough? Drop dead. :||
Mark Brader
> There are stylists, these days, who would even delete the hyphen from
> "un-ionized".
Huh? What hyphen?
Asimov's test for identifying a chemist was published decades ago.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Don't anthropomorphize evolution:
m...@vex.net It hates that." --John Freiler
R H Draney
>
>Though not for the same reason, 'co-operate' needs its hyphen also, but it's
>often absent.
You don't need a hyphen for that one...that's what diæreses are for....
Or would you have us write "na-ive" so people won't pronounce it "knave"?...r
DavidW
> DavidW filted:
>>
>> Though not for the same reason, 'co-operate' needs its hyphen also,
>> but it's often absent.
>
> You don't need a hyphen for that one...that's what diæreses are
> for....
>
> Or would you have us write "na-ive" so people won't pronounce it
> "knave"?...r
No, but I gather from Googling that it is properly spelled 'naïve'.
Matt
FWIW, when reading your post I read "subsequence" to mean "part of a
sequence" without the slightest stumble, mentally pronouncing it as
"sub-sequence" (even though I had been primed otherwise by previously
reading "subsequently"). I guess the "sub-sequence" meaning is far
more familiar to me.
Fred
"Athel Cornish-Bowden" <athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:71t02aF...@mid.individual.net...
> Typing "subsequently" in another thread (on AEU, but who cares?) I was
> reminded of something I was thinking of posting yesterday, after Geoffrey
> Pullum posted an interesting discussion called "Familiar six-word phrase
> or saying" on Language Log. This contained the word "subsequence",
> apparently intended to mean "part of a sequence", but I had difficulty in
> interepreting it initially, as I was thoroughly thrown off by the
> similarity of spelling with "subsequently", a much commoner word (for me,
> at least). Do others agree that it got have done with a hyphen?
Commoner? More common, surely.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> said:
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:46:26 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Typing "subsequently" in another thread (on AEU, but who cares?) I was
>> reminded of something I was thinking of posting yesterday, after
>> Geoffrey Pullum posted an interesting discussion called "Familiar
>> six-word phrase or saying" on Language Log. This contained the word
>> "subsequence", apparently intended to mean "part of a sequence", but I
>> had difficulty in interepreting it initially, as I was thoroughly
>> thrown off by the similarity of spelling with "subsequently", a much
>> commoner word (for me, at least). Do others agree that it got have done
>> with a hyphen?
>
> (Is that a new sense of "got"?)
typo!
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> [ ... ]
> There are stylists, these days, who would even delete the hyphen from
> "un-ionized". They might, in their defense, cite the remarkably
> boggly usage of chemists in some other compounds of "ion":
>
> cation (does not rhyme with "nation")
> anion (does not rhyme with "companion")
> zwitterion (does not rhyme with "criterion")
Note, however, that these are all very common words in the contexts
where they are used. I can believe that "subsequence" (in the sense of
"sub-sequence") is common in mathematical contexts, but I have more
difficulty that it is common in discussions of language.
>
> -- not to mention per+iodic -> periodic.
Reasonably commmon also in appropriate contexts. One could almost
manage to put both in the same sentence without too much risk of
confusion (when read by chemists), e.g. "the relative properties of
perchloric and periodic acids can be explained in terms of the periodic
table."
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
I deliberately wrote that to annoy someone at AEU who thinks, like you,
that two-syllable words can't form comparatives in -er. "Commoner" is a
perfectly good word in everyday use.
--
athel
R H Draney
I'd love to be there for that:
He: "You've never looked lovelier."
She: "Why don't you speak English?"
....r
Evan Kirshenbaum
And what are those two dots called? His point was that,
traditionally, it was "coöperate", for precisely that reason. The
diaeresis signals that the vowel it's on is to be pronounced
separately.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |It does me no injury for my neighbor
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to say there are twenty gods, or no
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |God.
| Thomas Jefferson
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> Athel Cornish-Bowden filted:
>>
>> On 2009-03-13 05:56:08 +0100, "Fred" <dre...@paradise.net.nz> said:
>>>
>>> Commoner? More common, surely.
>>
>> I deliberately wrote that to annoy someone at AEU who thinks, like you,
>> that two-syllable words can't form comparatives in -er. "Commoner" is a
>> perfectly good word in everyday use.
>
> I'd love to be there for that:
>
> He: "You've never looked lovelier."
> She: "Why don't you speak English?"
Very nice.
Inspired by this I've been looking at what Fowler (or maybe Gowers) had
to say. It turns out that he was a lot more liberal than I am,
accepting not only "commoner" (which he specifically gives as an
example), but others that would sound a bit odd to my ear, such as
"awkwarder", "brazener", "buxomer" and "crookeder". The last one often
hears in the mouths of children, but the others don't sound natural to
me at all, though Fowler/Gowers says they can be used "without
disagreeably challenging attention". Are our tastes in this matter
changing? Are we approaching a time when Fred will be correct? Will we
(or our grandchildren) eventually think that "uglier" is uglier than
"more ugly"?
--
athel
James Hogg
Possibly. I always find that "freer" looks weird, but I suppose
it's better than "freeėr".
James
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> it's better than "freeër".
I agree that "freer" looks weird, but I don't find that it sounds
weird, and "more free" (in many contexts) would sound worse.
--
athel
Fred
"Athel Cornish-Bowden" <acor...@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote in message
news:71uh1qF...@mid.individual.net...
commoner was a noun; one of the common people. After a little digging I see
that there are two schools of thought.
Bob Martin
>"DavidW" <n...@email.provided> writes:
>
>> R H Draney wrote:
>>> DavidW filted:
>>>>
>>>> Though not for the same reason, 'co-operate' needs its hyphen
>>>> also, but it's often absent.
>>>
>>> for....
>>>
>>> Or would you have us write "na-ive" so people won't pronounce it
>>> "knave"?...r
>>
>
>And what are those two dots called? His point was that,
>diaeresis signals that the vowel it's on is to be pronounced
>separately.
Why is there no diaeresis over the second u in "vacuum"?
A teacher at my sons' school taught them that vacuum is pronounced "vacoom".
The result is that they laugh at anyone pronouncing it with three syllables (esp. me).
Alan Jones
"Bob Martin" <bob.m...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:dVIul.6765$Lc7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...[...]
>> The
>>diaeresis signals that the vowel it's on is to be pronounced
>>separately.
>
> Why is there no diaeresis over the second u in "vacuum"?
>
> A teacher at my sons' school taught them that vacuum is pronounced
> "vacoom".
> The result is that they laugh at anyone pronouncing it with three
> syllables (esp. me).
BrE often has "vak-yoom", presumably a casual version of standard
"vak-yoo-um".
Alan Jones
R H Draney
>
>A teacher at my sons' school taught them that vacuum is pronounced "vacoom".
>The result is that they laugh at anyone pronouncing it with three syllables
>(esp. me).
That teacher's an idjit....r
Garrett Wollman
Bob Martin <bob.m...@excite.com> wrote:
>Why is there no diaeresis over the second u in "vacuum"?
Because the Normal Pronunciation(tm)[1] is two syllables, /v&k jU:m/?
-GAWollman
[1] Or at least, that's how I've always known it.
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wol...@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
James Silverton
>> Why is there no diaeresis over the second u in "vacuum"?
> Because the Normal Pronunciation(tm)[1] is two syllables, /v&k
> jU:m/?
> -GAWollman
> [1] Or at least, that's how I've always known it.
I've never given it much thought but I pronounce it with two syllables
as you indicate and also insert the Y sound as indicated. Sounding out:
"vacyoom" I think most of my acquaintances would follow suit.
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
Mark Brader
Bob Martin;
> > A teacher at my sons' school taught them that vacuum is pronounced
> > "vacoom".
> > The result is that they laugh at anyone pronouncing it with three
> > syllables (esp. me).
> BrE often has "vak-yoom", presumably a casual version of standard
> "vak-yoo-um".
It *is* "vak-yoom", dammit. "Continuum" keeps its double U sound,
but it's not as fully anglicized.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "It's the almost correct solutions that
m...@vex.net are the most dangerous..." -- Dave Eisen
R H Draney
>
>
>Bob Martin;
>> > A teacher at my sons' school taught them that vacuum is pronounced
>> > "vacoom".
>> > The result is that they laugh at anyone pronouncing it with three
>> > syllables (esp. me).
>
>Alan Jones:
>> BrE often has "vak-yoom", presumably a casual version of standard
>> "vak-yoo-um".
>
>It *is* "vak-yoom", dammit. "Continuum" keeps its double U sound,
>but it's not as fully anglicized.
It retains more of the Latin residuum, of which vacuum is (naturally enough)
empty....r
Mark Brader
>> It *is* "vak-yoom", dammit. "Continuum" keeps its double U sound,
>> but it's not as fully anglicized.
> It retains more of the Latin residuum, of which vacuum is (naturally enough)
> empty.
LOL! <Applause>
--
Mark Brader "...out of the dark coffee-stained mugs of
Toronto insane programmers throughout the world..."
m...@vex.net -- Liam Quin
Alan Jones
"Mark Brader" <m...@vex.net> wrote in message
news:CpKdnfn5Ut-kpyHU...@vex.net...
>
> Bob Martin;
>> > A teacher at my sons' school taught them that vacuum is pronounced
>> > "vacoom".
>> > The result is that they laugh at anyone pronouncing it with three
>> > syllables (esp. me).
>
> Alan Jones:
>> BrE often has "vak-yoom", presumably a casual version of standard
>> "vak-yoo-um".
>
> It *is* "vak-yoom", dammit. "Continuum" keeps its double U sound,
> but it's not as fully anglicized.
I certainly say vak-yoom in the context of cleaning a carpet, but - at least
it was so when I was a schoolboy - in a scientific context I would probably
pronounce the double U.
Alan Jones
James Hogg
In his English Pronouncing Dictionary, Daniel Jones has not only
/v&kjU@m/ and /v&kjUm/ but also a form that I've never heard and
find it hard to pronounce: /v&kjw@m/
James
Mike Lyle
have "-yoo-um" for the abhorrent vacancy.
Bob's son's teacher's "vacoom" is just absurdly wrong. (I restrained
myself from an unfair wisecrack about vacuity.)
--
Mike.
R H Draney
Pronounced, no doubt, "va-cootie"....r
Richard Bollard
>
>Bob Martin;
>> > A teacher at my sons' school taught them that vacuum is pronounced
>> > "vacoom".
>> > The result is that they laugh at anyone pronouncing it with three
>> > syllables (esp. me).
>
>Alan Jones:
>> BrE often has "vak-yoom", presumably a casual version of standard
>> "vak-yoo-um".
>
>It *is* "vak-yoom", dammit. "Continuum" keeps its double U sound,
>but it's not as fully anglicized.
I've somehow managed to pronounce it vac-you-um ever since I heard on
ISIRTA the name "Fiona Rabbit-Vacuum" pronounced thusly. Just kinda
stuck.
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.
Nick
> Bob's son's teacher's "vacoom" is just absurdly wrong. (I restrained
> myself from an unfair wisecrack about vacuity.)
I certainly abhor it.
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
James Hogg
<3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>"Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Bob's son's teacher's "vacoom" is just absurdly wrong. (I restrained
>> myself from an unfair wisecrack about vacuity.)
>
>I certainly abhor it.
Naturally.
James
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Why is there no diaeresis over the second u in "vacuum"?
Because there aren't a lot of words that are commonly spelled with
"uu" pronounced as a single vowel, unlike "ai", "oo", "ee", "oe",
etc., so it isn't likely that the reader will misread it. Except, of
course, that in this particular word, the pronunciation *has* shifted
for many of us, as exemplified by ...
> A teacher at my sons' school taught them that vacuum is pronounced
> "vacoom".
That surprises me. Here it's most commonly /v@ kjum/ ("vakyoom"). I
don't think I've heard it without the /j/.
> The result is that they laugh at anyone pronouncing it with three
> syllables (esp. me).
The three-syllable pronunciation sounds old-fashioned to me.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Marge: You liked Rashomon.
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Homer: That's not how *I* remember
Palo Alto, CA 94304 | it.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Mike Mooney
I've always pronounced it with two syllables - VAK-yoom, for both the
Hoover and the absence of stuff. So does every BrE speaker I know,
with one exception: when I was at school we had a Welsh physics
teacher with a very pronounced accent who gave it the full VAK-yoo-um
treatment. We thought this was hilariously affected, and frequently
used the word when doing impersonations of him. .
Mike M