From: unruh@invalid.ca
On 2012-05-20, Adam wrote:
> unruh wrote:
>> On 2012-05-19, Adam wrote:
>>> Wolfgang Schelongowski wrote:
>
>
> I didn't think any of the sounds of ? ? ? ? ? occurred in English,
> not anywhere in the English-speaking world. I know that usually in
> English they're represented by a following "e", as in M?ller becomes
> Mueller, with the exception of the name that started this discussion
> where Heinrich B?ll becomes simply Boll.
No, that is in German that the e gets added and also to Boell. I believe
that the, say, ue for u umlaut is the original form for it, and the double
dots is more recent but am not completely sure.
>
>> And the rolled r-- either gutteral or tongue tip.
>
> Are you referring to German? I gather the French rolled R is a
> gutteral which I can't pronounce, while the tongue tip rolled R
> makes me think of a Scottish burr.
Yes, it is in German. And both are used depending on the location.
>
> My acoustics professor said that after roughly age 18 or so, people
> lose the ability to pronounce new sounds, or to lose a local or
> regional accent.
Joe Wolfe in Australia is developing a technique for giving feedback for
speakers to allow them to shape their mouths properly for the "new
vowels" One looses the ability to hear the differences, not to form
them. Thus there are sounds in one language that a speaker in antoher
will simply not hear as different from sounds in their own language.
"No no, you need to say ..." "But that is exactly what I said!"
This is why Wolfe's techniques (measuring the formants on-line while the
speaker is speaker is speaking and giving feedback on where they lie) is
so useful.
>
>>> That reminds me of the English "less" and "fewer", where "fewer" is
>>> only used for things that can be counted (AFAIK).
>>
>> Yes, and less should not be used for those-- it is for continuous
>> quantities (water and time are less, and people and ants are fewer).
>
> I stand corrected. As a native English-speaker (USA variety), I
> generally don't consciously think about which forms to use when I
> speak or write. I understand time is "less", but what about minutes
> or other specific units of time? Tonight it took me 35 minutes to
The water is divisible. But it gets tough. Do our take fewer than 30
minutes, or less than 30 min. Both could be defended, the former is you
are emphasising the number of minuts, the latter the time.
> drive somewhere, but only 30 to drive back. That is five minutes
> [less/fewer?]. Hmmm... I'd say "less". My hunch is that in a
If you are emphasising the time it is less. If you are emphasising the
number of minutes, then fewer.
> century or two the distinction will have disappeared from common usage.
Possibly. But it has survived huge changes in language in the past.
>
>>>> Now it's even worse due to women's lib and political correctness.
>>>> Generic terms are usually of male gender, so PC-speak appends
>>>> In (sing.) / Innen (pl.). I usually call such GutmenschInnen
>>
>> Or plural. In English the use of the plural to designate the
>> indeterminate singular apparently goes back to the at least the 17th
>> century. (their for his/her for example).
>
> But a plural pronoun for a singular object? "Each student should
> put their assignment on my desk" doesn't sound right to me. Does
> the King James bible (early 17th c.) do that?
Sounds fine to me.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
>
> Adam
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
