Discussion:
I'm All About My Bed
(too old to reply)
Mack A. Damia
2017-09-24 15:39:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?

Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.

Here:


Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-09-24 16:12:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 08:39:47 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
At least she uses "literally" correctly.

As for "I'm 'all about' my bed" I guess it is the second sense here:
http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/be-all-about

be all about
verb

to devote a significant amount of one's time too.

I'm all about sports right now.


to be extremely enthusiastic for.

I'm all about sports.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Ross
2017-09-24 20:51:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 08:39:47 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
At least she uses "literally" correctly.
http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/be-all-about
be all about
verb
to devote a significant amount of one's time too.
I'm all about sports right now.
to be extremely enthusiastic for.
I'm all about sports.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Yes, this is everywhere now. Irritates me too.

"X is all about Y"

= Originally the subject was a book/story/movie. "The main theme/content is..."

Pride and Prejudice is all about love.

Gone with the Wind is all about a southern belle who is having an affair and all of the controversy that comes along with that.

Mitchell often said that Gone With The Wind is all about survival.

= Then any sort of activity or institution. "The essential point/purpose/feature is..."

Tinder is all about instant attraction, focusing on looks and quick get-togethers.

Playing badminton is all about speed.

The FBI is all about bureaucracy...

= Finally, people. This is where I get off.
Snidely
2017-09-25 06:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
Vocal fry?

/dps
--
"What do you think of my cart, Miss Morland? A neat one, is not it?
Well hung: curricle-hung in fact. Come sit by me and we'll test the
springs."
(Speculative fiction by H.Lacedaemonian.)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-09-25 10:01:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
Vocal fry?
/dps
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/vocal_fry

A way of speaking in which the voice is very low-pitched and has a
characteristic rough or creaking sound.

Origin

1960s: apparently from the association of the characteristic sound
with that of frying food.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Paul Carmichael
2017-09-25 10:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Snidely
Vocal fry?
/dps
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/vocal_fry
A way of speaking in which the voice is very low-pitched and has a
characteristic rough or creaking sound.
Origin
1960s: apparently from the association of the characteristic sound
with that of frying food.
Don't know if it's supposed to sound sexy, but to me she sounds like she smokes a lot.
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org
Mack A. Damia
2017-09-25 15:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:14:08 +0200, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Snidely
Vocal fry?
/dps
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/vocal_fry
A way of speaking in which the voice is very low-pitched and has a
characteristic rough or creaking sound.
Origin
1960s: apparently from the association of the characteristic sound
with that of frying food.
Don't know if it's supposed to sound sexy, but to me she sounds like she smokes a lot.
I take it that it has to be learned, although I am not quite certain
how.

I have read up on it, because it annoys me when I hear it. It is
certainly an affectation, and those who practice the sound think that
it elevates them to a higher status. The habit of employing vocal fry
has only developed over the past couple of decades.

I believe Kim Kardashian is often mentioned in the context of "vocal
fry".
Peter Moylan
2017-09-25 13:05:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
Vocal fry?
Like having a frog in your throat, except with fish instead of a frog.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Mack A. Damia
2017-09-26 22:34:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 23:05:13 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Snidely
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
Vocal fry?
Like having a frog in your throat, except with fish instead of a frog.
I think it is an symptom of narcissism.

Listen to Kim Kardashian.....



Sorry if this gives you nightmares.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-09-27 06:03:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 23:05:13 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Snidely
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
Vocal fry?
Like having a frog in your throat, except with fish instead of a frog.
I think it is an symptom of narcissism.
Listen to Kim Kardashian.....
I'd rather not.
Post by Mack A. Damia
http://youtu.be/R8mcBdBL-t0
Sorry if this gives you nightmares.
--
athel
Snidely
2017-09-29 06:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Snidely
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
Vocal fry?
Like having a frog in your throat, except with fish instead of a frog.
And the girl (er, young woman) on that commercial's sound track sounds
like that? Seemed a pretty normal voice to me.

/dps
--
Trust, but verify.
Quinn C
2017-09-25 16:54:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
As others have said, "being all about X" is overused these days. I
find it mildly annoying, a little less than e.g. "best X ever", a
verdict that may easily last hours.
Post by Mack A. Damia
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
I hope you're not one of those apparently many people who abhor
vocal fry specifically in women, and often don't even notice it in
men.
--
In the old days, the complaints about the passing of the
golden age were much more sophisticated.
-- James Hogg in alt.usage.english
Peter T. Daniels
2017-09-25 17:05:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
As others have said, "being all about X" is overused these days. I
find it mildly annoying, a little less than e.g. "best X ever", a
verdict that may easily last hours.
Post by Mack A. Damia
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
I hope you're not one of those apparently many people who abhor
vocal fry specifically in women, and often don't even notice it in
men.
He seems like the type who would admire Henry Kissinger.
RH Draney
2017-09-25 21:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Mack A. Damia
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
I hope you're not one of those apparently many people who abhor
vocal fry specifically in women, and often don't even notice it in
men.
It was a long time before I recognized what people were talking about,
back when it was called "creaky voice"...over the weekend I watched a
documentary on Amazon Prime called "Something to Scream About",
featuring interviews with a dozen or more "scream queens"...one of them
(I think it was Debbie Rochon, but they only identified each actress
once and I don't feel like watching it again to check) sounded like
she'd been gargling with sand....r
Mack A. Damia
2017-09-25 22:58:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:54:10 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
As others have said, "being all about X" is overused these days. I
find it mildly annoying, a little less than e.g. "best X ever", a
verdict that may easily last hours.
Post by Mack A. Damia
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
I hope you're not one of those apparently many people who abhor
vocal fry specifically in women, and often don't even notice it in
men.
It is not as apparent in men because men usually have a low, creaky
voice to begin with. Also, it sounds much more natural in men.

I am not certain how females acquire it; I mean, do they practice?

I have tried to imitate the sound but cannot.
RH Draney
2017-09-26 06:25:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Vocal fry] is not as apparent in men because men usually have a low, creaky
voice to begin with.
Speak for yourself...I sound like Gary Owens in his prime....r
Mack A. Damia
2017-09-26 15:00:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
[Vocal fry] is not as apparent in men because men usually have a low, creaky
voice to begin with.
Speak for yourself...I sound like Gary Owens in his prime....r
So they haven't descended yet?
Peter T. Daniels
2017-09-26 15:05:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by RH Draney
[Vocal fry] is not as apparent in men because men usually have a low, creaky
voice to begin with.
Speak for yourself...I sound like Gary Owens in his prime....r
So they haven't descended yet?
Wrong Gary.
Quinn C
2017-09-27 18:49:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:54:10 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
As others have said, "being all about X" is overused these days. I
find it mildly annoying, a little less than e.g. "best X ever", a
verdict that may easily last hours.
Post by Mack A. Damia
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
I hope you're not one of those apparently many people who abhor
vocal fry specifically in women, and often don't even notice it in
men.
It is not as apparent in men because men usually have a low, creaky
voice to begin with. Also, it sounds much more natural in men.
I do notice it in men, but I thought it's a young people
phenomenon, only to be told that's not true either. Maybe I don't
notice it as much with older people, because they tend to have
lower and rougher voices.
Post by Mack A. Damia
I am not certain how females acquire it; I mean, do they practice?
I have tried to imitate the sound but cannot.
You were probably trying too hard. The phenomenon is one of
extreme relaxation. Still, it happens to me sometimes when I'm not
sure what to say - instead of going tense, apparently my brain
sends mixed signals to the vocal chords (speak? don't speak?)
--
Pentiums melt in your PC, not in your hand.
Mack A. Damia
2017-09-27 19:20:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 14:49:49 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:54:10 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
As others have said, "being all about X" is overused these days. I
find it mildly annoying, a little less than e.g. "best X ever", a
verdict that may easily last hours.
Post by Mack A. Damia
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
I hope you're not one of those apparently many people who abhor
vocal fry specifically in women, and often don't even notice it in
men.
It is not as apparent in men because men usually have a low, creaky
voice to begin with. Also, it sounds much more natural in men.
I do notice it in men, but I thought it's a young people
phenomenon, only to be told that's not true either. Maybe I don't
notice it as much with older people, because they tend to have
lower and rougher voices.
Post by Mack A. Damia
I am not certain how females acquire it; I mean, do they practice?
I have tried to imitate the sound but cannot.
You were probably trying too hard. The phenomenon is one of
extreme relaxation. Still, it happens to me sometimes when I'm not
sure what to say - instead of going tense, apparently my brain
sends mixed signals to the vocal chords (speak? don't speak?)
I agree with what you say, but the "vocal fry" I am referring to that
is apparent in the clip I posted is devised and rehearsed.

Everybody - or most people of both genders - has a "creaky voice" at
certain times - especially smokers, perhaps if you are tired and maybe
older folks. I think the "vocal fry" of relatively younger women is
something other than that.
Wayne Brown
2017-09-26 20:56:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
As others have said, "being all about X" is overused these days. I
find it mildly annoying, a little less than e.g. "best X ever", a
verdict that may easily last hours.
Post by Mack A. Damia
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
I hope you're not one of those apparently many people who abhor
vocal fry specifically in women, and often don't even notice it in
men.
How would we know we are one of those if we don't notice it? But in
any case, what would be wrong with that? The sounds would presumably
be different so I could imagine some liking one sound but abhoring
the other. However, I can't imagine myself liking either.
--
F. Wayne Brown <***@bellsouth.net>

ur sag9-ga ur-tur-še3 ba-an-kur9
"A dog that is played with turns into a puppy." (Sumerian proverb)
Mack A. Damia
2017-09-26 21:51:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 20:56:08 -0000 (UTC), Wayne Brown
Post by Wayne Brown
Post by Quinn C
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
As others have said, "being all about X" is overused these days. I
find it mildly annoying, a little less than e.g. "best X ever", a
verdict that may easily last hours.
Post by Mack A. Damia
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
I hope you're not one of those apparently many people who abhor
vocal fry specifically in women, and often don't even notice it in
men.
How would we know we are one of those if we don't notice it? But in
any case, what would be wrong with that? The sounds would presumably
be different so I could imagine some liking one sound but abhoring
the other. However, I can't imagine myself liking either.
Who would have thought that Henry Kissinger would be such a big
influence on a whole new generation of women?
Quinn C
2017-09-27 18:49:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wayne Brown
Post by Quinn C
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
As others have said, "being all about X" is overused these days. I
find it mildly annoying, a little less than e.g. "best X ever", a
verdict that may easily last hours.
Post by Mack A. Damia
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
I hope you're not one of those apparently many people who abhor
vocal fry specifically in women, and often don't even notice it in
men.
How would we know we are one of those if we don't notice it?
Well, now that I pointed out this possibility, you could pay more
attention and find out.
Post by Wayne Brown
But in
any case, what would be wrong with that?
You may not have noticed, but there was a whole conversation on
about how women who speak in public, whether they are TV and radio
personalities, politicians, YouTubers or podcasters, get
criticized for their voices much more often than men. Sometimes
they get criticized for things that are more typical for female
voices - like being "shrill" -, but sometimes for things that
aren't gender-specific, like vocal fry, for which men don't get
criticized.

There is a suspicion that at least part of this imbalance is due
to listeners being uncomfortable with women voicing opinions in
public.
Post by Wayne Brown
The sounds would presumably
be different so I could imagine some liking one sound but abhoring
the other.
Like liking men wearing pants, but abhorring women who do so?
These judgments are not always purely aesthetic.
--
*Multitasking* /v./ Screwing up several things at once
David Kleinecke
2017-09-27 21:29:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Like liking men wearing pants, but abhorring women who do so?
These judgments are not always purely aesthetic.
And from a purely logical POV women should pants and men skirts.
Because codpieces,
RH Draney
2017-09-27 22:19:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Quinn C
Like liking men wearing pants, but abhorring women who do so?
These judgments are not always purely aesthetic.
And from a purely logical POV women should pants and men skirts.
Because codpieces,
How come it's the "boy's" bicycle that has the crotch-threatening bar
atop the frame?...r
Mack A. Damia
2017-09-27 23:37:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Quinn C
Like liking men wearing pants, but abhorring women who do so?
These judgments are not always purely aesthetic.
And from a purely logical POV women should pants and men skirts.
Because codpieces,
How come it's the "boy's" bicycle that has the crotch-threatening bar
atop the frame?...r
The leg-over mount by the girls would reveal intimate secrets.
J. J. Lodder
2017-09-28 07:54:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by RH Draney
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Quinn C
Like liking men wearing pants, but abhorring women who do so?
These judgments are not always purely aesthetic.
And from a purely logical POV women should pants and men skirts.
Because codpieces,
How come it's the "boy's" bicycle that has the crotch-threatening bar
atop the frame?...r
The leg-over mount by the girls would reveal intimate secrets.
Apart from it being just not possible with a skirt on.
It gets stuck on the wrong side of the saddle.

Don't even think of trying it,

Jan
Mack A. Damia
2017-09-28 16:21:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by RH Draney
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Quinn C
Like liking men wearing pants, but abhorring women who do so?
These judgments are not always purely aesthetic.
And from a purely logical POV women should pants and men skirts.
Because codpieces,
How come it's the "boy's" bicycle that has the crotch-threatening bar
atop the frame?...r
The leg-over mount by the girls would reveal intimate secrets.
Apart from it being just not possible with a skirt on.
It gets stuck on the wrong side of the saddle.
Don't even think of trying it,
I could do it in a kilt. No problem.
J. J. Lodder
2017-09-29 10:20:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by RH Draney
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Quinn C
Like liking men wearing pants, but abhorring women who do so?
These judgments are not always purely aesthetic.
And from a purely logical POV women should pants and men skirts.
Because codpieces,
How come it's the "boy's" bicycle that has the crotch-threatening bar
atop the frame?...r
The leg-over mount by the girls would reveal intimate secrets.
Apart from it being just not possible with a skirt on.
It gets stuck on the wrong side of the saddle.
Don't even think of trying it,
I could do it in a kilt. No problem.
Even with a mini skirt it is still a problem.
You need one hand to move the skirt over,
or you end up sitting on it.
(and you have to stand on the pedals to liberate it)

Another Dutch invention that the English don't seem to have
is the 'rokzadel' (lit. skirt saddle)
It is a more or less circular saddle, no protruding point.
While still providing adequate support
for the tender points of the female anatomy
it makes getting on and off whle wearing skirts easy,

Jan

BTW, the bicycle cross bar as the ultimate male suprematist symbol
is set to go.
Statistics show that it is dangerous.
Especially with the elderly on ebikes
it leads to more, and more severe accidents.
Modern design and construction methods
makes adequate strength of the frame without it possible.
Mack A. Damia
2017-09-29 11:57:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by RH Draney
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Quinn C
Like liking men wearing pants, but abhorring women who do so?
These judgments are not always purely aesthetic.
And from a purely logical POV women should pants and men skirts.
Because codpieces,
How come it's the "boy's" bicycle that has the crotch-threatening bar
atop the frame?...r
The leg-over mount by the girls would reveal intimate secrets.
Apart from it being just not possible with a skirt on.
It gets stuck on the wrong side of the saddle.
Don't even think of trying it,
I could do it in a kilt. No problem.
Even with a mini skirt it is still a problem.
You need one hand to move the skirt over,
or you end up sitting on it.
(and you have to stand on the pedals to liberate it)
I never said it's going to be a pretty sight.
Post by J. J. Lodder
Another Dutch invention that the English don't seem to have
is the 'rokzadel' (lit. skirt saddle)
It is a more or less circular saddle, no protruding point.
While still providing adequate support
for the tender points of the female anatomy
it makes getting on and off whle wearing skirts easy,
Don't know how a circular saddle would make any difference.
Post by J. J. Lodder
BTW, the bicycle cross bar as the ultimate male suprematist symbol
is set to go.
Statistics show that it is dangerous.
Especially with the elderly on ebikes
it leads to more, and more severe accidents.
Modern design and construction methods
makes adequate strength of the frame without it possible.
I remember extreme anguish a few times after crashing and crotching
the bar.
Quinn C
2017-09-29 22:54:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by J. J. Lodder
Another Dutch invention that the English don't seem to have
is the 'rokzadel' (lit. skirt saddle)
It is a more or less circular saddle, no protruding point.
While still providing adequate support
for the tender points of the female anatomy
it makes getting on and off whle wearing skirts easy,
Don't know how a circular saddle would make any difference.
I think this helps not so much with the leg-swinging approach to
the saddle, where you enter from the back, but especially with the
step-through approach, where the skirt is likely to get caught by
the front "nose", the most protruding part.
--
If you kill one person, you go to jail; if you kill 20, you go
to an institution for the insane; if you kill 20,000, you get
political asylum. -- Reed Brody, special counsel
for prosecutions at Human Rights Watch
Quinn C
2017-09-29 23:44:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by J. J. Lodder
Another Dutch invention that the English don't seem to have
is the 'rokzadel' (lit. skirt saddle)
It is a more or less circular saddle, no protruding point.
While still providing adequate support
for the tender points of the female anatomy
it makes getting on and off whle wearing skirts easy,
Don't know how a circular saddle would make any difference.
I think this helps not so much with the leg-swinging approach to
the saddle, where you enter from the back, but especially with the
step-through approach, where the skirt is likely to get caught by
the front "nose", the most protruding part.
I had never heard a name like "skirt saddle", but I've seen
roundish ones in shops, like these:
<http://www.bicycleseats.com/contour-bicycle-seat.html>

Not even marketed particularly to women.
--
The trouble some people have being German, I thought,
I have being human.
-- Margaret Atwood, Surfacing (novel), p.130
Quinn C
2017-09-29 23:33:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
BTW, the bicycle cross bar as the ultimate male suprematist symbol
is set to go.
Statistics show that it is dangerous.
Especially with the elderly on ebikes
it leads to more, and more severe accidents.
Modern design and construction methods
makes adequate strength of the frame without it possible.
What we used to call "Dutch bicycle" in Germany often had an
extremely low entry point, where the two bars go horizontal for a
bit before suddenly curving upwards.
<Loading Image...>

My Japanese girlfriend had one like that (in Germany), and
insisted it was the only type she's comfortable with, and that
this was normal for a Japanese woman. I sometimes borrowed that
bicycle and found it wobbly and hard to control in curves, but
also when starting. By the time, mine had a top bar, but I still
remembered my own 1970s women's bicycle hadn't been like that -
the lower bar had no curve at all, and the top bar only a short
horizontal bit and then an angle rather than a curve. It wasn't
nearly as wobbly.
<Loading Image...>

When I came to live in Japan 10 years later, I found that everyday
bicycles (as opposed to sports-oriented ones) rarely had a high
top bar, but many had the frame style as my bicycle, not the
curved style.

What's now sold as "Hollandrad" mostly seems to have this shape
with an overall gentle curve, so I guess that's considered
superior:
<Loading Image...>
--
It gets hot in Raleigh, but Texas! I don't know why anybody
lives here, honestly.
-- Robert C. Wilson, Vortex (novel), p.220
s***@gmail.com
2017-09-29 23:52:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
What we used to call "Dutch bicycle" in Germany often had an
extremely low entry point, where the two bars go horizontal for a
bit before suddenly curving upwards.
<https://www.greenbike-shop.de/out/pictures/master/product/1/hollandrad_26_zoll_damen_lila.jpg>
My Japanese girlfriend had one like that (in Germany), and
insisted it was the only type she's comfortable with, and that
this was normal for a Japanese woman. I sometimes borrowed that
bicycle and found it wobbly and hard to control in curves, but
also when starting. By the time, mine had a top bar, but I still
remembered my own 1970s women's bicycle hadn't been like that -
the lower bar had no curve at all, and the top bar only a short
horizontal bit and then an angle rather than a curve. It wasn't
nearly as wobbly.
<http://www.fahrrad-discount.net/documents/image/25/2501/vintage-ladies-7-speed-classic-cb0.jpg>
By wobbly, do you mean steering or flexing?

Directional stability in bicycles is affected by how far in front
the front wheel is (as determined in the late '60s when
"chopper" bikes copied "chopper" motorcycles).

I have a full-size folding bike. a slightly older version of
<URL:Loading Image...>
and the combination of somewhat straight fork and compactness
make the wheelbase noticeably shorter than my old Gitane
("classic 10-speed")
and it requires more attention to balance.

I have no issues with flexing.

/dps
Quinn C
2017-10-01 03:31:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Quinn C
What we used to call "Dutch bicycle" in Germany often had an
extremely low entry point, where the two bars go horizontal for a
bit before suddenly curving upwards.
<https://www.greenbike-shop.de/out/pictures/master/product/1/hollandrad_26_zoll_damen_lila.jpg>
My Japanese girlfriend had one like that (in Germany), and
insisted it was the only type she's comfortable with, and that
this was normal for a Japanese woman. I sometimes borrowed that
bicycle and found it wobbly and hard to control in curves, but
also when starting. By the time, mine had a top bar, but I still
remembered my own 1970s women's bicycle hadn't been like that -
the lower bar had no curve at all, and the top bar only a short
horizontal bit and then an angle rather than a curve. It wasn't
nearly as wobbly.
<http://www.fahrrad-discount.net/documents/image/25/2501/vintage-ladies-7-speed-classic-cb0.jpg>
By wobbly, do you mean steering or flexing?
Directional stability in bicycles is affected by how far in front
the front wheel is (as determined in the late '60s when
"chopper" bikes copied "chopper" motorcycles).
I mean steering - in curves, it was difficult to be precise, and
there was a danger of the pedals touching the ground, and when
starting, it was hard to keep it straight.

I don't know what flexing means in this context.

Part of the issue with steering was probably the length from the
front wheel hub to the handlebar, longer than I was used to, and
on top of that, the curved shape of the handlebar, which I never
had on any of my bicycles.
Post by s***@gmail.com
I have a full-size folding bike. a slightly older version of
<URL:https://www.montaguebikes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/CROSSTOWN-DC-Open-Final-2.jpg>
and the combination of somewhat straight fork and compactness
make the wheelbase noticeably shorter than my old Gitane
("classic 10-speed")
and it requires more attention to balance.
I have no issues with flexing.
/dps
--
Failover worked - the system failed, then it was over.
(freely translated from a remark by Dietz Proepper
in de.alt.sysadmin.recovery)
J. J. Lodder
2017-09-30 11:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by J. J. Lodder
BTW, the bicycle cross bar as the ultimate male suprematist symbol
is set to go.
Statistics show that it is dangerous.
Especially with the elderly on ebikes
it leads to more, and more severe accidents.
Modern design and construction methods
makes adequate strength of the frame without it possible.
What we used to call "Dutch bicycle" in Germany often had an
extremely low entry point, where the two bars go horizontal for a
bit before suddenly curving upwards.
<https://www.greenbike-shop.de/out/pictures/master/product/1/hollandrad_26_zol
l_damen_lila.jpg>

An 'omafiets' in Dutch. (lit. grandma bicycle)
The classic model is black, no gears, and has big 28" wheels
with broad tires suitable for load carrying.
It is an originally English design.
Like this one
<https://www.fietsenwinkel.nl/media/catalog/product/cache/0/small_image/
427x338/163b81649b7ef7bc8a00b0066e59ae0a/c/l/classic-zwart.jpg>
Dutch manufacturing didn't take off untill late 19th century.
[snip]

Also proverbial in Dutch btw for dealing with obnoxious Germans:
'Maar eerst oma's fiets terug!" (before we agree to do anything else)
(lit. Give my grandmother's bicycle back first!)

It originated in 1944-45, when occupying German soldiers
made themselves even more hated than they already were
by stealing all the bicycles they could lay their hands on,
sometimes by brute force,

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2017-09-30 13:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
What we used to call "Dutch bicycle" in Germany often had an
extremely low entry point, where the two bars go horizontal for a
bit before suddenly curving upwards.
<https://www.greenbike-shop.de/out/pictures/master/product/1/hollandrad_26_zol
l_damen_lila.jpg>
An 'omafiets' in Dutch. (lit. grandma bicycle)
The classic model is black, no gears, and has big 28" wheels
No gears at all? The pedals do not seem to be attached to the axle of either
of the wheels.
Post by Quinn C
with broad tires suitable for load carrying.
It is an originally English design.
Like this one
<https://www.fietsenwinkel.nl/media/catalog/product/cache/0/small_image/
427x338/163b81649b7ef7bc8a00b0066e59ae0a/c/l/classic-zwart.jpg>
Dutch manufacturing didn't take off untill late 19th century.
Quinn C
2017-10-01 03:22:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
What we used to call "Dutch bicycle" in Germany often had an
extremely low entry point, where the two bars go horizontal for a
bit before suddenly curving upwards.
<https://www.greenbike-shop.de/out/pictures/master/product/1/hollandrad_26_zol
l_damen_lila.jpg>
An 'omafiets' in Dutch. (lit. grandma bicycle)
The classic model is black, no gears, and has big 28" wheels
No gears at all?
This type of bicycle will usually have an internal gear hub.
Classically with 3 gears, but these days, 5 to 7 gears are pretty
common, too.

They make a lot of sense for urban cycling, I'm annoyed that they
are so rare here. Our bike sharing bikes have a lot of those
"European" features: internal gear hub, covered chain, lights
powered by a dynamo in the hub, fenders, bell ... The ones in New
York should be pretty much the same.

<Loading Image...>
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The pedals do not seem to be attached to the axle of either
of the wheels.
Huh? The one in the picture only has a partially covered chain, so
the lower part of the chain was clearly visible. Other models will
have it completely encased:

<Loading Image...>
--
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to use
the 'Net and he won't bother you for weeks.
J. J. Lodder
2017-10-01 08:31:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
What we used to call "Dutch bicycle" in Germany often had an
extremely low entry point, where the two bars go horizontal for a
bit before suddenly curving upwards.
<https://www.greenbike-shop.de/out/pictures/master/product/1/hollandrad_26
_zol
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
l_damen_lila.jpg>
An 'omafiets' in Dutch. (lit. grandma bicycle)
The classic model is black, no gears, and has big 28" wheels
No gears at all?
This type of bicycle will usually have an internal gear hub.
Classically with 3 gears, but these days, 5 to 7 gears are pretty
common, too.
The classic Dutch 'omafiets' hasn't.
Gears are an add-on luxury.
The classic 3-speed Sturmey-Archer and Torpedo hubs
exist with a combined pedal brake.
The 'omafiets doesn't have hand brakes.

A modern reincarnation is the 'OV fiets'
<Loading Image...>
(OV from 'Openbaar Vervoer' E public transport)
Thousands of them are available for day rent at train stations.
You can make a reservation for one when buying a train ticket.
The French Velib is very similar in build,
<https://cliffleeparis.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/caracteristiques2520d
u2520velib.jpeg>
but it has the additional luxury of a three speed derailleur.
Post by Quinn C
They make a lot of sense for urban cycling, I'm annoyed that they
are so rare here. Our bike sharing bikes have a lot of those
"European" features: internal gear hub, covered chain, lights
powered by a dynamo in the hub, fenders, bell ... The ones in New
York should be pretty much the same.
The classic dynamo draws power from a tiny wheel
in contact with the side of the tyre.
They usually slipped on worn tires or in poor weather.
If you look for it you will probably find that the dynamo track
still exists on your tyres,

Jan
Tak To
2017-10-02 16:33:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
What we used to call "Dutch bicycle" in Germany often had an
extremely low entry point, where the two bars go horizontal for a
bit before suddenly curving upwards.
<https://www.greenbike-shop.de/out/pictures/master/product/1/hollandrad_26
_zol
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
l_damen_lila.jpg>
An 'omafiets' in Dutch. (lit. grandma bicycle)
The classic model is black, no gears, and has big 28" wheels
No gears at all?
This type of bicycle will usually have an internal gear hub.
Classically with 3 gears, but these days, 5 to 7 gears are pretty
common, too.
The classic Dutch 'omafiets' hasn't.
Gears are an add-on luxury.
The classic 3-speed Sturmey-Archer and Torpedo hubs
exist with a combined pedal brake.
The 'omafiets doesn't have hand brakes.
A modern reincarnation is the 'OV fiets'
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OV-Fiets_Utrecht.JPG>
(OV from 'Openbaar Vervoer' E public transport)
Thousands of them are available for day rent at train stations.
You can make a reservation for one when buying a train ticket.
The French Velib is very similar in build,
<https://cliffleeparis.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/caracteristiques2520d
u2520velib.jpeg>
but it has the additional luxury of a three speed derailleur.
and what seems like a front suspension.
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Quinn C
They make a lot of sense for urban cycling, I'm annoyed that they
are so rare here. Our bike sharing bikes have a lot of those
"European" features: internal gear hub, covered chain, lights
powered by a dynamo in the hub, fenders, bell ... The ones in New
York should be pretty much the same.
The classic dynamo draws power from a tiny wheel
in contact with the side of the tyre.
They usually slipped on worn tires or in poor weather.
If you look for it you will probably find that the dynamo track
still exists on your tyres,
Not on any of my bikes (US, 70s to now), but on my parents'
(China, 50s to 70s). They also had one of those features you
don't see anymore -- a pair of mounting points for a hand pump.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Quinn C
2017-10-02 17:05:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
What we used to call "Dutch bicycle" in Germany often had an
extremely low entry point, where the two bars go horizontal for a
bit before suddenly curving upwards.
<https://www.greenbike-shop.de/out/pictures/master/product/1/hollandrad_26
_zol
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
l_damen_lila.jpg>
An 'omafiets' in Dutch. (lit. grandma bicycle)
The classic model is black, no gears, and has big 28" wheels
No gears at all?
This type of bicycle will usually have an internal gear hub.
Classically with 3 gears, but these days, 5 to 7 gears are pretty
common, too.
The classic Dutch 'omafiets' hasn't.
Gears are an add-on luxury.
Agreed. I used "classically" with a perspective on my lifetime
only.

3 speeds were the norm in the 1970s in Germany. To my surprise, in
Japan in the late 1990s, they were still offering many one-speed
bicycles. That felt strange given that Shimano had almost driven
the German makers of gear changers out of the market. The prophet
seemed to have no honor in his own country.
Post by J. J. Lodder
The classic 3-speed Sturmey-Archer and Torpedo hubs
exist with a combined pedal brake.
The 'omafiets doesn't have hand brakes.
So only a single brake? I don't think that was street-legal in
Germany in my lifetime.
--
Bill Gates working as a waiter:
- Waiter, there's a fly in my soup
- Try again, maybe it won't be there this time
Paul Wolff
2017-10-02 19:26:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
What we used to call "Dutch bicycle" in Germany often had an
extremely low entry point, where the two bars go horizontal for a
bit before suddenly curving upwards.
<https://www.greenbike-shop.de/out/pictures/master/product/1/hollan
_zol
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
l_damen_lila.jpg>
An 'omafiets' in Dutch. (lit. grandma bicycle)
The classic model is black, no gears, and has big 28" wheels
No gears at all?
This type of bicycle will usually have an internal gear hub.
Classically with 3 gears, but these days, 5 to 7 gears are pretty
common, too.
The classic Dutch 'omafiets' hasn't.
Gears are an add-on luxury.
Agreed. I used "classically" with a perspective on my lifetime
only.
3 speeds were the norm in the 1970s in Germany. To my surprise, in
Japan in the late 1990s, they were still offering many one-speed
bicycles. That felt strange given that Shimano had almost driven
the German makers of gear changers out of the market. The prophet
seemed to have no honor in his own country.
Post by J. J. Lodder
The classic 3-speed Sturmey-Archer and Torpedo hubs
exist with a combined pedal brake.
The bike I rode in Germany in the early 1960s had a rear brake that
worked by back-pedalling, which was a surprise for a boy used to English
bikes and to casually turning the pedal crank backwards at odd times.
Post by Quinn C
Post by J. J. Lodder
The 'omafiets doesn't have hand brakes.
So only a single brake? I don't think that was street-legal in
Germany in my lifetime.
To the best of my memory, that bike I rode also had a hand-operated
front brake. Too fuzzy now to say if it used a Bowden cable, or a rod
linkage.
--
Paul
David Kleinecke
2017-10-02 19:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Quinn C
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
What we used to call "Dutch bicycle" in Germany often had an
extremely low entry point, where the two bars go horizontal for a
bit before suddenly curving upwards.
<https://www.greenbike-shop.de/out/pictures/master/product/1/hollan
_zol
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
l_damen_lila.jpg>
An 'omafiets' in Dutch. (lit. grandma bicycle)
The classic model is black, no gears, and has big 28" wheels
No gears at all?
This type of bicycle will usually have an internal gear hub.
Classically with 3 gears, but these days, 5 to 7 gears are pretty
common, too.
The classic Dutch 'omafiets' hasn't.
Gears are an add-on luxury.
Agreed. I used "classically" with a perspective on my lifetime
only.
3 speeds were the norm in the 1970s in Germany. To my surprise, in
Japan in the late 1990s, they were still offering many one-speed
bicycles. That felt strange given that Shimano had almost driven
the German makers of gear changers out of the market. The prophet
seemed to have no honor in his own country.
Post by J. J. Lodder
The classic 3-speed Sturmey-Archer and Torpedo hubs
exist with a combined pedal brake.
The bike I rode in Germany in the early 1960s had a rear brake that
worked by back-pedalling, which was a surprise for a boy used to English
bikes and to casually turning the pedal crank backwards at odd times.
My first bike was like that. The brake is called a
coaster brake meaning you pedal backwards to stop.

My father bought that bike second-hand in 1937 and I
kept using it through about 1950. I used the bike up
to the University in Berkeley, push the bike in bushes
outside Sather Gate and come back in the evening to
ride home again. Bikes were that out just after WW II.
Nobody bothered to steal it.

I got so used to the coaster brake way of doing things
that I was never comfortable with hand brakes and gears.
Ross
2017-10-02 21:53:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Quinn C
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
What we used to call "Dutch bicycle" in Germany often had an
extremely low entry point, where the two bars go horizontal for a
bit before suddenly curving upwards.
<https://www.greenbike-shop.de/out/pictures/master/product/1/hollan
_zol
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
l_damen_lila.jpg>
An 'omafiets' in Dutch. (lit. grandma bicycle)
The classic model is black, no gears, and has big 28" wheels
No gears at all?
This type of bicycle will usually have an internal gear hub.
Classically with 3 gears, but these days, 5 to 7 gears are pretty
common, too.
The classic Dutch 'omafiets' hasn't.
Gears are an add-on luxury.
Agreed. I used "classically" with a perspective on my lifetime
only.
3 speeds were the norm in the 1970s in Germany. To my surprise, in
Japan in the late 1990s, they were still offering many one-speed
bicycles. That felt strange given that Shimano had almost driven
the German makers of gear changers out of the market. The prophet
seemed to have no honor in his own country.
Post by J. J. Lodder
The classic 3-speed Sturmey-Archer and Torpedo hubs
exist with a combined pedal brake.
The bike I rode in Germany in the early 1960s had a rear brake that
worked by back-pedalling, which was a surprise for a boy used to English
bikes and to casually turning the pedal crank backwards at odd times.
My first bike was like that. The brake is called a
coaster brake meaning you pedal backwards to stop.
My father bought that bike second-hand in 1937 and I
kept using it through about 1950.
My first bike, too, except it was my mother who bought it
in the 1930s; so for a time I had to endure occasional
taunts about riding a "girl's bike". (She was from the
generation who, when they paid good money for something,
expected it to last at least one lifetime. I later wore
her ski boots for a while. Does that count as cross-dressing?)
Ken Blake
2017-10-02 20:44:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 20:26:30 +0100, Paul Wolff
Post by Paul Wolff
The bike I rode in Germany in the early 1960s had a rear brake that
worked by back-pedalling, which was a surprise for a boy used to English
bikes and to casually turning the pedal crank backwards at odd times.
I learned to ride a bicycle around 1948. I was terrible at it, hardly
ever did it, and promptly forgot how. But as far as I know, back then
all bicycles except for racing bicycles had a brake that worked as you
describe.
Quinn C
2017-10-02 21:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Quinn C
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
What we used to call "Dutch bicycle" in Germany often had an
extremely low entry point, where the two bars go horizontal for a
bit before suddenly curving upwards.
<https://www.greenbike-shop.de/out/pictures/master/product/1/hollan
_zol
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
l_damen_lila.jpg>
An 'omafiets' in Dutch. (lit. grandma bicycle)
The classic model is black, no gears, and has big 28" wheels
No gears at all?
This type of bicycle will usually have an internal gear hub.
Classically with 3 gears, but these days, 5 to 7 gears are pretty
common, too.
The classic Dutch 'omafiets' hasn't.
Gears are an add-on luxury.
Agreed. I used "classically" with a perspective on my lifetime
only.
3 speeds were the norm in the 1970s in Germany. To my surprise, in
Japan in the late 1990s, they were still offering many one-speed
bicycles. That felt strange given that Shimano had almost driven
the German makers of gear changers out of the market. The prophet
seemed to have no honor in his own country.
Post by J. J. Lodder
The classic 3-speed Sturmey-Archer and Torpedo hubs
exist with a combined pedal brake.
The bike I rode in Germany in the early 1960s had a rear brake that
worked by back-pedalling, which was a surprise for a boy used to English
bikes and to casually turning the pedal crank backwards at odd times.
Coaster brakes, a common combination with the gear hub. Recently
the two technologies are less linked since other brake types have
become more popular (drum brakes, disc brakes ...)
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Quinn C
Post by J. J. Lodder
The 'omafiets doesn't have hand brakes.
So only a single brake? I don't think that was street-legal in
Germany in my lifetime.
To the best of my memory, that bike I rode also had a hand-operated
front brake. Too fuzzy now to say if it used a Bowden cable, or a rod
linkage.
My 20" children's bike had a rod-activated brake that pressed the
brake pad down on the tire surface, not the rim. Not something you
want to use regularly:

<Loading Image...>
--
Smith & Wesson--the original point and click interface
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-01 12:44:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
What we used to call "Dutch bicycle" in Germany often had an
extremely low entry point, where the two bars go horizontal for a
bit before suddenly curving upwards.
<https://www.greenbike-shop.de/out/pictures/master/product/1/hollandrad_26_zol
l_damen_lila.jpg>
An 'omafiets' in Dutch. (lit. grandma bicycle)
The classic model is black, no gears, and has big 28" wheels
No gears at all?
This type of bicycle will usually have an internal gear hub.
Classically with 3 gears, but these days, 5 to 7 gears are pretty
common, too.
Um ... that was my point.
Post by Quinn C
They make a lot of sense for urban cycling, I'm annoyed that they
are so rare here. Our bike sharing bikes have a lot of those
"European" features: internal gear hub, covered chain, lights
powered by a dynamo in the hub, fenders, bell ... The ones in New
York should be pretty much the same.
<http://www.parcjeandrapeau.com/medias/images/header/bixi-parc-jean-drapeau-montreal.jpg>
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The pedals do not seem to be attached to the axle of either
of the wheels.
Huh? The one in the picture only has a partially covered chain, so
the lower part of the chain was clearly visible. Other models will
Um ... that was my point.
Post by Quinn C
<https://www.greenbike-shop.de/out/pictures/generated/product/1/540_340_100/rheinfels_hollandfahrrad_hellgruen.jpg>
Since JJ _just_ complained about people not using "scientific or technical"
diction, it seems inappropriate that he claimed that a bicycle had "no gears
at all" when it obviously has gears inside that casing. He meant the bicycle
had no shifting mechanism, or something like that.
J. J. Lodder
2017-10-01 08:31:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
What we used to call "Dutch bicycle" in Germany often had an
extremely low entry point, where the two bars go horizontal for a
bit before suddenly curving upwards.
<https://www.greenbike-shop.de/out/pictures/master/product/1/hollandrad_26
_zol
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
l_damen_lila.jpg>
An 'omafiets' in Dutch. (lit. grandma bicycle)
The classic model is black, no gears, and has big 28" wheels
No gears at all? The pedals do not seem to be attached to the axle of either
of the wheels.
'No gears' in this context means one speed.
You couldn't have guessed?

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-01 12:47:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
What we used to call "Dutch bicycle" in Germany often had an
extremely low entry point, where the two bars go horizontal for a
bit before suddenly curving upwards.
<https://www.greenbike-shop.de/out/pictures/master/product/1/hollandrad_26
_zol
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
l_damen_lila.jpg>
An 'omafiets' in Dutch. (lit. grandma bicycle)
The classic model is black, no gears, and has big 28" wheels
No gears at all? The pedals do not seem to be attached to the axle of either
of the wheels.
'No gears' in this context means one speed.
You couldn't have guessed?
You couldn't have expressed yourself in a "scientific or technical" manner,
instead of in a counterfactual manner?
J. J. Lodder
2017-10-01 21:11:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
What we used to call "Dutch bicycle" in Germany often had an
extremely low entry point, where the two bars go horizontal for a
bit before suddenly curving upwards.
<https://www.greenbike-shop.de/out/pictures/master/product/1/hollandra
d_26
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
_zol
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
l_damen_lila.jpg>
An 'omafiets' in Dutch. (lit. grandma bicycle)
The classic model is black, no gears, and has big 28" wheels
No gears at all? The pedals do not seem to be attached to the axle of
either of the wheels.
'No gears' in this context means one speed.
You couldn't have guessed?
You couldn't have expressed yourself in a "scientific or technical"
manner, instead of in a counterfactual manner?
That's just your complete technical incompetence playing up again.
Do Google on:
bicycle without gears or bicycle "no gears"
in Gooogle images and see what you get.
Suspiciously few high-wheelers,
lots of ordinary bicycles with a fixed gear ratio.
Some enthousiasts call them 'fixies'.

FYI: Ordinary Englishmen speak ordinary Enlish,
not your crazy idea of 'scientific or technically correct' English.

You never noticed that much of everyday English is quite counterfactual,
if interpreted with excessive literalness?

Jan
Tak To
2017-10-02 16:07:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by J. J. Lodder
BTW, the bicycle cross bar as the ultimate male suprematist symbol
is set to go.
Statistics show that it is dangerous.
Especially with the elderly on ebikes
it leads to more, and more severe accidents.
Modern design and construction methods
makes adequate strength of the frame without it possible.
What we used to call "Dutch bicycle" in Germany often had an
extremely low entry point, where the two bars go horizontal for a
bit before suddenly curving upwards.
<https://www.greenbike-shop.de/out/pictures/master/product/1/hollandrad_26_zoll_damen_lila.jpg>
My Japanese girlfriend had one like that (in Germany), and
insisted it was the only type she's comfortable with, and that
this was normal for a Japanese woman. I sometimes borrowed that
bicycle and found it wobbly and hard to control in curves, but
also when starting. By the time, mine had a top bar, but I still
remembered my own 1970s women's bicycle hadn't been like that -
the lower bar had no curve at all, and the top bar only a short
horizontal bit and then an angle rather than a curve. It wasn't
nearly as wobbly.
<http://www.fahrrad-discount.net/documents/image/25/2501/vintage-ladies-7-speed-classic-cb0.jpg>
When I came to live in Japan 10 years later, I found that everyday
bicycles (as opposed to sports-oriented ones) rarely had a high
top bar, but many had the frame style as my bicycle, not the
curved style.
What's now sold as "Hollandrad" mostly seems to have this shape
with an overall gentle curve, so I guess that's considered
<https://www.greenbike-shop.de/out/pictures/master/product/1/28_zoll_hollandrad_blau_3_gang_nabendynamo_minden.jpg>
It is size of the wheels, rather than the shape or placement
of the steel tubes, that determines the stability of the bike.
(The larger the wheels, the larger the angular momentum, ...)

The bicycle in the first picture has small wheels (24"?). The
second has normal size wheels (26/28"). The third has a
normal size rear wheel and a small front wheel. Or so they
seem.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Quinn C
2017-10-02 17:05:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tak To
Post by Quinn C
Post by J. J. Lodder
BTW, the bicycle cross bar as the ultimate male suprematist symbol
is set to go.
Statistics show that it is dangerous.
Especially with the elderly on ebikes
it leads to more, and more severe accidents.
Modern design and construction methods
makes adequate strength of the frame without it possible.
What we used to call "Dutch bicycle" in Germany often had an
extremely low entry point, where the two bars go horizontal for a
bit before suddenly curving upwards.
<https://www.greenbike-shop.de/out/pictures/master/product/1/hollandrad_26_zoll_damen_lila.jpg>
My Japanese girlfriend had one like that (in Germany), and
insisted it was the only type she's comfortable with, and that
this was normal for a Japanese woman. I sometimes borrowed that
bicycle and found it wobbly and hard to control in curves, but
also when starting. By the time, mine had a top bar, but I still
remembered my own 1970s women's bicycle hadn't been like that -
the lower bar had no curve at all, and the top bar only a short
horizontal bit and then an angle rather than a curve. It wasn't
nearly as wobbly.
<http://www.fahrrad-discount.net/documents/image/25/2501/vintage-ladies-7-speed-classic-cb0.jpg>
When I came to live in Japan 10 years later, I found that everyday
bicycles (as opposed to sports-oriented ones) rarely had a high
top bar, but many had the frame style as my bicycle, not the
curved style.
What's now sold as "Hollandrad" mostly seems to have this shape
with an overall gentle curve, so I guess that's considered
<https://www.greenbike-shop.de/out/pictures/master/product/1/28_zoll_hollandrad_blau_3_gang_nabendynamo_minden.jpg>
It is size of the wheels, rather than the shape or placement
of the steel tubes, that determines the stability of the bike.
(The larger the wheels, the larger the angular momentum, ...)
The bicycle in the first picture has small wheels (24"?). The
second has normal size wheels (26/28"). The third has a
normal size rear wheel and a small front wheel. Or so they
seem.
You are easily confused by perspective. Besides, two of them have
the wheel size stated in the link title: the first one as 26, the
third one as 28.

The vast majority of non-folding adult bikes have 26 or 28 inch
wheels. There are still big differences in stability depending on
the shape of the frame. Try taking your hands off the handle and
you'll notice.
--
Microsoft designed a user-friendly car:
instead of the oil, alternator, gas and engine
warning lights it has just one: "General Car Fault"
Paul Wolff
2017-10-02 19:32:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Tak To
Post by Quinn C
Post by J. J. Lodder
BTW, the bicycle cross bar as the ultimate male suprematist symbol
is set to go.
Statistics show that it is dangerous.
Especially with the elderly on ebikes
it leads to more, and more severe accidents.
Modern design and construction methods
makes adequate strength of the frame without it possible.
What we used to call "Dutch bicycle" in Germany often had an
extremely low entry point, where the two bars go horizontal for a
bit before suddenly curving upwards.
<https://www.greenbike-shop.de/out/pictures/master/product/1/hollandra
d_26_zoll_damen_lila.jpg>
My Japanese girlfriend had one like that (in Germany), and
insisted it was the only type she's comfortable with, and that
this was normal for a Japanese woman. I sometimes borrowed that
bicycle and found it wobbly and hard to control in curves, but
also when starting. By the time, mine had a top bar, but I still
remembered my own 1970s women's bicycle hadn't been like that -
the lower bar had no curve at all, and the top bar only a short
horizontal bit and then an angle rather than a curve. It wasn't
nearly as wobbly.
<http://www.fahrrad-discount.net/documents/image/25/2501/vintage-ladie
s-7-speed-classic-cb0.jpg>
When I came to live in Japan 10 years later, I found that everyday
bicycles (as opposed to sports-oriented ones) rarely had a high
top bar, but many had the frame style as my bicycle, not the
curved style.
What's now sold as "Hollandrad" mostly seems to have this shape
with an overall gentle curve, so I guess that's considered
<https://www.greenbike-shop.de/out/pictures/master/product/1/28_zoll_h
ollandrad_blau_3_gang_nabendynamo_minden.jpg>
It is size of the wheels, rather than the shape or placement
of the steel tubes, that determines the stability of the bike.
(The larger the wheels, the larger the angular momentum, ...)
The bicycle in the first picture has small wheels (24"?). The
second has normal size wheels (26/28"). The third has a
normal size rear wheel and a small front wheel. Or so they
seem.
You are easily confused by perspective. Besides, two of them have
the wheel size stated in the link title: the first one as 26, the
third one as 28.
The vast majority of non-folding adult bikes have 26 or 28 inch
wheels. There are still big differences in stability depending on
the shape of the frame. Try taking your hands off the handle and
you'll notice.
The important elements are the angle of the front forks, and the trail -
that is, the distance by which the tyre-road contact zone is ahead of
the point where the line of the fork bearing axis meets the road.

Castor (or caster) angle is a relevant term, for those who'd like
something to look up.
--
Paul
Wayne Brown
2017-10-02 23:24:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by RH Draney
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Quinn C
Like liking men wearing pants, but abhorring women who do so?
These judgments are not always purely aesthetic.
And from a purely logical POV women should pants and men skirts.
Because codpieces,
How come it's the "boy's" bicycle that has the crotch-threatening bar
atop the frame?...r
The leg-over mount by the girls would reveal intimate secrets.
Apart from it being just not possible with a skirt on.
It gets stuck on the wrong side of the saddle.
Don't even think of trying it,
I could do it in a kilt. No problem.
Even with a mini skirt it is still a problem.
You need one hand to move the skirt over,
or you end up sitting on it.
(and you have to stand on the pedals to liberate it)
Another Dutch invention that the English don't seem to have
is the 'rokzadel' (lit. skirt saddle)
It is a more or less circular saddle, no protruding point.
While still providing adequate support
for the tender points of the female anatomy
it makes getting on and off whle wearing skirts easy,
Jan
BTW, the bicycle cross bar as the ultimate male suprematist symbol
is set to go.
Statistics show that it is dangerous.
Especially with the elderly on ebikes
it leads to more, and more severe accidents.
Modern design and construction methods
makes adequate strength of the frame without it possible.
I think that's a mistake. The standard diamond-frame bike has a
distinct safety advantage. Sometimes, on a long, very fast downhill
run it's possible for the front wheel to begin wobbling. That is,
it begins to swing the handlebars from side to side, in faster and
widening oscillations. I've found it to be more likely to happen
with a heavily-loaded handlebar bag. In a matter of moments the
oscillations can become uncontrollable and lead to a high-speed crash.
However, clamping the top tube between my knees stops the wobble
immediately. It's only happened to me a few times over the years,
but each time the speed wobble (or "death wobble" as it's also called)
was so violent it felt like it was going to jerk the handlebars out
of my hands, and I was VERY glad that I knew that trick for stopping
it instantly.

I prefer vintage steel road bikes, like my Univega Gran Turismo from
the '80s with its CroMoly (chromium-molybdenum-steel alloy) frame,
so I won't be personally affected by a change in the design, but I
still think eliminating the diamond frame is a bad idea.

https://www.velonomad.com/articles/correct-high-speed-wobbles/

https://roadbikerider.com/riding-skills/advanced-skills/570-speed-wobble
--
F. Wayne Brown <***@bellsouth.net>

ur sag9-ga ur-tur-še3 ba-an-kur9
"A dog that is played with turns into a puppy." (Sumerian proverb)
Quinn C
2017-09-28 17:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by RH Draney
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Quinn C
Like liking men wearing pants, but abhorring women who do so?
These judgments are not always purely aesthetic.
And from a purely logical POV women should pants and men skirts.
Because codpieces,
How come it's the "boy's" bicycle that has the crotch-threatening bar
atop the frame?...r
The leg-over mount by the girls would reveal intimate secrets.
Apart from it being just not possible with a skirt on.
It gets stuck on the wrong side of the saddle.
Don't even think of trying it,
There seems to be some confusion.

With a long skirt - and in the early days of bicycling, those were
the only ones - it's difficult and potentially dangerous. [1]

With a short skirt, it's considered too revealing - although one
could ask why we still care so much about catching an accidental
glimpse of what women are strutting in full daylight on the beach,
and sometimes other places.

____
[1] And not only while getting on. My first (handed-down) bicycle
came with a "skirt-catcher" on the rear wheel.
--
WinErr 008: Erroneous error. Nothing is wrong.
J. J. Lodder
2017-09-29 10:20:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by RH Draney
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Quinn C
Like liking men wearing pants, but abhorring women who do so?
These judgments are not always purely aesthetic.
And from a purely logical POV women should pants and men skirts.
Because codpieces,
How come it's the "boy's" bicycle that has the crotch-threatening bar
atop the frame?...r
The leg-over mount by the girls would reveal intimate secrets.
Apart from it being just not possible with a skirt on.
It gets stuck on the wrong side of the saddle.
Don't even think of trying it,
There seems to be some confusion.
With a long skirt - and in the early days of bicycling, those were
the only ones - it's difficult and potentially dangerous. [1]
With a short skirt, it's considered too revealing - although one
could ask why we still care so much about catching an accidental
glimpse of what women are strutting in full daylight on the beach,
and sometimes other places.
[1] And not only while getting on. My first (handed-down) bicycle
came with a "skirt-catcher" on the rear wheel.
Standard, on classic Dutch bicycles.
Known however as a 'jasbeschermer' (lit. coat protector)
Dutch women used their bicycles not just for being glamorous in the sun,
but also, under long raincoats, to go to everyday work,

Jan
Quinn C
2017-09-29 22:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Quinn C
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by RH Draney
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Quinn C
Like liking men wearing pants, but abhorring women who do so?
These judgments are not always purely aesthetic.
And from a purely logical POV women should pants and men skirts.
Because codpieces,
How come it's the "boy's" bicycle that has the crotch-threatening bar
atop the frame?...r
The leg-over mount by the girls would reveal intimate secrets.
Apart from it being just not possible with a skirt on.
It gets stuck on the wrong side of the saddle.
Don't even think of trying it,
There seems to be some confusion.
With a long skirt - and in the early days of bicycling, those were
the only ones - it's difficult and potentially dangerous. [1]
With a short skirt, it's considered too revealing - although one
could ask why we still care so much about catching an accidental
glimpse of what women are strutting in full daylight on the beach,
and sometimes other places.
[1] And not only while getting on. My first (handed-down) bicycle
came with a "skirt-catcher" on the rear wheel.
Standard, on classic Dutch bicycles.
They were standard on "lady" bicycles back then, in the 1970s, but
became a bit old-fashioned later, as more and more women started
to use "men's" bicycles, hybrids became more common etc.
Post by J. J. Lodder
Known however as a 'jasbeschermer' (lit. coat protector)
Dutch women used their bicycles not just for being glamorous in the sun,
but also, under long raincoats, to go to everyday work,
With that in mind, it's not gender-specific, and was probably
easier to preserve.
--
WinErr 008: Erroneous error. Nothing is wrong.
Wayne Brown
2017-09-28 20:23:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Quinn C
Like liking men wearing pants, but abhorring women who do so?
These judgments are not always purely aesthetic.
And from a purely logical POV women should pants and men skirts.
Because codpieces,
How come it's the "boy's" bicycle that has the crotch-threatening bar
atop the frame?...r
It's for the same reason women in long skirts used to ride horses
side-saddle. The top bar on a boys' bike gets in the way of a skirt,
so girls' bicycles let them step through the frame without the skirt
interfering. Since most girls and women who ride bikes these days
wear pants or shorts, having a step-through frame on women's bikes
is just a matter of tradition.
--
F. Wayne Brown <***@bellsouth.net>

ur sag9-ga ur-tur-še3 ba-an-kur9
"A dog that is played with turns into a puppy." (Sumerian proverb)
Peter Moylan
2017-09-28 06:43:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Quinn C
Like liking men wearing pants, but abhorring women who do so?
These judgments are not always purely aesthetic.
And from a purely logical POV women should pants and men skirts.
Because codpieces,
Did you hear about the fellow who got a tattoo on his scrotum? It said
"May contain nuts".
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Wayne Brown
2017-09-28 20:23:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Wayne Brown
Post by Quinn C
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
As others have said, "being all about X" is overused these days. I
find it mildly annoying, a little less than e.g. "best X ever", a
verdict that may easily last hours.
Post by Mack A. Damia
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
I hope you're not one of those apparently many people who abhor
vocal fry specifically in women, and often don't even notice it in
men.
How would we know we are one of those if we don't notice it?
Well, now that I pointed out this possibility, you could pay more
attention and find out.
Post by Wayne Brown
But in
any case, what would be wrong with that?
You may not have noticed, but there was a whole conversation on
about how women who speak in public, whether they are TV and radio
personalities, politicians, YouTubers or podcasters, get
criticized for their voices much more often than men. Sometimes
they get criticized for things that are more typical for female
voices - like being "shrill" -, but sometimes for things that
aren't gender-specific, like vocal fry, for which men don't get
criticized.
There is a suspicion that at least part of this imbalance is due
to listeners being uncomfortable with women voicing opinions in
public.
I missed that other discussion, which is probably just as well.
In recent years I've grown quite weary of and unsympathetic to claims
of bias due to things like "listeners being uncomfortable with women
voicing opinions in public."
Post by Quinn C
Post by Wayne Brown
The sounds would presumably
be different so I could imagine some liking one sound but abhoring
the other.
Like liking men wearing pants, but abhorring women who do so?
These judgments are not always purely aesthetic.
Women wearing pants doesn't bother me. And I certainly don't approve
of abhorring women for that (or any other) reason. Abhoring people
in general is not wise, much less for so inconsequential a reason. But
I don't have a problem with someone abhorring the _practice_ of women
wearing pants. They have the right to their opinions.
--
F. Wayne Brown <***@bellsouth.net>

ur sag9-ga ur-tur-še3 ba-an-kur9
"A dog that is played with turns into a puppy." (Sumerian proverb)
Quinn C
2017-09-28 23:38:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wayne Brown
Post by Quinn C
Post by Wayne Brown
Post by Quinn C
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
As others have said, "being all about X" is overused these days. I
find it mildly annoying, a little less than e.g. "best X ever", a
verdict that may easily last hours.
Post by Mack A. Damia
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
I hope you're not one of those apparently many people who abhor
vocal fry specifically in women, and often don't even notice it in
men.
How would we know we are one of those if we don't notice it?
Well, now that I pointed out this possibility, you could pay more
attention and find out.
Post by Wayne Brown
But in
any case, what would be wrong with that?
You may not have noticed, but there was a whole conversation on
about how women who speak in public, whether they are TV and radio
personalities, politicians, YouTubers or podcasters, get
criticized for their voices much more often than men. Sometimes
they get criticized for things that are more typical for female
voices - like being "shrill" -, but sometimes for things that
aren't gender-specific, like vocal fry, for which men don't get
criticized.
There is a suspicion that at least part of this imbalance is due
to listeners being uncomfortable with women voicing opinions in
public.
I missed that other discussion, which is probably just as well.
In recent years I've grown quite weary of and unsympathetic to claims
of bias due to things like "listeners being uncomfortable with women
voicing opinions in public."
Weary - I totally understand. Even more I'm weary that there is
still reason to have such suspicions, even thought it's often
difficult to prove them in specific cases, which makes these
discussions so unpleasant.
Post by Wayne Brown
Post by Quinn C
Post by Wayne Brown
The sounds would presumably
be different so I could imagine some liking one sound but abhoring
the other.
Like liking men wearing pants, but abhorring women who do so?
These judgments are not always purely aesthetic.
Women wearing pants doesn't bother me. And I certainly don't approve
of abhorring women for that (or any other) reason. Abhoring people
in general is not wise, much less for so inconsequential a reason. But
I don't have a problem with someone abhorring the _practice_ of women
wearing pants. They have the right to their opinions.
Sure - in fact, I find that a rather bland thing to say. I also
have the right to point out they're being sexist - not as an
opinion, but rather by definition - and that therefore I'd be
hesitant having any dealings with them.
--
'Ah yes, we got that keyboard from Small Gods when they threw out
their organ. Unfortunately for complex theological reasons they
would only give us the white keys, so we can only program in C'.
Colin Fine in sci.lang
Cheryl
2017-09-28 23:50:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Wayne Brown
Post by Quinn C
Post by Wayne Brown
Post by Quinn C
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
As others have said, "being all about X" is overused these days. I
find it mildly annoying, a little less than e.g. "best X ever", a
verdict that may easily last hours.
Post by Mack A. Damia
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
I hope you're not one of those apparently many people who abhor
vocal fry specifically in women, and often don't even notice it in
men.
How would we know we are one of those if we don't notice it?
Well, now that I pointed out this possibility, you could pay more
attention and find out.
Post by Wayne Brown
But in
any case, what would be wrong with that?
You may not have noticed, but there was a whole conversation on
about how women who speak in public, whether they are TV and radio
personalities, politicians, YouTubers or podcasters, get
criticized for their voices much more often than men. Sometimes
they get criticized for things that are more typical for female
voices - like being "shrill" -, but sometimes for things that
aren't gender-specific, like vocal fry, for which men don't get
criticized.
There is a suspicion that at least part of this imbalance is due
to listeners being uncomfortable with women voicing opinions in
public.
I missed that other discussion, which is probably just as well.
In recent years I've grown quite weary of and unsympathetic to claims
of bias due to things like "listeners being uncomfortable with women
voicing opinions in public."
Weary - I totally understand. Even more I'm weary that there is
still reason to have such suspicions, even thought it's often
difficult to prove them in specific cases, which makes these
discussions so unpleasant.
Post by Wayne Brown
Post by Quinn C
Post by Wayne Brown
The sounds would presumably
be different so I could imagine some liking one sound but abhoring
the other.
Like liking men wearing pants, but abhorring women who do so?
These judgments are not always purely aesthetic.
Women wearing pants doesn't bother me. And I certainly don't approve
of abhorring women for that (or any other) reason. Abhoring people
in general is not wise, much less for so inconsequential a reason. But
I don't have a problem with someone abhorring the _practice_ of women
wearing pants. They have the right to their opinions.
Sure - in fact, I find that a rather bland thing to say. I also
have the right to point out they're being sexist - not as an
opinion, but rather by definition - and that therefore I'd be
hesitant having any dealings with them.
Logically, if you're not going to have any dealings with people who have
certain opinions, you shouldn't be communicating with them at all, not
even to point out your reasons for excluding them.

I think I've finally figured out what "vocal fry' is, and I can't say it
bothers me all that much. What does annoy me is the high-pitched squeal
of excitement some women feel impelled to produce when they see a
friend, or spot something good on sale. I think it's a generational
thing; women much younger than me seem to be far more likely to do it
than women of my own age are. I think it must have been thought of as
cute when they were little girls, and they never got out of the habit.
That's far more annoying than vocal fry.
--
Cheryl
Quinn C
2017-09-29 18:00:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cheryl
Post by Quinn C
Post by Wayne Brown
Post by Quinn C
Post by Wayne Brown
Post by Quinn C
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
As others have said, "being all about X" is overused these days. I
find it mildly annoying, a little less than e.g. "best X ever", a
verdict that may easily last hours.
Post by Mack A. Damia
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
I hope you're not one of those apparently many people who abhor
vocal fry specifically in women, and often don't even notice it in
men.
How would we know we are one of those if we don't notice it?
Well, now that I pointed out this possibility, you could pay more
attention and find out.
Post by Wayne Brown
But in
any case, what would be wrong with that?
You may not have noticed, but there was a whole conversation on
about how women who speak in public, whether they are TV and radio
personalities, politicians, YouTubers or podcasters, get
criticized for their voices much more often than men. Sometimes
they get criticized for things that are more typical for female
voices - like being "shrill" -, but sometimes for things that
aren't gender-specific, like vocal fry, for which men don't get
criticized.
There is a suspicion that at least part of this imbalance is due
to listeners being uncomfortable with women voicing opinions in
public.
I missed that other discussion, which is probably just as well.
In recent years I've grown quite weary of and unsympathetic to claims
of bias due to things like "listeners being uncomfortable with women
voicing opinions in public."
Weary - I totally understand. Even more I'm weary that there is
still reason to have such suspicions, even thought it's often
difficult to prove them in specific cases, which makes these
discussions so unpleasant.
Post by Wayne Brown
Post by Quinn C
Post by Wayne Brown
The sounds would presumably
be different so I could imagine some liking one sound but abhoring
the other.
Like liking men wearing pants, but abhorring women who do so?
These judgments are not always purely aesthetic.
Women wearing pants doesn't bother me. And I certainly don't approve
of abhorring women for that (or any other) reason. Abhoring people
in general is not wise, much less for so inconsequential a reason. But
I don't have a problem with someone abhorring the _practice_ of women
wearing pants. They have the right to their opinions.
Sure - in fact, I find that a rather bland thing to say. I also
have the right to point out they're being sexist - not as an
opinion, but rather by definition - and that therefore I'd be
hesitant having any dealings with them.
Logically, if you're not going to have any dealings with people who have
certain opinions, you shouldn't be communicating with them at all, not
even to point out your reasons for excluding them.
I'm not sure logic is the best approach to this question, but
while we're there, I'd like to point out that I didn't say "point
out to them". In fact, I was pointing out to Wayne that those
people are sexist, in order to tell Wayne that "having a right to
one's opinion" isn't the most relevant question to me.

You have the right to your opinion, but some opinions are wrong,
and some are despicable, either to me personally, or, in my view,
detrimental to society and should therefore be met with
resistance.

Apart from that, in the practical world, it is a likely scenario
that I already have dealings with people and then I find out that
they're sexist (or racist etc.), and then it might be useful to
indicate to them that's the reason I'm uncomfortable, and don't
feel like pursuing the relationship further.

But this wouldn't be automatic either, so it would be better to
say that this point has the potential to be the principal reason
for me avoiding a person.
Post by Cheryl
I think I've finally figured out what "vocal fry' is, and I can't say it
bothers me all that much.
I recently watched the first season of Master of None. In Episode
5, there is a scene where the hero is about to have sex with a
woman, but retreats when he finds out she's married. In this very
awkward situation, I noticed lot of vocal fry from both
participants. Around 9:30 min, for people who have access to it
(Netflix).
Post by Cheryl
What does annoy me is the high-pitched squeal
of excitement some women feel impelled to produce when they see a
friend, or spot something good on sale. I think it's a generational
thing; women much younger than me seem to be far more likely to do it
than women of my own age are. I think it must have been thought of as
cute when they were little girls, and they never got out of the habit.
That's far more annoying than vocal fry.
I wouldn't have thought that's the reason. It seems to be
something that's cultivated in pop culture, and I expect most
people are copying it from there, but there's still the question
why it arose in pop culture in the first place, and
infantilization is a possibility. Growing up has become more and
more unpopular over the last decades.
--
Software is getting slower
more rapidly than hardware becomes faster
--Wirth's law
b***@gmail.com
2017-09-26 23:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
it's almost as annoying as the phatt song that inspired it

Mack A. Damia
2017-09-26 23:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
it's almost as annoying as the phatt song that inspired it http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk
Vocal fry was observed in the 1960s and entered the vocabulary of
psychologists in the 1970s.

That song came out in 2014 and is really about "body image" - "the era
of big booty". Or did you mean something else?
Ross
2017-09-27 04:24:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
it's almost as annoying as the phatt song that inspired it http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk
Vocal fry was observed in the 1960s and entered the vocabulary of
psychologists in the 1970s.
Already well known to linguists in the 1960s, as someone else has
mentioned, under the name "creaky voice" or "laryngealized voice".
Of course the linguists were mainly interested in languages where
it's a feature of ordinary speech, rather than a mannerism. But
Pike (Phonetics, 1943): "In English one often hears laryngealized
vowels." Unfortunately he doesn't say much about the conditions
under which it is heard, except "speaking in a low tone of voice".
Fatigue is one possible condition; and its use as a mannerism
perhaps starts from an affectation of weariness or boredom. I'd
be interested to know what psychologists were saying about it in
the 1970s.
Mack A. Damia
2017-09-27 05:11:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
it's almost as annoying as the phatt song that inspired it http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk
Vocal fry was observed in the 1960s and entered the vocabulary of
psychologists in the 1970s.
Already well known to linguists in the 1960s, as someone else has
mentioned, under the name "creaky voice" or "laryngealized voice".
Of course the linguists were mainly interested in languages where
it's a feature of ordinary speech, rather than a mannerism. But
Pike (Phonetics, 1943): "In English one often hears laryngealized
vowels." Unfortunately he doesn't say much about the conditions
under which it is heard, except "speaking in a low tone of voice".
Fatigue is one possible condition; and its use as a mannerism
perhaps starts from an affectation of weariness or boredom. I'd
be interested to know what psychologists were saying about it in
the 1970s.
Louis Armstrong had a perpetual creaky voice, but I would not refer to
it as vocal fry - or at least the vocal fry that annoys me. Seems to
me that this vocal fry is something quite specific - not perpetual but
heard at the end of sentences, often in question form, too, as the
voice rises in inflection. The YouTube clip that I posted is a good
example, and to my ears, it comes across as a severe affectation, as
in, "Who are you trying to kid?"

The sound was recognized in the 1960s and began to be studied in the
1970s by psychologists, but it is only within the past couple of
decades that young women, particularly - an entire generation - have
begun to use it as a means of giving themselves more credibility.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-09-27 12:26:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
it's almost as annoying as the phatt song that inspired it http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk
Vocal fry was observed in the 1960s and entered the vocabulary of
psychologists in the 1970s.
Already well known to linguists in the 1960s, as someone else has
mentioned, under the name "creaky voice" or "laryngealized voice".
Of course the linguists were mainly interested in languages where
it's a feature of ordinary speech, rather than a mannerism. But
Pike (Phonetics, 1943): "In English one often hears laryngealized
vowels." Unfortunately he doesn't say much about the conditions
under which it is heard, except "speaking in a low tone of voice".
Fatigue is one possible condition; and its use as a mannerism
perhaps starts from an affectation of weariness or boredom. I'd
be interested to know what psychologists were saying about it in
the 1970s.
Louis Armstrong had a perpetual creaky voice,
That sort of raspiness has nothing to do with it. See also Jack Klugman in the last ten years
or so of his career -- after his throat operation(s). As a seasoned actor, he knew perfectly well
how to control his diaphragm (see below) but there was physical interference with the
speech stream. (Armstrong obviously had no breath problems.)
Post by Mack A. Damia
but I would not refer to
it as vocal fry - or at least the vocal fry that annoys me. Seems to
me that this vocal fry is something quite specific - not perpetual but
heard at the end of sentences, often in question form, too, as the
voice rises in inflection. The YouTube clip that I posted is a good
example, and to my ears, it comes across as a severe affectation, as
in, "Who are you trying to kid?"
The sound was recognized in the 1960s and began to be studied in the
1970s by psychologists, but it is only within the past couple of
decades that young women, particularly - an entire generation - have
begun to use it as a means of giving themselves more credibility.
Really? When were Mae West and Lauren Bacall making movies?

Before the buzzword "vocal fry" was invented, it was called "smoky" or "husky." Kathleen
Turner is a more recent example.

How it happens is perfectly obvious: insufficient/inadequate diaphragm support. Anyone who's
had even one voice lesson (singing) knows about conscious control of the
diaphragm.
Jerry Friedman
2017-09-27 17:52:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
it's almost as annoying as the phatt song that inspired it http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk
Vocal fry was observed in the 1960s and entered the vocabulary of
psychologists in the 1970s.
Already well known to linguists in the 1960s, as someone else has
mentioned, under the name "creaky voice" or "laryngealized voice".
Of course the linguists were mainly interested in languages where
it's a feature of ordinary speech, rather than a mannerism. But
Pike (Phonetics, 1943): "In English one often hears laryngealized
vowels." Unfortunately he doesn't say much about the conditions
under which it is heard, except "speaking in a low tone of voice".
Fatigue is one possible condition; and its use as a mannerism
perhaps starts from an affectation of weariness or boredom. I'd
be interested to know what psychologists were saying about it in
the 1970s.
Or why someone named Faye Kellerman did so much of in 1950.


--
Jerry Friedman
Mack A. Damia
2017-09-27 18:12:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:52:26 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
it's almost as annoying as the phatt song that inspired it http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk
Vocal fry was observed in the 1960s and entered the vocabulary of
psychologists in the 1970s.
Already well known to linguists in the 1960s, as someone else has
mentioned, under the name "creaky voice" or "laryngealized voice".
Of course the linguists were mainly interested in languages where
it's a feature of ordinary speech, rather than a mannerism. But
Pike (Phonetics, 1943): "In English one often hears laryngealized
vowels." Unfortunately he doesn't say much about the conditions
under which it is heard, except "speaking in a low tone of voice".
Fatigue is one possible condition; and its use as a mannerism
perhaps starts from an affectation of weariness or boredom. I'd
be interested to know what psychologists were saying about it in
the 1970s.
Or why someone named Faye Kellerman did so much of in 1950.
Faye Emerson.

http://youtu.be/01l-d7wp-3Y

Not that noticeable in my opinion. I think she was a heavy smoker,
and that's what we are hearing.

She died of cancer at age 65.
Mack A. Damia
2017-09-27 18:14:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:12:08 -0700, Mack A. Damia
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:52:26 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Or why someone named Faye Kellerman did so much of in 1950.
Faye Emerson.
http://youtu.be/01l-d7wp-3Y
Not that noticeable in my opinion. I think she was a heavy smoker,
and that's what we are hearing.
She died of cancer at age 65.
http://smokingsides.com/asfs/E/Emerson.html
Jerry Friedman
2017-09-27 20:42:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:52:26 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
it's almost as annoying as the phatt song that inspired it http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk
Vocal fry was observed in the 1960s and entered the vocabulary of
psychologists in the 1970s.
Already well known to linguists in the 1960s, as someone else has
mentioned, under the name "creaky voice" or "laryngealized voice".
Of course the linguists were mainly interested in languages where
it's a feature of ordinary speech, rather than a mannerism. But
Pike (Phonetics, 1943): "In English one often hears laryngealized
vowels." Unfortunately he doesn't say much about the conditions
under which it is heard, except "speaking in a low tone of voice".
Fatigue is one possible condition; and its use as a mannerism
perhaps starts from an affectation of weariness or boredom. I'd
be interested to know what psychologists were saying about it in
the 1970s.
Or why someone named Faye Kellerman did so much of
it
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Jerry Friedman
in 1950.
Faye Emerson.
Post by Jerry Friedman
http://youtu.be/01l-d7wp-3Y
My goodness, where did I get "Kellerman"?
--
Jerry Friedman
Lewis
2017-09-27 22:13:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:52:26 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
it's almost as annoying as the phatt song that inspired it http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk
Vocal fry was observed in the 1960s and entered the vocabulary of
psychologists in the 1970s.
Already well known to linguists in the 1960s, as someone else has
mentioned, under the name "creaky voice" or "laryngealized voice".
Of course the linguists were mainly interested in languages where
it's a feature of ordinary speech, rather than a mannerism. But
Pike (Phonetics, 1943): "In English one often hears laryngealized
vowels." Unfortunately he doesn't say much about the conditions
under which it is heard, except "speaking in a low tone of voice".
Fatigue is one possible condition; and its use as a mannerism
perhaps starts from an affectation of weariness or boredom. I'd
be interested to know what psychologists were saying about it in
the 1970s.
Or why someone named Faye Kellerman did so much of
it
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Jerry Friedman
in 1950.
Faye Emerson.
Post by Jerry Friedman
http://youtu.be/01l-d7wp-3Y
My goodness, where did I get "Kellerman"?
Dirty Dancing?
--
Technically, Aziraphale was a Principality, but people made jokes about
that these days
Mack A. Damia
2017-09-27 23:14:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:42:45 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:52:26 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
it's almost as annoying as the phatt song that inspired it http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk
Vocal fry was observed in the 1960s and entered the vocabulary of
psychologists in the 1970s.
Already well known to linguists in the 1960s, as someone else has
mentioned, under the name "creaky voice" or "laryngealized voice".
Of course the linguists were mainly interested in languages where
it's a feature of ordinary speech, rather than a mannerism. But
Pike (Phonetics, 1943): "In English one often hears laryngealized
vowels." Unfortunately he doesn't say much about the conditions
under which it is heard, except "speaking in a low tone of voice".
Fatigue is one possible condition; and its use as a mannerism
perhaps starts from an affectation of weariness or boredom. I'd
be interested to know what psychologists were saying about it in
the 1970s.
Or why someone named Faye Kellerman did so much of
it
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Jerry Friedman
in 1950.
Faye Emerson.
Post by Jerry Friedman
http://youtu.be/01l-d7wp-3Y
My goodness, where did I get "Kellerman"?
Sally Kellerman - "Hot Lips" Houlihan?
J. J. Lodder
2017-09-28 07:54:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:52:26 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
it's almost as annoying as the phatt song that inspired it https://www
http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Vocal fry was observed in the 1960s and entered the vocabulary of
psychologists in the 1970s.
Already well known to linguists in the 1960s, as someone else has
mentioned, under the name "creaky voice" or "laryngealized voice".
Of course the linguists were mainly interested in languages where
it's a feature of ordinary speech, rather than a mannerism. But
Pike (Phonetics, 1943): "In English one often hears laryngealized
vowels." Unfortunately he doesn't say much about the conditions
under which it is heard, except "speaking in a low tone of voice".
Fatigue is one possible condition; and its use as a mannerism
perhaps starts from an affectation of weariness or boredom. I'd
be interested to know what psychologists were saying about it in
the 1970s.
Or why someone named Faye Kellerman did so much of
it
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Jerry Friedman
in 1950.
Faye Emerson.
Post by Jerry Friedman
http://youtu.be/01l-d7wp-3Y
My goodness, where did I get "Kellerman"?
Author? (with Jonathan)

Jan
Tony Cooper
2017-09-28 03:45:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
it's almost as annoying as the phatt song that inspired it http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk
Vocal fry was observed in the 1960s and entered the vocabulary of
psychologists in the 1970s.
Already well known to linguists in the 1960s, as someone else has
mentioned, under the name "creaky voice" or "laryngealized voice".
It would seem to me that it would be known to all since man first
began to vocalize. What may have not been known was a word for it.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Ross
2017-09-28 10:20:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
it's almost as annoying as the phatt song that inspired it http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk
Vocal fry was observed in the 1960s and entered the vocabulary of
psychologists in the 1970s.
Already well known to linguists in the 1960s, as someone else has
mentioned, under the name "creaky voice" or "laryngealized voice".
It would seem to me that it would be known to all since man first
began to vocalize. What may have not been known was a word for it.
Yes. But I was responding to Mack's statement that it was "observed"
in the 60s, as if that were the first time anyone had noticed it.
My point was that linguists had already noticed it, understood the
mechanism of its production, and had more than one name for it,
before that.
Mack A. Damia
2017-09-28 16:26:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
it's almost as annoying as the phatt song that inspired it http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk
Vocal fry was observed in the 1960s and entered the vocabulary of
psychologists in the 1970s.
Already well known to linguists in the 1960s, as someone else has
mentioned, under the name "creaky voice" or "laryngealized voice".
It would seem to me that it would be known to all since man first
began to vocalize. What may have not been known was a word for it.
Yes. But I was responding to Mack's statement that it was "observed"
in the 60s, as if that were the first time anyone had noticed it.
My point was that linguists had already noticed it, understood the
mechanism of its production, and had more than one name for it,
before that.
Right. It was observed before the 1960s - smoky/husky (some thought
"sexy") voice, particularly in women, but *psychologically* - as a
designed and rehearsed affectation - it came later.
Ross
2017-09-28 20:40:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Ross
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
it's almost as annoying as the phatt song that inspired it http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk
Vocal fry was observed in the 1960s and entered the vocabulary of
psychologists in the 1970s.
Already well known to linguists in the 1960s, as someone else has
mentioned, under the name "creaky voice" or "laryngealized voice".
It would seem to me that it would be known to all since man first
began to vocalize. What may have not been known was a word for it.
Yes. But I was responding to Mack's statement that it was "observed"
in the 60s, as if that were the first time anyone had noticed it.
My point was that linguists had already noticed it, understood the
mechanism of its production, and had more than one name for it,
before that.
Right. It was observed before the 1960s - smoky/husky (some thought
"sexy") voice, particularly in women, but *psychologically* - as a
designed and rehearsed affectation - it came later.
As I mentioned, the linguists were mainly concerned with its use in
other languages where it is part of normal speech. It would be
interesting to have a history of observations of its use as a
mannerism or affectation in English.

I think one type of "sexy" female voice involves a different thing,
which linguists have called "murmured" or "breathy voice". Google
"phonation" for more than you probably want to know. E.g.

http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/gordon/phonation.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonation

Normal voice is created by regular opening and closing of the vocal
folds. In "creaky voice" the folds spend more time in the closed
phase, and the air escapes in short pops. (You can easily slow down
the creak rate until you hear individual pops.) In "breathy voice"
they spend more time open and lots of air escapes so it begins to
sound almost like a whisper.
Mack A. Damia
2017-09-28 21:03:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Ross
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
it's almost as annoying as the phatt song that inspired it http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk
Vocal fry was observed in the 1960s and entered the vocabulary of
psychologists in the 1970s.
Already well known to linguists in the 1960s, as someone else has
mentioned, under the name "creaky voice" or "laryngealized voice".
It would seem to me that it would be known to all since man first
began to vocalize. What may have not been known was a word for it.
Yes. But I was responding to Mack's statement that it was "observed"
in the 60s, as if that were the first time anyone had noticed it.
My point was that linguists had already noticed it, understood the
mechanism of its production, and had more than one name for it,
before that.
Right. It was observed before the 1960s - smoky/husky (some thought
"sexy") voice, particularly in women, but *psychologically* - as a
designed and rehearsed affectation - it came later.
As I mentioned, the linguists were mainly concerned with its use in
other languages where it is part of normal speech. It would be
interesting to have a history of observations of its use as a
mannerism or affectation in English.
I think one type of "sexy" female voice involves a different thing,
which linguists have called "murmured" or "breathy voice". Google
"phonation" for more than you probably want to know. E.g.
http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/gordon/phonation.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonation
I was thinking of Lauren Bacall - a somewhat smoky, sexy voice, more
like a whisper, but she doesn't have the crackling sound, so I don't
think it qualifies as "vocal fry".
Post by Ross
Normal voice is created by regular opening and closing of the vocal
folds. In "creaky voice" the folds spend more time in the closed
phase, and the air escapes in short pops. (You can easily slow down
the creak rate until you hear individual pops.) In "breathy voice"
they spend more time open and lots of air escapes so it begins to
sound almost like a whisper.
This announcer/questioner herself has vocal fry.

NPR: "Talking While Female"


RH Draney
2017-09-28 23:05:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Ross
I think one type of "sexy" female voice involves a different thing,
which linguists have called "murmured" or "breathy voice". Google
"phonation" for more than you probably want to know. E.g.
I was thinking of Lauren Bacall - a somewhat smoky, sexy voice, more
like a whisper, but she doesn't have the crackling sound, so I don't
think it qualifies as "vocal fry".
How about Lucille Ball?...did she have fry before she married Desi
(check her out in the Marx Bros' "At the Circus")?...did she develop fry
after she married Gary Morton, or is the deterioration of the voice due
to decades of heavy smoking a different thing?...r
Mack A. Damia
2017-09-28 23:35:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Ross
I think one type of "sexy" female voice involves a different thing,
which linguists have called "murmured" or "breathy voice". Google
"phonation" for more than you probably want to know. E.g.
I was thinking of Lauren Bacall - a somewhat smoky, sexy voice, more
like a whisper, but she doesn't have the crackling sound, so I don't
think it qualifies as "vocal fry".
How about Lucille Ball?...did she have fry before she married Desi
(check her out in the Marx Bros' "At the Circus")?...did she develop fry
after she married Gary Morton, or is the deterioration of the voice due
to decades of heavy smoking a different thing?...r
No vocal fry in her brief appearance here:



No vocal fry in a 1971 Cavett interview, but her voice had aged, and
she was a heavy smoker her entire life:


Snidely
2017-09-29 08:11:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by RH Draney
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Ross
I think one type of "sexy" female voice involves a different thing,
which linguists have called "murmured" or "breathy voice". Google
"phonation" for more than you probably want to know. E.g.
I was thinking of Lauren Bacall - a somewhat smoky, sexy voice, more
like a whisper, but she doesn't have the crackling sound, so I don't
think it qualifies as "vocal fry".
How about Lucille Ball?...did she have fry before she married Desi
(check her out in the Marx Bros' "At the Circus")?...did she develop fry
after she married Gary Morton, or is the deterioration of the voice due
to decades of heavy smoking a different thing?...r
http://youtu.be/iIXjftgRtHI
Does Donald MacBride have vocal fry in that clip?
Post by Mack A. Damia
No vocal fry in a 1971 Cavett interview, but her voice had aged, and
http://youtu.be/2-jISMlgOFU
Plenty of, um, fog.

/dps
--
Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence
went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his
precious heavy water.
_The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean
Jerry Friedman
2017-09-28 22:14:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Ross
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
it's almost as annoying as the phatt song that inspired it http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk
Vocal fry was observed in the 1960s and entered the vocabulary of
psychologists in the 1970s.
Already well known to linguists in the 1960s, as someone else has
mentioned, under the name "creaky voice" or "laryngealized voice".
It would seem to me that it would be known to all since man first
began to vocalize. What may have not been known was a word for it.
Yes. But I was responding to Mack's statement that it was "observed"
in the 60s, as if that were the first time anyone had noticed it.
My point was that linguists had already noticed it, understood the
mechanism of its production, and had more than one name for it,
before that.
Right. It was observed before the 1960s - smoky/husky (some thought
"sexy") voice, particularly in women, but *psychologically* - as a
designed and rehearsed affectation - it came later.
As I mentioned, the linguists were mainly concerned with its use in
other languages where it is part of normal speech. It would be
interesting to have a history of observations of its use as a
mannerism or affectation in English.
...

The Wikipedia article has some citations for and against the claim that
it's become more frequent among young American women recently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocal_fry_register

There's been a lot about vocal fry at Language Log, where Mark Liberman
treats it as period doubling. For instance,

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=20229
--
Jerry Friedman
Mack A. Damia
2017-09-28 23:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:14:00 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Ross
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
it's almost as annoying as the phatt song that inspired it http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk
Vocal fry was observed in the 1960s and entered the vocabulary of
psychologists in the 1970s.
Already well known to linguists in the 1960s, as someone else has
mentioned, under the name "creaky voice" or "laryngealized voice".
It would seem to me that it would be known to all since man first
began to vocalize. What may have not been known was a word for it.
Yes. But I was responding to Mack's statement that it was "observed"
in the 60s, as if that were the first time anyone had noticed it.
My point was that linguists had already noticed it, understood the
mechanism of its production, and had more than one name for it,
before that.
Right. It was observed before the 1960s - smoky/husky (some thought
"sexy") voice, particularly in women, but *psychologically* - as a
designed and rehearsed affectation - it came later.
As I mentioned, the linguists were mainly concerned with its use in
other languages where it is part of normal speech. It would be
interesting to have a history of observations of its use as a
mannerism or affectation in English.
...
The Wikipedia article has some citations for and against the claim that
it's become more frequent among young American women recently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocal_fry_register
"Some evidence exists of vocal fry becoming more common in the speech
of young female speakers of American English in the early 21st
century,[11][12][13][14][15] but its frequency's extent and
significance are disputed.[16][17]"

Check out 16 and 17

But 16 misses the point, and the author is a young woman (vocal
fryer?) Of course most people have a crackly voice at times, but
that's not vocal fry. The vocal fry that has been reported as
"epidemic" among young women is planned and rehearsed.

17 - "They had 34 female college students pronounce a series of vowels
for them and read a text, and their analysis found that within this
small sample, approximately two-thirds used vocal fry, usually at the
end of sentences. They conclude that vocal fries might be pretty
common, at least in some populations."
Post by Jerry Friedman
There's been a lot about vocal fry at Language Log, where Mark Liberman
treats it as period doubling. For instance,
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=20229
Ross
2017-09-29 04:50:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:14:00 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Ross
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
it's almost as annoying as the phatt song that inspired it http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk
Vocal fry was observed in the 1960s and entered the vocabulary of
psychologists in the 1970s.
Already well known to linguists in the 1960s, as someone else has
mentioned, under the name "creaky voice" or "laryngealized voice".
It would seem to me that it would be known to all since man first
began to vocalize. What may have not been known was a word for it.
Yes. But I was responding to Mack's statement that it was "observed"
in the 60s, as if that were the first time anyone had noticed it.
My point was that linguists had already noticed it, understood the
mechanism of its production, and had more than one name for it,
before that.
Right. It was observed before the 1960s - smoky/husky (some thought
"sexy") voice, particularly in women, but *psychologically* - as a
designed and rehearsed affectation - it came later.
As I mentioned, the linguists were mainly concerned with its use in
other languages where it is part of normal speech. It would be
interesting to have a history of observations of its use as a
mannerism or affectation in English.
...
The Wikipedia article has some citations for and against the claim that
it's become more frequent among young American women recently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocal_fry_register
"Some evidence exists of vocal fry becoming more common in the speech
of young female speakers of American English in the early 21st
century,[11][12][13][14][15] but its frequency's extent and
significance are disputed.[16][17]"
Check out 16 and 17
But 16 misses the point, and the author is a young woman (vocal
fryer?) Of course most people have a crackly voice at times, but
that's not vocal fry. The vocal fry that has been reported as
"epidemic" among young women is planned and rehearsed.
17 - "They had 34 female college students pronounce a series of vowels
for them and read a text, and their analysis found that within this
small sample, approximately two-thirds used vocal fry, usually at the
end of sentences. They conclude that vocal fries might be pretty
common, at least in some populations."
Doesn't seem very interesting unless they have something to compare it
with: male college students? female hairdressers/police officers/lawyers?
recordings from 30 years ago?
Ross
2017-09-29 04:56:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Ross
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
it's almost as annoying as the phatt song that inspired it http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk
Vocal fry was observed in the 1960s and entered the vocabulary of
psychologists in the 1970s.
Already well known to linguists in the 1960s, as someone else has
mentioned, under the name "creaky voice" or "laryngealized voice".
It would seem to me that it would be known to all since man first
began to vocalize. What may have not been known was a word for it.
Yes. But I was responding to Mack's statement that it was "observed"
in the 60s, as if that were the first time anyone had noticed it.
My point was that linguists had already noticed it, understood the
mechanism of its production, and had more than one name for it,
before that.
Right. It was observed before the 1960s - smoky/husky (some thought
"sexy") voice, particularly in women, but *psychologically* - as a
designed and rehearsed affectation - it came later.
As I mentioned, the linguists were mainly concerned with its use in
other languages where it is part of normal speech. It would be
interesting to have a history of observations of its use as a
mannerism or affectation in English.
...
The Wikipedia article has some citations for and against the claim that
it's become more frequent among young American women recently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocal_fry_register
There's been a lot about vocal fry at Language Log, where Mark Liberman
treats it as period doubling. For instance,
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=20229
"Period doubling" is a new expression to me. Google led me to something
called "period doubling bifurcation", which does not relate in any obvious
way to phonetics. Can you (or Liberman) explain?
Mack A. Damia
2017-09-29 12:25:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Ross
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
it's almost as annoying as the phatt song that inspired it http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk
Vocal fry was observed in the 1960s and entered the vocabulary of
psychologists in the 1970s.
Already well known to linguists in the 1960s, as someone else has
mentioned, under the name "creaky voice" or "laryngealized voice".
It would seem to me that it would be known to all since man first
began to vocalize. What may have not been known was a word for it.
Yes. But I was responding to Mack's statement that it was "observed"
in the 60s, as if that were the first time anyone had noticed it.
My point was that linguists had already noticed it, understood the
mechanism of its production, and had more than one name for it,
before that.
Right. It was observed before the 1960s - smoky/husky (some thought
"sexy") voice, particularly in women, but *psychologically* - as a
designed and rehearsed affectation - it came later.
As I mentioned, the linguists were mainly concerned with its use in
other languages where it is part of normal speech. It would be
interesting to have a history of observations of its use as a
mannerism or affectation in English.
...
The Wikipedia article has some citations for and against the claim that
it's become more frequent among young American women recently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocal_fry_register
There's been a lot about vocal fry at Language Log, where Mark Liberman
treats it as period doubling. For instance,
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=20229
"Period doubling" is a new expression to me. Google led me to something
called "period doubling bifurcation", which does not relate in any obvious
way to phonetics. Can you (or Liberman) explain?
Bifurcation may relate. It is the mathematical study of dynamical
systems, I think, such as the swing of a pendulum.

I think "period doubling" deals with the clinical measurement of
speech and voice as observed by a signal on an oscillator.

https://www.amazon.com/Clinical-Measurement-Speech-Voice-Science/dp/1565938690
Peter T. Daniels
2017-09-29 12:35:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Jerry Friedman
There's been a lot about vocal fry at Language Log, where Mark Liberman
treats it as period doubling. For instance,
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=20229
"Period doubling" is a new expression to me. Google led me to something
called "period doubling bifurcation", which does not relate in any obvious
way to phonetics. Can you (or Liberman) explain?
Should mean 'an octave higher', no?
Peter T. Daniels
2017-09-29 12:43:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Ross
Post by Jerry Friedman
There's been a lot about vocal fry at Language Log, where Mark Liberman
treats it as period doubling. For instance,
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=20229
"Period doubling" is a new expression to me. Google led me to something
called "period doubling bifurcation", which does not relate in any obvious
way to phonetics. Can you (or Liberman) explain?
Should mean 'an octave higher', no?
No, wait, double the period is half the frequency, so exactly an octave lower.
That doesn't seem right.
Jerry Friedman
2017-09-29 19:46:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Ross
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
it's almost as annoying as the phatt song that inspired it http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk
Vocal fry was observed in the 1960s and entered the vocabulary of
psychologists in the 1970s.
Already well known to linguists in the 1960s, as someone else has
mentioned, under the name "creaky voice" or "laryngealized voice".
It would seem to me that it would be known to all since man first
began to vocalize. What may have not been known was a word for it.
Yes. But I was responding to Mack's statement that it was "observed"
in the 60s, as if that were the first time anyone had noticed it.
My point was that linguists had already noticed it, understood the
mechanism of its production, and had more than one name for it,
before that.
Right. It was observed before the 1960s - smoky/husky (some thought
"sexy") voice, particularly in women, but *psychologically* - as a
designed and rehearsed affectation - it came later.
As I mentioned, the linguists were mainly concerned with its use in
other languages where it is part of normal speech. It would be
interesting to have a history of observations of its use as a
mannerism or affectation in English.
...
The Wikipedia article has some citations for and against the claim that
it's become more frequent among young American women recently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocal_fry_register
There's been a lot about vocal fry at Language Log, where Mark Liberman
treats it as period doubling. For instance,
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=20229
"Period doubling" is a new expression to me. Google led me to something
called "period doubling bifurcation", which does not relate in any obvious
way to phonetics. Can you (or Liberman) explain?
How about if Liberman does?

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=13047

As Mack said, it's what goes on in other dynamical systems such as
pendulums, and as PTD said, it's a drop of an octave (though drops of
two or three octaves can happen, as noted in the Language Log post I
linked to in my previous reply). But vocal fry includes erratic long
periods as well as period doubling, so I should have mentioned that
above.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2017-09-29 19:59:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Ross
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Ross
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
it's almost as annoying as the phatt song that inspired it http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk
Vocal fry was observed in the 1960s and entered the vocabulary of
psychologists in the 1970s.
Already well known to linguists in the 1960s, as someone else has
mentioned, under the name "creaky voice" or "laryngealized voice".
It would seem to me that it would be known to all since man first
began to vocalize. What may have not been known was a word for it.
Yes. But I was responding to Mack's statement that it was "observed"
in the 60s, as if that were the first time anyone had noticed it.
My point was that linguists had already noticed it, understood the
mechanism of its production, and had more than one name for it,
before that.
Right. It was observed before the 1960s - smoky/husky (some thought
"sexy") voice, particularly in women, but *psychologically* - as a
designed and rehearsed affectation - it came later.
As I mentioned, the linguists were mainly concerned with its use in
other languages where it is part of normal speech. It would be
interesting to have a history of observations of its use as a
mannerism or affectation in English.
The Wikipedia article has some citations for and against the claim that
it's become more frequent among young American women recently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocal_fry_register
There's been a lot about vocal fry at Language Log, where Mark Liberman
treats it as period doubling. For instance,
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=20229
"Period doubling" is a new expression to me. Google led me to something
called "period doubling bifurcation", which does not relate in any obvious
way to phonetics. Can you (or Liberman) explain?
How about if Liberman does?
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=13047
As Mack said, it's what goes on in other dynamical systems such as
pendulums, and as PTD said, it's a drop of an octave (though drops of
two or three octaves can happen, as noted in the Language Log post I
linked to in my previous reply). But vocal fry includes erratic long
periods as well as period doubling, so I should have mentioned that
above.
I still don't buy the octave thing. Diminution of air pressure shouldn't do
that to the pitch -- when you blow less air into an organ pipe, the pitch
doesn't change by an octave (it might waver a bit at very low pressure), it
just gets fainter.

That description sounds more like yodeling, which is rapid controlled alternation
between full voice and falsetto (in women, called "chest voice" vs. "head voice.")
Tak To
2017-10-02 14:51:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
[...]
I still don't buy the octave thing. Diminution of air pressure shouldn't do
that to the pitch -- when you blow less air into an organ pipe, the pitch
doesn't change by an octave (it might waver a bit at very low pressure), it
just gets fainter.
An organ pipe does not have a membrane, which can vibrate in more
than one frequency. Think of a kazoo instead.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That description sounds more like yodeling, which is rapid controlled alternation
between full voice and falsetto (in women, called "chest voice" vs. "head voice.")
Vocal fry could be a combination of changing air pressure and
controlling the vocal muscles/ligaments.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-02 17:40:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tak To
Post by Peter T. Daniels
[...]
I still don't buy the octave thing. Diminution of air pressure shouldn't do
that to the pitch -- when you blow less air into an organ pipe, the pitch
doesn't change by an octave (it might waver a bit at very low pressure), it
just gets fainter.
An organ pipe does not have a membrane, which can vibrate in more
than one frequency. Think of a kazoo instead.
That gets you even further away from "an octave."
Post by Tak To
Post by Peter T. Daniels
That description sounds more like yodeling, which is rapid controlled alternation
between full voice and falsetto (in women, called "chest voice" vs. "head voice.")
Vocal fry could be a combination of changing air pressure and
controlling the vocal muscles/ligaments.
Rather, not controlling them.
Quinn C
2017-10-02 17:05:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Ross
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Ross
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
it's almost as annoying as the phatt song that inspired it http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk
Vocal fry was observed in the 1960s and entered the vocabulary of
psychologists in the 1970s.
Already well known to linguists in the 1960s, as someone else has
mentioned, under the name "creaky voice" or "laryngealized voice".
It would seem to me that it would be known to all since man first
began to vocalize. What may have not been known was a word for it.
Yes. But I was responding to Mack's statement that it was "observed"
in the 60s, as if that were the first time anyone had noticed it.
My point was that linguists had already noticed it, understood the
mechanism of its production, and had more than one name for it,
before that.
Right. It was observed before the 1960s - smoky/husky (some thought
"sexy") voice, particularly in women, but *psychologically* - as a
designed and rehearsed affectation - it came later.
As I mentioned, the linguists were mainly concerned with its use in
other languages where it is part of normal speech. It would be
interesting to have a history of observations of its use as a
mannerism or affectation in English.
The Wikipedia article has some citations for and against the claim that
it's become more frequent among young American women recently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocal_fry_register
There's been a lot about vocal fry at Language Log, where Mark Liberman
treats it as period doubling. For instance,
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=20229
"Period doubling" is a new expression to me. Google led me to something
called "period doubling bifurcation", which does not relate in any obvious
way to phonetics. Can you (or Liberman) explain?
How about if Liberman does?
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=13047
As Mack said, it's what goes on in other dynamical systems such as
pendulums, and as PTD said, it's a drop of an octave (though drops of
two or three octaves can happen, as noted in the Language Log post I
linked to in my previous reply). But vocal fry includes erratic long
periods as well as period doubling, so I should have mentioned that
above.
I still don't buy the octave thing. Diminution of air pressure shouldn't do
that to the pitch -- when you blow less air into an organ pipe, the pitch
doesn't change by an octave (it might waver a bit at very low pressure), it
just gets fainter.
If a flute was overblown to start with, it could drop an octave if
you lower the pressure.

The human voice is a more complex sound, but "dropping an octave"
might mean the overtones becoming weaker so that at some point,
the lower octave is more prominent. I don't have the necessary
technical background to do more than suggestions, though.
--
If you kill one person, you go to jail; if you kill 20, you go
to an institution for the insane; if you kill 20,000, you get
political asylum. -- Reed Brody, special counsel
for prosecutions at Human Rights Watch
Jerry Friedman
2017-10-02 21:59:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Ross
Post by Jerry Friedman
There's been a lot about vocal fry at Language Log, where Mark Liberman
treats it as period doubling. For instance,
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=20229
"Period doubling" is a new expression to me. Google led me to something
called "period doubling bifurcation", which does not relate in any obvious
way to phonetics. Can you (or Liberman) explain?
How about if Liberman does?
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=13047
As Mack said, it's what goes on in other dynamical systems such as
pendulums, and as PTD said, it's a drop of an octave (though drops of
two or three octaves can happen, as noted in the Language Log post I
linked to in my previous reply). But vocal fry includes erratic long
periods as well as period doubling, so I should have mentioned that
above.
I still don't buy the octave thing. Diminution of air pressure shouldn't do
that to the pitch -- when you blow less air into an organ pipe, the pitch
doesn't change by an octave (it might waver a bit at very low pressure), it
just gets fainter.
If a flute was overblown to start with, it could drop an octave if
you lower the pressure.
The human voice is a more complex sound, but "dropping an octave"
might mean the overtones becoming weaker so that at some point,
the lower octave is more prominent. I don't have the necessary
technical background to do more than suggestions, though.
This article, with graphs, will help with the technical aspects.

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=20155

I'd forgotten that technically, period doubling can create creak
and is what goes on in diplophonia, but isn't necessarily part of
fry qua fry as such per se sensu strictu. However, all of these
phenomena seem to involved in "vocal fry" as objected to in the
media. Sorry if I misled anyone.

The other article I linked to has different graphs.
--
Jerry Friedman
b***@gmail.com
2017-09-30 00:37:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Ross
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Ross
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
it's almost as annoying as the phatt song that inspired it http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk
Vocal fry was observed in the 1960s and entered the vocabulary of
psychologists in the 1970s.
Already well known to linguists in the 1960s, as someone else has
mentioned, under the name "creaky voice" or "laryngealized voice".
It would seem to me that it would be known to all since man first
began to vocalize. What may have not been known was a word for it.
Yes. But I was responding to Mack's statement that it was "observed"
in the 60s, as if that were the first time anyone had noticed it.
My point was that linguists had already noticed it, understood the
mechanism of its production, and had more than one name for it,
before that.
Right. It was observed before the 1960s - smoky/husky (some thought
"sexy") voice, particularly in women, but *psychologically* - as a
designed and rehearsed affectation - it came later.
As I mentioned, the linguists were mainly concerned with its use in
other languages where it is part of normal speech. It would be
interesting to have a history of observations of its use as a
mannerism or affectation in English.
...
The Wikipedia article has some citations for and against the claim that
it's become more frequent among young American women recently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocal_fry_register
There's been a lot about vocal fry at Language Log, where Mark Liberman
treats it as period doubling. For instance,
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=20229
"Period doubling" is a new expression to me. Google led me to something
called "period doubling bifurcation", which does not relate in any obvious
way to phonetics. Can you (or Liberman) explain?
How about if Liberman does?
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=13047
As Mack said, it's what goes on in other dynamical systems such as
pendulums, and as PTD said, it's a drop of an octave (though drops of
two or three octaves can happen, as noted in the Language Log post I
linked to in my previous reply). But vocal fry includes erratic long
periods as well as period doubling, so I should have mentioned that
above.
--
Jerry Friedman
if you listen hard enough all dem belting bitches from Bette Midler to Ethly Eff'n Mermaid has fried vocals http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Ethyl_Mermaid
Quinn C
2017-10-02 17:05:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Ross
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
it's almost as annoying as the phatt song that inspired it http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk
Vocal fry was observed in the 1960s and entered the vocabulary of
psychologists in the 1970s.
Already well known to linguists in the 1960s, as someone else has
mentioned, under the name "creaky voice" or "laryngealized voice".
It would seem to me that it would be known to all since man first
began to vocalize. What may have not been known was a word for it.
Yes. But I was responding to Mack's statement that it was "observed"
in the 60s, as if that were the first time anyone had noticed it.
My point was that linguists had already noticed it, understood the
mechanism of its production, and had more than one name for it,
before that.
Right. It was observed before the 1960s - smoky/husky (some thought
"sexy") voice, particularly in women, but *psychologically* - as a
designed and rehearsed affectation - it came later.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So you insist. A very few people, especially someone like a TV
personality, might cultivate it intentionally, but for it to
become a widespread phenomenon, I expect unconscious imitation as
the most important mechanism. As for many other manners and
mannerisms of speaking.
--
...an explanatory principle - like "gravity" or "instinct" -
really explains nothing. It’s a sort of conventional agreement
between scientists to stop trying to explain things at a
certain point. -- Gregory Bateson
Mack A. Damia
2017-10-02 20:53:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 13:05:39 -0400, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Ross
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Ross
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
it's almost as annoying as the phatt song that inspired it http://youtu.be/7PCkvCPvDXk
Vocal fry was observed in the 1960s and entered the vocabulary of
psychologists in the 1970s.
Already well known to linguists in the 1960s, as someone else has
mentioned, under the name "creaky voice" or "laryngealized voice".
It would seem to me that it would be known to all since man first
began to vocalize. What may have not been known was a word for it.
Yes. But I was responding to Mack's statement that it was "observed"
in the 60s, as if that were the first time anyone had noticed it.
My point was that linguists had already noticed it, understood the
mechanism of its production, and had more than one name for it,
before that.
Right. It was observed before the 1960s - smoky/husky (some thought
"sexy") voice, particularly in women, but *psychologically* - as a
designed and rehearsed affectation - it came later.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So you insist. A very few people, especially someone like a TV
personality, might cultivate it intentionally, but for it to
become a widespread phenomenon, I expect unconscious imitation as
the most important mechanism. As for many other manners and
mannerisms of speaking.
I don't think young women can engage in that type of vocal fry as an
unconscious imitation. It takes "design" initially - and then it
become habit.

Vocal fry is an "abnormal" production of voice during speaking. If it
is observed in young children, the advice is to have it treated
professionally.

(Dysphonia, which is a hoarse, breathy or rough voice; or a voice with
excessive 'glottal fry' (a 'croaky' characteristic that very old
voices sometimes have, but which is not normal in young voices)

https://www.speech-language-therapy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=102:childnodules&catid=11:admin&Itemid=117
Peter Percival
2017-10-02 15:58:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
I detest this commercial. What does that even mean?
Not only that, a woman with a bad case of vocal fry says it at the
beginning of the commercial. I abhor vocal fry.
What is vocal fry?
Post by Mack A. Damia
http://youtu.be/Vx4_oIL1ZZg
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Loading...