Names of foreign monarchs - when to Anglicise?
halcombe
princes, etc were referred to in English by the closest English
equivalent of their name.
Thus, 'Frederick' for the numerous 'Friedrich's of the Kleinstaaterei,
'Henry' for the various French 'Henri's, etc, etc.
This even went as far, I think, as calling the Sun King 'Lewis'!
[Marie Antoinette was never 'Mary' - so far as I know. Was she ever
'Marie' as in 'Lloyd'? Mind's ear suggests, yes.]
Apart from chauvinism or laziness, this rule can be explained, in
part, by the fact that relations between monarchs passed by way of
writing. Which long would have tended to be in Latin.
It would be absurd, for instance, to refer to the Habsburg (or
'Hapsburg') Emperor Charles V as 'Karl', on the ground of some sort of
retrospective political correctness, when we have it on proverbial
authority (at least) that German was the language he reserved for
communication with his horse!
Coming right up to date, however, there is no question of referring to
contemporary monarchs in this way. No one (without prompting) would
have a clue who 'King John Charles' might be. If you talked of 'Queen
Margaret', you might well be thought to be muddlingly referring to
Queen Elizabeth's deceased sister.
Contemporary monarchs keep their own names in English, and we make as
good a fist of pronouncing them as we can.
So, is there a cut-off? To take a couple of examples:
The Emperors of the Second Reich seem to be more often referred to as
'William' than 'Wilhelm' (to judge by the crude measure of a Google
Web search (English pages) on 'emperor william/wilhelm germany' - 67k
to 12k, irrelevancies included).
The kings of modern Italy (1861-1946) were either called Vittorio
Emanuele (VE III abdicated 1946) or Umberto. Google, crude as ever,
suggests English likes to 'naturalise' the former (same search,
mutatis mutandis: 4k to 232 items!), but leave the latter in the
original (6k to 3k). Go figure!
I suspect there is no clean cut-off; that (as with the Italian kings),
taste will have a good deal to do with it ('Victor' is a 'proper
English name', Humbert not so much! (Even without the Nabokov
connection).)
What we need (non-native speakers looking to avoid making prats of
themselves most of all), as so often with proper name issues, is a
body like the Quebecker commissars at the Grand Dictionnaire
Terminologique [1] to adjudicate on particular names and produce an
online database.
Till that arrives, it's back to 'what feels right' - and Mr Google,
of course!
Richard R. Hershberger
> I believe that the general rule used to be that foreign kings,
> princes, etc were referred to in English by the closest English
> equivalent of their name.
Except, of course, when they weren't: Charles the Great, anyone?
R H Draney
news:82401463.02070...@posting.google.com:
That one's because it's not difficult to pronounce Carolus Magnus....r
AWILLIS957
>From: R H Draney dado...@earthlink.net
>> Except, of course, when they weren't: Charles the Great, anyone?
>
>That one's because it's not difficult to pronounce Carolus Magnus....r
Did he not have a son called King Pippin? Now that is just silly.
Albert Peasemarch.
Robert Bannister
Funny how the Germans say Karl der Große for Charlemagne.
--
Rob Bannister
R H Draney
news:3D2CD8A7...@it.net.au:
> R H Draney wrote:
>
>> rrh...@acme.com (Richard R. Hershberger) wrote in
>> news:82401463.02070...@posting.google.com:
>>
>> > Except, of course, when they weren't: Charles the Great,
>> > anyone?
>>
>> That one's because it's not difficult to pronounce Carolus
>> Magnus....r
>
> Funny how the Germans say Karl der Große for Charlemagne.
Don't you mean the Franks?...r
Stephen Toogood
<halc...@subdimension.com> writes
>I believe that the general rule used to be that foreign kings,
>princes, etc were referred to in English by the closest English
>equivalent of their name.
As you suspect no doubt, the degree to which this has happened is a
function of when in history the character lived, and when they were
being referred to.
>
[ - ]
>
>This even went as far, I think, as calling the Sun King 'Lewis'!
That I've not heard.
>[Marie Antoinette was never 'Mary' - so far as I know. Was she ever
>'Marie' as in 'Lloyd'? Mind's ear suggests, yes.]
Yes. And she still is by most people I know - stress on the first
syllable.
>
>Apart from chauvinism or laziness, this rule can be explained, in
>part, by the fact that relations between monarchs passed by way of
>writing. Which long would have tended to be in Latin.
No, I'm not going to buy that one. We probably don't know how monarchs
referred to each other, other than in very formal documents, and they
are no guide at all. These references all come from subjects, not from
monarchs. In any case, since so many of Europe's royal families are
related to one another, the picture would be further distorted. Did the
Kaiser for example refer to 'Aunty Vic'?
I would guess that this anglicisation dates from the start of formal
teaching of history, and attempt to put a human face on the dry
statistics of conquest and defeat.
>
>Coming right up to date, however, there is no question of referring to
>contemporary monarchs in this way. No one (without prompting) would
>have a clue who 'King John Charles' might be. If you talked of 'Queen
>Margaret', you might well be thought to be muddlingly referring to
>Queen Elizabeth's deceased sister.
>
>Contemporary monarchs keep their own names in English, and we make as
>good a fist of pronouncing them as we can.
Of course we do. Everybody under the age of, let's say forty but it
might be older, has learnt a foreign language at some time in their
lives, and we are just so much more aware than our grandparents were of
life in the rest of the world.
>
>So, is there a cut-off? To take a couple of examples:
>
>The Emperors of the Second Reich seem to be more often referred to as
>'William' than 'Wilhelm' (to judge by the crude measure of a Google
>Web search (English pages) on 'emperor william/wilhelm germany' - 67k
>to 12k, irrelevancies included).
>
Bill, or occasionally Willy.
>
>I suspect there is no clean cut-off;
Why on earth would there be?
--
Stephen Toogood
Frances Kemmish
> In article <d7fa3848.02070...@posting.google.com>, halcombe
> <halc...@subdimension.com> writes
>
>>I believe that the general rule used to be that foreign kings,
>>princes, etc were referred to in English by the closest English
>>equivalent of their name.
>
>
> As you suspect no doubt, the degree to which this has happened is a
> function of when in history the character lived, and when they were
> being referred to.
>
> [ - ]
>
>>This even went as far, I think, as calling the Sun King 'Lewis'!
>
> That I've not heard.
>
>
>>[Marie Antoinette was never 'Mary' - so far as I know. Was she ever
>>'Marie' as in 'Lloyd'? Mind's ear suggests, yes.]
>
>
> Yes. And she still is by most people I know - stress on the first
> syllable.
>
I wonder what her original name was; since she was Austrian, I would
guess that it was not Marie-Antoinette.
Fran
Aaron Davies
I believe that was the gallicization of her name, which would have been
something like Maria-Antonia.
--
Aaron Davies
Save a cow, eat a vegan.
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,51494,00.html>
Jens Brix Christiansen
> I wonder what her original name was; since she was Austrian, I would
> guess that it was not Marie-Antoinette.
Maria Antoinetta. At least that is what she is called in contemporary
German. But her childhood was most likely multilingual, so people
like her did not necessarily have "real" or "original" names. They
had a name which could be rendered differently in different languages,
but the name was considered the same anyway.
This concept is still somewhat valid for contemporary royal families.
Prince Henrik of Denmark was originally French and is (and always has
been) known as Henri to his French family. His sister-in-law is
Anne-Marie here in Denmark, where she was born, but Anna Maria (no
hyphen, and spelled with Greek letters) in Greece where she was once
the queen.
John Dean
>>
>>
>
> I wonder what her original name was; since she was Austrian, I would
> guess that it was not Marie-Antoinette.
>
> Fran
Britannia has '' in full Marie-antoinette-josčphe-jeanne D'autriche-lorraine
(Austria-Lorraine), original German Maria Antonia Josepha Joanna Von
Österreich-lothringen ''
--
John 'Her husband just called her snuggles' Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
Raya Shirokozhopaya
"tsaritsa"?
Raya Shirokozhopaya
> >
> >> I believe that the general rule used to be that foreign kings,
> >> princes, etc were referred to in English by the closest English
> >> equivalent of their name.
> >
> > Except, of course, when they weren't: Charles the Great, anyone?
>
> That one's because it's not difficult to pronounce Carolus Magnus....r
Why not "Big Charley"?
Robert Bannister
> Frances Kemmish wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I wonder what her original name was; since she was Austrian, I would
> > guess that it was not Marie-Antoinette.
> >
> > Fran
>
> Britannia has '' in full Marie-antoinette-josčphe-jeanne D'autriche-lorraine
> (Austria-Lorraine), original German Maria Antonia Josepha Joanna Von
> Österreich-lothringen ''
> --
> 'Her husband just called her snuggles'
Or maybe 'honey bun' or 'cake'.
--
Rob Bannister
Raymond S. Wise
> Why do people write "czar" for "tsar" and "czarina" or "tsarina" for
> "tsaritsa"?
The short answer to why "czar" rather than "tsar" is that "czar" is
the more conventional spelling in English. Scholars are more inclined
to use "tsar," which is the correct English transcription of the
Russian term.
The historical answer appears to be that "tsar" was once spelled
"czar" in Old Polish. The only online dictionary I was able to find
which made that clear was *The Century Dictionary,* an American
dictionary of 1895. In the following I have replaced the letter used
by the Century for the mute final "i" (which they show with an "i"
with a breve accent over it) with an apostrophe:
From *The Century Dictionary* at
www.century-dictionary.com
[quote]
czar, tsar [...], _n._ [Also written some-
times _tzar ;_ prop., according to the Russ. form,
_tsar,_ but in E. first and still more usually _czar ;_
= D. _czaar_ = Dan. Sw. _czar_ = Sp. _czar, zar_ =
Pg. _czar, tzar_ = It. _czar,_ after F. _czar,_ also _tsar,
tzar,_ through G. _tzar,_ also _zar,_ through OPol.
_czar,_ < Russ. _tsar,_ more exactly _tsar' or tsare
(the first letter being _tse,_ the 23d letter of the
Russ. alphabet, pron. ts, and the last being _er'
(mute final _i_ or _e_), the 29th), = Pol. _car_ (prom
tsar), formerly spelled _czar,_ = Bohem. Serv.
Bulg. _car_ (_tsar_), the name and title of the Em-
peror of Russia, also applied to the Sultan of
Turkey ; in fuller form Russ. _ts'sar', tsesar' =
Pol. _cesarz_ = Bohem. _cisarzh_ = Serv. _cesar_ =
Croatian _cesar_ = Slov. _césar_ = OBulg. _tsésar',_
emperor, Cæsar ; derived, prob. through the
OHG. _keisar_ (MHG. _keiser,_ G. _kaiser :_ see _kaiser,
Cæsar_), from L. _Cæsar,_ emperor, orig. the cog-
nomen of Caius Julius Cæsar : see _Cæsar,_ and
cf. _kaiser,_ with which _czar, tsar_ is ult. identical.]
[end quote]
The equal sign is used to show forms in other languages which have
developed in a similar manner to the English word.
Merriam-Webster Collegiate, by the way, derives "czar" from "New Latin
_czar,_ from Russian _tsar'_"--no mention of Old Polish, German, or
French.
As for "czarina," the Century has this to say:
[quote]
czarina, tsarina [...], _n._ [= F.
_czarine, tzarine_ = Sp. _czarina, zarina_ = Pg.
_czarina, tzarina_ = It. _czarina_ = G. _czarin, zarin ;_
< _czar, tsar,_ + fem. term., F. _-ine,_ etc., G. _-in._
The Russ. term is _tsaritsa :_ see _czaritza._] An
empress of Russia ; the wife of the Czar of Rus-
sia, or a Russian empress regnant. Also _cza-
ritza, tsaritsa, tzaritsa._
[end quote]
For both "czar" and "czarina," the Century gives pronunciations
beginning with both /z/ and /ts/.
What happened with "czarina," then, was that the feminine form was not
taken directly from the Russian, but a new feminine form was built up
from "czar/tsar" and a feminine suffix.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
R H Draney
> Why do people write "czar" for "tsar" and "czarina" or
> "tsarina" for
> "tsaritsa"?
While transliteration from the Cyrillic to the Roman alphabet is
generally pretty consistent, there are a few places where
interpretation seems to take place, most notably the representation of
some of the vowels...in the cases you mention, I suspect another
language--perhaps Polish, as it makes use of the Roman alphabet and
the specific consonant clusters observed--may be serving as an
intermediate filter....r
Jerry
"Raymond S. Wise" <mpl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:47dd044c.02071...@posting.google.com...
> "Raya Shirokozhopaya" <rs...@vshinc.com> wrote in message
news:<agqd8k$ltq$1...@news.chatlink.com>...
> > Why do people write "czar" for "tsar" and "czarina" or "tsarina" for
> > "tsaritsa"?
>
>
> The short answer to why "czar" rather than "tsar" is that "czar" is
> the more conventional spelling in English. Scholars are more inclined
> to use "tsar," which is the correct English transcription of the
> Russian term.
The main reason is that unadorned c in slavic languages is pronounced t, cz
is pronunounced tz, cs is pronounced ts.
Obviously we usually pronounce the name of the Czech republic incorrectly by
missing the T component. Older english spelling included Tz and Tsch.
John Dean
> John Dean wrote:
>
>> Frances Kemmish wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I wonder what her original name was; since she was Austrian, I would
>>> guess that it was not Marie-Antoinette.
>>>
>>> Fran
>>
>> Britannia has '' in full Marie-antoinette-josčphe-jeanne D'autriche-
>> Joanna Von Österreich-lothringen ''
>> --
>> 'Her husband just called her snuggles'
>
> Or maybe 'honey bun' or 'cake'.
>
.....
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
Skitt
> "Raya Shirokozhopaya" wrote in:
>> Why do people write "czar" for "tsar" and "czarina" or
>> "tsarina" for "tsaritsa"?
>
> While transliteration from the Cyrillic to the Roman alphabet is
> generally pretty consistent, there are a few places where
> interpretation seems to take place, most notably the representation of
> some of the vowels...in the cases you mention, I suspect another
> language--perhaps Polish, as it makes use of the Roman alphabet and
> the specific consonant clusters observed--may be serving as an
> intermediate filter....r
Yeah, I was wondering about Anna Kournikova's name (among other things).
The Russian spelling (except for the "backward N" letter I can't type and am
presenting here as "N") is KYPHNKOBA. The second letter should normally be
transliterated as "u", I think, but it is always seen as "ou". Why?
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
R H Draney
news:agshv6$ofupe$1...@ID-61580.news.dfncis.de:
> Yeah, I was wondering about Anna Kournikova's name (among other
> things).
>
> The Russian spelling (except for the "backward N" letter I can't
> type and am presenting here as "N") is KYPHNKOBA. The second
> letter should normally be transliterated as "u", I think, but it
> is always seen as "ou". Why? --
Good question...I've wondered in the past why *more* things aren't
adjusted when transliterating names...if they can stymie Americans by
including "Y" in "Yeltsin" (an exact transliteration would be "Eltsin"
but the standard pronunciation *does* include an initial glide, and
that "ts" is a single letter), why should it be "Oksana" rather than
"Oxana"?...r
Don Aitken
wrote:
Transliterations vary depending on which language they are for
(Italian has "Eltsin", for example), and quite often English picks one
up second hand, rather than going back to the original Russian. Could
"Kournikova" be from French?
--
Don Aitken
Raymond S. Wise
"R H Draney" <dado...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns924B8DB9A...@216.148.53.81...
Transcriptions are basically a headache, *especially* if you limit yourself
to letters without diacritics.
"Oksana" represents the original Russian correctly, since Russian has no one
letter, like the English "x," which conveys the sound /ks/. In addition, by
now "Oksana" is very much the conventional transcription, given that
www.babynamer.com has an entry for "Oksana" but not for "Oxana."
Take a look at
http://www.esperanto.mv.ru/Vortaro/
Note the name of "E. Bokarev," To the best of my knowledge, to correctly
represent the pronunciation of the name, it should be transliterated "Ye.
Bokaryof" in English. Since "of" makes English speakers think of the English
word "of," it might be better to write "Ye. Bokaryoff," although that still
is problematic, since the "y" might be interpreted by the reader as a vowel
rather than a semiconsonant. In Esperanto, to correctly represent "E.
Bokarev," it would better be transliterated "Je. Bokarjof."
Note that Esperanto is transcribed into Russian by using a letter different
in form from the Russian letter "E." This is because "E" in Russian is
pronounced /jE/ and the letter used at the beginning of the transcription of
"Esperanto" is pronounced /E/.
There is a word on that page which ends with "ogo" in Russian. If this is
the grammatical form which I think it is, then it would better be translated
"ovo," to represent the pronunciation. However, the vowels in this "ovo"
are, I believe, schwas, so no transcription using ordinary Latin letters
will represent the pronunciation perfectly.
Note that there is a capital letter which looks like "I-O" smooshed
together. This is pronounced /ju/. It is distinguished from the Russian
letter which has more or less the form of "Y," which is pronounced /u/. If
you are going to have the Russian "I-O" being represented by "Yu," it makes
sense to have the Russian "E" represented by "Ye."
The rules for transcription of Russian letters into Latin letters are, of
course, different in other languages. I've already given an example from
Esperanto. In French, "Putin" is "Poutine" (No chance of mispronouncing the
"u" as /ju/) and "Yeltsin" is "Eltsine." Note that the French have to add
the silent "e" to make sure that "in" is not pronounced as a nasal vowel as
in the French word for wine, "vin."
Mark Brader
> > ...if they can stymie Americans by including "Y" in "Yeltsin"
Raymond Wise:
> "Oksana" represents the original Russian correctly ... In addition, by
> now "Oksana" is very much the conventional transcription, given that
> www.babynamer.com has an entry for "Oksana" but not for "Oxana."
In the case of this specific name, I think the presence of "Ox" in the
shorter version also helps make it less desirable.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto It's all Henry's fault.
m...@vex.net -- Geoff Collyer
Robert Bannister
> R H Draney wrote:
> > "Raya Shirokozhopaya" wrote in:
>
> >> Why do people write "czar" for "tsar" and "czarina" or
> >> "tsarina" for "tsaritsa"?
> >
> > While transliteration from the Cyrillic to the Roman alphabet is
> > generally pretty consistent, there are a few places where
> > interpretation seems to take place, most notably the representation of
> > some of the vowels...in the cases you mention, I suspect another
> > language--perhaps Polish, as it makes use of the Roman alphabet and
> > the specific consonant clusters observed--may be serving as an
> > intermediate filter....r
>
> Yeah, I was wondering about Anna Kournikova's name (among other things).
>
> The Russian spelling (except for the "backward N" letter I can't type and am
> presenting here as "N") is KYPHNKOBA. The second letter should normally be
> transliterated as "u", I think, but it is always seen as "ou". Why?
I think that might be a French transliteration, although I have no idea why
Kournikova's family should have adopted it.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> "Raymond S. Wise" <mpl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:47dd044c.02071...@posting.google.com...
> > "Raya Shirokozhopaya" <rs...@vshinc.com> wrote in message
> news:<agqd8k$ltq$1...@news.chatlink.com>...
> > > Why do people write "czar" for "tsar" and "czarina" or "tsarina" for
> > > "tsaritsa"?
> >
> >
> > The short answer to why "czar" rather than "tsar" is that "czar" is
> > the more conventional spelling in English. Scholars are more inclined
> > to use "tsar," which is the correct English transcription of the
> > Russian term.
>
> The main reason is that unadorned c in slavic languages is pronounced t, cz
> is pronunounced tz, cs is pronounced ts.
Which slavic languages are you thinking of? Russian C is, of course, 's';
Croatian 'c' is 'ts'. Although English 'ch' is not quite the same as harder
sound in most slav languages, I'd have thought 'Check' would have been a
reasonable spelling of the way 'we' pronounce 'Czech'. Sure we don't use the
'x' sound, but I can't see the addition of a 't' makes much difference. Is the
final sound of 'which' any different from the final sound of 'switch'?
>
>
> Obviously we usually pronounce the name of the Czech republic incorrectly by
> missing the T component. Older english spelling included Tz and Tsch.
--
Rob Bannister
Tony Cooper
"Robert Bannister" <rob...@it.net.au> wrote in message
news:3D320EF6...@it.net.au...
Wouldn't the male members of her family be the Kournikovs, and only the
female ones Kournikovas?
--
Tony Cooper aka: Tony_Co...@Yahoo.com
Provider of Jots & Tittles
AWILLIS957
>Transliterations vary depending on which language they are for
>(Italian has "Eltsin", for example), and quite often English picks one
>up second hand, rather than going back to the original Russian. Could
>"Kournikova" be from French?
I am proud of this newsgroup. It must be the only one which finds Kournikova's
name more fascinating than her looks.
Peasemarch.
R H Draney
news:20020715040208...@mb-bg.aol.com:
> I am proud of this newsgroup. It must be the only one which finds
> Kournikova's name more fascinating than her looks.
The results would differ, were we but a binaries group....r
Skitt
> (AWILLIS957) wrote:
>> I am proud of this newsgroup. It must be the only one which finds
>> Kournikova's name more fascinating than her looks.
>
> The results would differ, were we but a binaries group....r
The use of "but" here gave me a pause, but I see that it could be
appropriate, were one to judge a binary group to be a lesser entity than our
prestigious forum. I would not classify the groups that way, though.
Skitt
> "Robert Bannister" wrote
>> Skitt wrote:
>>> R H Draney wrote:
>>>>> Why do people write "czar" for "tsar" and "czarina" or
>>>>> "tsarina" for "tsaritsa"?
>>>>
>>>> While transliteration from the Cyrillic to the Roman alphabet is
>>>> generally pretty consistent, there are a few places where
>>>> interpretation seems to take place, most notably the
>>>> representation of some of the vowels...in the cases you mention, I
>>>> suspect another language--perhaps Polish, as it makes use of the
>>>> Roman alphabet and the specific consonant clusters observed--may
>>>> be serving as an intermediate filter....r
>>>
>>> Yeah, I was wondering about Anna Kournikova's name (among other
>>> things).
>>>
>>> The Russian spelling (except for the "backward N" letter I can't
>>> type and am presenting here as "N") is KYPHNKOBA. The second
>>> letter should normally be transliterated as "u", I think, but it is
>>> always seen as "ou". Why?
>>
>> I think that might be a French transliteration, although I have no
>> idea why Kournikova's family should have adopted it.
>
> Wouldn't the male members of her family be the Kournikovs, and only
> the female ones Kournikovas?
For sure, for sure, but that has no bearing on what is being discussed so
far.
Apurbva Chandra Senray
I never understood the fascination. Sure she's beautiful, but not
significantly more good-looking than hundreds of other women in the
public eye. And she's hardly the best tennis player in the world. If
it's cheesecake shots I want to see, I'd pick someone like Tyra Banks.
If it's tennis, the Williams sisters. Why should the mass media care
about a reasonably good-looking, but not stunning, woman who can't
manage to excel in her field? (I'd ask a similar question about
Princess Diana, surely the biggest cause of wasted ink and paper since
the history of printing and the biggest cause of wasted breath since
the history of air.)
rzed
"Apurbva Chandra Senray" <acse...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c7482783.02071...@posting.google.com...
Difficult to measure that. She doubtless had more ink and air expended
in discussions about her, but she was for a time potentially the Queen
of England, so at least some of that expenditure was no more a waste
than the discussion of other royals would entail. And not everyone
shares the same attitude toward her, I expect. Proportionally, though,
Monica Lewinsky or Paula Jones ....
--
rzed
Paul Gorodyansky
>
> R H Draney wrote:
> > "Raya Shirokozhopaya" wrote in:
>
> >> Why do people write "czar" for "tsar" and "czarina" or
> >> "tsarina" for "tsaritsa"?
> >
> > While transliteration from the Cyrillic to the Roman alphabet is
> > generally pretty consistent, there are a few places where
> > interpretation seems to take place, most notably the representation of
> > some of the vowels...in the cases you mention, I suspect another
> > language--perhaps Polish, as it makes use of the Roman alphabet and
> > the specific consonant clusters observed--may be serving as an
> > intermediate filter....r
>
> Yeah, I was wondering about Anna Kournikova's name (among other things).
>
> The Russian spelling (except for the "backward N" letter I can't type and am
> presenting here as "N") is KYPHNKOBA. The second letter should normally be
> transliterated as "u", I think, but it is always seen as "ou". Why?
I saw the same a lot in the 'Americanized' last names of my friends
and other people from Russia, and I guess the reason is the following:
- without 'o' Kur... would be pronounced as 'K-a-r...' - same as
'u' in butter
- 'ou' lets English-speaking people make no such mistake and
pronounce it as Russian 'u' - same sound as in Englosh 'good'
--
Regards,
Paul Gorodyansky
"Cyrillic (Russian): instructions for Windows and Internet":
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PaulGor/
Robert Bannister
Cinderella started in the ashes, then began staying out till gone
midnight and finally got the prince. Diana began at the wrong end of the
story.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
Absolutely. I was going to use 'Kournikov', but I thought it would be too
confusing. In Australia, a fairly recent govt. decision has allowed slav
families to use the masc. and fem. forms of their name legally. Previously,
it had to be the father's name.
--
Rob Bannister
Evan Kirshenbaum
> If it's tennis, the Williams sisters. Why should the mass media care
> about a reasonably good-looking, but not stunning, woman who can't
> manage to excel in her field?
That's not *quite* fair. She is ranked 56th in the world, which in a
major team sport would make her probably the second or third best
player on her team, and would probably warrant a fair amount of ink.
Not to the extent that she gets now, certainly, especially considering
the relative amount of coverage she gets compared with others ranked
above her, but it's not like 56th in the world is exactly a trivial
achievement.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Society in every state is a blessing,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |but government, even in its best
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |state is but a necessary evil; in its
|worst state, an intolerable one.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Thomas Paine
(650)857-7572
Aaron J. Dinkin
> R H Draney wrote:
>> (AWILLIS957) wrote:
>>
>>> I am proud of this newsgroup. It must be the only one which finds
>>> Kournikova's name more fascinating than her looks.
>>
>> The results would differ, were we but a binaries group....r
>
> The use of "but" here gave me a pause, but I see that it could be
> appropriate, were one to judge a binary group to be a lesser entity than
> our prestigious forum. I would not classify the groups that way,
> though.
I agree that this is "but" meaning 'only' or 'merely', but I don't
construe the sentence as meaning '...a mere binaries group'. Rather I read
it as 'were we merely a binaries group', i.e., 'if only we were a binaries
group', i.e., 'if we were a binaries group [is that so much to ask?]'.
(Four sentence-final punctuation marks! Top that!)
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Skitt
> Apurbva Chandra Senray writes:
>> If it's tennis, the Williams sisters. Why should the mass media care
>> about a reasonably good-looking, but not stunning, woman who can't
>> manage to excel in her field?
>
> That's not *quite* fair. She is ranked 56th in the world, which in a
> major team sport would make her probably the second or third best
> player on her team, and would probably warrant a fair amount of ink.
> Not to the extent that she gets now, certainly, especially considering
> the relative amount of coverage she gets compared with others ranked
> above her, but it's not like 56th in the world is exactly a trivial
> achievement.
Not only that, she did reach number eight ranking in singles (in 2000) and
number one ranking in doubles (in 1999). Not too shabby, I'd say. All
that, while lookin' good too!
Skitt
> Skitt wrote:
>> R H Draney wrote:
>>> (AWILLIS957) wrote:
>>>> I am proud of this newsgroup. It must be the only one which finds
>>>> Kournikova's name more fascinating than her looks.
>>>
>>> The results would differ, were we but a binaries group....r
>>
>> The use of "but" here gave me a pause, but I see that it could be
>> appropriate, were one to judge a binary group to be a lesser entity
>> than our prestigious forum. I would not classify the groups that
>> way, though.
>
> I agree that this is "but" meaning 'only' or 'merely', but I don't
> construe the sentence as meaning '...a mere binaries group'. Rather I
> read it as 'were we merely a binaries group', i.e., 'if only we were
> a binaries group', i.e., 'if we were a binaries group [is that so
> much to ask?]'.
That would be expressed as "..., were we a binaries group."
Aaron J. Dinkin
> Aaron J. Dinkin wrote:
>> Skitt wrote:
>>> R H Draney wrote:
>>>> (AWILLIS957) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am proud of this newsgroup. It must be the only one which finds
>>>>> Kournikova's name more fascinating than her looks.
>>>>
>>>> The results would differ, were we but a binaries group....r
>>>
>>> The use of "but" here gave me a pause, but I see that it could be
>>> appropriate, were one to judge a binary group to be a lesser entity
>>> than our prestigious forum. I would not classify the groups that
>>> way, though.
>>
>> I agree that this is "but" meaning 'only' or 'merely', but I don't
>> construe the sentence as meaning '...a mere binaries group'. Rather I
>> read it as 'were we merely a binaries group', i.e., 'if only we were
>> a binaries group', i.e., 'if we were a binaries group [is that so
>> much to ask?]'.
>
> That would be expressed as "..., were we a binaries group."
No, "were we a binaries group" means nothing more than 'if we were a
binaries group'. The '[is that so much to ask?]' comes from the "but".
Skitt
> Skitt wrote:
>> Aaron J. Dinkin wrote:
>>> Skitt wrote:
>>>> R H Draney wrote:
>>>>> (AWILLIS957) wrote:
>>>>>> I am proud of this newsgroup. It must be the only one which finds
>>>>>> Kournikova's name more fascinating than her looks.
>>>>>
>>>>> The results would differ, were we but a binaries group....r
>>>>
>>>> The use of "but" here gave me a pause, but I see that it could be
>>>> appropriate, were one to judge a binary group to be a lesser entity
>>>> than our prestigious forum. I would not classify the groups that
>>>> way, though.
>>>
>>> I agree that this is "but" meaning 'only' or 'merely', but I don't
>>> construe the sentence as meaning '...a mere binaries group'. Rather
>>> I read it as 'were we merely a binaries group', i.e., 'if only we
>>> were a binaries group', i.e., 'if we were a binaries group [is that
>>> so much to ask?]'.
>>
>> That would be expressed as "..., were we a binaries group."
>
> No, "were we a binaries group" means nothing more than 'if we were a
> binaries group'.
Isn't that what RH was trying to say? I bet it was.
> The '[is that so much to ask?]' comes from the "but".
I see your point, so there is another reason why the "but" might be
appropriate. I wonder what was really meant by RH's comment. Enquiring
minds want to know.
Tony Cooper
>
> > If it's tennis, the Williams sisters. Why should the mass media care
> > about a reasonably good-looking, but not stunning, woman who can't
> > manage to excel in her field?
>
> That's not *quite* fair. She is ranked 56th in the world, which in a
> major team sport would make her probably the second or third best
> player on her team, and would probably warrant a fair amount of ink.
> Not to the extent that she gets now, certainly, especially considering
> the relative amount of coverage she gets compared with others ranked
> above her, but it's not like 56th in the world is exactly a trivial
> achievement.
The concept of tennis is fairly simple. One hits a ball with a racquet.
Once one masters that, one has to be concerned with hitting the ball to
a specific place, and being able to hit a ball back that someone else
has hit. If one can do this with enough proficiency to earn a living
from it, that's excelling in anyone's book. If only 55 people of the
same sex can do it better, then that's really excelling.
R H Draney
>>>>>
>>>>> The results would differ, were we but a binaries group....r
>>>
>>> construe the sentence as meaning '...a mere binaries group'. Rather I
>>> read it as 'were we merely a binaries group', i.e., 'if only we were
>>> a binaries group', i.e., 'if we were a binaries group [is that so
>>> much to ask?]'.
>>
>> That would be expressed as "..., were we a binaries group."
>
>No, "were we a binaries group" means nothing more than 'if we were a
>binaries group'. The '[is that so much to ask?]' comes from the "but".
You're quite close to the meaning I originally had in mind...the "but" was meant
to suggest "apart from this one small difference"...I intended no longing for
such a state of affairs, although it crossed my mind that others lament the
inability to attach sound files of vowel pronunciations to some posts....r
Aokay [David G. Bryce]
wrote:
>Obviously we usually pronounce the name of the Czech republic incorrectly by
>missing the T component. Older english spelling included Tz and Tsch
The Czechs pronounce the name of their country (it's the Ceska
republika, the C being accented with one of those cute little
inverted hats on top) Cheska ..... (more or less).
So English gets the pronunciation right at the start but fair
mangles the spelling. The older english spellings were, at a
guess, derived from German.
dgb
Aaron J. Dinkin
> The Czechs pronounce the name of their country (it's the Ceska
> republika, the C being accented with one of those cute little
> inverted hats on top) Cheska ..... (more or less).
>
> So English gets the pronunciation right at the start but fair
> mangles the spelling. The older english spellings were, at a
> guess, derived from German.
I think <cz> is the Polish spelling for something similar to [tS]. So I
would guess that our spelling for "Czech" comes from the Polish spelling.
AWILLIS957
>From: acse...@yahoo.com (Apurbva Chandra Senray)
>
>If it's tennis, the Williams sisters. Why should the mass media care
>about a reasonably good-looking, but not stunning, woman who can't
>manage to excel in her field? (I'd ask a similar question about
>Princess Diana, surely the biggest cause of wasted ink and paper since
>the history of printing and the biggest cause of wasted breath since
>the history of air.)
I met Princess Diana (she was very nice to me). It struck me that she wasn't
that good-looking. She was genuinely tall and imposing and had big hands. She
was wearing a suit made out of carpet material.
There was always something precariously corruptible about her. Maybe that was
part of the fascination, as it is with Kournikova.
(Here I am blathering because I'm out of depth with all this talk about the
Cyrillic. All I know about the Cyrillic is that it was named after someone
called Cyril, who was from Bulgaria or somewhere around there. I wonder if his
name was Anglicized - I find it hard to imagine that Bulgarians are called
Cyril, but what do I know?)
Albert Peasemarch.
Mike Barnes
>a...@216.148.53.100>...
>> awill...@aol.com (AWILLIS957) wrote in
>> news:20020715040208...@mb-bg.aol.com:
>>
>> > I am proud of this newsgroup. It must be the only one which finds
>> > Kournikova's name more fascinating than her looks.
>>
>> The results would differ, were we but a binaries group....r
>
>I never understood the fascination. Sure she's beautiful, but not
>significantly more good-looking than hundreds of other women in the
>public eye. And she's hardly the best tennis player in the world. If
>it's cheesecake shots I want to see, I'd pick someone like Tyra Banks.
>If it's tennis, the Williams sisters. Why should the mass media care
>about a reasonably good-looking, but not stunning, woman who can't
>manage to excel in her field?
I imagine it's that *combination* of looks and achievement, and possibly
something to do with her (publicly-presented) personality.
Speaking for myself, I couldn't care less. I have no idea what Ms
Kournikova looks like, and no particular wish to know.
--
Mike Barnes
Evan Kirshenbaum
> (Here I am blathering because I'm out of depth with all this talk
> about the Cyrillic. All I know about the Cyrillic is that it was
> named after someone called Cyril, who was from Bulgaria or somewhere
> around there. I wonder if his name was Anglicized - I find it hard
> to imagine that Bulgarians are called Cyril, but what do I know?)
According to
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/99.html
Cyril and his brother, who co-designed the Glagolitic alphabet (which
begat Cyrillic, but was probably done by one of his students), were
from Thessalonika, in northeastern Greece. Also according to that
page, Cyril was born Constantine. (His brother was Methodius.) These
names sound suspiciously translated as well.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If I am ever forced to make a
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |choice between learning and using
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |win32, or leaving the computer
|industry, let me just say it was
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |nice knowing all of you. :-)
(650)857-7572 | Randal Schwartz
Robert Bannister
Wasn't there a king of Persia called Kyril a long time ago?
--
Rob Bannister
AWILLIS957
>I find it hard to imagine that Bulgarians are called
>> Cyril, but what do I know?)
>
>Wasn't there a king of Persia called Kyril a long time ago?
Ah, Kyril - I hadn't thought of that. There was a conductor called Kyril
Kondrashin (thrashin Kondrashin to his mates) wasn't there? But it's a question
for you language boffs whether Kyril is pronounced Cyril, as in my Uncle Cyril.
If I was a Persian I'd have my doubts about following any King named Cyril, to
be honest, though I'd happily follow a King Kyril with a K because the K gives
a sword-like ring of consonants to the name. But then, I'm the sort of bloke
who'd probably have followed King Cambyses.
Albert Peasemarch.
Ben Zimmer
Cyrus, folks, the Persian king was Cyrus. (That's 'Kourosh' in Persian,
'Kouros' in Greek, 'Koresh' in Hebrew.)
--Ben
Aaron J. Dinkin
Regarding "Cyril", xrefer.com tells me:
: from the post-classical Greek name Kyrillos, a derivative of kyrios lord
That's at <www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=565808&secid=.->.
Paul Gorodyansky
> ...
> Cyrus, folks, the Persian king was Cyrus. (That's 'Kourosh' in Persian,
> 'Kouros' in Greek, 'Koresh' in Hebrew.)
'Kir' in Russian - I still remember famous book for teenagers about this
king.
Robert Bannister
Well, I think you'll find that St Kyril has his name pronounced with a K in Greek
and all southern slav languages.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
Thanks for the info. Yes, I'd forgotten Cyrus and kyrios makes sense.
--
Rob Bannister
Geoff Butler
>>
>> (Here I am blathering because I'm out of depth with all this talk about the
>> Cyrillic. All I know about the Cyrillic is that it was named after someone
>> called Cyril, who was from Bulgaria or somewhere around there. I wonder if his
>> name was Anglicized - I find it hard to imagine that Bulgarians are called
>> Cyril, but what do I know?)
>
>Wasn't there a king of Persia called Kyril a long time ago?
I don't know about that, but there was certainly a Virile young Squirrel
called Cyril.
-ler
R H Draney
news:anenrkAa...@gbutler.demon.co.uk:
> Robert Bannister <rob...@it.net.au> wrote
>>>
>>Wasn't there a king of Persia called Kyril a long time ago?
>
> I don't know about that, but there was certainly a Virile young
> Squirrel called Cyril.
Is there a real accent in which all three of those rhyme?...I grew up
with /'skwU r@l/, and while I have *heard* /'skwI r@l/, it's always
been from people who would also say both /'vI raIl/ and /'sI rIl/....r
Aaron J. Dinkin
> I don't know about that, but there was certainly a Virile young Squirrel
> called Cyril.
Ooh! A pronunciation thread!
I don't pronounce "squirrel" to rhyme with "virile" or "Cyril". It's
/'skwR@l/, with the same vowel in the first syllable as in (my dialect's)
"squirt" or "furry". Is this merely a pondian difference or is it
something more complicated?
Jonathan Jordan
think is normal in Britain. But I would have "virile" as /'vIraIl/, so
they don't all rhyme.
Jonathan
Aaron J. Dinkin
> Geoff Butler <ge...@gbutler.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> news:anenrkAa...@gbutler.demon.co.uk:
>
>> I don't know about that, but there was certainly a Virile young
>> Squirrel called Cyril.
>
> Is there a real accent in which all three of those rhyme?...I grew up
> with /'skwU r@l/,
<snip>
I said elsewhere in this thread that I say /'skwR @l/, but now I'm not
sure... /'skwU r@l/ looks right too.
Geoff Butler
Well, the poem is American:
A churl of a squirrel named Earl,
In an argument over a girl,
Was lambasted from here to the Tyrol
By a virile young squirrel named Cyril.
For me, the rhyming sets are
{churl, Earl, girl}
{Tyrol, squirrel, Cyril}
{virile}
(can you have a rhyming set of cardinality one?)
-ler
Aaron J. Dinkin
> Aaron J. Dinkin <a...@post.harvard.edu> wrote
>>On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:25:30 +0100, Geoff Butler <ge...@gbutler.demon.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know about that, but there was certainly a Virile young
>>> Squirrel called Cyril.
>>
>>Ooh! A pronunciation thread!
>>
>>I don't pronounce "squirrel" to rhyme with "virile" or "Cyril". It's
>>/'skwR@l/, with the same vowel in the first syllable as in (my
>>dialect's) "squirt" or "furry". Is this merely a pondian difference or
>>is it something more complicated?
>
> Well, the poem is American:
>
> A churl of a squirrel named Earl,
> In an argument over a girl,
> Was lambasted from here to the Tyrol
> By a virile young squirrel named Cyril.
Hm. So the churlish squirrel has an American-sounding name (are there
a lot of people named Earl in Britain?) and a typically American
pronunciation of the word "squirrel", while the eventually victorious
one has an English-sounding name and an English pronunciation of
"squirrel". Is this trying to send a message of some sort?
This American pronunciation of "squirrel" doesn't agree with my own,
either - I say /'skw@ r@l/ (or something like it) with two syllables. Come
to think of it, if I used the English pronunciation of "squirrel", it
wouldn't rhyme with "Cyril" either - I say "Cyril" with /i/ but I find I'd
rather say "squirrel" with /I/ than with /i/.
> For me, the rhyming sets are
> {churl, Earl, girl}
> {Tyrol, squirrel, Cyril}
> {virile}
> (can you have a rhyming set of cardinality one?)
Why not? The empty set is a rhyming set too.
R H Draney
>
>For me, the rhyming sets are
> {churl, Earl, girl}
> {Tyrol, squirrel, Cyril}
> {virile}
As reported earlier, I *think* I say /'skwU r@l/, but looking at your list a
strong case could be made for a monosyllabic pronunciation (putting it in with
"churl" et alia)...we didn't have the creatures where I grew up, so whatever I
learned would have come by way of transplanted Red River Valley speakers....
>(can you have a rhyming set of cardinality one?)
Sure...but can the null set be said to rhyme?...r
Fred Galvin
> Well, the poem is American:
>
> A churl of a squirrel named Earl,
> In an argument over a girl,
> Was lambasted from here to the Tyrol
> By a virile young squirrel named Cyril.
No, it's the other way around, Earl beats up on Cyril. The poem is by
Ogden Nash; you can find it on p. 299 of his collection _Many Long
Years Ago_.
THE SQUIRREL
A squirrel to some is a squirrel,
To others, a squirrel's a squirl.
Since freedom of speech is the birthright of each,
I can only this fable unfurl:
A virile young squirrel named Cyril,
In an argument over a girl,
Was lambasted from here to the Tyrol
By a churl of a squirl named Earl.
Aaron J. Dinkin
> In article <kD4oCJAD...@gbutler.demon.co.uk>, Geoff says...
>
>>(can you have a rhyming set of cardinality one?)
>
> Sure...but can the null set be said to rhyme?...r
Certainly: it's a set satisfying (x)(y)((xeS&yeS)->R(x,y)), where S is the
set in question, e is the "element" relation, and R is the "rhyming"
relation. Any element of the null set rhymes with any other element of the
null set.
Robert Bannister
Squirrel and Cyril are near enough rhymes for me, but not virile.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
I think it must be pondian or at least a rhotic thing. Don't some Americans say
'squirl'?
--
Rob Bannister
Mike Barnes
>The empty set is a rhyming set too.
I'm reminded of the Mike Batt - John Cage case. Does anyone else think
that this is on the crazy side of ridiculous?
Quoting <http://www.ananova.com/entertainment/story/sm_631388.html>:
Mike Batt is reportedly being sued for releasing a song that is nothing
but silence.
The one-time Wombles star recorded A One Minute Silence with his new
band The Planets.
But lawyers claim it sounds just like a 50-year-old piece by the late US
composer John Cage.
Cage's song 4'33" was also totally silent, apart from the audience's
coughs and the rustle of crisp packets.
Nicholas Riddle, director of the firm that owns the copyright to Cage's
music, told The Sun: "John always said the duration of his piece may be
changed, so The Planets' piece doesn't escape by virtue of its shorter
length."
He vowed to take Batt to court over royalties to the song.
But Batt, who says his silence is different to Cage's because it's
digitally recorded, said: "Has the world gone mad? I'm prepared to do
time rather than pay out. We are talking as much as £100,000 in
copyright.
"Mine is a much better silent piece. I have been able to say in one
minute what Cage could only say in four minutes and 33 seconds."
--
Mike Barnes
R H Draney
I agree completely, but schtum or you'll have T Max Devlin back in here....r
Geoff Butler
>On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18:32:51 +0100, Geoff Butler <ge...@gbutler.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> Aaron J. Dinkin <a...@post.harvard.edu> wrote
>>>On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:25:30 +0100, Geoff Butler <ge...@gbutler.demon.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't know about that, but there was certainly a Virile young
>>>> Squirrel called Cyril.
>>>
>>>Ooh! A pronunciation thread!
>>>
>>>I don't pronounce "squirrel" to rhyme with "virile" or "Cyril". It's
>>>/'skwR@l/, with the same vowel in the first syllable as in (my
>>>dialect's) "squirt" or "furry". Is this merely a pondian difference or
>>>is it something more complicated?
>>
>> Well, the poem is American:
>>
>> A churl of a squirrel named Earl,
>> In an argument over a girl,
>> Was lambasted from here to the Tyrol
>> By a virile young squirrel named Cyril.
>
>Hm. So the churlish squirrel has an American-sounding name (are there
>a lot of people named Earl in Britain?) and a typically American
>pronunciation of the word "squirrel", while the eventually victorious
>one has an English-sounding name and an English pronunciation of
>"squirrel". Is this trying to send a message of some sort?
I don't think so, because the pronunciation of 'virile' doesn't have a
schwa in English English. I don't recall any examples of Ogden Nash
playing that sort of game, either.
-ler
John Holmes
"Aaron J. Dinkin" <a...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:qkgZ8.568054$cQ3.53027@sccrnsc01...
Isn't there an Arabic name something like Chairil (starting with the /x/
sound)? Any connection?
--
Regards
John
Ben Zimmer
I believe the name "Khairil" derives from "khair" (root: kh-y-r) meaning
"good; best", as used in a line in the call to prayer: "Hayya 'alaa
khair-il 'amal" ("Hasten towards the best of deeds"). The "-il" is the
genitive case marker "-i" joined with the definite article "al"
modifying the following word, so "khair-il" could be translated as "the
best of..." (Compare "Abdul", from "'abd-ul" meaning "servant of...")
--Ben
Richard Fontana
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Geoff Butler wrote:
I have:
{churl, Earl, girl} /Rl/
{virile, Cyril} /ir@l/
"Squirrel" is two syllables, /skwR @l/.
Geoff Butler
To demonstrate:
There once was a man from Tralee
Who was stung on the nose by a wasp
When they asked "Did it buzz?"
He replied "Yes it did!"
"Thank goodness is wasn't a hornet."
which rhymes using elements of such a null rhyming set.
For completeness,
Can curl, can't swim: Stickly prickly, that's him.
Can't curl, can swim: Slow stolid, that's him.
which takes a bit of reformatting to make it rhyme using members of a
rhyming set of cardinality one.
-ler
Fred Galvin
> There once was a man from Tralee
> Who was stung on the nose by a wasp
> When they asked "Did it buzz?"
> He replied "Yes it did!"
> "Thank goodness is wasn't a hornet."
There was an old man of St. Bees,
Who was stung in the arm by a Wasp.
When asked, "Does it hurt?"
He replied, "No, it doesn't;
I'm _so_ glad that it wasn't a Hornet."
--W. S. Gilbert
Geoff Butler
Well, what can I say. You're right, of course, now that I've looked it
up. I don't own _Many Long Years Ago_, and I wanted to look it up for
myself. The trouble is, the search facilities in these book things
aren't up to modern standards, and scanning a dozen or so Ogden Nash
paperbacks tends to lead to rather a lot of sidetracks. I eventually
found it in _Family Reunion_, which was last (leftmost) in the search
order.
-ler
Fred Galvin
> Well, what can I say. You're right, of course, [...]
Professor Twist could not but smile.